|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Aug 3, 2009 1:14:09 GMT -5
we obviously have different opinions. I know its not pleasant to think that someone's ancestors can be guilty of doing these actions. But history cannot be rewritten... If the germans can acknowledge what they did...so can the turks. I understand your opinion of why it happened....i just dont agree with it. Thats all.. Germans can acknowledge? German surrendered without condition and accepted all the terms stipulated, and although the Russians and Americans commited horroble crimes during the WWII, they have not yet acknowledged any. Not a good example. Give us another if you can.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Aug 3, 2009 1:20:28 GMT -5
Its just a historic fact. It is not. What you point out is how the Western/European nations interpret a certain period in history, but certainly not the historical facts.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Aug 3, 2009 1:49:26 GMT -5
Spirit of Tartary , what say you ? did Armenians kill 2 million Turks ? if so when and where ? Thracian you talk as if WW1 was a war between Turkey and Armenia. Armenians did not represent all the peoples Turkey/Ottomans was at war with. Thracian Turkey was at war on several fronts so in total of course more Turks died than Armenians but if you look at it from the percentage of Armenians that died in the context of the former Armenian population of the region then thats a different situation. Also the majority of those Armenians that died were non combatants. The numbers do not matter since the figures about Ottoman populations are not accurately accounted prior to the war. There are some estimation and assumptions, but not real numbers. In my opinion, what matters is the intention. The Armenians were sure of the demise of the Ottomans after the Balkan War. When Russia entered the war, bulk of the East Anatolian Armenians started to work for their national causes since they had good examples for comparison, such as the independence and expansion of Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia with the help of Russia and European powers back in 1877-1913 period. Thus, there was already a " Russian Armenia" in Caucasus (after the war of 1877-1878), and there were like 100.000 Armenians fighting for the Russian army. When the war broke out, the very first thing that the Armenians and the Russians did was starting to kill the local Muslim populations. Do you know how many peoples those Armenian-Russian forces killed? I do not know any certain numbers, but in my opinion, they must have killed hundreds of thousands in the region. Most importantly, they must have caused some mass emigration of Muslims from the region. Which must have involved perhaps millions to flee from the region due to fear of massacre, and there must have been perhaps hundreds of thousands who died due to hunger and disaese amongst those who fled. Nonetheless,such issues are ignored by the Armenian Genocide lobbyists intentionally since such historical facts erode their claims of genocide. Finally, in my opinion, please note that death percentage of the Armenians must have been higher than the Turks/Muslims since the Armenians were the ones who suffered from the lack of external support of the British, French and particularly the Russians. However, it should be stressed that the civilians losses do not count as genocide irrespective of percentages, of course as long as the context of political struggle between nations involve deployment of armed forces. For example, the British-Ameircans planes bombed cities of Germany during the WWII, and killed perhaps millions of civilians. Can we now talk about a genocide of Germans because of such bombings?
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 3, 2009 6:40:28 GMT -5
claims of 2 million and I have seen claims on Tall Armenian Tale of upto 2.5 million seem quite high, there is quite a difference between a hundred thousand or more and 2 to 2 and half million.
if numbers do not matter then what is reason such high figures are claimed.
again as I asked where is proof of such numbers.
no I do not know myself what were the numbers, just as I said I havn't seen any well presented hard proof to indicate it was 2 million.
if this is what is claimed by any authority or historian or person I am very interested to see by what evidence.
[/quote]
I understand what you mean to say but the German civillians were not civillians/citizens of Britain or America. I dont see that as justification either, just pointing out difference in this example. If we want to look at situation as civil war thats one thing but it seems Armenians from many places that were not all involved in rebellion were still targeted for deportation. More broadly it seems all Christian groups were viewed under suspicion and targeted to varying degrees.
was their an Armenian nation in the context of this period of time(I mean prior to end of WW1), I agree there was political activists and an independance movement but what percentage of the Armenians that were killed or deported were combatants, activists, independance fighters, or were they mainly removed / killed based on the simple fact they were Armenian and the regard towards them from authorities is because they were Armenian they couldnt be trusted therefore ity was decided a certain preplanned action had to be taken ?
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Aug 3, 2009 14:01:47 GMT -5
Turks Died Too
Guest Column Sevgi Ertan and Cagri A. Savran The column of Armen Vartanian ’96 [“The Armenian Genocide,” April 27] is not historically accurate with regard to the sufferings of Armenians during the First World War or the historical research surrounding the issue. We would like to begin by outlining what happened in Anatolia during the years of 1915-1924.
