12 May 2013

3401) 15 Characteristics Of The Armenian Narrative by Tal Buenos*


Related Post: 1915 Events: Critique and Exposition Of How Facts and Falsifications Mixed Up, Stirred and Served On A Golden Platter

8 May 2013 /
Following the outpour of media material on April 24 in memory of the dreadful events of 1915, it is important to take a step back and evaluate how this reflects on the Turk.

A recently published chapter by Uğur Ümit Üngör, titled “The Armenian Genocide, 1915,” in “The Holocaust and Other Genocides: An Introduction,” edited by Maria van Haperen et al. (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2012), is perfect for such an analysis. It does not introduce new aspects to the Armenian narrative of 1915. It unfolds the same story already told by scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Richard Hovannisian, Taner Akçam and Peter Balakian. It is not prototypical by any means; rather, it is perfectly typical. It stands out for its typicality, for being representative of the effort to strengthen the familiarity and acceptance of this Armenian narrative. Upon close inspection, one may glean certain overall characteristics of the Armenian narrative. The following 15 main characteristics point to a general theme: Turcophobia.
. . .

1) European facilitation. The publication of this literature in Europe is likely not a coincidence and should be considered reflective of Turcophobic and Islamophobic attitudes that are prevalent in Europe. Such anti-Turkish content is not only emblematic of these phobias but may serve as a popular platform for their intensification and dissemination. One particularly troubling type of Turcophobic “literature” in Europe is the drafting of laws in parliament to cater to the anti-Turkish views held by constituencies with political influence.

2) No room for historical debate. The very title of Üngör's chapter shows an attempt to apply a political-legal term to the events of 1915, regardless of the hotly contested aspects of historicity. However, legal determination cannot precede a thorough examination of what actually took place. The unilateral description of the events as genocide shows a great level of distrust in what a committee of established historians of different nationalities may find. Ultimately, it shows intent to destroy Turkey's name.
Disregard of Armenian revolutionary committees

3) Little to no mention of the Armenian revolutionary committees. The role played by the Armenian revolutionary committees is typically played down and, at times, as in Üngör's chapter, there is no mention of them at all. The absolute omission of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation from the narrative makes the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) falsely appear to be the sole actor and therefore the sole bearer of responsibility. However, the revolutionary aspect of the events is fundamental to their fair and accurate description. Historically, “rebellion” is the most basic reason why the categorization of political massacres, as in modern-day Syria, is different from those of intended exterminations, as in Auschwitz.

4) Selective reference to Armenian nationalism. There is a tendency to eat the cake and have it too when it comes to Armenian nationalism. In discussions involving Armenian territorial claims post-World War I, there is a strong sense of Armenian nationalism, but it is concealed in the discussion of the years leading to 1915. In his brief recap of the ideological trends leading to the massacres, Üngör fails to mention Armenian nationalism, as if the Young Turks were the only nationalists in Anatolia.

5) The story always begins with Turkish action. The event that is described at the start of a narrative determines the perception of causality all throughout. The Armenian massacres may be put in the context of the 19th century campaign to rid Christian Europe of the Turk, but for Üngör there is no question that it starts with the CUP. For many diaspora Armenians, the narrative does not begin a single day before April 24, 1915. The Armenian narrative needs the Turks to be the cause, for otherwise the Turks cannot be guilty of genocide.

6) The Turks are “revanchists.” This French term describes nations that are warmongering because they seek to reclaim lost territories, and the Armenian narrative pins it only on the CUP after losing land in the Balkans. A narrative that is not Turcophobic would consider Christian revanchism since 1453, and Armenian revanchism since 1890, to be foundational.

7) The Turks wanted war. The distortion of the causes for World War I is a significant aspect of the Armenian narrative. The Ottoman state's preventive strike against Russia, following several threatening indications, is replaced by a claim that the “Young Turks had deliberately engineered an armed confrontation.”
Systematic destruction

8) The destruction was systematic. The emphasis on deliberation in the actions of the CUP is especially strong when describing the actual “process of destruction,” which for Üngör was “consistent.” This is claimed because of the desire to accuse Turks of premeditation and of having a plan. Regardless of the evidence, the Armenian narrative draws whimsical comparisons to the Nazi Germans and their level of intent and organization. This is designed to make the Young Turks go down in history as evil.

