A Rebuttal of Injust McFarty's "Essay", the Revisionist's Bible

[imported_Hellektor]

A Rebuttal of Injust McFarty's "Essay", the Revisionist's Bible 11

The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.

American Ambassador lies, Johannes Lepsius lies, all missionaries lie, Armin Wegner lies, Toynbee and Bryce lie, not to speak of Armenian survivors and Armenian Genocide experts. Only Injust McFarty, who personally knows the vilest monsters who ever lived, like Abdulhamid, Talat and Hitler, NEVER lies.
How about the Persian writer, Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh who witnessed the plight of the Armenians, traveling from Berlin to Baghdad in spring of 1915, crossing from Istanbul to Aleppo and Baghdad, then back to Berlin. He noted down what he saw in "My Personal Observations in World War One". He is neither a Christian, nor a Jew nor a Westerner:

"We took a coach from Baghdad and Aleppo towards Istanbul. We saw many groups of Armenians from the very beginning of our journey, in unbelievable condition, and the armed Turkish gendarmes on horseback were driving them to their deaths. At first we were shocked, but we gradually became so used to it that we did not look at them anymore. It wasn't a sight to look at, indeed. Hundreds of weak and distressed Armenian men, women and children were being forced to walk forward by lashes and blows of rifle butts.
There were no Young men among the people, because all the young men were sent to the battle fronts or they were killed lest they'd join the Russian army. Armenian girls had shaved their heads and were completely bald to avoid being molested by Arab and Turkish men. Two or three gendarmes on horseback drove these groups forward by the whip like cattle.
If one of the captives fell behind as a result of exhaustion, weakness or nature's call, they would remain behind forever and the groans and pleadings of their relatives were useless. Therefore, here and there we saw Armenian men and women lying on the road side who were either dead, moribund or in near death agony.
Later we heard that several local young men, to quench their lustful desires, had not spared the honor of dead or dying Armenian girls.
Our route was along the western bank of Euphrates, and not a day would pass without us seeing the corpses floating on the river. One night, we stopped at a relatively habitable place and we bought a lamb from the residents and slaughtered and grilled it. We disemboweled the lamb and suddenly we saw a group of Armenians, whom the gendarmes had brought nearby, threw themselves on the green soup-like liquid waste from the lamb and devoured it. It was a sight I haven't forgotten to this day.
Yet another day we lodged in a place nearby a caravan from these Armenians under Ottoman police control. An Armenian woman with death like appearance came to me and said in French: "For God's sake, my children are dying of hunger. Take these two diamonds and give me some food instead."
Believe me, I didn't take the diamonds and I gave her some food, even though we were becoming short of food and we still had several days before arriving in Aleppo.
We arrived in Aleppo and lodged in a big hotel owned by an Armenian, called The Prince Hotel. He came to us in panic and said: "Jamal Pasha has arrived in Aleppo and is staying in this hotel. I fear he will arrest and kill me and he'll confiscate the hotel .
He entreated us to go to Jamal Pasha, who had become famous for his cruelty, and mediate. He said: "you are honorable people and your mediation might be effective". However, it remained ineffective, and after hours we heard that the Armenian man was arrested and he was taken to Beirut or somewhere that had become known as a huge slaughterhouse.
To cut it short, those were strange times and it has turned into a horrifying nightmare for me. It haunts me now and again, and it fills my entire being with pain and sorrow.

Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh, 25 th of Khordad, 1350 (15th of June, 1971), Geneva.

[imported_Hellektor]

A Rebuttal of Injust McFarty's "Essay", the Revisionist's Bible 12

The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth.

Whose propaganda muzzle may the "honest" scholar be, when he withholds all facts? The lazy bastard calls the Bryce Report "British Propaganda" and we have to dismiss it entirely. The Dashnak Party is a thorn in his eyes and a trunk in his mouth which happens to be between his butt cheeks. How many books by the great leaders of the Dashnak Party has the "all facts scrutinizing truth seeker" read to smear this great organization with the slime pouring out of every orifice of his putrid cadaver?

The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered.

Why does he omit the thousands of video taped or written survivor accounts that prove the Crime beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt?
Which Ottoman documents is he referring to? Doesn't he know access to the supposed "open" Ottoman archives is not as easy as they claim? To phrase it in his own unworthy style:

Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these documents. Can anyone believe that the Turkish government would actually publish documents that would prove their guilt?
The Turkish leaders are practical politicians. Like all politicians, they undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Turkish politicians are idiots.

Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.

The basic treachery this criminal is committing is to pin the entirety of Ottoman war casualties on Armenians. He doesn't tell us how on earth, when all the men fit for battle had been recruited and executed, and given the number of the rebels didn't exceed several thousands, how on earth the women, children and elderly who were driven to the desert to roast could have inflicted millions of casualties on the Muslims. If they could, then how on earth, for the sake of his non-existing honor, did these armed to their teeth women, children and elderly not rebel and walked to their painful death in Der el Zor?

Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared.


Only he and those of the sort have studied this question for years! Give me a break.

