Turkish View of Themselves

[Kharpert]

UKTurk, step out of this fantasy land of "Christian nations". I dare you to name me ONE NATION throughout the history of mankind that fits your idea of a "Chrisitian nation".

A Christian nation doesn't kill its countless innocent diplomats from their neighbouring country. A Christian nation does invade all but one of its neighbours. A Christian nation does repress other Christian denominations. Do Christians invade their only Christian neighbour?

1. You have accused the Republic of Armenia of assassinating diplomats, but I dare you to give me an example of when the Republic of Armenia has sponsored an assassination.
2. You have classified all military actions in Armenia as invasions, but I encourage you to name me a time when Armenia has ever occupied a foreign nation's land.
3. Religious oppresion? Did you see the reason why those Jehova's Witnesses were convicted?

Jehovah’s Witnesses, convicted for failure to perform military service, as prisoners of conscience.

That's right, failure to perform military service. That's not a case of religious discrimination.

Also, if you dare to call the war over Nagorno-Kharabagh an invasion, then Turkey's military action in Cyprus is ALSO an invasion. There is absolutely no reason why indepedence in a land region that is 95% Armenian by ethnicity should be considered an invasion.

You criticize the Armenian lobby of coercing funds from other nations, yet you go into this totally romantic story of how the Turks and Azeris "extended their sympathies to the United States". Yeah, great way to fellate the West, just like you're accusing us of doing for Russia and the E.U.

Turkey even wants to be a good neighbour and mediate peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia two of its neighbours but the Armenians reject this idea.

Wrong! Armenia has been sitting quietly for a long time in terms of geopolitics. On the other hand, the Azeris give a daily message of hate and war, and their government promises the destruction of all Armenians, especially those in Kharabagh. They are practically foaming at the mouth. Armenia's foreign embassy has publically announced support for Turkey's ascencion to the E.U. That is NOT a case of warmongering. Obviously, Armenians are very comfortable with the idea of peace in the region because they know they're outnumbered.

You keep talking about the "purging of ethnic minorities". Only Turkey is the one that has ever purged ethnic minorities from its state. There has never been a case of ethnic purging in the Republic of Armenia. Period.

but there are no credible eyewitnesses for Greek claims (thats right not even one).

Here's an article and video clip of a Greek Cypriot being murdered by Turks.
Here's another one

[Gavur]

'Foreign Politics Dependent on US, Economics on IMF'

By Zaman
Published: Monday, December 05, 2005
zaman.com


Saadet (Felicity) Party leader Recai Kutan claimed Turkey is dependent on the US in foreign politics and on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in economic policies.

Kutan defended the citizens' power of purchase has diminished due to policies implemented with the influence of the IMF and asked: "They say no salary increase will be given to the civil servants, workers, farmers and retired. Who will go to the shops if they do not have money? How will they do shopping? How will the economy work?"

Kutan participated in the Sanliurfa provincial congress of his party Sunday. During his speech, Kutan criticized the government. He blamed the governments coming to power after the 54th government led by Necmettin Erbakan and claimed the civil servants, farmers and tradesmen are in trouble. Kutan defended the base price given to wheat is below last year's price. "The same is valid for the cotton and beet. The kilogram price of cotton that was one new Turkish liras last year fell almost to half this year."

[Gavur]

UKTURK or UK(AKALA)Turk

what can I say you just like to argue
I tryed to tell you before
If my intelligence was at the tip of the pointy part of my body
I would stick it through your ear
You are too much..lol

[1.5 million]

Are you seriously trying to claim that only becuase of interention of outside powers manipulating stupid complacent minorities was there any issue of discontent? Are you likewise attempting to claim that nationalism among the minorities pre-dated any repression and such on the part of the Ottoman Turks?

01. The expansionist policies against the Ottomans empowered with the idea of "Turkish Yoke" encouraged the Christian population of the empire, so did encourage the Armenians. Rise of Armenian nationalism roots back to 19th Century, and it is also evident.

Just to prevent me having to write it all out myself I have found an entry that I use just to illustrate my point that Christains of theOttoman EMpire had much to be unhappy over much prior to any Western Imperialist intrigue in the Empire. So I wish you Turks would get off this alwaasy blame others in every case kicck...

A NEW CENTURY OF CHRISTIAN MARTYRDOM: THE UNTOLD MIDDLE EASTERN CRISIS by Srdja Trifkovic June 5, 2002 (excerpt)

Islamic scholars assert that an Islamic state is by its very nature bound to distinguish between Muslims and non-Muslims:

In an honest and upright manner, [it] not only publicly declares this state of affairs but also precisely states what rights will be conferred upon its non-Muslim citizens and which of them will not be enjoyed by them... A Muslim is not to be put to death for (murdering) one of the people of the covenant [a Jew or a Christian] or an unbeliever, but a free Muslim must be killed for a free Muslim, regardless of the race.

Discrimination was universal, not only legal. Non-Muslims could not be employed in the upper echelons of the civil service, and in educating or in any way exercising authority over Muslims. Umar, the second caliph, refused to allow an exceptionally able Christian to continue in his post of the tax accountant in Syria, and attacked one of his aides with a whip who employed a Christian to oversee the accounts of Iraq. As Islamic scholars state, "Some who were less qualified than the Christians were appointed; that would be more useful to Muslims for their religion and earthly welfare. A little of what is lawful will be abundantly blessed, and abundance of what is unlawful will be wasted." No one but "a mature, sane Muslim should assume the office of judge" and no non-Muslim should ever "hold a position in which he can have power over a Muslim."

