Vive La France !!!!!

[Artashes]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

These words by you, and by those like you, reveal the complete contempt that a great many Armenians show for the most important event in Armenia's recent history. You casually toss out nonsense allegations like the AG was "planned and implemented with European powers" and that "Germany providing plans and logistics" for the AG. You cannot come up with one jot of evidence to prove those extremely specific claims, cannot produce even a single citation by any historian. But what does that matter to you - you are not interested in truth, for you its a case of I know what I know and so I don't need evidence and I don't need to do any time consuming research.

The advice that I give to all non-Armenians is don't trust a word any Armenian says about the Armenian Genocide. And some advice to Armenians: if you want to know the main reason why the word "alleged" still accompanies the words Armenian Genocide, and will continue to accompany it long after 2015, maybe just look at yourself in the mirror.

--------- the advice I give to all non Armenians is ... Don't trust a word (ANY) Armenian says about the Armenian genocide --------
The above is a quote by bell.
The above is a turk mantra.
Both the turks & bell repeat that juvenal & merit less phrase over and over again.
Bell is not only a turk a$s licker but simply a twit.
The research on the Armenian genocide done by the Armenian intelligencia is both profound, prolific, honorable, truthful, and deadly accurate.
To make such a blanket & worthless statement such as bell made in the above post is --- MORONIC ---
bell, you are a fkn moron.


To what audience does any rational mind think bell is playing to???
If that's a tough question for any of the readers out there, then you need to get your crayons out and practice your colors some more.
Artashes

The Germans were allies of the turks in WW1.
The Germans aided the turks whenever they could.
All the western powers who deny the Armenian genocide aid and abet the continuance of the Armenian genocide & genocide in general.
Artashes

[Eddo211]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

At that time there was the Fascist branch of the Germany (that became Hitler's regime) under their own orders that were in the area....."Bagdad railroad" was their goal. They did showed the Turks efficiency and use of gas but limited degree. They did want the Armenians out of the way for the railroad but not involved dirrectly.
Hitler used the AG as a blueprint for the Holocaust.
One of the best witnesses of AG were some low ranking German officers who were appalled by what was happening as recorded in their notes.

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

I guess you did not know bell so i will inform you that there are times when silence can be deafening. This alone implicates the Germans but that is not all there was. There were German officers who not only helped the genocide effort by aiding the turk but even attacked Armenians trying to stave off deportation who were successfully resisting the turkish army. Germany was aiding the turck in every way financially, logistically..it provided trains and other transportation to the turckish army which greatly aided it in accomplishing the genocide not to mention other types of assistance. There is no mention of germany aiding the turck in the genocide of the armenians simply because the word genocide was not coined yet. The fact that germany used a much improved version of genocide later speaks volumes about where the german moral compass was in ww1 as well. I think some historians get so caught up with looking for specific things that they miss the meaning of the whole picture. The fact is that Turcky could not have completely eliminated its Armenian population without the help of the Germans and this makes them complicit. I am not a historian but i do love studying it when i can. There are obvious reasons why some people would want to keep German involvement in yet another genocide quiet but there is no denying that Germany was complicit not only by its silence on the matter and its inaction but also by its support for its murderous ally during and long after German leaders were fully aware of what it was the turck was doing to the Armenians. If you give me a gun knowing fully well that i am going to use it to kill someone then are you not complicit in this murder? I am no lawyer either but im pretty sure you get to go to jail for complicity to murder. I think the decades of turkish propaganda vs the armenian genocide has worked in some ways with it chizzeling away at the truth one tiney bit at a time. I can show you citations on everything i wrote but i wont because you do not do it for me. I am a firm believer in doing on to others as you would like to be treated yourself but Bell has shown time and again that he has no interest in the truth but rather pretends to so he can justify his sarcasm and turn his nose up on Armenians. I knew for a long time that bell was a snob but i thought he brought some value to the forum then but my opinion has changed for he dwells on his snobishness far more then the truth.

