Tweet
Was the Genocide a direct attempt to annihilate the Armenians, or was it an attmept to create a pure MUSLIM state/empire? Do not FORGET--ARMENIA WAS THE FIRST CHRISTIAN NATION!!
-
-
It was both.
The fact that Armenia was the first christian nation only made it easier to incite fanatics to kill Armenians.
Although it is called the Armenian Genocide, it was not solely directed at Armenians, Greeks, Chaldeans, Assyrians, and othe Christians got targetted for Genocide as well.
The Jews may very well have also been targetted had it not been for the threats of the German and Austrian Embassies (Extremely Ironic, knowing that Germany and Austria bear the bulk of the responsibility for the Holocaust) intervening on their behalf. -
It was a dircet attempt to annihilate the Armenians (who were the largest non-muslim minority in the Ottoman Empire, and the indigenous people of Anatolia) in order to create a Turkic-Muslim Empire aka (Pan-Turanic, or Pan-Turkic Empire).Originally posted by Soorp Asdvadz
It was an "Ethnic Genocide" not a religous one, but Islam was used as a tool to provoke Turks and Kurds against Armenians.. Calling the Armenians "Gavur" (infidel) and making the regular people think that they are doing a "favour" to Islam by killing the (Gavur Armenians) was the way to manipulate Muslim masses..
But, in fact the "Committee of Union and Progress"(Ittihad ve Terrike) aka "The Young Turks", couldn't care less about Islam! And almost all Muslim leaders of the world back then denounced the Genocide against Armenians, calling the Turkish authorities barbaric infidels.Comment
-
Originally posted by Soorp Asdvadz
Yes don’t you dare forget "the Jews" every time you think, you talk, you breathe, you pray, you eat, and even when you’re screwing you should always remember "the Jews" , the chosen people of God.
Comment
-
Originally posted by maral_m79
That just is not true about it being just another ethnic genocide.
Islam was involved, the idea was too make Turkey purely Muslim.
If it was about purely Turkish why did the Arabs and Kurds get away without being targetted? Arabs and Kurds could not possibly be less Turkish.
If it was just Turks killing Armenians why did the Turks also kill the Greeks, the Chaldeans, the Assyrians, the Melkites, Catholics and other christians who happened to be unfortunate enough to be born in Turkey?
The words that got shouted at the victims during the killings where always Allahu Akbar.
That is not to say that Islam mandates genocide, it does no such thing, but saying Islam was not involved in the Genocide just isn't true, it was a major factor in deciding who to kill, and in carrying it out.
Reincarnated Am
I only mentioned the Jews here because the fact that the Turks wanted to kill them as well but where prevented from doing so by their allies as proof that the Turks wanted a 100% Muslim State, if you do not believe me then you can check the archives of the German and Austrian Embassies for yourself, I happen to have done massive research on this and know what I am talking about.
I urge anyone who doubts what I said to just check the archives of the German or Austrian Embassies for confirmation.Comment
-
By the way, the stories that are told to me by my father and family members is that the Turks, before killing most of my granfather's family, gave them the option, "Reject Jesus, turn away from Christianity, become Moslem or die!"Comment
-
Originally posted by SenseiWhy would the jews be in danger when they were instigators?
That was the renegade Hebrew (donmeh) of Salonika, Talaat, the principal organizer of the massacres and deportations," Rafael De Nogales. Four Years Beneath the Crescent. p.26.
---------------------
Zionists, Turkey and Armenians: a story of taboos, distorted truth and unholy alliances
The history of the Armenian genocide committed by the Turks (1894-1922) is taboo in official Israeli discourse.
Evidence of this taboo is that in 1982 at the end of an international conference held in Tel Aviv on the theme of “collective genocide,” Israeli representatives withdrew from the conference as they disapproved of discussing the Armenian genocide.
This shows the limits of Zionist thought and the extent to which the Israeli government will go to satisfy the Jewish lobby and its strategic ally, Turkey.
However, other factors highlight the defensive nature of Israeli policy and the denial practised by the Israeli administration toward the Armenian genocide.
After the Cold War, Armenians, ignored by Turkish and Jewish politicians, made common cause with Arab and Iranian interests.
