Nikephoros_Phokas

That is a joke, right? Because if only one parent is Armenian speaking they cannot really be immersed enough to learn.

Wow, this thread is full of so much trash. What Armenianpirate said is true from my observations in the United States, and what he is saying is not being an Armenian only racist or have anything to do with the Aryan nation or whatever other trash people are using to label him. I know this guy is now close to his 50s in age, who was born in Poland, he came to the United States, I believe in the 1970s. He was married once in the States to another Pole and had a son with that fellow Pole. He got married again, this time to a non-Polish American and had two daughters with this wife. Which kids of his do you think speak Polish? Only the one son he had from his marriage with the other Pole, speaks Polish. Infact this son went to Germany as an exchange student for one year and speaks German as well because his exchange family did not know English so he had to learn German to communicate and manage with this family. If this German family knew English he would probably never have learned German, because he would have taken the easy way out and spoken to them in the language he knew, English, instead of endeavoring to learn German. My mom was born in Greece, so was my dad. Me and my brother were raised alot by maternal grandparents who never learnt much English. Do you think I speak Greek? The question is more how could I not learn it being raised by parents who spoke it and grandparents who spoke it. My mom has a brother who married a non-Greek. This uncle of mine has had three kids none of which speak Greek. My mom has this boyfriend who was married twice. This boyfriend was born in Greece. He had one marriage with a non-Greek and three kids from this marriage. He married another women in Greece and brought here to the United States and had a kid with her. Only the one kid from his marriage with another Greek speaks Greek. You do not really teach children languages, you need people around them speaking a language on a regular basis and they will learn it automatically. There is nothing fascist or extremist about this, for diasporas intermarriage is cultural assimilation and extinction. If a non-Armenian marries an Armenian it is highly unlikely a child of such a marriage will ever learn Armenian, unless it is raised by the grandparents who speak Aremnian to the child enough for it to learn. If you want your kids to learn Armenian, you have to marry someone who knows Armenian and then speak Armenian heavily in the househould and the kid will just learn it, not teaching involved. If you think you can marry a non-Armenian and then teach your kid Armenian through a church program or something you are probably being unrealistic. Inter-marriage is cultural assimilation. (This paragraph is for people who think languages can be learned in schools.) In highschool I took Spanish courses for three years and I do not speak any Spanish, because I never wanted to really put the effort to learn. I just knew that colleges want you to take foreign language courses in High School so I took them, not to learn a language but to have something to look nice on some transcript. Besides at such an age it is already much more difficult to learn a language. When you are born you know zero languages, but young people have a talent for learning languages, they never need to look up definitions, you just speak a language enough and they will mimic you and pick it up. I could of learned Spanish if I immersed myself in it(since so many Spanish people living in my town getting practice would not be hard). I doubt many of you know very many half-Armenians, half-anything(s) that speak one of their immigrant parent's languages. I know I do not.

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040322/capt.ppc10403222109.topix__clashes_ppc104.jpg They changed the caption of the image, it used to mention the other Albanian urinating on the Church ruins and that he was taking a picture of this act on his cell phone. AP probably self censored that. The caption now reads: An Ethnic Albanian youth uses his mobile telephone to take a picture of the facade of St. George cathedral in the southern Kosovo town of Prizren, Monday, March 22, 2004. The cathedral was recently was set on fire and heavily damaged during an outbreak of ethnic violence in Kosovo. (AP Photo/Pier Paolo Cito) The original url is here: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor.../ppc10403222109 Maybe they will change the caption even more.

