Tweet
Uh oh, someone looks like a moron all of a sudden. Don't you have a Jew to go bash somewhere?
-
-
Anoush's Doberman? to tell you the truth, i couldn't understand your post. I was merely replying to the Turk, I think you might have forgotten what side of the fence I'm on. As regards the Jewish, or more accurately, the Zionist, role in the Armenian Genocide, it is undeniable. Tallat, Jewmal, and Enver pashas were ally crypto jews.Comment
-
"holocaust" was used originally to define the Armenian events, and that fact only goes to show how they're mimicking us. They've stolen the word and claim sole ownership.Originally posted by HovikComment
-
Which Came First: Holocaust or Genocide?Originally posted by Doberman
My Turn, By Harut Sassounian
California Courier Publisher
We commonly use the word Genocide to describe the mass murders of Armenians in 1915, and Holocaust to describe the Jewish killings during World War II. But sometimes, the word Holocaust is used to describe the Armenian Genocide in order to draw a parallel between the Armenian and Jewish tragedies. However, some Jews object to the use of the term Holocaust to describe the Armenian massacres, or other mass murders, fearing that it would detract from the uniqueness of the Jewish Holocaust. Turkish officials are also quick to make a clear distinction between these two tragic events, lest the world condemn the Turks in the same breath as the Nazis.
I remember about 20 years ago when Prof. Richard Hovannisian published an extensive bibliography of the Armenian Genocide, titled "The Armenian Holocaust," a few Jews and even some Armenians probably were not too pleased to see the word Holocaust used in conjunction with the Armenian Genocide. It turns out that the word holocaust was used to describe the Armenian tragedy long before the Jewish Holocaust occurred during World War II.
An American diplomat informed me last week that while reading my book, "The Armenian Genocide: Documents and Declarations, 1915-1995," he had remembered another quotation from Winston Churchill's book, "The World Crisis, vol. 5: Aftermath," published i n New York in 1929, page 157, which stated:
"As for Turkish atrocities: marching till they dropped dead the greater part of the garrison at Kut; massacring uncounted thousands of helpless Armenians, men, women, and children together, whole districts blotted out in one administrative holocaust -- these were beyond human redress."
I also just learned that Arnold Toynbee, in his book, "The Murder of a Nation," published in 1915, uses the words "Armenian Holocaust" to describe the massacres.
For the sake of clarity, I prefer to use the more distinct terms of Armenian Genocide and Jewish Holocaust. However, next time a Jew, a Turk, or even an Armenian complains about the use of the term Armenian Holocaust, we can point to the above two quotations which predate the Jewish Holocaust. This should silence all those who accuse us of mimicking the Jews.
Comment
-
Zionists, Turkey and Armenians: a story of taboos, distorted truth and unholy alliances
Hagop Kassardjian
The Daily Star, 7/2/03
The history of the Armenian genocide committed by the Turks (1894-1922) is taboo in official Israeli discourse.
Evidence of this taboo is that in 1982 at the end of an international conference held in Tel Aviv on the theme of “collective genocide,” Israeli representatives withdrew from the conference as they disapproved of discussing the Armenian genocide.
This shows the limits of Zionist thought and the extent to which the Israeli government will go to satisfy the Jewish lobby and its strategic ally, Turkey.
However, other factors highlight the defensive nature of Israeli policy and the denial practised by the Israeli administration toward the Armenian genocide.
After the Cold War, Armenians, ignored by Turkish and Jewish politicians, made common cause with Arab and Iranian interests.
The Karabach conflict in South Caucasia between Armenia and Azerbaijan became an Azeri-Israeli issue.
However, the Jewish community refuses any comparison between the Holocaust and other genocides, and denies the existence of the Armenian genocide.
The Jewish-Turkish historic alliance is based on three main historical factors:
l The weight of Jewish moral debts toward the Ottomans.
Since 1461, after the fall of Andalusia, the Ottoman Empire introduced a policy of admission reserved for foreigners living in its territory. Jews fleeing Andalusia were absorbed into the Ottoman Empire and officially recognized under the Millet system.
Other peoples were organized under the same system. The Millet system separated subjects into ethnic and religious groups, which enjoyed religious freedom and a certain amount of autonomy. The Armenians were part of this system.
The Ottoman Jews were pioneers in the establishment of the Zionist entity in Palestine. They were the mediators between Zionism and the Ottoman Empire until the Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917.
Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was born in the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. Herzl’s time in France and the lessons he drew from the Dreyfus affair led him to propose a national territorial solution to the Jewish issue.
In 1897, the World Zionist Organization was created at a congress in Basel, Switzerland, to represent the national aspirations of the Jews.
l The roots of Zionist denial toward the Armenian cause date back to Article 61 of the 1878 Berlin Treaty. In Article 61, the Armenian issue was raised to international level (improving the situation of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia).
It is true that international, regional and local powers supported reforms demanded by the Armenians. However, the apparent success of the internationalization of the Armenian cause had negative repercussions. It generated a feeling of malevolence and jealousy from other groups, mainly the Jews.
The Jews insisted on reforms identical to those of Armenians. Jewish hostility toward the Armenians appeared between 1894 and 1896 during the Hamidiam Massacres when the Jews of Istanbul and other provinces betrayed Armenian rebels and fugitives. Herzl also dealt with Sultan Abdel-Hamid. Jewish colonization of Palestine was proposed in exchange for support against Armenian national aspirations. The Sultan refused to let foreign Jews colonize Palestine, but permitted Ottoman Jews to do so.
l It was not until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that Zionist political achievements started taking shape. Palestine was recognized as a “national home” for the Jews.
Later, the Jewish-Turkish alliance was strengthened when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk came to power in Turkey.
The close relationship between the Jews and the Turks was unaffected by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize the state of Israel after it was declared in 1948, and the Arab-Armenian-Iranian axis was formed to confront the Turkish-Zionist axis.
The Turkish-Zionist partnership seeks the erosion of Arab nationalism, the denial of the Armenian cause and the weakening of Iranian zeal.
In February 2002, Rebecca Cohen, an Israeli diplomat, said that “the Armenian people have been the victims of a terrible tragedy, not a collective genocide.” Such words distort the truth and were refuted by the Armenians, who reminded the Israelis that Armenians gave refuge to thousands of Jews who fled Nazi Germany.
After the foundation of the Zionist state and the Turkish-Jewish alliance, the Armenian cause was used to the advantage of Zionists.
“Turkification” is an ideology that mobilizes hatred against others (Arabs, Armenians) that stand in the way of their expansionist projects.
The Zionist-Turkish alliance, embodied in military, economic, strategic and financial ties, bears proof of the two countries’ shared objectives. This alliance can only exist in conditions that are perceived as unjust by other groups, like the Palestinians, the innocent victims of this alliance.
Hagop Kassardjian is a Beirut MP and a member of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s parliamentary Beirut Decision Bloc. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star
Comment
-
Originally posted by ProudTurk
You've been banned for obvious reasons.Comment
-
hmmm..... they're all political recognitions. What were expecting, moral recognitions? in that case, the whole world knows it took place. Your sorry self is attempting to deny, and I'm pointing out official recognitions, including those on behalf of Turkish historians.Originally posted by ProudTurk
OK, here's one that took place on Turkish terrority, I hope it satisfies you:im asking u the reports about a conference that u discussed the event in an international area ..
"Debate"
the only dog here is the one presented in Your avatar infront of the blood-soaked flag of the Turks.u dog you are a retarded xxxx ..Comment
-
-
Split: Kurdistan or Armenia???
No apology needed. For it is a trait of the Turk to assume anything belonging to Armenians is his. Present borders have nothing to do with it. What is outside your borders and you want, you will demand, slaughter and lie until you make it yours. This is how you obtained your 'present borders'... Turkey is built on the stolen possessions of others, there is little or nothing that is truely Turkish in origin...Originally posted by elendil
What difference does it make? No Armenian church, be it Khor Virab or Akhtamar, will ever be yours... Your country sits on half or better of Armenian Land, Armenian villages, Armenian monuments, Armenian Churches all items which you stole - you didn't win in a fair war - you stole by cheating through the act of the Armenian Genocide. So the next time you sit there thinking Ani is yours, think again - and sleep with one eye open...Comment
-
We never rebelled for freedom (and even if we did, that doesn't justify the genocide)... that's what they got you to believe. But we did want freedom and independence and we asked for it. Why? Read some history books on how Armenians were treated in 1890s (and you can't use the "helping Russians" excuse for that period of timeOriginally posted by elendil
). So did Arabs! Did you know that? Arabs also wanted independence in Ottoman Empire. And if that was the reason 1.5 million Armenian were massacred... How come there was no Arabic genocide? One wonders...
Comment
Comment