The Karabach conflict in South Caucasia between Armenia and Azerbaijan became an Azeri-Israeli issue.
However, the Jewish community refuses any comparison between the Holocaust and other genocides, and denies the existence of the Armenian genocide.
The Jewish-Turkish historic alliance is based on three main historical factors:
l The weight of Jewish moral debts toward the Ottomans.
Since 1461, after the fall of Andalusia, the Ottoman Empire introduced a policy of admission reserved for foreigners living in its territory. Jews fleeing Andalusia were absorbed into the Ottoman Empire and officially recognized under the Millet system.
Other peoples were organized under the same system. The Millet system separated subjects into ethnic and religious groups, which enjoyed religious freedom and a certain amount of autonomy. The Armenians were part of this system.
The Ottoman Jews were pioneers in the establishment of the Zionist entity in Palestine. They were the mediators between Zionism and the Ottoman Empire until the Balfour Declaration was signed in 1917.
Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism, was born in the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. Herzl’s time in France and the lessons he drew from the Dreyfus affair led him to propose a national territorial solution to the Jewish issue.
In 1897, the World Zionist Organization was created at a congress in Basel, Switzerland, to represent the national aspirations of the Jews.
l The roots of Zionist denial toward the Armenian cause date back to Article 61 of the 1878 Berlin Treaty. In Article 61, the Armenian issue was raised to international level (improving the situation of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia).
It is true that international, regional and local powers supported reforms demanded by the Armenians. However, the apparent success of the internationalization of the Armenian cause had negative repercussions. It generated a feeling of malevolence and jealousy from other groups, mainly the Jews.
The Jews insisted on reforms identical to those of Armenians. Jewish hostility toward the Armenians appeared between 1894 and 1896 during the Hamidiam Massacres when the Jews of Istanbul and other provinces betrayed Armenian rebels and fugitives. Herzl also dealt with Sultan Abdel-Hamid. Jewish colonization of Palestine was proposed in exchange for support against Armenian national aspirations. The Sultan refused to let foreign Jews colonize Palestine, but permitted Ottoman Jews to do so.
l It was not until the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Balfour Declaration of 1917 that Zionist political achievements started taking shape. Palestine was recognized as a “national home” for the Jews.
Later, the Jewish-Turkish alliance was strengthened when Mustafa Kemal Ataturk came to power in Turkey.
The close relationship between the Jews and the Turks was unaffected by the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize the state of Israel after it was declared in 1948, and the Arab-Armenian-Iranian axis was formed to confront the Turkish-Zionist axis.
The Turkish-Zionist partnership seeks the erosion of Arab nationalism, the denial of the Armenian cause and the weakening of Iranian zeal.
In February 2002, Rebecca Cohen, an Israeli diplomat, said that “the Armenian people have been the victims of a terrible tragedy, not a collective genocide.” Such words distort the truth and were refuted by the Armenians, who reminded the Israelis that Armenians gave refuge to thousands of Jews who fled Nazi Germany.
After the foundation of the Zionist state and the Turkish-Jewish alliance, the Armenian cause was used to the advantage of Zionists.
“Turkification” is an ideology that mobilizes hatred against others (Arabs, Armenians) that stand in the way of their expansionist projects.
The Zionist-Turkish alliance, embodied in military, economic, strategic and financial ties, bears proof of the two countries’ shared objectives. This alliance can only exist in conditions that are perceived as unjust by other groups, like the Palestinians, the innocent victims of this alliance.
Hagop Kassardjian is a Beirut MP and a member of Prime Minister Rafik Hariri’s parliamentary Beirut Decision Bloc. He wrote this commentary for The Daily Star
---
The Young Turks: Who Were They?
During the last quarter of the 19th century, the Near East Question passed into its critical phase. As a result of the Russo-Turkish war of 1877-78, the Ottoman Empire lost extensive territory mainly in the Balkans where the "autonomous" states of Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Herzegovina passed into the de facto administrative sphere of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Thessaly and the prefecture of Artas were ceded to Greece, and in Asia, Russia annexed the territories of Kars and Ardachan in Turkish Armenia. In Africa, the English claimed Egypt, and the French Tunisia, while the Italians did not bother to conceal their territorial ambitions toward Tripoli. Meanwhile, the dissident movements in Crete, Armenia, and Macedonia were beginning to reach worrisome levels for the Turkish Sultanate.
