20 November 2007

2201) Westerners on the Armenian Strategy and Rebellion by Michael van der Galiën

An interesting debate ensued in the comments thread of my latest post on what some call the Armenian Genocide. One of the commenters (Paul), an Armenian-American, asked me why it is that I believe that Armenians rebelled well before 1915, killing Turks, in an attempt to get the Great Power (of Europe) to intervene in their behalf. The reason is simple: Western witnesses. In a comment I quoted the following individuals:

The Armenian Patriarch told the British Ambassador Elliot on December 6, 1876 that . .

If it is required to start revolution or to rise up in order to secure the intervention of Europe in this matter or to draw its attention that can be done quite easily.


The British Ambassador Currie at Istanbul expressed the following view in his report he sent to the Foreign Office on March 28, 1894:

The Armenian revolutionaries stir up disorders with the aim of forcing the Ottomans to retaliate and thus pave the way for the intervention of foreign countries.


The British Consul Grave at Erzurum in a message sent to the British Embassy at Istanbul on January 28, 1895, reports that:

The purpose of Armenian revolutionaries is to compel the Turkish government and Turkish nation to take action against themselves because of the general discontent they create themselves and so draw the attention of foreign powers to the imaginary sufferings of the Armenian people and convince them of the necessity to improve the situation.


When New York Herald correspondent Sydney Whitman asked British Consul Graves whether clashes between Armenians and Turks would have occured if the Armenians wouldn’t have rebelled, the latter answered: “of course not, I do not think that a single Armenian would have been killed.”

General Mayewski who served as Russia’s Consul General at Bitlis and at Van, reports as follows in a report of 1912:

Armenian revolutionaries created such a suspicion between Armenians and the local people in 1895 and 1896 that it became impossible to carry out any reforms in this area. Armenian clergymen were not busy with religious education at all. They endeavoured instead to disseminate nationalistic ideas. Such ideas were developed within the walls of the mysterious monasteries and enmity of Christians towards Muslims replaced religious duties. The reason of the rebellions taking place in many provinces of Anatolia in the years 1895 and 1896 was neither the poverty of Armenian villagers nor the supposed oppression on them. For these villagers were richer and more prosperous than their neighbours. Three causes may be mentioned for the Armenians uprisings:

1) their increasing consciousness in political matters; 2) the spreading of the ideas of nationalism, liberations and independence in the Armenian public opinion and 3) support provided by Western governments to such ideas and the effort of clergymen to disseminate them.


The British Vice-consul at Van, Mr. Williams, points out in his report dated March 4, 1896 that:

Tashnaks and Hinchaks incited people in an excessive and wild manner and paralysed all the effort and activities undertaken to implement the reforms and that Armenian revolutionaries were responsible for whatever happened in Anatolia.


The British Consul General at Adana, Mr. Doughty Wily, says in his report dated 1909 that:

Armenians have been striving to secure the intervention of foreign powers.


General Mayewski states in another Report of his dated 1912 that

The Tashnak militants have been trying to pave the way for Russian intervention by inciting troubles between Armenians and Muslims


The Armenian historian Papazian wrote:

The purpose of all the incidents and uprisings was to induce the European states to intervene in the domestic affairs of the Ottoman state.


And there is more. Much more.

Whenever Armenians refer to the period of the mid 1890s it’s wise to keep the above quotes in mind. Armenians rebelled against the Ottoman government in the 19th century already and, according to Western sources, exaggerate the response of the Turkish Muslims in an attempt to get more Armenians to rebel and to get the Western powers to intervene on their behalf.

That’s, of course, information that’s not often shared with foreigners. Turks know it, Armenians should know it if they’re as informed as they say they are, but Westerners often don’t know it.

We often forget that the Ottoman Empire wasn’t just weak at that point in time, but that the European powers were incredibly strong (the US as well by the way). Since the mid 19th century Russia, France and Great Britain were talking amongst themselves how they could divide and conquer (parts of) the Ottoman Empire.

European countries were still highly imperialistic. They conquered and colonized large parts of the Ottoman Empire (Arab lands anyone?). They wanted to divide the Ottoman Empire between themselves. For this to happen, however, they needed the support of Christians living under Ottoman (read: Muslim) rule. These Christians needed to rebel. This would cause the Ottoman Empire to become even weaker and it would create goodwill in the West for a massive military offensive.

The above aren’t opinions. They’re facts. The Armenian lobby - I’ve already explained in the past who I mean by that - would like you never to see these facts, but they’re there and can be read / understood for all those who are interested.

Armenian nationalists are still carrying on the battle of their ancestors. The difference is that they don’t use force (well, save for in the late 21st century when Armenian terrorists killed / tried to kill those who disagreed with them), they use diplomacy and political pressure (and threats, lawsuits and other kinds of pressure of course). The goal remains the same: to create a Greater-Armenia. This Greater-Armenia consists out of large parts of what’s Turkey today.

To quite some of them, the ‘recognition’ of a ‘genocide’ isn’t the goal. It’s a means.

Next time lawmakers want to pretend they’re historians, they’d better keep that in mind and look at (all) the facts; not just the stories given to them by the Armenian pressure groups.

There are many polite, civil and honest Armenians out there, who truly believe that what happened to their great (great) grandparents constitutes genocide. These individuals, however, would be wise to take a look at the facts, and to distance themselves a bit from it all - so that they can be more objective.

When one says that what happened isn’t ‘genocide’ one is by no means saying that what happened was minuscule. It wasn’t. In the civil war, and during the relocations, many innocent Armenians sadly died. Turkish gangs (even some soldiers and officers acting on their own / ignoring the wishes of their own government) and Kurdish gangs attacked Armenian deportees, and made many innocent people suffer tremendously.

That’s also a fact.

But that doesn’t mean that what happened was genocide, nor does it mean that the numbers and sequel of events aren’t exaggerated and twisted by some Armenian pressure groups. They are. And a genocide it was not. The Ottoman government ordered its soldiers to take care of the Armenian deportees to the best of their abilities and warned them that those who attacked the Armenians would be punished.

Which many of them indeed were.

A government that wants to exterminate a people wouldn’t do that.

Anyway,

What’s also important in this debate is that people talk about the Turkish casualties and Turkish suffering caused by Armenian nationalists. These individuals - who actually were the leaders of the Armenians at that time - went out and attacked Muslim villages, burned them down and killed many innocent Muslims. They did so because they hoped that the Turks would react, which would then give them great propaganda material (which the Western powers could also use as an excuse to help them).

Yes. Those are facts as well.

There are two sides to this story and lawmakers - no matter in what country - should not talk about matters they know nothing of. The sad reality is that the lawmakers who support genocide resolutions don’t know what they’re talking about. They didn’t do research. The only thing that’s important to them is whether or not voting in favor of such a resolution will help them politically.

Voting for distorting the truth, however, should never be the popular thing to do.

Lastly, here is an entire report from First Lieutenant Abgral, Commander of the Russian Forces at Erzurum. The report was written and sent in 1918 - yes, after the deportations - but that doesn’t make what happen any less horrific. Warning: It’s a long, and a terrible read.

Massacre of Muslims by Armenians

Russian Official Document No. 31

Erzurum, March 3, 1918

To the Commander of the Caucasian Army

On February 26, 1918, at mid-day, a company of militia began to assemble the Turks in order to make them clean up the railways and the roads leading to the fortification. This order came from General Atranik. But it was carried out by the chief of the militia of the town, named M. Farachian.

The Turks complained and said that they were being gathered together without taking into consideration the prescribed formalities according to which a written order should be issued by the Commandant of the town… I at once communicated with M. Farachian who told me that the above-mentioned formalities necessitating to get a written order of the Commander had been abolished in view of the circumstances… Thus three sections of workers were formed. One section was sent to the gate of Kars; second, towards teh gate of Oltu; the third toward the gate of Trebizond. At about 3 PM I was informed by one of my soldiers that the Turks of Kars, referred to above, were taken behind the fortification of Azizie. I realized the true significance of that information given by soldiers, only on February 27. While leaving Erzurum, I saw on the road of Kars more than 70 dead bodies (Turkish) riddled with bullets on the head, the nekc and the ches as well as wounds from bayonets in the region of the heart and the abdomen. With the second section of the Turks the Armenians dealt in the following manner:

The Turkswere tightly squeezed into the barracks, made of wood, where they were so crowded up that they could hardly sit down. On that night, according to the testimonies of the workers on the railway line, the Armenians began shooting the Turks one by one and after some time they began firing on the barracks.

The third section, according to my informants, was shot by macihe-guns at the gate of Trebizond. Now I shall try to draw a picture of February 26, the day of nightmare and blood. The Armenians broke into the houses of Turks by using force and seized the males of age 11 and aove, including the elderly ones, and formed them in colmns and led them with blows of whips and rifles, outside the town, where they massacred them in the most savage manner. Once I asked them where they were taking the Turks and if it was to make them work? ‘No’ replied the soldiers with an air of satisfaction ‘we shall probably kill them.’

When I told them: ‘Have you gone crazy? come back to reason,’ they replied to me: ‘For the love of God, do not prevent us. We do not touch you at all and what we do with them is not your business.’ There was a great excitement in the town; every one was running about. Cries of children and lamentations of Turkish women were heard everywhere in the town. The Armenian soldiers were walking about in groups in the town and were continually forcing open the doors of Turkish houses. Finally, came the terrible night that shook the spirit of desolation. The blood congeals at the thought of the horror of this night. The cries increased. One should like to go to the rescue of the unfortunate victims, but when one goes there, one receives everywhere the impertinent answer ‘do not interfere’ which is accompanied by threats. I heard the cries of women. I opened the door and climbing up the stairs I entered a room. Here I saw seven Armenian soldiers fully armed, one of them holding a candle in his hand, some searching for what they could find and some were massacring in a savage manner. There were three unveiled Turkish women, down whose faces blood was trickling. Their blouses were torn showing their breasts covered with blood. On their sides, children were there so terrified that they appeared dead with fear. A child cried out in an extraordinary voice opening the yes full of tears. One of the Armenians prevented it from crying, but the terrified child understood nothing and kept on crying. Then the Armenian delivered a blow on the head of the child with his rifle and the child stopped crying and fell on the floor. When the mother saw the child in this condition she began to sob. Then he slaughtered the child with his bayonet and landed a blow on the head of the mother and bayoneted her. The other women seeing this began to cry hands on the eyes. The children folded their arms, with bended heads they awaited their turn, but at once a dagger was aimed at my abdomen. I thought it would be better to leave the room. I came out of the house, I heard a carriage coming, I at once recognized that it was that of the commander of the militia, M. Farachian. I begged him to enter the house; he roughly answered me thus: ‘when Armenia boils one cannot think about individuals’ and asked me at once why I did not enter myself to stop these fools. I replied that I was a Russian and that they would not listen to me. M. Farachian then told me ‘I am surprised that at such a moment you should find enough time to busy yourself with such silly things.’ I left him and walked for a long time in the streets. I also visited the Turkish quarters. Everywhere the same horrible picture that breaks one’s heart was to be seen, the same cries, the same moaning of women and children. The victims of these crimes have been so numerous that it would not be wrong if I say that only 250 Turks, who could hide themselves, have been left alive in the whole town. The Armenians, having also realized that possibility, began to reclaim them from the Russian officers. They also called at my house where they searched for them everywhere, even in the cupboards and under beds. But they forgot to search the garret where I had hidden a Turkish family.

The following sence, which took place in the hosue of the former military cashier is characteristic. I happened to be there by chance. I found a few Armenians there. They were seated before a lamp and were picking out some articles in gold, rings, bracelets and other articles that they had robbed. One of them told me that he could not take a bracelet of the wrist of a woman as she would not open. He had to cut the hand and the fingers of the woman (he himself said this) to take the bracelet, etc. off. The Armenians set the town on fire. They also burned non-military buildings and the house of the American Consul, M. Stempleten. Now and then we heard rifle reports; they completely massacred the remainder before the arrival of the Turkish Army. All the roads leading from the gate of Kars to Hasankale were covered with massacred Turkish bodies, despoiled of their dresses, and the noses and ears of a great number of them had been cut off. We came close to Hasankale and saw a group of Turkish prisoners along the railroad who were led by an Armenian soldier, who made them run. Those who happened to be behind were being whipped and hit on the heads. Their faces were covered with blood. Finally, we arrived at Hasankale. Among these prisoners was a blind old man, accompanied by a boy. The blind old man groping his way and the boy had no more strength left to help the old man. A soldier on horseback began to beat them. These poor persons were wiping the blood off their faces without uttering a word. They kept quiet thus hoping to be spared the martyrdom. But fate had it differently, as soon as they reached Hasankale, the crowd that awaited them massacred them at once by fusillade. We proceeded on to Keupry-Keuy. On arriving there I alighted from the train. I suddenly heard cries from the direction of Hasankale and saw a crowd of Turks running. I counted them afterwards and them to be 40.

In front of them there were two soldiers on horseback, who, from their uniform, seemed officers. But I could not see their ranks, since they were quite far away. The horsemen who were in front made their horses trot and gallop and teh Turks had to imitate them. Those who were unable to do so were beaten. Sometimes the horsemen would stop suddenly then the human momentum caused by inertia brought the prisoners almost up to the horsemen, the horsemen landed blows of rifle on their heads, made them pass through a group of carts; at a given time they had to come down a slope; a Turk fell down and this did not please one of the horsemen who went up to him and drew his sword and delivered a blow cutting open his forehead and lips. The wounded Turk attempted to rise but the horseman shot him dead. At this time the Armenians began shooting the prisoners and within five minutes there lay 40 warm dead bodies of the Turks on the side of our wagon. A few Armenians not content with this went and examined the bodies and fired a few more shots at those who showed any sign of life. All along the railroad we saw the same thing. For example at Horasan the Armenians opened fire on the Turks working on the railway lines. Happily only two were killed there; Russian mechanics bandaged the wounds of the wounded and carried them to the barracks. When we arrived at Karaurgan we learned that all the wounded had died.

First Lieutenant ABGRAL

Military Commander of the town of Erzurum

Erzurum, March 3, 1918.

November 20, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën

Responses to “Westerners on the Armenian Strategy and Rebellion”
on November 20, 2007 at 5:39 pm
1 Areen

Edit by MvdG: it never surprises me that some Armenians find it funny to read what their ancestors did to Muslim Turks.

on November 20, 2007 at 5:42 pm
2 Paul

I already addressed the problems with Mayewski. It’s just amazing how every time I look up one of these quotes it’s either sources only by the TallArmenianTale site or the official Turkish government site on 1915.
Michael I am in no way suggesting they are all made up (though as I explained Mayewski’s work has gone through about 3 or 4 translations, the second having been into Ottoman Turkish by a Turk, until it reached the official Turkish government published one you quote today. An analysis of the original and the terminus of the translations showed many additions/omissions, so it is hardly creditible in the 2001 form you are using.
My problem is that you are perpetuating a double standard. Any quote an Armenian would release (ironically enough some from the same people you quote as supporting the “Turkish thesis”) certainly in your mind is not creditible. And heaven help if it was actually released by an organization like the Zoryan Institute who studies 1915. However, without in most cases validation on your own (because the way you introduce most of the people who supplied the quotes, besides the quotes themselves, come directly from these Turkish websites- if you found each and every one of these themselves why was the material not part of the actual quote also directly lifted from those pages?) you accept these quotes at face value.
Meanwhile some of these ‘backgrounds’ are complete fabrications- for example the daming one by “Armenian historian Papazian wrote…”
Do you know who he is? Dennis Papazian of course is the well-known Armenian historian, but that’s not who this is about. This Papazian was an Armenian POLITICIAN, not historian (I thought you said politicians can’t speak on historical issues) and yet you (aka the Turkish websites you lifted the quote from) call him a historian. You probably couldn’t even tell me his first name, his motives for writing his work (it comes from a virulent and nasty political dispute involving the murder of a Soviet-sympathetic bishop over the Armenian church in America). Without any sort of context, accurate portrayal of who is making the quote, or why, you can take his and all these other quotes and use them to mean whatever you want about anything.

For example the Armenian patriarchate quote- it is only found on a couple Turkish websites. I did find in a book a description of the patriarch’s plea- it was in connection with Abdul-Hamid just coming to the throne and the situation for Armenians taking a significant downturn. According to the book, the patriarch was requesting assistance in pressuring the OE for reform, since obviously they had no other outlet being subjected to an autocrat.

If you want to use all these quotes which are only found in the propaganda material of one side (yes BOTH sides have propaganda and I’m not out of line calling TallArmenianTale a site with a propagandistic motive. On top of that, I know at least one person who is a Turkophile and knows a thing or two about 1915- he doesn’t think it was genocide but does think TAT is one of the most insulting and vile sites he’s even encountered.) I think it is vital that everything be properly sourced. Are you going to accept the alleged Hitler quote as being 100% true? Of course you don’t, and you point out that it’s Armenians who have taken it and used it for their purposes. And yet you see these alleged quotes, which are only sourced by Turkish propaganda materials and of which you have never seen actual copies of.. I know you speak of having some ‘book’ with some of this information- but sorry a compilation of quotes published in a book by the Turkish government or lobby group is NO different than a compilation of quotes on-line, they are still subject to potential tampering or being misleadingly out-of-context as they are on-line. Unless you can tell me you have the actual third party books in which these quotes were ORIGINALLY published by these third party people you so herald.

So far you have not done a convincing job proving that you have actually seen any of these original quotes in their original forms- and in fact a simple Google search makes it quite obvious that they are taken right Turkish propagandist webpages. Right now you are operating on the notion that these quotes you got from Turkish sources are all totally accurate and perfect as is- that they are not out of context, that they are not fabrications, that they are not putting words into others’ mouths (as I believe is being done withe the patriarch’s allegedly transcribed discussion, advocating treason way back in 1876 which obviously could have gotten him executed- when another source says he was just requesting reform, perhaps that being the ‘revolution’ he was referring to if that word was ever used). I am not trying to be insulting Michael, but I am MERELY holding you and the Turkish side to the same standard you hold Armenians. Is that not fair?

on November 20, 2007 at 5:49 pm
3 Michael van der Galiën

The alleged Hitler quote is 100% nonsense and stop discrediting my sources. Again, I took the time to copy it, handwritten, typing and all that.

I am beginning to realize that you simply don’t want to hear the other side.

BTW: I know about what happened to the Armenians. I know that they have equally horrible stories to tell that’s my point Paul: they both suffered tremendously, yet all we do is talk about how the Armenians suffered and pretend that they did nothing wrong.

This was a civil war.

You guys often compare it to the holocaust. That’s not a right comparison for a long list of reasons. A better comparison? What’s happening in Iraq with Shiites and Sunnis having a go at each other.

Paul: if you study the situation with the Ottoman Empire, it quickly becomes clear that the revolutionary movement was, indeed, going on for a long while. I already knew this to a degree thanks to my high school education (in which they spent time to the question of the Orient and how the great powers conspired against the Ottoman Empire).

You do see my point by now, don’t you?

If it was up to me, there would be a resolution something like this: “we regret the suffering on both sides. We acknowledge that many Armenians were killed by Turkish and Kurdish gangs. These individuals were brutally murdered. We also acknowledge, however, that Armenian militias killed many innocent Turks. We recognize what happened as one of the blackest chapters in the history of mankind. We call on both sides to reach out to each other, to open up the archives for historical research and express our hope that both sides will be able to forgive each other.”

on November 20, 2007 at 6:07 pm
4 Paul

“Again, I took the time to copy it, handwritten, typing and all that.”

From what?? Because if you’d simply google the quote description (note: not the actual quote but the descriptions of who and what they said) you’d notice they all appear in that exact form on a couple of Turkish websites and that’s all.
It appears your painstaking handwritten transcription was a waste of time if they are already posted as is in the same exact form on TallArmenianTale. Which makes me question this continuously unnamed book you use which has all these quotes- as I said if it is published by a group like the ATAA or the Turkish government then what makes their quotes any more creditible or subject to manipulations as quotes published by the Armenian side?

“stop discrediting my sources.”

I’m just holding you to the same standards you hold all Armenian quotes. Until I see the original for ANY quote and in its proper context I will not “take their word for it”, whether they are Armenian or Turkish. I don’t know why you don’t do the same but I think I am being more than fair in calling you out on this.

My point to you is that you continue to operate with a conclusion and throw out these quotes which come directly from a Turkish propaganda source and which I have demonstrated in at least some examples are inaccurate or purposely misleading (you never answered my questions on the “historian” Papazian or the controversy surrounding quotes from your oft-quoted Mayewski, for example). I do agree 1915 was not the Holocaust and that there were disastisfied actors amongst the Armenian community. One must take the entire thing as a whole- you ignore the fact they WERE under an autocrat after all and seem to romanticize the late Ottoman Empire as a time of happiness and peace until those troublesome Armenians decided they wanted to be greedly so let’s REBEL for fun!! You ignore that

1. most Armenians had nothing to do with revolutionary activities to begin with
2. the bulk of those who suffered were the women and children on the death marches (what else can you call purposely sending people to the desert without food or proper resources or protection, an “unforeseen mishap”?! Don’t be naive!) and people who posed absolutely no threat to the Turkish state.
3. There were revolutionaries in EVERY corner of the Ottoman Empire, if Armenians got what they deserved then what the perscription was the liquidation of everyone who wasn’t a Turk. I don’t see what the difference is between an Armenian revolutionary and an Arab or a Greek or a Bulgarian, etc. Each of them had unhappy members, because what you seem to continuously ignore is that while it was once a bastion of tolerance, the late OE under Abdul Hamid and then again under the post-1913 triumverate was a brutal place in serious need of reform. Tanzimat was repealed and the minorities were far from equal citizens. If you think treatment like that should go unprotested (as the Armenian patriarch did), then fine, but you’ve obviously never lived under an autocratic regime.

I agree that 1915 is not black and white- but that doesn’t mean you therefore have the right to only see one shade of grey.

on November 20, 2007 at 6:18 pm
5 Kathy

Michael,

In a nutshell, what you appear to be saying here is that the reason for the organized Turkish slaughter of 1.5 Armenians during WWI is that 30 years prior to that period, Armenians had battled Turks in an ongoing war of rebellion designed to get their own country.

Except that you don’t believe that 1.5 Armenians were killed in an organized slaughter.

And at the same time you imply that the Armenians exaggerated and fabricated the slaughter to get the sympathy of the outside world and get the outside world to intervene on their behalf.

So I’m somewhat confused still about exactly what it is you are declaring. Are you saying that there was no organized slaughter of Armenians — i.e., genocide, and that 1.5 million Armenians were not killed? Or are you saying that there was an organized slaughter but that it was justified because Turks were killed and suffered at the hands of Armenian nationalists? You do clearly acknowledge the relocations (you use that word), and that in itself belies your point, because mass relocations are illegal, and are one of the markers of genocide.

At any rate, your assertion that “The above aren’t opinions. They’re facts.” is absurd. The Armenians’ nationalist aspirations and the violence resulting therefrom are matters of record, and clearly are factual. But everything you take from that — all the quoted claims of exaggerating and fabricating Armenian suffering and engaging in a deliberate campaign to get the outside world to intervene — is opinion, not fact. You are speaking to people’s motivations, and you are quoting people who are speaking to people’s motivations. These are not facts. These are opinions, and highly prejudicial opinions at that.

And then there is also the larger truth here: that although it is undoubtedly true that Armenian nationalists caused much suffering among Turks, including many innocent civilians, that does not explain or justify the organized slaughter and relocation of 1.5 million Armenians, which of course IS genocide. Killing innocents in war or whenever is always a crime and should be treated as such, but it’s not genocide and it does not justify a genocidal response.

What I’m trying to get across here is that you seem to be all over the map in what you’re saying. You write that “many innocent Armenians were killed during the relocations” and you acknowledge that this was “sad.”

on November 20, 2007 at 6:18 pm
6 Michael van der Galiën

But I already told you yesterday: “Atrocities and Genocide Inflicted Upon Turks by Armenians” by Binark. The reason only pro-Turkish websites publish this info is, wait for it, because they’re the only ones who take the time to investigate what Armenians did to Turks.

What’s more, Turks have forsaken their duty. They should’ve shared their side of the story with the world, they didn’t.

As said, I also own the English and Turkish translations of the Ottoman documents. These leave no room for doubt either.

Lastly, you write

I agree that 1915 is not black and white- but that doesn’t mean you therefore have the right to only see one shade of grey.

O no, I see different shaded of gray, but realize that both sides committed the same ‘grayish’ sins.

on November 20, 2007 at 6:20 pm
7 Kathy

Please ignore my last paragraph. That was from a previous draft that I should have deleted.

on November 20, 2007 at 6:23 pm
8 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy: I’ve stopped debating this with you already because you purposefully misinterprete and twist what I write. Once you stop doing that I’m happy to take you seriously.

