| 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
Al Jassas View Drop Down
King
King


Joined: 07 Aug 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 5000
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Al Jassas Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 14:43
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

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? 

Have you seen an Atlas recently? If you didn't please buy one and calculate how far Yerevan is from the Turkish border.

The borders between Armenia and Turkey subscribe to the exact same borders between the Ottoman empire and Persia as determined in the treaty of Zuhab.
 
All the lands the Russians took in 1829 and 1878 were retaken after the Great war.

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

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.
They did expel Armenians to Arab countries and not just during the great war but after that. The majority of Lebanon's 150k strong Armenians came from Cilicia after Lebanon was independent and a large number of Syrian Armenians came also after the great war from areas that were not affected by the depotration order.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

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.

Clearly its you who don't know what deportation means.

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

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.

This is exactly what the Turks did to the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. You are logically inconsistant. Either all are crimes or all are normal operating procedures.

 
Plus the deportations took place during the Soviet era not the Imperial one and again, muslims were still a majority in all those areas untill the Soviet era.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


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)
 
I will leave Bulgaria to Anton, as for the Balkan wars, as I said, attrocities came from both sides. My point is those were isolated cases on both sides and the numbers of inhabitants from the other sides went only slightly down. Most of the immigration actually happened later on as the census reports show when there were no wars or official ethnic cleansing.
 
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


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.

 
The balkans is rich with ethnic cleansing and hardly any group was left unscarred. Indeed percentage wise the jews got the worst of it followed by the Romani.
 
Al-Jassas
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Flipper View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 23 Apr 2006
Location: Anatolia&Balkan
Status: Offline
Points: 2798
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Flipper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 15:03
Al Jassas, you speak wisely. Always!
FΑΝΑΚΤΟΥ ΜΙΔΑ ΓΟΝΟΣ
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Jan 2012 at 16:26
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

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.
You are wrong about the meanng of deportation. It does not necessarily mean banishing people to another state, it includes banishing them to other parts of the same state, as for instance Stailin's deportations of the Chechens. The only slight distinction between 'relocation' and 'deportation' is that for a person or group to be relocated they must have moved to another place, whereas to be deported they merely have to have been moved (i.e. they could have no set destination).
 
Even 'exile' doesn't necessarily mean to another country, as, again, with exiling to Siberia in Tsarist Russia.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 13 Jan 2012 at 22:53
Turks  as well as Pomaks were never forced to adopt Christianity as far as I know. You probably confuse this with Zhivkov's attempt to assimilate the Turks. It has nothing to do with religion, obviously, as it happened in communist state, although, indeed, Turks and Pomaks were forced to abandon Muslim traditions. However, this Zhivkov's attempt failed. Recent census have shown that there are still half a million Muslims in the country which is about 10%. Note, that vast majority of them are not immigrants, but Bulgarian citizens.
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: 13 Jan 2012 at 22:56
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Even 'exile' doesn't necessarily mean to another country, as, again, with exiling to Siberia in Tsarist Russia.


There were  exiles from Moscow and Leningrad to other parts of the country in Communist  Russia as well.
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: 14 Jan 2012 at 04:37
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Have you seen an Atlas recently? If you didn't please buy one and calculate how far Yerevan is from the Turkish border.

Yes I'm aware it is close to the border, and one can see Turkish territory from Yerevan. Still doesn't change the fact it was part of the Ottoman state at various times.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

They did expel Armenians to Arab countries and not just during the great war but after that. The majority of Lebanon's 150k strong Armenians came from Cilicia after Lebanon was independent and a large number of Syrian Armenians came also after the great war from areas that were not affected by the depotration order.

The so called genocide was largely supposed to have taken place between 1915 & 1918. During that time Syria and Lebanon were part of the Ottoman state. Therefore they were not deported (as de-port means to expel someone from your state, abandoning them at the 'gate' (or port) of your nation to a neighbouring one).
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

This is exactly what the Turks did to the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. You are logically inconsistant. Either all are crimes or all are normal operating procedures.