One of the first real threats to the Ottoman Throne was a hard-core, conspiratorial group that formed in 1889 among the students of the Military Medical School in Constantinople. The dissatisfaction, though, was widespread throughout the entire military, and had to do with what might be considered today to be union demands: low wages that were paid sporadically and after months of waiting, a promotion system that was torturously slow and not based on merit but on connections, and a cynical disappointment engendered by the promised but never actualized modernization of the military. The main motivating factor in the ever-widening discontent, however, was an agony and concern over the independence of the Turkish State and how best to ensure its continuance. Added to this, and of equal concern, was the problem having to do with the welfare and perpetuation of the Muslim populations living among the many other ethnicities within the Empire.
The conspiratorial leadership, who came to be known as the Young Turks, expressed their dissatisfaction with the status quo, throwing all of the blame on the Sultan, Abdul Hamit, who they proclaimed to be too dictatorial. They demanded his exile -- though not the abolishment of the Sultanate -- together with the restoration of the constitution of 1876.
Union and Progress
The Young Turk movement -- after many mishaps and near dissolution -- finally achieved it first goal. In early July of 1908, led by the officer-members of the Committee of Union and Progress (Itihàt vè Terakì), the Turkish troops stationed in Macedonia refused to obey orders coming from Constantinople. The Young Turks then sent a telegraphed ultimatum to the Sultan from Serres on the 21st of July. They demanded the immediate restoration and implementation of the constitution, and threatened him with dethronement should he fail to comply. On the 24th of July, Abdul Hamit announced that the constitution had been restored and was in full force and effect.
The subsequent mid-20th century overthrow of King Farouk in Egypt by the Nasserite revolutionaries bears some striking similarities to the Young Turk movement. There are, however, some very striking differences as well. Some of these are: 1) the diverse ethnic background of the conspirators; 2) the significant and crucial role played by the allied movement of fellow-conspirators known as the Donmè (Jews who had converted [?] to Islam); and, 3) the enthusiastic way in which the conspiracy was embraced by Masonic elements.
As far as the multiethnic composition of the conspirators is concerned, one need only read their names to verify their diverse background: Tserkès (Circassion ), Mehmet Ali, Xersekli (Herzogovinians), Ali Roushdi, Kosovali (Kosovars) and others. In many cases, the ethnic origin of the conspirator was not evident from the name: Ibrahim Temo was an Albanian, as was Ismail Kemal. Murat Bey Dagestanos and Achmet Riza had an Arkhazian father and an Austrian mother. One of the theoreticians of the movement was Ziyia Ngiokali, a Kurd, while one of the major planners of tactics and theory was a Jew from Serres who went by the name of Tekìn Alì (real name, Moshe Cohen).
The telegraph-office clerk who became one of the ruling troika of post-revolutionary Turkey, Talaàt Pasha, was Bosnian, Pomack, or Gypsy; the point being that he was not a Turk. We should also make note of the fact that the Committee of Union and Progress admitted many members from areas outside of the Ottoman Empire, and that some of these even served on its Central Committee.
Masonic elements
The strong connection between the Itihàts (conspirators) and Masonry is a well-documented fact. The leftist Turkish writer, Kamouran Mberik Xartboutlou, in his book, The Turkish Impasse ( from the Greek translation of the French publication of 1974. p.24), wrote: "Those who desired entry into the inner circle of that secret organization [the Itihàt], had to be a Mason, and had to have the backing of a large segment of the commercial class." The true nature of the relationship between the Young Turks and the Masonic lodges of Thessaloniki has been commented upon by many researchers and writers. In her well-known and extensively documented book, Secret Societies and Subversive Movements (London. 1928, p. 284), author and historian Nesta Webster writes that "The Young Turk movement began in the Masonic lodges of Thessaloniki under the direct supervision of the Grand Orient Lodge of Italy, which later shared in the success of Mustapha Kemal."
