Knight of Armenia

Thanks stormy, yes Chicago, not Boston. See, this McCarthy* guy is just talking nonsense. He claimed that I must be using a proxy, because my IP should have traced to Boston. Same mentality, he believes in one thing dogmatically, and tries to tailor everything around it. By the way, he did not claim that he traced my IP to Boston. That was my bad in the last post. He claimed my IP should trace to Boston.

Phantom, I am not thought about it, mine is real life experience. 36% within the local sample as I explained on my post. I don't like using "we" and "they", but I'll tell you what, there's to much Turkish hatred in this forum. Go ahead look at other threads, you'll see that "Turk"s are spelled as "turk" very consistently. Regarding MacCharthy*'s arguments, I expressed my view about his information and his logic in my previous post. I have nothing to say him, he's obsessed with Togarma, his baseless allegation that I am Togarma showed how his mind works. While you are here, tell this pathetic guy that I am Kotu Kedi, not Togarma. The guy is in a dream, give him a wake up call. Then maybe he will give up on trying to intimidate me by sending me PMs alleging that he -actually- traced my IP to Boston, or that I came from Germany etc.. Kotu Kedi

Check when Kotu Kedi is registered on T.com, ask your friend Phantom if I am Togarma. I got nothing let to tell you or prove you or explain you, you proved what you are. You don't need a magnifier to see the elephant. And keep your probability analysis to yourself. This is my last post to you.

Mr. MacCarthy, My friend, I told you ten times that I am not Togarma. I kindly told you that you're digging yourself further into the mud, and that you will make a fool out of yourself as you further allege that I am Togarma, but you didn't understand. Fine, sorry you didn't leave me a choice, there you go. http://www.turkey.com/forums/showthread.ph...?threadid=13331 Are you happy now? I'll tell you what, I really respect your enthisuaism, however I can explicitly see that you completely lack logic. My friend, assuming that I must be Togarma just because I say "yawn" and stuff like that is completely baseless and illogical. That is not an evidence. I'll tell you what you do wrong: You think that everything that fits with what you wanna believe in is an evidence. You should have searched "who could this guy be on T.com" by looking at the frequent phrases I use. Have you ever noticed how many times I said "my friend"? But you searched for "how can this guy be related to Togarma" !! See, you believe in something, you find random things to fit with your baseless allegations, you claim they are evidences, and voila, you proved it! That is called circular logic my friend, you can't go anywhere with that. Your arguments about the so-called genocide are no better. You go with the same circular logic. You keep posting lengthy opinions that fit with what you wanna believe in, and you believe that those are evidences or proofs ! You know what, I feel like 80 years later some guy like you is gonna keep posting PRs of Condi Rice, articles of Safire (NYTimes) and excerpts from Kristol's (Heritage Foundation) book in order to prove how Iraq's WMDs existed . There is no Togarma here, there's no genocide here. Take care, and like I said before: Her gordugun sakalliyi deden sanma. Let this be a lesson to you, don't dig yourself that deep into the mud again for no reason. Kotu Kedi.

McCarthy*, You receive my personal e-mails, I told you, if you wanna take the risk, go ahead. Otherwise don't keep saying the same thing publicly, because you are pushing me into responding you. I don't wanna piss off Azat again with our "tag games". As I said, prepare your thesis that proves or "likely proves" that I am Togarma, post it in one shot in one of the forums that Azat wouldn't mind (and let me know where please), and I guarantee that I'll disprove your thesis in one shot. No hard feelings, Knight of Armenia -ADDITION 1- This is my last post until McCarthy* takes the risk, and posts his thesis instead of giving excuses such as he cannot post it openly because the laws of the forum doesn't allow it. Did the laws change since the time McCarthy* alleged I am Togarma and pasted Togarma's signature an hour ago? Azat, is there anything wrong about it in terms of forum laws? Mr. McCarthy*, you pushed yourself into a very bad position for no reason. I repeat: If you don't take the risk, you ain't getting nothin'. No honey without putting your hand between honeybees. If you are confident on your case go ahead take the risk, present your case publicly and face my immediate pub;ic disproval of your case, otherwise stop alleging that I am Togarma. Let this be a lesson, never dig yourself that deep for no reason. -END of ADDITION 1-

*Sigh*

Lev7, I am impressed with your constructive view of the issue. I am a Turk by the way. You call us brainwashed, we call you brainwashed. However the picture is like this: You believe in that a genocide happened with your hearts. We believe in that a genocide did not happen with our hearts. You know, in the future if it turns out there indeed was a genocide, and if I am not here at that time to transmit my personal aplogies, I now am lending my personal apology from your people to be used at that time. Best Knight of Armenia

LMAO , Branch of Genocide Denial of Turkish Foreign Ministry! Man I'll make a copy of this one, it's one of the best I've seen a while. Dang, my cover is down. I was just getting prepared to get to the nearest Orhodox Christian church. My plans are tieing the priest in a room, getting into his clothes, then I can speak like a priest and start brainwashing young innocent Armenians with sublimenal messages I am inserting into my priest speech. Good point, ANCA agrees with you. http://www.anca.org/anca/pressrel.asp?prID=328 You should avoid discussing anything with Turks, instead you should only rely on the information coming from ANCA approved by ANCA. Dirty Turks are just trying to brainwash you. Sorry my friend, you're full of racism and bigotry. I hope you don't represent the "average Armenian". Gotta go, I can't waste my whole day with you.