No it is not. The Ottoman state did not do that to Armenians at all. It relocated them from one area of the state to another, to prevent them aiding and abetting an enemy during a time of war, which they'd been doing for decades. They'd also been engaging in uprisings and massacres of Ottoman Muslims. The two situations are not equal on any level. It's an absolute joke that anyone could try to label this as a genocide. It was a very normal (and I might say lenient) response of a state to a population of people who were committing mass treason.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus the deportations took place during the Soviet era not the Imperial one and again, muslims were still a majority in all those areas untill the Soviet era.

They took place during the time of Catherine the Great if I remember correctly, so unless she was the head of the CPSU, I think you're a little mixed up there.

Perhaps you're confusing this with the later wave of relocations of Chechens and Igushetians? That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish altogether. We can get to that in due time.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I will leave Bulgaria to Anton, as for the Balkan wars, as I said, attrocities came from both sides. My point is those were isolated cases on both sides and the numbers of inhabitants from the other sides went only slightly down. Most of the immigration actually happened later on as the census reports show when there were no wars or official ethnic cleansing.

Really? So tell me about the supposed atrocities committed by the Ottoman state in the Balkans...

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: 14 Jan 2012 at 04:40
Originally posted by Anton Anton wrote:

Turks  as well as Pomaks were never forced to adopt Christianity ... indeed, Turks and Pomaks were forced to abandon Muslim traditions...

Re-read my statement.

"And most of them have been forced to abandon their Muslim identity and adopt a Christian one"

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: 14 Jan 2012 at 07:26
     The distinction between deporting and relocating is moot IMO, whats important is the motive and the outcome. The official law in Turkey was called Tehcir Law, tehcir being the Turkish word for deportation, so there you have it.

     Its clear that under the Tehcir Law the Armenians were forced out against their will (supposedly) to keep them away from the Russian front lines. This does not explain why Armenians from all over Anatolia were deported. Why were Armenians from Izmir and Yozgat "relocated"? Why were Armenians in Cilicia attacked and driven out? Why were over 200 Armenian intellectuals, including the famous composer Gomidas and countless authors, arrested in Constantinople in April 1915 where most of them were killed and just a handful including Gomidas were able to escape? This definitely had nothing to do with the Russian front line. They drove out Armenian communities which had no connection whatsoever to Russia.

      In fact in the first decade of the 20th century, the Russian Tsar had a big conflict with Armenians in his empire in regards to the ownership of Armenian church property. The Russian state started confiscating Armenian churches and local Armenians throughout Russian Caucasia phyically defended their church property. This is part of the reason why most Armenian political parties were anti-Russian, especially the Dashnaks who are still considered anti-Russian today. Basically its clear many Armenians, especially those in central, southern, and western Anatolia had no affinity towards Russians yet all the Armenian communities from Izmir to Adana to Yozgat to Samsun were still driven out en masse by the gendarmes in a premeditated, organized matter, solely based on the victims' ethnic & religious identity. The Russian front line also does not explain why the Assyrian Christian communities were systematically massacred.

      Mukarrib, lets just pretend your Russian theory, a common theory among denialists, is true for a moment. Its actually counter-intuitive to your anti-genocide argument. It clearly implies that the Ottoman state viewed the entire Armenian population as enemies and that this official stance was common knowledge at the time (which was actually the case). Do you understand that this theory indicates the state apparatus along with certain segments of the population had a good reason to rid themselves of this 'treasonous' population during a time of total war?



Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

It's an absolute joke that anyone could try to label this as a genocide. It was a very normal (and I might say lenient) response of a state to a population of people who were committing mass treason.


     Are you trying to convince us there was no genocide, or that the Turks had every reason to commit a genocide? Your words indicate that massacring the entire population would have been completely justified, an odd thing to reveal given your argument.

     You are right about one thing: This was more-or-less normal procedure for Turks. We can look at the massacres of 1894-96 where a quarter of a million Armenians were slaughtered by state-sponsored Kurdish tribesmen who were called "Hamidiye" due to their allegience to the Ottoman Sultan Abdul-Hamid. This shows there was already such a strong culture of state-sponsored genocide in Turkey prior the 20th century that it was considered normal behavior by all sides.
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: 14 Jan 2012 at 08:26
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

The distinction between deporting and relocating is moot IMO, whats important is the motive and the outcome. The official law in Turkey was called Tehcir Law, tehcir being the Turkish word for deportation, so there you have it.

