| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Nations recognizing the Armenian "genocide"
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Nations recognizing the Armenian "genocide"

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
Author
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Oct 2010 at 23:18
That was an honest response A.S. There are not too many Armenians that will openly say what they want. In your case it appears political. You want land in Eastern Turkey.

I know you are heavily invested in this debate. However, I don't buy for a second that there was any state planned extermination. It was a war within a war and state sponsored relocation. Knowing that this is contrary to your agenda and assuming that revisionist treaties are out of the question what do you suppose the Armenians do?

Anyway here are a few questions.

- Which archives have you based your information on?
- Which registers show the population of all millets in eastern Ottoman empire in the early 20th century?
- How many Armenians lived in the Caucasus outside of Ottoman influence before and after World War I?
- Why did the Ottomans even attempt to relocate Armenians from eastern Anatolia?




Edited by Seko - 06 Oct 2010 at 23:19
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2010 at 00:39

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

I know you are heavily invested in this debate.

 

Not really. Words and truths havent got Armenians any of their property back. I can convince everyone outside Turkey that these events happened and it wont make a single bit of difference. One day when the geopolitical climate is right it wont matter what anybody thinks.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

However, I don't buy for a second that there was any state planned extermination. It was a war within a war and state sponsored relocation. Knowing that this is contrary to your agenda and assuming that revisionist treaties are out of the question what do you suppose the Armenians do?

 

Im not surprised at your response, the faulty relocation theory. If it was purely relocation then why were the deportees made to march from Anatolia to the Syrian desert? Why were the deportation convoys consisted of only women, children and elderly? Why were Ottoman soldiers reported by eyewitnesses to have murdered most of these convoys? And why werent the survivors allowed to return after the war even in the rare case when they had deeds to their property? And this doesnt even cover all the massacres which took place outside the deportation convoys, in the provinces themselves. The Turkish theory of relocation has already been debunked.

 

The fact Turkey hasnt allowed discussion of this issue for 95 years and jails intellectuals who talk about it already tells you what you need to know. Turkey has also changed its story many times in the last century. First no Armenians were killed. Then Armenians were killed due to WWI. Then Armenians were killed because of civil war. Now the story is that Armenians murdered 3 million Turks (I swear, look it up). Nobody believes Turkey especially after Erdogan accused China of genocide for the deaths of 68 Uyghurs while the deaths of millions of Armenians cannot be discussed. 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

- Which archives have you based your information on?

 

Turkish archives (whatever they werent able to destroy during the war), Armenian, German, Austro-Hungarian, French, British, American and Danish. They all use similar terminology like race extermination.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

- Which registers show the population of all millets in eastern Ottoman empire in the early 20th century?
- How many Armenians lived in the Caucasus outside of Ottoman influence before and after World War I?

 

Its useless to discuss numbers in detail when you wont even acknowledge the motive behind government-ordered deportations and extermination of Armenians. All we need to know is there was a very sizable Armenian population living within its homeland for thousands of years and now there is none.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

- Why did the Ottomans even attempt to relocate Armenians from eastern Anatolia?

 

Its obvious that Turks did not want Armenians to restore their statehood the same way Greeks, Bulgarians and others did just 2 years prior. So they used organized state massacre as a political tool to pacify the Armenian Question and empty the Armenian Highlands of its native population. Abdul-Hamid II attempted the same solution on a lesser scale in the 1890s when he slaughtered a quarter million Armenians. However, Abdul-Hamid received a lot of pressure from European powers at a time when the Ottomans were going bankrupt and had to rely on those same European powers just to maintain their empire. Thats the only reason he stopped the massacres. The Young Turks applied the same solution on a mass scale during WWI when those same European powers were busy fighting fronts across the world. Turks are extremely crafty and clever; these guys knew exactly what they were doing when they sent Armenian women, children and elderly on a thousand-mile march from Anatolia through the Syrian desert with no food, no water and no rest.



Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 07 Oct 2010 at 00:51
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 07 Oct 2010 at 21:29
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Im not surprised at your response, the faulty relocation theory. If it was purely relocation then why were the deportees made to march from Anatolia to the Syrian desert? Why were the deportation convoys consisted of only women, children and elderly? Why were Ottoman soldiers reported by eyewitnesses to have murdered most of these convoys? And why werent the survivors allowed to return after the war even in the rare case when they had deeds to their property? And this doesnt even cover all the massacres which took place outside the deportation convoys, in the provinces themselves. The Turkish theory of relocation has already been debunked.


Eyewitness testimony? That is what I would like to know. Who's records?

 

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

The fact Turkey hasnt allowed discussion of this issue for 95 years


Wrong! Its open for debate that is why Erdogan asked the President of Armenia to have scholarly analysis. The Ottoman archives in Turkey have been open since the 1980's. When are the Armenian archives going to be made public?



 

 

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Turkish archives (whatever they werent able to destroy during the war), Armenian, German, Austro-Hungarian, French, British, American and Danish. They all use similar terminology like race extermination.


Links?

 

 

 

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:


Its useless to discuss numbers in detail when you wont even acknowledge the motive behind government-ordered deportations and extermination of Armenians. All we need to know is there was a very sizable Armenian population living within its homeland for thousands of years and now there is none.

 


Our preferences take a back seat in this matter. The only numbers that are important are the facts, which are not emotionally laden. That is why I mentioned records in the first place.

 

 



Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 04:05

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Wrong! Its open for debate that is why Erdogan asked the President of Armenia to have scholarly analysis. The Ottoman archives in Turkey have been open since the 1980's. When are the Armenian archives going to be made public?

