|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 18, 2009 20:19:14 GMT -5
how conveniant , you read something you dont like to hear and you make a diversisve comment or question his motives, belittle his integrity well anything but to actually consider what he actually said and you will call me ignorant and arrogant. I hope your little rationalisation was enough to satisfy your mind and avoid contemplating what he said seeing that it must be all invention.
see the previous paragraph regarding inconveniant positions and empty words. blaming certain group and justifying others? Plse dont pretend to me that you are sitting here without an already bias point of view. ok let me to use one of your forum colleagues sentences to make you feel better ...
I am having discussions amidst comments and attitudes like that , keep that in mind. Yes Turkey was at war on several fronts of course it suffered great casualties but this too was not by in large as result of the internal Armenian, Assyrian, Greek populations.
wow , it is clearly not a justification of murder those are your words not mine. I have said in all my posts that I dont try to justify killing of civillians on any side. What I said was a description of what happened in regards to how the majority non Muslim population of the Balkans percieved the situation which was the Ottomans were seen as conquerors and occupiers. History has shown many empires fall down and in that time are regarded in a similiar way, whether we talk about Ottoman,Russian/Soviet, British or Austro Hungarian.
well prove that it purely wasnt or that it did not have an impact and effect on how Christians in Turkey were regarded.
Anyway I said perhaps I didnt say it was absolutely the reason, the word perhaps makes it as much a question as a statement. But I think its hard to deny that it had an impact.
You dont care I see, and you are the one telling me I am onesided lol. So far all you care about and all your comments have been one sided so before you throw your stones plse go outside the door of your glass house.
in any war there are some rules that are supposed to be followed for example the deliberate killing of civillians in not allowed. Im not saying this actually happens and people follow these rules . Turkey was at war on many fronts combatants and civillians were mostly killed by enemy fire. Armenians in Ottoman empire were citizens of Ottoman Turkish state they were predominantly cleansed from the region by orders and actions of those in power, this was not aimed simply at combatants/ revolters but the predominant population of Armenains in Ottoman Turkey.
you dont know me ,you may try to conveniantly label me a Crusader all you wish if makes you feel better and that says omething about yourmentality too, some of my good friends are Muslims ,it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Again you remind me only of your trying to conveniantly label me but I did not try to justify or legitimise mass murder of anybody these are your words not mine. I can show you many words/sentences on behalf some of your colleagues that are far more insensitive than anything I have said.
your approach and comments appear at least as as one sided as what you claiming mine to be, so dont kid yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jun 19, 2009 1:08:23 GMT -5
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. If one looks at the number of victims and the context of the religious persecutions occurred in Crimea, Balkans and Caucasus between 1780s-1910s, then one could say that the millions of Muslims and Jews suffered tremendously whilst millions of them had to flee into the shrunken territories of the Ottoman Empire. Of course, such massive wave of migration placed impact on how people see the Christian communities, particularly after Ottomans witnessed masses of their fellow Christian citizens started to join the invading Christian/European armies and began killing tens of thousands of innocent peoples.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 19, 2009 5:16:55 GMT -5
He has no integrity to be sure, the remarks he made were in the context of the reaction to afromentioned company (which is the co-partner of their Turkish islamist company in Turkey) and this is all clear. It is not be but you take the these remarks out of their context. What i did was to remind you the context in which those words were used. As i dont see anything sincere in his words, like i dont find in yours, since they were made to achieve something irrevelavant, I dont take it seriously.
Yes exactly, you put up a trash without having the slightest clue as to what it is . And you claim things which you cannot prove. You claim that these Christians were punished as a protest to external Christians which were at war. You are ignorant both in terms of Christian collobratist activity and the war with the external "Christians".
If you want to hold your own credbility, perhaps you should do some research before making absurd statements and acting as a copy-paste machine on behalf of garbagepedias.
By the way, all the Ottoman allies in the war were themselves Christians.
Well when you say that in response to a member who reminds of the massacres of Muslims, it amounts nothing less than justification and legitimization.
By this logic, any state in a desperate war of existence would perceive its christian subjects aiding the enemy as treacherous and would act accordingly. This line of reasoning is a clear statement of justification and legitimization. This line unfortunately belongs to you, no to me. All i did was to remind you the opposite of this.
This is quite a stupid and irrelevant remark coming from you again. The question is civilian population that was subjected to a brutal treatment (to put it mildly) in late 19th century. What does it has to do with the Ottman conquest of 14-15th century?
The people who were involed the mass murder or massacre, moreover, did not spare the Jews, do you think they were too occupiers and conquerors?
The British Ambassador Sir Henry A. Layard noted that: "the hatred of the Christians for the Muslims proceeds more from religious animosity and prejudice than from an other motive. The Bulgarians cannot certainly complain that they have been misgoverned or oppressed by the Jews"
Similar remarks were made by others. Whether the end of Ottoman rule was good for every body in a specific area may be understood from the following facts:
For instance, the mufti, the Greek archbishop and the Jewish rabbi of Kesreye fearing Bulgarian rule, asked, ironically enough, to remain under Ottoman administration as did the "vekil" of the [Armenian] Protestant community.
FO, 424/71. (Layard to Salisbury) 753/380, June 8th 1878 and FO, 424/72, 50 June 25th 1878 (Letter from Hagop Matteosian, vekil of the Protestant, Armenian, community).
Karpat, Kemal H. Studies on Ottoman Social and Political History : Selected Articles and Essays. Leiden, 2002. p 371.
Consul Charles Brophy to Ambassador Sir Henry Layard April 24, 1878
At Yamboli, on the 21th instant, some families of Turks and Jews returning to their homes there met at the terminus by nearly all the Bulgarians of the town, shouting “Long life to our Tsar Alexander! Away with the Turks and the Jews! Bulgaria for the Bulgarians!”
…At Slimia the Jews who returned were refused entrance into the town, and obliged to camp out in the vineyards a mile distant.
A few days ago some Jews left Bourgas for Karnabad and Aidos. At the latter town only one family was allowed to remain; at the former all were recieved, and alloted an open lean-to in which to live, their houses having been all pulled down or occupied by Russians or Bulgarians; but they have sent back word here to other Jews not to come, as they cannot walk the streets without being insulted, and are constantly the objects of false accusation. “My grandfather is said to have stolen his grandfather’s oxen, and so I go to prison,” said one of the Jews to me.
Yet you ignorantly talk of the lullabies about the impact of Ottoman conquests or how understandable it must be for the christians since they are said to have viewed the Ottomans as invaders or oppressors.
Well, I usually dont have one, but then that is in an environment where people are sincere and honest . Here I adopt the approach appropriate for dealing with ignorant hyporcrites on one of which I am now wasting my time.
Well, I am only responsible for what I said. That's a case between you and him. I for one do not even know who he is and I certainly dont care.
You should also keep in mind that you posted a whole piece of sh.it from garbagepedia which is full of manipulations, distortions, crtitical ommissions which amounts nothing less than a one-sided and bigotted propaganda, and this was well before getting any comment from any member. Let me also you remind your reponse to "the massacre of Muslims" was to talk about how bad the Ottoman rule was and how people saw them as occupiers, which was, as i said, nothing less than a justification.
Well, a quite stupid request since the burden of proof rests with those who orginally make the claim and yet you expect me to counter-prove it.
It is as stupid as telling someone " there are 1,602,570 stars on the sky, and count it if you want to prove me wrong".
Still i will put some info, even though i have a limited amount of time.
Their leader, Boghos Nubar Pasha was offered a place in the Ottoman Cabinet, but he refused it. Instead he was pursuing his dreams of am indepent Armenia or an autonomous Armenia under the allied control. Right untill 1914 there were Armenian ministers in the cabinet, including the ministry of foreign affairs, Gabriel Noradunghian Effendi.
Indeed, as late as spring 1914 Enver Pasha, the minister of war, was arguing for the inclusion of non-Muslims in combat units in the Ottoman army.
In September 1914, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation convened its meeting in Erzurum and the Young Turks sent a delegation proposing an alliance to the Armenians.
Meanwhile the Young Turk's Central Committe sent this telegram to its members:
"it is understood from several persons we have talked here as well your letter that the Armenians are not willing to cooperate with us. Please avoid, hereafter, sharing our [party's] political activities. However, since the wellfare and the comfort of our Armenian citizens is very important both from the viewpoint of the Government and our Party/Committe, you should strive to do provide the necessary security to keep their hearts reassured/satisfied. "
In the same light, Suleyman Askeri Bey, wrote a general insruction noting that:
"it is reported from the Ottman Embassy in Tiblisi that the Russians have sent officers to the Caucasus for recruiting the Armenians to use them in volunteer detachments and that the Armenians there are against the Ottoman Government. Even if the Armenians do not cooperate with us, it is still very important to preserve their neutrality. Therefore any action which might offend the Armenians should be absolutely avoided"
These internal communications between the Young Turks, and the Ottoman government's view of Armenians (offering them places in the cabinet as ministers and proposing alliances) should make it clear that the Ottoman government was not punishing them as a protest to external Christians. They took great pains to keep the Armenians on their side.
