|
Post by todhrimencuri on Jun 11, 2009 18:24:08 GMT -5
LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 11, 2009 19:52:47 GMT -5
25 years is not such great length of time , if massacres in 1890's made a cause and effect to things that led up to 1915 then of course they are relevant in the context of events.
Again you cant blame Armenians in Turkey for what happened to those Muslim people you mention, otherwise its like saying well a Christian for a Muslim type of mentality., which probably some people have.
again in the sense of cause and affect that is most likely also relevant.
another example Armenians live in other Muslim countries too eg Iran, Lebanon, Syria etc but this type of thing the extant of revolts and protests hasnt happened in the way it happened in Ottoman Turkey , why ... if people feel they are treated fairly and well they dont have tendancy to revolt, many Armenians in Iran love Iran and feel very loyal to Iran, another thing Armenian resistance fighters in Lebanon trained with and beside PLO.
the article does mention reforms were made under pressure but the article then states and implies the reforms didnt have much affect or change things that much.
-[/i][/quote]
how would that relate specifically to a genocide/ethnic cleansing against Armenians in Turkey. Armenians were not living in the Balkans. I dont justify killing of innocents but truth is Ottomans invaded Balkans and controlled them under duress the fact that when those places had the oppurtunity to empower themselves take back their land shows they were under duress control by what they considered a foreign power and with some exeptions didnt feel loyal to them. The deportations that took place gainst Muslim civillians was not the fault of Armenians in Turkey just because Armenians were also a Christian people.
every case has the right to be assesed on its own merit if any case is to be assesed then look at them one by one. All of those people have a right to state and put forward a case they suffeed a genocide if thats what they believe has occured.
[/quote]
I dont know that they have been forgotten. The Armenian genocide/ethnic cleansing was widely reported on by international sources in the time it was occuring , witness accounts from Swedes,Germans,Americans etc were made in that time, and yes the Greek and Assyrian people suffered also this too is represented but it seems at the time much international accounts were in regards to harsh treatment of the Armenians.
and what would you say about the Turkish historians /intellectuals that themselves have stated they believe Armenian genocide did occur.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jun 12, 2009 2:17:14 GMT -5
And your head will roll first of all. Zito i Polis mas!
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Jun 12, 2009 2:21:31 GMT -5
LOL!!!
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jun 12, 2009 2:24:53 GMT -5
25 years is not such great length of time , if massacres in 1890's made a cause and effect to things that led up to 1915 then of course they are relevant in the context of events. Of course they are relevant, nobody denies that, what is denied is what was not written or what is omitted. I do not blame the Armenians for what happened to the Turks/Muslims of Caucasus, Balkans or Crimea. Those crimes were mostly part of the Russian schemes. Maybe. Armenians started to live in Syria and Lebanon after they were deported to the region during WWI. In Iran, Azeris started to have problems with the Armenians after the Russians moved down to Caucasus in 19th Century. As of 19th Century, the Russians started using Armenians of Iran and Turkey as natural allies for their imperial causes. Article claims that reforms were on paper, but as of 1914, there were Armenian public officers, politicians, and ministers in the Ottoman Government. How that could be possible if there was no change? When you think of the map of Ottoman Turkey, you should think of some country that kept of shrinking between 1783-1922. During this period, millions of refuges arrived from lost territories whilst millions were simply exterminated by prevailing European/Christian forces. Do you claim that this placed no impact on a society that was in transformation from a multicultural and multiethnic Islamic empire into small nation states? PS: One can not justify some crimes by pointing out how Ottomans conquered Balkans since Serbs, Bulgars or Hungarians are not natives of Balkans either. In Christian/European cultures, people tend to confess their guilt or sins over and over again in order to purify their souls or conciousness. In Turkish/Eastern/Muslim cultures, people tend to forgive the crimes of others over time, and avoid to mention such bad times of the past to new generations. That does not mean that genocides did not take place. You do not know? but you know the Armenian one, right? Reported by whom? Chinese? Hindu? Iranian? Arabian, African sources? Why do you call some European sources as international? Dont you realize that there is nothing international about Eurocentrism at all? For example, an American academic mentions histroical annals written by the Iranian ambassador to Turkey: Another large democide component is that calculated for the Armenian irregulars with Russian forces when they invaded