It is obvious how you have managed to amass so many posts in such a short duration, lack of substance. I do not really adhere to any ideology and I never adhere to any ideology over pragmatism, unlike some fanatic to the ideology of anarcho-capitalism making some ignorant implications about minimum wage laws as to why so many companies are exporting jobs to China. You are so fanatic in your ideology you are saying that people in the United States should work for less than five dollars an hour. I do not know about you, but I do not know how one will live on such a meager salary, perhaps you can try making an arrangenment with a wealthy factory owner to work for less than minumum wage so the damn Hans do not take jobs to the Ming dynasty, then you could tell us how easy it is paying for food, housing, clothes, etc. on less than minimum wage. When you say that capitalism is inherently "anarchic"(sic: the word is anarchistic) what should I say? There is nothing I can say to you because you are taking as an a prior assumption the fact that capitalism as you said in other threads is voluntarily when it is so obvious it is not. Unlike you I have actually commented on the article, instead of making personal attacks, dragging the debate in other directions, and other unsavory tactics. I read that work he cited and I can tell you he is citing it to scare people, because those PLA authors made it clear that their military was very much behind the United States, and behind as well in unrestricted warfare and the resources to fight such war, the only way China could gain an advantage they made clear is to try to expand this concept and make it broader than the Pentagon's concept of unrestricted warfare. The insinuation that China is making any American company move to China is pure bunk. They are doing this for more profits. I have never said an American worker cannot compete with a Chinese, but I have said and will again for you since you need to here it again: no unskilled American worker can compete with an unskilled Chinese worker on price. This is why these unskilled factory jobs are being moved to China, not due to the People's Liberation Army master plan. The article you linked to was a scam, if "Total Profit Protection From the Coming China Crisis!" was really free, it would be on the web like the article you copy and pasted. Now if you have any substance(which I doubt), reply, but I fear you will reply anyway as is your custom.

That article was just garbage, I am regretful I wasted my time to read it. First off, the work he was talking about Unrestricted Warfare is available on the web in its entirety and a while back, in 2002, I put it on my Palmpilot and read this work. Anyone who has read that work will get the impression that the authors who are in the People's Liberation Army[PLA] are in awe of the American military and are trying to mimick it. They give examples of what unrestricted warfare is using America actions, such as international sanctions saying that Washington is the master of unrestricted warfare but they can be outdone; Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui feel that the concept can be expanded and that China's military should expand this due to their disadvantages compared to the United States military in technology. If it is not clear enough, mentioning even "Unrestricted Warfare" in this tabloid like article was done to mislead ignorant people about some kind of Chinese economic aggression that is not present, because in this work they mention that in the concept of unrestricted warfare China is behind the United States. When America gives economic aid to these countries it is not out of good will, and when they act of the United States's interests this aid will be stopped. It is like being dependant on crack, many will steal to continue this bad habit instead of stopping for their own good. Countries dependant on the American loans, will most likely rather continue to be a political appenage of the United States, rather than act out of accord with America's foreign policy and lose the loans they are dependent on. Washington can use such clout to make and enforce sanctions against nations like Iraq and use its great global influence to prevent most nations from selling Iraq weapons, this is what is meant by unrestricted warfare. Of course the United States is losing manufacturing jobs and this has nothing to do with any kind of warfare but everything to do with corporate greed and the concept of purchasing power parity. There was a time especially before World War II when the advanced capitalist countries, many would be poor in natural resources but make up for this through manufacturing. Today this era is gone and now the advanced capitalist nations are moving to an era where they neither do much manufacturing nor do many of them have significant natural resources. Back in the pre World War II era a nation such as the United State moving as many manufacturing plants as it is today to China would be considered something similar to treason, but now it is done without a second thought. If any of you are familiar with the concept of purchasing power parity, it is comparing the prices of the same goods in different nations. A carbonated beverage like Coke will be much cheaper in China made by Chinese labor than Coke made in the United States. This concept is why American laborers cannot really compete with Chinese laborers for manufacturing jobs so greedy American capitalists are moving these factories to China so they can get even richer than they are, this has nothing to do with any economic warfare by the Chinese, that is just scare mongering. This is article is some kind of scam. If the copy is really free it would be on the internet freely available like this trash article that was copy and pasted into this thread. As for Anonymouse's typical malthusian comments from an "anarcho"-capitalist(sic), I just do not know what to say. How can you be such a blind fanatic? Where I live in New Jersey minumum wage is pitiful, I believe it is around five dollars and forty something cents an hour. How can you be so fanatic, to say it is the fault of minumum wage that these jobs are lost to China? No American unskilled laborer in a job that cannot be exported can compete with his Chinese counterpart on price because to live in the United States costs alot more than in China, so American workers have to get paid more than the Chinese. I do not know how people who make minumum wage manage to live on their meager incomes, the last thing needed to is to remove minimum wage. The problem is that rich capitalists in their search for more profits are gonna move labor that can be moved to nations such as China where the cost of living and thus expected wages are much lower.