But the Armenians leaders rejected this and engaged in acts of treason and only then the Ottoman government changed its attitude.
Apparantly the Armenian leader Boghos Nubar agreed with this interpretation when he said the Turks devastated the Armenia in retaliation for "the Armenians' unflagging devotion to cause of the Allies".
The Ottomans offered alliances to Bulgaria and Greece, hoping to create a Balkan alliance, and they managed to agree with Greece and Bulgaria but the disagreement occured what would happen in case of a war between Serbia and Bulgaria (with Greece firm in siding with Serbia and Ottomans want to maintain good relations with Bulgaria to which they offered alliance).
Later during the world war, the Ottomans made even territorial concessions (even though small in size) to Bulgaria to make the alliance possible. It does not appear to me that the Ottomans had an agenda of punishing their Christians subjects as a protest to external Christians and on the contrary they took great pains to keep them in their side.
So I suggest you to do some reading and educate yourself before debating on issues above your intellectual capacity.
I dont care in so far as your arguments dont have the merit to be taken serious. There is strong a measure of double standard and hypocrisy in your arguments and I only contended myself to remind you the so-called cause and effect argument that you earlier invoked. If i had seen a reasonable and honest person, I would of course take him seriously and debate the issue with greater detail and explanation.
You are really sick. Explain to me how they were killed by the enemy fire? In places or fronts like Gallipoli, Sina or Palestine or Galicia. How did the Anatolian muslim population managed to lost millions by fire in these fronts? The only front that had been open for the confrontation with the civilian population (in ww I) was the Caucasus-Eastern Anatolia front. Here came all the deaths, massacres, refugees fleeing the Russo-Armenian invasion. You cannot here put the blame on fire of the enemy, as all the observers who witnessed it, including Russians themselves, attributed it to the Armenians (to a minor extent on Russian Cossacks).
Rafael De Nogales wrote:
After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzurum, Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the [Ottoman] Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands.
The people who did this were Armenians who were members of the Ottoman Army and under the command Garo Pastermadjian, who was a member of the Ottoman parliament. And yet you talk of the crap about the enemy fire.
A report by two American officers, Emory N. Niles and Arthur E. Sutherland noted that:
"...in the region from Bitlis to Trebizond the Armenians committed upon the Turks all the crimes and outrages which were committed in other regions by Turks upon Armenians. At first we were most incredulous of the stories told us, but the unanimity of the testimony of all witnesses, the apparent eagerness with which they told of wrongs done to them, their evident hatred of Armenians, and, strongest of all, the material evidence on the ground itself, have convinced us of the general truth of the facts, first that Armenians massacred Musulmans on a large scale with many refinements of cruelty, and second that that the Armenians are responsible for most of the destruction done to towns and villages.
Michael Reynolds, The Ottoman-Russian Struggle, p.280-81:
A Russian official in occupied Anatolia named Prince Gadzhemukov bluntly laid out the Armenian problem in a report to Iudenich. Gadzhemukov opened his report by noting that the Armenians’ employment against the Ottoman overnment of “terror, underground murders, dynamite and every kind of form of assassination” followed by the appearance of the Armenian volunteer regiments in the Russian army had created an atmosphere of tremendous anger in “the country of the crescent.” After the Russians’ seized Van, the “Armenian volunteer regiments perpetrated a harsh massacre of Muslims regardless of sex or age.
Gadzhemukov was not alone in his opinions. Prince Boris Shakhovskii, a former consul in Damascus who oversaw ties with the Kurdish tribes for the Russian General Staff, bitterly complained about the Russian command’s failure to “put a stop to brutal Armenian lawlessness [towards the Kurds].”Such behavior necessarily drove many Kurds over to the Ottoman side, Shakhovskii noted, and so “desperate Kurdish resistance in 1915 and early 1916 terribly complicated our [military] operations, making it impossible to undertake reconnaissance work of any kind.” The Armenians were not acting opportunistically, but for a broader goal. Armenian nationalists, Shakhovskii asserted, wanted “to exterminate all Muslim residents of the areas we occupied.”
Major E. W. C. Noel, from the British Army wrote that:
As a result of these months touring through the area occupied and devastated by the Russian Army and the Christian army of revenge accompanying them, during the spring and summer of 1916, I have no hesitation in saying that the the Turks would be able to make out as good a case against their enemies as that presented against the Turks. According to the almost universal testimony of the local inhabitants and eyewitnesses, Russians acting on the instigation and advice of Armenians who accompanied them murdered and butchered indiscriminately any Muslim member of the civil population who fell into their hands. A traveler through the Rowanduz and Nell districts would find widespread wholesale evidence of outrageous crimes are committed by Christians on Muslims."
Guenter Lewy, the Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, p.120:
Another indication of the prevalence of Armenian atrocities are the two large waves of Muslim refugees, generated by the Russian advances into eastern Anatolia in the winter of 1914/15 and the summer of 1916. An Ottoman commission on refugees reported that more than 850,000 Muslims had to flee their homes in order to escape the fury of the conqueror. These were the officially registered refugees and the total number may have been more than one million. Armenian units were especially feared and apparently were a major factor in the flight of the Muslim population. The great suffering of these refugees has often been ignored by Western authors. The fact that so many thousands of people were desperate enough to be willing to face a future of deprivation and death lends support to the Turkish argument that these Muslim villagers abandoned their homes because they feared being mistreated and massacred by Armenian bands. German staff officer Guse writes that those who failed to flee were frequently abused and killed by the Russians and Armenians.
Indeed so effective was this cleansing of Muslims in the region, the infamous German pastor Johannes Lepsius, the head of German-Armenian society in Germany, was able to claim that the Armenians can now obtain autonomy since the muslims were gone and they now constitute the majority:
" Armenian desires compromise attaining internal autonomy and self-rule in the 6 Armenian (eastern Anatolian) Provinces (…) As mentioned before, these Provinces are now almost completely emptified of the Muslims; the Armenians (…) now constitute the majority in these areas where previous they had no majority. Therefore the question of autonomy is now far easier to resolve then before.
(the Letter send by the “German-Armenian Society” being established by Johannes Lepsius, to the Reich Chancellor Graf Georg von Hertling )
And yes you exactly justfiy the murder of people by resorting to such idiocratic arguments about the Ottoman conquests or "Ottoman control" . Perhaps you should ask yourself whether any of the conquerors were alive by 19th century or the same question that you asked me about the ratio: "how many of those killed were Ottoman administrators and how many innocent civilian?"
I have seen neither integrity nor consistency in your arguments. On the contrary there is a great deal of hypocrisy, double standard, and circular logic.
Up to now what you wrote demonstrated a twisted version of truth colored with disinformation, misinformation, prejudice and shaped with your radical crusading beliefs.
Circular logic. Dont come to me by showing what others said. I deal here with what you said and argue. You should do the same and dont pull up what others said. You are the one who cast yourself the one with superior moral values, coming forward as the holy inquisition.
My approach and comments are determined on the basis of other the discussant's merits and you deserve only this much. You are nothing more than ignorant guy pretending moral superiority, and were it not for the fact this is the Turkish forum, I would not have wasted my time with you.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 19, 2009 9:01:53 GMT -5
your subjective views remain just that we are not here to read a book about how you think. You just give your oppinions of him not what he said, you dont dare to address it, your style is always consistantly diversive and defensive and subjective. Another conveniant diversion , another thing you dont care about seeing it doesnt fit into your limited view of concerns.
.
I didnt claim it was entirely a singular reason I posed it as a question and I considered that it had an impact and context, even some of your forum mates have implied this.
they didnt live in Ottoman Turkey.
by this your logic then when you talk about Armenians outside Ottoman Turkey allied with Russians killing Muslims that is a justification of murder, massares, deportations of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. I didnt justify anything you are talking with some voice in your own head.
why do you get to decide whats relevant or stupid I do not stand in your courtchamber ,you have no authority over me dont talk as if you do. The sentence I wrote suggested that most empires are similiary regarded by many of their subjects as occupiers or overlords not necesarily representitive of the ethnic, cultural identities of the populous.
You have now gone off on a raving tangent about the Balkans which was loosely connected to a brief comment I made about how Ottomans were perceived by some of the populous.
go and start a topic about Muslim persecution in the Balkans what does it have primarily to do with title of this thread Armenian-Turkish Conflict.
If you actually look at exactly what I wrote then its clear I didnt make the absolute claim it was the single reason, using the word perhaps I posed it as a question and then implied it had an impact so you are asking me to prove something different to exactly what I said.