Google translate begs to differ: http://translate.google.com/?langpair=tr%7Cen&text=tehcir

What was the motive? Clearly it was to remove treasonous citizens who'd been colluding with invading armies for decades, and who were assisting in the final destruction of the state. The Ottoman state did this out of survival, nothing else.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Its clear that under the Tehcir Law the Armenians were forced out against their will (supposedly) to keep them away from the Russian front lines. This does not explain why 
Armenians from all over Anatolia were deported.

The vast majority of relocations were from eastern Anatolia.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

The Russian front line also does not explain why the Assyrian Christian communities were systematically massacred.

Like with the Armenian tales, most of it was reported solely by American missionaries, who clearly had an agenda against the Ottoman state and Islam in general. There's no independent verification any such massacres occurred on a large scale in any systematic way, that could even approach being called a genocide.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Mukarrib, lets just pretend your Russian theory, a common theory among denialists, is true for a moment. Its actually counter-intuitive to your anti-genocide argument. It clearly implies that the Ottoman state viewed the entire Armenian population as enemies and that this official stance was common knowledge at the time (which was actually the case). Do you understand that this theory indicates the state apparatus along with certain segments of the population had a good reason to rid themselves of this 'treasonous' population during a time of total war?

A state that is battling for its own survival whilst being attacked on all sides, surely has a right to deal with treasonous elements within that are assisting the invaders.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

Are you trying to convince us there was no genocide, or that the Turks had every reason to commit a genocide? Your words indicate that massacring the entire population would have been completely justified, an odd thing to reveal given your argument.

There was no genocide, period. There were deaths that resulted from relocations, yes, and from putting down rebellions, and probably a few revenge attacks for massacres the Armenians carried out against Muslims. But due to the need to limit the impact of the treasonous and rebellious actions of the Armenian millet, the Ottoman state was well within its rights to do so.

Tell me, do you believe the Russians carried out genocide against Muslims in Crimea and Caucasus?

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

You are right about one thing: This was more-or-less normal procedure for Turks.

Your mind, like most of those peddling the genocide tales, has been poisoned by nationalist fanatics. Turks and Armenians lived side by side for many centuries without any of this hostility. It wasn't until the Russians emboldened the Armenians, and they became treasonous that these hostilities occurred. The true enemy of both Turks and Armenians were the nationalist fanatics, who poisoned people such as yourself with this ideology of hate and treachery.

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

We can look at the massacres of 1894-96 where a quarter of a million Armenians were slaughtered by state-sponsored Kurdish tribesmen who were called "Hamidiye" due to their allegience to the Ottoman Sultan Abdul-Hamid. This shows there was already such a strong culture of state-sponsored genocide in Turkey prior the 20th century that it was considered normal behavior by all sides.

The Armenian rebels were the ones who tried to assassinate Sultan Abdul Hamid (May God shower him with mercy). The nationalist fanatics murdered several Ottoman officials and then were planning to assassinate the Sultan himself. From the end of the Russian-Turkish war of the 1870's the Armenians began arming themselves and forming nationalist militias with the aim of expelling Muslims from the region, to create a pure Armenian state.

And at the end of the day, I really don't see your own personal stake in all this? Were you there? did it actually effect you personally at all? My fellow Muslims were massacred in larger numbers by the Christian powers of the day, and I feel sad for that, but I don't roam around on some personal mission to force people to cry about it. Wake up to yourself.

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: 14 Jan 2012 at 15:48
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Have you seen an Atlas recently? If you didn't please buy one and calculate how far Yerevan is from the Turkish border.

Yes I'm aware it is close to the border, and one can see Turkish territory from Yerevan. Still doesn't change the fact it was part of the Ottoman state at various times.
 
No it does. As I said earlier the last treaty between the Ottomans and the Persians (in the 1600s) said Yerevan and the eastern part of Armenia bordering the Aras river was Persian. Later on it passed directly to the Russians without going through the Ottoman route. Not a single part of today's Armenia was ever officially part of the Ottoman empire except for a very brief period between Suleiman Qanuni and the aforementioned treaty.

 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

They did expel Armenians to Arab countries and not just during the great war but after that. The majority of Lebanon's 150k strong Armenians came from Cilicia after Lebanon was independent and a large number of Syrian Armenians came also after the great war from areas that were not affected by the depotration order.