In the Balkans the Ustashe fascists were aided by the Catholic Church with Vatican approval. After WWII the Catholic Church helped many Nazis escape.

Family of Martyred Pilot Petitions to ECHR Against Athens Read that link to see that Turks have not fully abandoned the concept of jihad, just by reading the title any one can see this is true. I am sure many of you can not have helped but noticed that the press of many Western nations does a good job to create a false image of how Turkey has accepted many Western concepts and ideas and is a bastion in this respect. Well in the Western world they are supposedly trying to emulate people do not call pilots that die violating airspace of a foreign nation a martyr. The Palestinians do much the same, when a suicide bomber goes and kills himself taking out innocent Israelis he is a martyr as well. This stupid translators at Hurriyet are ruining everything! All this work of real politik to create this false image of some Western bastion in the muslim world that is Turkey, ruined by these translators, they should have used the world dead or even murdered even if this is deception and lying. Now this deception is going to come down for anyone who reads that article and can think for himself. Another link to give you more of the point: AZERBAIJAN: SEVEN YEARS OF CONFLICT IN NAGORNO-Artsax "Cover photographs: On the right: Azeri dead from fighting in Artsax buried in Martyr's Cemetery", Baku. Located high above the Caspian on a bluff, it used to be Kirov Park, Baku's loveliest, named in honor of the bolshevik revolutionary." ... So their dead from a war of from what their military's behavior showed would have been a war of extermination if they were not such military incompetents to finish the job that the stupid Bolsheviks with their Kemalist friends started of making Artsakh Azeri. I am an atheist and I think Christians are stupid but muslims just really disgust me much more. Christians and their concept of martyr is much different and incomparable to this trash. Martyrs in Christians discourse are not people who blow up innocents just because they are not muslims in some sick concept of holy war, marytrs are not Turkish pilots who when they violate Greek or any foriegn airspace should expect to be shot down if they have hostile intent and do not ask for permission first(except they are not because of the attitudes and policies of the Greek political class), or Azeri soldiers reviving the concept of jihad. Remember alot of the attitudes that Israelis confront vis a vis Arabs and especially Palestinians are the same attitudes you as Armenians will confront from Azeris and from Turks, because they are both muslim.

Of course the Kurds are not brothers(as they are muslims) but imagine a Kurdish state in North Iraq... Will this state be in a position to threaten or make claims against Armenia? I am doubting it. Any Kurdish state ever formed will be too busy worrying about Iran, Syria and Turkey to think much even about the name Armenia, and its military would be oriented against these countries and these countries will reciporate as they do not to have the Kurds in their borders thinking of joining their independent friends. A Kurdish state in my opinion would be pretty good geopolitically, not as an ally, but just because it will absorb so much of the attention of Turkey. A Kurdish state would also be good for Greece for the same reason and for Israel as well because it will make the Arab states bordering it go nuts.

View some of the videos on this link and see some Islamic hate about Israelis and Jews: Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI) Videos I used to think that many Jews and Israelis were fanatics for calling people that are anti-Zionist, anti-Semites and other such labels, but know I see they were speaking the truth. Since I am talking to Armenians here imagine this: Imagine that Armenia did not expel the Azeris but today there were still none or a very depleted community of Armenians in Azerbaijan. I am saying to imagine that Armenia allowed a large Azeri community on its territory while Azerbaijan does not reciporicate. Today the population of Israel is 20 percent Arab and this is a fact, while the Jewish communities they, the Arabs have destroyed and if they are not extinct they are in a feeble and depleted state, and my advice to these Jews woule be to get the hell out of these Arab nations the first chance they get. The fact is the first war that Israeli loses in a major way, that is if the Arabs ever manage to completely or almost completely destroy the Israeli army, then in all likelihood Israel will cease to exist. This is the same situation Armenians in Artsakh face, the first war they lose that destroys their military capability to an extent large enough to prevent self-defence, the Armenians of Artsahkh will be only another extinct dhimmi peoples for the books of history. Think, you are facing in many ways the same kind of foe, with the same inherited muslim traditions of jihad. How would you feel if you were a Jew or Israeli if you are allowing such a large Arab community to exist as long as they accept Zionism while the Arabs do not really extend such tolerance.