Just for the other readers, to recap:
- there was no government-organized attempt to exterminate the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia
- the gangs that killed hundreds of thousands of Armenians acted on their own
- many of those were later punished by the Ottoman government
- Armenians started ‘rebelling’ and killing innocent Muslims well before the first World War, they continued doing so for decades (sporadically) and when the First World War broke out they stepped up the attacks
- Armenians exaggerated their losses in the late 1900s, probably as well in WWI - in an attempt to get Western powers to act on their behalf
- this was a civil war, not a genocide
- if we take words like that in our mouth, we could say that both sides engaged in ethnic cleansing, but I wouldn’t even go so far because the Ottoman government didn’t want Armenians to be killed, while the Armenian leaders were the ones telling their followers how to kill as many Turks as possible

on November 20, 2007 at 6:35 pm
9 Paul

“But I already told you yesterday: “Atrocities and Genocide Inflicted Upon Turks by Armenians” by Binark.”

OK, so you are quoting a book which strives to prove it wasn’t even civil war but GENOCIDE upon Turks by Armenians. Please, I don’t even think the serious Turkish propagandists claim this. The notion it was an Armenian Genocide of Turks is absurd and I think you acknowledge that, and yet you have no problem using quotes this guy produces even though he is clearly EXTREMELY biased.

“The reason only pro-Turkish websites publish this info is, wait for it, because they’re the only ones who take the time to investigate what Armenians did to Turks.”

Michael, there’s a thin line between the notion you push and the field of “nobody pays attention to this guy because he’s a quack”. How convenient, in this case nobody believing or paying attention to this guy’s work is proof of it being the absolute truth- when I bet in 99 examples about OTHER topics it’d be interpreted as just the opposite.
You believe it’s civil war- therefore anyone claiming genocide occured is a liar. Armenians are liars, according to you. These lying Armenians take quotes out of context or make them up in order to prove these events were genocide.
OK, so then what does that make Binark?

I just find this whole thing so comical because over and over I’ve tried to make you see how you have a double standard (you accept without question quotes which are utterly unsourced except by a guy who is trying to prove that it was a TURKISH GENOCIDE, and yet refuse to believe anything said by anyone who says it was Armenian Genocide. And yet you still continue to say you are unbiased and fair on this issue.) Sorry but the alleged quotes of third party foreigners (whose quotes, if real, necessarily were translated through at least one or two languages, often one being Turkish) being funneled through a blatant Turkish propagandist (what are his credentials as historian? I have found nothing but some close ties to the Turkish government. To you, close ties to the Armenian government would automatically color if not discredit the author, yet in the case of the Turkish side…) are far from compelling. It’s just so unfair you trust that unquestioningly and yet everything an Armenian Genocide proponent says is a lie. No matter how much you deny it, your bias is showing.

on November 20, 2007 at 6:40 pm
10 Michael van der Galiën

Paul: no, the only thing you have tried to do is to discredit everything - and I mean everything - that questions what you believe. You never respond to facts, you never say “well, yes that’s indeed terrible,” you act like a lawyer, and a bad one at that.

“No matter how much you deny it, your bias is showing.”

It’s unbelievable: let me repeat myself. I agree with Turks on this one. I don’t think it was genocide. I think that the violence came from both sides. I think that Armenians are just as guilty as Turks.

And… actually, the Armenians truly tried to kill off all Muslims living in the area they wanted for themselves. That’s impression I’m increasingly getting.

Having said that, because I’m not as easy as you are to call things genocide, I won’t call it genocide. I would call it ethnic cleansing.

What I find most remarkable is that you and many like you argue that the Armenians acted out of self-defense. That’s simply not true. They were the aggressors, there’s little doubt in my mind about that.

Having said that, aggression from one group doesn’t excuse aggression from the other. This means that the Turkish gangs and Kurds should’ve been punished for crimes against fellow civilians and even against humanity.

Same goes for the Armenians responsible for the killings of Turkish Muslims.

- the turks did indeed punish many of those responsible
- the armenians celebrate their criminals as heroes

see a difference there?

on November 20, 2007 at 6:54 pm
11 Paul

“And… actually, the Armenians truly tried to kill off all Muslims living in the area they wanted for themselves. That’s impression I’m increasingly getting.”

I am not going to give an opinion on this impression but let’s say it’s COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY TRUE.
Does that make everything Binark and Turkish propagandists say true? You seem to defend ALL of their views with the mantra of “Armenians wanted Turks dead in 1915″. Of course I am very much against your consistent lumping in the entire Armenian population into the revolutionary column, your consisntent resistence to answering my question of what kind of a threat the women and children were to the Turkish military that they needed to be sent on a clear death march for “security purposes”, and that you don’t take the autocratic and repressive nature of the Ottoman Empire in its final decades into account (all fault always lies with the oppressed, not the oppresser Abdul-Hamid II), let’s just say that ok Armenians wanted all the Turks dead.
Fine, but does that make all those quotes provided by a clearly biased Turkish source true? You continue to use your conclusion that it was civil war and not genocide to validate absolutely everything that any pro-Turk says on the issue. This is like running with scissors on the issue but you can’t care and go back around to just validate everything with the notion that Armenians killed Turks. Anyone can fabricate anything, and using a book that strives to prove it was Armenian Genocide of Turks to supply ALL your quotes is no different than using quotes found in some imaginary book published by an Armenian government official. They are both equally susceptible to forgeries, fabrications, and using quotes out of context. Your stubborn refusal to see this and continuous usage of Binark’s totally unverfied quotes as fact just because you believe his conclusion is beyond frusterating.

How is that any different than an Armenian taking some pro-genocide quote published by some Armenian attributed to some random official and saying “I agree Armenians were exterminated, therefore this quote is completely accurate”?? The answer: it’s not.

on November 20, 2007 at 7:12 pm
12 Michael van der Galiën

Are you just continuing to argue that way, or are you actually willing to accept that your ancestors did some ethnic cleansing of their own.

If so: shouldn’t they be condemned?

Oppression: researching authentic material quickly gives one the impression that they weren’t oppressed, but that they wanted to convince people they were so they gained support for their ’cause.’

No - the Ottoman Empire overreacted. It shouldn’t have relocated women and children. On the other hand, from a historical perspective I understand the overreaction. All the more so because the Ottoman government sent instructions to its officers not to harm the Armenians and to take care of them to the best of their abilities.

They even told them to make sure that the Armenians could live well in the lands they were relocated to.

How do I know that? Because various books - historical works, by (Western) historians - rely on Ottoman documents and explain it and because I own a copy of translations of Ottoman archives.

Does, was it genocide? No.

Did Turks and Kurds ignore the orders from their government and kill many innocent people? Yes, they did. They massacred them. And that was horrible. But ‘massacres’ doesn’t equal genocide - as you should know, for if it does, your ancestors are guilty of genocide (as well).

And then, then the dream of Great-Armenia will never become reality, will it?

on November 20, 2007 at 7:28 pm
13 Paul

“Are you just continuing to argue that way, or are you actually willing to accept that your ancestors did some ethnic cleansing of their own.”

Last I checked, most of my ancestors were actually in America at this time. A few of them who weren’t died on the death marches or were helped to escape by Turkish friends. Stop making this so personal, Turks and Armenians needs to learn to stop directly insinuating each others direct ancestors were murderers when this is about the wider races.

Meanwhile I have many times said it’s clear people died on both sides, why is this always about me allegedly not caring that Turks died or being unable to say I regret it. I regret the deaths of all civilians. I am saying the numbers are highly exaggerated and it’s funny how in all likelihood much of this was done by the Russian army and not Armenian irregulars and yet ALL of it is now attributed to those Armenians for political purposes.

“No - the Ottoman Empire overreacted. It shouldn’t have relocated women and children. On the other hand, from a historical perspective I understand the overreaction.”

Well that’s an opinion, and a pretty callous one seeing as I don’t care what revolutionaries are doing, we are talking about women and children and families.

All I’m saying here is that you take quotes provided by a Turkish official (doesn’t appear to have historian credentials) and say that every quote he says is correct because of your belief it was not genocide. A fair blog would make it clear that these quotes, which you assert as being direct, are actually from a book of Turkish propaganda. This does not mean they are all FALSE, but it does mean that they are NOT direct. There is no assurance that this non-historian publisher either took liberties with the translation, purposely took them out of context, or that the Turkish translations he got were bad (of which has been alleged about at least one source). Meanwhile he knowingly misrepresented Papazian as a historian when he was a politician talking about a 1933 dispute in America, so that’s a clear case of taking it out of context.
Even if everything he said is perfectly accurate, you owe it to your readers to acknowledge that you have NOT seen the
and that these many quotes which have helped to convince you it was not genocide do come from a publication of a Turkish government official, of whose best interest it is of course that it be proven that indeed it was an Armenian Genocide of Turks as he claims.
In fact, you should have already taken what he said with a grain of salt because of his aggressive thesis it was a genocide of Turks and offered a disclaimer. You need to be more careful whose work you accept (Shaw and Lewis are one thing, but who claims this official as a historian?!)

Basically you continue to not see the ethical problem of signing off as accurate every quote provided by a Turkish propagandist (without even seeing the originals for yourself, just his take on them) while summarily rejecting anything said by an Armenian.

on November 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm
14 P. Connolly

What I’m seeing in some of these posts above is more Armenian tunnel vision. In spite of all the historical ties to “Holy Russia” they would have us believe that as the “sick man” breathed his last breaths, as the Christian Powers -with their long history of demanding -and getting- “capitulations” - positioned themselves to deliver the coup de grace, all Armenians remained loyal subjects of the Sultan and these widely reported uprisings are all part of a Turkish plot or Turkish Propaganda.

All these posts have really succeeded in doing is attacking Michael on issues that really amount to technicalities. The fact of the matter is that even the best historians make small mistakes and later correct themselves. Arguing that the sources aren’t good enough because of relatively small problems with them is not a valid argument. If a few of them have larger problems that can be dealt with but the fact is that the key facts are available from multiple good sources. And we do not discount a source simply because he is Armenian or coming from the Armenian side of the debate. Only if an Armenian apologist argues something which is clearly not supported by outside facts do we reject it. When we speak of an Armenian Propaganda machine and the lies coming from it we’re talking about big lies. Like the deliberate, conscious attempt to conceal the fact that they are promoting a very loose interpretation of the word ‘genocide’ which can include all kinds of large-scale atrocities perpetrated by the so-called victim ethnic group. We’re talking about representing the “deportation” as something akin to Hitler’s deportation of Jews to the gas chamber when the facts of the situation clearly show otherwise – that’s lying Propaganda. When the Turks finally, after years of silence, stand up and try to defend themselves against such blatant lies and in the process make some mistakes - that’s not propaganda and it’s not necessarily bias either.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:01 pm
15 Paul

“All these posts have really succeeded in doing is attacking Michael on issues that really amount to technicalities.”

All I’m saying is that he accepts quotes found in a book by a Turkish official as gospel because they reconfirm his belief but ignores any and every quote or view of an Armenian as a lie. As I have pointed out there are numerous problems with and a total lack of confirmation regarding those found in the Turkish book, but he seems to argues that since they confirm his view- which is (to him) the absolute truth- they must be correct.
He should be applying the same standard of authenticity to both Armenian AND Turkish produced quotes, or at least be cognizant that there are motives to prove 1915 one thing or another on BOTH sides and that neither are immune from fabrication or deception- especially when it comes to these otherwise unverified quotes he uses so confidently.

“We’re talking about representing the “deportation” as something akin to Hitler’s deportation of Jews to the gas chamber when the facts of the situation clearly show otherwise”

I already said the two things are not equal- every situation is different and just because one mass death has these attributes and this one has different ones is not relevant. They are all different in their own ways- and furthermore since when is the standard for it being genocide gas chambers? There were no gas chambers in Rwanda, and in fact a lot of death and murder on both sides of that conflict as well. It’s still called genocide.
Meanwhile, I will point out that at Der Zor a lot of those who survived were put into caves and fires lit at their entrances. A video crew even went to the caves in today’s Syria and found it littered with bone fragments. Primative gas chambers? But this is neither here nor there, Michael does not hold Turkish sources to the same standard of Armenian sources because in his opinion the Turks are right. He also says the fact that no historian has ever used the quotes in question before is that nobody else has cared and it took a Turkish propagandist working for its government to uncover them and should be trusted 100% that they are completely accurate despite no proof that they are. Sorry but that won’t come even near close to being acceptable in academia.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:25 pm
16 P. Connolly

Regarding the statement above: “I am saying the numbers are highly exaggerated” - perhaps this is key to the issue. I would argue that it doesn’t take large numbers to create an extremely volatile situation under the circumstances. When we consider the fact that WW1 broke out in 1914 and the chaotic situation in Constantinople by 1915, and the breakdown of law and order in Eastern Anatolia, the situation becomes clearer. Looking at it from the point of view of the Turks at that time, we can scarcely think of any vulnerability more imminent than the threat from the the hereditary enemy of the Ottomans; Russia. Hindsight is 20-20 and we now know that there was a Russian Revolution in 1917 but in 1915 this could not have been forseen. As stated previously, it doesn’t take large numbers to create an extremely volatile situation under the circumstances. The Armenian side would have us ignore the fact that the leadership in Constantinople had every reason to be worried about developments in Eastern Anatolia; they would have us believe that the Turks just “wanted to get rid of” the Armenians and moved them for this “genocidal” purpose but the facts -both from the historical context and documentation- clearly show other motivations.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:31 pm
17 P. Connolly

Further on the “large numbers”: The term “civil war” has connotations which may be causing a difficulty here; I don’t use the term. It’s true that it would take “large numbers” to have a situation that could be called a “civil war” as the term is usually understood. But it doesn’t take large numbers to create an extremely volatile situation in circumstances like those that existed in Eastern Anatolia in 1915.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:37 pm
18 Nihat

The purpose of all the incidents and uprisings was to induce the European states to intervene in the domestic affairs of the Ottoman state.

This quote, attributed to a certain Papazian, is supposed to be a politician’s words “about a 1933 dispute in America.” How that is beats me.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:39 pm
19 Michael van der Galiën

This quote, attributed to a certain Papazian, is supposed to be a politician’s words “about a 1933 dispute in America.” How that is beats me.

Umh, what?

on November 20, 2007 at 8:41 pm
20 Berge

1) Who did not rebel against the Ottoman Empire?

Greeks rebelled, Bulgarians rebelled, Romanians rebelled, Serbians rebelled, Arabs in Syria and Lebanon rebelled, Arabs in Mesopotamia and elsewhere rebelled, Egyptians and others rebelled, Albanians, Macedonians, even the YOUNG TURKS rebelled against the Ottoman Empire, and what is so different about Armenians?

2) Turks in the Russian Empire rebelled against the Russians and sided with the Ottoman Empire.

Like many ethnic groups spread across empires, Turks living in the Russian Empire rebelled against the Russians and sided with the Ottoman Turkish empire fighting the Russians.

Armenians who were subject to the Russian Empire were mostly loyal to the Russian Empire just as Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were loyal to it.

3) American rebellion against the British Empire

The US revolution started in New England when the British levied heavy taxes on the colonials, among other oppressive British rule on the colonials - the result was a REVOLUTION - REBELLION - that threw the British back across the Atlantic back where they came from.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:44 pm
21 Nihat

Shoot!.. Are you echoing, or was I not clear, Michael? That’s what Paul claims.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:46 pm
22 Michael van der Galiën

Echoing

on November 20, 2007 at 8:51 pm
23 Vahe

Hi Again Micheal,

You still haven’y clarified where you got information on the EU parliament genocide resolution being cancelled. You were wrong on the issue but you reiterated it several times on your blog. The only sources carrying the article was the Azeri press agency and Anti Armenian sites. They were as you were 100% wrong. If you/your sources can’t be relied upon in present history can you be relied upon for past history?

Have you noticed that the number of people replying on your blogs on this subject are only a handful?

AS I said in a previous entry you are perhaps purposefully being quoted and refered to in anti Armenian sites as if you are somebody who has spent his career on studying the subject. You are young and think perhaps everyhing is not only a game, but importantly everything on the internet is true. The only people who are currently reading your articles and are taking them seriously are the Turkish ultranationalists - you are doing more damage than anything else. If you want to know the truth do everything you can for freedom of speech in Turkey! Why are historians in Turkey not allowed to discuss the word genocide in the Armenian context?

All you have been doing in your articles is try to come up with a clear reason why the Armenians were such a great danger, you are looking for excuses, for reasons, for ‘mitigating circumstances’ for what hapened to the Armenians and in a way the Turks were right in doing what they did. You are only prolonging the whole issue, not solving anything. When people inside Turkey can talk openly about any subject then you will get your truth in the mean time I hope you have more sense before you start using your ‘copy’ and ‘paste’ icons.

on November 20, 2007 at 8:58 pm
24 Michael van der Galiën

O please cut the crap. I backed that up and I’m not getting back at it. You’re purposefully lying about the EU - as so many of your fellow lobbyists do.

In fact, you should e-mail Brussels once. Or look at the latest ‘demands’ for Turkey. No ‘recognition’ demand.

But you continue to lie, and lie, and lie. I linked to Dutch sources, but you continue to lie. You’re part of the lobby. That’s fine, but I’m not going to argue with extreme nationalists like you.

Also stop complaining about 301: it’s being amended, everyone knows that. What not everyone knows, however, is that Armenia has its own 301s, doesn’t it? Not everybody knows either that you guys have been bombing homes of professors who dared to disagree. What not everyone knows is that Armenian terrorists have tried to kill those who disagree with them. What not everyone knows is that sometimes people need protection - who live in free countries - because some Armenians find it necessary to threaten to kill them.

of course, you talk about Hrant Dink and you’re right that it’s horrible what happened to him… but you conveniently forget to mention that - once again - your own side has a history of using violence, threats and blackmail.

I know what you’re doing and it’s not working. The truth will come out and your side will lose. Why? Because you can only lie and distort for so long. Now you see people who know the truth speak out.

That didn’t happen for a long time, but now it is.

BTW: weren’t you banned?

on November 20, 2007 at 9:20 pm
25 Paul

“This quote, attributed to a certain Papazian, is supposed to be a politician’s words “about a 1933 dispute in America.” How that is beats me.”

1. The book in which it is found is a political treatise, not a work by a historian as is claimed by Michael via Binark.
2. It was a work which came out of a bitter dispute in America of the Ramgavar political party vs. the Tashnag political party. Accepting it as an unbiased historical account of exactly what the Tashnags would be like letting Rush Limbaugh write a book on Al Gore- except the Tashnag-Ramgavar feud was so fierce it probably would have made Gore vs. Rush look like a walk in the park.
3. The quote, taken out of its context, leaves more questions than answers. One is left wondering which uprisings he is talking about and to what degree, we aren’t able to see what he was talking about- however as I said as it is a political treatise against another party we can’t exactly take what he says as gospel.
But don’t take my word for it.
A quick search on Google for the book where the quote originated, Patriotism Perverted, brings up a review found in the JSTOR database of this book. It was published in International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939), Vol. 14, No. 4 (Jul. - Aug., 1935), pp. 584-586 by George F. Gracey and can be found here:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1473-8104(193507%2F08)14%3A4%3C584%3APP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-%23

It begins: “Mr. K. S. Papazian in Patriotism Perverted brings a terrible indictment against the society called Dachnakist. The arguements he brings forth are so overloaded and exaggerated that they defeat their own ends, and the book leaves the impression that it was not written with the idea of being helpful and constructive, or to give the outsider an insight into Armenian problems, but rather with the view of airing a grievance.”

Now do you see my point about this haphazard quoting? Anyone can find enough quotes to argue ANYTHING they want by hunting and pecking in enough sources, even this one quote *gasp!* by an Armenian. The obvious problem with this rationale AS I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG is that by merely giving quotes, we are not only devoid of their context but also without real knowledge of what it’s all about or motives behind it. I find this to be a quite elementary fact of academia, and am exasperated that you continue to rail against this fact of life- but there you go. If I haven’t driven the point home yet there’s clearly hope.
Propaganda is a two way street! Both sides can be guilty! Quit unthinkingly accepting everything from one side without verification and using it as a means to automatically refute and ignore absolutely everything from the opposite side! This isn’t called critical thinking it’s called partisan hackery and undermines your (allegedly) more impartial and even-handed view of the events surrounding 1915.

on November 20, 2007 at 9:37 pm
26 Vahe

Before you get too upset - I do not belong to any lobby group nor to any Armenian group what so ever, Most of my friends now are actually English/European. Don’t jump to conclusions just because I am debating with you. Actually you couldn’t be further from the truth.

I don’t think this issue is about winning or losing - There are and will be no winners on this issue there will only be loosers. Which ever side is right.

In the above I did not say what the truth would be, please read it agian. All I said is that freedom of speech has to happen before the truth is known and this issue is resolved that is the only way. You are perhaps too young to remember that before 301 there was another law I think 189 or something like that. 301 was supposed to have been different , but it is still the same. Also perhaps you are not aware that the offices and homes of writers/publishers/human rights activists in Turkey have been and are regularly firebombed and they and their families are threatened. I hope that this time the law will truly change.

With regard to the EU recognition, we both know what you said. It was the EU recognition of the Genocide. I know the eu parliaments recognition and its demand on Turkey to recognise it (and yes it does not require it to do so now). they are two different things. The EU parliamnets recognition still stands, but it no longer requires Turkey to recgnise it before entry, that I agree, but you didn’t say this you infered that it was the EU parliaments recognition.One respondee said that it was only recognition before entry, but you reiterated that it was the actual recognition that had taken place in 1987, but had now not passed, please don’t call me a liar. You did not refer to a site, but instead wrote a sentence in Dutch and translated it. I have not insulted you in any way please do not do so to me.
And no I have not been banned. If you keep banning everybody who does not agree with you, you will only end up with yourself on the blog.

I am very disappointed that no one talks about the 300,000 plus Christian Assyrians that were killed during the period, could you please discuss them as well.

on November 20, 2007 at 9:45 pm
27 Michael van der Galiën

You continue to lie.

From 29-09-2006, blog of the Dutch newspaper the Volkskrant, the Volkskrantblog:
“Het Europees Parlement wenst historisch onderzoek naar de vermeende genocide op Ottomaanse Armenen in de periode 1915-1917. Dit heeft het Parlement eergisteren besloten. Hiermee komt het Parlement terug op zijn standpunt dat het vaststaat dat het Ottomaanse Rijk genocide heeft gepleegd op zijn Armeense onderdanen. Het Parlement laat verder vallen de eis dat Turkije deze genocide moet erkennen alvorens toe te kunnen treden tot de Europese Unie.”

Translation:
“The European Parliament wishes that a historical research is conducted about the alleged genocide on Ottoman Armenians in the period 1915-1917. The Parliament decided this the day before yesterday. With this decision, the Parliament retracts its earlier opinion that it’s without doubt that the Ottoman Empire committed a genocide on its Armenian subjects. Furthermore, the Parliament drops the demand that Turkey has to recognize this genocide if it wants to join the European Union.”

Azeri newspaper my ass.

on November 20, 2007 at 9:48 pm
28 Nihat

OK, clear now. By the way, I don’t think a politicians’s words are of lesser value than those of an historian. Also, is this Patriotism Perverted by Papazian the book that is alleged to have been systematically removed from American libraries? For the terrible indictment it brought against the Armenian cause?

on November 20, 2007 at 9:49 pm
29 Michael van der Galiën

Perhaps it’s useful to point out that a legal study conducted in 2003, at the order of the Center for Transnational Study concluded that what happened can’t be brought to court on genocide charges.

This is one of the reasons that the UN doesn’t vote in favor of a resolution calling what happened a genocide.

Of course, you don’t care about facts, do you?

on November 20, 2007 at 10:05 pm
30 Michael van der Galiën

Nihat: are you sure that they banned books? I mean, it’s not as if they blow up homes of professors, say the one of Shaw…

O, wait…

Ok, let me give you a better example: it’s not as if they sent death threats to bloggers who disagree with them…

O, wait…

Ok, the best one: it’s not as if they routinely use false information, even when they know it’s false…

O, wait…

Screw it.

on November 20, 2007 at 10:07 pm
31 Paul

Perhaps it’s useful to point out that a legal study conducted in 2003, at the order of the Center for Transnational Study concluded that what happened meets all the qualifications and requirements of a genocide.

Kind of ironic you’d dare to cite it then Michael…

“I don’t think a politicians’s words are of lesser value than those of an historian.”

So Rush Limbaugh and Samantha Power or Bernard Lewis are equally qualified to talk about Ottoman history?
I thought the whole Turkish arguement was “LET THE HISTORIANS DECIDE, NOT THE POLITICIANS”. Suddenly they’re equals? Did you not read the review of the book which said it was just a bunch of exaggerated partisan hackery??!

on November 20, 2007 at 10:12 pm
32 Richard

Actually the study was in 2002 and it was done by the International Center for Transitional Justice
http://www.ictj.org .

