The sense of loss?

[Gavur]

Re: The sense of loss?

Fine I don't know anything about anything.

But your the moron, a hypocrite that asks everyone for source.You couldn't even do what 1.5 M was able to, that is to back up your claims and don't be condescending.

[Pazooki]

Re: The sense of loss?

Everytime I walk down my street to go to school I see this white cat walking around.

Bell? Are you stalking me?

[hrai]

Re: The sense of loss?

Bell the self appointed Turkish historian is probably been neutered.Since only her arsss is getting an erection.

Right!
Bells the official forum historian who uses wikipedia as his main source and book reviews from Ebay!!!!!!
Bell should learn to use a litter tray instead of spreading that stuff over these pages.

[hrai]

Re: The sense of loss?

Try this. Although I do not promise you Harison Ford....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl8sM...x=0&playnext=1

The Germans were very aware of the "benefits" of deportation:

http://www.uflib.ufl.edu/ufdc/?c=AFRICA1&m=hd1J&i=50922

Also :

"Herero Heroes" by Jan-Bart Gewald

ISBN : 085 255 7493

Page 218

[hipeter924]

Re: The sense of loss?

Hilarious.

I've been on this carousel before where over a few posts you slightly change the subject of the original post. Your numbered assumptions from my post are incredible. Reading between the lines to that degree must turn a daily newspaper into an epic.

Duff means excellent

Well at least I make you happy. I had better post more 'duff' stuff more often.

[Crimson Glow]

Re: The sense of loss?

Please, Crimson Glow, I've said before that I don't doubt your good intentions with your history postings, and you don't seem to be like the neanderthal majority that roam this forum - but if you are going to attack people who point out obvious errors than maybe it is better for you to post nothing on these subjects. You don't yet seem to know enough about the subjects to write accurately about them.

But that's just it. You DIDN'T point out "obvious errors". You questioned obvious history, which suggests it is YOU who doesn't yet seem to know enough to write accurately about this subject. Worse yet, all you do is tell people something they said is wrong, without going into detail, or providing an explanation, or countering what you disagree with. That makes it very difficult to take you seriously. I know plenty about almost every aspect of this issue, so if you want to disagree with anything I ever say, feel free to provide your evidence as to WHY you feel I'm wrong, just as I always do.

A lot of what you are posting could have come straight out of a Turkish propaganda book!

Again, random accusation (very vague, most likely to give you room to change "what you meant", or where you want to go with this). A large part of my initial research was conducted through Turkish propaganda material, so I know most of it very well, and I have no idea what you're talking about. Care to get more specific about what you're referring to?

Have you read any books about the Sarikamish offensive and the period immediately before it? Russian forces in the Caucasus were in a state of complete panic and disorganisation. Turkey had already captured Ardahan and Artvin only a few months earlier, routing the Russian army. "Bergmann" is not a place, it was the name of the defeated Russian commander. In expectation of further defeats Russia then withdrew all its troops from northern Iran, leaving the way open for the Turkish army to occupy it and massacre most of the Christians living there (an event which foreshadowed the Armenian Geniocide). The Russian army was preparing to abandon Kars as the Sarikamish battle was reached its climax (start of January 1915) and they expected total defeat. If it were not for the citizens of Sarikamish, and the soldiers based there, who decided to try and defend the town, preventing the Turks from getting shelter there from the severe weather, Turkey would have won.

I have read several books and essays on WWI, watched several documentaries, etc. I may not be as well versed on WWI as a whole, but I know plenty about what transpired towards the end of 1914/beginning of 1915, as that was my main concern since it pertained to the Armenian genocide. Nothing you stated above eradicates what I said. Turkey only captured Ardahan and Artvin because, unlike the Germans, they didn't declare they were entering the war. They just quietly slipped in, hoping to take advantage of Russia being preoccupied with Germany. Otherwise, the Turks certainly didn't have the military numbers, or a very good strategy for trying to enter this war through the caucuses. Attacking the Russians in the middle of winter was not a very intelligent move on Enver's part, but he was in a hurry to cease what he thought was an advantage. In any event, regardless of what excuses you're trying to make up for the Turks getting beat up pretty badly in December of 1914, the fact still remains they suffered huge losses, and Enver was infuriated. Rather than admitting the defeats were his fault, he took the opportunity to strengthen his anti-Christian campaign by blaming the Armenians for the losses. It's not like anyone really disputes this. Even the Turks admit this, as they hold this as the excuse for why the Armenians had to be "relocated". The only thing that's in dispute is if the "relocations" were genocide, or not.

And you oil nonsense is lifted straight from 1920s Bolshevik propaganda (invented to justify their occupation of the Caucasus republics). Turkey, never one to miss a trick, has just adapted that old lie for their own use.