9) The CUP was homogenously national socialist. As part of the effort to Nazify the Young Turks, the Armenian narrative creates a cursory and simplistic image of Turkification that ignores local aspects as well as Ottomanist and Islamic streams within the CUP.

10) Muslims killed Christians, but not vice versa. The bilateral damage incurred by Muslim and Christian communities during this period of rising national claims for self-determination in the Balkans and Anatolia is presented in the Armenian narrative as unilateral. Only the massacres of Christians have a place in the narrative. Reading Üngör's work, one would conclude that the killings, dispossessions and deportations of Muslims in the Balkans never happened or have nothing to do with the Armenian issue. This is an extension of the Turcophobic elements found in the British narration of events in the 19th century, which highlighted the killings of Christians in Bulgaria during the local insurgency but understated the deportations and massacres of Muslims in Bulgaria during the Russo-Turkish War.

11) Propaganda and memoirs are presented as historical evidence and used selectively. Even Turkish propaganda is cleverly employed to present a Turcophobic narrative. Considering that Üngör does not discuss Armenian rebellion at all, his brief discussion of Turkish “manipulated photographs of alleged Armenian ‘terrorists'” gives an impression that the Armenian rebellion was altogether a Turkish invention that did not exist beyond the bogus images. Additionally, Russian propaganda is presented without question of authenticity or context. The central role played by Britain's wartime propaganda, known as the Blue Book, and its author, James Bryce, who had called for Armenian rebellion since the 1870s, in constructing the Armenian narrative is a prime example of this characteristic. A recent example would be Akçam's use of forged documents to promote Sarkis Torossian's story.

12) Slanted presentation of great-power involvement. The Armenian narrative is selectively critical of the politics of the international powers. Üngör says that the great powers were “driven by self-interest” when after the war was over “the Americans, French and British forgot their Armenian business partners,” yet to him they were anything but self-interested when they encouraged Armenians to rebel before World War I and supported national self-determination for Christians in Ottoman territory. This is based on a Turcophobic conviction that cooperation with the Armenians is morally sound but cooperation with the Turks is political.

13) The massacres were religious or racial in nature. The Armenian narrative shows the massacres as either religious, to rally Christian support, or racial, to provoke Nazi connotations. Being that there were no deportations of Armenians in certain areas and that there were no massacres prior to Armenian rebellion, it would be reasonable to consider that political reasons and security concerns caused the change. However, the Armenian narrative looks away from these historical aspects, possibly because the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide does not recognize political massacres as genocide.
Turkish diplomats' assassination rationalized

14) The assassinations of Turkish diplomats are rationalized. In order to protect its perceived moral leverage from suffering as a result of the violent assassinations of innocent Turks and non-Turks, the Armenian narrative seeks to rationalize these terrible actions. Üngör offers no mention or detailed discussion of the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia, but, instead, conveniently explains the assassinations by saying that “surviving family members of the victims felt deeply insulted by these politics of denial, which prompted a violent response from Armenian nationalists in the 1970s.” The idea that somehow there is an element of good reason in the assassinations, or that they were caused by Turkish politics, is Turcophobic.

15) The Turks are denialists. This is the most telling of the characteristics. The idea is to liken Turks to Holocaust deniers. There is a growing number of Turks who are willing to succumb to this pressure because they have been convinced that that is the responsible thing to do. However, denial is about refusal to believe, and the Turks who are at odds with the Armenian narrative are actually more eager than anybody else to tell the narrative of the events as they truly unfolded and without ignoring any aspect of Armenian loss.

The idea that the Turks should be excluded from commenting on their own memory, that they are so distrusted so as to always be suspected of undermining historical truths, is not only reflective of Turcophobia in the strongest of ways, but its popularity reflects how little awareness there is today of Turcophobia and its meaning. Turcophobia is so widely ignored that even Microsoft's spellchecker does not recognize it as a word.