The ICTJ opinion was essentially that the Genocide Convention could not apply retroactively (i.e. to events prior to 1951) but that the events in question would fall within the definition of genocide as: ”.. viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them”. http://www.genocidewatch.org/TurkeyArmeniaREPORTOFTHETARC.htm

on November 20, 2007 at 10:14 pm
33 Michael van der Galiën

So Richard, please inform me: what’s the strategy now (obviously partially wrong conclusion of the ICTJ, but hey, they’re on the right track)? Forcing Turkey to give up lands under international pressure cause you can’t do it in court?

O wait… yep that is the new strategy.

on November 20, 2007 at 10:34 pm
34 Nihat

Paul, you’re being disingenious in #31 (and maybe in general). Limbaugh and Power are not politicians, they are pundits. They (or modern-day politicians who are removed from the events in both time and place) cannot be equated to Papazian, an Armenian politician/player involved in the struggles, can they? This stikes me as a lame attempt to bury what Papazian said in noise. (Not that I think he should be taken as all-explaining, or his context should be ignored…)

on November 20, 2007 at 10:40 pm
35 P. Connolly

I think that the reason Michael mentioned the ICTJ’s finding was for the legal part of it. Just as one would go to a lawyer and ask “should I bring this case to court”, some folks thought they would pose the question to a group of lawyers as to whether - based on what they knew of the legal footing - they would think it would be possible to bring the case before the ICJ.

In my view, their opinion saying that “the events can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them” constitutes a wide deviation from their sphere of jurisdiction and the statement is about as authoritative as it would have been had it come from a meeting of the Boy Scouts of America.

In effect it is like their saying that “no this issue cannot be brought before the ICJ but if we were justices of the ICJ we would decide as follows…”. The only question they were at all qualified to comment on was the question of whether the case would even be able to be brought before the ICJ, not on whether the historical circumstances constituted “genocide” as defined in the convention. That’s a question which the justices of the ICJ would have had to make after evidence and arguments were fully examined according to the procedures of the court.

on November 20, 2007 at 10:41 pm
36 Richard

Clearly Turkey will not give up land even under pressure. This does not mean that individuals and institutions (e.g. churches, schools) cannot recover property or at least receive compensation or damages. The life insurance settlements, most recently with Axa but earlier also with New York Life, are an example.

The Ottoman property registers are likely to provide interesting case material as there is research going on now into the wholesale confiscation of Armenian property at the time of the genocide.

on November 20, 2007 at 10:43 pm
37 Nihat

Re: “Did you not read the review of the book which said it was just a bunch of exaggerated partisan hackery??!”

Firstly, I am always interested in ‘exaggerated partisan hackery’ not directed at my side. Why not? Right? Or, do you not cherish Turkish romantics?

Secondly, where can I find the original of this ‘exaggerated partisan hackery’? Can I find it? Or, should I be content with the aforementioned review?

on November 20, 2007 at 10:45 pm
38 Michael van der Galiën

Richard: I believe that it would be a major mistake for Turkey to give anything. ARmenians rebelled, the consequences are theirs. What’s more, they themselves took possession of properties of Turkish Muslims when they could.

Trading cows for cows isn’t useful.

Sadly, this is what happens in a civil war. In the end, as always, both sides lose.

It was the result of their violence and rebellion. They did the same thing to Turks…

Done.

Both sides suffered, done.

on November 20, 2007 at 10:48 pm
39 Paul

But you don’t even know who Papazian is Nihat! Of course he’s a pundit! He’s commenting on the events and taking aside- I never said he was a major party leader or player on one of those sides. It’s just so ridiculous that we are even discussing him, since NOBODY knows who he is to begin with! Everyone is commenting on 1933 and a political struggle in the US without knowing anything about it and are clearly making assumptions about Mr. Papazian’s qualifications without even knowing who he is.
As I have made clear from the review, Papazian was not a party leader but a partisan hack for his side of the debate. Tensions were at their highest at the time of it’s publishing and it’s aim was to smear the other side as much as possible. What I am railing against here is the need to canonize works such as this into the historiography of 1915 up there with works by Lewis, Shaw, and other real historians. As I have pointed out numerous times there’s clearly not any credibility to this work and it should be considered within its context, but you Nihat are squirming around attempting to find any possible way to canonize Papazian- even going to the point of claiming that the works of politicians (or in this case an obvious partisan hack) are EQUAL to that of historical research. It’s just ridiculous! Admitting these quotes are bunk, or at least not credible, will NOT sink your whole point so stop trying to defend absolutely every little part of it, just like Michael.
Meanwhile Michael hasn’t responded to my many revelations on Papazian amongst others at all, since I’ve clearly proven them unreliable and not true historical works.

on November 20, 2007 at 10:55 pm
40 Michael van der Galiën

Paul: I don’t respond because it’s all you do. Poke holes, ignore the substance.

Utterly amazing.

Me thinks you’re a lawyer (and yes, lawyers take obvious sides).

on November 20, 2007 at 11:25 pm
41 Nihat

Paul, upon your first explanation (#25) of what you meant, I said (#28) “OK, clear now,” didn’t I? I am not working to canonize anything into the historiography. I am not a historian. You don’t know me, so please don’t attribute stuff to me (like I am squirming to… whatever) in your zeal to prove Michael wrong, or whatever. Bottomline is, you don’t know how fair I can be, or how independent-minded I am. Or, any Turk you happen to get in an argument with, for that matter. So hold your horses…

If Papazian was a party hack, so be it. But the problem is, he said what he said in 1933, not in 2007. Furthermore, what he said is not something that remains uncorroborated. So it is not terribly important but of natural interest to me. Again, not that I am poised to assume him to be all-explaining, or ignore his context or who he was. But again, you don’t even like the idea that I should be able to judge that for myself.

Enough said about this Papazian guy. I am not going to carry on about this point any more. I think, Connolly was right: in essence, this is a technicality.

on November 20, 2007 at 11:38 pm
42 Paul

Sorry that I missed the OK, clear, but with such a mass of text that is the comments section it’s hard to miss little things like that. I’m not trying to crusade, I’m trying to make my point which was stated from the beginning clear, nobody seems to get it though.

on November 21, 2007 at 12:56 am
43 John Anderson

admin: accusations that all disagreement must be the result of bribery/corruption are not welcome here

on November 21, 2007 at 1:17 am
44 Areen

admin: as I warned several times before, those who bring others’ personal lives into the discussion OR accuse others of being bought/bribed will be banned. Also, those who evade previous bans will be immediately re-banned without notice as soon as they are detected.

It is remarkable how many people seem unable to obey simple rules of basic civility here. The more people I have to ban, the more you undermine your own cause.

on November 21, 2007 at 2:19 am
45 Gökalp

The so-called millions of dollars that Turkish government spends to “suppress discussion” are simply non-existent. Except for the money that Turkey spent for lobbying in the USA, which is around 1.5 million dollars.

While even only the “traceable” money that the Armenian lobby spend is much much more than this sum. Here is a link for those who are interested.

http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/10/2111-armenian-assembly-of-america-tax.html

Not hear say! official stuff! More than 10.million dollars spent for supporting USA politicians. Now imagine the amount of money spent for other lobby work, publishing, advertising, supporting universities, supporting NGOs and so on.

on November 21, 2007 at 3:07 am
46 Gökalp

I can not understand the fuss about Papasian. Armenian revolutionary groups were aware of the ups and downs of a European intervention and tired to use the European powers for their benefit. They wanted a European intervention that will give them an independent Armenia. And as the history clearly documents they ended up being a victim just like any other Revolutionary organization that asked for help from outside powers.

If you think Papasian is not credible here is Nalbandian. “The Armenian Revolutionary Movement - The Development of Armenian Political Parties through the Nineteenth Century”. This books is a priceless work that unmasks the so called Hamidiyeh massacres, Clearly documenting that all of the events were started by Armenian revolutionaries.

Page 8
The first editorial of the Hunchak appealed to its readers to join the party and spread revolutionary activity. Although the ideology of the party was socialistic, help from the
capitalist European Powers was to be accepted if any was forthcoming.

Page 10
The Hunchaks believed that the Demonstration of Kum Kapu, though in some degree a failure, had nonetheless served to arouse the European Powers in regard to the
Armenian Question. The Hunchak wrote that England and Russia were vitally concerned with the whole Eastern Question, but could not agree between themselves
about it. England wished to control Crete, and Russia was desirous of adding Turkish Armenia to its own territory. The Hunchaks opposed Russian territorial aims and
insisted on a completely independent Armenia. They would reject any European proposals that were contrary to that supreme objective, and declared themselves ready
to shed their “last drop of blood” for the cause.

(HERE IS A KEY PART that summarises everything)
How much blood was to be sacrificed for the revolution and who were to die for the cause - only a few Hunchak revolutionaries or numerous Armenian inhabitants of the interior provinces? What would be the value of an independent country whose people had been nearly wiped out in the revolutionary process? The opponents of the Hunchaks were not willing to see a large part of their nation destroyed in order that the Hunchaks might attain a dubious political goal. But the Hunchaks were not to be deterred.

Page 12
The Hunchaks considered the Sassun Rebellion a great victory for their party as well as for the Armenian cause. They believed that because of their revolutionary activities,
particularly in Sassun, the European Powers at last had recognized the crying need for reforms in Armenia. On May 11, 1895, indeed, Great Britain, France, and Russia sent a
memorandum to Sultan Abdul Hamid II urging reforms in the six Turkish Armenian provinces.

Page 15
The Hunchaks relied in vain on the European Powers to use coercive measures against the Sultan for the purpose of making him put into effect the Armenian Reform Program
which he had signed in October, 1895. The activities of the Hunchaks had only helped to enrage Sultan Abdul Hamid II, who already hated the Armenians and feared that they,
like the Balkan countries, would obtain their freedom.

****
Here is the link to the official site of SOCIAL DEMOCRAT HUNCHAKIAN PARTY they proudly document their revolutionary history. Still some people are trying to disregard or hide these…

http://www.hunchak.org.au/aboutus/historical_nalbandian.html

on November 21, 2007 at 3:27 am
47 Nihat

Gokalp, what, if anything, do you know about the armenians-1915.blogspot.com site? Are the people behind it really Turkish Armenians? (The “about us” section doesn’t say enough.)

on November 21, 2007 at 4:16 am
48 Kathy

Kathy: I’ve stopped debating this with you already because you purposefully misinterprete and twist what I write.

No problem, Michael, I understand. And thank you for answering my questions, although I know you were answering them “for the others,” not for me.

To confirm my understanding of what you believe:

1. Only about 300,000 Armenians were killed in Turkey between 1915 and 1918. The estimates of 1.5 million Armenian deaths are false.

Question: How do you explain the mathematics of the situation? If only 300,000 Armenians were killed (at most), and if there were about 2.5 million Armenians in Turkey at the start of WWI, and if after the war only about one million were left, what happened to the extra 1,200,000 who are unaccounted for? Or were there actually 2,200,000 Armenians still living in Turkey at war’s end? Please tell me if I have the arithmetic wrong. Math was never my best subject.

2. There were no mass deportations of Armenians; Armenians were not forced into death marches ending in the desert where they were left to die. OR, there were such deportations and marches to the desert, but the Turks carrying them out did not want or intend for the Armenians to die. And the government didn’t know it was happening. (I’m not sure which one is your position.)

3. The Young Turk Triumvirate — the minister of the interior, Mehmed Talat Pasha (1874–1921), the minister of war, Ismail Enver, (1881–1922) and the minister of the Navy, Ahmed Djemal, (1872–1922) — did not order the mass murders of Armenians. They did not have or communicate any plan to eliminate the entire Armenian population in Turkey (by a combination of murder and deportation). They did not want Armenians to die or to be driven out of Turkey. They tried to punish Turks who killed or harmed Armenians.

Question: Why did the Young Turks flee Turkey after the Allies won WWI and the Ottoman Empire ended? Why did Turkey’s military court try them in absentia during 1919 and 1920? What were the charges against them? Did they come back to Turkey and try to prove that they had made every effort to save Armenian lives? Was this point ever proved at all, apart from unsubstantiated claims that have no legal standing?

It seems to me that the only way you can make the case that Armenians and Turks were equally responsible for mass murder, or that just as many innocent Turkish civilians were killed and tortured by Armenians as the reverse, is by sticking to that belief that only about 300,000 Armenians were killed. If you were to agree that roughly 1.5 million Armenians were killed, and that tens of thousands of these died of thirst, starvation, and exposure in the desert where they were left to die, your case would fall apart. Because, first, it would be obvious that an overwhelmingly higher percentage of the Armenian population died than of the Turkish population, and because, second, you could not credibly make a case for the Armenian murders being committed by gangs acting on their own without the knowledge or consent of the Three Pashas, if two-thirds of the entire Armenian population in Turkey at the time was murdered. Even the most diligent gangs might be hard-pressed to accomplish that without the government knowing and approving.

on November 21, 2007 at 2:19 pm
49 Gökalp

Dear Nihat

Yes there are Turkish Armenians and Turkish Turks who are runnig the site. But because of obvious reasons that Michael already experienced almost all of them use fake names.

on November 21, 2007 at 2:52 pm
50 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy this is my last response to you.

1. You once again purposefully distort my words. 300,000? Did I say that? I remember me touting a much higher number.

2. No deportations? Again distortion. I remember saying there were. Government didn’t know about it? Yes they did actually. I already said that as well. In fact, that’s exactly why they sent out instructions to the ones leading the deportations calling on them to protect the Armenian deportees and telling them that all those who don’t defend them will be punished by military tribunals.

3.The ones truly in charge of the government indeed opposed it. What individuals did doesn’t ‘destroy’ my case. Furthermore, if the actual government wanted the ARmenian deportees to be killed, they would not have punished those who did the killing (some fled, yes, others were actually executed by the Turks).

Kathy: you lie and distort constantly. It’s not relevant whether relatively more Armenians died or not. Relatively more Germans died during WWII than Americans, does that mean that Germans were right and the Americans wrong? Relative more Germans (and absolutely of course) than Dutch died, does that mean that the Germans were right to terrorize our country and kill many innocent people in their quest for racial purity and that the Dutch, therefore, should be condemned? What matters is whether the Ottoman government had the intention to commit genocide. Answer: no. What matters is whether gangs and soldiers acting on their own killed Armenians. Answer yes. Does that make genocide? No. It makes massacres, Jason calls this ethnic cleansing, which is indeed more acceptable than genocide.

What matters is whether the Armenian rebels had the intention to commit genocide and conducted ethnic cleansing. The answer: yes.

What matters is whether Armenians rebelled before the deportations and destroyed entire Muslim villages.

What matters is whether Armenians, during World War, stabbed the Empire in the back and launched even greater rebellions, during which they tried to wipe out the Muslim population of many villages.

What matters is that Armenians, once the allies were winning, stepped up their criminal acts of ethnic cleaning and killed hundreds of thousands of Turks.

What matters is that when the Armenians were winning, they slaughtered many innocent Jews simply because they weren’t Christian.

What matters is that the Armenian criminals who committed all the above were and still are celebrated as heroes, instead of condemned as the criminals they were.

What matters is that the Armenian lobby tried to get back lands and force the Turks to pay them ‘damages’ while they themselves destroyed Turkish villages, wiped out entire populations, and raped all the women they could get their hands on, as reported by British, French, Russian and other officers and individuals.

What matters is that both sides suffered tremendously, but that your side refuses to acknowledge that the Turks suffered because of the criminal behavior of Armenian terrorists.

What matters is that when someone speaks out and gives fact, you simply ignore them and go in the attack.

What matters is that Armenian terrorists in the late 20th century tried to kill those who dared disagree with their distorted version of history.

What matters is that you have no idea what you’re talking about, yet pretend that you do.

What matters is that actual historians are happily ignored by people such as yourself, while fake historians like Taner Akçam are touted as experts.

What matters is that you refuse to understand - even when the evidence is handed to you on a silver platter - that the situation was more complicated than the Armenian lobby likes to pretend.

What matters is that the Armenian lobby continues to spread its lies and propaganda and tries to silence all those who contradict them.

What matters is that we say racism, bigotry and prejudice still at work. For people like yourself and especially of the Armenian lobby, Muslim lives don’t count. Which results in me getting comments and e-mail from some Armenian individuals who inform me that reading what their ancestors did to innocent Muslims is greatly entertaining to them.

What matters is that the Turks understand that although quite some ancestors of today’s Armenians committed horrible crimes, they can’t possibly hold today’s Armenians responsible while many Armenians are not quite so open-minded.

What matters is that I have yet to meet a Turk who hates Armenians, while I’ve run into quite some Armenians who hate Turks.

What matters is that you endorse a case and a lobby which is (partially) based on injustice, ignoring history, distorting history, prejudice and hatred for Muslim Turks.

What matters is… well, that I won’t debate with someone like yourself who purposefully distorts what I’ve said.

I believe there’s a word for that: a liar.

To others: the ’some Armenians’ etc. I talk about are obviously the extreme nationalistic individuals, some of who have already been banned at this blog. I don’t mean all Armenians or even most Armenians. Only those who made it their goal in life to get the world to ‘recognize’ what happened as a genocide… by any means necessary.

There are many other Armenians out there, who take a less aggressive approach than before mentioned extremists. These people might actually, once, be the solution to this historical problem: for these are the ones who may reach out to the other side, and the other side to them, and forgive each other(’s side).

The other ones, however, aren’t in it for ‘forgiveness’ and ‘understanding.’ They’re in it for material gains and because of hatred for all things Turk.

on November 21, 2007 at 2:55 pm
51 Michael van der Galiën

Gokalp, what, if anything, do you know about the armenians-1915.blogspot.com site? Are the people behind it really Turkish Armenians? (The “about us” section doesn’t say enough.)

Turkish-Armenians, yes (and ‘normal’ Turks ;)).

For obvious reasons, they’re anonymous.

on November 21, 2007 at 7:45 pm
52 Vahe

OK after this I’m not coming back!
Just for your info Micheal, re EU:

http://www.turkishweekly.net/news.php?id=49559

Don’t call people you dont know liars, I am old enough to be your father!

on November 21, 2007 at 8:02 pm
53 Michael van der Galiën

Vahe, yes, please don’t come back. Unlike what you probably hoped I and others would do, the article simply repeats that it’s not a claim and doesn’t say that the EU changed its position vis-a-vis 2006.

In other words: yes Vahe, it’s really true, the EU doesn’t recognize what happened to the Armenians as genocide.

And rightfully so.

on November 21, 2007 at 8:06 pm
54 Michael van der Galiën

To those who don’t want to take the time to click on the link (as the liar who’s old enough to be my father probably hopes):

Like Ruijten, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has recently made it clear that “the EU is against politicization of delicate issues,” such as the Armenian issue.

Then when asked for his personal opinion, “the commission’s vice president, Franco Frattini […] said there have been different opinions within the commission regarding the issue. ‘Recognition [of the Armenian allegations] will be the first step towards compromise [between Armenia and Turkey],’ he told reporters when asked his personal opinion.”

In other words:
Official policy is no recognition
Personal opinion of Frattini is that he basically agrees with the Armenians but even he points out that other members of the commission disagree with him.

Please continue to lie Vahe. Sadly, when you even provide the link yourself, people can quickly prove that you’re lying.

on November 21, 2007 at 8:38 pm
55 Prims

Michael, what I don’t get it is until when you are planning to stick with this propaganda? The time has finally came for justice to prevail. For so long 90yrs Turks did such a good job by covering up everything that happened. now since the cat is out of the bag are you seriously thinking that you still have a chance to mislead people? Turkish propaganda kept everything shut and away from everyone’s ear for so long…since Armenia was a Soviet republic and didn’t get to have a say in anything. But times have changed and the truth can stay hidden for so long….eventually it will come yo surface.
So deal with it!!!

on November 21, 2007 at 8:55 pm
56 Michael van der Galiën

Prims: the ones truly spreading the propaganda are the Armenian lobbyists. You and I both know that.

But we do agree on one thing: the truth will prevail in the end.

Bad news for you of course, but that happens when you purposefully distort history because you’re bigoted.

on November 21, 2007 at 9:12 pm
57 Haleb1

The Turkish government spends hundreds of thousands of dollars per month on major firms (Fleishman Hillard, Livingston, DLA Piper) plus the collective forces of the United States government including the President, the State Department, the Defense Department, the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs and all of their staffers and Congressional liaisons that lobby against the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

Note again how I am not attacking anyone personally here so I would appreciate this being permitted to be posted in the interests of fairness and goodwill.

A neutral observation may reveal that grassroots activists of the Armenian American community with organizational budgets that are pennies compared to the above resources may convince some to “reanalyze” their positions on who has the power to influence what and who is spreading and paying for the propaganda.

on November 21, 2007 at 9:22 pm
58 Michael van der Galiën

“pennies”

MUWHAHAHAHA

That’s hilarious. Tell me, how much did they pay Akçam? Pray tell.

Just stop it.

And yes, getting the truth out is expensive. But in the end the Armenian lobby will lose this battle for their case is based on lies, distortions, hatred and misinformation.

on November 21, 2007 at 9:33 pm
59 Haleb2

Check it out - it’s all at the Department of Justice - remember you have to register if you are hired by a foreign government to lobby. You know that whole influencing the internal processes of government from the outside anti-democratic type thing…

on November 21, 2007 at 9:39 pm
60 Haleb3

Also check out http://www.gunes.com/ - can anyone translate for me? All I can understand is that big map which extends beyond Turkey’s borders…

on November 21, 2007 at 9:47 pm
61 Haleb4

Hey man - I play fair - just tellin’ it like it is - although I must admit - I am a bit surprised how Armenia, a small nation with no water access or natural resources is somehow equated to the level of a regional power like Turkey in terms of what can be done politically. This is a staggering conceptual proposition that defies logic.

The only thing Armenians have is truth (please reference the aforementioned himalayan evidence on the Armenian Genocide). Of course that counts for something, but so do the forces of 2 governments and their lobby firms.

on November 21, 2007 at 9:49 pm
62 Michael van der Galiën

LMAO!

Why is it you call yourself Haleb1, Haleb2, etc.?

on November 21, 2007 at 9:50 pm
63 Michael van der Galiën

You are funny.

on November 21, 2007 at 9:51 pm
64 sooriyeh

What is funny about genocide? I think that personally, what is sad is how it is denied still to this day… Let’s examine what it was - The Ottoman Empire suffered embarrassing and humiliating defeats in Europe as the Christian groups pushed them out. This anger and shame was then projected onto the Armenians and other Christians of the interior. Root them out, clean house and protect the Turkish “nation” - it was done and there is substantial, overwhelming historical evidence to prove this…the forces of the state apparatus were levied upon the Armenians and others like an anvil on an ant.

on November 21, 2007 at 9:51 pm
65 Michael van der Galiën

And yes, the Armenian lobby (you) invests bigtime. They go after politicians, professors, etc. etc. And don’t give me that “no natural resources, etc.” crap.

Armenia isn’t the innocent nice country you pretend it is. It’s founded on lies, and one of its main foreign policies is to get the world to accept their claims with regards to the first World War.

How about those… one million I believe, Azeris living in oppression / camps huh?

That’s alright of course, they’re not Christians.

And what about actual historians being persecuted by you and your buddies? What about the attempt to even kill professors? What about the 75, I believe, individuals who were killed by Armenian extremists, simply because they disagreed with them about what happened in 1915-1917?

on November 21, 2007 at 9:54 pm
66 Michael van der Galiën

What is funny about genocide? I think that personally, what is sad is how it is denied still to this day… Let’s examine what it was - The Ottoman Empire suffered embarrassing and humiliating defeats in Europe as the Christian groups pushed them out. This anger and shame was then projected onto the Armenians and other Christians of the interior. Root them out, clean house and protect the Turkish “nation” - it was done and there is substantial, overwhelming historical evidence to prove this…the forces of the state apparatus were levied upon the Armenians and others like an anvil on an ant.

In fact, historians point out the opposite. You and your gang have tried to convince the world that you can back up your case by ’science.’ Sadly, however, that ’science’ relies on non-scientific approaches, distortions and outright lies.

Let Armenia open its archives! Lets the Zorian institute open its archives!

That won’t happen for quite a while of course. Letting people do research will quickly prove that the Armenians, indeed, systematically tried to kill Turkish Muslims.

But the truth will come out once upon a time. And then people will realize just how terrible the Armenian lobby lied.

The Turks will win. Why? Because they’ve got they’re telling the truth and can prove it.

I’m already sharing evidence with those who care to read these posts, while you all continue to lie (see that Vahe person, well, or your own comment of course). More people will do this in the coming years, simply because they will find out the truth and want to share it with the world.

Well, you had your heyday, didn’t you?

By the way: when will you and others like you apologize to Turkey for your ancestor’s criminal behavior? Will you apologize for their having committed ethnic cleansing?

