notes and comments

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

Friday, December 4, 2009
**********************************
THIS AND THAT
************************************************** ****
Repetition is the most powerful tool of persuasion. Commercials, slogans, prayers, sermons, and speeches rely on repeating a handful of predictable lines and ideas.
If thinkers have been unpopular with their contemporaries it may be because they refused to repeat what everyone wanted to hear.
*
There are those who believe patriotism consists in emphasizing the positive and covering up the negative. If a doctor were to behave like a patriot, the mortality of his patients would escalate dramatically.
*
The man who has stolen a billion dollars will plead not guilty, hire a dream team of lawyers, and cut a deal with the prosecution.
*
What could be more cowardly than insulting someone anonymously and from a safe distance.
*
One of the worst mistakes I have made in my life is treating some of my fellow men as if they were human.
#

[ArmSurvival]

Re: elegy

Armenian anti-Semites say the Young Turks were Semites.

No one is talking about Semites. We are talking about the cult of Judaism and its Zionist variant which are borderless and have no race or ethnicity. Plus, the people who claim the Young Turks were J ews are not even Armenians, in fact two of them were Zionist J ews (your favorite type of people). You can delude yourself as much as you want, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

Speaking for myself, I am less interested in knowing what others (be they Semites or goyim) did to us, and more interested in knowing what we, or rather our leadership, did for us. If they did something, what exactly? If nothing, what kind of leaders do nothing but pull their xxxx in time of crisis?

Actually our leaders at the time were telling the population to resist Ottoman persecution by arming ourselves. It was people like yourself that belittled our leaders at every chance and convinced most Armenians that it was okay to give up their guns to the Ottoman authorities, because by fighting back we were "asking for it".

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

It is undeniable that certain Salonicans of hebraic origin played key roles in the Young Turk movement and that, in general, the interests of Armenians and j ews in Turkey diverged sharply in terms of their respective self-interests or nationalisms. This does not mean that the Young Turk organization was controlled by a bloc of hebraic leaders to serve exclusively Zionist ends and that the non-hebraic majority were simply unwitting puppets being used for this purpose. The fundamental goal of the Young Turks was to save Turkey for the Turks, and in this they were served by Karasso and the other dönmeh who had significant roles in the CUP. In terms of carrying the day for Zionism, they did not, no matter what their private feelings might have been.

While I share Armenian resentment of the ongoing alliance between Turkey and Israel in quashing the truth of the Armenian Genocide, it's a big mistake to turn history into a grotesque caricature of itself by saying "Talaat", the hideous overseer of the Genocide, was a Hriah, based on a dubious remark by the flaky mercenary adventurer Rafael de Nogales who wasn't even sure of his own identifty and probably had Armenian blood on his sword, especially when no responsible scholarship suggests anything of the kind. The dönmeh Salonicans offered their services to a much larger Turkish nationalism for the benefits that offered them, both personal and cultural. But to suggest that they were the ones whose supposed Zionist motivations were the indispensable factor leading to the Armenian Genocide is dangerously irresponsible. And we shouldn't implicate all the hebraic people of good conscience in the suffering of Armenians by throwing stereotypic labels around, especially in consideration of those who have distinguished themselves in defending the historic interests of Armenians in so many invaluable ways and will continue to do so if we give them half a chance. Let's blame Turkey. That is where the responsibility rests.

As to the following remark addressed to AB: Actually our leaders at the time were telling the population to resist Ottoman persecution by arming ourselves. It was people like yourself that belittled our leaders at every chance and convinced most Armenians that it was okay to give up their guns to the Ottoman authorities, because by fighting back we were "asking for it".

You might consider that he might have said no such thing at the time and that he might have told the Armenians they would be foolish to obey leaders who were calling on them to disarm, quite the opposite of what you're saying. That may be at the bottom of his anger. You never know. . . .

