Erdogan: 'it Is Up To The Armenians To Apologise'

[DominO123]

Whatever

 

I agree with this sentence. What I was saying though was the fact that highly European intellectuals regarded us as being highly civilized and good people in general; but that was then before the 1915 Genocide. Believe you me Domino, now we are changed a lot because our people in Armenia lived with the decadent Russians and the Russian communist regime for 70 years and the Russians are much decadent compare to us. It's unfortunate but it's very true. Also, for instance the Armenians who lived with the Arabs in the Middle East except the Egyptian Armenians as Armenians have wrote books about the Egyptian Armenians being very elite, rich yes; but maybe because of it they have remained to be the best or one of the best Diasporan Armenians per se. Because they were cultural , classy Armenians, stayed and remained very much Armenian, yet they haven't changed their face or their Armenian ways or their good ethics.

But unfortunately the rest of the middle eastern Armenians have changed a great deal and their cultures; as they have a lot of Arabic characteristics in them. I am not saying this because I am happy for this. I am only saying it with great grief in my heart; as most of the Armenians of today are 'aylaseradz'.

 

However the true Armenians by 1915 in Eastern part of Armenia; my father and my grandparents used to say that they were very honorable people, yes highly cultural but only with Armenian culture in them. They were the best specimen of the Armenians, they were the real and the true Armenians with dignity, with spirituality and with very high standards of ethics and of mores. And when the bloody Turks and Ittihadists committed the Genocide to us, they did much much harm; by killing a great deal of us, they not only killed 1.5 or 2 million Armenians but with it they have killed our Armenian high standards of ethics, of mores, our way of life and yes even part of our culture; not to mention our 'perkarad' lands.

Today's Armenians have changed their faces a great deal. Therefore the Armenian Genocide did much more harm to us then we can imagine. I can imagine but with great great pain in my heart and in my soul.

 

Therefore, when European intellectuals talked about Armenians being very civilized and with it grand in nature, they were talking then, before the 1915 Genocide. But yes, after the genocide during and even before their bitchy politics got in the way and they didn't show any respect or true likeness to us or even some minor help to our people as they have played politics amongst themselves and with the Turkish Republic. You are right in saying that they were basically useless to us and showed no mercy or help, knowing well that we were Christians like them. But they couldn't and didn't care less. Unfortunately but thruthfully I also happen to know all of this very well.

Now Domino, please let's not fight or argue incessently whether I didn't say race; yet I said nationality and yet

you insist that I implied. Anyhow, if you think I have implied well I refuse to argue with you any

further; but it doesn't matter any more. In one of William Saryoyan's sayings about Armenians meeting anywhere in the world and creating an Armenia amongst themselves; do you remember? even he did say the Armenian race. So are you also going to argue with him so much that he said race? Or are you going to argue so much with our master of poetry SIAMANTO when he said in one of his poetries the following:

 

"Gouze zayn chakhchakhel, garenal donelou hamar verchnagan mahatsoume mer tseghin..."

 

As 'tsegh' in Armenian means race.

 

Just forget about it, it'll be stupid to argue any further.

 

I thought I'll talk a little more about my views on the matter.

[DominO123]

You are right but still they were young turks, ultra nationalist,fanatic, and dreamer people. that moron didnt know, they cannot rule a multinational empire with nationalist ideas.

 

My point was that, Armenians or others should not be blamed for what Enver did. Often this disaster is used to relativize what happened to the Armenians, when the blame is on Envers sholders.

[yalpa]

Actually I don’t think the cultural differences were never really big, except in the areas of religion and language and even in these areas there were significant convergences. The term gavur in the medieval times was essentially a religious term indicative of some form of hierarchical difference (definitely in a discriminative manner) that was assumed to exist in a Muslim society. It was neither used just for Armenians nor did it have the meaning that it was going to have with the modern era. In fact, to discriminate against certain groups and upset the prevailing order was hardly encouraged in the Ottoman Empire.

 

I believe Armenians were definitely singled out for killing, destruction, removal or whatever else, but I don’t think the explanation for this is to be found in the pre-modern Ottoman period. Yes, there were some groups who were killed, tortured and destroyed, but these were not the Armenians. In my opinion, the genocide victims of the pre-modern Ottoman world were Alevis. They were the ones from whose heads mountains were made.