Turkey. These irregulars no doubt massacred Moslem Turks and Kurds in retaliation for the Turk massacres of Armenians reported in Chapter 5.2 But how many? The only sources I could find on this were from Moslem Turk and Iranian sources (lines 101 and 102), neither inclined to be even-handed about Armenians. Note that the one from a former Iranian Ambassador to Turkey (line 102) gives a figure of over 600,000 Kurds killed in the Eastern vilayets of Turkey, or almost 58 percent of all Moslem Kurd and Turk deaths in six Eastern vilayets, including those dead from disease and famine during the war.3 Moreover, in this region the number of Turks much outnumbered Kurds. That the Armenians would have killed 600,000 Kurds alone is therefore incredible. www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP12.HTMHave you heard of it? Even the American guy does not believe in what the Iranian noted. Although there are counter accounts by the Germans, Russians or British sources, nobody really likes to publish or read such ircredible lies on history. Anybody could say anything or believe in anything as they wish. That is their right to do so. What matters in Turkey is the fact that Turks/Muslims suffered millions of losses, and modern Turkey has emerged as the new home of millions of refuges arriving form former Ottoman territories. Of course, there might be some people who would like to interpret European ways of doing things as universal. However, bulk of people in Turkey will never follow such mindset since you and I both well know that there is nothing universal about European ways of doing things. After all, the world is changing, and recall that the UN Article on Genocide was in fact a byproduct of the Western/European way of thinking. Why? let me illustrate: R. Lemkin was the European lawyer who coined the term genocide. Despite the Belgians exterminated 10-15 million Congolese in Congo between 1890s-1910s, he interpreted the events as such: "his critique was not directed at European colonialismin general. On the contrary, Lemkin has been an enthusiastic advocate of coloni-alism and he considered the “civilization” of the Congo and other parts of Africa by Europeans to be a necessary task. Quite a favourable view of King Leopold II’s alleged philanthropic plans to bring peace and prosperity to Central Africa hasbeen taken by him: “Almost all of the hundred articles drawn up at the Brussels Conference were admirable and had they been enforced the natives of the Congo would have benefited immeasurably.”www.inogs.com/JGRFullText/Schaller.pdf Woww, what a pioneer he was! ;D In the future, I am sure there will be reassasment of all such definitions stipulated by some European powers back in time, it is not a matter of if, it is only a matter of when.
|
|
|
Post by chalkedon on Jun 12, 2009 6:56:45 GMT -5
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." It is apocryphally attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. The principle is often expressed in Latin as the lex parsimoniae ("law of parsimony", "law of economy", or "law of succinctness"): entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, roughly translated as "entities must not be multiplied beyond necessity." An alternative version Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate translates "plurality should not be posited without necessity."[2]
^^^^ There used to be a million armenians in turkey 80 yrs ago. Now there are practically none. What is the most simplest answer to this question ? They were deported or exterminated...simple as that.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jun 12, 2009 9:04:59 GMT -5
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] ^^^^ There used to be a million armenians in turkey 80 yrs ago. Now there are practically none. What is the most simplest answer to this question ? They were deported or exterminated...simple as that. There were about 290.000 Armenians when the republic was founded in 1923. Today, there are about 100.000 Armenians living in Turkey. If you research on how many Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Turkey to other countries between 1915-1922, then you might find that the number is no less than 700.000-800.000 peoples. So, the core of genocide dispute lies on the number of Armenians existed in 1914. Most of the Armenian/Western sources claim that the Armenian population was over 2 million and only 500.000 survived. Turkish sources claim that there were about 1.5 million Armenians, and at least 1 million survived. Either case, both side agree that the hundreds of thousands of Armenians suffered. What was not agreed upon is the existence of genocidal intent to destroy the Armenian nation of Anatolia. In my opinion, it is not possible to prove such intent after many decades. In that sense, if you start to apply the term by looking at the dreadful consequences, then you should be aware of the fact that you are redefining the term.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 16, 2009 13:58:25 GMT -5
Armenians were deported from Turkey, not exterminated. That's a fact. And that's why there are so many Armenians in Arabic countries and in the USA.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jun 16, 2009 15:53:07 GMT -5
Yes you gave them free tickets to America. Too kind of you...