While we’re at it, when will you all start offering the Turkish families who suffered money for damages?

on November 21, 2007 at 9:59 pm
67 damascus

I just read history and know the truth. If you qualify as such because of my opinions, I guess you are the Turkish lobby then (just extrapolating your accusation)?

Regarding “innocent Armenia” - I am not pretending about any country doing anything - I assume you are referencing comments above regarding equating isolated acts of hatred with a state - sponsored genocidal campaign which Turkey hopes would draw attention away from the systematic genocidal slaughter?

The “natural resources crap” was mentioned to help draw the conceptual framework of what denialists say - demonizing and villifying the minority and entity that has no real power…ironically enough because they were erased from the map in 1915. The Turkish government has tried this ad nauseum with the Kurds - but unfortunately for Turkey the Kurds have power and money and access to oil - so pointing fingers at them as “terrorists” because they want their own country for 30 million of them to live there is a bit ridiculous. I mean everyone walking around on egg shells for Turkey is just getting really tired.

Regarding Azerbaijan, that is of course tragic and unfortunate, and I won’t tiptoe around how that has played out. Yes they are not Christians (this simply a factual observation) - but what are you implying? I sense some of the old “Ottoman” the-world-hates-us-rationale-so-we-are-allowed-to-do-anything-we-want-to-protect-ourselves-at-any-time-at-any-cost - am I off base?

on November 21, 2007 at 10:01 pm
68 damascus1

How do they point out the opposite? The peoples of the Balkans united and pushed the Ottomans out - it is clearly document historically? Are you confused — it’s ok I can understand with all the different posts!

on November 21, 2007 at 10:04 pm
69 Michael van der Galiën

Damascus: of course it’s perfectly alright for Armenia to oppress non-Christians.

And yes, in fact, the Armenian militias did kill Turkish Muslims because they were exactly that: Turkish Muslims.

That hatred is still alive and well. Sadly it’s fostered by some on the Armenian side who teach their children to hate Turks.

And just repeating ‘genocide’ doesn’t make it genocide. Just like saying “science proves us right” time and again doesn’t make it so, since those who actually studied this subject know that it’s not true.

Ahwell - be sure to continue to comment. Of the 5% of readers who read comments, I’m sure there are some who continue to read past comment 20.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:05 pm
70 Michael van der Galiën

O nice. Fake commenters.

For those who care; haleb isn’t just haleb1, 2, etc., he/she is also damascus(1,etc.). Obviously he’s now banned for not playing by our rules.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:08 pm
71 Paul

“Prims: the ones truly spreading the propaganda are the Armenian lobbyists. You and I both know that.”

Well you just confirmed my assertion all along Michael. You clearly hold Turks as incapable of distortion or propaganda, which is why you accept quotes from a book published by a Turkish official as completely untampered with and completely correct despite having absolutely no confirmation of them. To you, the Turks are right and that’s good enough for you- which allows you to then accept whatever they say as fact because you know they’re right since you think they are. You have become more and more stuck to the Turkish line, as opposed to some grey middle, in the past week or two because of this increasing mentality. Any true third party objective person would not allow themselves to fall into such a trap of blind alliegance (because what if not blind is taking the Turks’ word for the validity of each quote, when I’ve even shown that at least a few are total distortions if not outright false) to a side. Believing the Turkish or Armenian side is fine and one thing- but gluing yourself to it to this extent is bizarre.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:11 pm
72 Harut

You were banned.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:13 pm
73 Michael van der Galiën

Paul: of course the Turks spread propaganda as well. That’s wrong and when you debate this issue one should try not to accidentally use propaganda.

On the other hand, many scientists and historians don’t use propaganda. I’ve cited them. You still bicker.

I’ve got translations of the Ottoman archives, but you don’t care for them.

I’ve cited quite some Western historians who agree that what happened wasn’t genocide, that the relocations were self-defense, etc.

But you don’t want to hear that.

Yet, time and again, you focus on little, technical things.

And, as I said: I’m with the Turks on this one generally. I think that they’re claims that - although many Armenians got killed and although that’s horrible - it wasn’t a genocide is correct, and I also agree that the Armenians did some ethnic cleansing of their own.

I’ve given you sources time and again. In fact, I was thinking about giving your some other Western sources today, but decided not to take the time to write them down (yes, because I do have to type everything) because you will only object or ignore it anyway.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:16 pm
74 Back

Article 301 doesn’t apply outside turkey.

Keep trying.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:17 pm
75 Back

Why don’t you embrace the truth instead of trying to ban everyone?

on November 21, 2007 at 10:30 pm
76 Michael van der Galiën

Paul: see the above comments. Do you wonder why I am so aggressive at the Armenian lobby?

If you, for once, would criticize your fellow Armenians, I could actually envision us working through all the available evidence, distinguishing fact from fiction, etc.

Sadly, you only choose to criticize the side you don’t agree with.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:41 pm
77 Paul

“On the other hand, many scientists and historians don’t use propaganda. I’ve cited them. You still bicker.”

My point was, as I think I strongly displayed, was that your Binark stuff- which you use more than anything to officially confirm what your chosen historians tell you- IS clearly propaganda. No true historian would ever cite his work as he did because none of it is confirmed, a good deal of it is out of context, and it is a blatant example of picking and choosing to prove a point. As I said, anyone can probably pick and chose enough quotes to prove anything- that doesn’t mean it’s right. As I have been trying to say, just because your favorite historians do supply information to back up your conclusion does NOT mean that Binark is creditible (of whom this entire post was dedicated to as to disprove the genocide in the first place). Simple as that.

on November 21, 2007 at 10:44 pm
78 Michael van der Galiën

Paul. When Binark quotes documents from the French archives. Or from the Russian archives, etc., does that mean that his quotes are wrong just because Binark may be prejudiced (and don’t start talking about prejudice to me when you have yet to criticize your fellow Armenians for using documents and ‘proof’ they know to be false, such as the beautiful ‘blue book,’ the infamous ‘exterminate them all’ telegrams, and so on).

on November 21, 2007 at 10:51 pm
79 Paul

And why are you putting words in my mouth? When do I fail to criticize Armenians?! I have never gotten a chance to see any of the worst stuff the allegedly write because it never shows up- have you forgotten?!
Numerous times I’ve said I oppose comparisons to the Holocaust, which is somehting Armenians often do.
Numerous times I’ve laid out (including to you because you are guilty of this as well) I am completely against directly comdemning someone’s ancestors as murderers just because you think a massacre happened from one race to another. This goes for the many Armenians who call tell Turks their grandparents were killers or for you who said my own were.
I am about as even-handed as you are going to get- but you cling so tightly to your beloved propaganda (err… ‘western’) sources that there’s no seeing that.
I don’t know what you are looking for from me- to say ok Binark was right. Even though I’ve proven that his sources in numerous cases are either misleading or unsources, it is my inability to embrace them which makes ME out of line here. You have admitted Turkish propaganda exists, why can’t you see his work for what it was? And the fact that you have translations of the “Turkish archives” (which presumably would take up a tome the size of a building?) means nothing in this case unless the works in question can be found in them and verified from the original by a third party history (since I hope you can admit that whether it’s right or wrong, Turkey IS a party with an interest in seeing this work out a certain way). Relying on Turkish produced material like Binark with good faith without turning even a hint of skepticism towards it, despite the fact I’ve given you plenty of good reasons to (and no, what I have produced are not just “technicalities”…) is just not playing fair unless you are automatically willing to then accept anything printed by an Armenian.

What’s that you say? But Armenians are liars? Maybe they are, but if you are a true third party fairly examining this events you would NOT hold such opinions! So it’s either accepting Binark and Armenian sources, or neither. You can’t have it both ways.

on November 21, 2007 at 11:32 pm
80 Harut

How do you play this game of yours … what is the rules of this Mickey mouse of your…

As long as the truth is kept secret we could play this fairytale of your…

can’t you see that you are only lying to your self and nobody else

Let me ask you a question, this world you are passing though, one day it is going to finish for you, just ask you self when the end has come and you are being judged by the Almighty in Heaven. Lets say God asks you to admit what mistakes have you done…what would you say, will it be that the Armenians lied to the world or what, tell me I like to hear it first hand…
Brother don’t deceive you self, I don’t know who are buying you, but I can say don’t deceive your self.
Repent and ask the LORD in heaven to forgive you of your secrets.
If you lie to the world, I suppose that you can do the same to your family, and friends. Now is your time, be true to your self and seek the truth…

The bible says
32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

John 8: 32 The Bible

on November 21, 2007 at 11:38 pm
81 Harut

2 ND COPY (Please Give Time For People To Comment)

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked:
for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap.

Armenians were told let you Jesus save you now…

God will not be mocked…

This is another turkish site. Obviously, you still don’t get it! It smells so Turkish.
The blood of the innocent Armenians is crying out loud…you can run from it but you can not hide. The world is full of the Armenians who exiled after the massacre / Genocide and leaving their Dead Mothers, Fathers, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Sons, Daughters, Homes, Lives, Fatherland & Motherland…behind.
Another site by turks…its almost like smelling a turkish backbone, or a turkish smell on a writings…
the world is not naive any more. If you really think people don’t see it, try to look through Armenian eyes, try to look with a heart that lost everything, try to look with blood stained past, try to look through little boys and girls eyes who grew without any parents or family members (dead because our Turkish masters had the power to kill them all, try to understand as a breathing human being who looks for answers, not like a un grown child who gives useless excuses and keeps on cutting the conversation and saying but…but…but…without any reason, without any understanding, without any legality, without any truth, without any weight, without any records, without any proof, without any…you get the point.
As they say “Tongue has no bones, it can maneuver any way it wants to.”
I am my self from a family who was separated from all, I mean all relatives. My grand father lost all of his 200 member family except 3. Himself was looked after by a Kurdish neighbor, who razed him until he was young man. After The Kurd told him that he was an Armenian & that he belonged to which family, and what was his last name, and helped him find his living family members, one in France, others in Lebanon…exiled with all the family being massacred by the turkes.
I tell you if this is a human argument it will stop but if it is not, you will only find yourselves ( as a whole nation and a race fighting with God…So I suggest you all sit down open your ears and eyes and look for Gods next move.

on November 21, 2007 at 11:44 pm
82 Harut

“Be not deceived; God is not mocked:
for whatsoever a man soweth,
that shall he also reap.

Armenians were told let you Jesus save you now…

God will not be mocked…

This is another turkish site. Obviously, you still don’t get it! It smells so Turkish.
The blood of the innocent Armenians is crying out loud…you can run from it but you can not hide. The world is full of the Armenians who exiled after the massacre / Genocide and leaving their Dead Mothers, Fathers, Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Sons, Daughters, Homes, Lives, Fatherland & Motherland…behind.
Another site by turks…its almost like smelling a turkish backbone, or a turkish smell on a writings…
the world is not naive any more. If you really think people don’t see it, try to look through Armenian eyes, try to look with a heart that lost everything, try to look with blood stained past, try to look through little boys and girls eyes who grew without any parents or family members (dead because our Turkish masters had the power to kill them all, try to understand as a breathing human being who looks for answers, not like a un grown child who gives useless excuses and keeps on cutting the conversation and saying but…but…but…without any reason, without any understanding, without any legality, without any truth, without any weight, without any records, without any proof, without any…you get the point.
As they say “Tongue has no bones, it can maneuver any way it wants to.”
I am my self from a family who was separated from all, I mean all relatives. My grand father lost all of his 200 member family except 3. Himself was looked after by a Kurdish neighbor, who razed him until he was young man. After The Kurd told him that he was an Armenian & that he belonged to which family, and what was his last name, and helped him find his living family members, one in France, others in Lebanon…exiled with all the family being massacred by the turkes.
I tell you if this is a human argument it will stop but if it is not, you will only find yourselves ( as a whole nation and a race fighting with God…So I suggest you all sit down open your ears and eyes and look for Gods next move.

on November 22, 2007 at 1:56 am
83 Gökalp

Harut if you think God is Armenian. You are teribbly wrong!!!
Your ways of using even holly beliefs for your bellowed “Armenian Cause” for a hundred years will already secure a fine spot in hell for your propagandist. It is your choise to join or not…

SO I call you with the words of the GOD!

Acts 3:17
“Now, brothers, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.

Isaiah 9:16
Those who guide this people mislead them, and those who are guided are led astray.

2 Peter 2:2
Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Proverbs 26:28
A lying tongue hates those it hurts, and a flattering mouth works ruin.

Zechariah 8:17
do not plot evil against your neighbor, and do not love to swear falsely. I hate all this,” declares the LORD.

Exodus 20:16
“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.

Leviticus 19:18
” ‘Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

John 2:9
Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his brother is still in the darkness.

Ephesians 4:25
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body.

====As a Turkish person I call you====

Psalm 52:3
You love evil rather than good, falsehood rather than speaking the truth.

Amos 5:10
you hate the one who reproves in court and despise him who tells the truth.

Galatians 4:16
Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?

Matthew 23:36
I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.

John 3:13
Do not be surprised, my brothers, if the world hates you.

John 15:18
If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first.

Psalm 109:20
May this be the LORD’s payment to my accusers, to those who speak evil of me.

AMEN!!!

on November 22, 2007 at 2:29 am
84 Gökalp

I missed that one by harut

“Another site by turks…its almost like smelling a turkish backbone, or a turkish smell on a writings…”

Oh my god… Oh my god!!! Just like taken out from a creepy latin book named “The Books of the Fiend” from the middle ages. just put Devil insead of Turk.

I have been to many discussion forums but up to date I have never seen a more poetic work of perverted racist hysteria.

on November 22, 2007 at 3:30 am
85 Paul

OK the Bible is completely irrelevant here- enough people. It’s really pathetic trying to use it to condemn Turks or Armenians or even to pretend like God was talking about Turks when he said all those nice things lol

on November 22, 2007 at 5:02 am
86 Kathy

Kathy this is my last response to you.

Okay, Michael.

300,000? Did I say that? I remember me touting a much higher number.

Okay, so what was that higher number? Do you agree with non-Turkish sources that roughly 1.5 Armenians were killed during WWI by the Turks, either directly (death marches, being thrown off cliffs, mass drownings) or indirectly (starvation, disease)? Because the number of Armenians left in Turkey in 1918 would suggest that most of them were killed — or in some other manner, vanished.

I would like to know how you explain this.

No deportations? Again distortion. I remember saying there were. Government didn’t know about it? Yes they did actually. I already said that as well. In fact, that’s exactly why they sent out instructions to the ones leading the deportations calling on them to protect the Armenian deportees and telling them that all those who don’t defend them will be punished by military tribunals.

Michael, do you know what these deportations involved? Thousands upon thousands of Armenians were forcibly removed from their homes and towns and sent on long death marches ending in the desert. They were deliberately marched through the most hostile terrain to lengthen the march and increase the suffering. Deportations of mass populations are inherently, by definition, inhumane. They cannot be otherwise. Yet you tell us that the Turkish government “sent instructions” to the Turkish military units conducting the death marches to “protect the Armenian deportees” upon threat of punishment?They were being deported to the desert to be left there to die! But the Turkish government told their men to do this “humanely”?

Michael, this doesn’t pass the laugh test.

The ones truly in charge of the government indeed opposed it. What individuals did doesn’t ‘destroy’ my case. Furthermore, if the actual government wanted the ARmenian deportees to be killed, they would not have punished those who did the killing….

The ones “truly in charge.” Who would those have been? The minister of the interior, the minister of war, and the minister of the navy were not in charge? They were not part of the government leadership? Who was, then?

Your sentence beginning “Furthermore” assumes as settled fact your claim that the “people who did the killing” were punished. And that is not settled fact at all. It is opinion — the opinion of a relatively small number of mostly Turkish sources.

Even if some few of the murderers were tried and punished, and assuming the “punishment” was anything more than a slap on the wrist for show’s sake, it would still only have been a few. And to use your language, what happened to a few individuals in punishment for murdering Armenians does not destroy the fact that most of the killers were not punished, ever.

It’s not relevant whether relatively more Armenians died or not. Relatively more Germans died during WWII than Americans, does that mean that Germans were right and the Americans wrong?

That’s an interesting question, Michael, but totally irrelevant to the issue we’re discussing, which is genocide. What matters to the definition of genocide is intent, regardless of the relative numbers killed in each group.

What matters is whether the Armenian rebels had the intention to commit genocide and conducted ethnic cleansing. The answer: yes.

Well, that of course is just complete and utter nonsense, and others here have said it better than I can. I will content myself with pointing out one fact: The Turkish population of Turkey during WWI was about 25 million. The Armenian population was between 2.5 million and 3 million, and most of them were women, children, and elderly men. Plus, where was the Armenian government that authorized this attempted genocide?

Please. Be serious.

What matters is whether Armenians, during World War, stabbed the Empire in the back and launched even greater rebellions, during which they tried to wipe out the Muslim population of many villages.

Even if this were true, it would in no way either explain or justify the organized murder of two-thirds of the Armenian population in Turkey.

What matters is that when the Armenians were winning, they slaughtered many innocent Jews simply because they weren’t Christian.

I read this claim of yours earlier in the discussion and saw some of the response to it. Suffice it to say there is not a shred of credible evidence to support this — and believe me, if there were, it would have come up in global Jewish community a long time ago. Before you, I had never even heard of this weird accusation.

There is more solid evidence of Turkish anti-Semitism than of Armenian. Just since the recent resolution in Congress identifying the Armenian killings as genocide, the Turkish government has threatened the safety of Turkey’s Jews.

What matters is that both sides suffered tremendously, but that your side refuses to acknowledge that the Turks suffered because of the criminal behavior of Armenian terrorists.

The Turks suffered, and no one denies that. Their suffering was real, and profound. But it was not genocide or even “ethnic cleansing,” and that is what we are arguing about here. We are not arguing about whether Turks suffered during WWI. Good Lord, man, of course they did. We’re talking about WAR. But their suffering was not genocide, and genocide is a far more serious crime than the usual infliction of suffering during wartime.

What matters is that when someone speaks out and gives fact, you simply ignore them and go in the attack.

You have given very few, if any, facts. What you call “facts” are not facts at all. They are biased, opinionated assertions based on the archives of the government you are defending, and a handful of Western historians and/or writers who relied heavily to solely on those archives. You have nothing else.

Now, this instruction from mvdg to readers:

Note to readers: Keep it civil. If not, we’ll close the comment section which is a bigger loss to you than it is to us. If you want to refute any claims made in the article, made by the Dutch journalist back in 1920, you’re welcome to do so, but do so in a civil way. If you don’t, your commets will be deleted, you’ll be banned, and the comment section will - if necessary - be closed.

And this style of refutation, by the same mvdg, to me (and similarly to many others):

Kathy: you lie and distort constantly.

And this, in the same comment:

What matters is… well, that I won’t debate with someone like yourself who purposefully distorts what I’ve said.

I believe there’s a word for that: a liar.

I believe there is a word for this phenomenon. It’s called: a hypocrite.

on November 22, 2007 at 11:01 am
87 Gökalp

quoting Kathy

“the Turkish government has threatened the safety of Turkey’s Jews”

Is this ignorance or a knowing falsification… You are really trying hard to prove Michael right about you being a liar.

“The Armenian population was between 2.5 million and 3 million”

WRONG! in Lousane peace treaty pre war armenian population was taken as 1.4 milion. IN ALL WESTERN SOURCES of the era Armenian population is below 2 milion.

“The Turks suffered, and no one denies that. Their suffering was real, and profound. But it was not genocide or even “ethnic cleansing,” and that is what we are arguing about here. We are not arguing about whether Turks suffered during WWI. Good Lord, man, of course they did. We’re talking about WAR. But their suffering was not genocide, and genocide is a far more serious crime than the usual infliction of suffering during wartime.”

Very good. Now put Armenian instead of Turks in this paragraph and the case will be closed.

“There is more solid evidence of Turkish anti-Semitism than of Armenian”

Really..? Now you are sailing in dangerous waters! It is Armenians not Turks who are swarming the Aryan/Nazi forums Kathy. It is the Armenian Army who gives medals in the Name of DRO the Armenian national hero who founded the Nazi Armenian legion. It is the Armenian Army who gives medals in the Name of Garekin NZDEH the Armenian national hero who is a prominent Nazi colloborator. 5% of Armenins think jews were behind this so-calle Genocide (this rate will probably go up 5 times if only asked about participation). now watch these! These videos are a must for eveyone in this debate!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9n3TvR2VF20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-F7zVJkEM8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5gdV-06Iik

ARMENIAN ARYANS AT WORK. long liveThe Armenian Legion of Wehrmacht and Armenian Waffen SS.
USA Armenians! Please collect more money to build a better monument for “DRO” who was the SS commander of this legion! Please give away more medals in the name of NZDEH and DRO they aided the nazis so well! They are reall heroes!

on November 22, 2007 at 11:58 am
88 Michael van der Galiën

Gökalp: are you, like me, wondering whether Kathy is indirectly referring to the ‘exterminate them’ telegrams?

You know, the forged ones?

Are you also, like me, 100% sure that she never read any of the real Ottoman documents / telegrams / archives?

What’s more, she doesn’t even know what the Armenians stood for. What their ideology was. It’s hilarious.

The militias were bigots, nationalists, anti-semites and anti-Muslims.

Ahwell, it has been fun.

on November 22, 2007 at 1:20 pm
89 gökalp

What is more tragic than to see brainwashed people claim that you are brianwashed.

From my experiences from other forums I know that most Armenians never read what you write or check the links that you put. Once I gave a link to “Zoryan” institute and the guy said “he aint buying Turkish goverments propaganda material”.

I gave links to an Armenian web site posting a book by an Armenian scholar who collected “Genocide” survivors testimonies. They said “Turkish crap”.

all these talks here and there is not about learning or debating but only about fighting agains “Turkish Denial”.

They are playing the “3 monkeys” in this case…
Hear no facts, see no facts, talk no facts. This is a good way though… Or else their belief about “genocide”, The very core that they have been trained to construct their existance and character on may be shaken. It is like loosing your religion.

It seems that It is nothing but a sin to question the Armenian “Genocide” for a Diaspora Armenian. I guess I understand them…

on November 22, 2007 at 2:07 pm
90 Michael van der Galiën

Gökalp: I agree entirely with your comment. It’s fascinating though. For instance, when you quote Western sources to show that Armenians committed ethnic cleansing, it’s simply ignored (or they try to change the subject).

It’s fascinating.

However, we have to remember that it’s not about the Truth for many of them. They’ve convinced themselves that they’re right and they will continue waging their little Jihad against Turkey, until the world accepts their story as true, just so they stop nagging about it.

Sadly for them, I don’t think it’ll happen like them. The world will, indeed, get tired of it, but that’s because it will realize that there are two sides to this story. In other words: they will get tired of the one-sidedness and prejudice of the Armenian lobby and their supporters (such as Kathy).

My guess is that the US will accept a resolution reasonably soon, which is similar to the one accepted by the EU: condemning both sides, expressing compassion with the victims, and calling on the countries of both and all organizations to open their archives for historians.

And that… that will mean a major loss to the Armenian ’cause.’ Suddenly, it’ll become clear to everyone that it’s not about Truth, but about lands and money to them. And that’ll backfire.

I encourage people who are interested in this subject to read some books and articles. Justin McCarthy - professor of history - wrote some highly interesting books and essays, same goes for Shaw. I also recently found a book written back in the day by a Brit, who had had it with the propaganda spread by his country and the Armenians. Title: “The Armenians.” Author: C.F. Dixon-Johnson.

I found this book at the Armenians 1915 website, which will, I’m sure instantly mean to the lobbyists that it shouldn’t be read by anyone, but objective observers may learn a lot from it. What’s more, if you do some research, you’ll see that this is an actual book, written by someone with great knowledge on the matter. In other words: it seems to be a good source for historical research.

Have you, by the way, ever read Heather S. Gregg’s essay on the strategies and success of the Armenian lobby? Quite interesting and revealing.

on November 22, 2007 at 4:36 pm
91 Ari Armen

To Michael van der Galiën

You are only 23 years old and need some more education and culture.

As Mr Vahe, I too can be your father, having 2 sons greater than you and beeng also a grandfather.

I invite you first to respect yourself to be able to respect peoples disagreeing on your opinions.

All the Countries which accepted that “What was done to Armenians by Ottomans-Turks is a Genocide” and all people (armenians or not armenians) that supports this storical reality, are LIARS ???

All Documents existing in many State’s Archives on this Armenian Genocide matter are lying ?? Only Turic State’s Archives are veracious ??

And what is your comment on Raphael Lemkin (who defines the meaning of the word “genocide” ) and many others and others? Are all they lying ??

The ignorance is a deplorable thing but the wish to ignore realities is worse and unacceptable.

Wishing to meet you in the future when you will grow up, I apologize for my bad english.

an armenian “LIAR” (for you of course!) grandfather,
Ari Armen (from Italy)

on November 22, 2007 at 4:51 pm
92 Michael van der Galiën

Mr. Armen - I couldn’t care less whether people feel insulted or not if I point out that they use fake documents and that they ignore facts. When you ignore those facts on purpose, yes, you’re a liar. If you take all facts into account, and still disagree, fine. We simply have a disagreement.