How long will Turks suffer from accusations of denialism? Is the only way forward to disregard history and accept how the Turk is described in biased Western historiography, of which the Armenian narrative is only an extension? The modern Armenian narrative in the West was initiated by Bryce, who, since 1877, repeatedly stated in writing that Armenian nationalist endeavors should be supported because the Armenians are racially and religiously superior to Turks. To accept this aspect of Western historiography is to accept the Turcophobic beliefs that the Turk is inherently immoral and corrupt, excluded or looked down upon for not being of a European race and for not being of a European religion. To accept this false narrative because of current calls of denialism is to accept the Turk's position as the “other” who has no access to a Christian European tale. Turks have the right to explain that they are not in denial of Armenian suffering but that they are most certainly resolved to deny and weed out the Turcophobic roots of the current Armenian narrative.

History is filled with cruelty. Turcophobia, however, is the main reason why genocidal claims are still being made against Turks in the name of Christian Europe, Western historiography and Armenian nationalism. Where would one find similar genocide-related pressure over the bloody “Christian” crimes against Africans, Jews, Indians and Native Americans known as Indians?

It is time for the Turkish narrative on the history of European Turcophobia to emerge. The current accusation of denial is one chapter in this narrative, for it shows how the Turks are treated as outsiders who are told to shut up and accept the terrible things that are said about them, and are condemned when they vocalize their view of the past. It is time for Turks to be insiders, authors of their own narrative and masters of their own history.

*Tal Buenos has a master of theological studies from Harvard Divinity School (2005).

Londoner, 12 May 2013 , 16:25
'denialist' is a very convenient title for those who do not want to study the facts (referring to the British, Russian and US documents and to some of the statements of the First Prime minister of Armenia would be ample) and dismiss anyone who disagrees with the genocide myth because of the known facts.

Araratian, 12 May 2013 , 04:46
Nick you are hillarious and ignorant, get yourself a culture about Lemkin. He himself stated that the idea to define the crime the Armenian were subject, leads him to coin the word Genocide. If the inventor of the word says it was a Genocide people like you or like this Tal Buenos are nobody compare to Lemkin on this issue!

Random Armenian, 12 May 2013 , 04:19
The government of the Republic of Turkey has been actively and deliberately covering up the Ottoman crimes of 1915, since the 20's and 30's. And this was before WWII and before word 'genocide' came into existence and before we Armenians started to raise our voices to make the world remember. They turned the subject into a taboo in Turkey, and forced their allies to stay silent about it. And this policy continues today. It is Turkey's narrative that has changed over the years in the face of facts and research. The claim from Turkey used to be that there was no massacre of Armenians. No Armenians had died. Now today we hear, "we never denied there were Armenian deaths." Tal Buenos is trying to distract from all this by attacking a straw man "Armenian narrative". The Armenian genocide is supported by Turkish and non-Armenian scholars. Tal Buenos is completely ignoring the facts of the Armenian genocide put forth by researchers. This idea that research into the Armenian genocide is somehow racism against Turks and islamaphobic appears to be latest talking point from Turkish quarters. They're projecting their own racism towards minorities of Turkey. Turkey and their appologists like Tal Buenos make it sound like they're fighting unfair attacks and historical narratives from Armenians. But it's the other way around. We have been trying to undo a very successful Turkish coverup of history which began with the founding of Turkey.

john the turk, 11 May 2013 , 23:26
How were you going to live in your turk free homeland with a ten percent of the total population? You were obviously trying to remove the Turks from their homeland in order to create an Armenia but Armenia slipped away from your hands for ever that's why you try to charge Turks in your Armenian brain. The genocide business is a hoax to cover up your motive

Ararat, 11 May 2013 , 21:20
@Sandokhan, you are not a man if you dont answer the following question: The Ottomans invaded and occupied the Armenian homeland in Asia Minor. The Armenians wanted to live in their homeland free of Ottoman occupation. According to your twisted Turkish logic, the Armenians "rebelled" and sided with the enemy and all that other delusional stuff and therefore the Turks reacted and got rid of over 2 million Armenians, exterminating 1.5 million of them, and confiscating their homeland in the process to secure Ottoman occupied Armenian territories. According to the Palestinians, and the entire Muslim world including you Turks, the Israelis invaded and occupied Palestine. The Palestinians want to live in their homeland free of Israeli occupation. Palestinians not only "rebelled" and put up fights many times with an army and rockets but they also have a foreign army "Hizballah" present in the occupied territories fighting along with the Palestinians and firing thousands of rockets into Israel. They also have the financial and military backing of countless Muslim countries bent on destroying Israel. Now, using the Turkish model and twisted logic, such as yours Sandokhan, my question to you is: Does Israel have the right to "relocate", expel and exterminate millions of Palestinians to secure the state of Israel because of the activities of the Palestinian militia, Hizballah and many more Israeli enemy combatants bent on destroying Israel to establish a Palestinian state on the occupied territories of Israel? I am waiting for your answer. For someone as vocal as you on the Armenian affairs, I can safely assume you are not a man if you dont answer my question.