This is where Germany practiced what it later preached to the turk and then later still practiced itself once more :

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/namibia-genocide-second-reich/

A hundred years ago, three quarters of the Herero people of the German colony of Namibia were killed, many in concentration camps.
Today, the descendants of the survivors are seeking reparations from the German government. This film tells for the first time this forgotten story and its links to German racial theories.
Described by the BBC as the story of Germany's forgotten genocide. This powerful documentary by David Adetayo Olusoga took a sensitive and uncompromising look at the tragic circumstances leading to the massacre of three quarters of the Namibia population in German concentration camps built in Africa.
The programme included graphic reconstructions and did not shirk from showing disturbing scenes which revealed the savagery of european colonial ideology put into practise.
The documentary also showed the 2004 footage of Germany's ambassador to Namibia expressing regret for their killing of thousands of Namibia's Hereros during the colonial era. Unsurprisingly, the Germans refused to agree to the justifiable calls for reparations.
The programme also explored the current call for land reforms where most of Namibia's commercial land is still owned by european farmers who make up 6 percent of the country's population of 1.8 million.
Throughout it included interviews and powerful testimony from African survivors, descendants and reparation movement representatives thus making this a compelling programme which both educated the audience whilst treating the sensitive subject matter with the respect it deserved.
Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 60 min)

http://www.mayanastro.freeservers.com/herero1.html

NeoPostColonialism

Note 5: Namibia: European Genocide against the Herero. 3/21/99

Todd Bensman, reporting in the Dallas Morning News (3/20/99), has documented a German campaign of genocide against the Namibian Herero tribe that began in 1904 and ended in 1915 in which as many as 80.000 natives were murdered by German troops under the leadership of Lt. General Lothar von Trotha, who had already made a name for himself in conducting brutal campaigns against African natives in German East Africa. His tactics in Namibia consisted of driving the Herero people into the Omaheke desert, where all the waterholes had been poisoned, and then surrounded the area with his troops with orders to kill every man, woman, and child, "whether armed or unarmed." After the initial slaughter, the remaining Herero, approximately 20,000 people, were forced into slave labor on German farms. Bensman suggests in his article that this episode in Africa was a harbinger of the genocidical attempt to exterminate the xxxs during the Second World War.

The issue of European genocide in Africa has arisen recently because the "Paramount Chief" of the Herero people, Kuaima Rirauko, has been pressing the German government for reparations for the surviving members of the tribe. Rirauko claims his ten-year struggle for recognition of Germany's responsibility for the near annihilation of his people has fallen on deaf ears in both Europe and America. The Germans themselves claim they have done all that is necessary for the people of Namibia because they have contributed some $500 million since 1992 for the economic development of the African nation, which is more per capita than any other former colony of Eurocentric exploitation in Africa has received. Rirauko claims, in pressing his demands against the German government for reparations, that virtually all the money Germany has invested in the country has gone to the Ovambo tribe, who are more numerous and more prosperous than the Herero people are. Since the Ovambo people control Namibia's political apparatus, and never revolted against Germany's colonial government, Rirauko's claims are probably valid.

Bensman, in discussing the issue of why Europe and America have turned a deaf ear to the appeals of the Hereros for justice, introduces us to Lora Wildenthal, a professor of Germany history at MIT, who has said that, according to Bensman, "one reason no European power seems eager to take up the Herero cause is fear that a pay-off would invite multitudes of similar claims for colonial-era crimes." Wildenthal adds to that assessment, "Imagine what Britain would owe."