The Ottoman Empire was a multi-ethnic, multi-religious empire that at its height spanned from the Danube River in Europe, to North Africa, to as far as the Caucasus and Iraq. In accordance with the laws of the Koran, the rights of all minorities were respected. The Ottomans were the most lenient of all empires concerning its religious minorities. The Ottomans expected the payment of taxes, but otherwise left the religion and cultures of its conquered territories intact. This was, in fact, what made it so easy for minority groups to succeed when the Ottomans became weak. Furthermore, many Christians and Jews achieved high government posts, and during the Spanish persecution of the Jews, the Ottoman Empire became a safe haven for them. Armenians and Turks have lived together peacefully for over 600 years. To quote Voltaire, “The great Turk is governing in peace twenty nations of different religions. Turks have taught to Christians how to be moderate in peace and gentle in victory.”
In the years leading up to World War I, however, the Ottoman Empire grew increasingly weak, and provinces began to secede. When World War I began, the Ottomans sided with the Germans, and the German defeat left the Ottomans in shambles. Under the Treaty of Sevres, the Allies conspired to use the nationalist tendencies within the Ottoman Empire to destroy it. Under Sevres, the Turkish people would have no nation, and Anatolia would be colonized by Europe. Thus, the Christian minorities of the Ottoman Empire, including the Armenians, were encourage to rebel, and were given ample support to do so. Vartanian’s assertion that Armenians were unarmed is a joke.
Armenians joined with the Russian forces, and grouped into guerrilla bands. They began attacking the Turkish Army in the rear, and even before the Russo-Armenian forces arrived, they succeeded in capturing Van, massacred its entire Muslim population, and razed the entire city. They then proceeded to “soften up” the area, and in the process killed thousands of Turks and Kurds. There was a massive flow of refugees into Central Anatolia, who survived under extremely harsh conditions.
At this point, the Ottoman Government faced severe problems. The Army was being attacked by Russo-Armenian forces in the North and Armenian guerrillas in the South. On the other hand, there were the many Armenian communities who appeared uninvolved in the fighting, but in fact were providing food, shelter and new recruits to the guerrillas. The Muslim populations were beginning to react in kind, and the region was rapidly falling into full-fledged inter-communal warfare.
After much hesitation, the Ottomans decided to relocate the Armenian communities to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, which at that time were still Ottoman provinces. Ottoman archives chronicling this decision show that this decision was not punitive, and that Ottoman soldiers were ordered to escort the Armenians and protect them from any vigilantes. As it turned out, though, this decree had tragic consequences, not just due to the warfare in the region, but due to disease, harsh weather, exposure and hunger. However, a few facts should be noted. First, most Armenian casualties occurred in regions where Ottoman control was the weakest. Secondly, a great many Turks and other Muslims also died from the same causes.
When the Ottoman Army returned to the north, the onset of the Russian Revolution forced the retreat of the Russo-Armenian forces to what is currently Armenia. During this retreat, many atrocities were committed against Turks and Kurds, including the burning of mosques full of women, children, and old men, gouging eyes, and burying people alive.
At the close of World War I, the Ottoman Empire was no more. The Ottoman Sultan fled Istanbul on a British ship, and Turkish people were left to fend for themselves against the invasion of the British, French, Australian, Italian, Russian, Greek, and Armenian forces. The Turks fight for independence raged on for several years under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Many more Turkish people died in this struggle, not just from war, but from hunger and disease. There is not one single Turk alive today who did not lose relatives during the Independence War. The Independence War ended with the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, in which the modern day borders of Turkey were recognized, and the Allies abandoned all claims on Anatolia.
Thus, there was neither any planned execution of Armenians, nor such an intention.
Demographic studies by Professor Justin McCarthy show that roughly 600,000 Armenians died during the struggles as compared to almost 3 million Muslim deaths. Vartanian claims that 1.5 million Armenians were killed -- however, according to census figures of the British as well as the Ottomans, there were never more than 1.3 million Armenians in Anatolia. Additionally, Vartanian refers to U.S. Ambassador Morgenthau. It should be noted though that Morgenthau was a racist, who believed that Turks were an inferior race and openly printed that Turks had “inferior blood.” One cannot expect accurate reporting from such a biased man, yet it is his reports on which much of the Armenian accounts are based on. Vartanian also refers to a remark by Adolf Hitler, as though somehow the psychotic ravings of a man known for exterminating the Jews can be relied on for accurate history.
