Question to Turks - regarding governmental legitimacy with minority population

[Joseph]

Apparently when dhimmis such as Armenians. Assyrians, and Greeks had the audacity to defend themselves from attacks by Turks and Kurds, they were in rebellion and wanted their own state. They were scapegoated by Muslims who left the Balkans and the Caucasus. Turks also conveniently deny of fail to realize that decades of constant pogroms and harassment that Christians underwent inside their..."EMPIRE"... (they also like to forget that about their empires, especially when decrying other empires) and by his logic, wiping out a small minority is ok. I'm also intrigued as you guys are by his assertion that Armenians tried to wipe out the Muslim population in Asia Minor.

When the armed government of 25 million people turns on and attempts to exterminate an unarmed minority of three million old men, women, and children, it is hardly an "intercommunal struggle," "an ethnic feud," or "civil war"; it is nothing more or less than genocide. The Turkish government had a bureaucracy, tax money, an army, irregular troops, the local police, and special killing squads to carry out its mission. What did the Armenians have?
If it was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against the Christian Assyrians at the same time?
Furthermore, Turkish armies invaded the fledging Armenian Republic in the Caucasus inhabited by indigenous Armenians in order to wipe out not only Armenians in the Ottoman Empire but also Armenians who lived elsewhere.

[1.5 million]

But Joseph - certainly you are aware that the Assyrians were in league with the Chinese who were known to be repressing Turkics and had intentions against Turkish lands..etc...at least some Azerbajani "scholar" has claimed so (right after proving - beyond a doubt - that there was never a nation called Armenia ever in history) - thus it must be true - and thus - of course - Turks can again sleep well at night - all of their bloody cold blooded killings and related outrages are once again - entirely justified and it has been they who have been wrongly villianized and misunderstood - and all those who say otherwise - whom Turks would of course never have harmed in their entire history - well they deserved what they got - and its just a shame that all of them couldn't have been eliminated when the times for such were good...then they wouldn't be around now - so pesky and demanding and reminding one of times and events best forgotten and their attempts to re-write history to show the saintly Turks as somehow so uncouth and unmannerly...well...how could they...

[okeanus]

If Armenians had no right - as a minority - to ever rule over the provinces of Eastern Anatolia (even after WWI & the Genocide where proven Turkish misrule had occured)...then how...with Turks being quite the minority in each and every Balkan nation - could Turk rule over these nations be justified? I mean if we accept your contention that Armenians could never be fit to rule lands where they were not the majority - even considering these areas were historically known as Armenia and had for thousands of years been considered the Armenian homeland - then how could one ever feel that Turkish rule over Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and so on and so forth could ever be justified? Thus - each and every one of these independence efforts could and should be considerd - by you - as just and justified and in fact you Turks should be ashamed to have ever made claim on these lands. Is this not so? Or contrary to your claims concerning the Armenians - might there be other factors that can be used to determin political legitimacy beyond strictly population figures?

i beg your pardon but have you ever heard of something called `empire` and its difference to `nation state`? Turkey and Armenia are nation states, Ottoman Empire, as the name implies, was an empire, i hope you wont try to compare these two different forms of states.

If a particular population is the majority throughout all the lands that state possess, then you already cant consider that state as an empire..That means heterogenity of population had been a common feature of empires, meanwhile nation states seek for the homogenity..

You cant have an Armenia without actual Armenians living on the soil, you may have an Armenian Empire, but `age of empires` has already gone long time ago..

how could one ever feel that Turkish rule over Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and so on and so forth could ever be justified? and in fact you Turks should be ashamed to have ever made claim on these lands.

Who have justified it or have made claims on these lands? Empires have been built throughout history by invading lands previously ruled by other groups of people, do you consider that Roman empire, British Empire or any other empire in history followed a different pattern?

