The final sentence about the genocide!

[Attila]

The armenians killed 200000 Turks,Turks exiled 1,500000 Armenians...this is not unfair...
the thing is done,lots of people died from both of the sides,and I think this is not something bad.

Life is a struggle of existence
The living things become stronger in means of fights and clashes.
The only thing which makes nations to remember their nationalities is the hatred amongst them
It is the order of the nature...
That's how the things go on
The strongs live,the weaks die,
Sorry about it,but it is what is called natural selection.
The result of those clashes made both of the nations much more stronger I think,because the survivors of these clashes gave birth to new generation;and the new generation knows that the nations who killed the members of previous generations are their enemies...And they all know the weakness and strengths of the opposite nations.Which means the new generation is stronger than the old...
Unfortunate,but it is the law of nature,as I said...

[winoman]

tell you what Attila - I think I can agree with you on one point - if we killed you - we would be improving upon the intelligence level of the Turkish gene pool.

[Attila]

you cannot insult me nor my nation due to my speech of truth.It is the stupidest thing not to respect the views of the opposite side.Yet I am not becoming disrespectful towards you,winoman.

[Siggie]

Attila where is the evidence of your claim?
The "truth" can't be arrived out without it. "Think rationally."

[Attila]

so where is YOUR evidence?

[winoman]

so where is YOUR evidence?

everywhere...

[Anonymouse]

One wonders why you folks continue to pay attention to them.

[Attila]

Everywhere ah...
yeah,a good runaway answer
Your kin killed my grandmother's father
and our kin killed your ancestors...
As I said,we must stay enemy
we have to remember the hatred between us.
It is our path of survivality of our nations.
We have to fight,argue about that....
And let the tides of fate decide the strong
I hope you understood

[Attila]

As a proof to my opinions,I can show the situation of the late Ottomans...
They made an "Ummah"(arabic:religional nationality,all the muslims belongs to same nation)oriented government style.They forgot about their own nationality,and they fell.Everyone whom they trusted stabbed the Ottomans from their back...
It is so simple
If you forget yourself,the nature forgets you!!!

[winoman]

Tanar Ackam has some things to say on this...

...that are quite a bit more insightful and accurate then the garbage put out by the Turkish propoganda machine...

Exerpt from THE GENOCIDE OF THE ARMENIANS
AND THE SILENCE OF THE TURKS.

SOME CHARACTERISTIC TRAITS OF TURKISH
NATIONAL IDENTITY

1. Compared to France, Germany and other European states, Turkish nationalism and Turkish national consciousness entered the historical stage very late. There are different reasons for this belatedness. Special significance attaches to the influence of Islam and the cosmopolitan character of the Ottoman Empire. Because of its late development, Turkish nationalism was strongly influenced by Social Darwinism and racist ideologies. This intellectual background of Turkish nationalism, combined with the urgent need to catch up, made that nationalism aggressive.

2. Turkish nationalism arose as a reaction to the experience of constant humiliations. Turkish national sentiment constantly suffered from the effects of an inferiority complex. Various factors played a role in this. Critical, however, was the fact that the Turks not only were continuously humiliated and loathed, but they were conscious of this humiliation. The Turkish political elite had clear ideas as to what people thought of the Turks, and this knowledge became an important determining factor for their actions. One of the consequences was a strong "sense of being misunderstood" and a fear of being isolated. A nation that was humiliated in this way in the past and is also conscious of that experience, will try to prove its own greatness and importance. As Elias noted:

The established feeling of inferiority ... and the resentment, the sensitivity to the humiliation, often connected with it was countered [and compensated] with the preoccupation with its own greatness and power.

The result is a penchant for power.

3. Turkish national identity evolved in conditions in which the fear of annihilation and dissolution was omnipresent. The process of disintegration afflicting the Ottoman Empire was of such gravity that it produced a traumatic anxiety among Ottoman leaders. The fear of annihilation and disintegration, fed by a deep consciousness of weakness and helplessness, is "the midwife" of Turkish national identity.