The conquered peoples were "protected persons" only if they submitted to Islamic domination by a "Contract" (Dhimma), paid poll tax-jizya-and land tax-haraj-to their masters. Any failure to do so was the breach of contract, enabling the Muslims to kill or enslave them and confiscate their property. The cross could not be displayed in public, and the people of the book had to wear special clothing or a belt. Their men were not allowed to marry Muslim women, their slaves had to be sold to a Muslim if they converted, and they were not allowed to carry weapons. They had to take in Muslim travelers, especially soldiers on a campaign, but they had no right to the spoils of war. Since the income from the poll tax was mostly used to finance Jihad, Jews and Christians under Muslim rule were effectively forced to bankroll the subjugation of their co-religionists who were still free.

DECLINE INSTITUTIONALIZED

The resulting inequality of rights in all domains between Muslims and dhimmis was geared to a steady erosion of the latter communities by the attrition and conversion. The Greek Orthodox were suspected of loyalty to the Patriarch and the Emperor in Constantinople, which was the main symbol of the Christian enemy until its fall in 1453. All of them were regarded as natural would-be allies of Christendom, an assumption as natural in view of the captives' position under Islam as it was unjustified by their actual behavior. By the time Timur's invasions at the end of the 14th century the Christians became a minority in their own lands where no other religion had been known until the Muslim conquest.

Millions of Christians from Spain, Egypt, Syria, Greece and Armenia; Latins and Slavs in southern and central Europe; as well as Jews, henceforth lived under shari'a, forming what Bat Ye'or calls the civilization of dhimmitude.8 They endured for centuries the lives of quiet desperation interrupted by the regular pangs of acute agony. In all these societies the dynamics of Islamization were at work, different in form, perhaps, between Spain and Syria, but always following the same pattern determined by the ideology and laws of jihad and shari'a.

The objective in all cases, and the outcome in most, was also the same: to transform native Christian majorities into religious minorities. The initial choice of the vanquished was not "Islam or death" but "Islam or super-tax"; but over time Shari'a ensured the decline of Eastern Christianity, the sapping of the captives' vitality and capacity for renewal. Even in Moorish Spain oppression or anarchy were the rule, good order and civilized behavior a fondly remembered exception.

THE OTTOMAN NIGHTMARE

The bearers of the standard came to Anatolia at the turn of the second millennium as mercenary soldiers. Osman I, from whom the name Osmanli ("Ottoman") is derived, proclaimed the independence of his small principality in Sogut near Bursa, on the border of the declining Byzantine Empire, in the early 13th century. Within a century the Osman Dynasty had extended its domains into an empire stretching from the Balkans to Mesopotamia. Its growth was briefly disrupted by the Tatar invasion and Sultan Bayezit's defeat at the Battle of Ankara (1402). Under Mehmet I "the Restorer" the Turks were back in business and conquered a ruined and impoverished Constantinople under Mehmet II in 1453. For three days the conquerors indulged in murder, rape, and pillage.

Islam may have rejoiced, but there was precious little cause for rejoicing in Asia Minor and in the Balkans as further Christian communities came under Muslim rule. The conquered populations were subsequently subjected to the practice of devshirme. The annual "blood levy" of Christian boys in peacetime was a novelty even by the Arabian standards. In Arabia those families unable to pay the crushing jizya were obliged to hand over their children to be sold into slavery, and to deduct their value from their assessment. But Turkish "devshirme," introduced by Sultan Orkhan (1326-1359), consisted of the periodic taking of a fifth of all Christian boys in the conquered territories:

On a fixed date, all the fathers were ordered to appear with their children in the public square. The recruiting agents chose the most sturdy and handsome children in the presence of a Muslim judge... The devshirme was an obvious infringement of the rights of the dhimmis-a reminder that their rights were far from secure, once and for all.

Military expeditions made forays into Christian villages. Enslavement of the subject peoples was thus legitimized even if they did not rebel against their conquerors. The practice left a deep scar on the collective memory of the Christians. And yet contemporary Turkish propagandists present the tragedy of the kidnapped boys and their families as the Ottoman equivalent of a full scholarship to Harvard or Yale: "From the poor families' point of view, it was a great chance for their sons to be offered a high level of education especially in the palace which would provide good future prospects."

The difference between the crusaders' senseless debauchery and the Turks' calculated barbarism is visible in the treatment of both subjects by a great painter. While acknowledging the shame of the "Entry of the Crusaders into Constantinople," through his 1840 painting of the same name, it was Eugene Delacroix's depiction of a Turkish monstrosity that became the Guernica of the 19th century. "The Massacre at Chios: Greek families awaiting death or slavery" is a masterpiece of horror depicting the systematic extermination of the entire population of an Aegean island, graphically illustrated how being a Greek, Armenian, Serb, or indeed any other Christian in the Ottoman Empire meant living in daily fear of murder, rape, torture, kidnap of one's children, slavery, and genocide.

As for the Jews expelled from Spain, they were invited by the Sultan not because of any motivations involving tolerance but to replace the vast swathes of Christians that had been eliminated, and thus maintain the area's commerce and the Sultan's tax base. While the Ottoman Jews were also subjected to discrimination and periods of cruel persecution, that they held a favored status within the Empire over the subhuman giaours (infidel Christian dogs) is as much a reason for celebration of the Ottomans' "tolerance" as the fact that the Nazis were "tolerant" of occupied Slavs in comparison to their treatment of the Jews.