But once again you dont care except for your own interpretations and subjective view.
why are you also like Mcarthy and some others on the payroll... just kidding , but really how big of you I am so privliged by your presence o great one. clap clap clap.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 19, 2009 13:15:59 GMT -5
I have listened to his entire speech on live you idiot. What are you talking about? He first criticized those who objected to his plan of giving the project to that particular company and then mentioned it as a fascistic approach (he should perhaps be reminded what he himself said at Davos a short a while ago) and then to get some moral base for his criticism he mentioned what had happened in the past? Tell me what is sincere here? A man, himself highly corrupt (making more than $10 million in his political career), is trying to give a Project to a company which is co-partners of his own party’s financer in Turkey and he tries to give them this project without a bid, that is without letting others make an offer and in the process using some rhetorical device to deflect the criticism of his own action. It is not my style that is consistently that diversive and devensive, as I did not and od not defend anything, contrary to your position which is based on objecting something just for the sake of doing so. A demanding effort for an ignorant yet modern crusader Well, you claimed something stupid and now you cannot back up it and start twisting. Very impressive Bulgarians did! For the rest, they may not have lived in Turkey but the alliance itself is significant enough to demonstrate that you external Christian argument is stupid and baseless. Now don’t distort what I said. I don’t talk about the Armenians outside. I reminded you of the Armenians, those in the third Ottoman Army, stationed at Erzurum, that deserted joined. Local Armenians also joined when the invaders arrived. If you had not been ignorant, you would have known even the authors who call it “genocide” openly write about this. You can also read the war diary/journal of Russian Colonel Khverbelof about the conduct of the Eruzurum Armenians and how it did affect the life of Erzurum Muslims. You can also see the report by Ahmet Refik (which garbagepedia in the article you pasted incorrectly idenfities as naval officer) on the massacres in Van and Erzurum conducted by Ottoman Armenians and how the Russian minister Sazonov congratulated Ottoman Armenians and not the outside ones. Prominent figures like Garo Pastermadjian who led Armenian volunteer detachments were Ottoman Armenians and members of Ottoman Parliament. When the two American investigators (quoted above), were giving their findings they were talking of the Ottoman Armenians (from Trabzon to Bitlis) and the destruction done by them. You do not find Russian or outside Armenians in such places as Diyarbakir or Sivas. You don’t have Russian Armenians in Cilicia on the cost of Mediterranean and you don’t have Russian Armenians in Zeytun (in Marash in Anatolia), who asked for weapons from the Allies, and it was the Anatolian Armenians that suggested the Allies to invade Anatolia from Alexandretta on the south and claiming that they will give “total and perfect support.” These are not the outside Armenians. In the case of Assyrians, you also conveniently ignored that it was their national as well as religious leader (the Patriarch) and Agha Petros (member of the parliament) who actively led their nation to disaster. Yes this is exactly what you did. First the on massacre of Balkan Turks and later on the Anatolian Muslims by claiming something so absurd as that they were lost in “enemy fire”. Nevermind the fact that you are utterly ignorant in both instances. Is it me or you talking with some voice in his head? When I reminded that death toll among Muslims were extra ordinarily high in the regions where Armenians were active or otherwise occupied by Russo-Armenian invasion, you were the one that said “Turkey was at war on many fronts combatants and civilians were mostly killed by enemy fire.” By doing so you just confirmed my initial comment and impression about you was totally correct (see what I wrote in the 1st post: there were millions of Turks (civilians) killed also in Anatolia, they are all colleteral damage, yet all others were genocided.) Here now I reminded you high death caused among civilian Muslims in the region. Without even making the simplest research, you are ready to declare that they are colleteral damage “Turkey was at war on many fronts combatants and civilians were mostly killed by enemy fire.” And I don’t know whether to cry or laugh at this absurd explanation. That doesnt change the fact that it is quite a stupid excuse and justifiation to talk of the supposed horrors of the Otoman conquest in 14-15th centuries for the mass murder of Muslims in the late 19th century . And I reminded you that it has nothing to do with how the Otoman administration was perceived in so far it was the civlian muslims that was subjected to mass murder and alongside them it was the Jews that recieved their share. Yet you cant argue against it and stick to your stupid justification by speaking of lullablities on the Otoman conquest or control. You failed answer even a single question that i asked indicating your ignorance once again. Why should I do that? As to your question, it was you who attempted justifying the massacres of Balkan Muslims, and it has great relevance in showing your twisted moral standards which is entirely based on misinformation, prejudice, hypocrisy and double standard. Your explanation for the fate of Balkan Muslims is quite the same with that of a Turk speaking of Armenian rebellion, insurgence, treachery and outrages as an explanation for the deportation. All I did was to remind you this. Yet your thick brain cannot comprehend it and you stick your argument on Balkan Muslims while dismissing it for the Armenians. You are used to making stupid claims because no one objected you and now you got your rebuttal, you twist your position and cannot stand behind your words simply because you are ignorant and have nothing to back up the things you claim. You put up a stupid claim while pasting trash article (which refers to the same person first as “Cevdet Pasha” and “Cevdet Bey” (two different ranks) in two consecutive lines) while ignoring everything to contrary and making assumptions on the basis of such stupid sources and spreading such misinformation. All I did was to show you that is a stupid idea and since “you” make the suggestion and the burden to prove it rests upon you, and yet you expected and wanted me to counter prove it without you yourself, as the one who created idea, giving any factual explanation for it. PERHAPS you cannot comprehend it but it is a stupid request. McCarthy is pro-Turkish but not on the payroll of Turkish government. I guess must be the same garbagepedia on whose behalf you are acting as the free distributor (or the copy-paste machinery), are you on the payroll of this garbage pool? No kidding. I think you are just too ignorant and find it easy to copy-paste stuff on which you have basically no idea. PS: It should have been clear to any having even a pea-sized brain that I have quite an antagonistic attitude as far as the Turkish govt, and the man who currently heads it are concerned.
|
|
|
Post by todhrimencuri on Jun 19, 2009 17:26:19 GMT -5
Well, looks like Oghuz owned the argument. Th truth inevitably triumphs over falsehood: Armenians are big fat liars.
|
|
|
Post by Kastorianos on Jun 20, 2009 6:15:20 GMT -5
...and then you woke up.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 20, 2009 8:42:25 GMT -5
I am talking about what he said regarding Turkeys Fascist past you idiot.
yes I get the impression you are in the habit of calling people crusaders, take your trigger happy arrogant hot headed prejudiced baggaged drum and go bang it somewhere else. If I was truly the radical crusader you wish to imply perhaps I would be the one opening, initiating these topics or other controversial ones which I havn't in either the Turkish forum or in the Armenian forum where I am one of the moderators. Most of what I have said has been in response to what other members had initially posted.
those were basically some of the main points presented by members when I actually started participating and responding in this thread.
actually you have been twisting, obsessing and exhausting this point for soo long trying to imply it was the centrepiece of any points I have made or that it was meant as a main singular reason for hostilities towards Armenians when I have clarified on several occasions I have not meant that and that I considered it made some impact and posed it as a question.
In one of my intial very earlier posts I had stated in my oppinion the situation of the Armenians was at least by result a genocide and or ethnic cleansing and I have made many other points but you have picked that and gone on an amazing tangent .
most of the Armenains that ended up in the Causcasus were ex Ottoman Armenians that fled in the time of massacres against Armenians in the late 1800's, these people had already witnessed and been victims of massacre themselves.
its not excuse I said something describing Balkan point of view towards Ottoman authority, and after the Massacre of Muslims in Bulgaria how many Christian civillians were then massacred by Muslims in Bulgaria.
so what was the death toll of civillian Muslims that were killed by Armenians ?
Mcarthy is not being paid by Turkish institutions ?
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 20, 2009 13:06:19 GMT -5
And I am telling you what he said was meant to deflect the attention and criticism for his corrupt policies you brainless. There is nothing sincere in his attitude.
And you go exactly the place where your thick brain material has been orinated as it does not exist in this planet you comball.
That you don’t open up any thread is no indication of your moderate attitude and neither your position as a mod holds any value over it. After all I have been witnessing people in this forum for years who frequently make racist and fascistic comments about various ethnicities yet they are too moderators.
Most of what you said or better say copy-pasted is distorted propaganda material taken word for word from a garbagepedia and dressed by you in various forms to be presented as the objective source. You are the representative of a bigoted school of thought that hypocritically ignores all the material or opinion that goes against your interpretation of events, even when you actually use the very same ideas for different occasions.
Well then when you display exactly the same sort of attitude in response to others, then you have no right to lecture people and pretend to have moral superiority over them since you exactly practice the same thing although you vehemently denied having done so.
Not really, you put up a particular view without having the knowledge or justification for it. As a matter of fact I asked you several times to lay the argument which would justify such an assertion, yet up to now you have constantly avoided doing so which indeed shows your ignorance and more particularly overt-bias involved in your interpretations of events. In none of my responses I made any indication that it was your “centerpiece” argument, I only asked you to provide the justification for your specific argument on them “being punished as a protest to external Christians that were at war with Turkey”. Yet you constantly tried to pull me into this “it was not a singular or absolute factor” crap. I am asking you to present the evidence which would justify your comments whether or not it is the singular or absolute cause of the events. Up to now you resort to throwing some childish accusations on me rather than backing up your point.