Of course, the precise nature of this relationship is clouded in mystery, but enough facts exist allowing for more than just informed conjecture based on circumstantial evidence. An example of the Itihàt-Masonic connection is the interview that Young Turk, Refik Bey, gave to the Paris newspaper Le Temps, on the 20th of August 1908: "It's true that we receive support from Freemasonry and especially from Italian Masonry. The two Italian lodges [of Thessaloniki] -- Macedonia Risorta and Labor et Lux -- have provided invaluable services and have been a refuge for us. We meet there as fellow Masons, because it is a fact that many of us are Masons, but more importantly we meet so that we can better organize ourselves."
The Jewish Component
The Donmè ("convert" in Turkish), was a Hebrew heresy whose followers converted [?] to Islam in the 18th century. They were most heavily concentrated in Thessaloniki. According to the Great Hellenic Encyclopedia [Megali Elliniki Enkiklopethia]: "It is generally accepted that the Donmè secretly continue to adhere to the Hebrew religion and don't allow their kind to intermarry with the Muslims."
The disproportionate power and influence (in light of their number) that the Donmè had on both the Ottoman Empire and on the Young Turk movement has been the subject of a great deal of commentary by many observers and researchers. The eminent British historian, R. Seton Watson, in his book, The Rise of Nationality in the Balkans. London, 1917 (H Gennisi tou Ethnikismou sta Valkania), wrote the following: "The real brains behind the [Itihàt] movement were Jews or Islamic-Jews. The wealthy Donmè and Jews of Thessaloniki supported [the Young Turks] economically, and their fellow Jewish capitalists in Vienna and Berlin -- as well as in Budapest and possibly Paris and London -- supported them financially as well.
In the January 23rd, 1914, issue of the Czarist Police [Okrana] Ledger (Number 16609), directed to the Ministry of the Exterior in Saint Petersburg, we read: "A pan-Islamic convention of Itihàts and Jews was held in the Nouri Osman lodge in Constantinople. It was attended by approximately 700 prominent Itihàts and Jews, including "Minister" Talaàt Bey, Bentri Bey, Mbekri Bey, and (Donmè) Javit Bey. Among the many Jews in attendance, two of the most prominent were the Head of the Security Service, Samouel Effendi, and the Vice-Administrator of the Police, Abraham Bey."
Donmè and Constantine
The numerous Donmè in positions of authority within the machinery of the Itihàt government, as well as on the powerful Central Committee, strengthens the conviction that their influence was widespread and vital to the cause. Ignoring the names mentioned in the Czarist Police Ledger, and even ignoring such Jews as the fanatical Pan-Turkic [Marxist revolutionary and poet, Hikmet] Nazim, or even the many casual allusions [as if it were common knowledge at the time] to the Jewish descent of that most dedicated believer in the Young Turk movement, Mustapha Kemal "Atatürk," one still finds oneself wondering by what authority and under whose auspices was such an obscure Jewish Donmè from Thessaloniki, by the name of Emmanouel Karasso, able to become a member of the three-man committee that announced his dethronement to Sultan Abdul Hamit after the counter-coup of April 1909?
Compelling, too, is the widely-referenced document which states that Constantine, the King of Greece at the time, characterized the entire Young Turk movement as composed of "Israelites." According to the facts presented in her book, Glory and Partisanship, the Greek professor of the University of Vienna, Polychroni Enepekithi, contends that Constantine made that characterization while complaining to the German Ambassador in Athens about the outrages committed by Young Turks against Hellenes living in the Ottoman Empire.
These references to the relationship between the Donmè, the Masons, and the Young Turks has not been prompted by anti-Semitism or Masonophobia. Rather, we are attempting to shed some light on what to us seems like a puzzling paradox in this revolutionary movement, which is: Why it is that this non-Turkish leadership struggled so hard under the banner of justice for the Turkish people? Also, why is it that others, having nothing to do with Sunnite Islam [the form of Islam practiced in Turkey] struggled equally hard under the banner of justice for Islam? The only answer to this paradox demands that we consider that there may have been another reason behind their fervid struggle, and that this unstated cause is what bound these "ideologues" together.