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

Saturday, December 5, 2009
**********************************
WANTED: WORDS
************************************************** ****
We don't have a word for compassion, and if we do, we never use it – at least I have never heard anyone use it, which may suggest we think of it as an irrelevant abstraction devoid of all cash value.
Life has taught us to think in terms of you are either with us or against us and if you are against us you might as well be a Turk in disguise. By life, I mean of course our former masters – be they Soviet, Ottoman, or any other Asiatic barbarian you care to mention.
Deviate a fraction of an inch from the line established from above and you are toast. I can tell that by the kind of insults hurled in my direction by gentle readers who operate on the assumption that as men of God and capital (make it, Capital and god) our bosses, bishops, and benefactors must know better than a lowly scribbler who can't even make ends meet.
If we don't have words for honesty, compassion, and compromise, let's borrow them. Nothing wrong in borrowing. Most of our words are borrowed from other languages to begin with. But if we have words for them, let's resurrect them by all means, and even more important, let's use and practice them. A nation of dishonest, uncompromising men devoid of all compassion is a nation on its way to the devil – if not already there.
#

[KanadaHye]

Re: elegy

And we shouldn't implicate all the hebraic people of good conscience in the suffering of Armenians by throwing stereotypic labels around, especially in consideration of those who have distinguished themselves in defending the historic interests of Armenians in so many invaluable ways and will continue to do so if we give them half a chance. Let's blame Turkey. That is where the responsibility rests.

Turkey inherited all the pros and cons of the remnants of the old empire, the state that exists today isn't entirely responsible for what happened during its finally years prior to the collapse. There are elements within Turkey that may have benefited but the vast majority of the blame can be attributed to foreign elements as well. It also isn't fair to throw around stereotypical labels on the Turkish people. It is their government and military who still carries the guilt.

While I share Armenian resentment of the ongoing alliance between Turkey and Israel in quashing the truth of the Armenian Genocide, it's a big mistake to turn history into a grotesque caricature of itself by saying "Talaat", the hideous overseer of the Genocide, was a Hriah, based on a dubious remark by the flaky mercenary adventurer Rafael de Nogales who wasn't even sure of his own identifty and probably had Armenian blood on his sword, especially when no responsible scholarship suggests anything of the kind.

You might consider that he might have said no such thing at the time and that he might have told the Armenians they would be foolish to obey leaders who were calling on them to disarm, quite the opposite of what you're saying. That may be at the bottom of his anger. You never know. . . .

If you take a look at the world events after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, (who benefited from it and who suffered from it) the evidence of the ties between certain nations seems to support this theory. I agree that no responsible scholarship would suggest such a thing because you'd have to be out of your mind to risk your career by doing so. As most knowledgeable people are aware, there is a faux pas when it comes to pointing out the wrong doings of certain groups of powerful people.

We may never know the truths of many things taught in history (taking a look at all the misinformation given to the public by today's media) but as we know, there is usually some form of evidence left behind to piece together history such as structures, dwellings, literature, etc. attributed to a certain kinds of people which sheds light on their claims. That is why the flame that sheds light on our history, particularly the Armenian Genocide should never burn out because without the passion (sometimes seen as anger) that has survived within each and every Armenian, there is no hope for our future as a people.

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

Turkey inherited all the pros and cons of the remnants of the old empire, the state that exists today isn't entirely responsible for what happened during its finally years prior to the collapse. There are elements within Turkey that may have benefited but the vast majority of the blame can be attributed to foreign elements as well. It also isn't fair to throw around stereotypical labels on the Turkish people. It is their government and military who still carries the guilt.


Diranakir's reply:
While present day Turkish society as a whole cannot be blamed for the Armenian Genocide, the government of Turkey bears full responsibility for its continuing falsification of history and the very real consequences of that denial. It's not only 'elements' within Turkey that have benefited from the unacknowledged crime, but the entire nation.



If you take a look at the world events after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, (who benefited from it and who suffered from it) the evidence of the ties between certain nations seems to support this theory. I agree that no responsible scholarship would suggest such a thing because you'd have to be out of your mind to risk your career by doing so. As most knowledgeable people are aware, there is a faux pas when it comes to pointing out the wrong doings of certain groups of powerful people.

We may never know the truths of many things taught in history (taking a look at all the misinformation given to the public by today's media) but as we know, there is usually some form of evidence left behind to piece together history such as structures, dwellings, literature, etc. attributed to a certain kinds of people which sheds light on their claims. That is why the flame that sheds light on our history, particularly the Armenian Genocide should never burn out because without the passion (sometimes seen as anger) that has survived within each and every Armenian, there is no hope for our future as a people.