sinan, 11 May 2013 , 20:40
Billy It is a famous Armenian lie that they had 1.5 M victims that Armenians try to spread however, truth always reveals

Nick, 11 May 2013 , 20:20
Dear Saaten. Clearly I have no issue with my interpretation of events. I do not labour under the the lack of information that Lemkin laboured under. You seem to have an issue with my gentle attempt to point out some obvious areas for concern. As I pointed out, Armenian cultural representatives would be better served if they dropped references to Hitler and the Nazis as they sought to clarify the perception that people have about the Armenian experience in 1915...if it is clarity that they want. There are times when it seems that clarity is not wanted- just blind acceptance and the acceptance of all that goes with it. Certainly, if they want the Turks to discuss with them this experience thy should consider presenting a case that is not strewn with inconsistencies, half truths and not a few total fabrications.

Uncle Billy, 11 May 2013 , 17:05
@ Sandokhan, how many ways are you going to use to justify the killing of 1.5 million plus victims and the annihilation of a whole minority group from their anceteral lands? Sooner or later you are going to run out of excuses and reasons. Keep working!

Saaten Maagar, 11 May 2013 , 16:59
Dear Nick, if Lemkin was 15 when the Armenians were being butchered, I do not think you were even born. So if you have any issues with lemkin's assesment you should have a bigger one with yours.

Nick, 11 May 2013 , 14:02
Dear Araratianfreak. Nobody ever bothers to try and contradict the “15 point” That said, I am always curious that people seem to think that a mere reference to Rafael Lemkin closes the argument. This is a strange circular logic that actually proves nothing. Lemkin’s observations on the Armenian experience were only as reliable as his sources of information and the acuity of his interpretation was determined by the cultural prism made available to him by his education. He was 15 when the Armenians were relocated. To illustrate, he chose not to use the word “genocide” to describe the events of South West Africa under German colonial administration even though this was clearly genocide which included mass murder, the summary execution of combatants and non-combatants alike, expulsion into the desert (Kalahari), the appropriation or destruction of property necessary for the sustenance of life and culture (cattle), slave labour camps, death camps, medical and anthropological specimen collection for racial studies institutes in Germany (which often required direct murder) and right down to a written extermination order. He chose not to define all this as “genocide” because of his perception of the natives in South West Africa and their relative cultural attainment which (he felt) directed their response to German colonial rule and contributed to their extraordinarily high mortality rate- believed to be more than 80%. I would hesitate to call him racist since this is a modern term and we look at things differently now. Armenians are trying to use the term “genocide” for political and cultural reasons and the word “holocaust” has been around for a long time in this particular meaning. Neither of the two superficial points you make address the basic questions that arise with repeated attempts by Armenian genocide campaigners to tie the Armenian experience to the Nazi driven holocaust in Europe that is both causative and ideological. Such a connection simply does not exist. Nor does it address the question that arises relating to parity of interpretation; if the Armenians experienced genocide then we should also be discussing the suffering inflicted on the peoples of the Caucasus by Russia in almost two centuries of serial genocides, often assisted by Armenians and which had a direct causative impact on what Armenians experienced in WW 1.

Sandokhan, 11 May 2013 , 01:25
@KAVAFIAN (“There was no rebellion, there was no treason.”): Exactly! Your Armenian leader Boghos Nubar told lies in 1918 en 1919 when he wrote that 200,000 Armenians sided with the war enemies of the Turks. >>>@ISSAC, all the Christian minorities (Armenians, Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Pontic Greeks) had been “wiped out” in the universe you guys have created. >>>ARARAT, according your logic then the whole world is occupied territory. Please distinguish international recognized borders and occupied territory (it’s internationally recognized that Israel occupies Palestinian soil). >> [Ararat:]“Second of all, 1,500,000 innocent Armenian women, children and elderly dont just perish..” Mr. Buenos, you should include one more characteristic in your list: exaggeration (statistics, support Armenian narrative, etcetera) .