He also asserts that “claims against the Armenians are purely anecdotal.” I highly doubt that the mass of evidence can be referred to as anecdotal: there are eyewitness accounts of Russian soldiers, demographic evidence, reports from Allied soldiers, photographic evidence, as well as testimonies from the Turkish refugees. Seventy American scholars -- including Prof. McCarthy of the University of Louisville, Prof. Bernard Lewis of Princeton, and Prof. Sandford Shaw of the University of California at Los Angeles -- testified in 1988 in front of the House International Committee that there was no genocide of Armenians. The Clinton Administration continues to back the Turkish people on this issue, because it knows the truth: there was no Armenian genocide.
* Fact is that the Armenians in the West of Turkey were not even touched during the war. It was only the Armenians that collaborated with the Russians in Eastern Turkey, and started killing the Turks that people fought against.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Aug 3, 2009 14:54:04 GMT -5
which shows their allegation of an Armenian Genocide is false.
More Turks got killed than Armenians. Additionally, a Genocide's definition means to get rid of an entire population of people.
Ottomans documented everything. They could find no evidence to exterminate Armenians as a population. In fact, the following was ordered:
“The Armenians should be safely transported to their new settlements. During the journey, their rest and security should be maintained. From their arrival until their settlement, all the costs would be compensated from the refugee appropriations. Considering their previous wealth and requirements new land would be appropriated. New houses should be built and agricultural needs would be implemented.”
“Necessary measures should be taken to hinder possible fights between the civil Muslims and the Christians as this order aims to cease the rebellious Armenian societies.”
“To maintain resettlement of the Armenians, security forces should be charged.”
“For the poor refugees, sufficient substance would be maintained and doctors would control their health everyday.” On the other hand, the negative conditions of the world war, insufficiency of food, medicine, vehicles should be considered. Moreover, typhus and the other epidemics negatively effected the refugees. For example, 90.000 soldiers of the Ottoman Army had suffered from the cold and epidemics in the eastern front. In those days, even in Istanbul people had suffered due to negative effect of the war. The negative conditions of that time did not effect only the Armenians but the whole Ottoman habitants. All the Ottomans faced with poverty, diseases, and hunge."
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Aug 3, 2009 14:58:29 GMT -5
claims of 2 million and I have seen claims on Tall Armenian Tale of upto 2.5 million seem quite high, there is quite a difference between a hundred thousand or more and 2 to 2 and half million. if numbers do not matter then what is reason such high figures are claimed. again as I asked where is proof of such numbers. no I do not know myself what were the numbers, just as I said I havn't seen any well presented hard proof to indicate it was 2 million. if this is what is claimed by any authority or historian or person I am very interested to see by what evidence. I have no information on the claims of certain Internet sites. However, I could tell you that the number of Turks/Muslims killed accounts more than a few hundred thousand civilians. Genocide Convention does not take the citizenship issue into account, so it does not matter whether members of a certain group are the citizens of*given state or not. What matters is the intention. If one intends to destroy that certain group, then it is genocide. If not, it is not. There was no suspicion. The Christian groups were sure of the demise of the empire, and therefore, all of those sought external support for building their own national states, just like it was staged in Balkans between 1877-1913. That is right, there was no safe guards left to trust in the Armenian populations for an empire that was falling apart, that is why, the Ottoman government tired to get rid off the Armenians by deporting them out of Anatolia. However, not all Armenians were deported. For example, Muslim Armenians of Hemshinli were not deported since those were not seen as some Christian ally. Most Catholic Armenians were not subject to deportation. Thus, the Armenian masses of Istanbul and Izmir were not deported. Moreover, perhaps more than a hundred thousand Armenians who converted to Islam also evaded deportation.
|
|
Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning
Senior Moderator
Simarik Turkish Pwincess
Know yourself...
Posts: 3,563
|
Post by Dèsîŗĕ Yèarning on Aug 3, 2009 15:26:14 GMT -5
As far as im concerned.....
If The Armenians as Ottoman citizens' decided that they wanted to join up with the Russians to demolish the East of the Empire' then well they too must take responsibility in there role which led up to the events of a massive loss of lives.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 4, 2009 1:54:29 GMT -5
well the word genocide is used for example in description of many massacres it has been used for eg to describe what happened to Bosnian Muslims in ex Yugoslavia.