Are you implying that you have not researched, this tangent of the Armenian genocide? I am sure everyone reading is shocked at this. --------------------------------------------------------------- In case anyone did not know, in Islamic societies the belief is that everyone is born a muslim. The problem from their point of view is that infidel parents raise their kids to be, in this case Christians, instead of muslims. But they have concepts like jihad to take care of this, these non-muslims resisting the spread of Islam. So with something like the Armenian genocide leaving alot of kids without their unwanted infidel parents it is every pious muslim's duty to help raise them and bring them back to the path of Allah. God job Ataturk(if she is infact Armenian)!

The Spanish in their conquest of South America were behaving influenced by the Reconquista of Spain. If you look at how they behaved they would be more lenient to some of these Indians if they adopted Christianity, which is typical of the Islamic tradition of jihad and more of an aberration in the Christian tradition.

Domino, I have a good question for you: Why do you spend so much time debating Turks on these messageboards? You are spending alot of time with those posts, messageboards are a very ephemeral medium(and especially on boards where Turks are the mods they sometimes delete his posts, because they cannot argue with him on an even field and make their lies or fales historical perceptions compete with Domino's research and arguments) and not as many people are reading them probably, compared to a high ranking website on the subject. Why do you perfer to debate Turks with your time instead of making a decent Armenian genocide website with your time? (Of course the average website does not last much longer than a year either, but there are always things like mirrors and now there is the Wayback machine archiving websites.) Most of the sites on on the subject are rather poor due to lack of expertise and the webmasters should really invest their time into helping scan books on the subject in which the copyright has expired instead.

"Anarcho-capitalism"(sic) is not anarchism. It is just an intellectual circle jerk movement at its finest. All they want to do is have capitalism usurp the role of the state, have corporations take over the roles of police, army, establishing law, etc. Such a form of capitalism is nothing other than a state but with another name. Personally, I find it hard to respect alot of anarchists, their analyses of world events take too much of an economic and ideological character. Most anarchists would anaylse the Israel-Palestinian conflict by concluding that both states are just as bad because they are states, and as anarchists are against all states, would say the solution lies in finding the real enemy of the Israelis and Palestinians is the same; their own governments and their own capitalists, but that is quite a shallow anaylsis. Much as I cannot respect anarchists for their tendency to put ideology above realism and pragamatism, the "anarcho-capitalists"(sic) are much worse for in their fanatic support of capitalism, they consider the nation state being abolished and replaced by coporate states like in the Mechwarrior universe is a form of anarchism. Going from a nation state and advocating a corporate state instead is a mockery of the intellectual and historical traditions of anarchism, which is why "anarcho-capitalism" is a gross oxymoron.

Accelerated, I feel there is no real military history or analysis available online except for the two links I have already given. I have tried searching at Searchmil a specialized search engine for the US .mil domain and nothing comes up. I did find some PDF that mentioned Russia threatened Turkey with nuclear weapons to deter its intervention, though. I have also tried subject searches at the Library of Congress Search and in addition it is possible that there is not a single English language book on the subject.

Given enough time to confront a denialist, yes like you said, Domino, the chance should be taken. If you keep brining up evidences hard to impeach like: A)Lemkin the inventor of the term genocide having what happened to the Armenians in mind when formulating the term B)Ataturk's speeches where he said 800,000 Armenians were killed C)Turkish post-war military tribunal D)Turkish post-war parliamentary debates E)Turkish scholars like Akcam, the guy who wrote "How Karabekir destroyed Armenia", Ismail Besikci etc. etc. and then the denialist keeps rejecting these sources because they have to perpetrate their denial, even those who do not know about the genocide or its denial will see the pattern. No matter what the denialist will just dismiss everything on some pretense or another. This is under ideal circumstances. In reality the question is how long the debate is given airtime on the radio or some other form of media. Without much time, no pattern will emerge showing the denialists are just dismissing evidences that are hard to impeach. Then, will people think listening think there is an Armenian genocide if they never heard of it before? I am not too sure. I do not know how long the average radio show interview or newspaper article is, but the less time given the better chance the denialists have to create doubt, the more time the more chances there are for the denialists to bury themselves by denying evidence on flimsy grounds. But without enough time to someone who has never heard of the Armenian genocide before, I think the denialist has a chance of winning the debate by creating doubt and creating the impression it is still a matter of historical debate.