One result of this mental attitude was to reflect upon the possible reasons, persons and circles of political operatives that could have caused these negative developments. Seen through the prism of Turkish national identity, the Christian minorities were viewed as one of the primary factors responsible for the decline and disintegration of the Ottoman Empire. The Christians were, therefore, stigmatized as enemies. This enmity was rendered all the more intense by the fact that some imperial powers used the Christians as a lever in order to realize the partition of the empire consistent with their own power interests. The Christians hereby obtained certain economic and social privileges.

Another factor which created an image of hostile Christians was the role Islam played in this connection. On the basis of Islamic culture and its system of laws, the Moslems have always considered the Christians as an inferior minority group and have never viewed them as being equal to themselves. Thus the Christians did not enjoy equality in the Ottoman Empire. But during the stages marking the disintegration of the Empire, the reforms and economic privileges led to a change in the position of the Christians. The Turks gradually lost their social status as a superior class. They could not reconcile themselves to the idea of equality with the Christians by way of reforms, or that a Christian minority should attain a better economic position than they. This loss of status led to the rise of hate-revenge sentiments against those who were seen as responsible. The Moslems did not "peacefully" accept their steadily weakening position. This awareness of loss of status played a significant role in the enactment of the massacre against Christians, and the history of the nineteenth century provides much evidence for this.

This was the history of the Turks before World War 1. PanTuranism and the ideal of a great Turkish empire became stronger as the disintegration and partition of the empire progressed and the situation grew more hopeless. While the quest for a collective identity that would hold the empire together proved abortive, the leadership turned farther toward the East, to regions and peoples where the ideal of empire could be realized. The Turks perceived the First World War as an historical opportunity. Those who had suffered defeat and lived through a painful process, including degradation and loss of honor, for years, now saw the looming on the horizon of an historical opportunity to stop the decline from which there was otherwise no escape. The Turks' bad fortune, it was thought, could now be reversed and the disintegration stopped. The great Turkish empire could be recreated; not on all the same lands, but on another expanse inhabited by loyal Turkish people worthy of trust. It was as if the clouds had unexpectedly lifted to reveal the contours of a glorious sun.

The rapid succession of military debacles the Turks suffered during the first months of World War I had a very sobering effect however. Especially the defeat at Sarikamish, near Kars, in the Anatolian east, in December 1914 and January 1915, burst the Turanian-lslamic dream like a soap bubble. The Ottoman-Turkish rulers could, however, assign blame and identify those responsible for this defeat. The Turks had not really lost; they had been betrayed. Elias' description in the German context is apt here: "[The defeat] had been caused by cunning deception, by criminals, by means of a conspiracy, by a 'stab in the back' administered by internal traitors in the rear of the combat troops." This quote from Elias, though describing the Nazi case, can not only logically be extended to the rationale advanced for the case of the Armenian Genocide, but it can literally be seen as a general accusation leveled against the Armenians in some studies of the genocide.
The sudden loss of an historical opportunity that had resulted from the constant military setbacks, humiliations, and losses of self-worth coincided with another historical event. Enemy forces stood at the entrance of the Dardanelles in March, 1915, and with that, the end of the empire was in sight. Without a doubt, this cast a special dark pallor over the mood of the Ottoman leaders. The land, (Anatolia), so quintessential for the survival of the Turks, would be handed over to the Armenians after the defeat. There had been a corresponding plan for reform even before the war. In order to avert such a possible outcome, the Turks had resort to the most ruthless and daring action. "When a chronic feeling of sinking, of being driven into a corner and encircled by the enemy awakens the belief that only absolute ruthlessness can rescue the vanishing power and glory..." then one does not recoil before the idea of using the most barbaric methods. The dimensions of the sense of loss of self-worth and of meaning, and the fact that the Ottoman Empire stood at the doorstep of defeat led rapidly to desperate actions that were "insane" and reckless. Ottoman-Turkish ruling circles were gripped by the great fear that the end of the empire could become a reality. Their refusal to accept this led to the brutality of the measures they undertook for deliverance. It is probably not incorrect to consider the Armenian Genocide as a product of this frame of mind.