 

Oh really, is that why Turkey has prosecuted dozens of writers under Article 301 for talking about the genocide? They even brought Orhan Pamuk to trial for it. Hrant Dink was accused NUMEROUS times under Article 301 for talking about the genocide and Armenian issues. He was assassinated shortly after. Ragip Zarakoglu had his publishing house Berge bombed for releasing a book about the Armenian genocide. In both cases authorities somehow never caught the perpetrators, but both men were put on trial numerous times for thought crimes. There are so many more examples. Thats the extent of the debate in Turkey.

 

About the archives: Armenias archives are not closed and you should present proof if you believe they are. Armenias archives mostly consist of materials which are also found in foreign archives, so even if they wanted to close them, the information is still out there. The real kicker is youre implying there are documents out there which disprove the genocide and that somehow Armenia controls them and keeps them secret. No comment!

 

As for your buddy Erdogan and your claims that he is calling for a debate: Here is a letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to PM Erdogan addressing EXACTLY the false claims you just made. Read it carefully because Im not going to repeat myself over and over: http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/OpenLetterTurkishPMreArmenia6-13-05.pdf

 

 

Originally posted by International Association of Genocide Scholars International Association of Genocide Scholars wrote:

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

 

We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians” concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

 

We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

 

On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

 

The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

 

The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

 

1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.

2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide” and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

 

We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

 

We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such so-called “scholars” work to serve the agenda of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its aversion to academic and intellectual freedom—a fundamental condition of democratic society.

 

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participants in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

 

You and other Turks repeatedly say that we should leave these issues to historians. What do you have to say about the judgments of the foremost historical body on the study of genocide?

 

 

 

 

 

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Our preferences take a back seat in this matter. The only numbers that are important are the facts, which are not emotionally laden. That is why I mentioned records in the first place.

 

I will repeat what I said: All we need to know is there was a very sizable Armenian population living within its homeland for thousands of years and now there is none. Are you denying this?



Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 08 Oct 2010 at 04:15
Back to Top
Seko- View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 11725
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Seko- Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 13:58
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:


 

Oh really, is that why Turkey has prosecuted dozens of writers under Article 301 for talking about the genocide? They even brought Orhan Pamuk to trial for it. Hrant Dink was accused NUMEROUS times under Article 301 for talking about the genocide and Armenian issues. He was assassinated shortly after. Ragip Zarakoglu had his publishing house Berge bombed for releasing a book about the Armenian genocide. In both cases authorities somehow never caught the perpetrators, but both men were put on trial numerous times for thought crimes. There are so many more examples. Thats the extent of the debate in Turkey.


Though I have an issue with some parts of article 301 in general I do not see a problem with following the law as is written. I suppose you don't have a problem with the Swiss following their own laws either especially when it comes to denying Armenian "genocide" now do you.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

About the archives: Armenias archives are not closed and you should present proof if you believe they are. Armenias archives mostly consist of materials which are also found in foreign archives, so even if they wanted to close them, the information is still out there. The real kicker is youre implying there are documents out there which disprove the genocide and that somehow Armenia controls them and keeps them secret. No comment!


I know that Armenians rely on foreign archival material. If there are any Armenian documents in Yerevan then let's know about it. I know there are documents out that prove deportation and nothing more. Plus, I asked for links where you support your earlier statements. I have mine ready just in case we get that far.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

As for your buddy Erdogan and your claims that he is calling for a debate: Here is a letter from the International Association of Genocide Scholars to PM Erdogan addressing EXACTLY the false claims you just made. Read it carefully because Im not going to repeat myself over and over: http://www.genocidescholars.org/images/OpenLetterTurkishPMreArmenia6-13-05.pdf

First off, Erdogan is not my buddy. Second, the conference in Istanbul was supported by Erdogan but not the Turkish Lawyers Union. And the fact of the matter is your link is a grievance letter from a predominantly Jewish organization, hardly an impartial body.

 


Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

I will repeat what I said: All we need to know is there was a very sizable Armenian population living within its homeland for thousands of years and now there is none. Are you denying this?

Back to Top
Reginmund View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 08 May 2005
Location: Norway
Status: Offline
Points: 2659
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Reginmund Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Oct 2010 at 15:22
I think studying the facts is misunderstanding how these things work. The Armenian massacres haven't been recognized as a genocide, or rather, there haven't been any consequences for the Armenian massacres, because apart from the Armenians themselves there aren't any powerful states for whom it is expedient to do something about it. If the political situation changes, locally or globally, in a way that does make it expedient, you are sure to see a change in how the Armenian question figures in the political rhetoric.
Sing, goddess, of Achilles' ruinous anger
Which brought ten thousand pains to the Achaeans,
And cast the souls of many stalwart heroes
To Hades, and their bodies to the dogs
And birds of prey
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2010 at 05:51
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

Though I have an issue with some parts of article 301 in general I do not see a problem with following the law as is written.


Ok first you said there is debate in Turkey, now youre saying you agree with the law which stifles the debate. Make up your mind.
 
No matter how you twist things the truth is anyone who publicly talks about the genocide in Turkey gets put on some kind of hitlist.
 

 
Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

I suppose you don't have a problem with the Swiss following their own laws either especially when it comes to denying Armenian "genocide" now do you.

 
What do Armenians have to do with Swiss legislation? This is about Turks and Armenians. Don't sidetrack by dragging the Swiss into it. 

 

Originally posted by Seko Seko wrote:

And the fact of the matter is your link is a grievance letter from a predominantly Jewish organization, hardly an impartial body.

 
Youre wrong on so many counts.
 