Well, if you were born a century ago, you would have enjoyed the opportunity together with other Armenian facists. Actually ou don't even need. It hasn't been long since the Armenian terrorist group ASALA. Go join the new and exciting world of ASALA if you are interested in blowing up Turks. They are experts, they'll teach you how.

Like it or not, Ottoman Empire was a country. It had borders, it gave services that the government gives to its people. Armenians enjoyed those services too, and the ottoman government enjoyed services of ARmenians too. Armenians was the part of the big COMMUNITY. If a minority group in the COMMUNITY eyes the land of the majority, and if it collabrates with the enemy and start killing other members of the COMMUNITY, that is called outright treason. Your definitions of "subject" , "citizen" etc. is pointless. Enjoying the mutual benefits, then selling out your partner to the enemy is straight betrayal, treason. Go on playing with word tricks , universal facts don't change. Your master-slave/hostage-criminal argument is pointless too. Nobody forced Armenians continue living in Ottoman Empire. If they didn't like it, they could have leaved Ottoman empire, or done something constructive about it instead of betraying the rest of the community. Note that I am NOT talking about post-betrayal, I am talking about pre-betrayal time. Another argument of yours: "It cannot be called "a war", because Armenians were weak compared to Ottoman empire". hah, it sure is called a war. A war is a war, it doesn't matter whether one side is too weak or not. It was a just a war whose results was known in advance. Yawn.. Sir Henry Elliot, the British Ambassador, writes in a report to the Foreign Office on 7 December 1876: "Yesterday the Armenian Patriarch paid me a visit…The Patriarch replied that if a rebellion was necessary to attract the interest of the European powers, then there was no difficulty in starting such an action." And I already posted pre April 24 1915 revolts to other friends on the board. I return your compliment. If the minority is gonna take positions with the enemy, then it should very well expect punishment relocation etc. Because it's one of the prizes to pay when you are guilty of treason to the multi-ethnic empire. I agree, it should be called "relocation" as long as the destination is inside Ottoman borders. I might have used "deportation" instead of "relocation" in my posts. Excuse my mistake, I use those words interchangebly even though it's wrong. English is my 2nd language. Sorry, I never had a chance to meet Yolla. I know the relocation is not a comfortable thing, I am not disputing that. It has nothing to do UN Charter mambo jumbo, you sign a user agreement whenever you join a forum. That agreement allows the moderators to edit/delete/ban offensive posts at their discretion. It might be a fair ban or unfair ban, I can't say anything about knowing what happened. Syria area is indeed a deserty area. There's nothing suggesting an extermination there. You're playing one of your clever shows again. Today people are living in that deserty country my friend. Ottoman did not have to provide Armenians with "equal or better" lodging. It's not like your 5 star room is double-booked and they're gonna give you a new room. War conditions limit the availability of things my friend. 2.5 million non-Armenians suffered at that time too, don't expect luxury treatment to Armenians at that time. Circular logic again... do you have a proof that the purpose of those camps (if any exists) wre to "exterminate" Armenians? Any signed order from gov't? Sure. But this time come with evidence not the opinions of missionaires. You may be right about there has been some relocation from Istanbul too. Even though what German ambassador said is very likely not accurate if not wrong at all. amenian-genocide.org gives a number of 10K. Numbers are very inconsistent. Anyways, it doesn't change anything except nullfying the argument that "Ottoman was afraid of relocating Istanbul Armenians because of the politic pressure in that city". There is no rationale in your argument If it is decided that Istanbul ARmenians are risky, a rational leader would have relocated ALL Armenians since they constitute only a mibority of the workforce. Especially the rich ones are more dangerous because thay can financially support activities. So it's smarter idea to prevent that even at the cost of damaging the Istanbul economy slightly. Oh , can you show me your source for "20%" ? It has no meaning. People immigrate from one place to another. Armenians migrated to other places and other countries, this is not surprising given the pain they went thru, and given that Ottoman was a not a nice place to live after WW1. No evidence. Best, Knight of Armenia & Britney Spears "Denial" Institute

Sasun my friend, I wouldn't want to insult or disrespect the suffering of Armenians in anyway. I am well aware that many Armenians have suffered and have suffered from "massacres" either from Turks or Kurds or soldiers. However, I am just saying that I don;t see anything that constitute a "genocide". Expecting me to believe in something that doesn't fit in logical boundaries (in my humble opinion), and critisizing me as "morally guilty" for not believing is wrong. In addition, as I see posts like Arpa's or consistently repeated lies in Armenian websites in addition to racial slurs, I am getting further and further away from believing into it. Moreover, once I see claims like reparations, aplogy etc. from a different country (Turkey) as if it's Ottoman Empire is hurting me more. Especially when I see that the activities organized by intellectual Armenians use posters like http://www.armeniangenocideposters.org/ima...rvantherian.jpg and manipulating the public opinion by means of using a Turkish flag as if there used to be a Turkey then. Anyways, take care.

MODERATOR, I urge you take action ragarding Arpa's post. It's full of direct personal insult plus racial insults.