Vartan, 11 May 2013 , 00:49
According to mr Buenos's pathetic logic The indigenous people of Anatolia , the Armenians needed to tolerate another six hundred years of domination by the invading Mongolian Turks , continue being called gyavur , being treated like second class citizens and taxed way more than the rest of the ottoman subjects specially during the war , in order not to have deserved to be massacred in there ANCESTREAL land . Turcophobia ? Whatever that means ! How do you explain this great nation turkey's illegal blockade of what's left of historical Armenia it ravished over six hundred years ? It's foot on tiny landlocked Armenia's throat ? Good luck to you sir in your petsuit of justice .

Issac, 10 May 2013 , 17:35
Tal Buenos: Well then please explain why the Assyrians, Chaldeans, and Pontic Greeks were also wiped out in the same period by the Turks.

Jacques Kavafian, 10 May 2013 , 17:21
This is the most ignorant rant I have read regarding the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian Genocide is one of the most studied topics on the face of this planet. There is no such thing as the "Armenian Narative". The argument that there was a rebellion is bogus. Armenians have always been poorly treated in Turkey and wanted some protection. There was no rebellion, there was no treason. That's the Turkish nonsense to somehow justify the Genocide. This topic has been studied ad nauzeum and judgement has been rendered. Turkey Committed Genocide and must accept this fact.

Ararat, 10 May 2013 , 11:58
Mr. Buenos, it is very obvious the main thesis of your article is to water down and trivialize the extermination of the Armenians as mere political killings and indirectly but cunningly legitimize the actions of the CUP by portraying the Armenians as revolutionaries and outsiders with designs on the Ottoman territory. First of all, the Armenians and the Armenian homeland in Asia Minor existed for thousands of years before the Ottomans set foot on these lands. Therefore there was no such thing as legitimate Ottoman territory but occupied Armenian territory. In other words, to claim the Armenians had designs on Ottoman territory is no different from saying the Armenians had designs on their own homeland. It does not make any sense. Second of all, 1,500,000 innocent Armenian women, children and elderly dont just perish because of political killings but because of a pre-meditated and state-sponsored extermination disguised under "relocation" from the war zones. But relocation to where? Not to a safer place inland into Central Anatolia but to Syrian desert with no chance of survival and return back to home. According to the twisted Turkish logic then one can safely conclude that, if the Armenian territory occupied by the Ottomans can be called as Ottoman territory then the Palestinian territory occupied by the Israelis can also be called as Israeli territory and not Palestinian territory. Therefore, the Palestinian nationalistic and revolutionary rebellions in Gaza and the West Bank can also be categorized as Palestinians having designs on Israeli territory thus the entire Palestinian population qualifying for "relocation", expulsion and eventual extermination by the Israelis. But as we all know, not just the Palestinians, but the entire Muslim world including the Turks on behalf of the Palestinians are up in arms calling for the destruction of the state of Israel because to them it is Israel that is occupying Palestinian territory and not the other way around. Perhaps this is the case because the Armenians are Christians but the Palestinians are fellow Muslims and different rules apply to Muslims. Can you Mr. Buenos explain this Turkish hypocrisy?

Araratianfreek, 10 May 2013 , 03:19
Dear Nick all the 15 points can be contradicted but the same space is needed it can not be done in a comment anyway it is the inventor of the word Genocide Raphael Lemkin that described it as Genocide and not the Armenians. The first time the word Holocauste was said in History is for 1909 Adana Armenians massacres it was described as Adana Holocauste by the french paper Illustration. The terms Crime against Humanity was first time in history used in 1915 during the Genocide by France, England and Russia warning the Ittihad . The term Extermination of the Armenian Race was said first by the Turkish Military court in 1919, the same Court that sentenced to death in absentia the Ittihadists Responsibles. As you see it is not the Armenians who label things. Talaat is even worse than Hitler and inspired him as did the Teshkilati Mahsuse since they preceeded the Ss and Hitler~!Last but not least Tal is not an Historian, all what he said represents his own opinion and History is not based on opinions but on facts. That nobody can change even after 97 years!