First of all, the main opposition to Armenian Genocide recognition in the US is the Jewish lobby. This is because Israelis see Turkey as their only ally in the region and they will do whatever it takes to preserve the status quo. Secondly, many Jews have an interest in keeping the Holocaust as a unique episode in history in order to justify their actions in Palestine. So the fact you have so many Jewish intellectuals calling for genocide recognition means these men are REJECTING political gain in favor of the truth, not the other way around as you would have us believe. Exactly what political gain do these people have by alienating Turkey just to appease a handful of Armenians?
 
And Im glad you brushed off the International Association of Genocide Scholars as a biased group, just as I expected. It shows the supreme arrogance and anti-intellectualism of genocide deniers. These scholars who you call predominantly Jewish and biased have studied genocide in general and the Armenian case in particular for decades. Yet armchair scholars like yourself seem to know better based on a few wikipedia and google searches.
 
Its very amusing that youre asking me for sources when:

1- You seem so confident there was no genocide, yet you have NO CLUE about the first-hand accounts of German soldiers, Austrian soldiers, Ottoman soldiers, governors and government officials, Armenian eyewitness testimonies, American diplomatic sources, French and British sources, etc. If you actually studied the genocide you would have extensive knowledge of all these source materials. You clearly dont or else you wouldnt be asking for them!
 
2- You're going to reject any sources I provide as biased, incomplete, fabricated, or out of context, no matter how reliable, how clear and how numerous they may be. In your mind everybody is lying just to get the Turks.
 
This is exactly why I try not to have factual discussions pertaining to the genocide with Turks.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 09 Oct 2010 at 06:42
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2010 at 06:38
Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

I think studying the facts is misunderstanding how these things work. The Armenian massacres haven't been recognized as a genocide, or rather, there haven't been any consequences for the Armenian massacres, because apart from the Armenians themselves there aren't any powerful states for whom it is expedient to do something about it. If the political situation changes, locally or globally, in a way that does make it expedient, you are sure to see a change in how the Armenian question figures in the political rhetoric.
 
Youre pretty much correct.
 
Armenians have had absolutely zero influence on the world stage in the last 100 years, yet world scholarship has embraced the facts of the genocide and have been adamant in the veracity of our claims. This despite the fact Turkey has pretty heavy influence in the region and around the world and has been very aggressive in its official denial, institutionalized historical falsifications, and threats to individuals and nations who dare speak about the issue.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Oct 2010 at 20:25
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by Reginmund Reginmund wrote:

I think studying the facts is misunderstanding how these things work. The Armenian massacres haven't been recognized as a genocide, or rather, there haven't been any consequences for the Armenian massacres, because apart from the Armenians themselves there aren't any powerful states for whom it is expedient to do something about it. If the political situation changes, locally or globally, in a way that does make it expedient, you are sure to see a change in how the Armenian question figures in the political rhetoric.
 
Youre pretty much correct.
 
Armenians have had absolutely zero influence on the world stage in the last 100 years, yet world scholarship has embraced the facts of the genocide and have been adamant in the veracity of our claims. This despite the fact Turkey has pretty heavy influence in the region and around the world and has been very aggressive in its official denial, institutionalized historical falsifications, and threats to individuals and nations who dare speak about the issue.
 
First of all, not everyone accepts the lable "genocide" to the Armenian massacres, saying a majority of scholars do is not correct. I could mentions several prominant historians who even wrote about the subject and are far from being on any Turkish payroll.
 
Second, historians are people and their judgements are as subjective as any other guy in the street so their opinions are largely reflecting of what they believe politically or socially and in the case of Armenian massacres some of the most prominant historians fall victim to prejudices.
 
One guy (forgot his name) dismissed that the 600k+ Turks who died in the war zone (which is a true number) as a result of massacres (despite wide spread documentation including from people who also documented massacres against Armenians) and said that they all died because of disease while asserting that all the 1 million Armenians who died were deliberatly killed as if germs ask a guy if he was a Turk or armenian before infecting him. While the majority of scholars you quoted are decent enough a good deal of people who advocate the genocide argument are Turcophobes (those denying any suffering by the Turkish side) and others are islamophobes (who mix jihad with what happened and in other writings deliberately ignore muslim suffering around the world).
 
Third point, both sides are at fault here the Turkish government and the Armenian activists.
 
The Turkish government must accept the fact that they have a moral responsibility of acknowledging the existence of Armenian grievences and help addressing them.
 
The Armenian activists must accept the fact that their pipe dreams of greater Armenia won't happen, Diyarbakir has more Turks/Kurds than all Armenia as well that reparations won't come since Turkey legally is not obliged to give them any. What they can do to help the people of Turkey realise the enourmity of what happened in 1915 as well as acknowledgeing the fact that Turks/Kurd also suffered greatly from the war.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 21:20
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

First of all, not everyone accepts the lable "genocide" to the Armenian massacres, saying a majority of scholars do is not correct. I could mentions several prominant historians who even wrote about the subject and are far from being on any Turkish payroll.
 
Please mention your historians and SPECIFICALLY mention what they say about the first-hand accounts of German soldiers, Austrian soldiers, Ottoman soldiers, governors and government officials. The truth is, whatever historians you have in mind have totally ignored these (and other) source materials which are essential to understanding whether this was genocide or not.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Second, historians are people and their judgements are as subjective as any other guy in the street so their opinions are largely reflecting of what they believe politically or socially and in the case of Armenian massacres some of the most prominant historians fall victim to prejudices.
 
This is just an underhanded way of saying that we can never find out the truth of these matters. Yet youre busy trying to convince us about your version of the truth!
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

One guy (forgot his name) dismissed that the 600k+ Turks who died in the war zone (which is a true number) as a result of massacres (despite wide spread documentation including from people who also documented massacres against Armenians) and said that they all died because of disease while asserting that all the 1 million Armenians who died were deliberatly killed as if germs ask a guy if he was a Turk or armenian before infecting him.
 