I have read apparently the man who coined the term genocide had specifically the accounts of what occured to the Armenians in mind when he coined the phrase.
But with reference to genocide convention , my understanding is that majority of genocide authorities do recognise an Armenian genocide.
As you have inferred in your answer a preplanned directive was taken to deport the Armenians out to the desert and the reason was because they were viewed as not being trusted. You say that didnt happen to all Armenians not the Muslim ones or ones that converted to Islam. I have read apparently many converted to Islam purely to save themselves and their familes and several soon as they got out of Turkey converted back to Christianity.
Besides from being Muslim what other criteria was applied to consider Armenians not dangerous, as I have said what about all the old woman, children and old men, why were they considered dangerous.
In any case is clear a deliberate directive was taken to oust a very large scale population of Armenians(familes/non combatants) out to the desert and into almost certain death, how can large group of people usually living in greeen fertile land be taken to barren desertland and be expected to live with hardly any food or water.
Some people consider this deliberate act and other asscociated massacres against Armenians as genocidal some dont some consider the eventual outcome as genocide, I am aware that the Armenian side has its claims that certain Turks and authority figures had spoken about intentions to kill off Armenians and as you probably know there are even some Turks that call it genocide too.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Aug 4, 2009 8:47:24 GMT -5
[ well the word genocide is used for example in description of many massacres it has been used for eg to describe what happened to Bosnian Muslims in ex Yugoslavia. That is right. It is also not used for many massacres occured. It should be noted that the Bosnian case is a recent one happened when there was no world war, and there was no enemy that the Bosnians sided with. R. Lemkin used the " Terrible Turkish Image" in order to utilize the concept of genocide. For example, he did not apply the term for the extermination of Native Americans or Africans, instead he praised the impact of European colonization and did not hesitate to name the Blacks and Natives as savages who must have been civilized. For such obvious reasons, his views can not be taken into consideration as some sort of benchmark. I could say that there are some lobbyists who like to redefine a specific historical event by fitting the respective context into their own agendas. That is the point. The Bosnians or Albanians who wanted to convert to Christianity, could not save themselves, nor could the Jews, the Native Americans, or Blacks of Africa.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Aug 4, 2009 14:05:41 GMT -5
Agreed Spirit. There is absolutely no evidence from the Ottoman archives that the Ottomans intended to kill Armenians.
Due to the Armenians high lobbying power in the USA & Europe, they influence congressman who have no idea about the history of the Ottomans just to obtain votes.
Everyone knows what scum the Armenians are. They attack, kill, and then they say Turks committed a Genocide when the Russians use them for their imperialist expansionist ideology.
This is a great youtube video on what really happened:
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Aug 4, 2009 14:07:51 GMT -5
* sigh *
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 4, 2009 18:53:30 GMT -5
lol., you think that many people can be killed by accident or without intention ?
btw still waiting for your evidence for your claim that Armenians killed 2 million Turks.
this is youtube video about what can happen to vocal people in Turkey who have a questioning view about what happened.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 4, 2009 19:18:55 GMT -5
with regards to Armenians in the Russian army I have read the majority of these Armenians were "Eastern Armenians" or "Russian Armenians", i.e. citizens of the Russian Empire, thus obliged to enlist in the Russian Army. There were some,Western Armenians"too who were survivors of the 1894-96 massacres or revolutionaries who defended their lands and families against Kurdish atrocities.
1915-1918 was a turbulent time in Caucasus, and yes there were clashes between Armenians and Muslims. the writer Hovannisian renders this very well in his book.
This was a reactionary period on behalf of the paranoid Romanov Government, which was implementing a very harsh policy towards Armenians, Polish, and Finns.
Fearing that the Armenians would realize the reunification of Turkish and Russian Armenia together, they tried to subdue the Armenians, using the Tatars in Caucasus. But since the Armenians were the most scattered people in the area (compared with Georgians and Tatars), they did simply not afford to give the Tatars, and subsequently the Turks, a reason to unite in killing the Armenians in two fronts (which became true any how between 1918 and 1920). In these clashes Armenians did kill Muslims, but according to Hovannisian the number of dead were not as high as some figures mention. When the Young Turks took power, almost all Christians in the Ottoman Empire as well as minorities were very suspicious towards their agenda.