Don’t try to play the victim, it doesn’t work.

I’ve dealt with Lemkin in the past.

As for the other archives: they don’t prove anything other than that many Armenians died.

Perhaps Armenia should open its archives. Same goes for the jolly Armenians in Boston.

Of course they won’t do that, because if they do, chances are that they’ll hurt their own cause.

Ah well.

Wishing you a happy life,



on November 22, 2007 at 6:27 pm
93 gökalp

Dear Mr. Armen

To speak for my self, I respect elder people. This is something they rightfully deserve and It is true that we young people have much to learn from you and with age also.

I wish to ask you something if I may

1. It is plain truth that Armenian documentation has falsifications and also propaganda material.

But I will never ever call Armenian personal stories “lies”.

The fact is We are also grown up with similar stories. As I have mentioned in another page here 2 of my family members were butchered with axes in an Armenian village. There are thousands and thousands of families in Turkey who has family histories much much worse than mine. (also Incomparably more brutal that what Armenian testimonies tell)

SO please Mr. Armen. Tell me do you think we are liars! Are we corrupt human beings that lie continuously even to our selves? Armenians say there was no armenian attack, are we halucinating or are we professional LIARS?

2. You are so offended by the “liar” word. Have you ever been to an Armenian gathering about the so-called genocide, Have you ever been to an Armenian forum. There Turks are named as “pigs” “Dogs” “who…s” “barbarians”, “Mongoloid retards” etc. Did you as a wise grandfather once said to these people “I invite you first to respect yourself to be able to respect peoples disagreeing on your opinions.”

3. And finally we have lost people of our family and many neighbours in Armenian Raids and Attacks. Still my grand father did not teach me to hate Armenians. What did you teach your children. Hate or Understanding?

I would really appreciate if you could honestly reply my questions.

on November 22, 2007 at 6:32 pm
94 Michael van der Galiën

Gökalp: I’m Dutch. We respect our elders but when they lie, as the person Vahe did, we call them out on it. Our elders deserves initial respect, but they too can squander it.

Anyway - when someone consistently lies, he’s a liar. Whether he’s 90, 60 or 10 years old.

As for those questions: I would like to see them answered as well. I’ve seen Armenians refer to my girlfriend as one of the insults you mentioned and Turks as general as several.

From what I can see, the hatred is coming from the Armenian side, not from the Turkish side. I have yet to meet a Turk who hates or despises Armenians.

on November 22, 2007 at 7:24 pm
95 P. Connolly

I am a grandfather and I do not consider it appropriate -when engaged in a logical discussion- to address people younger than oneself in language such as “You are only 23 years old and need some more education and culture” and “wishing to meet you when you grow up”. This is an inappropriate way for anyone to speak. We repeatedly see the Armenian side attacking the source when they can’t win on the facts.

Regarding the legislators in the various countries which passed resolutions calling these events “genocide” we all know full well that these were legislators - not historians. And we know that legislators have a conflict of interest in pleasing voters. The Armenians had their day in court (Malta) but that wasn’t good enough for them so they have been going around the world resorting to extrajudicial measures and causing social disruption through the Legislatures of various countries.

Regarding documents existing in States’ Archives, yes, it has been clearly shown by impartial historians that the Armenian Side has deliberately distorted historical facts repeatedly. Hateful Armenian Terrorists have gunned down innocent Turkish Civil Servants in various countries of the world and the Armenian Community’s response to these acts was disgraceful. How can any grandfather who has undoubtedly lived through these events fail to condemn them in the strongest terms? Historians have been targeted for simply telling the events as they happened - like the bombing of the home of Historian Stanford Shaw and the lawsuit in France. Clearly many of the Armenians have declared war on history itself in a blind drive to achieve their hateful ends! The need to know the true circumstances surrounding the fate of one’s ancestors is -in most cases- a fundamental human psychological need. It would seem to me that a grandfather would be rendering a valuable service to the succeeding generations if he would leave no stone unturned in attempting to uncover all the true facts surrounding his ancestors’ misfortunes. Attacking historians is not the way to do this.

The meaning of English words such as “genocide” is derived from their usage. Etymologies are not always relevant. The meaning of the word “genocide” does not depend on Raphael Lemkin at all.

When we speak of the lies the intent is definitely not to say that all persons arguing the Armenian side are liars. But the “genocide” argument is clearly built on a foundation of deliberate lies and distortions.

on November 22, 2007 at 7:39 pm
96 Ari Armen

To Michael van der Galien

Thanks for your prompt reply.

Incredible but true: You are right for the first time: My documentations on Armenian and Turkish facts are extremely credible, for the simply fact that they are “external” (not Armenian) and very very real documentations, which are resulting equal and corresponding to armenian documentations.

Of course I’m not talking about novels or romances, which
bring inside realities yes, but also personal stories regarding armenians’ deportations and armenian genocide.

And, of course, I’m not playing the “victim” role, because I have no interest to make a movie and make money, or to be a famous intellectual, as somebody likes to do.

“….so many armenians died….” you say. But you don’t mention about why they died and what kind of death was given (reserved) to them.

Of course they died remaining under a burning sunshine during an organized pick-nick near the river Kizilirmak. They were a “sun-beat” victims… somebody can say!

Your Documentations and my Documentations ….

So, it’s better that you stay at your field (your own opinion)
and I stay on my field (my own opinion), calling this a “disagreement” between us, as you are saying .

I have no power to change your young opinion and in the same time, you have no power to change my old experience and the truth.

In turkish I would say : “GORUNEN KOY’E KILAVUZ ISTEMEZ”
and surely you know the meaning.

Anyway, I’m happy for your knowledge about Raphael Lemkin ! This is a positive point for you, to continue your needed deepening on the matter; so that, the light of Truth do not remain in Darkness.

Thanking for your wishes,

Ciao,
Ari Armen

on November 22, 2007 at 8:27 pm
97 Kathy

Wishing to meet you in the future when you will grow up, I apologize for my bad english.

Never apologize for your English. You speak it (write it) a lot better than I could speak or write Armenian.

Have a great Thanksgiving (if you observe it).

on November 22, 2007 at 8:35 pm
98 Michael van der Galiën

Of course he doesn’t observe Thanksgiving Kathy. Don’t start by studying Armenian, start by looking at different culture and countries and what traditions they have.

Anyway, Ari: what about the Turkish Muslims who were killed by the Armenian nationalistic militias? What about them? Why don’t you mention them?

Ah, yes, they were Muslims.

Also: many people died doesn’t equal genocide.

Sadly, however, so many of you pretend it does.

The good news, of course, is that if this is the rule, the Turks can go after Armenia for inflicting genocide on them. I see a future ahead of me with many more resolutions, this time not condemning Turkey, but Armenia.

Or, and this is the preferable road, people will finally let the past be the past and let historians sort it out.

Sadly, however, that means that Armenians have to give up their dreams of a greater-Anatolia and many millions in damages.

on November 22, 2007 at 11:33 pm
99 Ari Armen

Dear Mr. Gokalp,

Thanks for your letter so clear and so pleasant.

My reply to Michael van der Galien was only a reaction for his word “LIARS” when some opinions are opposite to his opinions.

There are many ways to speak each other and express opinions without hurting . Of course I too , I hurted Michael van der Gallien as Mr P. Connolly is reporting in his intervention.

It’s a natural reaction when opposite discussions fall down for fault of one or other site.

1- These falsifications unfortunately are made by both, armenians and turks, in these last years.
But referring to the true documents regarding the past time, no falsifications exist and everything is clearly coinciding
.
Of cours were also armenian attacks armed by french in 1919. I never said the contrary. Of course were killed also
turkish people by armenian armed hand. But, before that, it
was also a deportation of armenians and a systematic and organized killing of ottoman armenians. So, in respect of the history I can’t accept the liar mark.

About “falsification” that both part continues to do, I beleive is a “wrong political” convenience. Consequently, my opinion is: Both part (that uses falsification) are liar.
Dear Mr. Gokalp, there are many personal histories, turks and armenians both suffered, in your family and in my family.

2- Yes I have. Armenian groups and also Turkish groups. And you are right . Unfortunately these kinds of humiliating words are running in some armenian and also turks gatherings. Normally the members using that kind of words or humiliating terms are canceled from groups (turkish or armenian) lists. You don’t be doubtful on my person: yes I said them about respect, and more…. Some people (both part) was cross out.

3- As your family, our family also lost members during deportation and following annihilating period. If, to day, I can speak to you and share opinions (even if they are opposite) with you, is because of the needed profession of my grandfathers.

For my children I did the same thing done by your grandfather: the difference was only to be an armenian father. When I was young, Ismet Inonu during his meetings, repeatedly asked to vaccinate to our children at home or in the school “the love and not the hate” : with his words : “Evlerimizde ve okullarimizda cocuklarimiza sevgiyi
asiliyalim, birbirinden nefret etmeyi degil” . I was one of his
followers at that time, even if many times I was called “pis
ermeni” or even if, for ignorance, I was beated by a policeman in Karakoy meydani only because my name was Ari (he was giving me a “ceza” for not respecting the traffic and after seeing my guide licence, he pull me out the car and beated me. An other graduate policeman saved me).

So no hate against turks in the past and so in the present.

But I hate, of course, the ignorance. Both side.

I think, dear Mr Gokalp, my answer will satisfy your questions, and also, will be considered as an answer to Mr P. Connolly.

Now is very late in Italy. It’s time for me to go to sleep!



on November 23, 2007 at 1:31 am
100 Suzan

To those who deny the fact of the Armenian Genocide, where 1.5 Million Armenians were massacred by their ruthless Ottoman government…

Here are a few quotes to haunt your dreams with:

May 11, 1918, letter to Cleveland Hoadley Dodge

…the Armenian massacre was the greatest crime of the war, and the failure to act against Turkey is to condone it … the failure to deal radically with the Turkish horror means that all talk of guaranteeing the future peace of the world is mischievous nonsense.

Theodore Roosevelt

April 22, 1981, proclamation

Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it, … the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten. ”


one million Armenians were killed in these lands and nobody but me dares to talk about it.

Orhan Pamuk


The Armenians were subjected to a genocidal campaign that defies comprehension …

George W. Bush

and the list goes on, and on.
but here in this lovely parallel universe Van Der Galien lives in he says:

“However, we have to remember that it’s not about the Truth for many of them. They’ve convinced themselves that they’re right and they will continue waging their little Jihad against Turkey, until the world accepts their story as true, just so they stop nagging about it.”

How sad I feel for you, in your attempt to reverse everything on its head, you have even attributed the word ‘Jihad’, to the first Christian Nation in the world: Armenians. Jihad is not a Christian belief or custom. You have failed in your attempts to distort reality, and you have failed to understand Armenians and Armenian perseverance.

May God have mercy on your soul.

on November 23, 2007 at 4:07 am
101 Gökalp

First I would like to thank Michael for this perfect blog because it is the first time that I meet Armenian people whom I can talk in a civilized fashion. Michael my remarks about Elder people was in no way directed to you. Probably the Dutch way is much better but we Turks are raised in a culture that puts a great emphasis on respecting Elder people. My reaction was coming right out of the guts almost like a conditioned response.

Dear Mr.Armen

Thank you for your sincere answers. As you may guess I have some reservations (regarding who is doing the falsifications and such) but I believe in your good will.

As a “Turkish Armenian” you are actually not qualified for this type of harsh debate nor you deserve to be a part of it. As Hrant Dink said “Turks are our cure and we are their cures”. And you got that cure (and Turkish Armenians are constantly curing us) which renders you (and me) immune to being a blind hate parrot. What Michael is dealing here is something different. When Michael put up a simple post that is somewhat Turkophilic he faced insults beyond imagination and even death treats. So you should actually defend his right to voice his opinion against your people even it is just the opposite of yours.

Let me quote our Hrant Dink again. He said to Diaspora Armenians “Try to see the honor in Turks denial. Genocide is a huge crime. You would not do it, I would not do it. Turks also say they wouldn’t do it so they deny. Try to see honor in this action”. With this in mind I believe you wouldn’t take the easy way and call me a Holocaust denialist. So I will try to talk about everything right from the beginning. This may also be your chance to educate us if you will. However “Akil akildan üstündür” so please be open to learning also.

1. You ask us to read western and US archives and claim that they prove Armenian rights. Now I will do it. I will try to go step by step. One problem at a time…

===How many Armenians were there before 1915====

* First please know and be sure that the originals of these numbers and their sources are present in our archive. It is not made up. I only take the ones that I am rather sure.

“Turkey” Erik J. Zurcher – Tauris Pubkishers – London says 1,5 milion
“Turkey Unveiled” Nicole and Hugh Pope, The Overlook Press, NY says 1.5 milion
Armenians “best friend” Lepsius says 1,6 milion
Frenc yellow book says 1,475.000
L.D conterson says 1,4 milion
Encyclopedia Britannica (1911) says 1,5 milion
Armenians “best friend” LORD JAMES BRYCE says 1,5 milion
Armenians “best friend” Arnold Toynbee says 1,6 milion
Ludovic de Constenson(1913) says 1,4 milion

There are also rare reports going above 2 million but all these reports use Patriarche numbers, which were regarded as unreliable by western powers.

*And the figures from Constenson were used in the Lousanne peace treaty. So 1,4 million is the official number that was accepted internationally as pre-war Armenian population. Lets take the highest number here and add 100.000 more. Lets say Armenians were 1,7 million. Knowing that 230.000 Armenians in Izmir and Istanbul were left alone. How can you reach 1,5 million deaths?

======How many Armenians survived========

1. All sources USA, English, Russian, French, Armenian etc. say 250.000 to 400.000 (some even say 0,5 mil) moved to Russia with the retreating Russian Army. So lets take an estimate that is favorable to Armenian claims and say 300.000 Armenians moved to Russia.

2. Near East relief (NER) documents in February 8, 1916 that 490.000 Armenians are living in Syria as a result of relocations. Many of them were under the supervision of NER. (taken from Ara Sarafians USA documents on Armenian genocide, Vol 2 p 112-113) (by the way it is so strange for the Ottoman government to let a relief organization to help people who are meant to die isn’t it?)

3. (USA Archives NARA, T 1192 R2 86.01/395) A 1921 report about the Armenians living in the borders of the former Ottoman empire puts the figure to 645.000. (In 1916 Ottoman government issued orders that all Armenians can return to their homes and take their goods. So strange for Genocide)

4. Armenians moved to USA, France and other countries all around the world. Lets take this number as low as possible. Maybe 50.000, which is actually a ridiculous number.

Now lets do some adding up.

based on document 2: Alive Ottoman Armenians in 1916: izmir, istanbul: 230.000 + Russia 300.000 + syria 490.000 + 50.000 moved = 1,070 milion.

Based on document 3, Alive ottoman Armenians in 1921: Russia: 300.000 + former Ottoman Empire: 645.000 + 50.000 moved (which should be much more in 1921) = 995.000

So now use any of the former statistics or lets use the Armenian friendly figure 1.7 million. In any case the number can not exceed 700.000. Our very very rough estimation some what fits the Tonybee, Lepsius estimations (600.000) and also McCarthys statistics(623.000).

So I say that the Armenian propaganda figure of 1.5 million martyrs is nothing but propaganda. Could you please explain us Why 1.5 is used. This is not to underestimate any human life but to understand if western archives really back Armenian propaganda claims.

If you have any specific question about our “denialist” materials please ask. I would be happy to answer them with honesty (something that is so hard to find or witness nowadays).

Dear Susan

Why do you feel the urge to haunt our dreams? Why not let us to discuss something as decent human beings? Why don`t you haunt your own dreams by reading these :

USA/UK newspaper articles ?

and question only for a second “What if everything that I was taught was wrong”

I agree with you on that one though “may god have mercy on our souls”. Especially on the souls who think they speak with the tongue of the God for they are the ones who put this world into misery. (jew, Muslim, Christian what ever…)

on November 23, 2007 at 9:43 am
102 Kathy

Of course he doesn’t observe Thanksgiving Kathy. Don’t start by studying Armenian, start by looking at different culture and countries and what traditions they have.

Michael, I don’t know what country Ari lives in. There actually are individuals of Armenian ethnicity who live in the United States. Some of them even are American citizens.

On the other hand, Ari might not live in the United States. He might live in another country, where Thanksgiving is not observed.

If you think about it, the light bulb may come on in your head and you may realize that this is why I wished Ari a happy Thanksgiving, if he observes it.

I am hoping it’s your youth that explains your incredible lack of common courtesy, and not your basic nature.

on November 23, 2007 at 11:53 am
103 Michael van der Galiën

He said he lives in Italy.

So - are you saying that you respect someone so much that you don’t even read his comments?

I am hoping it’s your youth that explains your incredible lack of common courtesy, and not your basic nature.

And I hope that when you grow older, you’ll be able to take two sides of a story into account, not one.

on November 23, 2007 at 11:56 am
104 Michael van der Galiën

How sad I feel for you, in your attempt to reverse everything on its head, you have even attributed the word ‘Jihad’, to the first Christian Nation in the world: Armenians. Jihad is not a Christian belief or custom. You have failed in your attempts to distort reality, and you have failed to understand Armenians and Armenian perseverance.

May God have mercy on your soul.

LOL - it were your happy ancestors who committed a crusade, for racial and religious purity in Anatolia. Don’t believe me? Read some of their works. Read some of the pamphlets they wrote for their followers (who later went out and killed entire villages).

As for the quotes of politicians who actually don’t know much about it: yeah, impressive.

Sadly for you, though, they’ll know increasingly more about it, because Turks learn to speak out and understand that it’s important to unmask the armenian propaganda and lies.

And with respect to God, well, Gökalp dealt with that. Let me just add that I think that God is always on the side of the truth. As such, I sleep very well indeed.

on November 23, 2007 at 1:01 pm
105 Ari Armen

To Dear Suzan,

You are reporting a “declaration” of Michael van der Galien: and now I’m bringing it again, as follows:

“However, we have to remember that it’s not about the Truth for many of them. They’ve convinced themselves that they’re right and they will continue waging their little Jihad against Turkey, until the world accepts their story as true, just so they stop nagging about it.”

Perhaps, he wishs to manifest his real feelings and doing so, he makes a mistake using the words “against Turkey” ,
instead of “against Armenia” , in a sentence in which exists also the word “Jihad” not an armenian custom.

Or perhaps, his real wish, may be, is that all armenians must
be converted to Islam and after, they “can” make a “Jihad” against Turkey.

Anyway, Armenia never is thinking to convert to Islam, but
desires to remain Christian. And she (Armenia) is NOT thinking to make a little or big “Crusade” against Turkey.

This must be clear.

I invite Michael van der Galien to apologize with all the readers, (is not important if turks ?armenians ? americans ? germans ? or any people ?), for his this kind of declaration, very very offensive for all NON ignorant readers.

on November 23, 2007 at 1:08 pm
106 Suzan

“As for the quotes of politicians who actually don’t know much about it: yeah, impressive.”

Orhan Pamuk is a politician? Really? What ever happened to being detail oriented?

Or, were you speaking of Orhan when you said:

“because Turks learn to speak out”

Indeed, like Orhan Pamuk, more and more Turks are speaking out. A recent poll showed that 7.4% of Turks believe the Armenian Genocide should be recognized. This represents more than 5 million Turks. Also, 12% or the equivalent of 8.5 million Turks said “the Armenian Genocide is a proven historical fact”.

If Turkey is serious about denying the Armenian genocide, they should revise their history books and outlaw the mention of the genocide. Oh wait, they’ve already done that as well. So, 8.5 million Turks, that’s a lot of people. The Armenian population in the world is what, 7.5 million? So at least as many Turks as there are Armenians in the world know the genocide occured. What are you doing to convince them otherwise? I know, you are but one man on a lonely mission who sleeps well, but I just don’t see that you are making any dent here.

on November 23, 2007 at 1:09 pm
107 Michael van der Galiën

Lol Ari: yes, you’re on to me. I want all Christians to convert to Islam. Christian Dogs! Armenian Christian dogs! All of you.

O wait…

And no I won’t apologize for that, considering that all the evidence indicates that Armenians were actually trying to carry out ethnic cleansing of their own, in an attempt to create a Great-Armenia, a pure Christian state.

Samuel Weems also has something interesting to say about that in his book about radical Christianity among Armenians.

Lastly, it is actually. Turkey has no intention to invade Armenia, but quite some Armenians want to invade (take lands from) Turkey.

The only problem is, of course, that Turkey is too strong militarily, which is why some prefer the path of diplomacy.

Of course, not all Armenians want that, but the backbone of the Armenian lobby most surely does. I’ll post about that in the future.

on November 23, 2007 at 1:16 pm
108 Ari Armen

To dear Katy,

“Of course he doesn’t observe Thanksgiving Kathy. Don’t start by studying Armenian, start by looking at different culture and countries and what traditions they have.”

is the answer of Michael van der Galien for your wishs to
me. Look Katy, he likes to find allways an answer, even if
your wishes were for me.

In the beginning I said Michael van der Galien where I’m living, giving him also my personal e-mail.

So, he has information about me.

Katy, I’m living in Italy, but it is not important: sincerely I accept your Thankgivings wishes and so I wish for you.

on November 23, 2007 at 1:17 pm
109 Michael van der Galiën

Susan: so you’re point is that the Armenian lobby has been able to convince 7% that they’re right? Well, great. Question: how many of those Turks are Turkish Armenians?

What’s more, 7% is incredibly low. 7% That’s the fringe. Quite sad actually that you tout that number.

If Turkey is serious about denying the Armenian genocide, they should revise their history books and outlaw the mention of the genocide. Oh wait, they’ve already done that as well. So, 8.5 million Turks, that’s a lot of people. The Armenian population in the world is what, 7.5 million? So at least as many Turks as there are Armenians in the world know the genocide occured. What are you doing to convince them otherwise? I know, you are but one man on a lonely mission who sleeps well, but I just don’t see that you are making any dent here.

LMAO, sure Susan. Continue to say that. I’m quite sure that some will accept your ‘reasoning’ (and I use this word loosely).

As I’ve said multiple times in the past, Turkey should get rid of Art. 301 or amend it, they do. When will Armenia do so? When will Armenians stop suing those that disagree with them? Have you guys finally decided that using terrorism against those who disagree is wrong, like you did against Shaw? And what about Professor McCarthy? Have you given up trying to get him fired for speaking out? Have you also given up trying to prevent books that are actually written by historians and not by propagandists from being published?

When will Armenia open its national archives? When will diaspora groups open their archives?

BTW: for all your not caring, quite some of you seem to be quite concerned about my posts huh?

on November 23, 2007 at 1:28 pm
110 Ari Armen

To Michael van der Galien,

Thanks for your “adjectives” . Have you a dog? If yes, are you converted also him to Islam ?

Just yesterday I was answering to Mr Gokalp. And now I apologize with Mr Gokalp that my up reference is not for
Islam people, absolutely. Is only another “reaction” to somebody who hate armenians I don’t no why…

on November 23, 2007 at 1:35 pm
111 Michael van der Galiën

Yes Ari. I have a dog and yes I forced him to convert to Islam.

Ari: I’m a Christian myself. And one who takes his faith quite seriously at that.

Hating Armenians: don’t even try that one. Stop playing the victim, stop pretending that those who disagree with you ‘hate’ Armenians. It’s not about ‘hate’ it’s about the truth.



on November 23, 2007 at 3:45 pm
112 gökalp

Dear Mr Ari.

I have written a long post for you just a few post before. I will be happy if you could answer that one.

this type of debate is not only fruitless but also plain stupid.

on November 23, 2007 at 4:40 pm
113 gökalp

Susan says:

“If Turkey is serious about denying the Armenian genocide, they should revise their history books and outlaw the mention of the genocide. Oh wait, they’ve already done that as well.”

I dont want to be rude but you dont have any idea what you are talking about. May books that present the genocide thesis are on sale in Turkey. Some scholars who believe that it was genocide Teach in Turkish Universities.

Please do not start “Tukey and Democracy” stories. This is a shamefull smear campaing that Armenians always use when they have no facts to show.

I am still waiting an answer to the newspaper articles that I gave the links. “Oh wait, they haven`t checked that as well”

on November 23, 2007 at 4:42 pm
114 Michael van der Galiën

Gökalp is right about that by the way: several books have been published in recent years - and sold in Turkey - in that regard.

Please do not start “Tukey and Democracy” stories. This is a shamefull smear campaing that Armenians always use when they have no facts to show.

You’re also right about that.

They also often forget that they don’t exactly have a history (and present) of being pro-democracy and openness either.

on November 23, 2007 at 4:46 pm
115 Ari Armen

Dear Mr Gokalp

I was outside and only now I gave a look (”goz attim”) to new posts.