Lots of hearsay.
 
The Ottomans kept official records of all Armenian activities in the empire, from meetings to protests, to how many people lived in which neighborhoods. If there was any type of massacres of Turks by Armenians, you can bet your sweet cheeks the Ottomans would have abundant official records of them. Instead what we have is no trace whatsoever of these records, just rumors of "Armenians siding with Russians".
 
And even if the Ottomans had one or two records, there is no gaurantee that the documents were genuine. But we don't even have one or two records.
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

While the majority of scholars you quoted are decent enough a good deal of people who advocate the genocide argument are Turcophobes (those denying any suffering by the Turkish side) and others are islamophobes (who mix jihad with what happened and in other writings deliberately ignore muslim suffering around the world).
 
First of all youre painting with a broad brush. Youre talking about a small minority of people and trying to convince everyone that they are the prototypical person who supports genocide recognition, in an effort to paint our position as some kind of superstitious racist belief as opposed to a conviction based on facts.
 
Secondly, Jihad was a component of the organized killing of Armenians even though Islam itself was not the main cause of the genocide. Rather Islam was invoked as a tool to get the lower economic classes to participate in the looting and killing of Armenian infidels. Remember the Ottoman Empires society was structured around religious affiliation, with Muslims at the top of society.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Third point, both sides are at fault here the Turkish government and the Armenian activists.
 
Youre free to express your personal opinions.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Turkish government must accept the fact that they have a moral responsibility of acknowledging the existence of Armenian grievences and help addressing them.
 
This is just wishful thinking, because they have done the opposite for 100 years now. Turkey will not take any conciliatory steps unless a more powerful side forces them.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Armenian activists must accept the fact that their pipe dreams of greater Armenia won't happen, Diyarbakir has more Turks/Kurds than all Armenia as well that reparations won't come since Turkey legally is not obliged to give them any.
 
Youre not familiar with the issue because Diyarbekir is not part of Wilsonian Armenia. Although it had a sizable Armenian community until the genocide.
 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

What they can do to help the people of Turkey realise the enourmity of what happened in 1915 as well as acknowledgeing the fact that Turks/Kurd also suffered greatly from the war.
 
You said it yourself: Turks suffered greatly from the war, NOT from state-organized massacres like Armenians. Nobody has ever denied many Turks died during WWI. The difference between the Armenian and Turkish deaths is the METHOD they were killed as well as the proportion of the population killed (which was a direct result of the method). Many more Germans died during WWII than did Jews but the reasons each group were killed were totally different.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Oct 2010 at 22:55
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

First of all, not everyone accepts the lable "genocide" to the Armenian massacres, saying a majority of scholars do is not correct. I could mentions several prominant historians who even wrote about the subject and are far from being on any Turkish payroll.
 
Please mention your historians and SPECIFICALLY mention what they say about the first-hand accounts of German soldiers, Austrian soldiers, Ottoman soldiers, governors and government officials. The truth is, whatever historians you have in mind have totally ignored these (and other) source materials which are essential to understanding whether this was genocide or not.

Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Eberhard Jackel, Masaki Kakiszaki, Gwynne Dyer and many more.
 
All of these guys agree (and this is my opinion too) that massacres happened and they were terrible and widespread and were war crimes but they agree in one thing, these were definitely not genocide.
 
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Second, historians are people and their judgements are as subjective as any other guy in the street so their opinions are largely reflecting of what they believe politically or socially and in the case of Armenian massacres some of the most prominant historians fall victim to prejudices.
 
This is just an underhanded way of saying that we can never find out the truth of these matters. Yet youre busy trying to convince us about your version of the truth!

No it is not, everything is quite apparent and well documented and the difference is in the interpretations and acceptence of facts.
 
 
 
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

One guy (forgot his name) dismissed that the 600k+ Turks who died in the war zone (which is a true number) as a result of massacres (despite wide spread documentation including from people who also documented massacres against Armenians) and said that they all died because of disease while asserting that all the 1 million Armenians who died were deliberatly killed as if germs ask a guy if he was a Turk or armenian before infecting him.
 
Lots of hearsay.
 
The Ottomans kept official records of all Armenian activities in the empire, from meetings to protests, to how many people lived in which neighborhoods. If there was any type of massacres of Turks by Armenians, you can bet your sweet cheeks the Ottomans would have abundant official records of them. Instead what we have is no trace whatsoever of these records, just rumors of "Armenians siding with Russians".
 
And even if the Ottomans had one or two records, there is no gaurantee that the documents were genuine. But we don't even have one or two records.

You give the Ottomans too much credit, that government didn't know about the quite public holy alliance of 1912 and the armies massing on its western borders and you say they knew about Armenian activists all over the empire? In Istanbul and other big cities yes but in the countryside?
 
 
 
 
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

While the majority of scholars you quoted are decent enough a good deal of people who advocate the genocide argument are Turcophobes (those denying any suffering by the Turkish side) and others are islamophobes (who mix jihad with what happened and in other writings deliberately ignore muslim suffering around the world).
 
First of all youre painting with a broad brush. Youre talking about a small minority of people and trying to convince everyone that they are the prototypical person who supports genocide recognition, in an effort to paint our position as some kind of superstitious racist belief as opposed to a conviction based on facts.
 
Secondly, Jihad was a component of the organized killing of Armenians even though Islam itself was not the main cause of the genocide. Rather Islam was invoked as a tool to get the lower economic classes to participate in the looting and killing of Armenian infidels. Remember the Ottoman Empires society was structured around religious affiliation, with Muslims at the top of society.
 