Thus - each and every one of these independence efforts could and should be considerd - by you - as just and justified

Yes of course to a certain degree they were justified, at least they were not unpredictable at the time nationalism in the 19th century, except that all these independence efforts went hand in hand
with the massacres and forced migrations of some millions of Muslim populations inhabiting the balkans, many of whom were not even Turks but religious converts..

In any case, you may state here zillions of reasons about how rightful for Armenians to rule eastern anatolia, but unfortanetly it wont change anything and Turkish Armenian border would stay as it is today..

[1.5 million]

OKdokeyturk - your argument is entirely one of "might makes right" You are saying - it was legitimate that Turks came in - drove people from their lands - killed a great many of them, raped and outraged many more - stole their legacy, and now deny their heritage and now you say that there is no argument that in fact this was an un-rightful thing - and you are claiming that your's is the argument of modernity and civilization?

The Turks obviously proved that they had no right to govern these lands and the people. If I were to break into your home and kill you and your family - but one of your offspring managed to escape and later came back to claim the house - are you telling me it is legitimate for me to tell him his only option is to take it by force? If he cannot make use of every room as he is now only one does this in any way negate the legitimacy of his claim? Think about this for a sec eh?

[Steph]

You cant have an Armenia without actual Armenians living on the soil, you may have an Armenian Empire, but `age of empires` has already gone long time ago..
.

From the horse's mouth, the exact philosophy used by the CUP and ataturk and his national movement.

Eliminate the Armenians, move turks/muslims into Armenia and there's nothing in the way now for a complete link between osman turks and their homeland in the Gobi.

The policies of the sultans, CUP. nationalists, ataturk and subsequent turkish governments have been chillingly consistent in their approach to Armenia and Armenians.

[Joseph]

From the horse's mouth, the exact philosophy used by the CUP and ataturk and his national movement.

Eliminate the Armenians, move turks/muslims into Armenia and there's nothing in the way now for a complete link between osman turks and their homeland in the Gobi.

The policies of the sultans, CUP. nationalists, ataturk and subsequent turkish governments have been chillingly consistent in their approach to Armenia and Armenians.

And not just Armenians either; Assyrians, Greeks, Yezidis, Maronites...and now Kurds.

[hitite]

If Armenians had no right - as a minority - to ever rule over the provinces of Eastern Anatolia (even after WWI & the Genocide where proven Turkish misrule had occured)...then how...with Turks being quite the minority in each and every Balkan nation - could Turk rule over these nations be justified? I mean if we accept your contention that Armenians could never be fit to rule lands where they were not the majority - even considering these areas were historically known as Armenia and had for thousands of years been considered the Armenian homeland - then how could one ever feel that Turkish rule over Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and so on and so forth could ever be justified? Thus - each and every one of these independence efforts could and should be considerd - by you - as just and justified and in fact you Turks should be ashamed to have ever made claim on these lands. Is this not so? Or contrary to your claims concerning the Armenians - might there be other factors that can be used to determin political legitimacy beyond strictly population figures?

I dont fully understand your question. Are you asking what sort of justification the Ottomans had to rule these lands? If this is your Q, well then Ottomans didnt need a justification, they just went and did it by force and sometimes by persuasion.

However if you are asking why some Turks or Turkish idiots are seeing Turkish rule in "general" justifiable today in the Balkans, well that is just their imagination gone wild I guess.

I think it would be safe for me to say that most Turks do not feel that we have claims or should claim rule over the Balkans today. The overwhelming feeling today here in Turkey would be that others claim they have rule over Turkey.

I also do not think that Ottoman Turks ever went to the gates of Belgrade or Vienna or any other land or city and actually made claim on those lands, that is of course if they did not pay for it. Rather than making "claims" I would say they conquered and killed instead.

The independence efforts of these states was of course inevitable and of course do not need justification. Turks see the loss of the Balkans via a somewhat a feeling of melancholy. It is a sad story (believe it or not we too have our own sad stories) where millions of Turks and other Muslims were killed or forced to move, and if I'm not mistaken that sort of thing is called Genocide around here.