I am not here to insult at you. I don't blame any Armenians today for their acts in WW1. Uh except the ones who create the stories and whine all over the place about it. I would truly wish that Turks and Armenians become good neoighbors again. However before that justice has to be found, Armenians have to drop the baseless allegations and stop blackening the image of Turkey. I don't know if you are aware of this, but the only people profiting from this "allegation"-"denial" sequence are the western governments who use this issue as a "card' against both countries in the poker table of politics. Manipulation was there in WW1 too (russianns and british offering stuff to Armenians for revolting against Ottoman). Who was the Russian guy who said "We want Armenia, but without the Armenians in it"? Anyways, keep calling me "liar", "son of a turk" , and keep making sure that every "Turk" you write starts woth a small "t", and every "Armenian" you write starts with a capital "A". In that case you're doing nothing but a childish act promoting racism. Have a nice day. (Traitor) Knight of Armenia

Easy my friend, I don't need you intellectual intimidations. I am neither impressed by your posts nor did I gain anything from them yet. So put this aside, and give me some evidence iinstead . Hahaha public tribunal, riiight. Not even the accused were represenetd properly in your public court. British compelled the Ottoman Government to detain and penalize the members of the Union and Progress Party. It is stated in the memoirs of Hüsameddin Ertürk Bey, a member of the Union and Progress Party, that during the occupation of the Allied Forces in Istanbul, when Zaven, the Patriarch of Istanbul, informed the Grand Vizier Damat Ýbrahim Paþa that a certain man had killed Armenians during relocation, the Court Martial presided by Judge Kurdish Mustafa ***** (nicknamed Nemrud) of the First Court sentenced him immediately to death penalty. Hüsameddin Ertürk who helped with national struggle against the enemy in Anatolia, was caught and tried for being a member of the Union and Progress Party. When he was captured in Istanbul, he was accused with commanding Armenians to be deported and killed while he was positioned in Ankara during World War I. Let's take a section from the Judge's speech: "You are a straight and good soldier and I am sure that you were never involved with anything other than being a soldier. I am also sure that your only aim was to unite the whole Islam world. But a Court Martial under siege acts on sentiment. This is an order that we have received from the upper echelon. Anyhow, I shall get you of this terrible situation. I shall rule that you will be tried without being arrested. " Ertürk, Hüsameddin: op. cit.pp.370-373 Are you gonna take this court serious? It's nothing puppet gov't's cute acts to look nice to Brits. Furthermore two lawyers each from the countries of Denmark (April 19, 1919), Spain (March 17, 1919), Sweden (April 19, 1919) and Holland (March 17, 1919) were requested to participate in the international committee to be formed to investigate if any injustices were made during the relocation. The delegates of the investigation committee were to visit provinces in Anatolia to make inquiries to establish any injustice that took place and to solve the matter by lawful means. However, this venture was not realized, as the concerned nations refused to send delegates (at the requested time). Archives of Prime Ministry, BOA HR:MÜ. 43/17 What document? Why would you need a document for finding someone guilty in such a court? You are dereaming. Knight of Armenia did not say he was tried by this tribunal. The Armenian Knight said "those guys (same puppet govt) "tried" (I guess you get the message when I use "") and have declared Ataturk a traitor. There was no court whatsoever. Monarchy my friend.. Ther was my friend, it is just that it never reached the "court stage" Guess why? It's because there was no evidence, nothing to stand in a serious court, to bring charges officially against the prisoners. The investigation took 2 years my friend! Nothing, not a single itsy bitsy real evidence that can hold in a serious court. Can you believe it? Nothing in Ottoman archievs, nothing in British archives, nothing in American archieves, and nothing from any Armenian organization. Oh ofcourse there was hundreds of Armenian propaganda, a little of British war time propaganda. LOL.. I neither stated that nor implied that. Read above, don't distort my arguments and abuse them. What document? I told you, you don;t need anything in such a court. By the way if there were ANY forged/unforged documents that Turkish government forbids to access, those were available during Malta tribunals (I know you don't like the word "tribunal" here). Can you see how illogical your claim is. Ottoman documents are open to all researchers today. In addition many ofthe documents are even on the internet. You can just click and see them. Check it out at http://www.byegm.gov.tr/. Or check their whole translations etc, in ATAA website. What about the Armenian documents my friend? Where are they? Are they open. What is your point? Are you disputing it because it belongs to SImsir or because it's on Turkish website? OR are you saying that there's somethign wrong with me copying pasting publications/articles? What do you expect? History is a science, it has one truth. As opposed to the way Armenian sources are used to, we prefer to stick with the original history instead of shaping the history and rewriting it based on our "opinions" in order to serve our interests <_< . Now, let's get back to the Malta island. Curzon? SO you like quoting politicians . Fine.. Heh, the agreement stipulated the release of all 22 British prisoners in Turkey and repatriation of 64 Turkish deportees of Malta. Article 2 of the agreement reads: "The repatriation of Turkish prisoners of war and interned civilians now in the hands of the British authorities shall commence at once and shall continue as quickly as possible. This will not apply, however, to persons whom it is intended to try for alleged offences in violation of the laws and customs of war, or for massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war in the territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on August 1st, 1914. The British Government may make it a condition of the release of any individuals that they shall not visit Constantinople before the restoration of a state of peace and shall have the right to arrest and detain them in the events of this condition being violated." PRO-FO. 371/6500/K. 3375. My friend, investigation went on for 2 years. Prosecutors, legal proffesioanals did their job. No evidence of Armenian allegations whatsoever was found, and all prisoners were released after 2 years. I