 
No I didn't. There are racists who deny anything happened to the Armenians and I said that the majority of people who believe in the genocide are respected historians but there are some within who extremely politicised to the extent of legtimising terror againt the Turkish state to return the lost lands.
 
As for the Jihad point, I meant those Islamophobes who are behind the anti-mosque protests like Spencer, Wilders and many more who portray Islam and all who believe in it as the enemy who want to do to the west what Turkey did to the Armenians while not caring a diddlysquat about Armenia or even knowing where it is. 
 
 
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The Turkish government must accept the fact that they have a moral responsibility of acknowledging the existence of Armenian grievences and help addressing them.
 
This is just wishful thinking, because they have done the opposite for 100 years now. Turkey will not take any conciliatory steps unless a more powerful side forces them.
 
 
To deny that Turkey has moved forward is unjust, they returned some of the churches and monastaries to the Armenian church, there is a lively debate about the genocide that didn't happen just 10 years ago and at least the Turkish government now accepts massacres happened when they back in the early 90s claimed more Turks died than Armenians.
 
Are these enough? Hell no but they are a promising start nontheless. 
 
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Oct 2010 at 00:18

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Bernard Lewis, Guenter Lewy, Eberhard Jackel, Masaki Kakiszaki, Gwynne Dyer and many more.

 

All of these guys agree (and this is my opinion too) that massacres happened and they were terrible and widespread and were war crimes but they agree in one thing, these were definitely not genocide.

 

My point still stands: These guys have not addressed the mountains of testimony by Central and Entente soldiers & statesmen who speak of the government-organized killings of Armenians. They simply ignore most of the source materials that are available to researchers while doing their best to show that the massacres were just unfortunate & spontaneous accidents with no government sanction.

 
 
 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

You give the Ottomans too much credit, that government didn't know about the quite public holy alliance of 1912 and the armies massing on its western borders and you say they knew about Armenian activists all over the empire? In Istanbul and other big cities yes but in the countryside?

 

My point was this: If there were any significant massacres of Turks by Armenians within the Ottoman Empire like you claim, the Ottomans would have official and detailed records of them. They don't. So you and others need to stop throwing around blatant misinformation and lies in an effort to invert the truth and give justification for what happened.

 
 
 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

As for the Jihad point, I meant those Islamophobes who are behind the anti-mosque protests like Spencer, Wilders and many more who portray Islam and all who believe in it as the enemy who want to do to the west what Turkey did to the Armenians while not caring a diddlysquat about Armenia or even knowing where it is.


Gotcha.

 

However its irrelevant if Wilders and others use historical facts to support whatever agenda they have. They have no connection to Armenians and the issues at hand.

 
 
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

To deny that Turkey has moved forward is unjust, they returned some of the churches and monastaries to the Armenian church, there is a lively debate about the genocide that didn't happen just 10 years ago and at least the Turkish government now accepts massacres happened when they back in the early 90s claimed more Turks died than Armenians.
 

About Turkey returning churches, let me put it in context for you: After 100 years they finally allowed the restoration of 1 (one) church at Akhtamar, which contrary to your claim, does NOT belong to the Armenian Apostolic Church. Turkey does not allow Armenians to put a cross on the dome of the church. They also dont allow Armenians to hold prayer services there, which means that technically speaking, its not a church anymore. They essentially turned an abandoned Armenian church into a purely secular building controlled by Turks. I know people who went, and Ive seen videos, where Armenians are chanting religious songs while Turkish guards are physically making them exit the church because prayer is not allowed there.

 
Turks allowed one prayer on the opening ceremony because dozens of journalists from abroad were covering the event. So allowing Armenians to restore the church was just a publicity stunt, designed to show that Turkey is taking steps to alleviate the situation when in fact it still commits many injustices which are too long and detailed to talk about here.

 

One last point: The Akhtamar monastery (which Armenians still cannot pray in) is one of the only churches left standing in western Armenia. This is a region that had many hundreds of churches in the early 20th century which were all destroyed in a matter of months, with very few traces remaining to this day.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 13 Oct 2010 at 00:21
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 22 Nov 2011 at 10:50
Yes, hundreds of thousands Armenians dead in 1915 and afterwards. Turkish government eventually give respects to those who died in that mess. That will take some time. But this will not change anything. Also those who live eastern Asia Minor are Armenian descendant muslims. So... You have to accept political situation. Cooporation with Turkey will give Armenia much more. These dead end retaking land and/or reperations plans not gonna work, it's been a century...

Another point is Turkey is not a threat to any of her neighbours. Era of empires and farming economy had been long passed. Turkish government just wants business in Turkey's neighbours's markets. But you can't do business when there is a mess (war, conflicts, terrorism etc.). That's why Turkish government is so upset about her unstable and troublesome neighbours. And so western interventions which makes things even more unstable.
the single postmodern virtue of obsessive egalitarianism
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 20:37
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Also those who live eastern Asia Minor are Armenian descendant muslims.


The fact that these surviving Armenians must openly live as Muslim Turks/Kurds, and cannot openly live as Armenian Christians on their own indigenous lands, contradicts your comment that "Turkish government eventually give respects to those who died in that mess".
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 22:44
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

Also those who live eastern Asia Minor are Armenian descendant muslims.


The fact that these surviving Armenians must openly live as Muslim Turks/Kurds, and cannot openly live as Armenian Christians on their own indigenous lands, contradicts your comment that "Turkish government eventually give respects to those who died in that mess".