The weakening of Turkey enabled ascendant European powers first to take an interest in the destiny of the remaining Christian communities under Muslim rule, and next to try and alleviate their condition. The effort was conducted through bilateral agreements between the Ottomans and victorious European powers (Russia, Austria) or voluntary contacts with the friendly ones (Britain, France). Some improvement resulted from the granting of a Western style constitution in 1839, which eventually led to the abolishment of the old Millet system and at least nominal equalization of rights between the three main religious communities. In part these reforms were defensive in nature, as the Turkish government hoped to placate the Europeans and, by enacting desired legislation remove the grounds for interference. They did not have much effect on the ground, however.

The last century of Ottoman rule—from the defeat of Napoleon until the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire at the end of the First World War—witnessed a more thorough and tragic destruction of the Christian communities in the Middle East, Asia Minor, and the Caucasus, than at any prior period. Almost the entire Greek population of the island of Chios, tens of thousands of people, was massacred or enslaved in 1822 (as we have seen in reference to Delacroix). The following year the number of victims of the slaughter at Missolongi is known precisely: 8,750. Thousands of Assyrians were murdered in the province of Mossul in 1950, and in 1860 some 12,000 Christians were put to the sword in Lebanon. The butchery of 14,700 Bulgarians in 1876 was almost routine by Turkish standards. At the town of Batal five thousand out of seven thousand inhabitants were murdered, the fact that was unsuccessfully suppressed by the British government of Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli but nevertheless made public by private journalists.

In many cases the massacres of Christians resulted from local Muslim revolts against any decree granting them greater rights than those that were regarded as divinely ordained by Caliph Umar. At the same time the great Western powers, and Great Britain in particular, supported the Turkish subjugation of Christian Europeans on the grounds that their empire was a "stabilizing force" and a counterweight against Austria and Russia. The scandalous alliance with Turkey against Russia in the Crimean War reflected a pernicious frame of mind that has manifested itself more recently in the overt, covert, or de facto support of certain Western powers for the Muslim side in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Chechnya, Cyprus, Sudan, East Timor, and Kashmir.

From many anti-Christian pogroms in the 19th century the "Bulgarian Atrocities" are remembered because they provoked a cry of indignation from Gladstone (to the chagrin of Disareli), who asserted, "No government ever has so sinned, none has proved itself so incorrigible in sin, or which is the same, so impotent in reformation." But Gladstone's opponents, the advocates of Turkophile policy at Westminster, went beyond Realpolitik in arguing for the lifeline to the Sick Man at the Bosphorus: they devised the theory that the Ottoman were in reality agreeable and tolerant, and only need a friendly, supportive nudge to become just, or almost, like other civilized people:

If, in the more remote past, Bourbon France had made common cause with the Sublime Porte (the scandalous union of the Lily and the Crescent) against Habsburg Austria, the arrangement at least had the virtue of cynical self-interest: Catholic France was hardly expected to praise the sultan's benevolence as part of the bargain. But by the 1870s, Disraeli's obsession with thwarting Russian ambitions in the Balkans prompted the Tories' unprecedented depiction of Turkey as tolerant and humane even in the face of the Bulgarian atrocities. Even so, Britain's Christian conscience, prodded by Gladstone's passionate words, was sufficient to bring down Beaconsfield's government in 1880.

In 1876, Gladstone told the Ottomans: "You shall retain your titular sovereignty, your empire shall not be invaded, but never again, as the years roll in their course, so far as it is in our power to determine, never again shall the hand of violence be raised by you, never again shall the flood gates of lust be opened to you." This was not to be. Regular slaughters of Armenians in Bayazid (1877), Alashgurd (1879), Sassun (1894), Constantinople (1896), Adana (1909) and Armenia itself (1895-96) claimed a total of two hundred thousand lives, but they were only rehearsals for the genocide of 1915. The slaughter of Christians in Alexandria in 1881 was only a rehearsal for the artifical famine induced by the Turks in 1915-16 that killed over a hundred thousand Maronite Christians in Lebanon and Syria. So imminent and ever-present was the peril, and so fresh the memory of these events in the minds of the non-Muslims, that illiterate Christian mothers dated events as so many years before or after "such and such a massacre."14 Across the Middle East, the bloodshed of 1915-1922 finally destroyed ancient Christian communities and cultures that had survived since Roman times-groups like the Jacobites, Nestorians, and Chaldaeans. The carnage peaked after World War I ended.

DUSK OF LEVANTINE CHRISTIANITY

"The attitude of the Muslims toward the Christians and the Jews is that of a master towards slaves," reported the British Vice Consul in Mosul, 1909, "whom he treats with a certain lordly tolerance so long as they keep their place. Any sign of pretension to equality is promptly repressed." It is ironic but unsurprising that the persecution of Christians culminated in their final expulsion from the newly founded Republic of Turkey in the early 1920s under Mustapha Kemal known as Attaturk, the same man who also abolished the Caliphate, and separated the mosque and state. The fact that this ethnic cleansing was carried out under the banner of resurgent Turkish nationalism, rather than Ottoman imperialism or Islamic intolerance, mattered but little to the victims. The end result was the same: churches demolished or converted into mosques, and communities that used to worship in them dispersed or dead.