Your initial post was entirely consisted of copy-pasted crap presented after a few words of your own and which for that matter had nothing to do with a serious debate.
The word genocide is a legal term and requires a specific intention to annihilate, it cannot be judged on the basis of the consequences alone. Moreover this had nothing to do with the argument that I took issue with, which was concerning the motivation for the tragic events that occurred. Now you are talking about the consequences which had nothing to with what I objected.
And your specific suggestion is?
First of all, your response has nothing to do with what I wrote and it is again entirely demagogic. I spoke of the “Ottoman Armenians” which were by 1914-1915 were still Ottoman Armenians and gave specific examples on their activities or actions. Now you keep telling me about the Armenians in the Caucasus and I have no idea about its relevance to the specific examples I have cited.
Second, if you are suggesting that the because they fled from the Ottoman empire during the time of the massacres in 1890s and had themselves witnessed and been victims of massacres, for this reason they committed atrocities on Muslims in Anatolia some 20 years later in 1915 and therefore this understandable, this is again nothing less than legitimization and justification. In addition I would like to remind that the said events did not occur in a vacuum and there was a historical process to it and that some 20 years ago in 1877-78 war Russians and Armenians themselves had massacred and expelled many muslims in the Caucasus and also the new Ottoman territories which they conquered such Kars, Ardahan and Batum. Waves of Muslims such as the Abkhaz, the Chechen, the Circassians, the Daghestanis, the Ingush , Karachai and others had no alternative but to escape to Anatolia. In addition some 10 years before this date during 1860s, an even more heavy cleansing took place targeting primarily Circassians whose largest Diaspora is present in modern Turkey.
By 1820s, the Khanate of Erevan had an overwhelming Muslim majority 80% and 20% Christian (mostly Armenian). It was through this repeated 19th century cleansings that the demographics changed substantially.
PS. I warn you to pick the words you use with considerable caution since the expression “most of the Armenians” is again something that you cannot prove or justify, nor I do think you have made this statement based on sound knowledge or evidence but most probably by following your biased instincts. However, if you made this statement based on some knowledge, I would like to see the evidence indicating that most of the more than “1.2 million” Armenians in the Caucasus were ex-Ottoman Armenians that fled in the time of massacres (1894-96). Your suggestions would be truly groundbreaking provided that they could be substantiated by evidence not by the trash words uttered without thought or research.
Well it is a clear excuse and justification in the context you put it. It is exactly the same with those Turks who argue about the Armenians’ insurgent and treachery activities. And following the way you put it and logic you suggest, they say something “describing the Ottoman point of view of the Armenian activities.” In other words you are not different than those Turks in this forum who invoke the Armenian rebellion/treachery argument and therefore you have no moral grounds for lecturing others when you yourself practice the very same thing that you criticize in other instances.
The massacres against Muslims in Bulgaria were committed in 1877-78 war and which ended in an absolute Russian victory and granted Bulgaria an autonomous administration of its own (even though heavily influenced by the Russians initially) until they declared their full independence in 1908. Rather than asking me, If you know of any instance of Muslim massacres of Bulgarian Christians in a Bulgaria that is under Bulgarian control please do inform me with respectable sources.
Impossible to say as it is also impossible to say how many Armenians did die due to murder, disease, hunger, or the guerilla war they waged. There are statistics about the losses of Muslims in the east which was occupied by Russo-Armenians and the west that was occupied in 1919 by the Greek army. Do some research of your own instead of expecting everything from me. These kind of things were mentioned and even presented many times in this forum.
What I took issue with was your readiness to dismiss these victims as supposedly having been “killed by enemy fire” and this was a perfect indication of your bias which only proved my initial impressions of you.
“Mcarthy is not being paid by Turkish institutions?”
First learn how to spell his name you dingil.
You claimed he was on the payroll of Turkish government, now you say Turkish institutions which is another example showing your expertise in twisting and manipulating. As to him being paid by Turkish institutions, “being paid” implies something quite different than what the trash you posted in the first page about McCarthy.
McCarthy is a member of, and has received grants from, the Institute of Turkish Studies
Clearly there is no limit to ignorance and stupidity. ITS is an academic institute (based in Georgetown Unv. Washinton DC.) that regularly provide support for Graduate students and academic studies on Turkey/Ottoman empire, Mid East. in the United States. And it has never endorsed or supported anything on “Armenian issue.” Its board members also included people like “Fatma Muge Gocek” who characterizes what has happened to the Armenians as “genocide.” In addition ITS has provided grants to people like Engin Akarli who call it “genocide.” Perhaps you think people like these who call it genocide are on the “payroll” of the Turkish government too.
|
|
|
Post by aaayyy on Jun 20, 2009 18:26:15 GMT -5
One could only wonder why... I guess Turks and Armenians lived so nicely together in Ottoman Empire for centuries, that Armenians took anti-Turkish side at every occasion...
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 20, 2009 18:30:02 GMT -5
you better go and lay down you poor thing in your hot headedness and over excitement it seems you have become a bit confused, show me exactly when and where I ever said he was on the payroll of Turkish Government you COMBALL DINGIL. go and have a look o Great One .
orinated ? learn how to spell yourself you brainless.
when members made and supported comments like
yes I showed disdain for that.
otherwise how did I lecture or show moral superiority.Everyone who posts in this thread makes points or gives an oppinion. and everyone has the right to do so, you are the accuser and pretender of some moral superiority o great one and thanks again for sharing your precious time and granting us an audience with you.
if you read what I wrote I pretexted it and mentioned a few times in other posts that I wont and dont try to justify killing innocents/civillians / non combatants...
despite the fact you have tirelessly accusd me of justifying and legitimising mass murder.
I was providing a context, you as others have made many quotes/claims from articles or books to present any single point/claim but in the scheme of things these are generally often points picked out from an overall context and sequence of events so effectively they ommit any other overall sequence of events and information that have probably have relevance to outcome of certain events . I will do further research myself before I say more and before I take your word for your proposed quotes and claims/points.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 21, 2009 1:25:55 GMT -5
Well that does not change the fact that your claim is still groundless you thick headed idiot. Now prove for once that he is on the payroll of what you claimed to be or don’t make assertions that you cannot back up you idiot.
Originated you idiot, as the material for it surely does not exist on this planet.
You are not much different than those except for the fact you are hiding behind a facet political correctness, plus an alleged moral superiority you dingil comball.
Once again what the others wrote are between you and them and I judge only what you wrote. When you practice the very same arguments, albeit hypocritically because you stick to it in one instance and then dismiss it in another, you have no moral grounds over them.
Well then when you display exactly the same sort of attitude in response to others, then you have no right to lecture people and pretend to have moral superiority over them since you exactly practice the same thing although you vehemently denied having done so.
It doesn’t show anything, the context you put it makes it the explanation and justification for the mass murder of people, Balkan Muslims. As I said it is exactly the same with those Turks who argue about Armenian activities.
Like I said it is all about the context you put it, you were reminded of the massacres of Muslims and your response was to squabble over the over the Ottman conquest/control of the region to make it understandable.
1- The context you provided has nothing to do with the argument I made, which was specifically about the Ottoman Empire and what has been transpiring inside it, not on the Caususus Got it to you thick Brain? So your speaking or proving context
By the way, I did not present “a single point” as opposed to showing that the propagandistic answer you put up usually copy pasted from a garbagepedia, had not much to do with reality.
Up to now, what I did was basically limited to countering your points and pointing out your hypocrisy and twisted moral standards.
2- I don’t care about your excuses for not providing any source. If you claim something you should be able to back it up.
3- You put up a context that only justifies your biased views. You invoke the argument in 1890s some 20 years before 1915, that there were massacres and they had been victims of it, so implying that it is understandable if they commit atrocities 20 years later in 1915. Well the very same thing is valid for the Muslims feeling the Caucasus in 1877-78 and in 1860s. Why do you omit mentioning it? Clearly because you are the representative of a certain school of thought that has double and twisted moral standards. That was clear even from the first post I read.
Now for once be man and stand behind your words. Please provide documentation for the specific claims you have made. And don’t avoid answering questions as you always do:
* That they were “punished as a protest to external Christians” whether or not it is absolute cause.
* That McCarthy is on the payroll of Turkish institutions, in true sense of the word “payroll” and not some academic grants.
* There were more 1.2 million Armenians in the Caucasus. Please provide the source for you claim that most of these Armenians were ex-Ottoman Armenian that fled during the time of Massacres of 1894-96.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 22, 2009 2:35:30 GMT -5
Another case where you accuse me of twisting stating i said he was on payroll of Turkish Government and then changing it to working for Turkish Institutions, shows how credible you are and shows you were wrong, not to mention you also accused me of being radical crusader and justyfying and legitimising mass murder of Muslim civillians again wrong. First post in this thread was a pure copy paste of a Mcarthy article and no source was listed. I listed that it was Mcarthy article and copied information I found about Mcarthy it was exactly this ...
yes in another post in response to your arrogant and self inflating commentary that you only reply because you are in the Turkish forum otherwise wouldnt waste yor precious time I jestingly implied he and perhaps you was on the payroll, suggesting that he at least has a reputation for getting some benefits from the Turkish side. what I wrote was this ...