The Armenians, however, cooperated with them helping them to gain control, an aid which came to be fatal for the Armenian nation. Actually, if you search for "San Stefano" and "Berlin Congress"you will see that the Armenians never demanded independence as Romanians, Bulgarians, Greek, Serbian, and Monte Negroes strove for and gained. The Armenians were at all times demanding "Cultural Independence and Self Administration within the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire" (this is from 1876 and onward).
According to Hovannisian it was not until 1908-09, and after massacres in Adana, which the Armenians realized that there was only one way: either they go for independence as the other subjected nations under Turkish rule or they will die.
The latter was the bitter reality which came true. Had the Armenians gone for Russian, English, or French protection, as the people in the Balkans did, the reality could have been very different now. Instead, the Armenian leaders tried to cooperate with the Young Turks against the Sultan Abdul Hamid's rule, hoping that the promised reforms will be implemented once the new "liberal" leaders take the power. And initially this seemed to be the case, until the hard-line nationalists within the Young Turks took over (more or less in the same manner as Hitler & Co within their socialistic party) and aimed for the "One nation, one state, one people" plan.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Aug 5, 2009 1:16:01 GMT -5
with regards to Armenians in the Russian army I have read the majority of these Armenians were "Eastern Armenians" or "Russian Armenians", i.e. citizens of the Russian Empire, thus obliged to enlist in the Russian Army. There were some,Western Armenians"too who were survivors of the 1894-96 massacres or revolutionaries who defended their lands and families against Kurdish atrocities. 1915-1918 was a turbulent time in Caucasus, and yes there were clashes between Armenians and Muslims. the writer Hovannisian renders this very well in his book. This was a reactionary period on behalf of the paranoid Romanov Government, which was implementing a very harsh policy towards Armenians, Polish, and Finns. Fearing that the Armenians would realize the reunification of Turkish and Russian Armenia together, they tried to subdue the Armenians, using the Tatars in Caucasus. But since the Armenians were the most scattered people in the area (compared with Georgians and Tatars), they did simply not afford to give the Tatars, and subsequently the Turks, a reason to unite in killing the Armenians in two fronts (which became true any how between 1918 and 1920). In these clashes Armenians did kill Muslims, but according to Hovannisian the number of dead were not as high as some figures mention. In fact, the backbone of the Russian tactics involved using irregular units for massacring unwanted civilian populations of an invaded territory. Some reading on the war of 1877-1878: Detailed eyewitness reports collected by British diplomats revealed a more complex pattern of attack in which both Russian Cossacks and local Bulgarians drove out Bulgarian Muslims. One of the most striking examples came from Balvan, a village in north central Bulgaria. British Vice Consul Edmund Calvert collected much of the evidence about Balvan from Muslim refugees who escaped to the south. The war reached Balvan when Cossacks arrived on July 7 and demanded that residents surrender their arms. The villagers complied, but the next day two more squadrons of Cossacks arrived, this time accompanied by two thousand to three thousand Bulgarians from nearby villages, armed with hatchets, clubs, and guns. The mob plundered the village, taking away cattle and seizing valuables. "They then set the village on fire," driving those who tried to escape " back into the flames." All the while, "the Cossacks, who formed an outer cordon around the village, looked on quietly." soc.world-journal.net/pastblanket.htmlIt is generally accepted that the Ottoman Armenians had some militias behind the Ottoman lines attacking on critical Ottoman positions in coordination with the Russian forces. Estimation of those ranges between 30.000-50.000 units. Thus, the Russians also had some Armenian troops raised from the Armenian volunteers, and estimation for those ranges between 100.000-150.000 units. As the Armenian reservists in Russia had already been drafted into the regular armed forces and sent to European theatre of World War I, the volunteer units would make up of Armenians who were not citizens of the empire or not obligated to serve. Many of them who were living in Caucuses and many of them were impatient to take arms to liberate their homeland.[3] In several towns occupied by the Russians the Armenian students have shown themselves ready to join the Russian volunteer army. [4]. Besides the regular soldiers of the Russian Caucasus Army, nearly 20,000 Armenian volunteers expressed their readiness to take up arms against the Ottoman Empire as early as 1914. The size of these units increased during the war and Boghos Nubar gave the summary of these units in a public latter to the Paris Peace Conference, 1919 as 150,000 Armenians in the volunteer units and 50,000 Armenian militia.