The burning of Smyrna and the massacre and scattering of its three hundred thousand Christian inhabitants is one of the great crimes of all times. It marked the end of the Greek civilization in Asia Minor which at its height had also given the world the immortal cities of Pergamus, Philadelphia, and Ephesus. On the eve of its destruction Smyrna was a bustling port and commercial center. The seafront promenade, next to foreign consulates, boasted hotels modelled after Nice and elegant cafes. Yellowing postcards show its main business thoroughfare, the Rue Franque, with the great department and wholesale stores, crowded by the ladies in costumes of the latest fashion. American consul-general remembered a busy social life that included teas, dances, musical afternoons, games of tennis and bridge, and soirees given in the salons of the rich Armenians and Greeks:

In no city in the world did East and West mingle physically in so spectacular a manner as at Smyrna, while spiritually they always maintained the characteristics of oil and water. One of the common sights of the streets was the long camel caravans, the beasts passing in single file, attached to ropes and led by a driver on a donkey in red fez and rough white-woolen cloak. These caravans came in from the interior laden with sacks of figs, licorice root, raisins, wood, tobacco and rugs. While the foreigner is apt to be afraid of these ungainly beasts, one often saw a Greek or Armenian woman in high-heeled boots and elegant costume, stoop and lift the rope between two camels and pass under. At the north end of the city is a railroad station called "Caravan Bridge", because near by is an ancient stone bridge of that name over which the camel caravans arriving from as far away as Bagdad and Damascus, used to pass.

Sporadic killings of Christians, mostly Armenians, started immediately the Turks conquered it on September 9, 1922, and within days escalated to mass slaughter. It did not "get out of hand," however; the Turkish military authorities deliberately escalated it. Metropolitan Chrysostomos remained with his flock. "It is the tradition of the Greek Church and the duty of the priest to stay with his congregation," he replied to those begging him to flee. The Muslim mob fell upon him, uprooted his eyes and, as he was bleeding, dragged him by his beard through the streets of the Turkish quarter, beating and kicking him. Every now and then, when he had the strength to do so, he would raise his right hand and blessed his persecutors. A Turk got so furious at this gesture that he cut off the Metropolitan's hand with his sword. He fell to the ground, and was hacked to pieces by the angry mob.

The carnage culminated in the burning of Smyrna, which started on September 13 when the Turks put the Armenian quarter to torch and the conflagration engulfed the city. The remaining inhabitants were trapped at the seafront, from which there was no escaping the flames on one side, or Turkish bayonets on the other, but the spectacle remained invisible to the "Christian" West:

The Turks were glutting freely their racial and religious lust for slaughter, rape and plunder within a stone's throw of the Allied and American battle-ships because they had been systematically led to believe that they would not be interfered with. A united order from the commanders or from any two of them-one harmless shell thrown across the Turkish quarter-would have brought the Turks to their senses. And this, the presence of those battle-ships in Smyrna harbor, in the year of our Lord 1922, impotently watching the last great scene in the tragedy of the Christians of Turkey, was the saddest and most significant feature of the whole picture.

[1.5 million]

More pathetic then your last batch of excuses BTW

01. The expansionist policies against the Ottomans empowered with the idea of "Turkish Yoke" encouraged the Christian population of the empire, so did encourage the Armenians. Rise of Armenian nationalism roots back to 19th Century, and it is also evident.

Your point here? Are you claiming that nationalism (among some minority elements within certain Christian populations of the Ottoman Empire) pre-dates the

02. In the early stages of the nationalistic transoformation, perhaps the Armenians did not envisage lives without the ottoman EMpire, however at later stages they did consider such possiblity without a doubt. General Andranik is a good example for such existance, who fought against the Ottomans together with his Armenian division during the Balkan War and later with his 50.000 supporters empowered by the Czarist Russian Army who also had more than 100.000 soldiers.

That some Armenians might consider and even work toward such a possibility is not the same as saying “the Armenians” desired or worked for independence as the preponderance of evidence suggests that this just was not true. And again when we talk of these numbers of Armenians under arms we are talking post 1917 – and I don’t feel like I need to elaborate on the reasons for this or the significance.

03. The Europeans started to think about the Ottoman decline after the second half of the 18th Century, and it was inseparable notion from that sickness of the Ottomans.

Europeans started to think about the ottoman decline beginning in the 16th Century…your point?

04. Yes, I blame the Europeans since similar problems existed even in France back in the 18th Century. 1789 was not an appreciation of the French System though nobody inflicted that many wars on France after 1789. On contrary, the Ottomans were alone to receive the European assults for more than a century.

BS – Ottomans were often supported by Britain and France. And more Turk boo hoo hoo – everybody was against us…blame the Euros etc – somehow your views are (typically) not supported by the history books or by what is commonly knowny concerning the history of these times

05. The expansionist European policies is not only evident agaisnt the Ottomans but also against the others. One could of course could blame the Ottomans for being brtual against internal revolts, but this was not an Ottoman invention, and harsher policies were common all across this planet all throughout 18th and 19th Centuries.

Ottoman brutality – and not just against “revolts” but against any kind of resistance to all kinds of repression as well as for arbitrary reasons of overlord/master versus servant population began much earlier then any Euro expansion or any such things…

06. The expansionist European policies was different is style since those embodied ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims and oppressing their religion of the survivors (who were left behind). Since the Czarist Russia did not even recognize Islam as a religion until the late 18th Century, the resistance of Khans and their poeple against the Russian Empire could be deemed as a struggle to survive.