Source Nemesis. by Ioasif Kassesian. September 2001. pp. 64-66.Translated by staff. Emphasis added.
http://web.archive.org/web/200404041..._were_they.htm
There was not a single word of truth in that, you sir are just an anti-semite, and I am for one embarrassed that you are a christian. You should go back to Tsarist Russia, or Nazi Germany where you belong, it is not a surprise that you needed an Arab Source to confirm your anti-semitism.
It is people like you who make the world a horrible place. The jews rose up AGAINST the Turks, they lost 30,000 men. There was no jewish conspiracy.
The Jews where not the perpatrators or the instigators, you however are an ahistorical anti-semite.
I will not dignify you with anymore of a response then the same records that prove the Armenian Genocide Happened proves it was done by Muslims of many races, and not by Jews, and if you reject those documents you reject the historical genocide called the Armenian Genocide and embrace pure bigotry.
Soorp you are unfortunately correct that Islam was among the main factors of the Armenian Genocide.Comment
-
I didn't say that Islam had nothing to do with the Armenian Genocide, but fact is ittihad leaders couldn't care less about Islam themselves, Islam as I said and you agreed was used as a "Tool" in the Genocide, to get the support and cooperation of the lower rank officers, soliders & the some of local people... And Islam/chirstianity played a major role in getting the cooperation of the Balkan Turks, who were exiled by Christian states thus developed a hate to Christianity.Originally posted by Gondorian
Let me put it this way.... the Pan-Turanic Empire the CUP were planning for included a large area, the only problem was the the Armenian population who was in the way of fulfilling that dream, the Armenian population just simply refued to be "Turkified & Islamised" therefore it wasn't possible to have the Empire with such an obstacle in the middle... Keldanians and Assyrians and Greeks were targeted simply because they lived in the Eastern Provinces (aka Armenian Villayets), but Armenians From ALL OVER the empire were deported, massacred and Genocided, Armenians were even followed to Der-Zor by Turks to finish their job, no one was allowed to help, interact or hide Armenians even after they were deported to the Syrian desert.
Yes, sometimes Armenians were offered to convert to Islam and save themselves, and almost all refused. There is a picture in the Armenian Genocide pictre collection, featuring a turkish soldier who's waving a bread infront of hungry Armenian children, trading his bread with thier religon.
But, in my opinion, it was an ethnic Genocide, not a religous Genocide!Comment
-
Here we go again. Thanks Gondorian - for some sanity.
Maral et al - the Genocide cannot be seen as clearly ethnic nor religious. Its roots are in nationalism and cultural revolution. What is important is that the victimised peoples (Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians) were seen as "other" for whatever reason - obviously the fact that they were Christian was a factor - and the Muslim resentment against "upstart" Christians who were breaking out of their repressed status in the Empire was both a catalyst for actions taken against them as well as something that was used by the CUP to incite hatred. At the same time Pan-Turkic nationalism was commming to a head. I have no doubt that Turks would have slaughtered Arabs as well if given the oppurtinuty. The point is - the Turks were able to carry out their racist self serving campaign against the Armenians (and Greeks and Assyrians) because of the war - the conditions and isolation of the war. In fact some scholars argue that the oppurtunity to act against the Armenians and Greeks was a motivator for the Turks joinign the war in the first place. I agree that this was a factor among several - that included Pan-Turkic eastward ambitions vis a vis the Russian Empire and that moving against the Greeks and Armenians was a sort of pre-emption to establish an entirely Turkic base for Anatolia to forestall any issue of sovereignty for the (remaining) upstart ethnics/Christains of the Empire.Comment
-
Sorry for misreading your original post maral, I see what you said before clearer now thanks. I still disagree that it was a purely ethnic genocide though, because ethnicity was not the only factor in the genocide. You did acknowledge my point about Islam being used to incite the Ottomans to murder, and as one of the deciding factors in determining who to kill and who to spare.
1.5 million thanks for the compliment and for also posting with sanity, however on one point I do disagree with you on.
I don't think the Turks would have turned on the Arabs given the opportunity, the Arab Soldiers where just as important to the Ottoman Army as the Turkish Soldiers, and the CUP would never have been able to use Islam to get people to forget humanity and mass murder Arabs who are for the most part Muslim.Comment
Comment