You seem to imply that even if there was solid evidence that Talaat was of hebraic origin no scholar would point it out for fear of risking his/her career.
I simply don't accept that. If you're talking about what is circulated in the popular media that may be the case, but if you are talking about scholarly work I think you are entirely wrong. Everything is out there. We just have to find it, and as you say, "there is usually some form of evidence left behind". Exactly, and I will submit that there is no such evidence indicating Talaat's ethnicity being hebraic and that that is the reason we don't find any authoritative citation of it. It is completely misguided to attribute Turkey's crime to the predominance of one ethnic minority over the entire state apparatus of the Ottoman Empire.

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

It is undeniable that certain Salonicans of hebraic origin played key roles in the Young Turk movement and that, in general, the interests of Armenians and j ews in Turkey diverged sharply in terms of their respective self-interests or nationalisms. This does not mean that the Young Turk organization was controlled by a bloc of hebraic leaders to serve exclusively Zionist ends and that the non-hebraic majority were simply unwitting puppets being used for this purpose. The fundamental goal of the Young Turks was to save Turkey for the Turks, and in this they were served by Karasso and the other dönmeh who had significant roles in the CUP. In terms of carrying the day for Zionism, they did not, no matter what their private feelings might have been.

While I share Armenian resentment of the ongoing alliance between Turkey and Israel in quashing the truth of the Armenian Genocide, it's a big mistake to turn history into a grotesque caricature of itself by saying "Talaat", the hideous overseer of the Genocide, was a Hriah, based on a dubious remark by the flaky mercenary adventurer Rafael de Nogales who wasn't even sure of his own identifty and probably had Armenian blood on his sword, especially when no responsible scholarship suggests anything of the kind. The dönmeh Salonicans offered their services to a much larger Turkish nationalism for the benefits that offered them, both personal and cultural. But to suggest that they were the ones whose supposed Zionist motivations were the indispensable factor leading to the Armenian Genocide is dangerously irresponsible. And we shouldn't implicate all the hebraic people of good conscience in the suffering of Armenians by throwing stereotypic labels around, especially in consideration of those who have distinguished themselves in defending the historic interests of Armenians in so many invaluable ways and will continue to do so if we give them half a chance. Let's blame Turkey. That is where the responsibility rests.

As to the following remark addressed to AB: Actually our leaders at the time were telling the population to resist Ottoman persecution by arming ourselves. It was people like yourself that belittled our leaders at every chance and convinced most Armenians that it was okay to give up their guns to the Ottoman authorities, because by fighting back we were "asking for it".

You might consider that he might have said no such thing at the time and that he might have told the Armenians they would be foolish to obey leaders who were calling on them to disarm, quite the opposite of what you're saying. That may be at the bottom of his anger. You never know. . . .

we were massacred not because people like me (i assume you mean Baronian, Odian, among others, who made fun of our revolutionaries) but because our "leaders" were taken in by the empty verbiage of the West.

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

as for the contemptible Israeli-Turklish alliance.
any day now we will have an Armeno-Turkish alliance.
indiciduals may have principles.
nations don't.
they do what's best for themselves.
they don't have friends or enemies, only interests.

[arabaliozian]

Re: elegy

No one is talking about Semites. We are talking about the cult of Judaism and its Zionist variant which are borderless and have no race or ethnicity. Plus, the people who claim the Young Turks were J ews are not even Armenians, in fact two of them were Zionist J ews (your favorite type of people). You can delude yourself as much as you want, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.




Actually our leaders at the time were telling the population to resist Ottoman persecution by arming ourselves. It was people like yourself that belittled our leaders at every chance and convinced most Armenians that it was okay to give up their guns to the Ottoman authorities, because by fighting back we were "asking for it".

as a scribbler i trust writers more than politicians.
obviously, as a man with political ambitions, you place your trust mire in our wheeler-dealers, dupes, and fools.

[Diranakir]

Re: elegy

we were massacred not because people like me (i assume you mean Baronian, Odian, among others, who made fun of our revolutionaries) but because our "leaders" were taken in by the empty verbiage of the West.

==========================================

I have not learned how to properly format text according to the usage of the forum, therefore I have caused some confusion about who is doing the talking. I suggested earlier, in connection with the charge that AB was belittling the leadership, that quite possibly AB was antagonistic to the leadership not because he would have advocated disarming the people but because he wanted them to remain armed despite the leadership. I realize that in saying so I risk
reading more into his stance than there is. But I think it helps to turn things around and around and examine them closely before we all write each other off. Can we admit to each other that we're all sorely troubled by the Armenian Genocide, and that that is the root of our distemper with each other?