In my opinion everyone is racist to an extent. As long it is not out of hand it should not be a problem. For example, I find Caucasoid women of Southern Europe more attractive than women that are Negroid or Mongloid. This is racist, but who does it hurt? Is a Korean women in America, who will only marry another Korean racist? If she wants to have a kid and raise it as a Korean, then she has to marry a Korean. The problem is state or societal sponsored racism that is excessive. So long as there differences between people in race, religion, way of life, wealth, there will be racism, because people will have their preferences and prejudices, choosing which of these differences that they prefer. The only way to eliminate it is to make everyone the same, which will not happen. Another way to eliminate it is to pretend everyone is the same which is like a form of fascism. This is the key, he may be racist but how can he impose his views on others in the form of state sponsored racism? He is against the Jewish state, Israel, and against using force to defend Israel which he sees as mimicking non-Jews. These ultra-orthodox Jewish fanatics, their racism isolates themselves, it does not bother me in the slightest, when he starts talking of killing non-Jews is when he becomes a cause of concern. I have seen these Orthodox Jews in New York and New Jersey, from time to time, and they are always either alone or with other Orthodox Jews.

Slaughterhouse Five was very schizophrenic, he talked so much about this being his book about the bombing of Dresden but it had so exceedingly little about the bombing of Dresden. If you read this play by Dario Fo called "Accidental Death of An Anarchist" you will maybe start to read plays. That play is just hilarious. I only read it from a collection of Dario Fo's work but if I ever hear it is being performed I think I will go to my first play ever(outside of school, where I was forced to see plays on school trips). The play makes a mockery of the Italian authorities because they are corrupt. The Italian authorities often to discredit revolutionaries would have policemen undercover pretending to be anarchists and such and this play makes a brilliant mockery of the situation, a true masterwork.

If you like reading e-books get a palm top, that is my advice. I have a Handspring Visor and I used to read alot of e-books on it. I would not recommend a Handspring Visor, though, I would recommend something with at least 8 mb or ram and rechargeable batteries built in. Mine needs external batteries and this is a pain, I use recharagebles but when it I change the batteries I sometimes lose all my info and need to re-synch with the PC. At best-buy they have a Sony Palm(black and white) with 33 mhz, 16 mb of RAM, 16 ROM and a rechargeable battery built into the unit(like I recommend) for $80 something.(To give a comparison I paid over 200 for my Visor in 2000 and it has 8mb of RAM only,a 16 mhz processor, and the ROM is not flashable so I cannot upgrade the OS without wasting RAM and no built in rechargeable batteries.) This is what I recommend, it is cheap it has plenty of RAM for e-books, unlike dedicated e-book readers you can use other software on it. Reading on these things takes alot of the disadvantages out of e-books. With the backlight on my Handspring Visor alot of times, on purpose I read in the dark, because you can see perfectly the text with the backlight on in the dark, you see even better than in daylight like this. Also Textz.com is a good source for e-books, but I hate their stupid and overly complex layout that takes long to load and is cumbersome to use, and a big waste of bandwith.

You know who this 50/50 bs benefits. It is no suprise. For example Turkey raises claims on the Aegean, and what does it have to lose, nothing. What does Greece have to lose, alot. Reporters covering Turkish fighters invading the Greek FIR give the impression alot of times that the area is a disputed region, because they give a forum for Turkish fascist expansionism to propagate on a verbal level. It is the same with the Armenian genocide, Armenians stand to be vicitimized by allowing denialists a forum and they stand to lose their place in history. The way news works, no reporter and no paper can really investigate every conflict and every issue so tend they tend to ask for both sides of a conflict to speak. The more fanatic side making the biggest claims is gonna win these 50/50 scenarios, defacto. You cannot lose something that is not yours, but if someone claims something that is yours, you could stand to lose it. For Turkey it is a defacto win even if they are pummeled in the debate, because it will a create an impression that is clear, this subject is still a matter of historic debate and not a closed case. No matter how trounced they are in such debates still the impression will be created that the Armenian genocide is controversial and in dispute. It was very smart of Balakian to refuse, because he could not win. Has anyone read the work in question does it tell a balanced story, of American humanitarianism along with the story of vested American interests and real-politik? If it just one sided about American goodwill it is not worth reading, because it does not reflect reality properly. In the end vested interests won out and Armenians lost. Even the missionaries who helped publicize the Armenian genocide, after it is was completed they downplayed the genocide to earn the good-will of the Turkish authorities so they would get the good graces of the Turkish regime and be able to hold onto their property. But what are the use of Christian missions and missionaries, in a nation that just killed its native Christians? It defies logic.