Sandokhan, 10 May 2013 , 01:04
In short we can say the Armenian version of the history is a racist story. Because in their eyes the Turks are barbarians who are not able to tell the truth.

Marawan, 09 May 2013 , 19:59
Most people when they see the name Tal Buenos, they just go to the next article unless you are a Turkish extreemist who embrace their new created history and hate all minorities.

David, 09 May 2013 , 19:52
It's time for Christophobic/Armenophobic "scholars" like you to stick to the historical facts instead of creating Disney-like revisionism of the mass murderers of not only the Armenians but Assyrrians,Greek, Yezidis, Kurds, etc. too. Nothing you can ever say will erase the "killing fields" of Turkey and the national disgrace and shame they brought to your country for the last 100 years from denialists like you. There is never any "justification" for mass-murdering defenseless women and children...period. You need to go back to college and study your history- then, you might understand why your own Govt. prosecuted your "heroic" young Turks/CUP and why they sentenced its proto-nazi leadership to death in absentia instead of reverently placing flowers on their graves in admiration through revisionism and propaganda masquerading as "scholarship". I'm embarrassed for the decent and educated Turks who know the difference.

john the turk, 09 May 2013 , 19:21
Dear Armenians even Truth can not hurt the shameless Armenians

Nick, 09 May 2013 , 18:29
It’s all very well calling Tal Buenos a “denial mercenary” but doing so without bothering to address any of the 15 points he describes merely acts as an illustration of points 1 and 2 of Buenos’ essay. In fact, reading through the 15 points it is hard to actually produce any decent contradictory argument and none of the critics posted below bother to try. The closest we get is a comment that simply illustrates Buenos’ points 13 and 15 and which describes a quote made by Buenos in an earlier article-"It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to compare Adolf Hitler with Talat Pas,a -- or Tes,kilat-? Mahsusa with the Nazi SS” as being akin to denial of the Holocaust. Or to quote the critic directly: “The Armenian Genocide is not a matter of debate but a matter of fact, just like what happened to the Jews during the 2nd world war.” Any rational questioning of attempts to define the Armenian experience as something other than “genocide” is labelled as an example “Holocaust denial” but is, in fact simply a feeble and transparent effort to connect two completely different historical events in order to sanctify the Armenian tragedy, to put it beyond questioning and to use it as a political tool. The difference between Hitler’s Nazis and the CUP government in WW 1 is apparent to anyone who is bothered to look and a simple reference to any book, scholarly article or research paper by specialists on the Nazis and the Nazi period or on the development of Nazi ideology will draw a complete blank if it is seeking any Armenian connection and Turks-of any political description- simply do not appear. The Armenian ideological script writers would in fact do themselves a lot of favours if they dropped these spurious references to Hitler, the Nazis and the Holocaust altogether because to persist in this direction is simply to persist in a lie. Why should I believe in any narrative that is persistently prefaced by something that is demonstrably false?

Araratian, 09 May 2013 , 16:20
Tal Buenos is well known as a denial mercenary. Only Turksih papers gives him space for his rubbish writings he is always invited at the Turksih Embassy galas. His origins also are well known and a theologian should better dedicates himself to those issues instead of spreading falshood and hatered. The Armenian Genocide is a fact and is not subject to discussions and mental fruitlkess acrobacies. He is not only ignorant about Armenian Genocide but also about the Shoah, Tal read something about the jews Revolt in Munich before writing your paragraph 3 that I found really ridiculous!

reality, 09 May 2013 , 15:09
Money goes a long way to those who have no soul or ethics.

Garo Avedis, 09 May 2013 , 08:36
16)Turkey hides,aTurkey runs,Turkey guilty of genocide.you should have written a few sentances about the demostration.i have never read something that is so rubbish.

Ara, 09 May 2013 , 08:31
People like you are the reason that till now have prevented the acceptance of the Armenian Genocide by Turkish governments. despite overwhelming evidence you still put the blame on the victim. you have no shame!

Paul, 09 May 2013 , 01:17
Mr. Buenos is an apologist par excellence! If only Germany was as steadfast in denying what they did to the Jews and other minorities in WWII as Turkey has been about the Armenian (and Pontic Greek and Assyrian Genocides), he could have us all scratching our heads about the Holocaust, too.