Turkey denies oil, or the building of railroads had anything to do with the relocation of the Armenians. In fact, this is a very little known, little talked about fact by ANYone about the genocide, including most Armenians. And where did the Russians come up in all this? They had nothing to do with the oil issue one way, or the other.

[Crimson Glow]

Re: The sense of loss?

So at face value you have provided:
W O Henderson- Pages 215-218 = 3 pages
Manus I Midlarsky- Pages 77-79 = 2 pages
and a Wiki Reference.

Basically a few of pages in obscure publications and you allow yourself to draw the longest bow possible i.e. that Oil was a major factor in the AG. Even without reading a page it seems far fetched and unconvincing. I would have expected encyclopedia's to be written about if it had any substance.

This is classic Armenian diaspora deception in action. You draw flimsy parrallels (ie. Nazi Germany for sympathy), exaggerate facts (i.e. influence of Oil and rail) , inflate figures (deaths 1.5+ or even 2m+ for 'marketing' impact in foreign parliaments), distort the reality (i.e. Armenians were the center of the universe standing in the way of the axis of evil for world domination) and expect everyone else to swallow this hook, line and sinker.

No. We DON'T expect you to swallow it. What I expect you to do (for the millionth time) is quite posting about something you know nothing about, and do some god damn research. We're not here to show you every single piece of freaking evidence for every statement we make, especially for things that are readily accepted facts amongst most scholars. That was just a couple of pin drops of research he pointed to, though you seamed to have ignored the documentary I directed you to (Blood and Oil), which has NOTHING to do with "Armenian propaganda", and is actually quite pro-Turkish (at least in advocating that the Turks did quite well against the Russians), yet STILL claims/illustrates how a lot of what happened was over oil.

And while we're on the topic of "flimsy" evidence, where is YOUR evidence in all this? You have yet to produce ANYthing to contribute to your opinions, or perception. So far, all you have done is disagreed with everyone here based on nothing more than you FEELING that you "just don't think it's right". Well....as convincing as that may sound to you in your own little world (which seems to contradict the way the rest of the world works on every subject), in academia, or the scholarly world, that means about as much as saying you're god. Over, and over, and over again, you have babbled about how nothing we have told you, or shown you, could possibly be true, no matter how much academic evidence we provide (try reading German archives and historians, for starters, and see where those "exaggerated" stories and numbers come from), yet your posts clearly indicate you haven't read anything on your own about this subject outside of maybe a tiny Turkish pamphlet, or pro-Turkish web article. You're on a website for Armenians, and in a specific section devoted to the genocide, which used to be an independent website of its own. With your complete ignorance on the subject, you are hardly in a position to disagree with anyone here. Post something of some substance, or get out of this thread already. You're in way over your head, and your replies aren't helping you climb back out.

[Gavur]

Re: The sense of loss?

I think if we start banning Genocide deniers we'd lose nothing,because their only purpose here (other then trying to make us feel good)is conducting propaganda for other Turk's.

[hrai]

Re: The sense of loss?

So at face value you have provided:
W O Henderson- Pages 215-218 = 3 pages
Manus I Midlarsky- Pages 77-79 = 2 pages
and a Wiki Reference.

Basically a few of pages in obscure publications and you allow yourself to draw the longest bow possible i.e. that Oil was a major factor in the AG. Even without reading a page it seems far fetched and unconvincing. I would have expected encyclopedia's to be written about if it had any substance.

This is classic Armenian diaspora deception in action. You draw flimsy parrallels (ie. Nazi Germany for sympathy), exaggerate facts (i.e. influence of Oil and rail) , inflate figures (deaths 1.5+ or even 2m+ for 'marketing' impact in foreign parliaments), distort the reality (i.e. Armenians were the center of the universe standing in the way of the axis of evil for world domination) and expect everyone else to swallow this hook, line and sinker.

Squirm and twist as much as you like, what happened, happened. Deny history.
My "drawing of flimsy parallels to nazi Germany", I take to be the book on German Colonial History. Pity you didn't read this as it deals with Southern Africa up to 1918. Another confusion in your view of history.
The nazi party wasn't formed until the 1920s and took power in 1933, long after the period covered by that book. Isn't this the second time you've confused nazis and WW1?

As regards citing obscure publications, a books accuracy has no link whatsoever to its availability or number of copies printed/sold. Perhaps we should all just use the latest "Top 10" list for reference?

You should read historical books instead of hysterical books.

[Palavra]

Re: The sense of loss?

I think if we start banning Genocide deniers we'd lose nothing,because their only purpose here (other then trying to make us feel good)is conducting propaganda for other Turk's.

And you talk about democracy, freedom of speach bla bla bla. Democracy for only yourself? whatever, no need to answer. I will not listen your tale about hate, genocide bla bla.