They are not Armenians, they are Armenian descendants and they are not Christians. So why they should like living like Christian Armenians? That's what we Turks are... Most of us indigenous to our lands, some of us from Balkans, some of us from Caucasus... I don't have any genetical reason for calling myself as a Turk. I'm living a part of country where is never populated by settlers from another etnicity. Most likely my father's ancestors still lived in here 2000 years ago... Grandpa and grandma learned Turkish language in school and their native language was Laz language (south caucasian language, belongs to same family with Georgian). Still, we calling ourselves as Turks too. Because the "Turk" is upper identity of almost any muslim person in Turkey, even in Balkans, this is true at some degree.

Another interesting thing, east coasts of Black sea has a people called "Hemşinli". They are speaking a dialect of Armenian but they are Muslims too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamshenis

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:


contradicts your comment that "Turkish government eventually give respects to those who died in that mess".


Without busting the myths of Kemalism, Turkey may not permanently able to keep good relations with neighbours.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 11 Jan 2012 at 22:56
Back to Top
ArmenianSurvival View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain


Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 1497
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote ArmenianSurvival Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 23:01
Originally posted by Paradigm of Humanity Paradigm of Humanity wrote:

They are not Armenians, they are Armenian descendants and they are not Christians.


Actually, many of them secretly pray to Jesus while showing themselvs as Muslims in public life, I have seen interviews with these people where they say it themselves. However, they cannot openly express themselves for fear of persecution.

My main point is, how did they change from Armenian-speaking Christians less than 100 years ago to simply being "Armenian descendents" who practice Islam and speak only Turkish/Kurdish today? There had to be some aggressive force which made these people abandon their own culture within their native land, a culture which had been existing on that land for thousands of years. If these people moved out of Armenia and assimilated into another culture then it would make sense. However, they were forcefully assimilated in a short period of time even though they never left their indigenous lands. This can only be done through aggression, not "respect" as you referred to.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 11 Jan 2012 at 23:06
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 921
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Jan 2012 at 23:14
You are correct about disguising of Armenian identity. But I'm speaking about whole eastern Asia Minor population (exluding Blacksea coasts and Kurdistan region). Do you think whole of them came from Central Asia? Answer is clearly no... They're perhaps a millenium old Turkified Armenian descendants...
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 11:25
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

they returned some of the churches and monastaries to the Armenian church

At least there's still churches left in Turkey, how many mosques are left in Armenia? Virtually none.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

back in the early 90s claimed more Turks died than Armenians.

If we count all the population exchanges and massacres between Ottomans and European Christians (Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians, Serbs etc), then definitely more Ottoman Muslims were slaughtered by these peoples. Far more were also force marched from their homes and deported, often dying on the way.


Edited by Mukarrib - 12 Jan 2012 at 11:35
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 15:26
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


If we count all the population exchanges and massacres between Ottomans and European Christians (Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians, Serbs etc), then definitely more Ottoman Muslims were slaughtered by these peoples. Far more were also force marched from their homes and deported, often dying on the way.


Yes, for example countless number of Turks were killed by Hajduks past 500 years. Poor Ottoman Muslims :)
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 15:38
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

they returned some of the churches and monastaries to the Armenian church

At least there's still churches left in Turkey, how many mosques are left in Armenia? Virtually none.
 
Armenia proper (today's Armenian republic) haven't been part of the Ottoman empire at all. Plus that part of historical Armenia (with the exception of Yerevan) has never been Islamised and muslims were almost exclusive to the city of Yerevan which they built.
 
Plus in the end if the Armenian government did something wrong does this legitimise other doing so?
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

back in the early 90s claimed more Turks died than Armenians.

If we count all the population exchanges and massacres between Ottomans and European Christians (Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians, Serbs etc), then definitely more Ottoman Muslims were slaughtered by these peoples. Far more were also force marched from their homes and deported, often dying on the way.
 
Not necessarily. One might argue against this by pointing out the fact that while Turkey is exclusively muslim now (when 30% of Anatolian Turkey was christian back in 1900) while those countries (with the exception of Greece) still have large muslim minorities that are slightly less than what they were back when these "massacres". Every country has a little black book and the Ottoman empire is not an exception.
 
This is precisely why discussing such things is futile. Everyone will point to the black pages of history of the other side and no one will go forward. This is why Armenia is still a backward third world country with no future ahead of it because it still living in the past and they still keep election Dashnak idiots who think they will kick 20 million Turks and Kurd from their lands and reclaim greater Armenia which include Damascus in some weird version.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 15:47
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


If we count all the population exchanges and massacres between Ottomans and European Christians (Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians, Serbs etc), then definitely more Ottoman Muslims were slaughtered by these peoples. Far more were also force marched from their homes and deported, often dying on the way.


Yes, for example countless number of Turks were killed by Hajduks past 500 years. Poor Ottoman Muslims :)
 
And your point is?
 
Plus those gangsters killed just as many christians because they are just that, gangsters. Glorifying them is just like Italians building a statute for Italian mafiosi just because they fought the fascists.
 
Al-Jassas
 
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 19:50
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


If we count all the population exchanges and massacres between Ottomans and European Christians (Greeks, Bulgarians, Russians, Armenians, Serbs etc), then definitely more Ottoman Muslims were slaughtered by these peoples. Far more were also force marched from their homes and deported, often dying on the way.


Yes, for example countless number of Turks were killed by Hajduks past 500 years. Poor Ottoman Muslims :)

Perhaps you should read up for instance on the massacres by the Greeks during their "war of independence". Read about how they slashed open the wombs of Turks, dashed infants against rocks, hurled toddlers live into the sea. How they eradicated entire populations of Muslims.