Yes indeed, just imagine how much money it would cost the British people to repay the value of the land the first settlers in native America seized from the tribes that occupied the northeastern part of the New World. Of course, England would deny that it owed anything at all to the native Americans, or their contemporary descendants, who were displaced and driven from their ancestral lands by the greed of Eurocentric expansion into the Western hemisphere. Statute of Limitations notwithstanding, a legal concept that would surely be employed in today's system of (in)justice to prevent any action from being lodged against the civilized world, the English legal system would immediately claim that they were released from all obligation for the initial theft of native lands by virtue of the fact that their own colonists revolted against the British crown in 1776, successfully removed themselves from England forever when they won their War of Independence, and established their own legal system apart from its European soul-mate and model in the Old World. Who can argue against that kind of logic? The French would escape responsibility as well by claiming that they sold out their complicity in Eurocentric genocide when they relinquished all claims to the western territories by selling Louisiana to Euro-America in 1803. The Spanish could fabricate a similar argument by claiming that the Americans seized their southwestern territories in the War that established Texas as an independent nation in 1848. The northwestern part of the continent (Northern hemisphere) fell victim to American expansionism during this same period of time.

So, Europe, after virtually destroying native cultures in the Americas, walks away from all responsibility without a backward glance or a second thought. There is a significant difference after all between what the British, French, and Spanish crowns did to native Americans in the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries and what they did after that in Africa, India, and Asia in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Demanding reparations for five-hundred-year-old crimes, when Europe refuses to acknowledge the ones it has committed in this century, seems like the most hopeless task any human community has ever confronted. The task seems so hopeless, in fact, that no native American tribe has ever considered pursuing it. The question that occurs to me when I contemplate this historical reality is whether or not a Statute of Limitations can be said to exist when the crime committed was genocide. Is the forced removal of a people from their ancestral lands, a removal that resulted in the brutal and ruthless deaths of thousands of incarcerated people, a reservation is a prison after all, something that can be forgiven just because it happened two hundred or five hundred years ago?

And why are Euro-Americans considered to be guiltless in the eyes of international law for the injustices they have committed against native Americans? As for the inevitable argument that the people living today are not responsible for the fate that befell native Americans three hundred years ago, one must explain while making it why it is that native Americans are still confined on reservations, treated as fourth or fifth class citizens, and systematically denied the rights and privileges that fall to all white people in America. And that isn't really the issue either. The issue is held in the fact that all the material benefit that Euro-Americans have derived from the land their ancestors illegally seized from native Americans from 1492 to the present moment have never been shared with the people to whom it rightfully belongs, the benefit has always already remained in the possession of the descendants of thieves and murderers. What clause in which treaty that the US government ever contracted with a native American tribe justifies the fact that the descendants of thieves and murderers get to keep the exploited wealth derived from thievery and murder?

The thing that astonishes me the most is the belief Euro-Americans have that they are the rightful heirs to the ancestral lands of native American people, that all the centuries of Eurocentric exploitation somehow justifies the fact that the land their ancestors claimed for the crowns of Europe and stole from the original inhabitants of the entire hemisphere belongs to them in perpetuity, that there will never be a day of reckoning, that no one will ever be held accountable for the mass-murder, for the forced and illegal incarceration, for the on-going destruction of the lives of native American people.

The day of judgment will come, not from a vengeful God, not in some non-existent afterlife, but in the here and now present moment of the last day of your life. We will (re)claim what is ours, doing so is the only way to save it from the annihilation demanded by your Christian God and the belief you harbor that all natural reality is evil and deserving of death. You will waste the land you cannot comprehend out from under your own future generations and they, like you have done before them, will blow away in the wind of their own insatiable greed and ignorance. We are content to wait out your passage. Do as you have always done in your disrespect for our land and be gone.

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/id=342

V. N. Dadrian: German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide


Diese Rezension wurde redaktionell betreut von: Peter Helmberger <[email protected]>BeiträgerHindley, MeredithVeröffentlicht am14.04.1997ZitierweiseKlassifikationRegionaler SchwerpunktEuropaEpochale Zuordnung1914-1918Thematischer Schwerpunkt
Politikgeschichte und -wissenschaft, Geschichte internationaler Beziehungen und internationaler Organisationen, Militär- und Gewaltgeschichte, NationalismusgeschichteTypMonografieLandUnited StatesSpracheEnglish
Autor(en): Dadrian, Vahakn N.
Titel: German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide. A Review of the Historical Evidence of German Complicity
Ort: Watertown
Verlag: Blue Crane Books
Jahr: 1996
ISBN: 1-886434-02-6
Umfang/Preis: Cloth; XVI, 304 S.; $35.00