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 16, 2009 17:45:11 GMT -5
Yes exactly
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 17, 2009 5:41:48 GMT -5
Occam's razor, also Ockham's razor,[1] ^^^^ There used to be a million armenians in turkey 80 yrs ago. Now there are practically none. What is the most simplest answer to this question ? They were deported or exterminated...simple as that. There were about 290.000 Armenians when the republic was founded in 1923. Today, there are about 100.000 Armenians living in Turkey. If you research on how many Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Turkey to other countries between 1915-1922, then you might find that the number is no less than 700.000-800.000 peoples. So, the core of genocide dispute lies on the number of Armenians existed in 1914. Most of the Armenian/Western sources claim that the Armenian population was over 2 million and only 500.000 survived. Turkish sources claim that there were about 1.5 million Armenians, and at least 1 million survived. Either case, both side agree that the hundreds of thousands of Armenians suffered. What was not agreed upon is the existence of genocidal intent to destroy the Armenian nation of Anatolia. In my opinion, it is not possible to prove such intent after many decades. In that sense, if you start to apply the term by looking at the dreadful consequences, then you should be aware of the fact that you are redefining the term. If we look t all the major Christian groups in Ottoman Turkey at that time it seems they all suffered very similiar fate, it appears to be the result of a religious persecution perhaps punishing Christians in Turkey as a protest aginst external Christians that were at war with Turkey. Reasons suggested for the genocide vary.
The Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians were the subject of forced relocations and executions, a possible cause being religious persecution of the Christian community of Anatolia. The Assyrians were included as a subsection of the Armenians. Massacres at Van Cevdet Paşa the governor of Van, is reported to have held a meeting in February 1915 at which he said, "We have cleansed the Armenians and Syriac [Christian]s from Azerbaijan, and we will do the same in Van".[15] In late 1915, Cevdet Bey, Military Governor of Van Province, upon entering Siirt (or Seert) with 8,000 soldiers whom he himself called "The Butchers' Battalion" (Turkish: Kasap Taburu),[16] ordered the massacre of almost 20,000 Assyrian civilians in at least 30 villages.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 17, 2009 11:45:31 GMT -5
Not true. If people start revolting against your power, of course you are going to fight against them. It doesn't matter if they are Christian or Muslim.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 17, 2009 11:47:03 GMT -5
By the way, Assyrians were killed by the Kurds - and he hates them. I am friends with one of them. Most of the Armenians were killed by Kurdish bandits in eastern Turkey during that time.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jun 17, 2009 16:42:17 GMT -5
Many of the massacres on Greeks of Smyrna were committed by Kurds as well...but thats not the issue guys...the question is...who commanded...and not who committed the crimes. Dont hide behind your small finger.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 17, 2009 17:33:32 GMT -5
Not true. If people start revolting against your power, of course you are going to fight against them. It doesn't matter if they are Christian or Muslim. the proportion of people who to use your word revolted and the proportion of people that were killed, massacred , deported, abused, had their properties stolen etc is by no way equal.
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 17, 2009 17:41:36 GMT -5
No one commanded the killing of Armenian people, just the people who revolted against the Empire and rightfully so. The 2M Turks that died in Eastern Turkey shows who really got killed !
|
|
|
Post by thracian08 on Jun 17, 2009 17:42:42 GMT -5
My point is that Kurdish bandits came and killed Armenians, they are not gov't people. They also killed a lot of Assyrians. Don't mix gov't with bandits!
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 17, 2009 18:42:21 GMT -5
Great points, Oszkar. Just from reading your answer, it is easy to see your lack of information. Now you are not content with the trash you pasted from garbagepedia on Armenians but you are also offerring that on Assyrians as the "objective" source.
As to your suggestion on all major "Christian" groups, perhaps it was because all major Christian groups were actively aiding the external enemies and thought it was the right time.