And like the Armenian massacres, which are largely self documented, and reported by American Christian missionaries, who of course would've had no agenda against Muslims and the Ottoman state, the Greek massacres were fully documented by international observers, most of them European Christians.
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 20:22
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Armenia proper (today's Armenian republic) haven't been part of the Ottoman empire at all.

The area of today's Armenian republic became part of the Ottoman state in 1514, under Sultan Selim Yavuz at the battle of Chaldiran. Sultan Suleyman Kanuni then solidified it after his father.

 

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus in the end if the Armenian government did something wrong does this legitimise other doing so?

Not at all. But the Ottoman state never expelled Armenians. Those who left, did so of their own accord. There's still Armenians there today.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Not necessarily. One might argue against this by pointing out the fact that while Turkey is exclusively muslim now (when 30% of Anatolian Turkey was christian back in 1900) while those countries (with the exception of Greece) still have large muslim minorities that are slightly less than what they were back when these "massacres".

Turkey has a Christian population about the same as Greece does Muslim, and most of those are recent illegal immigrants.

The difference is, the Christians chose to leave the Ottoman state, because it lost the war, and Christian countries won it. Ottoman Muslims were force deported. They had no choice in the matter. Can you show any example of forced deportations of Christians from the Ottoman state?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Every country has a little black book and the Ottoman empire is not an exception.

No doubt, and as I've mentioned to you before, I'm not particularly interested in defending such actions or individuals or states. I am interested though in a balanced and accurate account of history, especially the history between the Muslim world and Christian Europe, which has been just a little biased over the years, to say the least.

Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 21:39
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Perhaps you should read up for instance on the massacres by the Greeks during their "war of independence". Read about how they slashed open the wombs of Turks, dashed infants against rocks, hurled toddlers live into the sea. How they eradicated entire populations of Muslims.

And like the Armenian massacres, which are largely self documented, and reported by American Christian missionaries, who of course would've had no agenda against Muslims and the Ottoman state, the Greek massacres were fully documented by international observers, most of them European Christians.


I am perfectly aware of all sorts of massacres performed by all sorts of people in the Balkans. You didn't get the point.
Besides, the number of Muslims, Turks actually, dropped not because their heads were smashed against the rocks, but because of population exchanges between Greece, Turkey and Bulgaria.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 21:49
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
And your point is?
 
Plus those gangsters killed just as many christians because they are just that, gangsters. Glorifying them is just like Italians building a statute for Italian mafiosi just because they fought the fascists.
 
Al-Jassas
 


The point was that the answer depends on the time you start counting from. Past 500 years, especially at the beginning of Ottoman domination in the Balkans and early 19th century, there were lots of christians killed and not so many Muslims. As for the statement, that hajduks killed as many Christians as Muslims, it is simply not true. Otherwise they wouldn't be widely supported by the local population.
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 21:54
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


 
Turkey has a Christian population about the same as Greece does Muslim, and most of those are recent illegal immigrants.

The difference is, the Christians chose to leave the Ottoman state, because it lost the war, and Christian countries won it. Ottoman Muslims were force deported. They had no choice in the matter. Can you show any example of forced deportations of Christians from the Ottoman state?



Greece and Bulgaria, especially Bulgaria, have significant Muslim population (Turkish and Pomak) and they are not  illegal immigrants.
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 22:31
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Armenia proper (today's Armenian republic) haven't been part of the Ottoman empire at all.

The area of today's Armenian republic became part of the Ottoman state in 1514, under Sultan Selim Yavuz at the battle of Chaldiran. Sultan Suleyman Kanuni then solidified it after his father.

 

The map above is total BS. The Ottoman empire never ruled beyond the Caucasus or Azerbaijan and Modern Georgia was a vassal state for a short period before Abbas the Great took it from them in the middle of the 17th century. Yerevan was never caputred by the Ottomans except during the short wars and was always returned and was the border between Persia and the Ottoman empire.

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus in the end if the Armenian government did something wrong does this legitimise other doing so?

Not at all. But the Ottoman state never expelled Armenians. Those who left, did so of their own accord. There's still Armenians there today.
 
 
Historical revisionism par excellence. There are over a million Armenians living in Arab countries where there has never been any recorded instance of Armenian presence before the Great War. So where did all those come from, Mars?
 
Plus even Turkey has always acknowledged the deportations and the deaths that happened during the marches while denying systematic massacres with the intention of full annihilation, who are you to refuse this admission? 
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Not necessarily. One might argue against this by pointing out the fact that while Turkey is exclusively muslim now (when 30% of Anatolian Turkey was christian back in 1900) while those countries (with the exception of Greece) still have large muslim minorities that are slightly less than what they were back when these "massacres".

Turkey has a Christian population about the same as Greece does Muslim, and most of those are recent illegal immigrants.

The difference is, the Christians chose to leave the Ottoman state, because it lost the war, and Christian countries won it. Ottoman Muslims were force deported. They had no choice in the matter. Can you show any example of forced deportations of Christians from the Ottoman state?
 

How many are indiginous? A couple of thousand? 10k at most? Greece has 100k and Anton mentioned the fact that 15% of Bulgaria's (if we calculate those who emigrated from the 60s till the 2000 they will be well over 20%) population and 40% of Macedonia's are muslim (the lands lost during the Balkan wars and WWI). Again only Greece did forced deportations occure (Some parts of Bulgaria especially in the Northwest and central regions saw forced deportations, the rest of Bulgaria and eastern Thrace/Ottoman Macedonia where there was a large Bulgarian presence people left on their own accord).

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Every country has a little black book and the Ottoman empire is not an exception.