[i]why are you also like Mcarthy and some others on the payroll... just kidding , but really how big of you I am so privliged by your presence o great one. clap clap clap[/i].
you are representitive of a school of thought that comes from a side who's authority up till recently had a rule where people could be and have been jailed for writing anything critical about Turkey, where many writers and intellectuals are jailed for their ideas if their ideas are considered critical of the state.
here is a interview with Mcarthy, this is relevant to that last 2 points because 1) he is accused in a Reuters article of advising Turkey on how to deny the Armenian genocide. He looks very sheepish in this interview and although he denies this accusation its suprising how little effort he makes in defending himself, he looks practically speechless. 2) a description is made of Turkeys limitation in looking at itself critically noting how intelectuals and writers who have said anything critical about Turkey have been jailed. Mcarthy seems to have almost no reply to this .
continued...
and from the start
and from Turkish Professor
will writing back soon re other points
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 22, 2009 7:21:12 GMT -5
I was WRONG in assuming that you implied the government. Ok, the question is still there. Prove that he is on the payroll of what you claimed to be whether or not it is the government that you actually meant. If you attack a person as being on the payroll of somebody you should be able to document it. And yes you have a crusading attitude amply demonstrated by the examples in which your double standard has been exposed many times. And yes you justify the mass murder of Balkans muslims by resorting to some idiocratic arguments about the Ottoman conquest /control of 15th century to make it understandable and excusable. As I said before your explanation for the fate of Balkan Muslims is quite the same with that of a Turk speaking of Armenian, treachery etc and massacres on Muslims as an explanation for the deportation. Then explain to what had the massacres of Jews to do with the Ottoman Conquest and administration? What was that POMAKS who were Slavic by origin and not Turk, yet they too were slaughtered. In addition, without having the slightest clue as regards to the cause of Muslim mortality in Anatolia and without doing even the simplest research you make the cavalier explanation. “Turkey was at war on many fronts combatants and civillians were mostly killed by enemy fire.” Explain to me how did people in Anatolia in places like Diyarbekir or Sivas which never confronted enemy fire did manage to lost their lives by the enemy fire” EXPLAIN to me how can Anatolian civilian Muslims be killed in fronts like Gallipoli or Paslestine /Sina etc? You always avoid answering. Be a man for once and stand behind your words and back it up. Don’t runaway like a little girl. You always ignore the questions I asked about the very explanation “you” put up. What you found on McCarthy has nothing to do with him being on the payroll of someone. Academic grants are part of academic life from which every academic benefits and a grant from academic institute is open to all academics interested in that particular field. As I said, Engin Akarli, who himself calls it genocide received grants from ITS. Just take some academic books and read the acknowledgements part. Usually, the authors list the financial aids they receive, they would not have done so if this had been an embarrassing thing, nor would you have learned, had the ITS and McCarthy himself did not listed them. As to your suggestion I am perhaps on the payroll of someone, I can only take it as a further indication of your brainlessness. I do waste my time on you because this is Turkish forum and I prefer to have my voice heard since people read it on a Turkish forum. Oh you silly, how you concluded that I support such laws. In the past within the scope of debates I took part in, I have cricitized the infamous and notorious 301 article that led to prosecution of many people in Turkey. Yet I have also criticized those like France that prosecute respectable Historians for their different opinions. It was the particular law in France that triggered many nationalists in the Turkish parliament to adopt a similar law. Both of them are quite stupid. Specifically speaking on the Armenian issue, I know of no one that has been jailed. However, there was of course prosecution which is, while notorious enough, still a far cry from “being jailed.” Practically, all of these were turned down by the Supreme Court and those persons who were prosecuted were acquitted. In one case,(that of Taner Akcam) the prosecutor himself denied application for prosecution noting that “there is no criminal ground for the prosecution to be carried.” Please provide names of the people that have been jailed for their opinions on the Armenian issue. But this is a vain question again since you always “claim” but then runaway when it comes to proving. So I am not really hopeful that you will answer to this either. First, it is not an interview idiot but a short TV debate planned to be broadcasted after a biased Documentary movie but it could not be broadcasted because of the pressure from the Armenians. Speaking of free speech? In addition, the TV debate-moderator is obviously the sort of man you display out yourself to be here-far from being objective. And finally here is the reuters article that you speak about: www.tallarmeniantale.com/balakian.htm#lie2Where is the accusation itself in the article? I see no “accusation” if you know exactly what “accusation” means. You parrot the accusation put by a certain partisan “Peter Balakian” that wages intellectual terrorism and consistently falsifies history. His conduct and interventions at academic freedom and baseless accusations has been criticized in an Academic Journal in USA. Ethnic Cleansing or Genocide? Critique: Critical Middle Eastern Studies By MASAKI KAKISZAKI, University of Utah In the United States, Lewy's articles expressing skepticism about historiographies constructed by both Armenian and Turkish historians about the Armenian genocide appeared in Middle East Quarterly and Commentary; in subsequent issues, these journals published several letters to the editors from readers, mostly Armenians, who objected to Lewy's thesis. Among the letters in Commentary, perhaps the most antagonistic criticism was presented by Peter Balakian, a poet, professor of English, and author of The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America's Response. Subsequently, Balakian asked Chronicle of Higher Education to investigate the process of publishing Lewy's book, as well as the forthcoming book of prominent Ottoman historian Justin McCarthy.2 Chronicle reporter Jennifer Howard's investigation provides an insight into the ways ideology can be used to try to discredit scholarship. (…) The attack against Lewy's book and the controversy created by Peter Balakian and others who share his views indicate the problem of academic freedom of speech with respect to events associated with the Turkish-Armenian conflicts. There are coordinated efforts by Armenian NGOs and scholars to silence and suppress different interpretations about the events of 1915. Your links are excerpts specifically chosen and it is not the full record of TV debate. In the very same speech McCarthy criticizes (and calls it “a silly law”) the particular article in the Turkish penal code that has led to many prosecutions. He also adds that there are such stupid laws in other places: But the main thing that bothers me is that Turkey has a law that should not be there, and this is a law that says you should not defame the Turkish government, this is a silly law, they should get rid of it, (be)cause it allows every small time prosecutor to bring a case that shouldn't be, that shouldn't happen. But I want to make sure that we understand that Turkey is not the only country that has a law. For instance, I can't go to France. I can't go to France, why? ¸— and speak — because France has a law against my saying that there was not an Armenian genocide, or more precisely saying it was a mutual genocide. I can't go to Switzerland, because Switzerland has laws against that, and Switzerland puts people in jail. Now, it is definitely wrong for Turkey, for Turkey to stop people from saying what they want to say, especially professors who have a duty to profess. But it is {?} definitely wrong for countries that we revere, like France and Switzerland, to do much worse; because in Turkey, indeed, there are people who deny the Armenian genocide and people who support the Armenian genocide; scholars who have a definite conversation. But in countries like France, if you open your mouth, you end up sued or in jail.. Got it to your thick brain you moron? Your links are manipulated and are excerpted to present the things they want to appear. Do you understand it now? Inconvenient parts are not included and cut out and they are not full record. Perhaps you think that you have found something “extraordinary” with this stupid video, it is quite old and there is no need to rediscover America again. One of the participants Taner Akcam who wholeheartedly embraces the Armenian claims, had himself declared that the public prosecutor in Turkey dropped the case against him and that following this, no one can be prosecuted for saying “genocide” anymore. Yet Peter Balakian whose arguments you brought up here, had himself frankly defends the criminal prosecution (in countries like France etc) against those historians or persons that do not agree with him on the fate of Armenians. In other words you are the one representing the side of a school of thought that advocates laws “punishing people” for their different “opinions”. Its you who endorse the arguments of Balakian. Even McCarthy you criticized had himself said that he do not approve such laws in Turkey, while calling it “silly”. Its your men who defends such laws in countries like France. The title of the video the links of which you posted is also an example of disinformation “righteous historians” LMAO!!! Peter Balakian is a poet, professor of English, while Akcam is a sociologist. Neither of these are historian. If you post information from someone to prove something that mean you have take up the responsibility for their accuracy. Peter Balakian is far from being honest. Here is one example how he falsifies (just like you do) the historical events to make Armenian and Jewish Experiences look similar. He has been criticized by Norman Stone, the former of Professor of Modern History at Oxford, for misrepresenting the events: The Times Literary Supplement, October 15, 2004 Armenia and Turkey, by Norman Stone One particularly irritating habit is to stray into comparisons with the Nazis that Mr Balakian is simply not competent to make. Thus, p 163, “Not unlike Hitler’s… nazification programs for German youth, exemplified in the Hitlerjugend, the Young Turks now launched a program of nationalist indoctrination and paramilitary training for Turkish youth” — a grotesque statement because they had in mind Baden-Powell, and legalized football, hitherto frowned upon because religion disapproved of bare male legs — or “… pan-Turkism was … influenced by the German nationalism of Herder and Wagner, who were also key influences on Nazi Aryan ideology”: Herde, the most Enlightened of men! Is Balakian somehow confusing him with Hegel, while being entirely unfamiliar with both? Or, again, p 181: Like its Nazi counterpart after 1933, the [Ottoman] Ministry of the Interior was the key to orchestrating … genocide” – this is a nonsense, again revealing total unfamiliarity with the subject. The famous Wannsee conference of 1942 was summoned so that the SS and Gestapo machine could overcome possible legalistic objections from the Ministry of the Interior, and a simple glance at Ian Kershaw’s classic work on Hitler would have shown Balakian what was what. There is just no comparison possible between the Holocaust and the Armenian massacres of 1915. What happened was a tragedy for Turks and Armenians alike, and it deserves a decent book. Peter Balakian is simply way out of his depth. From the garbagepedia article you posted: From the province of Adana Consul Eugene Buge reported that the CUP chief had sworn to kill and massacre any Armenians who survived the deportation marches (89) Footnote: 89 -Balakian. Burning Tigris, p. 186 So we have a case here to see and test how reliable garbagepedia and Balakian is. The original German of text of Eugene Buege’s (or Büge not Buge), Adana Consul, report reads exaclt the following: Übrigens hatte der hiesige Komiteeführer Ismail Safa mit allgemeinen Massakre gedroht, wenn die Armenier nicht deportiert würdenIn translation this means something like: Incidentally, the local party/committe leader, Ismail Safa, threatened/warned general massacres if the Armenians were not deported. How could one use this sentence as “CUP chief had sworn to kill and massacre any Armenians who survived the deportation marches” is a question beyond my understanding. Nor is there any mention this local committee man (along with 2 more local party members) was expelled from Adana because of their bad behaviors during the deportation. In other words, you put and edorse here the lopsided propaganda of some people which has nothing to do with reality and which distort and falsify the sources they use.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 22, 2009 7:48:04 GMT -5
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to show more on this "Turkish professor". He is another example of a partisan scholar that manipulates and distorts his sources, on which a scholarly criticisim has already appeared.