Of course I will answer as soon as possible.

I will try to follow your last paragraph, hopefull to not suffer
any other stupidity.

Thanks !



on November 23, 2007 at 6:31 pm
116 Ari Armen

Dear Mr Gokalp,
Re: Your Post N° 101

Ok.
Your 2° and 3° Paragraph, after “Dear Armen”

First of all, can you confirm me if I understood well the meaning of your 2° paragrapf , first sentence, which I’m repeting here in turkish, please ? (Senin bir turk-ermeni olusundan dolayi boyle agir muzakereler icin kalifiye degilsin ne de ona istirak etmege hakkin var).

Thanking you,
Ari Armen

on November 23, 2007 at 8:48 pm
117 Kathy

Katy, I’m living in Italy, but it is not important: sincerely I accept your Thankgivings wishes and so I wish for you.

Thank you, Ari. I appreciate that. I just want to clarify that when I gave you those Thanksgiving wishes, I did not know where you lived. If I had known you lived in Italy, obviously I would not have wished you happy Thanksgiving, even with the proviso “if you observe it.” I’m not an idiot. I know Thanksgiving is not observed in Italy, lol.

Anyway, wishing you all the best.

on November 23, 2007 at 8:56 pm
118 Kathy

He said he lives in Italy.

He said he lives in Italy after I wished him happy Thanksgiving, if he observed it. That comment appeared after I had posted mine. And that is my last word on this disagreement, which is too silly for words.

And I hope that when you grow older, you’ll be able to take two sides of a story into account, not one.

Not every story has two sides, Michael. The story of the murder of six million Jews does not have two sides. The story of slavery in the United States, and then 100 years of terrorism against black Americans does not have two sides. The murder of James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman does not have two sides.

Genocide does not have two sides.

on November 23, 2007 at 9:08 pm
119 Nihat

Ari, I think Gokalp meant well. Instead of “istirak etmege hakkin var,” I would say, “tanik olmaya mustehak degilsin.” In other words, and in my humble opinion, it was an expression of unease for your having to witness a Turk and a Diaspora Armenian going head to head over this.

on November 23, 2007 at 9:31 pm
120 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy: your inability, no your refusal, to see that this story actually does have two sides says all everyone needs to know about your point of view on this one.

This story does have two sides Kathy. Many (most) serious historians with the expertise in Ottoman and Turkish history agree on that.

It’s sad, it really is, that you refuse to accept what even the Western leaders accepted back in the day.

Secondly, you assume that it’s genocide because… well… because many people died presumable. If you did some research, some serious research, you would find out that it’s actually not so simple.

Anyway, by saying ‘this story doesn’t have to sides to it’ you have made yourself completely irrelevant in the debate and, what’s more, you have proven that you don’t care - at all - about the hundreds of thousands of Turkish Muslims who died because of the activities of Armenian rebels who were bent on creating a Christian nation-state of their own.

Also: I would like you to tell me what you accuse Talaat Pasha of having done. Are you referring to the ‘exterminate them’ telegrams or, per chance, to things he said according to Henry Morgenthau in “Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story”?

Have you ever read the Ottoman archives? Have you ever read real telegrams they sent to one another? Have you ever read the instruction they gave the army? They’re translated you know.

You haven’t. Why not? Because you have decided that what happened was genocide even though you lack the most basic knowledge (I mean, the Hitler quote? How sad is that) about it. Luckily, most readers are more reasonable and intelligent than that.

on November 23, 2007 at 10:23 pm
121 Ari Armen

Dear Katy,

Don’t worry about it.

Thanks again for your kindness.
All the best and a “ciao” from Italy !

on November 23, 2007 at 10:33 pm
122 Ari Armen

Dear Mr Nihat,

Thanks for your explanation (clarification?) .

Best wishes.

on November 23, 2007 at 11:39 pm
123 Kathy

Have you ever read the Ottoman archives? … They’re translated you know.

Where?

on November 24, 2007 at 12:24 am
124 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy: I get a bit tired of this. If I thought you would actually be interested in this, I would help you. Sadly, however, you seem to do your best being uninformed.

Anyway, for what it’s worth. There’s a book out there about this. The Turkish government has ordered it to be translated and put in a book precisely because of the debate. Turkish Armenian Conflict Documents contains “the Ottoman archive documents, most of which being published for the first time.”

It’s fascinating to read these documents, telegrams, orders, etc. It doesn’t make what happened to the Armenians any less devastating, but it does most surely inform one about the intentions of the ones in control.

on November 24, 2007 at 12:36 am
125 gökalp

Dear Mr. Ari

Mr. Nihat is right. What I mean was “burada kötü (cirkin, agir) bir tartisma var. Siz böyle bir tartismaya katilacak bir insan degilsiniz. nede buna tanik olmaya yada istirak etmeye müstehaksiniz.”

Sorry for this Turkish post but this had to be clarified.

on November 24, 2007 at 12:51 am
126 gökalp

You can also download 7 huge volumes that contain Ottoman miliary archive material from this link. the books are both in Turkish and English.

The books are named “Armenian Activities in the Archive documents”

http://www.tsk.mil.tr/8_TARIHTEN_KESITLER/8_1_Ermeni_Sorunu/konular/arsiv_belgeleriyle_ermeni_faaliyetleri.htm

on November 24, 2007 at 12:55 am
127 Michael van der Galiën

Let me quote one:

“Document dated 14 June 1915 - to the Governorates of Diyarbakir, Elazig, and Bitlis about an Armenian convoy of 500 individuals, who were attacked and massacred by the Kurds; and about the necessity to provide protection to such convoys on the roads and to punish those who attack them

“Ottoman Government
Ministry of the Interior
General Directorate of Security
Confidential: 20

“It has been communicated by the Governorate of Erzurum that a convoy of 500 Armenians removed from Erzurum had been massacred by the Kurds somewhere between Erzincan and Erzurum. Naturally, every feasible measure to protect the lives of the subject Armenians on their journeys and to punish those among them who attempt to escape, as well as those who attack the officials responsible for protecting their lives, should be taken. However, while achieving that, the involvement of the local people shall never be permitted, and utmost care shall be taken in order to absolutely prevent any incidents which may cause battle [slaughter] between different [ethnic and / or religious groups] which also will create an undesirable image in the eyes of foreigners. Therefore, it is necessary to take measures to protect the Armenians against such attacks by the tribes and villagers on their way, and to severely punish those who dare to kill or abduct them.

“The Minister Talat.”

And there are many more where that came from. Seriously - one thing is abundantly clear… as historians like Lewy, Lewis, McCarthy, Shaw, and so on have already explained, the intention wasn’t to kill the Armenians, in fact they ordered them to be protected, etc. Sure, that ran out of hand, but consider the time. It was war. The Ottomans were losing everywhere. Yes, Armenians died due to disease, murder, starvation, but Turks didn’t suffer any less. If I remember correctly, 1/3 of the Turkish population was wiped out by the end of it. The largest part of its army wasn’t killed by other soldiers, but by diseases because the government couldn’t feed them and take care of them. Normal Turks died out of starvation, and so on. Meanwhile, Armenians were rebelling, burning down Muslim villages, wiping out the local populations, attacking the Ottoman Army in the back… There are too messages about this, documents, etc.

The Ottoman government overreacted by evacuating too many people, but considering the time, place and conditions… well, definitely another side to the story, lets keep it at that.

Again, there truly are two sides to this story.

on November 24, 2007 at 12:57 am
128 gökalp

Kathy is right about one thing “Genocide does not have two sides.”

And that is the reason why what Armenians had been through was not genocide.

on November 24, 2007 at 12:57 am
129 Michael van der Galiën

Gökalp: great. I took 20 minutes to find documents that are relevant now and type them… then you inform me that we can also download them… Hmpf.

on November 24, 2007 at 12:58 am
130 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy is right about one thing “Genocide does not have two sides.”

And that is the reason why what Armenians had been through was not genocide.

Quite right.

on November 24, 2007 at 1:01 am
131 Michael van der Galiën

Furthermore Gökalp: it never ceases to amaze me that ‘the other side’ simply doesn’t take into account what happened to the Turks. Seriously, I don’t get it. There’s enough material - not propaganda but scholarly works - out there about what the Armenian nationalists did, what their goals were, how they tried to achieve them, and so on. You can find out that other side of the story by searching. By being curious. By looking a bit further than the latest article in the NYT.

It’s absolutely amazing to me that it’s simply ignored.

on November 24, 2007 at 1:19 am
132 gökalp

Dear Michael just visit Armenian forums or Wikipedia`s Armenian related sections frequently to be amazed to death. This is the most pleasent discussion ever.

Also you can reach a great deal of archive material from these links. Actually this site has every thing just try the search or cumulative section.

http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/documents.htm
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/documents2.htm
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/documents3.htm

also a book which uses archival evidence
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/graves-spurt-dead.htm
http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/graves2-spurt-dead.htm

on November 24, 2007 at 2:00 am
133 Suzan

“Samuel Weems also has something interesting to say about that in his book about radical Christianity among Armenians.”

lol, bringing Sam Weems, a disbarred lawyer, back from the dead, what a blast from the past, didn’t he die from a heart attack or something? I wonder if he slept well at night, not to mention his checkered past. And about lawsuits, it was Sammy Weems who had threatened a lawsuit against Armenians. Armenians were, as they always do, taking the attitude of ‘bring it on’ when he was threatening to sue. But he passed away shortly thereafter, leaving behind his Turkish wife and son. May God have mercy on his soul.

Michael van der Galiën, I hope Weems is not your role model, Not that marrying a Turkish woman is a bad thing, I believe Sibel Edmonds is of Tukish origin, and she blew the lid off the Turkish bribery scheme of America’s top public servants to deny the Armenian genocide. (Look her up if you don’t know).

And about Bernard Lewis, I seem to recall he was condemned by a French Court for statements about the Armenian genocide. As a matter of fact, a Parisian court interpreted his remarks as a denial of the Armenian genocide. Are you going to follow him in that path?

Understandably, we all enjoy a bit of the public attention, and you are getting some here. For Armenians, it’s just great that since October 10, 2007, there have been thousands of articles about the genocide. Can’t wait for your next one about Armenians, this one is getting bloated anyway. For over 90 years, barely anyone mentioned Armenians or, God forbid, the Armenian genocide.

Times are indeed a’changing.

on November 24, 2007 at 2:11 am
134 Kathy

Kathy: I get a bit tired of this. If I thought you would actually be interested in this, I would help you. Sadly, however, you seem to do your best being uninformed.

That’s a very interesting response, Michael, considering that you were the one who wrote to me:

“Have you ever read the Ottoman archives? Have you ever read real telegrams they sent to one another? Have you ever read the instruction they gave the army? They’re translated you know.

You haven’t. Why not? Because you have decided that what happened was genocide even though you lack the most basic knowledge (I mean, the Hitler quote? How sad is that) about it. Luckily, most readers are more reasonable and intelligent than that.”

So I went to Google and searched for keywords “Ottoman Archives English.” There was nothing. Of course, there were hits that came up, but none of them led to the Ottoman Archives in English translation.

Which is why I asked you where they were. And now your answer is, Oh, you’re not sincere, I’m not going to tell you where they are.

Then, your next paragraph:

Anyway, for what it’s worth. There’s a book out there about this. The Turkish government has ordered it to be translated and put in a book precisely because of the debate. Turkish Armenian Conflict Documents contains “the Ottoman archive documents, most of which being published for the first time.”

Oh, a book! And it’s not even a published book. The Turkish government “has ordered it to be translated and put in a book….” But where is it right now? Nowhere, right? How do I get a copy of it? I can’t, right?

Then, you *quote* one, or part of one — but there’s no way I can see it for myself. Then you say, “And there are many more where that came from.” Uh-huh. Right. WHERE?

And finally, Gokalp tells me: “You can also download 7 huge volumes that contain Ottoman miliary archive material from this link. the books are both in Turkish and English.”

I can download 7 huge volumes. That has got to be the most insane suggestion I have seen in this thread, or any other for that matter. Yeah, I’m gonna go right now and do that. Just have to run to the store to get some more printer paper. Be right back. LOL.

Listen, Michael, Gokalp: You’ve got NOTHING. You understand? Nothing. You are blowing smoke, and stale smoke at that.

on November 24, 2007 at 2:38 am
135 Interested

Kathy,

That’s being quite a bit - well okay I won’t say it. But you asked and they showed you directly where, to which your ever so passionate reply is.

I can download 7 huge volumes. That has got to be the most insane suggestion I have seen in this thread, or any other for that matter. Yeah, I’m gonna go right now and do that. Just have to run to the store to get some more printer paper. Be right back. LOL.

The Ottoman Archives are made up of over 50 million documents. Did you want someone to sum it into 2 or so pages? Exactly what are the limits of your interest when taking such a passionate interest?

Listen, Michael, Gokalp: You’ve got NOTHING. You understand? Nothing. You are blowing smoke, and stale smoke at that.

I for one am willing to admit I know too little about the timeframe involved to take one side or another. And from an outside observer report you did not care to look.

on November 24, 2007 at 2:54 am
136 Kathy

Exactly what are the limits of your interest when taking such a passionate interest?

38.7 gigabytes

on November 24, 2007 at 3:05 am
137 Interested

Exactly what are the limits of your interest when taking such a passionate interest?

38.7 gigabytes

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously. But have no fear - from appearances the links provided to you look far less than 38.7 gigabytes.

Your in luck. Download away.

on November 24, 2007 at 3:27 am
138 Nihat

Re: “I for one am willing to admit I know too little about the timeframe involved to take one side or another.”

Good for you, Interested. You know what they say: there is his (my) side and her (your) side; and, there is truth. You can thus adopt the side of truth. It’s a very pessimistic view of the discourse, but arguably, one can only claim to be on the side of truth in this matter if he/she remains 100% ignorant.

on November 24, 2007 at 3:43 am
139 Kathy

And you wonder why no one takes you seriously.

And the evidence for that is about as solid as the evidence that 2.5 Armenians tried to wipe out 25 million Turks.

When I get a link to an Internet site with links to primary documents that I can read online, or even some book titles that my public library or a local bookstore might reasonably be expected to have, I will gladly read them. But I’m not going to download 7 book volumes worth of material onto my hard drive. And something is wrong when the only evidence that deniers of the Armenian genocide can point to is a massive series of book volumes that can only be viewed via download onto a personal computer. In this day and age, anyone who would just blithely “download away” anything from an unknown source — much less SEVEN DIGITIZED VOLUMES — is, quite frankly, either a fool or very naive. I am very cautious about what I choose to download onto my computer, and what sites I choose to download from. And it’s not at all reasonable to expect that most people would want to do such a thing (download a very large amount of material from an unknown site onto a personal computer).

Try again, “Interested.” My conclusion that you guys have so credible evidence at all for what you are asking the rest of us to believe still stands.

on November 24, 2007 at 3:45 am
140 Kathy

“My conclusion that you guys have so credible evidence at all for what you are asking the rest of us to believe still stands.”

NO credible evidence, not SO credible evidence.

on November 24, 2007 at 3:54 am
141 Interested

And the evidence for that is about as solid as the evidence that 2.5 Armenians tried to wipe out 25 million Turks.

Funny statement considering you then go on to say.

When I get a link to an Internet site with links to primary documents that I can read online, or even some book titles that my public library or a local bookstore might reasonably be expected to have, I will gladly read them. But I’m not going to download 7 book volumes worth of material onto my hard drive

Meaning - your too intellectually lazy to research to find out if your full of it or not.

is, quite frankly, either a fool or very naive. I am very cautious about what I choose to download onto my computer, and what sites I choose to download from.

I’d call it being ignorant in today’s protection procedures - which again are freely available on the WWW.

Try again, “Interested.” My conclusion that you guys have so credible evidence at all for what you are asking the rest of us to believe still stands.

No I do not think I will. I admitted that I knew little and was taking no sides. You’ve admitted that not only are you unwilling to read anything that does not conform to your mystery standards that you also do not feel it is worth your time. I doubt there is a book that breaks it down so easily for anyone to read yet - if there were it would probably be titled Ottoman Empire for Dummy’s or some crib notes to that effect. You cannot even get straight who is on what side.

Your intellectual curiosity - or lack of has no credibility.

on November 24, 2007 at 5:43 am
142 Kathy

I’d call it being ignorant in today’s protection procedures - which again are freely available on the WWW.

Well, if you did, you’d be wrong, but that’s nothing new.

I doubt there is a book that breaks it down so easily for anyone to read yet - if there were it would probably be titled Ottoman Empire for Dummy’s or some crib notes to that effect. You cannot even get straight who is on what side.

You are probably correct on this point, given that the evidence for Armenians in Turkey having been the victims of genocide from 1915 to 1918 is overwhelming, and confirmed by disinterested (meaning, not Armenian) sources and well-regarded historical scholars as well as experts in genocide — and the evidence to support Turkish claims that there was no genocide and that in fact Armenians massacred Turks, consorted with “the enemy,” and tried to drive Turks out of Turkey and take over the country is extremely weak, and mostly Turkish-sourced.

I admitted that I knew little and was taking no sides.

You did say both of those things, but I only believe the first one.

Your intellectual curiosity - or lack of has no credibility.

If you would have it so, then it is so for you. I will validate your conclusion to this degree: I really do not have any strong interest in or curiosity about what Turkish, and Turkish-sympathetic, sources maintain is “the other side.” I know all of their arguments in their broad outlines; I’ve seen some of what they consider to be “evidence,” and I have found it very unimpressive. Considering the fact that Turkish claims that there was no genocide of Armenians go against and are contrary to what an extremely wide and diverse array of sources — really the entire world except for Turkey — have shown to be true through all kinds of archival, primary, and direct sources, Turkey has a steeply uphill battle to prove that all that evidence and scholarship is wrong. And if this is their best effort, they are very much underperforming.

But I stray from my central point, which is that it is people like Michael who have to persuade me that they are even worth taking seriously — not, as you would have it, people like me who should be feeling some kind of strong need to research the Turkish position.

on November 24, 2007 at 6:12 am
143 Interested

I’d call it being ignorant in today’s protection procedures - which again are freely available on the WWW.

Well, if you did, you’d be wrong, but that’s nothing new.

Do some research Kathy. It - like so many things - is right there for you to see. Only a desire not to know is stopping you.

I’ve seen some of what they consider to be “evidence,” and I have found it very unimpressive.

Whoop de doo. You’ve flat out said you couldn’t be bothered researching any bit of it. So it would not matter if it were 50 million documents or 50 million boogers.

But I stray from my central point, which is that it is people like Michael who have to persuade me that they are even worth taking seriously — not, as you would have it, people like me who should be feeling some kind of strong need to research the Turkish position.

IMO - that’s the last thing he should strive to do. Your going to his blog to argue his points without studying on your own - not the other way around. He owes you nothing. What possible use would it be for Michael or anybody for that matter - to educate people who have no desire to learn on their own. You’ve been provided with links, been provided with examples - and you in turn just demand they see things your way.

Now had you actually read, reasoned and attempted to understand and come back with counter arguments - than great. But you laughably refuse to even consider anything. We must be at a Democrat Convention or something.

on November 24, 2007 at 6:48 am
144 Kathy

Do some research Kathy. It - like so many things - is right there for you to see. Only a desire not to know is stopping you.

Do some research about what? A desire not to know about what? This comment is not responding to anything I wrote.

You’ve flat out said you couldn’t be bothered researching any bit of it. So it would not matter if it were 50 million documents or 50 million boogers.

Exactly. You’re absolutely right. The only thing I don’t understand is why you think I *should* be bothered researching denials of a genocide that has been so well documented for the past 90 years that only the country that committed it denies that it happened.

Your going to his blog to argue his points without studying on your own - not the other way around. He owes you nothing.

First, I have no idea what would make you think I have not “studied on my own.” I have done a significant amount of reading and study on the Armenian genocide — certainly not to the extent of even making a discernible dent in the amount of material that is out there on the genocide, but still, for one person, a lot. You think that because I don’t choose to expend my energies checking out all of the denialists’ arguments, I’m somehow “not studying,” but that’s not true. I simply don’t spend a lot of time studying a point of view that clearly has no validity.

Second, I comment here because I am outraged by apologists for genocide. Any decent person would be, but I have especially compelling personal reasons for being outraged by apologists for genocide. I’m not posting comments here for the sake of arguing, or to change Michael’s mind, or anyone else’s. I post here when I read statements that I feel must be confronted because they are so morally repellent. I’m really commenting here, on this topic, for my own sake more than for Michael’s. I just can’t let what he says go unchallenged.

Second, of course Michael owes me nothing. By the same token, I owe him nothing — and he is the one who keeps ranting and raving about people who won’t check out “the other side” that says there was no Armenian genocide. Why should I check it out? There is no other side as far as I’m concerned. There are just lunatics and deeply misinformed people (just for the record, I believe Michael fits in the second category, not the first) who insist on denying the historical truth of an event about there is really no serious doubt.

The above having been said, Michael *would* be within his rights not to allow opposing comments, and for the most part he has not done that. He’s inconsistent about his requests for civility, but for the most part he does allow dissenting opinions here, and he doesn’t have to, because this is, as you say, his blog. For that I commend him, and I mean that sincerely.

on November 24, 2007 at 6:50 am
145 Kathy

THIRD, of course Michael owes me nothing.

on November 24, 2007 at 6:56 am
146 Interested

Do some research Kathy. It - like so many things - is right there for you to see. Only a desire not to know is stopping you.

Do some research about what? A desire not to know about what? This comment is not responding to anything I wrote.

I think we shall stop there. If you cannot recognize a quote that you wrote and a post responding to it. I see no point in attempting to open the eyes of someone wishing to be blind in so many aspects.



on November 24, 2007 at 10:03 am
147 Michael van der Galiën

I can download 7 huge volumes. That has got to be the most insane suggestion I have seen in this thread, or any other for that matter. Yeah, I’m gonna go right now and do that. Just have to run to the store to get some more printer paper. Be right back. LOL.

Listen, Michael, Gokalp: You’ve got NOTHING. You understand? Nothing. You are blowing smoke, and stale smoke at that.

That’s the problem for you Kathy: we actually do have lots of evidence. And about the documents: I have the book in my possession. A friend from Turkey got it and sent it to me.

Also: Interested, thanks for responding to her the way you did. And you’re right. She’s intellectually lazy. Notice how she refuses to do research (I could give her a list of 25+ books and other scholarly works that are in my possession) because well… “it was genocide!” You see how it works? No need for them to do research. No need for them to read. No. It has been decided that it’s genocide and that’s that.

And that’s why they’ll lose this battle in the end. They don’t have any arguments except for yelling.

Which isn’t an argument of course.

There is no other side as far as I’m concerned. There are just lunatics and deeply misinformed people (just for the record, I believe Michael fits in the second category, not the first) who insist on denying the historical truth of an event about there is really no serious doubt.

LOL - that’s a hilarious comment. If you would do any research, and read some of the things people gave you, you would understand that saying “it’s a historical truth” doesn’t quite make it so. I offered prove, much, that what happened doesn’t constitute genocide. Yet, you refuse to read that prove, because… well… because you don’t want to read anything that disagrees with your premise. There are many scholarly works - by Westerners - that argue that the Armenians actually committed ethnic cleansing and that the Turks didn’t commit genocide.

In short: you wouldn’t know what the historical truth is if it hit you on the head with a hammer.

I post here when I read statements that I feel must be confronted because they are so morally repellent. I’m really commenting here, on this topic, for my own sake more than for Michael’s. I just can’t let what he says go unchallenged.

The funny thing is: you don’t ‘challenge’ anything. You just scream “genocide!” and that’s it. I’ll use this thread to show my representatives in the government and other interested parties. They’ll understand how weak your case actually is.

Suzan: thanks for that comment. I think it’ll let people know what hatred you actually harbor. Right under the surface, but it’s there. Also: strangely you forgot to mention that Weems was a Baptist preacher. One of his complaints was that the Armenians oppressed Christians who don’t belong to the Armenian Orthodox Church. Another one is that they followed (follow) a radical interpretation of Christianity.

I think we shall stop there. If you cannot recognize a quote that you wrote and a post responding to it. I see no point in attempting to open the eyes of someone wishing to be blind in so many aspects.

Exactly.

And it’s hilarious.

on November 24, 2007 at 11:26 am
148 Michael van der Galiën

Gökalp: yes I see.

Well, go to work Kathy! Or, if you don’t, you have declared yourself completely irrelevant. If you don’t want to do the necessary research, you shouldn’t visit blogs and start screaming.

on November 24, 2007 at 12:09 pm
149 Michael van der Galiën

No I do not think I will. I admitted that I knew little and was taking no sides. You’ve admitted that not only are you unwilling to read anything that does not conform to your mystery standards that you also do not feel it is worth your time. I doubt there is a book that breaks it down so easily for anyone to read yet - if there were it would probably be titled Ottoman Empire for Dummy’s or some crib notes to that effect. You cannot even get straight who is on what side.