[5]www.tutorgig.com/ed/Armenian_volunteer_unitsIronically, the Young Turks were deemed as the key group for implementing institutional reforms that the Ottoman sultans failed to implement. That is why, one of the major supporters of the Young Turks was the Armenian Dashnak party. The Armenians had some problems. They did not from any majority in vilayets of the Ottoman lands, they used to live all across Anatolia as some minority, and they had conflicting views on independence. Armenians of Istanbul and Izmir were not generally interested in an independent Armenia like their counterparts living in Eastern Anatolia. However, in the east, the situation was completely different. Hovannisian ignores the ethnic tension between Kurds and Armenians raised in the second half of the 19th Century. In 1850s, the Ottoman empire granted peoples right to own land as private property. This changed the situation in the East as the Kurds started to gain the control of the lands that the Armenian populations have been seeking for. If you look at the map of nationalists of Armenia and Kurdistan, you could understand why the clashes took place prior to WWI. I must say that it was not a very convincing comparison. - The Jews did not demand to set up an independent Jew state in Germany. - The Jews did not volunteer for the foreign troops invading Germany. - The Jews did not set up militia units and attached German army inside the German borders. - The Jews did not try to revolt on various occassions in order to take attention of their Jew allies. - Millions of Germans did not suffer from deliberate deportations and massacres perpetriated by the Jew allies as they empire started to shrink.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 5, 2009 18:04:02 GMT -5
Thracian
From what I have read this is not entirely true that Armenians in Western Turkey were not touched. According to the following information ...
Armenians in the western Turkey were not spared in any ways. The only reason the killings there were not as intense as in the eastern provinces, was the presence of foreign diplomats in Constantinople and Smyrna (Izmir). About 30,000 Armenians were killed in different waves in Constantinople and the genocide began there on April 24 by arresting and eliminating the intellectual elite. Between April 23 and 24 over 250 Armenians leaders and intellectual leaders were arrested and executed within 72 hours. Only in Constantinople, during the coming weeks, 2,345 other leading figures were arrested and eliminated .
Secondly, there are strong indications which point to the fact that the Turkish Government had the same plan for the Armenians in the Western parts as well. They just fell short of time when the war ended in 1918. The Turks started to round up the Armenians in Smyrna in the same way they had done in the eastern provinces: they were given a notice to pack what they could carry and abandon their homes. They were to be deported to other parts of the country. It was only the strong objection of the German General Liman von Sanders (stationed in Smyrna as commanding officer) who threatened with military intervention that made the Turks to call off the deportations. It was the truce in 1917 and the surrender in 1918 which put a stop for implementing the plan for the remainder of the Armenians. As for in Constantinople, there were simply too many foreign Ambassadors, diplomats and military attaches as witnesses which prevented the Turks to implement the same efficient annihilation they could do in the remote parts of the Empire, concealed from direct foreign observation.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Aug 5, 2009 18:19:28 GMT -5
yes that is what I was saying the Armenians supported them hoping that they would implement those reforms but as stated things changed.
Armenians had asked authorities for protection against Kurdish raiding, apparently it was agreed this would be given and or raiders would be dealt with appropriatly but apparently this wasnt honoured.
[
[/quote]
the comparison was how hard liner nationalists dominated the party and implmented their nationalist agenda.
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Aug 5, 2009 18:53:37 GMT -5
The truth is that there was not such Armenian genocide. Such claim is insane. Have a look at this one.. how documents are turned to be fraudulent, of course an intentional deception made by not others but Armenians. We all know that fraud is a crime, and is also a civil law violation!
|
|
ioan
Amicus
Posts: 4,162
|
Post by ioan on Aug 6, 2009 0:06:03 GMT -5
Rhezus I see that its a personal cause to proove that there was not an Armenian killed. Is it because you identify with our neighbours the Turks?
|
|
Rhezus
Moderator
DERZA STURIA TRAUS
Posts: 1,674
|
Post by Rhezus on Aug 6, 2009 8:37:22 GMT -5
Ioan, I don't say anywhere that armenians were not killed,. Did you watch the links I posted to see what aremnians were doing? Since they simply asked for troubles they've got what they wanted. Many turks were killed by armenians as well. And the most important.. Armenian's archives are still not available to the public, they intentionally were falsifying and giving wrong information, to justify their cause. As said, this is a crime and also a civil law violation! That's why I understand the Turks and that's why I don't believe to the hysterical Armenian lobbying. They need to go on and be happy things are not going worse.
|
|