A brief summary by the author of the criticism "This article argues that those who have dealt with this complex subject have not always respected the limits set by scholarly ethics and have failed to use their sources scrupulously while engaging in distortions deliberate quoting out of context and doctoring of data. At this point Taner Akcam’s book, translated and distributed by the Zoryan Institute, deserves particular attention, and therefore it is essential to examine this work with a closer scrutiny by checking and comparing the original sources utilized by the author.
The author finds that Akcam in his book:
1- "Taner Akcam falsely puts forward claims that have no basis in the original account."
2- Another example how he manipulates his sources: "The phrase signifying that it was necessary to “fear internal enemies” is altered into a different one that reads “dealing with the enemy within” by Akcam."
3- Akcam uses his sources of their context an example listed by the author: "Similarly the statement that Bahaettin Sakir Bey was put in charge of dealing with “the Armenians inside” has no basis in the original source and the text is completely quoted out of context. The only reference to the “Armenians inside” is made in connection with their formation of bands and the threat they posed to the army. And there is simply no entry suggesting that Dr. Bahaettin Sakir Bey was put in charge of (or instructed for) anything."
4- Akcam changes the words contained in the sources he uses. The original source says "attack", Akcam makes this "massacre": It seems that the author feels no discomfort in substituting such words as “attack” and “massacre” and allowing his readers to make incorrect assumptions
5- Akcam falsely claims that his sources say "Governor of Diyarbakir Mehmet Resit, ordered the murder of other government officials who protected the Armenians". In the original sources used by Akcam there is no indication that the Governor ordered these murders. On the contrary Akcam's sources says the Governor was "well-intentioned yet narro-minded man". Here is critques note :"Abidin Nesimi nowhere writes that the liquidation of the mentioned individuals and his father was done on the orders of Mehmet Resit. To the contrary, Abidin Nesimi points to a source giving the answer to this question and the source in question indicates something entirely contrary to Akcam’s allegation. Once again, Akcam has attributed a false opinion to a source that does not support his claims. "
6- In order to fit them to his thesis, Akcam again changes the words in his sources and put his own words in their place : "Akcam has altered the sentence that reads “the liquidation of the [administrative] cadre which would oppose the ‘pillage and plunder’ was inevitable” into a different sentence that states “the administrative cadre that opposed the ‘massacre’ had to be liquidated . . .”, which is yet another example demonstrating how freely the author is altering words and replacing them with his own insertions. As was the case in the Ahmet Refik instance, the author substituted the words “pillage and plunder” with his own word “massacre”. "
7- Akcam uses his sources incorrecty and out of their context to mislead the readers he claims that an official named Huseyin Kazim wrote something on the Armenians, yet Huseyin Kazim's entire paragraph has nothing to do with Armenians but deals with the corruption of government officials. In the words of critique: "Yet Huseyin Kazým’s statement had nothing to do with Ottoman Armenians. Still less it had anything to do with a central government policy. Huseyin Kazým uses the statement above in describing the corruption of the provincial authorities that was rampant during the war (...) By combining two totally unrelated events out of sequence, Akcamchanges the meaning of the original account, and misleads his readers. It is also important to note that the number “150–200 thousand” in Huseyin Kazým’s account has become simply “200,000” in Akcam’s text. "
The critiques conclusion:
"The examples displayed in this study cast doubt on Taner Akcam’s approach as being impartial and scholarly. To the contrary, such manipulations point to an extremely partisan attitude, dominated by preconceived ideas that in turn have led the author to manipulate the sources he has utilized in service of his pre-arranged conclusions. Akcam’s work suffers from a lack of honesty with which he has evidently approached his subject, and the implications of his intentional manipulations shed considerable light on the credibility that could be attached to his work. As Akcam himself stated elsewhere, “suspicion within the academic community as to whether or not sources have been honestly and accurately presented is something that can poison the entire scientific milieu”.46 Within this framework, Taner Akcam’s dishonesty—which manifests itself in the form of numerous deliberate alterations and distortions misleading quotations and doctoring of data—casts doubt on the accuracy of his claims as well as his conclusions. Accordingly, serious readers and researchers alike should approach Akcam’s work and claims with a great caution. This tainted volume can neither be considered “the state of the art in this field”, as Erik Jan Zu rcher has written, nor the “best book ever written on Armenian Genocide”, as Stephen Feinstein claims but as an example of poor editing, badly supported conclusions and, most importantly, of unethical and partisan scholarship that calls for further, more balanced and thorough research. "
The title of the Article: "A Scrutiny of Akam's verion of History and Armneýan Genocide" Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs. Volume 28 Issue 2. 2008.
Wow very impressive Turkish Professor that changes words like assault/attack into "massacre" when quoting them. That alters the words "pillage and plunder" with his own word "massacre."
Have fun. When you bring these kind of sources that falsifies history, you only loose your own credbility.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 23, 2009 20:11:28 GMT -5
yes you were wrong about me twisting and changing this point. I have already said my point in the first thread where I put information about Mcarthy was to show who the author of the copy paste article was and to illustrate his connection with Turkey and even in the instance of the article I took a certain paragraph where he stated something like Turkish scribes were honourable men and could be trusted completly and then I stated this indicates a very bias view. Then I put information about Mcarthy and this included an accusation by a Colin Imber that Mcarthy follows a Turksh nationalist agenda. I already explained that I said he was on the payroll in another half jesting remark that was also directed at you this sentence was completed with the words just kidding.
In any case I am not convinced nor is it proven that he is not in receipt of some type of monetary benefits from Turkish organisations that he provides assistance or work for. I think I have explained this point several times now and yes I stand by what I have said and the explanation above no problem. So get that through your thick head.
Again this is bulls hit, in fact I could say by your logic that you have a double standard as you have equally given quotes of supposed Armenian massacres upon Muslims then I might say you are therefor justifying the mass murder of Armenian civillians , women, elderly, children etc . I could equally accuse you that when their is any example of atrocity against Armenians you ignore it and simply give an example of massacre of Muslims. I have not denied Balkan massacre of Muslims , I have stated that it was not the fault of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey and I have given a perception of the non Muslim populous towards the Muslim authority and in same statement I have said I dont try to justify killing of Muslim civillians. Yes its true there was that perception towards the Muslim authority , cant deny the taxing of non Muslims the taking of non Muslim children from their families etc etc all these things added up and left an impression that to some degree has still not left the Balkans even today, I am not justyfying something any killing of civillians , what happened in Bosnia was deplorable, and it is too called a genocide . I stand by my description of the perception of Ottoman authority in Balkans, if you want to look at any situation overall you must look at the entire sequence of events and yes this surely can involve going far back in history and that history too is relevant , the same would be true for what happened in Ottoman Turkey with Armenians and Turks, and again by this I am not justyfying killing of Muslim civillians and never have.