I am not saying breaking dhimma was the only cause, this is a thread about hypothetically how could the genocide have been prevented. The only way I see it could have been stopped is through force, either outside intervention, by for example Russia, or the Armenians themselves. From the point of view of Islam there is little difference between asking for equality or fighting for one's independence and liberation from the domain of Islam, the dar-al-islam, in fact it is better to fight for your independence because either option is breaking the contract of the toleration of dhimmi's existence. The difference is one path will produce for the dhimmi nation a national army with which to protect themselves, while asking the rulers for reforms of equality will result in paper reforms that are never properly propagated, because of Islamic prejudices, and will most likely result in massacres for offending these same Islamic prejudices. The fact that even today the modern Turks are so eager to rewrite history about the Armenian genocide shows that even in 2003, they are not ready for equality with dhimmis, assuming there were still large dhimmi communities in Turkey. I concur with the historian Robert Melson that for the likes of Sultan Abdul Hamid, who was a traditionalist, a total genocide was probably too radical for him to implement. Hamid relied heavily on the concept of umma and he did not adopt the position of the Turkish nationalists like the Young Turks responsible for planning and executing genocide. The Young Turks used a concept of Turkish umma, and the Kemalists used much the same concept, proving with their actions that the Kurds were only useful for themselves in so far as they helped to deal with the Armenian problem, the Kurds themselves becoming a whole new Kurdish problem. This shows that the architects of the genocide changed their concept of umma to an even more intolerant one, discluding anyone not under the label of Turk or not willing to assume this label willingly. It is not just a community of believers in Islam today, but a community of Turkish believers that respect the Turkish military establishment(even if a Turk is a muslim or nominally one and he does not respect the military he will be in for it). The Armenians had a place in the old Islamic order but a very despised and unequal place, today they have no real place in modern Turkey. ... "After the Second World War, the situation of the religious minorities in Muslim states varied considerably from country to country. Their freedom and security increased to the extent that religious domination over politics (as well as Arab nationalism)[she recognizes this extreme Arab nationalism as a problem but not the Turkish and other extreme nationalism common in the Islamic world, probably because she did less research in these areas, as she is more interested in the situation of Jewish dhimmis] diminished. This happened in Turkey, particularly after Mustapha Kemal became president(1923), and in Persia under the Shah Reza Pahlavi and his son Muhammad Reza (1925-1978). In Egypt this process ocurred toward the end of Anwar Sadat's rule, as the country withdrew from the Arab orbit and adopted a more liberal policy, in keeping with Egypt's history, her interests and with modern concepts of peaceful co-existence." ... Ye'or, Bat, "The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam", (Rutherford NJ, Fairleigh Dickenson University Press, London and Toronto, Associated University Presses, 1985) 121-122. I must say I feel this section is very misleading from what I know. One thing Islamic rule did allow that the modern muslim nations like Turkey do not allow is self-government of dhimmi communities. Marriages and problems within the dhimmi community were dealt with by rabbis if the dhimmis in question were Jewish or the Christian Church if Christian. So as long as dhimmi had to deal with the law within his own community he was ok, but if he had a problem with a muslim like an accusation of insulting Islam, he was almost guranteed injustice, because in Islamic law justice is not for non-muslims, for them there is only injustice. It is like how I recently read "Midnight Express" and there was a conversation in the foreigner kogus with the prisoners lamenting that they wanted to be transfered to Imros, which was a Greek island the Greeks actually liberated. Imros and Tenedos were given back to Turkey on the premise that with control of these islands Greece could threaten the straits and traffic there, so it was given to Turkey and Turkey was suppossed to protect the Greek communities, but these communities are now as good as dead, the Turkish authorities concocting new repressions for them. They said in the conversation that Imros was an open prison, so you would have to be near the end of your sentence to get a transfer to there, and this is no surprise to Greeks as many of us know it was made into an open prison by the Turkish authorities while there were still Greeks on this island. So even in Turkey which Ye'or incorrectly states has gotten better without Islamic law, when in many ways it is much worse. The basis of Turkish law still carries Islamic prejudices and if the people are muslim, so are the judges, prosecutors, lawyers, etc. and the dhimmis do not have recourse to arbitrating disputes within their own community any longer without the concept of Islamic law. Even if they did their communities are so decimated that the chances their disputes could be solved in such a manner is much smaller, because the disputes will now probably involve a muslim, they cannot exist in the hermetic environment of their own communities anymore because these communities are so depleted. The non-muslims in Turkey probably wish they never see the Turkish government authorities because they are so infamously repressive, it is beyond words, and alot of these authorities are constantly conniving new schemes like making Imros an open prison, to make their lives harder. Seemingly, I am very off-topic with this bit about dhimmis treatment in modern Islamic countries with militant laicism such as Turkey(yes, laicism because to say Turkey is secular is ignorance), but the fact that things are in many ways worse reinforces the point that force would have been needed to avoid the Armenian genocide, because the Turkish state and society, is showing it is as intractable as the Kemalists after WWI. So for a solution to prevent the genocide, assuming you could back in time, hypothetically, with what we know, I am saying for sure do not count on the muslims, the Armenians should have armed themselves as best they could with the prohibitions on them and study military tactics and prepare for liberation. Musa Dugh, the Zeitoun uprising, the defence of Van is what was needed more to prevent the genocide even today there is little reconciliation from the Turks, you would figure they would think that Armenians no longer present a threat.