The so called genocide was largely supposed to have taken place between 1915 & 1918. During that time Syria and Lebanon were part of the Ottoman state. Therefore they were not deported (as de-port means to expel someone from your state, abandoning them at the 'gate' (or port) of your nation to a neighbouring one).
 
First of all I don't subscribe to the genocide theory as you can tell from this post if you actually bothered to read it (I really don't think that there was ever a genocide in history because all the people who "suffered" it remain in their millions). This doesn't change the fact that there were mass deportations to desert camps in the Syrian desert without any adequet preparation (as laws of war demand) and that there were systematic massacring of the Armenians committed by a certain part of the Ottoman state.
 
Second of all, your definition is worthless unless you are willing to accept that Stalin was right and within his powers to "relocate" Chechens and other groups back in WWII. My guess is that wolves will play with sheep before you admit this.
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

This is exactly what the Turks did to the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. You are logically inconsistant. Either all are crimes or all are normal operating procedures.

No it is not. The Ottoman state did not do that to Armenians at all. It relocated them from one area of the state to another, to prevent them aiding and abetting an enemy during a time of war, which they'd been doing for decades. They'd also been engaging in uprisings and massacres of Ottoman Muslims. The two situations are not equal on any level. It's an absolute joke that anyone could try to label this as a genocide. It was a very normal (and I might say lenient) response of a state to a population of people who were committing mass treason.
 
Yes it did. The Turks themselves admitt to what happen in 1915 and have been doing so since the war ended, hell they even prosecuted officers responsible several times. Plus as Armeniasurvival said (and you know well we don't see eye to eye on this subject) people from places 500 km
away from the front were rounded up and deported and as far as I know not a single incident of rebellion during the war happened in those areas except from Arabs.
 
Also your last sentence show your true colour.
 
One question. The tatars of Crimea supprted the Nazis, was what Stalin did to them justified or not in your opinion? Its a simple yes or no question.
 
 
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus the deportations took place during the Soviet era not the Imperial one and again, muslims were still a majority in all those areas untill the Soviet era.

They took place during the time of Catherine the Great if I remember correctly, so unless she was the head of the CPSU, I think you're a little mixed up there.

Perhaps you're confusing this with the later wave of relocations of Chechens and Igushetians? That's a whole 'nother kettle of fish altogether. We can get to that in due time.

Tatars were the majority of the population in Crimea up untill the mid 19th century. If they were indeed deported why were still the majority?

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:


Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

I will leave Bulgaria to Anton, as for the Balkan wars, as I said, attrocities came from both sides. My point is those were isolated cases on both sides and the numbers of inhabitants from the other sides went only slightly down. Most of the immigration actually happened later on as the census reports show when there were no wars or official ethnic cleansing.

Really? So tell me about the supposed atrocities committed by the Ottoman state in the Balkans...

 
The Ottomas massacred 5000 people from one small town in Najd that was never a part of their dominions... and these were fellow muslims.
 
They massacred the muslim Bosnians during the Bosnian uprising of 1831-32. Hell they even massacred muslim Turks in the large number of local rebellions. Why the hell shouldn't their generocity extend to others?
 
All countries across the world committed atrocities. Some less than the Ottomans and some more than the Ottomans. To portray the Ottomans as angels who did nothing wrong is absurd.
 
For more on the Balkan wars return to the same report you quoted earlier and you will see.
 
If I would I can fill this forum with excruciating details of masscres committed against muslims by others and photocopied documents too. Most of these are about regions and events you never knew plus I could do the exact opposite too.
 
In the end the question begs itself, to what purpose? So things happened in the past. You can't try these people because they are all dead not return any right because it has all been determined and acknowledged.
 
 
 
Al-Jassas
 
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jan 2012 at 16:13
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

. Therefore they were not deported (as de-port means to expel someone from your state, abandoning them at the 'gate' (or port) of your nation to a neighbouring one).
 