Yes you are brainless in what manner did I seriously suggest you are on the payroll when my remark was completed with the words "just kidding". In reality I wouldnt and couldnt know and nor do I care if you are on some payroll or not that wasnt the intention of my comment which I have now explained alreadya few times, get that through your thick brain.
The thrust of my comments relate to the authority where comes the position you take which also originates from somewhere and some school of thought mostly from the official Turkish/authority position , again another double standard from you is shown that you assume I am a crusader because some of the comments I made are not coming specifically from the same position yours are coming from, you quote the website "Tall Armenian Tale" which I see typically used by people who take that Turkish position.
Wow you must have some exaggerated level of self importance as if people or I would follow you around and be aware of any previous discussions you have had , I dont recall even encountering you before this discussion in this thread and why would I your handle shows in 2 years you have only posted 20 odd posts under the handle of OghuzKhan, unless you also post under other handles which is not uncommon for some members on these boards.
First the accusation was more broadly put about people who have been critical of the state. and the overall point is Turkeys reputation for behaving like some fascistic communist state in this respect is well established lets not prtending ok, we can refer to amnesty international and or many sources and commentary for this, how you try to provide some water down version or picture of this well known situation is just a pure BS.
[
I dont personally agree with lack of freedom of speech in France but that is not an excuse for Turkeys behaviours/laws which have long preceded those of France.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 24, 2009 0:16:04 GMT -5
Well, I am not wrong on the whole with regards to your position as a twister. I did not object your putting up information on McCarthy (even though coming from a garbagepool). What I objected was your comment on him being on the payroll. I myself I noted that McCarthy is pro-Turkish but there is a huge difference between this and with saying that he is on the payroll of someone for the things he wrote.
And when I objected to that particular comment, your response was in the following form: “Mcarthy is not being paid by Turkish institutions ?”
This is not an indication of kidding but to the contrary. As regards to your comment on me, I did not take it seriously initially and made only a general comment. It was your subsequent remark (and perhaps you was on the payroll, ) that has led me to that conclusion further on.
Quite a stupid remark again but hardly surprising for your standards.
1-You don’t have to be convinced. You make a specific claim and the burden to prove with rests with you. To expect it to be counter-proven is stupid. Read some basic philosophy. As I said it is like telling " there are 1,602,570 stars on the sky, and count it if you want to prove me wrong".
You didn’t explain anything and still could not prove the things you claimed yet you run-away like a little girl incapable of backing the things you talked of. You claimed he is on the payroll, and say you stand by it. Then PROVE that he is on the payroll. YOU claimed this and this is a serious accusation. When YOU claim something you should be able to back it up.
Up to now you failed to support your point. Bring something factual backing up your claim.
A classic remark of you again. How nice! I did not run into an attempt to explain what had happened to the Armenians and only limited myself to countering the points you raised which were quite idiotic and totally off the mark, and I told frankly that you deserve only this much to judge from double and twisted moral standards involved in your posts.
Specifically I brought some quotations showing massacres perpetrated on Muslims by Armenians because you denied this having taken place as you do now (supposed Armenian massacre of Muslims?). Let me remind you the cavalier answer you made “civilians were mostly killed by enemy fire.” This is the specific context in which started bringing the information on massacres on Muslims. It had nothing to do with explaining the Armenian deportations. You are a top-class twister.
Have I denied massacres of Armenians? Consider this for the accusation you put above. I don’t think it was the fault of Armenians what the Balkans Muslims had gone through but again these are not the points that I took issue with.
You say so but you actually try to justify it by the stupid examples you give to make it understandable and excusable. Read some books you ignorant rather than coming to me with. After the Ottoman conquest, taxing of non-Muslims was lower than the previous regimes that ruled the specific area, ie Bulgaria. Taking off non-Muslims children is again something highly exaggerated. Those taken were very minor in number and this does not always conform the evil picture created. Read Peter Sugar (probably himself Hungarian), that in Balkans this practice had triggered many occasions in which the families themselves would bribe the authorities to take their children because it gave a chance to obtain high positions in the State. And we are talking about the 1877-78 era in which the practice to take children had been already abolished some centuries ago. It has nothing to do with the impression of the people in 1877-78. When you mention and endorse these kind of nationalistic and stupid views, you basically justify the mass-murder.
First, the massacre was not limited to Turks, but included Jews. Were they too taking Christian children or taxing non-Muslims? And what about Pomaks who were Slavic by origin? Your explanations are groundless and are tantamount to legitimization of mass murder.
Yes you exactly do that by resorting to such arguments. Entire sequence of events does mean not to speak of the collection of children some centuries ago. The practice ended centuries ago. What does this has to do with 1877? You also deny and justify the massacres committed by Armenians by telling me such unfounded things as the most of the Caucasus Armenians were migrants from Ottoman Empire that supposedly fled during the time of 1894-96 massacres which up to now you could not prove.
I don’t really care about what you think or seem to think that you know. What I care about is what you wrote. I didn’t put a strong reaction to your first remark with “kidding” note. It was the subsequent explanation you put up that suggesting that perhaps I am on the payroll which I showed above. Whether it be serious or jesting one, you make a stupid implication that must not be allowed to go unanswered you idiot.
And the specific question is where have I ever endorsed this line of action or thought? You could not provide any showing that I did and you assumed that I am endorsing this line showing again that you make assumptions which you cannot prove and back up, indicating your biased nature of your writing. I do not agree with the official position either in the cause or consequence of the tragic incidence.
Quite a silly remark again. I only posted the link to show you the full text of the Reuters article that YOU YOURSELF spoke of in the first instance. Do you expect me to take it from Reuters archive or scan it and put it online somewhere for your highness to see when it is already available somewhere? Heck you are indeed topclass in twisting.
I pointed you to the article and asked you to prove what you claimed from that Reuters article. Instead of showing it and proving your point, you resort to demagogy and try to blame me for using the website and make an absurd connection with this and the position I take. Really incredible!
It actually originates from your habit of lumping me together with those who favor the prosecution of those persons in Turkey that have different views, rather than a tendency to increase the self importance. When I see childish remarks flying around in this forum or people like you who constantly avoid proving what they claimed, it becomes less meaningful to engage in debates which lately became even more remarkable. There was a different forum before this one and I was around for 4-5 years, cant remember exactly when I really joined.
First this is not a topic under which we discuss a broad issue of state and people relations in Turkey but a narrow one in which Armenian issue is concerned. Your resorting such arguments is an indication of your ignorance as far as the Armenian issue is concerned. Second, I am not favoring any sort prosecution or imprisonment of people for their critical or any sort opinions as long as it does not lead to violence. So there is no excuse for Turkey or any other country to do engage in such nasty practices. Turkey has improved its record and will have to do a lot more to create a platform in Turkey where all ideas can be expressed freely. You do not know any of the ideas I hold in this respect you just make an assumption for which you have no justification and resort to character assassination.
As regards to the Armenian question, I repeat my question; please provide the names of the people that have been jailed in connection with this issue in Turkey. Again a vain question it seems.
You make a simple few line answer to avoid inconvenient situation you pulled yourself in. It is the man whose argument you brought here that defends such laws frankly and this shows how sincere you are with respect to freedom of speech.
Any comments about McCarthy being speechless? He criticized Turkey more than you had anything to say about France. I think your description speechless is a perfect one to use for your conduct here. You claimed he is speechless on the basis of a stupid vide that specifically choose not to include McCarthy’s remarks. Thanks for the trash propaganda. Your sources are trash like your arguments are.
Further speaking of your speechlessness. Pelase provide the proof for the following assertions you made. I will remind you each time:
* That they were “punished as a protest to external Christians” whether or not it is absolute cause.
* That McCarthy is on the payroll of Turkish institutions, in true sense of the word “payroll” and not some academic grants that is open to all scholars including those who call it “genocide”.
* That the civilians in Turkey were killed mostly by enemy fire.
* There were more than 1.2 million Armenians in the Caucasus. Please provide the source for you claim that most of these Armenians were ex-Ottoman Armenians that fled during the massacres of 1894-96.
*Also provide an answer with regards to the 2 men (Balakian and Akcam) on whom you relied above, who are dishonest in using their sources. When you endorse and put them as a response to someone; that means you have to take up the responsibility for them.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 24, 2009 9:26:30 GMT -5
well how would you personally know if he is or he isnt.
have said I reffered to information about him and claims that suggest he was at least in some way and then I said I am not convinced he isnt. He is pro Turkish and works beside Turkish historians, why is it so unprobable or hard to believe that he would reciev some type of pay for his work , that would be a normal thing to get paid for work no surely not so unlikely or impossible is it.
I am entiltled to an oppinion and I dont have to convince you to have this oppinion, if you have an absolute reason or proof to believe or to state that you know for a fact he isnt or hasnt been then thats a certain thing and your welcome to present it but otherwise its only your oppinion that he isnt.
No I dont know with proof for an absolute fact I reffered to other information written about him that suggests he is and by certain impressions of him other than that no I dont have a copy of any paycheck I dont personally have absolute proof either way , but its quite probable neither do you.