How convenient – to view wars fought by Turkic Khans against Russian Empire as “struggle to survive” and the fight of landless and largely leaderless (in the old school noble sense) peasants of the Balkans and such as part of some Imperialistic campaign against the poor and most just Ottoman Empire. Give me a break – your killing me here…

07. Thus, the current European perception about these crimes (executed by the Russians in Balkans, Caucasus, and Crimea) is evident for the double standards of their perceptions. No European country did really care about the loss of the Ottomans, nor did they see these losses as crimes. Instead, those losses of the Ottoman Muslims were casulties of the wars for liberation, and the crusades to set free the "holy lands".

Take it up with the Russians – don’t use this as an excuse to deny the genocide of Armenians at the hands of the Turks. Again your just killing me here – WE ARE THE VICTIMS! – so BTW FU whatever we did to you…yeah

08. That is why, none of those countries who recognized the "Armenian Genocide" bears a similar approach for the Cricassian, Albanian, Bosniak, Roma, Pomak, or Tatar tragedies. Instead, they deliberately act as if those never happened. This is normal since the Armenian case involves placing the blame on the Turks, however the others do involve themselves, such as the first genocide of the 20th Century, which was in fact in Belgian Congo, not in the Ottoman Empire.

See answer to 7 - asehole

09. CUP was an organization that came out of Balkans due to nationalistic rise amongst Balkan ethnicities. Similarly, the Dashnak Party was the product of the Armenian Nationalists and embodied many aspects of the CUP, and that is why, they allied for a while until they found out that such alliance is not possible for their own existance.

So and CUP determined this and betrayed Dashnaks – this is the history of what happened – but I like how you revert to the typical Turkish pattern of implying blame for the victims (of Turkish aggression)

10. Surgun policy was even applied to muslim communites like, the Circassians, Albanians, Bosniaks, Tatars, or Pomaks. In that sense, it was not an exclusive policy agaisnt the Armenians, Greeks, Serbs, or Bulgars, but it was a policy designed to prevent ethnic conflicts by establishing diversified ethnic make up in different regions.

Really now – I don’t buy this. You will need to prove that Ottomans adopted the same policies of breaking up Muslim communities and forces Muslims off of their lands as they did to the Christians because I am not buying this erroneous claim for a second

11. The 1878 War involved Armenians in Caucaus since Armenians of Caucasus were integrated into the Russian system as of 1865. Thus, General Louis Melikof was an Armenian who commanded the Russian armies of Caucaus in 1878, and his army embodied thousands of Armenians soliders fighting against the Ottomans.

Yes – much as Ottoman Armenians fought on the Ottoman side in this as well as in Balkan and other wars…your point?

12. How extreme was the CUP? I dont think that it was any extreme than the political climate of its time. However, it was very extreme if one is looking through the glasses of the 21st Century.

I’ve addressed this previously. I think if you seriously believe this claim (I’ll allow youto think about it and recant) – you have serious problems – you are justifying great crimes and brutalities as “non-extreme” – should we likewise let the Nazis off the hook – they were terrible times, brutal times – Nazis killers were just a reflection of their time – we shouldn’t judge them by our current sensibilities….

13. I dont think that the Armenians did backstab the Ottomans as the Ottomans must have been well aware of the Armenian motives for independence. Furthermore, I am not sure about NAZI style death camps or establishment of "Surgun" to cover the main policy for extermination of the Ottoman Armenians, however I dont exclude as a possibility of large scale ethnic cleansing campaign.

Possibility? Etc – I will not dignify this shameful and cowardly sidestep position with an answer – you are despicable. BTW extermination “death” camps are well established and described by separate co-oaborated sources.

14. I believe that there was not any other way to see the slaughter of people differently since there was no definition of "Genocide". So, the people who killed the Armenians probably only knew that those people were Armenians who were the allies of the Russians and Europeans who killed as many as Muslims throughout 19th Century and early 20th Century, and who are moving closer to where they live day by day.

You think so eh? I will not go through the litany of racist charges that were made against the Armenians and the whole forming of death squads (Special Organization) on part of CUP – for purposes of exterminating Armenians. And I dispute your contention that any nation committed even remotely similar level of organized massacre and total extermination as was deliberately and criminally enacted by Ottomans – not until Nazi-Germans in 1940s…however we should forgive them as they were only slaughtering perceived enemies – eh – and they never called it a Holocaust until afterwards – so it must not have happened I guess eh?

15. There was an agreed European schemes to disintegrate the Ottoman Empire before, during and after the WWI. So, it is not a speculation, but a threat existed against the Ottoman Muslims since they were the main target of those European campaigns, and in that sense, the Armenians (together with Greeks and Assyrians) were not the enemy of those Europeans, but the allies of them for their wars against the Ottomans.

Ottomans entered the war of their own volition and due to own efforts – they were not attacked by others, Etente powers attempted to sway Ottomans to join them or at least stay our of war. The rest is moot. If you enter a war and make enemies of others then by definition they are your enemy – though because you made it so. I suppose by your reasoning the Jews of Europe/Germany were also proper enemies of Germany – I’m sure they – like the Armenians wished to be free of their wartime nightmare – and by your logic I guess it was justified that Ottomans & Germans) attempted to slaughter every last one – including women and children and enacted a plan to do such – all of this was justified and should not be criticized and the survivors and their decedents should just accept it – legitimate wartime casualties and we should just eat xxxx and die.