Michael Anthony Reynolds, The Ottman-Russian Struggle for Eastern Anatolia and Caucasus, 1908-1918, (Princeton, NJ, 2003):
Page 141: In 1906 the Russian army had instructed the Russian consul in Van to visit the Assyrian Patriarch and ask whether Russia could count on the Assyrians for help in the event of a war with the Ottoman Empire. Mar Shamun Beniamin [the Patriarch] promised that if Russia took Van and armed the Assyrians, he would produce a force of forty thousand men and occupy the land between Mosul and Bitlis.
Page 143-144:
Agha Petros was an Assyrian. Known also as Peter Ellov, he fled British Columbia … and returned to the Ottoman Empire, where he was more successful in building a career. He served as the Ottoman vice-consul in Urmia, deputy governor in Shemdinan, and as a member of the Ottoman Parliament … He had already received decorations from the Ottoman government … By the spring of 1911, however, Agha Petros had begun working for the Russians, and was supplying them with intelligence regarding the Ottoman forces in the area. .. [He] did travel to St. Petersburg where at Russian insistence he agreed to convert to Russian Orthodoxy … although it is not clear if he actually did. Because he was also the right-hand man of the Assyrian Patriarch, he was discreet about his new religious affiliation.
In May 1915 Agha Petros took an active role in the war alongside the Russian army, leading Jelou tribesmen in campaigns against the Kurds and commanding an Assyrian unit in the Russian army. In the course of the war, he became not only the leading Assyrian partisan leader but also effectively the leading Assyrian, more powerful than the Assyrian patriarch.
Page 201-202:
The Ottoman Empire’s Assyrians also sought arms. In June, a delegation of them approached the Russian Vice-Consul in Urmia and asked for 35,000 rifles and three hundred rounds of ammunition for each rifle. They promised the consul that, if Russia supported them, they were prepared to rise up at the Russians’ command and to attack regular units of the Ottoman army in the likely event of a war with Russia.
Trash. The origin of this absurd description "Butcher Battalion" goes to the rather bizzare memoirs of an American missionary Clarence Ussher, who was serving in Van:
Clarence Ussher, An American Physician in Turkey (1917) page: 237
While I was in his office, the colonel of the Vali's regiment, which he called his Kasab Tabouri, or Butcher Regiment, composed of Turkish convicts, entered and said, "You sent for me" . "Yes" replied Jevdet; "go to Shadakh and wipe out its people."
The bizzare conversartions between the Vali and his colonel planning to massacre the Armenian inhabitants within the province which Ussher gives as proof a Turkish plot are inherently incredible to me. If any state official was indeed making such plans or giving such orders, it would certainly not be in a room or an office with an American missionary who earned enough notoriety for his anti-Turkish activities. In addition, Ussher's is internally inconsistent as he frequently claims in other sections of his memoirs that the Vali was secretly planning to exterminate the Armenians time.
But there is not much point in answering what Ussher wrote. The central problem is that he was not a reliable observer and certainly not an objective author.
The British Consul in Van in 1905, Captain Tyrell, knew Dr. Ussher well. Commenting on a letter from Ussher printed in the London Times, Tyrell wrote: “ I myself know by experience that Dr. Ussher’s statements are unreliable, and I never accept any of them without careful personal enquiry.” Tyrell understand the missionary’s impulse to vilify the government: “The key to all this missionary correspondence is found in the last paragraph of Dr. Ussher’s letter, ‘to stir public opinion by anything that we write’; and nothing is ever written by them to show the other side- how far the Armenians are themselves to blame; outrages by revolutionists; the difficulties with which the local authorities have to contend; any good work done by Turkish officials, &c.”
British Ambassador O’Conor added,
“The United States Minister, whom I spoke to, informed me that he regarded Dr. Ussher as most unreliable, and given to gross exaggeration owing to his innate dislike of Turks and his inordinate fanaticism.”