Sandokhan, 09 May 2013 , 01:05
Mr. Buenos, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I want to share something related to your analysis too. You mentioned Ug(ur Ümit Üngör. You should know he hates the Turks. We have a firsthand witness of this hate. In a documentary called “The land of our grandparents“ (Dutch translation of “Het land van onze grootouders”) where he sold the viewers the Armenian version of the history, a witness saw his hate against the Turks. Between 36:41 and 37:47 the Turkish audio engineer, who accompanied him for days, mentions his hate against the Turks (Turkish viewers can affirm it). >>> Ug(ur Ümit Üngör is of Kurdish origin. This hate against the Turks can probably explained by the fact that the Turks “occupy” the soil Kurdish nationalists want. He even uses the word “colonization” for Turkish rule of Eastern Anatolia (see his article “Confiscation

Masis Ararat, 08 May 2013 , 20:30
Mr Buenos has been discredited in the past. One hopes he is a better theologian than historian. What matters at the end is the result. Killing Armenians was a sport of Abdul-Hamid. Over 100 thousand Armenians perished so it is no surprise that on the whole Armenians wanted out and revolutionaries took revenge. The Turkish government did not deserve their allegiance although a lot of Armenians continued to offer it. So those who talk about treason are ill-informed. A government cannot expect allegiance from citizens it massacres. Let us look at the result. An abominably immense crime against humanity and massive ethnic cleansing. Where are the Armenians ? Everywhere except their homeland of millenia. What about their property? May be it enriched many influential current Turkish families - perhaps Mr Buenos' sponsors? Who knows I don't. There are more honorable ways of earning a living Mr Buenos than to support an abomination.

Saaten Maagar, 08 May 2013 , 18:40
Mr. Tal, you need to stick to theology, a subject that you might know something about, not too sure about that either.

Sergey, 08 May 2013 , 17:49
Thanks to the author for this excellent summary of selective historical narratives blaming the Turks for all the injustices suffered equally by both Muslim and Christian populations during the WWI. The Turks and Armenians will truly find a path to reconciliation when they will revisit their selective historical discourses and will learn to respect each other's historical pain and sensitivities.

Ceygiz, 08 May 2013 , 17:35
It seems that you have a long record of Holocaust denial Mr Buenos. Lets look at what you said last January: "It is simply historically inaccurate, and morally misguided, to compare Adolf Hitler with Talat Pas,a -- or Tes,kilat-? Mahsusa with the Nazi SS -- because the former acted out of irrational hatred while the latter acted out of the natural need to survive" The Armenian Genocide is not a matter of debate but a matter of fact, just like what happened to the Jews during the 2nd world war. However, if I was to deny the latter, you would label me an antisemite, but it is alright for you to outright deny the extermination of my people- Utter hypocrite.


Counter Comments by Sukru Server Aya

Lemkin’s coining a new word does not make him an authorized international judge. He just said when he was “heard it by Armenians”, not knowing that Dashnakist Armenians in the German Army under General Dro, (22.000 – 4800 SS troops) assisted Hitler in sending Jews to death camps. Suggest you . .

Continued at:

Direct Link To The Document


Post a Comment

Would You Please Update/Correct Any Of The
3500+ Posts by Leaving Your Comments Here
- - - Your Opinion Matters To Us - - -

We Promise To Publish Them Even If We May Not Share The Same View

Mind You,
You Wouldn't Be Allowed Such Freedom In Most Of The Other Sites At All.

You understand that the site content express the author's views, not necessarily those of the site. You also agree that you will not post any material which is false, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of any law.

Please read the post then write a comment in English by referring to the specific points in the post and do preview your comment for proper grammar /spelling.

Note To Spammers
If you believe Your Comments will ever appear here, You are DREAMING

You need a Google Account (such as Gmail) to publish your comments

Publishing Your Comments Here:
Please type your comment in plain text only (NO Formatting) in an editor like notepad first,
Then copy and paste the final/corrected version into the comment box here as Google/Blogger may not allow re-editing/correcting once entered in some cases.
And click publish.
-If you need to correct the one you have already sent, please enter "New Comment" as we keep the latest version and delete the older version as default

Alternative way to send your formatted comments/articles:

All the best