Rezensiert für H-Soz-u-Kult von:
Meredith Hindley

The long and arduous battle to document the Armenian genocide and its implementation by the Young Turk Ittihadist government has limited the exploration of the role of other nations in the genocide. Questions about Germany's role in the massacre of nearly one million Armenians from 1915-1916 linger because of Germany's close association with Turkey before and during the First World War. Two lines of thought persist about the nature of Germany's involvement: either Germany had nothing to do with the genocide or Germany instigated it. In German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide: A Review of the Historical Evidence of German Complicity, Vahakn N. Dadrian, the author of the landmark History of the Armenian Genocide, takes the middle road. Dadrian does not accuse Germany of instigating the Armenian genocide; he argues instead that Germany contributed to the genocide through policies that condoned it and that the German government sanctioned German and Turkish officials who participated in the genocide's implementation.

At the high policy level, Dadrian finds a willingness by Germany to embrace Turkey's genocidal tactics toward the Armenians. Kaiser Wilhelm II's tolerance for the Turkish government's anti-Armenian policies filtered down to his advisers and directly influenced German relations with Turkey. Germany responded "nonchalantly" to empire-wide Turkish attacks from 1894 to 1896 against the Armenians, which resulted in approximately 300,000 Armenian deaths. Dadrian argues that Wilhelm II's lack of response to the first massacre signaled to the Turks "that Germany did not object to the emergence of a new Turkey that is purged of its native Armenian population" (13). German nonchalance toward Turkey's anti-Armenian violence continued in the wake of the 1915-1916 massacre.

Germany's pro-Turkish stance led to an official policy of "non- intervention" toward the Armenian genocide, a policy publicly justified on the grounds that Germany needed to maintain the trust of its wartime ally. [B]While positing a policy of nonintervention, Germany actively worked to cover up the genocide and to minimize any suspicion of German involvement. [B] Germany sent two diplomatic notes, both mild in tone, to the Turkish government which protested the genocide. Dadrian argues that the purpose of the notes lay in the dismissal of any suggestion of German participation. In addition to censoring the press and distributing anti-Armenian propaganda, Germany also created a diplomatic White Book designed to blame the Armenians for Turkish reprisals against them and to document German efforts to alleviate the situation through diplomatic pressure.

As Germany worked to disassociate itself from the appearance of complicity in the genocide, a number of German officials were involved in its implementation to varying degrees. Dadrian acknowledges that "there is no explicit evidence to suggest that such massacres were in fact intended by the Germans involved," but he maintains that German officials became "indirect accessories to crimes perpetuated by the [Turkish] Special Organization functionaries whose overall goal they endorsed, financed to some extent, and shepherded" (54-5). Germany sanctioned their involvement, both officially and through silent approval.

While most German participation in the genocide occurred through studied passivity or casual suggestion, some individuals participated more directly. High-ranking military and diplomatic officials ordered and assisted in the Armenian deportations while fully cognizant of the fate that awaited the Armenians. For example, General Bronsart von Schellendorf, the senior member of the German Military Mission to Turkey, issued deportation orders demanding that "severe measures" be used against a disarmed Armenian labor battalion. "Severe measures" was a euphemism for the killing actions carried out by the Turkish-government- sponsored Special Organization bands. Others, such as German artillery officer Major Eberhard Wolffskeel, participated more directly. Wolffskeel single-handedly laid waste to the Armenian section of Ufra, home to 25,000 Armenians, after the Turks were unable to overwhelm barricades erected by Armenians attempting to stave off deportation.

Dadrian does note, however, that a number of German officials in Turkey objected to the Armenian genocide and German involvement in it. Consular field representatives sent frantic reports detailing the ongoing slaughter of the Armenians to the German main office in Istanbul. The information, upon which the field representatives pleaded for action, was either suppressed or ignored. Those German officials who attempted to intervene actively on behalf of the Armenians encountered reprimands from their superiors.