No doubt, and as I've mentioned to you before, I'm not particularly interested in defending such actions or individuals or states. I am interested though in a balanced and accurate account of history, especially the history between the Muslim world and Christian Europe, which has been just a little biased over the years, to say the least.

 
Denying historical facts and minimising your own faults is hardly balance. As for bias, the whole point of writing history is to glorify the winner and demonise the loser. Bias is built in history. What is needed from historians is to try to be as much objective as they can possibly be.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 22:48
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

 
And your point is?
 
Plus those gangsters killed just as many christians because they are just that, gangsters. Glorifying them is just like Italians building a statute for Italian mafiosi just because they fought the fascists.
 
Al-Jassas
 


The point was that the answer depends on the time you start counting from. Past 500 years, especially at the beginning of Ottoman domination in the Balkans and early 19th century, there were lots of christians killed and not so many Muslims. As for the statement, that hajduks killed as many Christians as Muslims, it is simply not true. Otherwise they wouldn't be widely supported by the local population.
 
After the Greek war of independence, I agree the Ottoman's turned really nasty on the population in general not just in the balkans. Before that it depends.
 
As for the Hajduks, Lady Montagu didn't get the impression you got when she past Serbia and Bulgaria on the way to Istanbul. Hajduks may have taken a more nationalistic tone in the 19th century but before that they were just common criminals often times being mixed religion gangs with only one goal in mind, plunder. Most of them joined the rebellions to escape prosecution and alot of them simply returned to a life of crime not that far after "liberation".
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Anton View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 23 Jun 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 3326
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Anton Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Jan 2012 at 23:16
Not necessarily Turks. If I remember correctly, the notorious bashibouzouks were complected with other nations, such as Circassians. There were even some Christians. I do not think Greek war of indepence triggeret the atrocities either. There were many complex reasons and the main one was probably emerged inability of the Ottoman elite to rule the country.

Hajduks were certainly criminals, no doubts, but their aggression was mostly directed towards Turks. First, because, they were more rich and second, they were aliens, Muslims, people of different culture. Hajduks always had support from the local population, as is evident from fairly old songs, which originate in  17th century.


Edited by Anton - 12 Jan 2012 at 23:17
Back to Top
Mukarrib View Drop Down
Pretorian
Pretorian
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 156
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mukarrib Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 12:27
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

The map above is total BS. The Ottoman empire never ruled beyond the Caucasus or Azerbaijan and Modern Georgia was a vassal state for a short period before Abbas the Great took it from them in the middle of the 17th century. Yerevan was never caputred by the Ottomans except during the short wars and was always returned and was the border between Persia and the Ottoman empire.

This "never... except" construct seems to come up a lot around here. The Ottomans _DID_ capture all of modern day Armenia, and in the 1590 Treaty of Ferhat Pasha the Persians recognised Ottoman sovereignty over the region.

And if you are now admitting that Yerevan was the border between the two states, then obviously some part of modern day Armenia was within established Ottoman borders, no? 


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Not at all. But the Ottoman state never expelled Armenians. Those who left, did so of their own accord. There's still Armenians there today.
 
 
Historical revisionism par excellence. There are over a million Armenians living in Arab countries where there has never been any recorded instance of Armenian presence before the Great War. So where did all those come from, Mars?

There's no revisionism involved, you just failed to read carefully. The Ottoman state did not expel Armenians to the Arabic countries, because the Arabic countries did not exist. They moved people to areas of the state that did not border with the Russians, to prevent them from aiding and abetting the enemy in wartime.

And there has indeed been recorded instances of Armenian presence in Bilad ash-Shaam from a very early time. You are wrong on both accounts.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus even Turkey has always acknowledged the deportations

Do you even know what the word deportation means? Clearly you do not.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

and the deaths that happened during the marches while denying systematic massacres with the intention of full annihilation, who are you to refuse this admission? 

There were no deportations. Relocations to other parts of the state, yes, deportations, no.

Compare for instance the other side of the Kara Deniz, where Muslims (Crimean Tatars, Abkhazians, Laz etc) were supposedly considered a threat (due to allegiances with their Ottoman brethren) by the invading Russians, and so were force deported into Ottoman territory. The Ottoman state had to deal with well over 1 million refugees (at a time when it was economically in ruins) who _WERE_ deported from their lands which were overrun by the Russians.

Around 1/3 of the entire population of the Crimea and Caucasus died in Russian massacres and the forced deportations.

Then there is the Balkans, Greece, Bulgaria... And Armenians themselves carried out several massacres and uprisings against Muslims, slaughtering many.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Anton mentioned the fact that 15% of Bulgaria's (if we calculate those who emigrated from the 60s till the 2000 they will be well over 20%) population

They are today 10%. And most of them have been forced to abandon their Muslim identity and adopt a Christian one. So it's a bit rich to hold up the few Bulgarian Muslims left and claim victory.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

and 40% of Macedonia's are muslim (the lands lost during the Balkan wars and WWI).

Yeh it sounds like it was a real bumper affair:

"Houses and whole villages reduced to ashes, unarmed and innocent populations massacred en masse, incredible acts of violence, pillage and brutality of every kind — such were the means which were employed and are still being employed by the Serbo-Montenegrin soldiery, with a view to the entire transformation of the ethnic character of regions inhabited exclusively by Albanians." (Report of the International Commission on the Balkan Wars)

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Again only Greece did forced deportations occure (Some parts of Bulgaria especially in the Northwest and central regions saw forced deportations, the rest of Bulgaria and eastern Thrace/Ottoman Macedonia where there was a large Bulgarian presence people left on their own accord).

I really don't think it's accurate to say they were left of their own accord. Even just a few decades ago Muslims in the Balkans were still the target of ethnic cleansing campaigns.

Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <123>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.