And thanks, for including "other Christian and non-Turkish minorities" in your genocide rage. Yes, Oszkar, Turks are master genociders, it is a pastime for them. They did not stop with Armenians they had to finish off Assyrians, Greeks, etc. also. there were millions of Turks (civilians) killed also in Anatolia, they are all colleteral damage, yet all others were genocided. So, Ozskar what is the final number of genocide victims? Congrats on your new-found heartfelt feelings, and after your extensive copy-paste research on internet, feel free to present us new genocides Turks have committed. It is a great hobby, , feel for your Christian brothers, bring it on.
So, Oszkar, in my opinion you are full of it and you dont know it. good luck on your crusade to uncover the hidden truths about turks.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2009 8:13:11 GMT -5
one cannot lay blame towards the general people of any nation purely on behalf of the actions of certain elements in power that were responsible for certain outcomes.
I mentioned Greeks and Assyrians and Armenians purely because they all had to a certain degree a similiar experience and the commonality between them was they were of Christian faith, the doctrine of their faith was mostly relevant in the context of their experience. One counter point always seems to be about the revolting Armenians or Greeks or Assyrians but what was the reason, yes it was a time of national consciousness/nationalism and so same can be said about Youg Turks/Turkey perhaps all sides had some agenda but beside from that what was other reasons and more to the point what was the ratio of those people killed deported etc that were revolters and non revolters.
You have in this same forum an article right from the top the Turkish pres that admits to Turkeys Fascist past against its minorities and specifically non Muslim minorities, but now you will tell me something like no no no those no good disloyal deserter revolters got what they deserved as if there was nothing more simpler to it than this.
I would tend to frown upon any fascistic persecutionary treatment of any minorities whether it happened in Ottoman Turkey, the West Bank -Palestine, Egypt, NaziGermany, India, the Caucasus or North East Africa.
Would you ?
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 18, 2009 10:34:43 GMT -5
Emtpy words to aviod an inoconvenient position has no merits, what matters is one's actions. And your target is clearly involving the blaming of a certain group and justying others. In other words, you are not much more than a hypocrite - an ignorant one.
let me remind you that these were your own words:
truth is Ottomans invaded Balkans and controlled them under duress the fact that when those places had the oppurtunity to empower themselves take back their land shows they were under duress control by what they considered a foreign power and with some exeptions didnt feel loyal to them
Despite your denial, this is a clear justification and granting legitimacy to the murder of people by resorting to some idiocratic remarks about the Ottoman conquests of Balkans which in any case is not entirely true.
You didnt mention anything- you just copied and stoled things from a gargabepedia without even having the slightest clue about its accuracy. You just copy from stupid links right and left with no knowledge or real source.
And now dont twist. You said exactly this about their being Christians and being punished:
it appears to be the result of a religious persecution perhaps punishing Christians in Turkey as a protest aginst external Christians that were at war with Turkey.
Now you dont stand behind your words. Prove that this is indeed the case, namley they were being punished "as a protest against external Christians that were at war with Turkey"
I dont really care about the reason, it is again one of your silly word-plays to justify their actions. Let me remind you that it was you talked about "cause and effect". You should perhaps keep this mind for the other side as well, instead of hypocritically using in your case and then ignoring for others'.
As to your question, asking the ratio of those rebels and non-rebels, it must surely have had far a higher impact on the civilians as it also did on the Muslim civilians (oh hell, yes i remember the Turks and muslims invaded Anatolia, so it doesnt count if they die or get killed, but all others were genocided by default only because they are christians). Van lost 62 percent, Bitlis 42 percent, Erzurum 31 percent etc. of their Muslim populations.
He is not the top or president of Turkey. His specific concern is to give a mine-clearence project on the Syrian border to an Israeli company which are co-partners with a Turkish company which his (Erdogan's) party's own group (The infamous Calik group) and he is trying to lay the ground for after he irresponsibly inflamed the people after his Davos scandal.
I would like to remind you once again what you wrote about the Balkan muslims was, quite the contrary, an attemtp to justify and legitimate the mass-murder of people. Now dont come posing with this insincere empty words. We all know what you really are.
My approach and therefore my answers would be a lot more different with respect to the fate of the Ottoman Armenians if i was indeed debating or talking with a serious person concerned for the human suffering. Since your arrogant and ignorant crusading attitude distinguish you from this position, I do not see any benefit in sharing them with you.
|
|