Yeah, none of you know what you are talking about, Domino. First off to say fascism is only possible with capitalism is a highly nuanced definition that Marxists use to raise the glory of their ideology by discrediting capitalism what they conceive as their arch opponent. I think one of the most important books written on fascism has to be "The Mass Psychology of Fascism" by Wilhelm Reich which combines Freudian thought with autonomist Marxism. His essential premise is that people are currently incapable of freedom, and thus fascism cannot just be blamed on a state like many want to believe, but fascism is more than this, it is a way of thinking and a mode of life a whole society must adopt. Reich said that Germans looked to Hitler as a father figure(Exactly like the father of the Turks who Hitler admired) and that the fascism of Germans had a great deal to do with their authoritarian familial traditions. Sexual repression in his work is said to be a big factor in fascism, the more sexually repressed a people are the more authoritarian they will be, look at these strict Islamo-fascists societies like Saudi Arabia where the policemen are forcibly trapping schoolchildren so they die in infernos for breaking the Islamic dress codes(and these codes such as women covering up so only you can see an eye slit is obviously geared to sexual repression).[1] Sexual energy has to go somewhere and if you repress it will create frustration and this is why so many religions downright encourage sexual repression, to keep the population frustrated and incapable of freedom and thus necessary to be lead and exploited. As to Marx I have only read his Communist Manifesto and wasted my time reading the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, he talks about needing a vanguard to lead the Socialist revolution. This is downright authoritarian and could very well lead to fascism, like Reich says he is saying that the people are incapable of freedom, but unlike Reich who thinks people are capable of freedom but he does not see this capability currently demonstrated in any contemporary society, Marx believes people are incapable of Socialist revolution and need some heroes, the vanguard, some would be Fuhrers to guide them. Anyone trying to follow Marx's revolution headed by a vanguard and creating a strong state will end the same always. The final outcome of a Marxist revolution is suppossed to really be stateless but this position will never be reached. The state created will just create a new bureacratic class of the state that will displace the capitalists(assuming the Marxist revolution started in a capitalist state, Russia was semi-capitalist when its revolution started). True socialism, worker's controlling the means of production is not possible with a strong state dominating the economy. The only hierarchy or authority possible is the authority Bakunin acknowledges: "In the matter of boots, I defer to the authority of the bootmaker." Not the kind of authority where you defer to someone because they are an organ of the Soviet state which was state capitalist, as the state controls the entire means of production. Capitalism is where a capitalist possessing class controls most of the production. Communism is socialism, but socialism does not necessary have to be communism. Socialism is just workers controlling production, with no CEOs, no bosses except those who possess a knowledge or skill other workers do not have, this is the only authority possible for true socialism. When people in society are at the point where they are capable of freedom there will be socialism, because capitalism, workers toiling and the dividends to this labor being meted out unfairly because someone owns a business and other usury, is antithetical to true freedom. Most people cannot understand this because they are currently incapable of freedom. [1] Saudi police 'stopped' fire rescue "Saudi Arabia's religious police stopped schoolgirls from leaving a blazing building because they were not wearing correct Islamic dress, according to Saudi newspapers." ...