Wrong. Though a common mistake  (folk etymology).
 
deport Look up deport at Dictionary.com
late 15c., "to behave," from O.Fr. deporter "behave" (12c.), from de- "thoroughly, formally" + porter "to carry, bear oneself" (see port (3)). Original sense preserved in deportment. Meaning "banish" is first recorded 1640s, from Mod.Fr. déporter, from L. deportare "carry off, transport, banish, exile," from de- in its sense of "off, away" + portare "to carry" (but associated by folk etymology with portus "harbor"). "The two branches are treated by Darmesteter as historically distinct words in French" [OED]. Related: Deported; deporting.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=deport&searchmode=none

< style=": ; TOP: 0px; LEFT: 0px" id=aswift_0 height=60 marginHeight=0 Border=0 width=468 allowTransparency name=aswift_0 marginWidth=0 scrolling=no>
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 Jan 2012 at 16:26
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

The distinction between deporting and relocating is moot IMO, whats important is the motive and the outcome. The official law in Turkey was called Tehcir Law, tehcir being the Turkish word for deportation, so there you have it.

But that link doesn't back you up at all. It says tehcir means to 'relocate'. It says nothing at all about deportation., and relocation has nothing to do with crossing frontiers or not crossing frontiers It just means moving from one place to another. I already pointed out the minor difference between relocation and deportation.
 
 
Did you bother to read your own link? You should try and find sources that agree with you.
 
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 14 Jan 2012 at 23:32
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Not a single part of today's Armenia was ever officially part of the Ottoman empire except for a very brief period between Suleiman Qanuni and the aforementioned treaty.

There's that never... except clause again. It was part of the Ottoman states at various times. Yerevan itself changed hands between the Ottomans and Persians well over 10 times throughout their various wars.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

First of all I don't subscribe to the genocide theory as you can tell from this post if you actually bothered to read it (I really don't think that there was ever a genocide in history because all the people who "suffered" it remain in their millions).

Genocide is not necessarily about successfully wiping out an entire population, it's about attempting to with the intent of eradicating them from the face of the earth. The Nazi actions against Jews, Gypsies etc. in WWII were indeed genocide. Their aim was to eliminate these peoples from the human gene pool. That is genocide. The Ottomans never tried to do anything of the kind to Armenians, nor any other people.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

This doesn't change the fact that there were mass deportations to desert camps in the Syrian desert without any adequet preparation (as laws of war demand) and that there were systematic massacring of the Armenians committed by a certain part of the Ottoman state.

The Ottoman state was in a bit of a fix in case you didn't notice. They didn't really have provisions to make adequate preparation even for their own survival, let alone for that of people openly assisting those trying to destroy the state.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Second of all, your definition is worthless unless you are willing to accept that Stalin was right and within his powers to "relocate" Chechens and other groups back in WWII.

Chechens were in many cases off fighting on the front lines in eastern Europe against the Nazis. Although many evaded conscription, there were those who served and then returned home after fighting for Russia, only to find their entire family had been deported or massacred by the very state they were off risking their life for.

Also, do you see me here crying to people to recognise a Russian genocide against Chechen Muslims?

I couldn't care less if people recognise it or not, it doesn't alter my situation at all. And I do recognise that in those times states were in very different circumstances, and they often had to deal harshly with people to survive. And also that some Chechens did assist the enemy of the Russian state, which was the cause of the deportations.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Yes it did. The Turks themselves admitt to what happen in 1915 and have been doing so since the war ended, hell they even prosecuted officers responsible several times.

Yes some individuals may have done some bad stuff, and they should be punished. But to claim the Ottoman state systematically engaged in massacres and a genocide is not the same thing. You're mixing apples and oranges there.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Plus as Armeniasurvival said (and you know well we don't see eye to eye on this subject) people from places 500 km away from the front were rounded up and deported and as far as I know not a single incident of rebellion during the war happened in those areas except from Arabs.

Which areas specifically?

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

One question. The tatars of Crimea supprted the Nazis, was what Stalin did to them justified or not in your opinion? Its a simple yes or no question.

Far more fought in the Red Army against the Nazis than what ever collaborated with the Nazis. Yes a state has a right to deal with people who are collaborating with an invading force.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Tatars were the majority of the population in Crimea up untill the mid 19th century. If they were indeed deported why were still the majority?

The deportations occurred from the time of Catherine, up until the the Ottoman-Russian wars of the 1800's. Your point was they didn't occur until Soviet times. The Soviet deportations just cleared up the remaining Tatars, who were a minority by this time.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

 Really? So tell me about the supposed atrocities committed by the Ottoman state in the Balkans...
 