Your intellectual curiosity - or lack of has no credibility.

You know, that’s what bothers me. If people want to talk about, do the necessary research. If you don’t want to do the research - and I actually have many documents that are quite readable - then stop talking about this matter. Go and bake cookies for all I care, but don’t comment on it.

Her point of view is: I’m right, no matter what you say. When you say “here’s evidence to the contrary” she says “I’m not going to read that, it takes too much time / trouble.”

It’s absolutely amazing. Willfully blind indeed.

Kathy: if you don’t want to read what materials you’re given, stop commenting at this blog immediately.

on November 24, 2007 at 9:09 pm
150 Kathy

BACKSTORY:

ME: … I am very cautious about what I choose to download onto my computer, and what sites I choose to download from.

INTERESTED: I’d call it being ignorant in today’s protection procedures - which again are freely available on the WWW.

ME: Well, if you did, you’d be wrong, but that’s nothing new.

INTERESTED: Do some research Kathy. It - like so many things - is right there for you to see. Only a desire not to know is stopping you.

ME: Do some research about what? A desire not to know about what? This comment is not responding to anything I wrote.

INTERESTED: I think we shall stop there. If you cannot recognize a quote that you wrote and a post responding to it. I see no point in attempting to open the eyes of someone wishing to be blind in so many aspects.

ME, NOW: Oh, I can recognize a quote all right. You can’t recognize an answer to it. Your comment beginning, ” Do some research Kathy….” was a direct response to this comment of mine: “I am very cautious about what I choose to download onto my computer, and what sites I choose to download from.” Which means your instruction to me to “do some research” made no sense as a response to what I had written, because I had just told you that you were wrong in saying that I “am ignorant in today’s protection procedures.” I am not ignorant in today’s protection procedures, and my PC is fully protected. And the protection is regularly updated, I might add.

Clearly, you did not understand that when I told you you were wrong, I was referring to knowing how to protect my computer. Again, your reply made no sense in connection with what I had told you. So it’s you who cannot recognize what you have written or what comments of mine your writing is responding to.

And just to make things perfectly clear, because I can hear your next comment: Yes, my computer is fully and very well protected. But anyone who works with computers will tell you that’s not a reason to go downloading stuff from unknown sites. And I won’t.

Now, Michael’s statement:

“…if you don’t want to read what materials you’re given, stop commenting at this blog immediately.”

I have read everything that you have posted here. None of it is the slightest bit convincing or credible. If you want me to read more, I will be glad to read any material on the Internet you suggest — providing reading it does not require me to download volumes of books onto my hard drive. Furthermore, if there AREN’T any such materials on the Internet supporting your claims other than files that can only be viewed by downloading, you don’t have much of a case.

on November 24, 2007 at 9:18 pm
151 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy: luckily, I’m 100% sure that other readers will see it slightly differently than you do. In 8 posts I’ve linked to and quoted several scholarly works, and even a first-hand account from a Dutch journalist. But you simply dismiss these pieces written by eye witnesses or experts. What’s more, I’ve given you the name of the book to read the Ottoman Archives. I don’t have to order it for you. Try a bit harder to find it. You can even download it. That you don’t want to do that… well… again, I’m 100% sure that they know what your game is (willfully blind and ignorant).

You haven’t presented any facts, any scholarly works, nothing to back up your claims. I have in the course of the weeks.

You’re not misinformed, I’m convinced that you’re willfully misinformed.

Anyway, as I said, don’t bother responding at this blog again, because I’m not going to take even 1 minute to write down a response.

For others, here are two works by scholars that are highly interesting:
The First Shot: An Approach to the Armenian Question by Professor Justin McCarthy
The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story by Heath W. Lowry

These two are good starting points - aside from the documents which you can download.

on November 24, 2007 at 9:19 pm
152 Kathy

I offered prove, much, that what happened doesn’t constitute genocide. Yet, you refuse to read that prove, because… well… because you don’t want to read anything that disagrees with your premise.

This is utterly false. I have responded, directly, to much of the material you have posted here that you feel “proves” that what happened to the Armenians was not genocide. That is just a fact, Michael. I have responded to it. The problem is that what you have posted does not prove what you say it proves. It just doesn’t. You obviously think that if I still disagree with you, it must mean I haven’t read what you wrote. But that is not true. I read what you wrote. It doesn’t convince. And I have told you WHY it doesn’t convince. In detail.

There are many scholarly works - by Westerners - that argue that the Armenians actually committed ethnic cleansing and that the Turks didn’t commit genocide.

I don’t know how you define “many.” I’ve only seen references here to less than a handful. And those are all Westerners who are relying heavily if not solely on the Turkish version of events contained in the Ottoman Archives.

on November 24, 2007 at 9:34 pm
153 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy: I wonder how you ever got a college degree (if you got one that is). As I said, I’m confident that other readers will be quite able to judge who’s the liar, distorter and willfully blind one here.

Do some reading. You present yourself as an intellectually lazy activist. You come here, with a predetermined opinion, and - no matter what - you’re not going to adjust it even one bit. Not even if the dead would come back to tell you what happened.

It’s sad.

“It just doesn’t.”

See my first paragraph in this comment.

You have said that - already - this story doesn’t have two sides. That’s also why you - you said this yourself - don’t consider it necessary to research it, to question yourself, to go through some trouble to find works about this question, that may shed another light on it, etc.

What a farce you are.

My God.

You should go back to college. Perhaps they can teach you a little bit there about how you should question your own premises, how important it is to do research, etc. etc. etc.

Ahwell, in the end these posts aren’t written for people like you. They’re written for those who actually want to think and are willing to understand that this story certainly does have two sides to it.

What a farce, intellectually and otherwise.

It just doesn’t. You obviously think that if I still disagree with you, it must mean I haven’t read what you wrote. But that is not true. I read what you wrote. It doesn’t convince. And I have told you WHY it doesn’t convince. In detail.

There are two options:
1- You don’t realize how strange your reasoning is (it’s genocide because it is, no two sides so I don’t need to do research, what you write isn’t convincing because genocide doesn’t have two sides to it and this was genocide because it was)
2- You do, but you don’t mind

My guess? Well, you’re either stupid or dishonest. Your choice.

I don’t know how you define “many.” I’ve only seen references here to less than a handful. And those are all Westerners who are relying heavily if not solely on the Turkish version of events contained in the Ottoman Archives.

Yes and you and your buddies would like people to ignore it. Did you know that these historians - not sociologists like Akçam, a fake scholar if ever there was one - actually form approximately half of the scholars with this expertise, and that if we look at the quality and reputation of the scholars, it’s safe to say that the majority of highly respected and skilled historians with as expertise Turkey / Ottoman Empire believe that it was not genocide?

Did you hear about the letter more than 100 historians sent to the US Congress in the 1980s?

Yeah

O, and it’s quite important to study the Ottoman archives If you want to know whether it was genocide or not.

[censored]

Again, you’re either dishonest or stupid. Your choice.

The Armenian case rests on Morgenthau’s fairy tale (yes fairy tale), the fake telegrams of Talaat Pasha (something tells me you rely on these fake telegrams as well), the Blue Book from the English government (shitty piece of propaganda, filled with distortions, lies, etc.)… O, the list goes on and on.

Dishonest - stupid.

O, another one (not for you Kathy but for the more intellectually curious - let me correct myself: intelligent - readers out there): “Why Armenia Should Be Free” by Armen Garo. It’s obviously a book meant to persuade the great powers to let the Armenians have a country of their own, etc., but it’s fascinating nonetheless in this debate.

Did you know that the Ottomans offered the Armenians an autonomous region of their own?

Of course the Armenians didn’t accept it because they thought that they were so strong that they could conquer (Eastern) Anatolia: lands in which they formed only a 20% minority. Of course this meant that they had to kill Turkish Muslims or put them in exile. And they were quite active at that!*

The answers… are out there. The Armenian genocide case is so weak that even the Armenian lobby itself knows it has to lie, distort and bully.

*See for instance the book mentioned earlier on by McCarthy for a scholarly opinion on this

on November 24, 2007 at 9:47 pm
154 Kathy

Michael,

I just read the above reply you wrote, but before I saw it, just now, I went back and re-read your entire post above the comments, AND I went back to your other post, which you linked to at the top, and read that as well.

Then I read the first comment to this post (Westerners on the Armenian Strategy…), written by Paul.

I come away even more convinced that everything I have told you is legitimate and valid. Especially after reading Paul’s comment. Because Paul has actually traced all of your quotes to their sources, and tells you, in detail, why they are suspect, why they do not have the integrity you attribute to them. In short, Paul does *exactly* what you demand that I do, and that everyone here who disputes your version of events, do: He did original research (”original” meaning in this context reading the sources you quoted from, or identifying them, as opposed to simply reading everything you typed but not actually going back to see where you got it from).

And so what do you tell Paul, who has done precisely and exactly what you have been issuing streams of insults toward me for not doing? Here is what you tell him:

The alleged Hitler quote is 100% nonsense and stop discrediting my sources. Again, I took the time to copy it, handwritten, typing and all that.

I am beginning to realize that you simply don’t want to hear the other side.

Even AFTER reading your typing and checking the sources you copied from, one is still not allowed to dispute your conclusions.

So everything you have said to me, Michael — every insult, every vile accusation — is utterly and completely phony.

You have no credibility.

on November 24, 2007 at 9:51 pm
155 Michael van der Galiën

Actually he didn’t. He constantly attacks the sources. As Nihat said, he fights over technicalities and ignores everything else. I gave you two books, if you’ve got any decency in that intellectually lazy body of yours you’d get them and read them.

So everything you have said to me, Michael — every insult, every vile accusation — is utterly and completely phony.

You have no credibility.

Get out of here. You’re dishonest to the bone.

But… again, I’m actually having a field day because I know that other readers will draw the same conclusion as I have (drawn).

Byebye Kathy. Thanks for the great example in intellectual dishonesty and laziness.

Read the books I recommended in the comment above. Perhaps you’ll learn something. Shocking though: it might mean you get to understand that there are two sides to this story!

on November 24, 2007 at 10:02 pm
156 Kathy

You should go back to college. Perhaps they can teach you a little bit there about how you should question your own premises, how important it is to do research, etc. etc. etc.

I went to Drew University in Madison, NJ. Here is the link to a course listing page for a graduate course in genocide studies.

http://www.drew.edu/CatalogScripts/grad/display.php?name=ARLET+335&group=arlet

on November 24, 2007 at 10:09 pm
157 Michael van der Galiën

You do know what real scholars think about genocide scholars don’t you?

Ahwell.

Anyway, I thought let me give the names of other books, if you’re suddenly curious, go ahead and read them! I found them to be fascinating!
The Armenian Legion and Its Destruction of the Armenian Community of Cilicia by Professor Stanford J. Shaw
Divided They Conquer: The Success of Armenian Ethnic Lobbies in the United States by Heather S. Gregg
The Talat Pasha Telegrams by Sinasi Orel (many other works deal with these ‘telegrams’ - ahem - as well)
Secrets of a ‘Christian’ Terrorist State Armenia by Samuel A. Weems
From Berlin to Baghdad to Babylon by J.A. Zahm

Och many more! But I’ll stop writing down the names of books in my little library now because… you won’t read them anyway

But it’s great fun!

Hophop, go and read Kathy.

Oops, I forgot: also, go to a good University! I’m sure they’ll teach you how to do proper research and how to avoid fake reasonings! “pseudo-arguments” is what you constantly use, but it’s fun!

on November 24, 2007 at 10:13 pm
158 Kathy

O, another one (not for you Kathy but for the more intellectually curious - let me correct myself: intelligent - readers out there): “Why Armenia Should Be Free” by Armen Garo. It’s obviously a book meant to persuade the great powers to let the Armenians have a country of their own, etc., but it’s fascinating nonetheless in this debate.

Michael,

I searched for Armen Garo on Amazon. Here is what came up:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-8010008-5169653?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Armen+Garo&x=10&y=21

Then I searched for “Why Armenia Should Be Free.” Here is what came up:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-8010008-5169653?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Why+Armenia+Should+Be+Free&x=14&y=22

Which is the book to which you refer, Michael? The one with the title you give us, but a different author? Or the one with the author you give us but a different title?

Sigh.

on November 24, 2007 at 10:15 pm
159 Michael van der Galiën

ROTFlMFAO(and-then-some)

Kathy: you’re hilarious.

Are you saying you don’t know who Dr. Pastermadjian - or as he’s better known Armen Garo - was?

It becomes even more funny!

He was one of the main leaders of the Armenians Kathy. That’s like not knowing who Talat Pasha is.

As I said, go and read.

on November 24, 2007 at 10:27 pm
160 Kathy

Michael,

Here are the links I found on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_b/002-8010008-5169653?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Why+Armenia+Should+Be+Free&x=14&y=22

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss_gw/002-8010008-5169653?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Armen+Garo&x=10&y=21

Which is the book to which you refer? The one with the author you name, but a different title? Or the one with the title you name but a different author?

on November 24, 2007 at 10:29 pm
161 Kathy

Oops, I forgot: also, go to a good University!

Defined as one that teaches that there was no Armenian genocide.

on November 24, 2007 at 10:30 pm
162 Michael van der Galiën

ARe you simply repeating the same question??? LMAO!

Pastermadjian, Kathy, is Armen Garo. If you keep that in mind, what book would it be you think huh? The… wait for it… probably the one with the title I gave you don’t you think?

And… I’ve given you several titles, told you the authors, look them up, order them, whatever, but don’t ask me to order them for you.

on November 24, 2007 at 10:31 pm
163 Michael van der Galiën

Defined as one that teaches that there was no Armenian genocide.

Defined as one that teaches you how to do research and how to argue your case using real arguments.

What a joke.

Anyway: order / find / download / borrow at library / whatever those books Kathy! Hophop! Read!

on November 24, 2007 at 10:44 pm
164 Kathy

Michael, come on. You don’t really want me to read the book. At least, not in the state you’re in at the moment. You are too beside yourself with negative emotion to be rational right now.

Nevertheless, I will be able to read the book, because I found a PDF of it through a Google search. It’s long out of print in physical book form.

I would like to clarify something for myself about your position as I start reading this book. Is it your position that the Armenian genocide did not occur, period; or is it your position that the Armenian genocide did occur, but it was justified and the Armenians were to blame for it because they wanted their own country and rebelled against Turkish rule?

on November 24, 2007 at 10:46 pm
165 Michael van der Galiën

Stop asking questions I’ve already answered multiple times Kathy.

And now I’m off to read, I suggest you do the same.

Bye now.

on November 24, 2007 at 11:21 pm
166 Kathy

Stop asking questions I’ve already answered multiple times Kathy.

Okay, Michael; I have gotten the strong impression that it’s the second of those two positions that you take, from everything you’ve written here. Since you don’t care to answer, I will assume I am correct.

on November 24, 2007 at 11:22 pm
167 Michael van der Galiën

Willfully blind indeed

on November 24, 2007 at 11:41 pm
168 Kathy

I’m halfway through this book already. It’s actually an incredible page-turner. Very gripping, well-written.

I’m more than a little puzzled as to why Michael wants people to read this book. It does not at all support his position. I don’t get it.

on November 24, 2007 at 11:43 pm
169 Suzan

“Also: strangely you forgot to mention that Weems was a Baptist preacher.”

Yes, a man convicted of arson and disbarred for mixing clients’ money with his own, should be remembered as a Baptist preacher. And, according to your logic, Hitler should be remembered as a painter? In your quest to be ‘even handed’ you would mention that all the time as well, correct? You would say, Hitler, a painter, also was known for such things as leading Nazi Germany to WWII, and the Holocaust.

Brilliant, Michael van der Galiën, brilliant indeed.

Sure, it is important to have a discussion about all of these things. For instance, when discussing that the earth is round, you would perhaps bring in a balancing view that the earth is flat. I am sure you could indeed find that balanced view point and it would make for an interesting debate. And yes, Michael van der Galiën, the shape of the earth is still a debate, isn’t it, based on your logic.

One last point, for readers who are ‘newbies’ to this issue; the deniers of the Armenian genocide just don’t have longevity. Here are a few examples of those who tried, via newer technology like the Internet, to spread Denial (you may look these people up via Google or Wikipedia):

Hasan Mutlu - in the early 90’s this ‘user’ spearheaded one of the largest spamming campaigns on the Internet via usenet. He disappeared as mysteriously as he appeared.

Serdar Argic - appeared when Mutlu disappeared, increasing the spamming campaign and establishing himself as the biggest spamming campaign in Internet history. Wikipedia: “Argic’s postings soon numbered in the tens of thousands, and averaged over 100 posts per day, the highest post count of any single Usenet entity at the time.” He disappeared as well and it was revealed that Ahmet Cosar was behind the anti-Armenian spamming campaign.

Turkish Forum - published a list of all Armenians’ Email address on their website, eventually were banned by their ISP and disappeared

We already went over Weems.

So, to all those who are unaware about this, do not worry, the denial of the Armenian genocide has been around for over 90 years in different shapes, and like the denial of the Jewish genocide, has some following that comes and goes.

on November 24, 2007 at 11:45 pm
170 Michael van der Galiën

I’m more than a little puzzled as to why Michael wants people to read this book. It does not at all support his position. I don’t get it.

Oh!?

If you study a subject shouldn’t you read books from both sides?

And… there are some interesting points made in it though. That you don’t see them is probably quite indicative of your interpretation skills.

Let me give you a tip: Of course you have to keep in mind, while reading it, that he wrote it with a very deliberate purpose.

And what about the other ones Kathy, or will you only read this one? And will you now also study the documents of the Ottoman government or what?

on November 24, 2007 at 11:45 pm
171 Kathy

Willfully blind, indeed.

Michael, thank you for the link back to that post. THAT is the post I was looking for after I wrote here that you claimed only 300,000 Armenians died, and you said you had named a higher figure. You’re right that you did not say 300,000, but you did not name a specific higher figure. You said “hundreds of thousands.” Impossible to know what that means exactly — it could mean 300,000, it could mean 900,000.

on November 24, 2007 at 11:48 pm
172 Michael van der Galiën

Suzan: yeah baby! Great information.

Perhaps you should inform them about the Armenian terrorists who killed many people in the late 20th century, or are those details?

And are you also going to tell them about the organized efforts of Armenian groups to target sites that agree with the Turks?

Are you also going to inform them about your - yes your - attempts to get professors who disagree with you fired and books that disagree with you prevented from being published?

For those who are new to this debate: the Armenians are quite well organized (as they’re famous for actually). However, organization doesn’t beat truth. Ever.

on November 24, 2007 at 11:54 pm
173 Kathy

If you study a subject shouldn’t you read books from both sides?

Uhhh…yeah! But I already know the argument that says the Armenian genocide happened. So why would you want ME to read that? I can understand that YOU might want to read it. But it doesn’t tell me anything substantive that is new to me.

there are some interesting points made in it though. That you don’t see them is probably quite indicative of your interpretation skills.

There are some VERY interesting points made in it. I’m actually very grateful to you for pushing me to read it. It’s fascinating. I can’t say, though, that I agree with your second sentence. You strike me as being a bit conceited, Michael. Overly sure of yourself. How do you get to a conclusion that my interpretation skills are lacking, simply because they may not jibe with yours?

And what about the other ones Kathy, or will you only read this one? And will you now also study the documents of the Ottoman government or what?

Michael, stop asking questions I’ve answered multiple times.

But seriously. I am willing to read any document you suggest, as long as it is available in English translation and does not have to be downloaded onto my hard drive.



on November 25, 2007 at 12:57 am
174 Suzan

I agree with Kathy, Michael van der Galiën is very ambiguous in his responses…uses the word like “many’ or “hundreds of thousands.” to confuse matters. Yes, 15 Hundred thousand Armenians died in the first genocide of the 20th century. That’s 1.5 Million Armenians in today’s crazy math.

Specificity Michael van der Galiën, specifity.

on November 25, 2007 at 3:19 am
175 Eliot

Kathy, as a graduate of Drew University you might be interested in this article originally printed in the Drew Magazine (summer 1997), and reproduced in the University of Minnesota’s Center For Holocaust & Genocide Studies newsletter http://www.chgs.umn.edu/news/v3i1.html#truth detailing a controversy involving Heath Lowry and Professor Robert J. Lifton. Here is another article on the subject from the October 27, 1995 issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education http://users.ids.net/~gregan/chrnhied.html .

A great deal of effort has been expended to discredit Ambassador Morgenthau’s book however U.S. diplomats in the Ottoman Empire sent almost daily despatches to Washington and the archives confirm Morgenthau’s book. In this regard see ‘United States Official Records on the Armenian Genocide 1915-1917’.

You can read Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story online at http://net.lib.byu.edu/estu/wwi/comment/morgenthau/MorgenTC.htm .
Chapters XXIII – XXVIII are the most pertinent in particular Chapter XXIV ‘The Murder of a Nation’.

on November 25, 2007 at 3:31 am
176 Kathy

Michael,

I finished reading “Why Armenia Should Be Free.” It was well-written and very compelling. I’m glad I read it.

I’m putting the positive first, just remember that.

I checked out the first on the list of other books or documents you recommended, the one by Stanford Shaw, “The Armenian Legion and Its Destruction of the Armenian Community of Cilicia.” It’s vile. This is a piece of garbage, Michael. This is what you call scholarly? It’s completely one-sided, doesn’t even pretend to be objective; it’s just 100 percent propaganda. Plus, the very, very, very lengthy footnotes are ALL in Turkish.

Are the other books on that list of the same ilk as this one? Because if so I’d rather not waste my time looking at them.

Again, thank you for that first source. It was very moving and quite informative.

on November 25, 2007 at 5:26 am
177 Suzan

“Perhaps you should inform them about the Armenian terrorists who killed many people in the late 20th century, or are those details?”

Tell us how many people they killed in the late 20th century. Since you want to talk about that, and not the Armenian genocide, let’s also discuss Turkish terrorists and how many people they killed in the late 20th century:

Turkish Grey Wolves - Ultra-Nationalist pan-Turanian Terrorist organization who killed many in Turkey as well as outside of Turkey.

Turkish Hizballah - The ultimate goal of Turkish Hizballah is to overthrow the constitutional secular regime of Turkey in order to introduce a strict Islamic state. Since the early 1990s, Human Rights Watch and other organizations have openly criticized the laissez-faire attitude of Turkish authorities towards the activities of Hizballah in their country.

PKK - Terrorist organization made up of mountainous Turkish citizens who have killed many in Turkey and outside.

Other ‘famous’ Turkish terrorists:

Mehmet Ali Agca shot Pope John Paul II at St. Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981

Turkish Azeri Azeri officer Ramil Safarov Sahib - At a Budapest Academy, entered an Armenian’s dormitory room and struck him repeatedly with an axe. The judge was quoted by the Hungarian news agency MTI as saying Sahib killed the victim because he was Armenian.

“Ogün Samast”, Yasin Hayal and many others - Killed Hrant Dink

on November 25, 2007 at 7:43 am
178 Paul

Wow, this is a sad descent into madness.
Early on, Michael was ok with his debate.
Lately he seemed to latch onto what was clearly propaganda, though he refused to admit it. For some reason he thinks anything by Armenians is pure lies and propaganda but that everything by Turks- including officials of the Turkish government- are automatic truths worth the paper they were written on.

Nothing- and I mean nothing- was so ridiculous though until I saw he invoked the name of Sam Weems. PLEASE- Michael if you are even trying to put his work forward as a legitimate source STOP NOW. You are only embarrassing yourself. Sam Weems work is possibly the saddest and most ridiculous garbage ever written on this issue. He is down right racist in his handling of Armenians and has spared no attempt in his work to slander Armenians however possible.
He even went to the extent of rhetorically inquiring why Armenians are in America and screamed “JUST GO HOME!”
Yes, the lovely baptist preacher (or as you forget to mention disbarred lawyer with absolutely no historical credentials) was also a nativist of the first rank who felt that Armenians have no place in America and they should all be shipped back to Armenia- no matter how many generations they’ve resided here. Let’s try replacing Armenian with African-American in that sentence, oh yes the darling ship’em back back to Africa movement is resurrected!

on November 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm
179 Robert

Quite interesting serie of replies here from Kathy…

On one hand, she refuses to Download documents from a web site such as: http://www.tsk.mil.tr, because she is “carefull” about where she gets her “stuff” from !?!?!
What’s the risk ???
1- The site belongs to the Military/Government of Turkey, which is the most logical/secure place to make archived document available on the Net.
2- The files are in PDF format; To date, I never heard of anything malicious that could have been propagated in a PDF format.

But then, she would gladly Download the Pastermadjian file from God knows where !?!?!

Of course, if one clicks on the Parmedjian file link, he/she could view it online as it’s only a 3MB file, while the Archived files from the Turkish Government site are about 27MB each, so they are ment to be downloaded, not viewed Online.