When you say Turks should be ashamed to claim the Balkans you are actually saying Turks should be ashamed to have ever come to the Balkans. So you are basically coming back to regurtitate your all time fantasy and wish that Turks should be ashamed of ever leaving Central Asia since, forget about the Balkans, Turks dont even originally belong to Anatolia right? Homo Sapiens should be ashamed to have ever claimed (settled in) lands outside Africa......

[1.5 million]

My question is addressing the issue where many Turks claim that Armenians had/have no right to govern a nation in Eastern Anatolia due to the fact that they were not he majority population (and niether were Turks prior to the Genocide in this region BTW)...yet at the same time these very people will accuse Armenians of being the ones who somehow were traitorus or what not against the ruling Turks - who ruled Anatolia and elsehwere as a minority group...think about this eh? And I think it is clear that by their behavior (Genocide) they had lost all right to maintain the position of "ruling nation" over these lands and people (even considering the decimation of such...and regardless of numbers). Do you understand my point now? It has nothing to do with what you are claiming in regards to the Balkans. BTW - I'm not indifferent to Turkish pain - but come now...how can any Turk expect any sympathy of any Armenian at this point in time with all the BS we have to deal with from you people.

[hitite]

If you are talking about some imperial minded Turks who think Turks can rule over others even if they are not the majority, and others cannot rule over Turks because they are not worthy, well that line of thought is bolloks..

Armenians being seen as traitors is a different and interesting issue. It is interesting because Greeks, Bulgars, Romans, Albanians, Serbs etc. are not seen and reffered to as traitors in common Turkish culture/language even though they too were part of the Ottoman empire for centuries and they also sided with foreign powers in their struggle for independence. However Armenians as "traitors" or "hain millet" is an entity or feeling deeply engraved into the Turkish psyche. Arabs are aslo seen as traitors and disliked by many in Turkey.

I am speculating here but the reason could be that Armenians were much integrated into the Ottoman govt machine as were the Arabs. Much of the Balkan presence in the Ottoman govt was in the Devshirme format but Armenians could well work as Armenians and did not need necessarily to be converts. Arabs also did not need conversion obviously but they were not much part of the government either. But they were Muslims so their cooperation with the "infidel" English was and has been abhorred till this day. The "Loyal" Armenian millet struggle for independence and the support they got from Russia also seems to be a blow, or historical trauma for Turks.

As for Turks expecting sympathy from Armenians: Not much the case. Since Turks have killed millions of Armenians and Armenians have killed thousands of Turks it would be stupid for Turks to expect sympathy for the millions of Turks killed from an Armenian. We dont get this sympathy from any country actually so believe me no Turk is expecting this from you even though they would love to see it from you.

[1.5 million]

As for Turks expecting sympathy from Armenians: Not much the case. Since Turks have killed millions of Armenians and Armenians have killed thousands of Turks it would be stupid for Turks to expect sympathy for the millions of Turks killed from an Armenian. We dont get this sympathy from any country actually so believe me no Turk is expecting this from you even though they would love to see it from you.

I'm sure as long as Turkey and Turks keep viciously denying the Armenian Genocide and the one sided predation of the Turks against them you will never get your wish.

And even more then just the disparity of numbers (regarding who killed who) - there is quite a big difference between an organized government pogram aimed to wipe out a nation and the acts of a few bandits and revolutionaries or even deaths from warfare. Think about this just a bit. And Turkish and Kurdish bandits (chettes) and vigilantes killed and terrorized far more Armenians (over the years) then the reverse even apart from the various government induced massacres and such. So who really should be offering and recieving sympathy and understanding here? As long as people like you - who should know better - keep insisting that there is some kind of equality in suffering and in blame - well - obviously you are still too imersed in the Turkish xenophobic forest to truly understand the truths of this issue.