?”
well that response is a question isnt it, and its something that has been suggested not originally by me but again can you answer with absolute proof that he hasnt been.
Thrust of my impression about JM has been his Pro Turkishness/bias and I stand by saying personally I am not convinced he hasnt been paid for his work on behlf of Turkey but really when comes down to it yes I was mostly displaying that he has a bias or Pro Turkish position, its not more complicated than that, if you want to hang on words out of context or try to suggest I mean something other than what I am saying then whatever but really that was what it was.
[
[
well it is generally amongst the views takien by official Turkish position , that the Armenians were treacherous etc .
No I dont deny massacres of Muslims by Armenains but I at this stage am not certain as to what level this occured, you may recall I asked you what was the Muslim civillian deathtoll and you said impossible to say. I am trying to do more research about this myself. I have read that many of the Armenians in the Causcasus had fled there after massacres in late 1800's I dont know at this stage the exact numbers , I am researching this also.
Talking about rebelling against an authority and people making a stand for national independance of that authority and talking about people killing civillians or simply killing others that belong to other culture/ religion is not exactly same thing. In my oppinion killing inocent civillians is not excusable or understandable.
see above
[
see above above.
its by your logic that I am justyfying mass murder . I will continue to research issue of massacres in Caucasus as I have said.
really who is the idiot , you speak as if I made 2 or 3 different comments already, for the record in the same sentence I said exactly to your comment which was something like I am wasting my time on you but I only reply nbecause its in the Turkish forum , to which I replied ... "why are you also like Mcarthy and some others on the payroll just kidding but seriously how big of you o great one"
there was no other sentence or refernce or words regarding payroll and you it was simply that and I think this has been explained already enough times you dingil comball.
I made the comparison how you could accuse me to be a crusader based on simmiliar assumptions but for what I said I didnt have to speak directlu about you I spoke of authority that originates the Turkish official position.
considering the position of Tall Armenian Tale I would prefer to read a copy of the article in a more neutral setting yes of course.
I didnt have to limit my comments to your ideas I was making a comment about the nature of the way Turkey conducts itself towards emocartic speech and self critical analyses and yes Oghuz thisd has a relevance to how the Armenian issue is regarded in Turkey.
I didnt specify Armenian issues but I will look , otherwise see point above. We know Hrant Dink was shot and his killer was photographed beside Turkish Police smiling and holding Turkish flag beside him, considering Police work directly for the Turkish authority dont you think this itself says something about how authority regards those that criticise state re Armenian issue, I saw a documentary about the Turkish lawyer who was defending the guy who shot Dink that lawyer showed complete contempt for Dink and seemed to regard the killer/assasin in similiar way those Turkish cops did.
Thats your oppinion but I am entitled to my oppinion, and I havent pulled myself into any position, what makes you think I must agree with every word Balakian or anyone says I may well agree with him on some points and disagree on others and maybe be undecided on others it doesnt have anything to do with conveniance I am simply entitled to my own oppinion, again an example of how you make assumptions and generalisations.
*
I actually said they appear to or were possibly punished as a protest to external Christians, but I didny give this as central reason for deportations or genocide, there are I believe several factors leading up to that but I will say a few impressions I have about this , as the Ottoman empire disintegrated and gradually lost its Christian subjects it became increasingly a more Muslim entity with the exception of the remaining Christian groups. What had been occuring in some parts of the empire with the independance movements of Christian groups eg in Balkans and disintegration of Ottoman regions this had an impact on how Christian groups in Ottoman state were then regarded. There was an interplay between Russia and England on behalf of reforms for Armenaisn but mostly this was done on motivation for both those sides competing agendas, some reforms were made by Ottomans under some duress from England and Russia, this external pressure by Christian countries Britain and Russia also impacted how Armenians were regarded by Ottomans.
I have covered this you can demand all you want , see my points at startof this post.
*
were they not killed by the enemy or those that were acting as soldiers.? prove to me absolutely what was the estimated civillian deathtoll specifically at the hands of Armenians ?
*
wherer did I say there was more than 1.2 mill Armenians in Causcasus.
*
dishonest in using what sources , do you expect me to asses every word they write or say dont be ridiculous, if you want to accuse them of something then be specific.
|
|
|
Post by OghuzKhan on Jun 24, 2009 14:55:35 GMT -5
All about the basic philosophy with which you seem rather unfamiliar. Nobody can be forced to disprove something. The burden of proof rests with those who put idea forward. In our case this is you and up to now you failed which makes your assertion a slander, meant to damage the character of a person without solid basis that in turn indicates the biased and lopsided views of the person making the claim.
Your first sentence is not possible to understand re-write in an understandable way. As regards to the second one, they also claimed he has a Turkish wife, Turkish parents and similar trash arguments and etc… If you have a solid back up at hand, then show it, if not, then do not make the assertions that you cannot prove. Otherwise, it is tantamount to a campaign of character assassination which is the typical of biased people that cannot prove their point satisfactorily, instead chose persons to deal with as means debating.
Thanks for sharing your views that reveals your code of ethics with regards to the academic and scholarly integrity. It’s not surprising, after all, you have such low moral standards and poor understanding of academics.
When you claim a person is the on the payroll of some others, that means:
1- That his scholarly works and services are for sale. 2- That puts at stake his standing, honor and reputation as a scholar. 3-A scholar for hire is no longer a scholar, no longer a bona fide member of the academic community.
You are entitled to an opinion but not to an accusation with grave implications, an accusation which you cannot prove. It only indicates your bias and your unreliability as a person that makes up things without proof.
Nobody can be expected to counter prove something when those who claim it, in the first place, fail to prove their case. In other words, I am not owner of the claim but you are and you have up to now failed to prove your claim.
|
|
|
Post by oszkarthehun on Jun 25, 2009 7:14:12 GMT -5
[
more wordplay BS from you , you are trying to limit and control how people speak or discuss things under the guise of some supposed political correctness. I am posting in a forum where people are having a discussion I am not writing a University paper you idiot. Have a look around you slander is occuring all the time on these boards. I have already explained the purpose of presenting information about JM and said it was mostly to indicate his bias and pro Turkishness this also included a suggestion that he was on some payroll, that suggestion didnt originate from me but I have explained it is not proven untrue and nor do I necessarily believe its not true, ok idiot.
First and foremost my own views about JM's bias were established from simply reading his article which was the first uncourced post and first post of this thread . I have already spoken on this and my specific commentary about a certain paragraph that shows his bias. Then I went on to discuss how he suggests Armenians and Turks should be best friends and reasons that didnt occur due to the treacherous Armenians ... then I went on to give examples of issues Armenians had reason not to feel happy about and hoe if Turkidsh authority acted differently perhaps relationship bewteeen Turkey and Armenians may have been diferent.
so what you already character assasinate Balakian and Taner Achkam , you did try to do the first thing I knew you will try to do after my post you did look to discredit them in any way, you focus on few words they wrote or about them but you ignore or dont comment on majority of what they have said , so dont pretend you are not full yourself with double standards I have seen already many example that I could shown already in all your posts.
Get real idiot, scholarly integrity , it might sound nice on paper come down to the real world. What happens in reality is not a result of my moral standards you fool.
grave implications lol what do you think will possibly happen from my implications you fool. If JM has already attained this reputation well before I stated anythuing then what has that got to do with me.
look how you portay in many instances what I have said and what I have explained about what I have said are not in many cases the same thing , you are one who does twist and imply a certain implication or try to say I mean exactly something eg ' mass murder" or its same way how you called me crusader same how you mixed words about my comment "he was on payroll of Turkish Gov" their are several examples how you dont accuratly portay what I said and meant. I have explained the situation of my comments about JM too many times and you still cant get it so dont bother. Why you are so obsessed with him , is he your idol?
I have explained myself I dont need to back up anything , if you are so obsessed with implications that have been made by others or my oppinion then spend all your time to try prove they are not true.
this is good example how you mix things up , I said based on your logic about how you imply something I say means something else , then because you have said A it means B eg that Arm masacres were justified, my point was to show how you reason and how this was a double standard , that point I made was about double standards.
I said I am not certain about to what degree massacres occured ifyou consider that a dispute well call it what ever you like. I used the word supposed massacres for that reason, i.e which massacres and how many. Thats a different thing to a general denial of their being massacres which is what you have implied.
it a double standard if it were true that I justyfy killing of civillians which was your assertion I have stated before you even made that assertion that I dont. much of what I had posted in beggining of this thread was reactionary , and was reactionary to people making posts that suggest what happend was justified due to claims of treachery and amongst reacting to comments like ... Turks are innocent Armenians got what they deserved and "Take that Armenians piece of s hit" etc so keep that in mind.
most of the rest your post here is just the same rubbish about stuff we spoke about several time, often in many cases with you deciding what I meant and using specific implications that are not accurate to what I have said or meant , and we have already gone over this . I will focus next post to discuss further the topics which I have said I am researching and relating to the original flow of initial points discussion of this thread from its beginning.
|
|