16. It was the allied perception in the end which decided that the fate of the Armenians as neither Russia did move between 1894 and 1896, nor did the the allied armies try to stop the Ottomans killing and deporting the Armenians during 1915. In fact, such policies could have been prevented with an assult through Iskenderun instead of Gallipoli.

So you blame the allies – and TurQ is applauding this (of course) – I guess we should blame Britain, France and America for the Holocaust then – SAME LOGIC - EXACTLY

17. Are there any similaries with the Jewish Genocide, for sure there was, and I dont deny the genocidal tentencies existed in the polices of CUP, but ultimately, the Armenian Slaughter was not as industrialized or organized as the German one, and there were not so many exit points to escape for the Jews as there were in the case of the Armenians, and ultimately, I believe that the goal of the Ottomans was not for total racial annihilation of Armenians like it was in the case of the Jews.

It was just as organized – more so – if one considers the efficiency (time) to kill/destroy. And otherwise what you believe – based on your other gross inaccuracies – really has little bearing on reality/the truth. Evidence clearly proves CUP intentions of utter annihilation of the Armenians as a people.

18. Why doesnt Turkey recognise the crimes of the Ottoman CUP Policies? This is rather interesting issue, even today, it is pretty much related to the Muslim civilian losses, such as the millions of Muslims expelled from the Balkans and the Russian Empire through the long 19th Century and early 20th Century, which still remain as a part of Europe's own forgotten past.

Funny that now you will claim – we lost so many people to others so we won’t admit what we did ourselves. Armenians have not, will not and will not ever forget. Perhaps the Russians will decline to recognize that they killed some Turks because of course Ghengis overran them in earlier times and so on and so forth…perhaps Americans and Europeans should deny slavery and the crimes of such because they were invaded by Turks in the 1600s and it gave them a bad temper. Yeah.

[1.5 million]

Oh and these figures should be added into the totals:

The following is a partial list of Turkish massacres from 1822 up till 1904:

1822 Chios, Greeks 50,000

1823 Missolongi, Greeks 8,750

1826 Constantinople, Jannisaries 25,000

1850 Mosul, Assyrians 10,000

1860 Lebanon, Maronites 12,000

1876 Bulgaria, Bulgarians 14,700

1877 Bayazid, Armenians 1,400

1879 Alashguerd, Armenians 1,250

1881 Alexandria, Christians 2,000

1892 Mosul, Yezidies 3,500

1894 Sassun, Armenians 12,000

1895-96 Armenia, Armenians 150,000

1896 Constantinople, Armenians 9,570

1896 Van, Armenians 8,000

1903-04 Macedonia, Macedonians 14,667

1904 Sassun, Armenians 5,640

_______

Total 328,477

[ScythianVizier]

More pathetic then your last batch of excuses BTW

It must be really annoying to see people opposing your point of views. However, they do, and I believe that you will see more people questioning your perceptions in the future.

Your point here? Are you claiming that nationalism (among some minority elements within certain Christian populations of the Ottoman Empire) pre-dates the

Yours is not a finished statement, and it doesnt mean anything to me right now., but yes, there were nationalist Christians in the empire, and those included the Armenians after the second half of the 19th Century.

That some Armenians might consider and even work toward such a possibility is not the same as saying “the Armenians” desired or worked for independence as the preponderance of evidence suggests that this just was not true. And again when we talk of these numbers of Armenians under arms we are talking post 1917 – and I don’t feel like I need to elaborate on the reasons for this or the significance.

Not really, the considerable number of Armenians were against the Ottomans and the Muslim Millet, and their activities within the Ottoman juristiction was evident. So, you can not exclude the Armenian activities as you wish.

Europeans started to think about the ottoman decline beginning in the 16th Century…your point?

I have already said it many times. So, open your eyes and read a bit before asking.

BS – Ottomans were often supported by Britain and France. And more Turk boo hoo hoo – everybody was against us…blame the Euros etc – somehow your views are (typically) not supported by the history books or by what is commonly knowny concerning the history of these times

Why should the history book of those nations support the Turkish views? This is not one logical European approach.

For example, if I say "there was no genocide in 1915", and if I say it in Switzerland, Beligum or France, I will be in trouble. However, if I say that "Belgium did not kill 10 million Africans and there was no genocide in Congo" or if I deny the Algerian one executed by France, then no worries at all. Precisely, this is how they percieve their history, and it is no wonder they dont mention about their own guilts since it is an very old European tradition.

Ottoman brutality – and not just against “revolts” but against any kind of resistance to all kinds of repression as well as for arbitrary reasons of overlord/master versus servant population began much earlier then any Euro expansion or any such things…

Why dont you read a bit more about Irish Famine, British Rule in India, Dutch rule in Indonesia, and so many similar crimes of the Europeans throughout history. The Ottoman Empire was not any cruel than its counterparts, and it is evident in the history of this planet. The Europeans in the middle ages were far worse than the Ottomans, and denying such bold truth will not get you anywhere.