Are these kinds of stunts done to get favorable press coverage, to demonstrate they are willing to enter a dialogue(a very dishonest dialogue), so their position seems less implacable and hostile?

Listen, I wonder what planet you are from and how you have strayed from the topic so much. Did you even read Bat Ye'ors' work? How is it Zionist? Because it contradicts the myths of muslim tolerance to non-muslims? What does Yugoslavia in WWI and WWII have to do with this? Serbia in WWI and WWII was fighting against much more powerful militaries than the Ottoman or Turkish military. I am saying that for Christian nations under Ottoman domination, they may as well go and fight for independence, because a muslim nation will never grant them equality, it is against Islamic precepts and it will be seen as a breach of the dhimma contract and an invitation to slaughter the non-muslims. It did not take the Balkan Christians nations long from going to a point of having almost no military tradition for hundreds of years, to defeating their former oppressor the Ottoman military. The Serbian army can handle the Ottoman in the early 1900s but it could obviously and this is no secret handle a major European power in battle. For Armenians they may as well have fought for independence because they were slaughtered more than any Balkan Christian group that did fight for independence. This shows that when you are ruled by tyrants that thrive on oppression and repression, you cannot rely on their scarce charity, it is better to fight back and give them less impunity and make it harder for them to do further victimization. Independence for Ottoman Armenians would be nigh impossible if Russia saw it is a threat capable of tranmission to Russian Armenians causing Moscow to support Turkey, in which case it would be better to settle for Russian domination and Russian annexation instead of Turkish.

There is two big factors as to why the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire could not avoid the genocide by their own actions: 1)they did not understand their muslim neighbors and rulers 2)unlike the Balkan Christians, they, the Ottoman Armenians were in more of an existential fight for their existence and they hoped to secure safety within the Ottoman system asking for reforms(This overlaps also into the #1 category of not understanding their muslim neighbors.), this project of a struggle for existance ended in abject failure. I am reading Bat Ye'or's work "The Dhimmi: Jews and Christians under Islam and one of her constant themes is that dhimmis asking for equality from muslim society is seen by muslims as breaking the dhimmi contract of toleration, inviting massacre and other such measures, in the case of the Armenians, a genocide. The Armenians and if you read this message board you will still see this is largely the case do not really understand their Turkic and Kurdish neighbors(you can see how in discussions with Turks many here emphasize that Armenians were loyal to the Ottoman Empire), if you want to be respected you have to use force with muslims, because no muslim nation today affords any non-muslim it has conquered to live in any other state than humiliation. So the Balkan Christians who fought for independence were massacred less then Armenians fighting for equality and dignity within the Ottoman despotism, and they have more to show for it than Ottoman Armenians, who have little other to show for it than a small community in Istanbul and a large diaspora of survivors. Balkan Christians with independence also have armies acquired through this independence making them a less vulnerable victim group and they have a state protecting their rights, so the route of independence is actually safer in my view. Another factor is that after Russia's experience with Bulgaria which was hoped to be a Russian client state and to a lesser extent Greece, Russia saw Ottoman Armenians as another potential problem like Bulgaria, another people to liberate and only to have them become an obstacle and unresponsive to Russian imperialism.[1] "Russia has no reason at all to desire the formation of a second Bulgaria. The emergence of an autonomous Armenian principality would then entail the danger for Russia that the Russian Armenians will aspire to become part of it."[2] [1 and 2] Dadrian, Vahakn N., "The History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus," (Providence, Rhode Island, and Oxford: Berghan Books, 1995), 72.

I found another one: NAGORNO-Artsax JOURNAL - updated from August 9th to September 1st 2000 Like most blogs it did not last long.