would expect such statements from Curzon. He's a politician, and he was one of the staunch supporters of Armenians during the war. And I guess you didn't miss Curzon hoped for some evidence against Ottoman officers, but he ended up with nothing , he actually already knew that most of the issue was British wartime propaganda Conclusion: British legal system has not found any evidence in any archieve to accuse Ottoman officers with Armenian allegations. That is the state gazette my friend if you are not aware of it. It gives news that the (puppet) state wants. Those are PR of the gov't, not evidence. That's why Malta tribunal didn't take them seriously either. Nope, wrong again. By the way, I love your "denialists allegations" phrase , it reminds me of "operation iraqi freedom"... LOL British had access to whatever is in the Ottoman archieves at that time, just like US have access to all Iraqi archives today. There were British soldiers in every state building, it was completely under British control. Whether some documents are stolen before Brits arrive are not does not change the claim. When British invaded they had acces to whatever is in the archieves, so unfrotunately (for you) "denialists" ' claim is prefectly right. So, you say: Brits couldn't prove Ottoman guilty because the documents are missing. And ALL related documents must be missing because Brit couldn't find anything that proves Ottoman guilty. LOL, you start with the assumption that Ottoman is guilty, then you prove your assumption given that your assumption is true. My friend, I wish I was as creative as you are . Innocent until proven guilty! Ofcourse one will destory state secret documents when the enemy is approaching! How do you know those were Armenian allegation stuff. A lot of documents about Armenian relocation is today in the archives, they are meticulously recorded! Why would Ottoman care about recording the Armenians and their properties? If I was plannign a genocide, I wouldn't waste money (especially when I am in war) on recording things. "Majority" of documents? Care to prove that Mr. Mccartylogist? Did they destroy ALL documents? Not even one piece left? Oh poor Brits, evil Turks destroyed every single document right? Well, British High Commissioner seems to have enjoyed the Ottoman archives: “The original text of a secret order dispatched by Talat ***** was found in the British archives. (Dossier no. 371, document 9518 E. 5523) The last article of the order says: "...Because this order concerns the disbanding of the Committees [terrorist bodies], it is necessary that it be implemented in a way that would prevent the Armenian and Muslim elements from massacring each other”. In his memorandum about this order, D. G. Osborne of the British Foreign Office says: “...The last article of the order states that one must refrain from measures which might cause massacre”. (371/4241/170751) This single document is enough to indicate that aim of relocation was NOT destroying Armenians. Hehhe, yeah right, if the documents don't show there's a genocide they must be forged, fake etc. My friend, the archieves are open. If you think something is forged, go get an appointment, see the document yourself, and prove that it's forged! Don't confuse use with Mr. Andonian please. You can't just start with the assumption that there must be something wrong with any document that doesn't admit a genocide. Prosecutor has to prove that the suspect is guilty. It's not the other way around. Let's make one thing clear, nobody is disputing massacres of Armenians. "Massacre" and "Genocide" are totally different concepts. And what was the 2 years of investigation for then? Did you really spend time to make sure that you type "Turkish" with a small "t", or is it just a mistake you transferred while you are copying-pasting from your racist resource? hehe.. Go ahead, write please , keep circling around the subject. Big time HAHA, so now you don't care what Brits thinks because they don't admit, and you blamed the genocide allegation on them too. I'll tell you, most guilty parties for the Armenian suffering are the Russians and Armenian ultra-nationalists living in a pipeline dream of it's their land since there were soem ARmenian pricipalities almost a MILLENIUM ago. Are you gonna accuse Swedish parliment, or not care about them too? I asked for evidence, not for opinions. Don't post me what a politician thinks or what a writer says. Where is your evidence that there was a "genocide"? What are you gonna show me? Andonian's "artsy" telegrams? [R1] Or how Hitler took the so-called "Armenian Genocide" as a model for his actions? [R2] Or are you gonna show me Vassili Vereshchagin's 1872 "The Apotheosis of War" painting for some amusement? [R3] Mr. MacCartoon, allow me to ask you a couple questions. I really care a lot about your responses on these. 1- If Armenians really believe in their case, why the hell did they resort to FORGERIES, LIES, and MISQUOTATIONS (in order to play on Jewish holocasut sentiments, man these Armenians are really very smart.) ? Refer to R1, R2, R3. 2- What do you think about Armenian terrorism targeting various precious Turkish diplomats ( I can give you the list if you want) ? Why the hell did Armenians resort to using terrorism for their cause? Isn't claiming that you have been a victim of crimes against humanity, and killing innocent civilians to get your voice heard hypocrisy at worst ?? 3- Shouldn't Armenia start looking at what she's doing to Azeris TODAY, instead of creating allegations about 90 yrs ago? R1: Talat ***** Telegrams - A forgery The Ottoman Empire fought, in the First World War on the side of the Central Powers against the Entente Powers- England, France, Russia and their allies. During the War, as part of standard war propaganda, Ottomans were being accused of massacres against the Armenians who were assisting the Russians, the same way as their wartime ally the Germans were being accused of atrocities against the Belgians. After the Treaty of Lauseanne in 1923, the Armenians realized that an independent Armenia promised to them by their allies for their efforts against the Ottomans during the First World War, was now a failed dream. They started a large propaganda campaign against the newly formed Republic of Turkey and after the Second World War they cashed-in on the word "genocide". The intention was to draw a parallel between the fate of the Armenians in the First World War and Hitler's extermination policies towards the Jewish people. The Armenian propaganda claiming genocide, required proof that a decision to exterminate the Armenians was made by the Ottoman Government as a policy. The reason for this was that, the definition of the word "genocide" approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1948, required that there