[imported_Hellektor]

A Rebuttal of Injust McFarty's "Essay", the Revisionist's Bible 13

For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan. The last sentence is crippled. H.

Wonder why an objective scholar calls Constantinople, Angora or Smyrna by their newer Turkish names and shuns to call Yerevan by its Armenian name. He could also call it Erebouni if he wanted to use the old name or Iravan, its Persian name. But no, he must always use the Turkish name, because the Pan-Turanist "historian" doesn't want to see the existence of an Armenia, even if it's one tenth of its original size.
The basest of all liars omits the Sardarabad, Bash Abaran and Karakilissa wars, where the Turks were defeated and shamelessly claims the Turks were so kind, after having wiped the Armenians off the face of their homeland, they spared them in Yerevan.

Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians.

The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres.

Who elected the Ottoman sultans? Who elected Kemal. Is there a grain of integrity in the whole putrefied existence of this creature.

Part III: A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister (irrelevant, misleading garbage. He doesn't mention WHICH PRESIDENT and WHEN. H.) Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? (Is the junior falsifier begging for money? H.) Applying the principles of history (give us a break. H.), we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.

A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-I Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician:

Recent? For you, novice ignoramus, maybe.

It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic (misleading, inapplicable conclusion. H.) Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died.(wtf??? H.) Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide. (Some reasoning, some English. Man, pathetic are those who put their fate in the claws of this moron. H.)

"Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one"... You said the poor Ottoman government was falling apart and could not control the "empire"???

A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began.

Whether an unspecified German scholar has a theory that may or may not "seem like a reasonable explanation", doesn't mean that one can refute the fact of the Armenian Genocide by "proving" him wrong. If this is the method of "applying historical principles", then the term needs to be redefined.

Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.

Same "methods" babble again... The excrement this ordure, locked in his filthy closed dump, is throwing at Armenians has hit the fan and his entire corpse reeks of that perfume.
The faded analogy shows that the literary aspirations of the professor wouldn't bring him much further in that field either. Get a life, lowlife scum.

Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed.

Really!

Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.

Jumping from one subject to an unrelated subject is a proof of the "probity" and "veracity" of the impostor. What on earth has the appointment of the SON of the great and upright professor Richard Hovanissian, whose excrement is worthier than the fake scholar, as foreign minister in Ter Petrossian's (disliked and discredited by most Armenians) government to do with the anti Armenian denial campaign launched by dubious characters like himself?

The only question is the truth. (No kidding! H.)

Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?

Translated: Give me money, I'm a poor (read unscrupulous) scholar "risking" my miserable life, threatened by those bad Armenians.

I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.

The ordeal faced by the Armenians for nine centuries, culminating in the Genocide of 1915 would make every self-respecting human being think twice before spewing such stinking rubbish.

To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.

Politicized? Nationalist? Scholar? You are none of them in your wildest dreams.

When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.

Then where are the indigenous inhabitants of Armenia? They evaporated just like that...

[imported_Hellektor]

A Rebuttal of Injust McFarty's "Essay", the Revisionist's Bible 14

In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it.

The recognition or denial of the Armenian Genocide doesn't change the fact that it happened. What does the "scholar" know of the horrors in Turkey?

The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.

If it's meaningless then why all the fuss?

Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.

The Turks brought civilization, culture, art and science to the backward world.

What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals.

Then why do they deny now?

Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict.

One who doesn't have any principles is boasting on and on that he's able to apply "the principles of history".

The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide.

Casualties of war are not considered victims of genocide. Millions of Germans died in the WWII. More than twenty five million Russians died as well. No one sees them as victims if genocide, however tragic the loss may be. Wiping a country from its inhabitants of thousands of years in order to realize a sick dream of "uniting" members of the same species of savages is a crime against humanity. This was the case of the Armenians, and there is no "explainable, understandable history" that could justify it. IT WAS GENOCIDE.

Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide.

The fake scholar who has never bothered to consult one real and valid history book or historical document out of the mountain of evidence, makes an insincere effort to exonerate the tyrannical Ottoman regime from the most barbaric crime in the history of humanity. Why? Only he knows it. The plan was murderous, IT WAS GENOCIDE.

The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide.

Speaking of mercy in relation to a barbaric species, who since the ill day they set their cloven hoofs in Armenia, have brought nothing but pain and disaster, is so absurdly grotesque, "For children were ravished from the embraces of their mothers and mercilessly hurled against rocks" (From Aristakes Lastivertsi's history)
The survivors suffered more than those who died, thus, they were also victims of the Genocide. Seeing their loved ones raped and slaughtered in front of their eyes and carrying the pain to their graves without seeing justice done is worse than dying. Since an entire nation was thrown out of their homeland for thousands of years, IT WAS GENOCIDE.

The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.

The cunning wolves did not generally kill the Armenians in those cities because of the presence of foreigners. Though, the intellectuals, the poets, politicians, musicians, writers, etc., i.e. the head of the Armenian nation, were arrested in Constantinople and carried to remote places and brutally mutilated. To cut off a nations head, the recruiting and subsequent execution of the men capable of fighting, before slaughtering the women, children and the elderly or walking them to the desert to roast, confirms the diabolical nature of the meticulously planned extermination policy. IT WAS GENOCIDE.

Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.

You ignorant cowboy, what do you know of the Armenian history?

Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?

Once again: I demand the sham scholar to produce ONE map or document from before the Armenian Genocide that calls Armenia "Eastern Anatolia". Otherwise he has to shut the hell up and eat defecation and die.

[imported_Hellektor]

A Rebuttal of Injust McFarty's "Essay", the Revisionist's Bible 15

Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.

"What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide?" ...Search and you may someday come to your senses and stop this campaign of slander against a nation who has had more that their share of tragedy.

I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly.

The usual "Armenian archives should be opened" crap, when they have been open for years... Typical applying of historical principles, McFarty style.

Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.

Honor... "This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain". This is what the "honorable" rascal has been doing so far.

The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.

"I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone". Who the hell are YOU?
"I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow..." You bet your sorry behind!
"Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong." Then why have you been lying the whole time?
"I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors."
This is what their ancestors have been doing ever since they set hoof west of the Caspian Sea:

From Aristakes Lastivertsi's History, who was there about thousand years ago and saw it with his own eyes

In the same year, the gate of Heaven's wrath opened upon our land. Numerous troops moved forth from T'urk'astan...
...pounced upon the Christians as insatiably hungry wolves devour their food...
...as far as the great estate called Vagharshawan they demolished and polluted twenty-four districts with sword, fire, and captive-taking. This narration deserves many piteous laments and tears.
They sped like lions, and like lion cubs, they mercilessly threw the corpses of many people to the carnivorous beasts.
Now although there was plenty of prey for them everywhere, for the country before them was like a lush garden full of fruit...
...many who had gone up to a cave were crushed to death by huge rocks [rolled on them], and their corpses tumbled down upon each other resembling heaps of wood-shavings...
Because of the severe crisis, many pregnant women aborted their babies...
Others who were terribly wounded, and could not make sounds, were breathing violently. Others whose throats had been slit but were still alive were emitting gurgling sounds in pain. Yet others, who had been badly wounded, were scraping the ground with their feet and clawing at it with their fingernails...
...they took the children from their parents' embrace, and threw them to the ground, and [the Saljuqs'] place of encampment was swarming with them. Some [of the children] had died when they fell against rocks. The sides of some of them had torn open and their intestines poured out onto the ground...
Mercilessly setting fire to the homes and churches wherein refugees had fled, [the Saljuqs] burned them down, considering this a benevolent act...

Regarding How Terribly the City Called Kars Was Struck:
...the people were celebrating the mass of the day, [singing] with joyous voices, the troops of the infidels unexpectedly attacked....
Well-respected and honorable merchants were wickedly slain, youths and athletes/wrestlers lay stabbed to death in the streets, and the blood-spattered heads of the elderly lay fallen near them. By such deeds was the city stripped of its population.

Only the one who managed to enter the stronghold located above the city saved his life. The entire remainder of the day, [the Saljuqs] rummaged through the houses, then set the city on fire. Taking their captives and the city's plunder, they went to their own land...
Swords in hand they came upon some, fell upon them like beasts, pierced their hearts and killed them instantly.
As for the stout and corpulent, they were made to go down on their knees, and their hands were secured down by stakes. Then the skin together with the nails was pulled up on both sides over the forearm and shoulder as far as the tips of the second hand, forcibly removed, and [the Saljuqs] fashioned bowstrings out of them...

[the Saljuqs] totally stripped and pillaged whatever we had, even though we had done nothing to them...

They took the young boys and other little children and used them as targets, wickedly piercing and killing them with lances and arrows. Nor did any feelings of pity find their way into their natures. I need not mention the children who were torn from their parents' embrace: the boys were hurled against rocks, while the attractive women and girls who had been reared in comfort were disgraced...
One could see there the grief and calamity of every age of humankind. For children were ravished from the embraces of their mothers and mercilessly hurled against rocks, while the mothers drenched them with tears and blood. Father and son were slain by the same sword. The elderly, the young, priests and deacons also died by the same sword. The city became filled from one end to the other with bodies of the slain, and [the bodies of the slain] became a road...
Resembling the viper, their rage did not let up; resembling the fire, their greed had no bounds. For whatever they proposed regarding us was evil...

Those HONORABLE Turks... H.

Professor (in Inefficient and Stinking Garbage Production and Wasteful Management of Sucking Up to the Turk. H.) Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. (Poor students... H.)

[imported_Strabo]

By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia,"

According to Turkish "Democratic thinking", a 17% population qualifies for "political equality" with 30% of Government posts and veto powers among other things. Just like they demanded on Cyprus back in 1959/1960 !

[Boonierat]

Hellektor,

I'm still reading this, and I must thank you for taking the time to write this, I'm enjoying it quite a lot.

[bell-the-cat]

TL;DR.
(That, and because it was written by Hellektor).