But, in any case, Kathy sound more like troll than an individual that is looking for answers/informations…

In other words, NOT worthy of any reply.

on November 25, 2007 at 5:32 pm
180 Michael van der Galiën

Kathy: sadly for you, you’d also have to look at the other side. What’s more, this person actually is a scholar. Most sources are in Turkish: yes, that’s because the Turks are mostly the ones who researched what happened in their country. That’s logical. Read it, take it into account etc. The Armen Garo book shows you that I actually also read those books. Assuming you know how to analyze works, you also have to realize that it’s propaganda, but it’s a handy resource nonetheless.

Why is it that you don’t comment negative, at all, on his work, while you attack a work by an actual scholar? Ah yes, the scholar disagrees with you.

And last time I checked, Shaw also quotes Western sources. That’s one, two is: if you write about WWII, you take the Nazi archives into account, the British archives, the Russian archives, the American archives and so on. Same goes for World War II: and especially if you want to know whether what happened was genocide or not (it demands that the government ordered the massacres for instance or wanted it to happen, etc.) and what happened in Turkey. It’s not a ‘hit piece’ (it’s not propaganda, it’s a scholarly work, unlike the Blue Book, Morgenthau’s fairy tale - which actually is quite different from his notes and own diary - and was ghost written by a journalist who didn’t know anything about what happened, he simply had to turn it into a book interesting to read, spice it up, etc., and two Armenians influenced the ‘notes’ severely, etc.). This is what actually happened, and that’s also one of the reasons that Turks are angry when you and people like you completely ignore what happened to them. They know they suffered tremendously, you ignore it.

And about the Morgenthau story: just stop it. If there ever was a piece of propaganda it’s that.

Are you also still using the Blue Book and the fake Talat Pasha telegrams? You know, the ones forged by Armenians? The ones so fake that even the Brits refused to use them or take them seriously? O, and perhaps you should let people know that Morgenthau was actually closely involved in spreading other propaganda than his fairy tale as well.

Paul: there’s no use in arguing with you, since I see that you have yet to criticize your fellow Armenians.

Suzan: I know what kind of person you are and I have no, I repeat no, ambition to argue with bigots like yourself. How’s the Armenian nationalist movement doing these days?

Robert: of course. But one can always hope that they’ll become at least a bit honest. What’s more: it’s not just for them, it’s also for other readers.

Notice, by the way, how they come out and try to discredit their academic opponents. It’s a classic tactic, often aimed at getting those scholars fired (they’re famous for it).

As said though, I’m not giving lists of books for them, I’m giving them for others. For those who actually think that Turks aren’t all Muslim extremist bigots and liars.

on November 25, 2007 at 6:15 pm
181 Kathy

But then, she would gladly Download the Pastermadjian file from God knows where !?!?!

Dear Robert,

I did not download the Armen Garo document. It can be read online in a PDF format. As you yourself state. Why you post here that I “downloaded” it, I have no idea, except that you, like others on your side of this fence, seem to enjoy making things up.

on November 25, 2007 at 7:13 pm
182 Kathy

Why is it that you don’t comment negative, at all, on his work, while you attack a work by an actual scholar? Ah yes, the scholar disagrees with you.

Well, Michael, there are several reasons, but the most salient I think is that Armen Garo’s work *is a personal account.* It does not purport to be an academic work of scholarly historical research. Garo’s book is a MEMOIR of a particular period in time in a particular place and his role in and observation of it. Stanford Shaw is a *professor* writing (supposedly) a disinterested, dispassionate historical account. As such he is held not so much to a higher standard as to a *different* standard. A personal memoir about a series of historical events has its own very real value, but one does not look to it for scholarly research.

on November 25, 2007 at 7:44 pm
183 Robert

Kathy, ref post #181,

You have no idea ???
Please allow me to give a hint…

Anyone who knows a bit about Computers and how they interact with the Net knows that ANY and I mean ANY PDF document that you access over the Net has to be Downloaded completely into your box BEFORE you can start viewing it therefore, you actually downloaded the PDF file into your computer to be able to read it…

Here’s another hint: look at the bottom of your browser after you clicked on a PDF link, it says: “Downloading…”

Have a look in your “\Temporary Internet Files” folder, you will find the PDF file that you “didn’t” download.

Still think I’m making things up ???

Pathetic, I mean really…

on November 25, 2007 at 7:50 pm
184 Michael van der Galiën

A personal memoir about a series of historical events has its own very real value, but one does not look to it for scholarly research.

That’s just sad. Seriously. Yes it has value, but the first thing your professors had to teach you back in the day is that you can’t rely on memoirs for facts. They’re always suspect because authors often use memoirs to brush away their own mistakes, crimes, etc. and to make their enemies look even worse than they were.

Besides that, it’s not even a memoir as such: it’s a book meant to convince the reader that Armenia should be an independent nation-state.

You, for instance, reject the Ottoman documents while - from a scholarly perspective - these documents are much more reliable. Why? Because they weren’t meant to advocate one thing or another. They were not meant for the public. They were meant only for the Ottoman officials who had to carry out the orders. They contain memos and decision from the government. This doesn’t automatically mean that they tell the entire story, but they’re pretty reliable information if you want to find out what the Ottoman government thought, wanted, and ordered.

As to the essay by Shaw: sure, but Shaw is actually a historian, with a great expertise, and with quite a scholarly record. Besides, he relies on Western and Turkish sources. I’m analyzing it quite critically, and I consider it to be quite reliable - which doesn’t mean you have to agree with all of his conclusions of course.

Seriously, I’m beginning to think you simply don’t know how to analyze works.

on November 25, 2007 at 10:19 pm
185 Kathy

Anyone who knows a bit about Computers and how they interact with the Net knows that ANY and I mean ANY PDF document that you access over the Net has to be Downloaded completely into your box BEFORE you can start viewing it therefore, you actually downloaded the PDF file into your computer to be able to read it…

Here’s another hint: look at the bottom of your browser after you clicked on a PDF link, it says: “Downloading…”

Have a look in your “\Temporary Internet Files” folder, you will find the PDF file that you “didn’t” download.

I actually took the above seriously enough to check — just in case.

You’re wrong on all counts. The PDF of the Armen Garo doc that I viewed was a digitized Google document. Once the document is open, there is an option to download the PDF but when you click on that link, you get a dialog box prompting you to either open it or save it. I did neither, because I opened the document from the link that came up in the Google Search hits. It opened as a PDF and did not prompt me to open or save it.

I clicked on the same link again and watched the status bar. It did not say downloading. It just said the usual stuff you see when you go to any website: the name of the url, etc.
And there was nothing related to the document in my Temp Internet Files.

on November 25, 2007 at 10:35 pm
186 Kathy

That’s just sad. Seriously. Yes it has value, but the first thing your professors had to teach you back in the day is that you can’t rely on memoirs for facts.

What’s sad is your reading comprehension skills. What you write above was precisely my point in differentiating between a memoir and a scholarly history written by a professional historian. I never once said or even implied that Armen Garo’s memoir could be relied on for facts. Indeed, I said, in these exact words, “A personal memoir about a series of historical events has its own very real value, but one does not look to it for scholarly research.”

So your “criticism” above is actually just echoing what I’ve already said.

You, for instance, reject the Ottoman documents while - from a scholarly perspective - these documents are much more reliable. Why? Because they weren’t meant to advocate one thing or another.

I don’t reject them out of hand because I haven’t seen them, but I do assert that they should not be used as a definitive source to “prove” that particular historical events are facts or really happened or didn’t happen because they are not a disinterested, reasonably objective source. They are one more source of evidence, and an important one — but many if not most of the “scholars” Western or otherwise who have declared the Armenian genocide to be a fraud have relied almost exclusively on the Ottoman Archives to maintain that position. That is intellectually dishonest.

As to the essay by Shaw: sure, but Shaw is actually a historian, with a great expertise, and with quite a scholarly record. Besides, he relies on Western and Turkish sources.

Shaw may be a historian; he may have a dozen degrees, and be hailed for his expertise all you like. But if ignores every accepted principle of intellectually honest and rigorous scholarly historical inquiry, then he is a hack and not to be relied on. Relying on Western sources that themselves rely exclusively on Turkish sources is not scholarly.

on November 25, 2007 at 10:46 pm
187 Jason Steck

A personal memoir about a series of historical events has its own very real value, but one does not look to it for scholarly research.

That depends greatly on the subject of the research. If you are looking for “objective” facts, then memoirs are terrible. If you are looking for how things were perceived at a particular time and place, memoirs are irreplacable.

The problem with this whole debate about the “Armenian genocide” is that the people in the debate cannot agree on the basic definitions and objects of analysis that come BEFORE debates about conclusions. Thus, both sides do nothing more than talk past each other and, mostly from the Armenian side, call names and throw insults.

on November 25, 2007 at 11:32 pm
188 Robert

Kathy, ref reply#185,

I’m not wrong on all counts because that how it works for me, probably because I have Acrobat Distiller 8 installed in my box, which integrates as a PlugIn in my browser.

But just for curiosity, could you provide the Keywords you used or the link, please ?

on November 26, 2007 at 12:16 am
189 Kathy

If you are looking for “objective” facts, then memoirs are terrible. If you are looking for how things were perceived at a particular time and place, memoirs are irreplacable.

Yes, Jason. That’s what I wrote before. As I also told Michael.

The problem with this whole debate about the “Armenian genocide” is that the people in the debate cannot agree on the basic definitions and objects of analysis that come BEFORE debates about conclusions.

That’s fancy talk. You’ll have to tell me what it means. If you want to. I won’t be crushed if you don’t.

Thus, both sides do nothing more than talk past each other and, mostly from the Armenian side, call names and throw insults.

Are you talking about the debate in general, or the debate on this blog? If the former, I can’t really make a judgment. If the latter, that’s BS.

on November 26, 2007 at 12:20 am
190 Kathy

I’m not wrong on all counts because that how it works for me, probably because I have Acrobat Distiller 8 installed in my box, which integrates as a PlugIn in my browser.

That might explain it. I don’t have Distiller. I only have the Acrobat Reader.

The keywords I used on Google were the book title, “Why Armenia Should Be Free.”

on November 26, 2007 at 12:53 am
191 gökalp

Dear Jason

The problem with the “Armenian Genocide” is “Armenians want no debate” thats all. they know if a real debate start that their genocide myth that they have crafted with such a hard work will crumble into pieces.

If a debate start then someday somepeople may start saying “you say 1.5 milion people are dead in an organised genocide but you can not show a single mass grave. What the hell!!?”


on November 27, 2007 at 5:56 am
192 Caner

Hi All

Here is my input on this very popular topic.

I recall reading an article written by an American Armenian some time ago. In it, he stated that “it is in the blood of every Armenian to hate the Turk”….The writer made it sound like a disease.

How are we supposed to deal with a people with so much hatred? The Persians and Arabs hate the Jews and they say that they want to wipe Israel off the map……What does Israel plan on doing to defend itself? What should the Turks do? But I fear the Armenians are never going to stop because the previous generations of Armenians have put forward their version of history and embedded in their children hatred toward Turks. Teaching your child to hate is a despicable crime. What kind of parents fills their children’s mind and hearts with hatred? This hatred has become a part of the Armenian mentality and it’s sad to see these peoples refuse to listen to anyone else’s point of view but theirs. This generation of Armenians have only revenge and hatred in their hearts and minds. A second reason they will never stop is because other states will continue to use them as leverage against Turkey, just like the PKK is used against the Turks.

If the truth is to be revealed, then the governments of the US, Britain, France and Russia should release all the Ottoman documents they have in their archives. But, I’ve never heard of any Armenian ever lobbying the US government to release the old Ottoman documents….why not?? God forbid the truth might even surface.

If the Armenians are so confident that they’re telling the truth and that all the evidence is on their side, then why don’t they just take the Turkish government to the World Court. They talk the talk but they can’t seem to walk a straight line. If Armenians feel confident with the facts that are provided by history, then why are they always attacking historians and anybody else who speaks against them? If I knew I was 100% right, I would allow anybody and everybody to have their say, then blow them out of the water with my “indisputable evidence”……But this is not happening. On the contrary in fact, they try to muffle any voice that doesn’t agree with them. To me it sounds like the Armenians have something to hide. What are the Armenians trying to hide??? Why have the Armenians rejected all invitations for dialogue, discussion and research on this issue??

I am now convinced that what the Armenians really want is the total destruction of Turkey and the death of every single Turk on this planet. But they want other people to fight their war and that’s not going to happen, why……..because nobody cares about the Armenians.

There is no way the Armenians will ever get any land back at all. As for an apology, if the Armenians start speaking the truth, and admit that they also killed innocent Turks and Kurds and admit that they have been perpetuating lies since the 1850’s, then maybe we might have some common ground to start our talks.

It’s also known that the Armenians support and are active in the PKK. Armenia has a foreign policy of supporting anyone and any government that is against Turkey and its interests. The support the Armenians are receiving now is not going to last forever and neither will Turkish patience.

The Armenians leave us no alternative. They won’t even sit at a table with the Turks to discuss the issue. So then we should start taking our own steps. We have been way too passive for way to long. Fight fire with fire. Start by imposing crippling sanctions on Armenia (even more so than the current sanctions). Where ever there is an Armenian lobby group a Turkish lobby group should be right by their side. Turkey should engage someone like Hans Blix to initiate an independent investigation/study/research to put forward what really happened and not the point of view of the Armenian, Turk, French, US or anyone else. Just the facts. If the Armenians choose not to participate, then that’s their choice. If the Armenian Diaspora still insists on perpetuating their lies, then we should take whatever steps are necessary to stop the attacks the Armenians are sponsoring…and they are sponsoring violence against the Turks. There have been several occasions where among the captured PKK terrorists were Armenians. So much for a peaceful solution. How would an invasion of Armenia go down I wonder?

How do you deal with a people that won’t listen to anyone?
How do you deal with a people that are so filled with hatred, that they attacked the Turkish Armenians at the Armenian games in Armenia?

How do you deal with a people that doesn’t trust anyone…not even their own people
How do you deal with a people that want to destroy Turkey and its people?
If one party refuses to talk to the other, then what alternatives are we left with? There is a war looming in the not to distant future. Maybe the Turkish Armed Forces should take advantage of the transpiring events.

There was no genocide. There were atrocities and slayings. But it wasn’t as one sided as the Armenians claim. I think if the Turks at the time wanted to slaughter all the Armenians in Turkey, they could have. If it was genocide then the following questions require answering

Why did only the Armenians living in the east get deported and not the ones in the west of Turkey?

Why did the Armenians come back after the war was over if they claim the Turks wanted wipe them out?

Why did all the other states, who knew about the atrocities, do nothing?
It would have been very easy to erase the Armenians but the Turks didn’t. No one cared about the Armenians then and no one cares about them now. Just like nobody cares about the Turks. Don’t the Armenians realize that they’re being used by almost every government that they deal with, or do they really think that other governments actually care.

If all the Armenian Diaspora had decided to put all their effort into rebuilding their own country instead of trying to get the Turks to admit to a lie, Armenia might be a prosperous country. But no….instead they spend millions of dollars on fictional movies and documentaries. If you’re all such proud Armenians, then go back to Armenia and help build your country up.

I actually feel sorry for any group of people that are filled with so much hatred, because it’s the people that hate that are the losers. Hatred rots from the inside, and it’s destroying the Armenians and Armenia. More and more Armenians are leaving their own country. Why?? Armenians are blinded by their hatred and it is the general population of Armenia who are suffering and not the Diaspora, who have made it painfully obvious that they don’t care about the existing Armenia or any other government for that matter, but only the lands in Turkey which they believe to be their land.
GET ON WITH YOUR LIVES. There is no Turkish land for anyone.

Borders are drawn in blood and not with words.

on November 27, 2007 at 6:33 am
193 Nihat

Is Levon Ter Petrossian making a come back? Can he win in 2008?

For background information, see this article dated 2004. And, here is something of “the latest” variety.

on November 27, 2007 at 10:12 pm
194 Areen

Caner,

It seems like you’re the one filled with hate.

on November 28, 2007 at 12:04 pm
195 KPLazlee

“Western or otherwise who have declared the Armenian genocide to be a fraud have relied almost exclusively on the Ottoman Archives to maintain that position. That is intellectually dishonest.”

What are they supposed to rely upon then? The forged Andonian documents? The deliberate disinformation generated by the British war office? Or, perhaps they are supposed to rely upon the Armenian, Dashnak and Hanchak archives so carefully concealed from everyone with the diaspora’s blessing? Do tell.

“Shaw may be a historian; he may have a dozen degrees, and be hailed for his expertise all you like. But if ignores every accepted principle of intellectually honest and rigorous scholarly historical inquiry, then he is a hack and not to be relied on.”

Please list what all of these “accepted principles of intellectually honest and rigorous scholarly historical” inquiries are.

From what I can tell, the method of historical inquiry promoted by diaspora Armenians is something along the lines of “shut up and accept or you will be called a liar, a denialist, a Turk, a mongol, a rabid anti-armenian fanatic, [pick your epithet of choice], etc.

Here’s what I am waiting for. To date, all of the world’s most reknowned Ottoman historians have concluded no genocide occurred. As a result they have come under verbal assault, and some been the victims of physical violence intended to inflict grave physical harm and terrorize them.

Slander or libel directed to one’s profession is a legally actionable offense. So far these professional historians who have been called liars in relation to their work have remained rather patient and silent with respect to the Armenian diaspora’s unfounded allegations.

Yes, that’s right, the allegations are completely without foundation. No Armenian who claims to call these historians liars has yet to set forth any evidence establishing that these historians have in fact concluded a genocide occurred, but deliberately reported contrary to their findings. Instead, all that has been flung about are baseless defamatory allegations.

At some point, one of these historians may decide to sue for libel or slander, as the case may be. Then, we will see whether they are liars or the diaspora is full of nothing but racist hatred for anything or anyone making comments that could conceivably be construed as supportive of Turks or Turkey.

When those who have concluded no genocide occurred begin making use of the judicial system, that is when the diaspora’s house of cards will begin to fall apart.

on November 28, 2007 at 12:20 pm
196 KPLazlee

Kathy,

“Armen Garo’s work *is a personal account.* It does not purport to be an academic work of scholarly historical research. Garo’s book is a MEMOIR of a particular period in time in a particular place and his role in and observation of it.”

You are entirely incorrect.

Armen Garo’s account is NOT a memoir. It was published in 1918. Thus, it is a contemporaneous acounting of events.

Also, Armen Garo’s is NOT an observation of events. Armena Garo was a primary player and actor in the events he describes.

Garo was an Armenian political leader (ex-Deputy from Erzurum to the Ottoman Parliament AND Representative in America of the Armenian National Council of the Caucasus), participated in the revolutionary movement, and fought as a soldier with the Russians against the Ottoman Empire (former Commander of the 2nd Battalion of Armenian Volunteers on the Caucsus Front).

Because Garo was a primary actor contributing to and participating in the events described in his publication, he was a percipient witness to events then ongoing. His work therefore is NOT an observation, it is a TESTIMONIAL.

In legal terms the Armena Garo essay also qualifies as an ADMISSION, just as Katchzanouni’s does.

on November 28, 2007 at 2:32 pm
197 KPLazlee

Suzan,

“Other ‘famous’ Turkish terrorists: Mehmet Ali Agca shot Pope John Paul II at St. Peter’s Square on May 13, 1981.”

Perhaps you remember that Agca shot a Polish pope who was instrumental in bringing down communism in Poland.

Who supported Agca, funded him, gave him weapons? The communist Bulgarian secret service. And, who controlled the Bulgarian secret service in 1981? The KGB.

Who do you think funded ASALA? Who do you think is funding Armenian genocide claims? Who needs a year round warm water port? Who wants greater access to oil in the middle east?

Here’s a hint: Which country invaded Afghanistan in the 1980s? It is the same country that armed, trained, fed and supported Armenian revolutionary forces during WWI, and then when the Bolshevik revolution occurred, abandoned them.

An interesting question is why do Armenians continually lay their fate in the hands of those who have so unapologetically betrayed them without a second thought?



on November 29, 2007 at 2:37 am
198 Caner

1. 194 Areen
Caner,
It seems like you’re the one filled with hate.

Thank you for your comment Areen.

Why am I filled with hate, because I don’t agree with the Armenians?
Am I full of hate because I choose to speak my mind?
If you like apples and I prefer oranges, does that make me an apple hater????

I am not full of hate, in fact, I don’t hate anyone, even the people that hate me and the Turks. I don’t live in the past, I learn from it and move on.

My parents didn’t teach me to hate. I was told of what happened and how the Armenians feel about events of history and all this was only explained to me after the Armenian terrorist group, ASALA, murdered innocent Turks doing their everyday jobs.
My parents have never said a bad word about any Armenian…not once….never ever. And I have never met a Turk who bares the same hatred and contempt for the Armenians as the Armenians feel for the Turks……..and I have never met and Armenian who did not hate all Turks…….Can the same be said about the Armenians I wonder???
The majority of Turks don’t go to bed at night thinking..’those dirty Armenians…we have to come up with a way to wipe those people from the face of the Earth’….no we don’t…..when most Turks go to bed, we either have sex, or have that enjoyable bedtime conversation with the person you love or happen to be sharing the bed with or just go to sleep. I wonder how many Armenians go bed and dream of wiping out the Turkish race from the face of the Earth………and of course let’s no forget that fantasy land called ‘Greater Armenia’. Is that an oxymoron?

Smile……It’s free.

on November 30, 2007 at 4:05 pm
199 Michael van der Galiën

lol, quite right Caner.

Kemal: good comments. I think that Kathy’s bias shows in her view on what’s reliable information and what’s not. In a way, she has proven herself to be an empty suit, a hack.

As for the Armenians: terrorism is Armenia’s main export product (import: foreign aid). Armenian terrorists have targeted many innocent people, even in the late 20th century. Shaw’s house was bombed. Turks were molested, beaten up, killed… simply because they were Turk. I’m not, now, talking about say, 1920, but about 1980 (for instance).

They’ve even attacked people right here in the Netherlands. America is, of course, their favorite base of operations.

But, most Armenians of the Diaspora don’t care about that, because these terrorists are killing Muslims or ‘Turk-sympathizers.’ We’ve seen protests in Turkey after Dink was shot, but when Armenian terrorists kill innocent people: not a word. Crickets.

on November 30, 2007 at 6:51 pm
200 Paul2

“As for the Armenians: terrorism is Armenia’s main export product (import: foreign aid). Armenian terrorists have targeted many innocent people, even in the late 20th century. Shaw’s house was bombed. Turks were molested, beaten up, killed… simply because they were Turk. I’m not, now, talking about say, 1920, but about 1980 (for instance).”

Good Lord, and you continue to say you have no anti-Armenian bias.
Armenia didn’t even EXIST when Shaw’s house was bombed and it was done by diasporan thugs. To act like everything is always and always has been Armenia’s fault is absurd and merely aimed at discrediting the country and it’s people as a whole. You are sounding more and more like the late quack Sam Weems every day (who is where I think you got the lines about Armenia’s biggest import/exports). The more I read crap like that the more discouraged I get, nobody takes Weems’s work seriously and yet there you are parroting his lines as if they are truth. Sometimes I feel like I should just give up trying to dispell your myths because some people are hopeless. Anyone who maintains something like all Armenia is good for in the world is taking other people’s money and blowing their countries up in return clearly has no idea what is going on and seeks nothing but to slander the nation.
I’m sure you will oppose this view, again, but how can a view like that be seen as anything but malicious slander?

“They’ve even attacked people right here in the Netherlands. America is, of course, their favorite base of operations.”

And in 2007 an Armenian cafe was destroyed by rioting Turkish thugs. Shall I blame that on Turkey and paint all Turks as “cafe destroyers”
Meanwhile you, like many Turks I’ve encountered as well, like to pretend that ASALA is still in operation. It was a band of a couple hundred misguided evil people with ties to the terror groups in their native Lebanon. Not even Turkish websites have a consistent list of when their attacks stopped but I have never seen it listed as surpassing about 1985 (with outright attacks having ceased years before then).
Meanwhile you talk about this in the present tense as if they are actively and happily operating throughout America as we speak with tons of attacks and innocent deaths in their wake- all obviously ordered directly by Kocharian himself because terrorism is of course Armenia’s biggest export.

on December 3, 2007 at 4:26 am
201 Noah

Everyone knows that Turkey has exported much more terrorism than any country in the world, and the billions of dollars that Turkey imported from the US. Who is this writer trying to fool?

Armenians are correct to never forget the genocide perpretated by their Turkish rulers. Every single living Armenian is a direct descendant of the genocide by the Turks. I think it’s natural that they remember the tragedy and shout out to the world what the Turks did to them. I am sure their ancestors are proud of them and their accomplishments. The entire world now knows what the barbarian Turks did to them.




Source: The Van Der Galiën Gazette