had to be an intent of destroying a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. For this purpose Armenians produced a number of telegrams attributed to Talat *****, the Minister of Interior of the Ottoman Government, supposedly found by the British forces under the command of General Allenby, when they captured Aleppo in 1918. The basis of the accusations against the Ottomans was a book written by an Armenian, Aram Andonian in 1920, "The Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians". Mr. Andonian published his book simultaneously in London, Paris and Boston - in English, French and Armenian. Ever since then, these "documents" have formed the backbone and the basis of all Armenian accusations against the Ottomans and later against the Turks. It has been proven by scholars for quite some time now that these "documents" were fabricated. The originals of the papers copied by Andonian were never seen. When the British Foreign Office enquired about them at the War Office and with General Allenby himself, it was discovered that they had not been found by the British Army, but rather had been produced by an Armenian Group in Paris. Not a single one of these "important" documents reproduced by Andonian in his book, can be found today. Andonian made so many mistakes in preparing the papers, however, that it is possible to prove with absolute certainty that they were forgeries, even without the originals. Scholars and historians demonstrated that they did not resemble the Ottoman administrative documents neither in form, reference numbers, script nor phraseology. The simplest, absolutely irrefutable proof of the forgery involves Andonian's incorrect use of calendar information. Naturally, for his forgeries Andonian used the Rumi calendar which was in use in the Ottoman Empire at the time. Because this calendar's starting point is the year 622 A.D. and uses the lunar years, there are some complicated technicalities in converting between the Gregorian and the Rumi calendars. The analysis of the "documents" reveal that the forger simply knew too little about the Ottoman calendar and overlooked the tricky details in converting. As a result, the forger reaches some impossible and humorous conclusions. In one of his forged documents, Mr. Andonian dates a note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey, purported to be the Governor of Aleppo. A comparison with authentic correspondence between the Governor of Aleppo and the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, reveals that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami Bey. In his attempt to prove massacres, Mr. Andonian, due to his lack of knowledge of the tricky technicalities in the conversion between the two calendars, was having Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey signing documents as the Governor of Aleppo while he was still in Istanbul, before he was even appointed to the position. Erich Feigl, in his book entitled "A Myth of Terror - Armenian Extremism: Its Causes and Its Historical Context", published in 1986, outlines in great technical detail all the crude forgeries concocted by Mr. Andonian and his associates, on the so-called "Talat ***** Telegrams". For decades, Armenian activists referred to these fabricated "documents" as evidence, in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the public opinion in the west regarding their claim of an Armenian genocide. R2: Hitler's quotation regarding the Armenians - A myth Every year Armenian activists lobby politicians in Canada and the U.S. to proclaim a "genocide remembrance week" in April recognizing the so-called Armenian genocide. Every politician who speaks in favour of such a motion inevitably refers to the following statement, given to them by the Armenian activists who claim it was made by Hitler; "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians". This so-called Hitler statement is accepted as a "historical fact" and has been quoted by numerous politicians who support the Armenian cause, in parliamentary debates in North America. It also appears routinely in Armenian propaganda publications. The Armenians want to play on the sentiments of the Jewish Holocaust and purport that Adolf Hitler made this quotation in a speech regarding his planned annihilation of the European Jews. One of the most frequently utilized falsifications by Armenian spokesmen is that Hitler felt justified in going forward with his plan to exterminate European Jewry during the Second World War, because he was encouraged that the world had not reacted to alleged Ottoman mistreatment of its Armenian population during the First World War. The problem with this linkage is that there is no proof that Hitler ever made such a statement. It is claimed that he referred to the Armenians in the manner cited above, while delivering a secret talk to members of his General Staff, a week prior to his attack on Poland. However, there is no reference to the Armenians in the original texts of the two Hitler speeches delivered on August 22, 1939, published as the official texts in the reliable Nuremberg documents. It is natural to assume that Hitler spoke to his generals on that day in his and their native tongue, German. The Nuremberg documents are the only authoritative and authentic sources. However, a few English translations that appeared in New York Times and London Times in 1945 carried an additional sentence in Hitler's speech that does not occur in the authorized German texts. At the Nuremberg tribunal there were three authentic versions of the records of the Hitler's meeting with his generals, although no official minutes exist. All three versions are similar in content. William L. Shirer in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" states as follows: "At Nuremberg there was some doubt about a fourth account of Hitler's speech listed as N.D. C-3., and though it was referred to in the proceedings, the prosecution did not submit it in evidence. While it rings true, it may have been embellished a little by persons who were not present at the meeting at the Berghof". In several publications Armenian activists refer to the fabricated Hitler statement about Armenians and quote it as "exhibit US-28 of the Nuremberg Tribunal" to mislead the unsuspecting public as if it were authentic and credible. They obviously fail to indicate that exhibit US-28 was not introduced as evidence by the prosecution because of lack of proof of its authenticity and was not preserved in the records of the trials. This is the record Shirer refers to as being "embellished by persons who were not present at the meeting at the Berghof". Neither of the two versions of the records introduced as evidence in Nuremberg nor the notes kept by General Franz Halder who was present at the meeting, contain