Sanction of the Armenian genocide by Germany extended to include rewards and aid to Turkish officials closely involved in the killings. A number of Turks received the Prussian Orders of the Black and Red Eagle and the Iron Cross from the German government. Furthermore, seven of the Young Turk leaders who masterminded the genocide found sanctuary in Germany after the war. They escaped Turkey with help from three high-ranking German military officers who provided assistance with the official knowledge of Berlin. Dadrian regards the decoration of the Turks and the extension of sanctuary to them as further demonstration of official German approval of the Armenian genocide and as a sign of moral bankruptcy.

Using Turkish and German state archives, Dadrian has constructed a case for German complicity in the Armenian genocide -- and it is precisely his intent to build a case. The volume consists of two long legal briefs, each of which is approximately eighty pages, with supporting appendices. Dadrian chose to construct the volume in this manner because he wanted to identify by a preponderance of evidence those Germans engaged in criminal acts and those who abetted the crimes. This format is more than a rhetorical strategy: Dadrian explicitly challenges German authorities on a legal and historical basis to assume moral responsibility for Germany's role in the Armenian genocide.

This format has two distinct consequences for the reception of Dadrian's work. First, the lack of a narrative structure or a basic explanation of the events surrounding the Armenian genocide severely hampers the advancement of Dadrian's argument. The reader works too hard to understand the events being discussed and their implications. Consequently, the book lacks the power of works on the Holocaust that also document perpetrators, collaborators, and criminal acts, but which do so in a compelling, readable manner. Second, the legal-brief format and overt moral agenda raise questions about Dadrian's use of evidence. By its very nature, a brief utilizes only those facts that support a case and reduces opaque relationships to black-and-white terms. Dadrian's work is very black and white -- where appropriate, he identifies individuals as either perpetrators or co-conspirators and details the natures of their crimes. There are no gray areas. Dadrian also makes a weak attempt to connect the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust by using an appendix to list prominent Nazis who served in Turkey at the time of the former. While avoiding a blanket indictment of all Germans, Dadrian's linkage of the Armenian genocide to the Holocaust in this manner implies an argument of continuity which he neither supports nor adequately explores. Moral indictments of participants in historical events should be accompanied by judicious handling of evidence.

Yet despite the volume's flaws, the reader cannot help but be troubled by Germany's actions regarding the Armenian genocide. In a position of superior power, Germany made a conscious decision to support the genocidal program of its weaker ally. Germany was not a perpetrator, but it remains far removed from the position of bystander.

Meredith Hindley
American University

Zitierweise
Meredith Hindley: Rezension zu: Dadrian, Vahakn N.: German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide. A Review of the Historical Evidence of German Complicity. Watertown 1996, in: H-Soz-u-Kult, 14.04.1997, <http://hsozkult.geschichte.hu-berlin.de/rezensionen/id=342>.

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2014/01/23/german-wartime-documents-now-in-english/

German Wartime Documents Now in English
HISTORY, NEWS | JANUARY 23, 2014 11:25 AM
By Muriel Mirak-Weissbach

Special to the Mirror-Spectator

HAMBURG — Who was responsible for the Armenian Genocide? The ready answer is the Young Turk leadership, and that is on the mark. But there is more to the story. The Genocide took place in the context of the First World War, whose centenary is being commemorated this year, a war which saw Ottoman Turkey allied with Imperial Germany. It stands to reason that documentary material from official German sources can provide special insight into the actual campaign of deportations and mass murder, because, as allies, the Germans were privy to information that others did not have.

The richest source of information is to be found in the German Foreign Ministry archives during the war. German researcher and historian Wolfgang Gust compiled a critical edition of key documents in German in 2005, and his groundbreaking research has been translated into several other languages. Now it is finally available in English. (See release.) I had the opportunity to talk to Gust about his new book and to learn more about the background and special relevance it has today. Wolfgang Gust was active for decades with the leading German weekly Der Spiegel, including seven years as head of the Paris office and later work as editor of Spiegel books. It was during his stay in Paris that he first read about the Armenian Genocide in a book by Jacques von Alexanian, Le ciel était noir sur l’Euphrat, and began research on the subject. Following a series in Spiegel in 1991 on Karabagh, he published his first book on the subject (1993), which drew largely on existing research in French, German and other sources. There was relatively little original work in German, so he was breaking new ground when he went to the official German government sources and in 2005 issued a selection of 240 of the most important documents. It is this volume which is now available in the US.