The Ottomas massacred 5000 people from one small town in Najd that was never a part of their dominions... and these were fellow muslims.
 
They massacred the muslim Bosnians during the Bosnian uprising of 1831-32. Hell they even massacred muslim Turks in the large number of local rebellions. Why the hell shouldn't their generocity extend to others?

So you can't show me where the Ottoman state supposedly massacred Christians in the Balkans?

Thought about as much.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

All countries across the world committed atrocities. Some less than the Ottomans and some more than the Ottomans. To portray the Ottomans as angels who did nothing wrong is absurd.

I've never claimed anything of the kind. I just think the claims are a little unbalanced that's all. In fact I've got absolutely no motive to defend the Ottoman state throughout most of this period, since it was run by secularists who had in effect deposed the Sultan anyway. In my mind the Ottoman state actually came to an end in 1908.

What I disagree with is the complete and utter ignoring of Ottoman sources, instead relying on purely Western/Christian missionary sources to try and muddy the name of the Ottoman state.

Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

For more on the Balkan wars return to the same report you quoted earlier and you will see.

You are the one making the claim, so bring the quotes. In English, and specific passages, not a whole series of pages in another language, as you're prone to doing.
 
Originally posted by Al Jassas Al Jassas wrote:

So things happened in the past. You can't try these people because they are all dead not return any right because it has all been determined and acknowledged.

According to Armenian nationalist fanatics you can. In fact you cango around assassinating representatives of a successor state to enact revenge, against people who weren't even born when the events occurred.

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: 14 Jan 2012 at 23:49
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Wrong. Though a common mistake  (folk etymology).

It wasn't necessarily folk etymology, I just assumed de + porte = expel from the gate of the state.

Anyway I stand corrected on this, thank you.

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival ArmenianSurvival wrote:

The distinction between deporting and relocating is moot IMO, whats important is the motive and the outcome. The official law in Turkey was called Tehcir Law, tehcir being the Turkish word for deportation, so there you have it.
But that link doesn't back you up at all. It says tehcir means to 'relocate'.

Right, and ArmenianSurvival said it means deportation as opposed to relocation. So it did contradict his claim. It was not meant to back me up, but to correct his claim it means deportation instead of relocation.

Since the link to the etymology of the word now clears that up, it makes little difference anyway.

However, I do think the modern usage of the term deport does tend to specifically refer to expelling someone from one state to another:

"to send out of the country by legal deportation

"To expel from a country."
"to remove (an alien) forcibly from a country"

"Today it often refers to the expulsion of foreign nationals whereas the expulsion of nationals is called banishmentexile, or penal transportation."

This last one is the distinction I was referring to. Armenians were not necessarily made persona non grata within the Ottoman state, and pushed into another state. Unlike the Crimean Tatars, Greek Muslims, Bulgarian Muslims, Serbian Muslims etc, they were just being moved around, not expelled completely from the state.



Edited by Mukarrib - 14 Jan 2012 at 23:51
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 12:15
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

[This last one is the distinction I was referring to. Armenians were not necessarily made persona non grata within the Ottoman state, and pushed into another state. Unlike the Crimean Tatars, Greek Muslims, Bulgarian Muslims, Serbian Muslims etc, they were just being moved around, not expelled completely from the state.
 
The more important question is what on earth difference does it make whether they were expelled from the state or not?  If you force a group of people to move from up near the Caucasus down to say, Damascus, the morality of it is exactly the same whether Syria is/was part of the Ottoman Empire at the time or not.  
Same thing goes for the expulsion from the Crimea. The Tatars weren't being expelled from the State but from one part of the Empire to another. Different place, same state (at the time).
 
WRT the Balkans and accusations of Ottoman massacres, you could read Gladstone's famous pamphlet on the subject at http://www.attackingthedevil.co.uk/related/bulgarian_horrors.php


Edited by gcle2003 - 15 Jan 2012 at 12:23
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 15 Jan 2012 at 12:28
Not true.

If you deport them from the state, then you relinquish any responsibility whatsoever to protect them, and leave them at the mercy of other states, who usually don't want to take in new citizens, having a hard enough time already caring for those they have.

In the case of the Crimean Tatars being deported to the Ottoman state, it actually caused the Ottoman state to become weaker and more susceptible to Russian invasions, since they now had to care for a lot of people who were in strained circumstances.