How convenient – to view wars fought by Turkic Khans against Russian Empire as “struggle to survive” and the fight of landless and largely leaderless (in the old school noble sense) peasants of the Balkans and such as part of some Imperialistic campaign against the poor and most just Ottoman Empire. Give me a break – your killing me here…

Well, when it is the case of Armenians, you could attach your self a name of "1.5 Million", on contrary, when I told you about the Cricassians losses, you told me a figure like 300.000, and said that it could be deemd as a genocide ( which is a good reference for your case). In fact, Circassian losses were far higher than you stated, but I did not say anything about it. I dont care whether you name it a genocide or not since it is not something you have to. However, I want those European countries to recognise their crimes one by one just like they did do it for the "Armenian Genocide", and in the meantime, you could decorate me with a label, namely "denier", and I can live with it as long as the ordeal of my own people is ignored.

Take it up with the Russians – don’t use this as an excuse to deny the genocide of Armenians at the hands of the Turks. Again your just killing me here – WE ARE THE VICTIMS! – so BTW FU whatever we did to you…yeah

If you are the victims, then, so were the Ottoman Muslims. Hence, if genocide is a crime against humanity, then why do people here do only care about the Armenian one? Why dont say anything about the others?

I tell you: in order to get publicity for the ordeal you experienced, you must know how to deal and respectfully negotiate with the Europeans, and if this process involves ignoring the "others" for the sake of your own case, then you do it without a doubt.

Unfortunately, this is rather inaccurate approach. Interestingly, I dont recall any Armenian stating the "Circassian Genocide" in any of the articles published since it does not support the Armenian case, but rather it brings up excuse points for the "Turkish Crimes".

See answer to 7 - asehole

Swearing is not an answer, but an act, demonstrating the level of the civilization that one has achieved. You really like to think how civilized you are, but unfortunately, you are one racist Armenian who does not wish to see the truth.

So and CUP determined this and betrayed Dashnaks – this is the history of what happened – but I like how you revert to the typical Turkish pattern of implying blame for the victims (of Turkish aggression)

You keep on talking about "Turkish patterns" that I come up with, which is ok for you to do so. However, please also recall that these patterns I presented in this forum are also the patterns existing in the cases of your European friends, such as the case for the Africans, Turks, Arabs, Asians, Native Americans, Native Australians, and so on. However, you want to name such approach as the "Turkish Pattern" and this wording clearly reflects the crippled mindset of people like yourself, and I believe this is sort of psychological problem related to the European mindset (social cache). Respectfully, I believe that such remark implying some "Turkish Pattern" is a racist one and it is very offensive.

Really now – I don’t buy this. You will need to prove that Ottomans adopted the same policies of breaking up Muslim communities and forces Muslims off of their lands as they did to the Christians because I am not buying this erroneous claim for a second

This is not a market place for choosing to buy things as you wish. Remember, this is the Armenian Genocide Forum. If you think that you had experienced difficulties in the past, then you should also listen ot the people who might bear similar approaches. However, your interpretation of muslim losses is no different than the European friend of yours, and it is not very humanist.

Yes – much as Ottoman Armenians fought on the Ottoman side in this as well as in Balkan and other wars…your point?

Think about it. My point is my point and your point is yours. However, I am not the one who is denying the Armenian contribution or the number of Armenian people who fought for the Ottomans. Thus, I am not the one who denying the killings or the crimes of the CUP. I dont call these event as "genocide" and this perception is rather based upon some historical facts.

If the Armenian Genocide is a genocide, so is the earlier ones executed against the Muslim Ottomans. If those are not the genocides, then so isnt the Armenian one. If the Armenian Genocide is recognized by some countries, then same should be applicable for the ones against the Ottoman Muslims.

I’ve addressed this previously. I think if you seriously believe this claim (I’ll allow youto think about it and recant) – you have serious problems – you are justifying great crimes and brutalities as “non-extreme” – should we likewise let the Nazis off the hook – they were terrible times, brutal times – Nazis killers were just a reflection of their time – we shouldn’t judge them by our current sensibilities….

You think you address issues. Unfortunately you dont. You are only working on the bone given to you by your European friends. You think that CUP policies were more extreme than the Belgian ones which resulted death for some 10 million people? What about the Ukranian Faminie? What about Native American Exterminations? What about Vietnam? What about Africa? NAre those less extremes, anwer me. are those less extreme than the CUP policies?

Possibility? Etc – I will not dignify this shameful and cowardly sidestep position with an answer – you are despicable. BTW extermination “death” camps are well established and described by separate co-oaborated sources.

Send me those resources then. I will be happy to read them.

What we know that many people died on their trip to Syria, but many also got rescued by the French and British. Thus, we also know that many got hidden somewhere, or went to east to Iran, or north to the Russia whilst some others were scattered all across the Middle East.

You think so eh? I will not go through the litany of racist charges that were made against the Armenians and the whole forming of death squads (Special Organization) on part of CUP – for purposes of exterminating Armenians. And I dispute your contention that any nation committed even remotely similar level of organized massacre and total extermination as was deliberately and criminally enacted by Ottomans – not until Nazi-Germans in 1940s…however we should forgive them as they were only slaughtering perceived enemies – eh – and they never called it a Holocaust until afterwards – so it must not have happened I guess eh?

OK, that is a theory that some come up with empowered with an unofficial statement by Hitler. However, this is not something that can be proven since simlar events on this planet occurred before and after 1915. So, their relevance to the case is an area for research, but not a tool for confirmation of your points, but perhaps your "guess eh"?