The fact that it is in English is “most important,” he told me, “because English is the international language” which most scholars can read. And, he quipped, although American and British historians have a very good reputation, they are not noted for their foreign language capabilities… As for the substance of the work, the significance lies in the documents themselves, “which are the most important non-Turkish documents because Germany was one of the Great Powers in the war.” Diplomatic personnel, both the Ambassador and various consuls in Turkey, as well as members of the numerous Christian missions, reported at length on what they could observe on the ground. Although, he noted, the Americans and British may have had more information about the Committee of Union and Progress, they did not have facts about the massacres. Or if they did — for instance Ambassador Morgenthau’s reports — they did not have the same access to safe, encoded channels of communication that the Germans, as allies, had.

What then did the Germans know? And what did they do? Were they co-responsible? Or were they even, as some Turkish and other researchers have suggested, the prime movers for genocide? Was “German militarism” the culprit? Gust has explored this aspect in great depth and has concluded that there were varying levels of knowledge and different modes of response. He pointed out, for example, that lower level officers on the ground had more access to knowledge about the deportations and killings than the higher level General Staff. There were those who knew about the massacres and supported them, Gust said: “like First Lieutenant Böttrich, who was the German officer responsible for the Ottoman railways, and therefore for the Armenians working on the Baghdad railway project. He personally signed deportation orders, which were death warrants.” Or there was Eberhard Graf Wolffskeel von Reichenberg, a German artillery and General Staff officer, who not only witnessed killings in Zeitun and Urfa, “but also shot them himself.” At the same time there were some German officers who protected Armenians, and due to German intervention they were not deported en masse from Smyrna and Constantinople. As for the diplomats, the consuls, they “were on the side of the Armenians, not the Turks,” Gust said, “but since they were officially German representatives they had to be careful about what they said.” Notwithstanding, “in their internal reports they spoke openly of massacres; deputy consul Hermann Hoffmann-Völkersamb from Alexandrette, for example, and Max Erwin von Scheubner-Richter from Erzerum,” who gave detailed accounts.

There are many historians who have stressed the role of German militarism, among them Sean McMeekin. In his book, The Berlin-Baghdad Express, he highlights the role of Max Baron von Oppenheim and his nationalist propaganda. “But,” Gust explained, “Oppenheim was merely a propagandist, not a representative of German policy.” German militarism, in Gust’s view, “does play a role, in that it was the military that the Turks wanted as allies. And German policy was influenced by the military.” But this was not what motivated the Genocide. Gust also points out that, contrary to the idea current among some historians, it was not the Germans who forced the Young Turks into the alliance. Rather, as the archives show, “Turkey wanted Germany as an ally because they were convinced that Germany would win the war and they had plans for conquering the Caucasus.” They even insisted on guarantees that, in the event of victory, they would have a border with a Muslim state.

A frequent argument put forward in particular by those who deny the Genocide is that the Armenians constituted a military threat to Turkey and that they had to organize the deportations, during which Armenians perished. In further research conducted over the past two years, Gust has unearthed crucial evidence to refute this notion and has published it on www.armenocide.net. Here he has focused on surviving military documents from the Supreme Headquarters, documents by foreign ministry representatives who always reported what they heard from military. “I have found nothing — nothing,” he repeated, “referring to the Armenians as a ‘danger’ or as ‘preparing a rebellion.’ From 1,000 documents, stretching to the end of 1916, there is not one such reference.”

