Unimportant nation, important lies

[loveataturk]

Armenia is a relatively small nation, with a small population and small economy. One can safely deduce that Armenia is an irrelevant actor on the global theatre. However, making use of the fact that Western Europe and Turkey have been on the ropes for a long time, rather hostile views toward each other, Armenians and the nation of Armenia has always tried to hijack sympathy and favors from their christian brothers in Europe, cry-babying all the time about how they were wronged by Ottomans /thus, Turks) in 1915.
The April 1915 "genocide" claim is easily refutable (unfortunately only for sane and intelligent people, which the hatred-centred Armenian nation seems to NOT have much abundance of), and th eharder that Armenians try to prove this LIE, FALLACY, the more sorrowful their situation becomes, trying to prove a LIE.
I remarked "unimportant and small" for Armenia as a nation, due to its population and economy, but let us all remember Gary Kasparov! Tigran PEtrosian!! I admire these two gentlemen.

[TomServo]

And from this thread we can deduce that you are an unimportant Turk.

[Sip]

... or an important potato.

[karoaper]

... or an important potato.

or an unimportant Turk with a potato for a brain who thinks the importance is tied to size and economy. *points to Israel*. Armenians have a thing called lobby (pretty strong one too), which turks can't have cause of the aforementioned problem.

oops, I've violated the cardinal rule: DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH A TURK.

[Thai-Samurai]

"Though I disagree with what you said, I'll fight to the death for your right to say it."
-Family Guy

[skhara]

oops, I've violated the cardinal rule: DO NOT GET INVOLVED IN DISCUSSIONS WITH A TURK.

Don't beat yourselft up over it. Sometimes it happens. Besides, you haven't really got into a discussion with him -- only mockery of him .

[jgk3]

I'm willing to hear this guy's reasoning on how it's all a big lie...

Speak up. Explain to me how the New Turks used Kurdish murderers to slit the throats of my great grandparents' generation. Explain the mechanics of this policy, and hopefully you can use it as support for your argument, because I acknowledge that there was a sense of nationalism among Armenians that was building up at the time and needed to be crushed by the Turkish government, which resulted in the genocide. I'm willing to hear your point of view.

[skhara]

I wonder if many diaspora Armenians really do not understand "the law of the jungle". "Human rights", shmuman brights. The destruction of the Armenian people in South Caucasia and eastern regions of Anatolia was in the interests of both the Ottoman and the New Republics regime, as well as other "inside" and "outside" interests. After loosing the Balkan wars Armenians were among the last remaining threats for the dismemberment of the Ottoman empire. Armenians were a national threat, because sooner or later Armenians would have taken up arms in an organized manner against their opressors. Pre-emptive action was taken against the Armenian people in order to destroy the potential for national formation.

Note: Armenians who were herded like sheep were not simply ethnically cleansed from their milleniums long ancestoral homeland. Because in that case, they would have had freedom to flee towards the caucasus where their brothers would have taken care of them. They were marched, into the desert, to rot.

It was not in the interests of the Ottoman regime to send Armenians towards other Armenians. It was best if they perished, because the dead cannot exact revenge. The dead are just dead.

Turkey lost the war and was forced to recognize the new Armenian Republic. But Turkey could not possible leave Armenia alone. It was simply not in their national interests to do so. Armenia posed a geo-strategic threat to the Turkish Republic and once again, certain other interests. Moreover, Armenians would certainly seek vengance against Turks, and they knew it which explains the massive massacres during the Turkish invasion of Caucasian Armenia. Well Armenians resisted bitterly and heroicly. Armenians inflicted massive damages on the invading animals and would have certainly ended up in a better position were it not for the Turko-Bolshevik alliance.

Turkey may not have been completely satisfied with not having Armenia totally devoured and Azerbaijan connected to them, but they did get some additional appeasement through the carving of Armenian lands of Nakhichevan and Artsakh, with total ethnic cleansing in Nakhichevan.

This may sound like complete doom and gloom for Armenia, but its not. Were it not for the heroic and feerless defense of Caucasian Armenian fighters, would there even be such an entity in south caucasia? Sure lands were lost. But remember, Armenia was effectivelly erased from the map for 78 years.

Well she came back. She is alive. And she will grow from an annoying 'insignificant' thorn in turkish side, to a sharp stabbing pain, to a knife that penetrates and bleeds the enemy.

Understand one thing. If Turkey completely and totally destroyed any potential for national formation of the Armenian people, there would likely be 'memorials' all over Turkey today. They'd say "We were bad, we're sorry. Look Europe we care." This of coarse would mean nothing because Armenians would still be destroyed and not able to pose any threat whatsoever.

The dead have no claims. The dead are just dead. That's why it annoys me to hear references to martyrs and martyrdom by Armenians. You know what I think? I think this term should be dropped from the Armenian vocabulary. Let our enemies become martyrs. Armenians need to be survivors.

[karoaper]

Don't beat yourselft up over it. Sometimes it happens. Besides, you haven't really got into a discussion with him -- only mockery of him .

you're right bro, but I'm just afraid it encourages them anyway

[loveataturk]

Rebellion against the unity of a nation?!

I have read Durschmied's books on WAR, and he asserts that in any war, almost 3 times as many civilians have ended up killed as the number of soldiers on both sides. This was true in the ancient Egyptian wars with Hittites, Alexander's wars with the Persians, the Crusades, the 100 year-war, the Roman Empire wars, up to and including the World Wars.

Sadly, the (3) factor got even worse in the despicable Ameri-British assault on Iraq, as far as 1991 and 2003.

It is not very difficult to understand what REALLY happened in 1915. The Turks were constantly losing wars on many fronts, and they needed a victory. Victory came through defeat of Russians, finally. (Many more victories were to follow through the strong leadership of M. K. Ataturk, and finally the founding of the Republic of Turkey.)

Armenians saw the "seemingly" collapse of Turkish-Ottoman power as their best chance to REBELLION and setting up their dream of ARMENIA. While the Ottoman army was occupied everwhere, including Gallipoli, Armenian militia started butchering Turco-muslim villagers by the ten-thousands, as well as assisting Russian troops while wearing their uniforms!! ALAS, Turks won. Immediately, Turkish armies turned their attention to the Armenian rebels. Crushing the pitiful resistance of Armenians was easy (what is so heroic about being squashed???), however, as per the millenia old tradition, many Armenian civilians, as well as turkish civilians, ended up killed in the heat of the squashing of the rebellion.

Armenians as SOUR LOSERS. They could not then, and still cannot now, accept that there is absolutely no way for them to re-capture anatolia, and the losses they suffered in their REBEL_WAR against the Ottoman-Turks were not GENOCIDE. They are history's most weird cry-babies.

THROUGHOUT HISTORY, THERE HAS BEEN NO PARALLEL OR EQUIVALENT OF SUCH SOUR*LOSERS. Take your losses like men...Your ancestors rebelled, butchered thousands upon thousands of turkish Anatolian peasants, and finally Armenian criminals were subdued by the organized government of Turks.

SIMPLE AS THAT. Stop the treachery and lies about genocide claims..