any reference to Armenians. This quotation, and indeed an entire text of a Hitler speech purportedly made at Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939, was first published in 1942 in a book entitled "What About Germany?" authored by Louis Lochner. Lochner cited an unnamed informant as his source for a document called "Contents of Speech to the Supreme Commanders, and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939". He further stated that he obtained a copy of this speech one week prior to Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland. This "document," the origin of which has never been disclosed, investigated, and much less established, is the sole source of Hitler's purported remark regarding the Armenians. It is interesting to note that, in Lochner's unnamed informant's documents, there is not a single direct or implied reference to the Jewish people. The statement referred to Hitler's impending invasion of Poland and to the fate he envisioned for its citizenry; it had absolutely nothing to do with his plans for the Jews of Europe. The Nuremberg transcripts, however, clearly demonstrate that the tribunal rejected Lochner's version of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech in favor of two more official versions found in confiscated German military records. These two records are, respectively, the detailed notes of the August 22, 1939 meeting taken down by Admiral Hermann Boehm, Chief of the High Seas Fleet, who was in attendance (Document No. 798-PS) and a memorandum in two parts which provides a detailed account of Hitler's August 22, 1939, remarks at Obersalzberg (Document No. 1014-PS). This second document originated in the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces files and was captured by American troops at Saalfelden in Austria. This was the chief document introduced by the prosecution at Nuremberg as evidence in the course of the session concerned with the invasion of Poland. These two versions are in fact preserved in the transcripts of the Nuremberg Tribunal and are internally consistent with each other regarding the wording of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech. It is important to note that none of these eyewitness versions contain any reference whatsoever to Armenians. In addition, a third eyewitness account of the Obersalzberg meetings is found in the detailed diary kept by General Franz Halder. His notes, which were not submitted as evidence at the Nuremberg Tribunal, also do not contain any reference to Armenians. A story in the Times of London on November 24, 1945 based on a "leaked document" on the assumption that it would be introduced as evidence by the time the story broke, made reference to the Armenians in Hitler's statement. The document which was provided to the prosecution by "an American newspaperman", is the source of the alleged Hitler statement on Armenians. However, this document was not introduced as evidence, after the original minutes of the Obersalzberg meeting were found. The results of the erroneous Times of London story were far reaching. The world has been misled by Armenians since then, into thinking that the Nuremberg transcripts contained the quote attributed to Hitler; "Who still speaks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians"? Armenian spokesmen have been free to argue that Adolf Hitler justified his planned annihilation of the Jews on the world's failure to react to the alleged Ottoman genocide of the Armenians during the First World War. In truth, no document containing the purported Hitler statement on the Armenians was introduced or accepted as evidence in the course of the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg transcripts through their preservation of Document Numbers 798-PS and 1014-PS and the notes of Admiral Boehm, demonstrate that the alleged statement is conspicuously absent from Hitler's remarks. The assertion that Hitler made a reference to the Armenians in any context whatsoever is completely without foundation. Yet Prof. Richard Hovannisian and a host of other Armenian spokesmen have been planting this statement into the minds of Canadian and U.S politicians during the last two decades. A significant portion of Armenian propaganda efforts has been devoted to establishing a linkage between their own historical experiences and those of European Jewry during the Second World War. The cornerstone in their case has long been the spurious Hitler quote, "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?" For a detailed analysis of the Nuremberg Trials records regarding this false statement that is attributed to Hitler, please refer to "The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians" by Prof. Heath W. Lowry, Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2, 1985. R3: Photographs of Human Skulls - A Distortion For several decades various Armenian publications have featured a photograph of a pyramid of human skulls which they alleged belonged to Armenian victims of Turkish massacres during the First World War. In most cases the date of 1915 - 1917 was explicitly stated in the legend underneath. It has been published on the cover of a book with the Ottoman Minister of the Interior Talat *****'s photograph inserted on the upper left corner, announcing in the inner pages that the cover photograph shows "Turkish barbarism". The same photograph was enlarged and shown to the Canadian public in the 1970's, in the Yerevan Pavillion at the annual Metro International Caravan festivities in Toronto, as proof of "Armenian genocide". In reality, this was a photograph of a painting entitled "The Apotheosis of War", created in 1872 by a Russian master called Vassili Vereshchagin (1842-1904), which hangs in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. The canvas, the subject of which has got nothing to do with the Armenians, was painted 43 years before the alleged massacres. It was used fraudulently and freely by the Armenians, as a tool to deceive and convince the public into believing their unfounded allegations about a "so-called genocide". The purpose of this deceitful manipulation was to create a false impression in the minds of those who observe the photo arrangements. It was designed to insult the Turkish people while serving the political objectives of Armenian activists. Well my friend, I suggest you go back to Zoryan and find some answers. Have a nice day. I'll reply your other posts when I find time. You're posting a lot of crap at once, it's really time consuming to reply all. Knight of Armenian & Britney Spears P.S: Muhaha, are you Domino at T.com? Boy, does the name Togarma ring a bell to you? Do you remember how Togarma threw your lies at your face? Don't worry, I am not Togarma. Knight of Armenian & Britney Spears Works