There may have been, he said, some German military in Constantinople who were influenced by Turkish allegations of such activity, but the absence of any reference in these documents “is important, because the military dominated in Germany: if the Armenian issue did not exist for the German military,” he reasoned, “then it was not part of German policy.” As the new research confirms, Germany’s military aims concerned the Suez Canal (which they tried to block but failed), but not the Middle East. For Germany, France and Belgium were important, and for economic reasons. Russia was important, “and therefore they hoped to use Turkey in a war against Russia, to open a second front.” The German military in Berlin were for the war, but were neither for nor against the Armenians.

In serious historical research, it is the primary sources which count, not ideological leanings or political opportunism. This first English edition of the German wartime documents will shed new light on the fate the Armenians suffered in that conflict. When I asked Gust who the likely readers would be, he said he thought that Armenians above all would be interested in the book, not only specialists but also students in Turcology and genocide studies. Most important for those involved in genocide studies are “the direct quotations from Young Turk leaders Enver and Talaat which show they planned the Genocide.”

- See more at: http://www.mirrorspectator.com/2014/....tU4Fwr9h.dpuf

[hrai]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

--------- the advice I give to all non Armenians is ... Don't trust a word (ANY) Armenian says about the Armenian genocide --------
The above is a quote by bell.
The above is a turk mantra.
Both the turks & bell repeat that juvenal & merit less phrase over and over again.
Bell is not only a turk a$s licker but simply a twit.
The research on the Armenian genocide done by the Armenian intelligencia is both profound, prolific, honorable, truthful, and deadly accurate.
To make such a blanket & worthless statement such as bell made in the above post is --- MORONIC ---
bell, you are a fkn moron.


To what audience does any rational mind think bell is playing to???
If that's a tough question for any of the readers out there, then you need to get your crayons out and practice your colors some more.
Artashes

Artashes, the quote you comment on would get the poster banned from other forums so I'm pleased that HyeClub is open-minded and liberal in it's policies on what constitutes a reasonable statement of fact, opinion or point of view. In this day and age it's comforting to know that some organisations and groups will always act in the best and most consistent way.

BTW, I hope you're well my friend.

[Eddo211]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

How about this

How did the Europe finally forced the Sultan to sell Jerusalem (by buying/owning Ottoman lands behind his back) and how much of a problem it was, that how much wealth Armenians owned at the time leading to AG.

[Eddo211]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

--------- the advice I give to all non Armenians is ... Don't trust a word (ANY) Armenian says about the Armenian genocide --------
The above is a quote by bell.
The above is a turk mantra.
Both the turks & bell repeat that juvenal & merit less phrase over and over again.
Bell is not only a turk a$s licker but simply a twit.
The research on the Armenian genocide done by the Armenian intelligencia is both profound, prolific, honorable, truthful, and deadly accurate.
To make such a blanket & worthless statement such as bell made in the above post is --- MORONIC ---
bell, you are a fkn moron.


To what audience does any rational mind think bell is playing to???
If that's a tough question for any of the readers out there, then you need to get your crayons out and practice your colors some more.
Artashes

quoted

[Haykakan]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

Just found this in 7 parts but could not find part 6.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl8sMDZkyXc&sns=em

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Vive La France !!!!!

The Germans were allies of the turks in WW1.
The Germans aided the turks whenever they could.
All the western powers who deny the Armenian genocide aid and abet the continuance of the Armenian genocide & genocide in general.
Artashes

Just more weasel-words designed to avoid admitting that there is nothing at all to prove the AG was "planned and implemented with European powers" and that "Germany providing plans and logistics" accusation made by Haykakan. The posts by Hrai clearly show that. Quote: "Germany was not a perpetrator" and, quote: "if the Armenian issue did not exist for the German military,” he reasoned, “then it was not part of German policy". '

What's the real reason for your persitance in this - any old excuse to attack someone (though you seem to forget I think you are a nothing, and a very stupid one, so why should I care about the personal insults you make?), or a total inability to admit a mistake, or is it that racist Armenians (and there are many of them) like the idea of having another 70 million people they can behave obnoxiously to. Having 100 million Turks and Azeris to insult is not enough for them.