Ottomans entered the war of their own volition and due to own efforts – they were not attacked by others, Etente powers attempted to sway Ottomans to join them or at least stay our of war. The rest is moot. If you enter a war and make enemies of others then by definition they are your enemy – though because you made it so. I suppose by your reasoning the Jews of Europe/Germany were also proper enemies of Germany – I’m sure they – like the Armenians wished to be free of their wartime nightmare – and by your logic I guess it was justified that Ottomans & Germans) attempted to slaughter every last one – including women and children and enacted a plan to do such – all of this was justified and should not be criticized and the survivors and their decedents should just accept it – legitimate wartime casualties and we should just eat xxxx and die.

You can choose to ignore the European schemes for the Ottomans, and you could say that it was the Ottomans decision to enter the war. However, this approach does not terminate the schemes against the Ottomans.

So you blame the allies – and TurQ is applauding this (of course) – I guess we should blame Britain, France and America for the Holocaust then – SAME LOGIC - EXACTLY

Yes, I do blame the allies and Russians for manipulating the poor Armenians against the Ottomans when they were not capable of helping them.

I provoke you to revolt and when someone starts killing you, I dont get involved. Sorry, ethically speaking, this is worse than the Ottoman crimes since it involves pathetic notions such as, "everyone is disposable".

It was just as organized – more so – if one considers the efficiency (time) to kill/destroy. And otherwise what you believe – based on your other gross inaccuracies – really has little bearing on reality/the truth. Evidence clearly proves CUP intentions of utter annihilation of the Armenians as a people.


Funny that now you will claim – we lost so many people to others so we won’t admit what we did ourselves. Armenians have not, will not and will not ever forget. Perhaps the Russians will decline to recognize that they killed some Turks because of course Ghengis overran them in earlier times and so on and so forth…perhaps Americans and Europeans should deny slavery and the crimes of such because they were invaded by Turks in the 1600s and it gave them a bad temper. Yeah.

Both of those issues are not divisible, and when you see it that way, then half of the problem will be resolved.

[1.5 million]

The Turkish "pattern" I refered to was one of denying and evasion - and you fit this to a "T" (literally and figuratively).

The name of this forum is the Armenian Genocide forum - put together a Circassian Genocide forum and I will be happy to participate. Meanwhile you are here denying the very real, known and extremely supported Armenian Genocide. The existance of other crimes in other places does not lessen the crimes commited by Ottoman Turks against Anatolian Armenians.

Again you and other Turks keep talking about "Armenian Revolts" - well up yours. You know vry little about these "revolts" aparently - as they were locals defending themselves from direct deprivations. By your logic you would approve of the Holocaust as a reaction to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Regardless of other cimes commmited by other nations/powers in other times and places - it is very clear that there have only ben very few events in history - particulalry modern history - that have wiped out a nation in such short of time and where such was done by a nation gaainst its own citizens with very little real pre-text. What you are doing here is evasion of the issue - pure and simple. Its not that you disagree with me its that you deny very real and known and very tragic history and continue to make excuses - why - (I am not doing the same for European crimes and such - however this is an Armenain Genocide forum buddy) - the reason is your racism - so don't you dare try to pin that lable on me you f in fascist criminal protector!

[ScythianVizier]

The Turkish "pattern" I refered to was one of denying and evasion - and you fit this to a "T" (literally and figuratively).

The name of this forum is the Armenian Genocide forum - put together a Circassian Genocide forum and I will be happy to participate. Meanwhile you are here denying the very real, known and extremely supported Armenian Genocide. The existance of other crimes in other places does not lessen the crimes commited by Ottoman Turks against Anatolian Armenians.

Again you and other Turks keep talking about "Armenian Revolts" - well up yours. You know vry little about these "revolts" aparently - as they were locals defending themselves from direct deprivations. By your logic you would approve of the Holocaust as a reaction to the Warsaw Ghetto uprising.

Regardless of other cimes commmited by other nations/powers in other times and places - it is very clear that there have only ben very few events in history - particulalry modern history - that have wiped out a nation in such short of time and where such was done by a nation gaainst its own citizens with very little real pre-text. What you are doing here is evasion of the issue - pure and simple. Its not that you disagree with me its that you deny very real and known and very tragic history and continue to make excuses - why - (I am not doing the same for European crimes and such - however this is an Armenain Genocide forum buddy) - the reason is your racism - so don't you dare try to pin that lable on me you f in fascist criminal protector!

Thank you for naming me a "denier", "a person with Turkish patterns", "f**king fascist protector", "racist", and so on. I understand that you like to use coarse language to express your feelings, and that is no problem. So, feel free to use the words as you wish, this only proves how offended you feel deep inside.

Nevertheless, I dont think that there are too many Circassians left to continue with such activities like yours, as you know that the demographic changes inflicted by the Russians and their allies in the Caucasus placed severe impact on our numbers. So, we are not some seven million people eventhough our population numbers were higher than the Armenians back in 1850s.

At this point, I dont see any benefit in seeking answers as whether there were Armenian revolts or not. Similarly, it would be void to ask why Stalin's armies stopped after the revolts in Warshaw. Perhaps they felt exhausted, perhaps they followed an old Russian tradition involving to wait for the enemy to finish with the dirty tasks that the Russians do not prefer to do it on their own. Either way, I dont believe that it has any importance to the main plot of this discussion.

In conclusion, I must state that I now understand that all you want to us to do is to accept the crimes of the Ottoman Turks rather than questioning them one by one. Respectfully, I must admit you have been really helpful in terms of letting me know the "bare truth about the Ottoman Turks". So, thank you very much once again.

Best regards and goodbye.

[Gavur]

Links not working!