Mr MacCarthy, a quick response to one part of your post: Turkish military war tribunal? Haha. You're talking about traitor Sultans who decided to punish someone in order to look nice to the occupying powers. Man, those guys also "tried" and declared Ataturk as enemy of state, and those were the guys clapping British invaders from Galata bridge! Some trial that porves it never happened? Does Malta tribunals ring a bell? During the years of 1919-1920, when victorious British armies occupied the Ottoman capital Istanbul, hundreds of Turkish officials and officers were arrested in Turkey, without any serious inquiry. Then groups of hurriedly selected prisoners were taken from prison by the British military police and deported to the Mediterranean island of Malta. About one hundred forty persons, altogether, were deported to Malta by the British authorities. Nearly all the deportees were prominent members of the Turkish society at the time. Former Grand Vizier, speaker of Parliament, Sheikh-ul-Islam, Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Members of Parliament, Senators, Army Commanders, Governors, University Professors, editors, journalists and others were among the deportees of Malta. They were accused lightly and roughly of three categories of "offences" : (i) failure to comply with Armistice terms, (ii) ill-treatment of British prisoners of war, and (iii) outrages to Armenians both in Turkey and Southern Caucasus. The last category of "offence", directly related to the Armenian allegations, was particularly interesting, and the British documents on the subject are illuminating. The Malta episode of early 1920's give us, indeed, a true idea about much controversial Armenian deportation and alleged "outrages" in Turkey during World War I. The British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, was aware that the Turkish deportees accused of Istanbul outrages to Armenians were arrested and deported not on known facts, but merely on the statements of some unreliable informers and anti-Turk intriguers. It was impossible, therefore, to sustain definite charges against the deportees before a Court of Law. Admiral de Robeck reported to Lord Curzon on September 1919, the following: "The deportees were selected from a list of persons considered dangerous ... The selection was necessarily made very hurriedly, and it was impossible to rely on known facts..." "It is obvious that in these circumstances it might be very difficult to sustain definite charges against these persons before an allied tribunal. It is not politically desirable that any of them should be sent back to Turkey at present..." (1) It seems that from the very beginning the British Government doubted much whether these Turkish prisoners at Malta were in fact guilty or not. The British authorities were not unaware that the stories of Armenian massacre were a part of war-time propaganda and were still much exploited against Turkey at conference tables during the armistice period. But to make propaganda and to prosecute people before a serious tribunal were indeed quite different things. The responsible British authorities were, therefore, hesitating to accuse formally the deportees at Malta. On the contrary, they were contemplating their release as soon as possible. Thus, Mr. Winston S. Churchill, the Secretary of State for War, proposed to the Cabinet on July 19th, 1920, the release of Turkish prisoners at Malta "at the first convenient opportunity". (2) Upon this, the question of Turkish prisoners at Malta was discussed, for the first time, at the British Cabinet. At the same time the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject. The Law Officers informed the Cabinet by a memorandum dated 4th August 1920 that they were dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. No material or evidence ever existed about alleged Armenian massacre. Therefore, the Law Officers of the Crown abstained from accusing anyone of Turkish deportees of such a crime. (3) On August 4th, 1920, the British Cabinet decided that "The list of the deportees be carefully revised by the Attorney General with a view to selecting the names of those it was proposed to prosecute, so that those against whom no proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity." (4) And the Attorney General wrote to the Foreign Office that the "British High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommends for prosecution on charge of cruelty to native Christians. " (5) The new British High Commissioner at Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold replied "that none of allied, associated and neutral Powers had been asked to supply any information, that very few witnesses were available and that Armenian Patriarchate had been the main channel through which information had been obtained. He said: "Under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantages." Further he added: "The American government in particular, is doubtless in possession of a large amount of documentary information..." (6) His colleague at the High Commission, Sir Harry Lamb was more precise and wrote: "No one of the deportees was arrested on any evidence in the legal sense. "The whole case of the deportees is not satisfactory... "There are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements by Armenians of differing values... "The Americans must be in possession of a mass of invaluable material..." (7) To sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime as alleged "Armenian massacre" was ever committed in Turkey. Therefore it was impossible to produce any dossier in the legal sense against anyone of Turkish deportees at Malta. And the Law Officer of the Crown and H.M. Attorney General refused to involve themselves with the alleged case of "Armenian massacre" and he also carefully avoided to pronounce the word "massacre" which was so freely used by allied war-time propaganda machine and still uttered by some politicians as well as by few members of the British Foreign Office. "From the political point of view it is very desirable that these people (i.e. Turkish deportees) should be brought to trial" insisted one member of the British Foreign Office. And they decided to ask the assistance of the State Department. On March 31st, 1921, Lord Curzon telegraphed to Sir A. Gedes, the British Ambassador in Washington, the following: "There are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre. "There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt... "Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution." (8) A member of the British Embassy in Washington visited the State Department on July 12th, 1921, and he was permitted to see a selection of reports from American Consuls on the subject of Armenian question. The Embassy returned the following reply: "I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein (in American archives) which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seen... made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question and in these case were confined to personal opinions of these officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence. " "I have the honour to add that officials at the Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law. "Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks..., I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter." (9) It was a disappointing result for some officials of British Foreign Office. One of them, Mr. W.S. Edmonds, minuted: "It never seemed very likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney General's opinion..." Some obstinate British officials were still insisting for prosecution of innocent Turkish detainees accused of imaginary "Armenian massacre". In view of lack of evidence in legal sense they decided to use political argument. The Foreign Office wrote to H.M. Procurator General on May 31st, 1921, that: "From political point of view, it is highly desirable that proceedings should take place against all of these persons... on the other hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances, His Lordship (Lord Curzon) would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would be so good to favour him with an opinion..." (10) The Attorney-General's Department returned the following reply: "...It seems improbable that the charges made against the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law. "Until more precise information is available as to the nature of the evidence which will be forthcoming at the trials, the Attorney-General does not feel that he is in a position to express any opinion as to the prospect of success in any of the cases submitted for his consideration." (11) Upon the receipt of this reply, Mr. W.S. Edmonds minuted again: "From this letter it appears that the changes of obtaining convictions are almost nil... It is regrettable that the Turks have confined as long without charges being formulated against them..." (12) From now on, the Turkish detainees at Malta were not considered as "offenders" for prosecution, but rather as "hostages" for exchange against British prisoners in Anatolia. Sir H. Rumbold, the High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote: "Failing the possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks which would satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be continuing an act of technical injustice in further detaining the Turks in question. In order, therefore, to avoid as far as possible losing face, in this matter, I consider that all the Turks... should be made available for exchange purposes." (13) And then, all Turkish deportees at Malta, embarked on board HMS "Chrisanremum" and RFA "Montenal" on afternoon of the 25th October, 1921, arrived at Inobolu on October 31st, and landed safely on Turkish soil. All Turkish deportees were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal. On the other hand, all British prisoners in Anatolia who were handed over to their authorities reached Istanbul on November 2nd. The episode of the deportees of Malta thus ended. In conclusion, one can say that these prominent Turks, accused of Armenian persecution, were arrested and deported without any serious investigation. There was, from the very beginning, a great deal of doubts whether the accused were in fact guilty or not. From political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the British Government that at least some of these deportees should be brought to trial. The British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order to prove that an "Armenian massacre" actually took place in Turkey, and consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all efforts in this connection ended with a complete failure. There was no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul furnished nothing serious. The Ottoman capital city Istanbul was under allied occupation and all Ottoman State archives were there easily accessible to the British authorities. The Ottoman government was very docile and cooperative. Yet the British High Commission in Istanbul was unable to forward to London any evidence in legal sense. There was nothing in British archives which could be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees. The American State Department was unable to assist the British Government with evidence against these Turks. It is safe, therefore, to say that the alleged "Armenian massacre" was nothing but an imaginary product of a ruthless war-time propaganda campaign carried out against the Turks. The Armenian casualties were first misrepresented and distorted by vindictive Armenian nationalist leaders. Then Allied Intelligence services, spread stories of imaginary "massacre", for the sake of their own purposes. The Prime Minister of former Armenian Republic in Transcaucasia, Howhannes Katchaznouni, wrote the following: "In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organised themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people nourished itself during an entire generation... "We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own desire into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and carried away with our dreams. (14) Remember, British ambassador has also recently publicly said that Britain officially does not believe that events of 1915 constitute a "genocide". Ofocurse Armenian propaganda will not tell us about malta tribunals, and it will keep claiming that Turkey is the only country denying it. References: 1 Public Record Office, London, FO 371/4174/136069 : De Rebeck to Lord Curzon, No. 1722/R/1315, of 21.9.1919 2 PRO-FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the S.of S. For War on Pasition of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated 19.7.1920 3 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934 (C.P.1770): Memorandum by Law Afficers of the Corwn dated 4th August 1920 and signed by Gordon Hewart and Ernest M.Pollock. 4 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934: Cabinet Oficer to Lord Curzon of 12.8.1929 5 PRO-FO 371/6499/E.1801: Law Officeres to Foreign Office of 8.2.1921 6 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3557: Sir H.Rumbold to Lord Curzon, No. 277 of 16th March, 1921 7 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3554: Inclosure, minutes by Sir H.Lamb, dossier Veli Nedjdet 8 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3552: Curzon to Geddes. Tel No 176 of 31.3.1921 9 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8515: Craigie, British Charge d' Afaires at Washington, to lord Curzon, No.722 of July 13, 1921 10 PRO-FO 371/6502/E.5845: Lancelot Oliphant (Foreign Ofice) to Mr. Woods (Procurator-General's Department), May 31st, 1921 11 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8745: Procurator-General's Department to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 29.7.1921 12 Ibidem : Minutes by Mr. Edmonds of 3.8.1921 13 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.10023 14 Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nothing to do Any More, New York: 1955, pp. 5-7 Regards, I'll respond your other posts, you sound well informed in the issue.