On the other hand if you merely relocate them internally, then you are not relinquishing all responsibility over them, and are not leaving them to the mercy of other states.

I guess an analogy is in order. If a family had a very troubled child who caused too much instability in the family unit, then they might be able to palm them off to a relative to care for them, or alternatively they could take them shopping, and leave them there.


Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 Jan 2012 at 19:53
Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Not true.

If you deport them from the state, then you relinquish any responsibility whatsoever to protect them, and leave them at the mercy of other states, who usually don't want to take in new citizens, having a hard enough time already caring for those they have.
That's assuming a lot about the conditions of the deportation. You cold deport them within the state, and still give up all responsibility for them. In fact you could leave them where they are and still give up all responsibility for them. Some would argue than in the 19th century Britain deported many Irish to the US. Whether they did or did not it is still true they would have been welcomed more in the US than at home.
 
I should rephrase my question, other things being equal what difference is there between in-state and out-of-state deportation?
Quote
In the case of the Crimean Tatars being deported to the Ottoman state, it actually caused the Ottoman state to become weaker and more susceptible to Russian invasions, since they now had to care for a lot of people who were in strained circumstances.
I was referring to the deportation of the Crimean Tatars to other parts of the Soviet Empire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deportation_of_the_Crimean_Tatars
Quote
On the other hand if you merely relocate them internally, then you are not relinquishing all responsibility over them, and are not leaving them to the mercy of other states.
Internal relocation does not mean maintainig responsibility for them. Consider the relocation of Amerindian tribes within the US at times. External relocation doesn't necessarile mean abandoning it.
Quote
I guess an analogy is in order. If a family had a very troubled child who caused too much instability in the family unit, then they might be able to palm them off to a relative to care for them, or alternatively they could take them shopping, and leave them there.
 
Or keep them at home at let them starve to death (it happens) or have them adopted by reputable people. It's how the children are treated that is the moral issue, not whether they are kept at home or relocated elsewhere.
 
Which is indeed the very point I was making.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

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: 20 Feb 2012 at 00:12
     (A late reply due to my recent schedule)

     Based on Google Translate you don’t know what the connotation of ‘tehcir’ was in Ottoman Turkish. Lets just say you are absolutely right and it means “relocation”. So what? This is just semantics. These people were forcefully moved from their indigenous lands into the Syrian Desert by direct orders of the state and were never allowed to return. If you are disputing this then there is something seriously wrong.


     And you changed your argument when the Tehcir Law was brought to your attention. Earlier you said:

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.


Now youre saying:

Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

What was the motive? Clearly it was to remove treasonous citizens who'd been colluding with invading armies for decades, and who were assisting in the final destruction of the state.


Based on the rest of your response I’m guessing that you’re sticking to your 2nd version.



Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

The vast majority of relocations were from eastern Anatolia.


     The majority of uprooting and massacre happened in that region simply because it had the highest concentration of Armenians. That’s just a statistical reality which has nothing to do with Turkish intentions. It doesn't answer the question of why all Armenian communities in every geographic corner of Turkey were forcefully moved despite the fact they were no where close to any front lines, which you claimed was the reason they were moved. Sizable communities as far away as Adana, Marash, Izmir, Yozgat, Edirne, Bursa, Konya and others were forced into the desert down to the women and children. These people were uprooted simply for being Christian and Armenian.

      And you avoided the question of why nearly all Assyrian Christians in the same region were uprooted and massacred.



Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Like with the Armenian tales, most of it was reported solely by American missionaries, who clearly had an agenda against the Ottoman state and Islam in general.


      The memoirs of missionaries are FAR from being the most significant sources. And generalizing all of them as anti-Islamic is a cheap way of countering their claims especially when their accounts line up perfectly with German & Austrian military accounts. These clearly had no anti-Turk bias since they were Turkish allies when they were written.

      And not all these missionaries who left memoirs were American (Maria Jacobsen of Denmark comes to mind, there were also Norwegians, Germans and others). I don’t know where you heard such things. You should venture out and find access to literature which uses sources from contemporary Turkish government officials, German government & military officials, Austro-Hungarian officers, and the like. These are all pro-Turkish sources and they explicitly state what I've stated in this thread.



Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

Your mind, like most of those peddling the genocide tales, has been poisoned by nationalist fanatics...The true enemy of both Turks and Armenians were the nationalist fanatics, who poisoned people such as yourself with this ideology of hate and treachery.


      This is a lackluster way of countering my claim that group punishment was more-or-less normal procedure for numerous Turkish regimes. Look at the Hamidian massacres in the 1890s, the Adana massacres in 1909, the Tehcir Law, the taxation system, the Devshirme (Janissary) system, the disappearance of the large Assyrian population, the Dersim massacres, the treatment of Kurds, 1955 Istanbul pogroms, etc. Turkish history is full of episodes of group punishment of their subjects and it’s logical to assert that Turkish trauma in the Balkans and resentment of Christians by the ruling regime contributed to group punishment evolving into full-scale genocide.



Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

It wasn't until the Russians emboldened the Armenians, and they became treasonous that these hostilities occurred.


     This notion of Russian collusion being the sole reason behind all the Armenians misfortunes is erroneous. You ignored my example of why many Armenians were actually anti-Tsar or had no sympathy at all for Russia, but were targeted solely based on their Christian Armenian identity. This was brought to a fever pitch by the terrible displacement of Turks from the Balkans, resentment of the funding of the Ottoman Empire by Christian nations, the WWI siege mentality especially during Gallipoli, along with Pan-Turkic ideology among the Young Turk rulers (especially Enver Pasha) who dreamed of creating a Turkic entity from Constantinople to China. The main non-Turkic population separating Anatolian Turks from the rest of the Turkic world was (and is) the Armenians. They were also the hardest to subdue because of their numbers and since Armenian society had so many different factions and regional loyalties.

     Going back to the Russians for a moment, they had nothing to do with the ideological awakening of Armenians in the Ottoman & Russian Empires. This was an evolutionary process with the seeds planted long before Russian armies marched into the Caucasus. It has plenty of examples during the 17th & 18th centuries in Armenia. This ideological awakening greatly accelerated in the second half of the 19th century through Armenian students who left Armenia and studied in European universities in France, Germany, Austria, etc. where they were exposed to the ideals of the French Revolution and to modern Republican thought via the contemporary independence movements of European nations.



Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

The Armenian rebels were the ones who tried to assassinate Sultan Abdul Hamid (May God shower him with mercy).


      That sad creature who is apparently the object of your prayers sent upwards of 300,000 commoners to their deaths prior to his assassination attempt. In fact that’s precisely the reason there was an attempt on his life. He was an unhinged loon who resorted to harsh group punishments which set the stage for the genocide some years later. He was vindictive towards Christians in his empire because Christian nations were loaning him money to keep his own empire afloat. He harassed Armenians for decades with his own personal Kurdish cavalry which were named Hamidiye after himself. He wasn’t terribly popular among Turks either and that’s obvious because they deposed him.



Originally posted by Mukarrib Mukarrib wrote:

And at the end of the day, I really don't see your own personal stake in all this? Were you there? did it actually effect you personally at all? My fellow Muslims were massacred in larger numbers by the Christian powers of the day, and I feel sad for that, but I don't roam around on some personal mission to force people to cry about it. Wake up to yourself.


     I'm not forcing anyone to cry or do anything like you claim. My only motive is to see justice served upon the perpetrators and benefactors of this crime which destroyed generations of my family and the families of every Armenian I know. This involves giving facts about the events when discussions take place, and speaking up against apologists and those who justify said crimes. If this bothers you then tough sh*t, buddy. If its such a problem for you, what you can do is not participate. What you wont be doing, however, is making me feel guilty for discussing one of the most widely documented crimes of the 20th century on which justice never befell.
Back to Top
Paradigm of Humanity View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 17 Oct 2011
Location: Konstantiniyye
Status: Offline
Points: 916
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Paradigm of Humanity Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Feb 2012 at 11:15
Can't read most of such long posts (internet made me lazy Tongue), I apoligise for that but I guess "tehcir" and "muhacir" came from same Arabic root. So it must be something related to expelling and deporting.

What is the point, anyway? It can't change anything, we are mostly discussing for historical amusement in this forum.


Edited by Paradigm of Humanity - 20 Feb 2012 at 11:15
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 0.172 seconds.