 

The conditions of extreme persecution and brutality eventually pushed Alevis towards a hidden cultural existence, away from the mainstream Muslim ideology. They were never really able to practice their own beliefs in open or claim an Alevi identity. For example, whereas Christians and Jews could practice their own religions, live in their own communities, judged in their own courts and own businesses and lead lives under and with their own identities, Alevis could never do any of these. Even today similar conditions still prevail for them. Whereas the recognized “millet”s of Greeks, Armenians and Jews could take advantage of the products and conditions of the newly arrived modernity in the nineteenth century (beginning at the end of the eighteenth century), Alevis could not. The fact that they had been persecuted for so long and did not have a legitimate religious and cultural existence had simply disabled them in so many ways that they could not take part in this new development as a cultural group. This alone should be enough to show who the real target of the pre-modern Ottoman genocidal policies were.

 

Alevi situation was probably similar to what the Ottoman Armenians found themselves in after 1915. The Armenian community of Turkey is still struggling to come back culturally. But this was not the case for the Ottoman Armenians during the pre-modern and early modern Ottoman periods. Life during these periods was certainly not prefect for Christian subjects of the Ottoman period, but it was hardly in the form of constant rape, killings and etc. The existing evidence simply doesn’t give us this kind of picture. Had the Ottoman Armenians been under conditions of constant brutality and injustice as what Alevis went through, they would have had a hidden existence like them later on. But we know this did not happen. Armenian identity, their existence as a cultural group was recognized by the Ottoman state. Although they were discriminated in accordance with the Islamic principles that prevailed at the time, their situation was very different from some other groups who really suffered. But, of course, this did not last and this time, the victims of the modern period were Christians and particularly Armenians.

 

It is usually easy to end the discussion by declaring that there were nevertheless big differences whatever they might have been, but I believe the real solution will eventually come by looking at the details that are being avoided. It is interesting that nearly every Near Eastern culture (including Balkans) is similar in at least one way: they all despise theory, hard intellectual work and are for being more practical by skipping the details.

[hytga]

s, there were some groups who were killed, tortured and destroyed, but these were not the Armenians. In my opinion, the genocide victims of the pre-modern Ottoman world were Alevis. They were the ones from whose heads mountains were made.

sut up will you? What about the 1896 massacres? these weren't the young turks were they?

 

For example, whereas Christians and Jews could practice their own religions, live in their own communities, judged in their own courts and own businesses and lead lives under and with their own identitie

Suppose there was a murder of an armenian. An armenian was not allowed to testify againtst a muslim in a court. Which was a one way thing btw.

 

But this was not the case for the Ottoman Armenians during the pre-modern and early modern Ottoman periods.

easy to say in words. Armenians were one of the most overtaxed people in ottoman empire. I'm not familiar with the alevi situation. But the picture for the pre-modern ottoman empire was not as rosy as you're trying to portray.

I don't know if you've read Raffi, but he's got some stories from about 1870 (that's about half a century before the fanatic young turks came to power). One example that comes in my mind, is that a turk beheads an unsuspecting armenian peasant to proove to his compatriot that his sword is hsarp enough to cut a GAVUR's head. Or for example the almost regular abduction of young armenian girls into harems.

 

but I believe the real solution will eventually come by looking at the details that are being avoided

solution to what? it's obveous the differences were a combination of those three factors. The only solution there is for turkey to recognize the genocide and make the proper apology, like the germans did to jews.

 

they all despise theory, hard intellectual work and are for being more practical by skipping the details.

Are you confused yourself?

So should the details be skipped in your opinion or not?

Edited November 26, 2005 by hytga

[Takoush]

In fact, to discriminate against certain groups and upset the prevailing order was hardly encouraged in the Ottoman Empire.

 

You are wrong. Which part of the world are you coming from?????????

 

The Armenians were so discriminated that two Armenian Federations were in existence for about 30 years and started fighting on the Armenian mountains so that Armenians would not be abducted, raped or killed.

Read Soghoman Tehlirian's Testimonials, you'll see that he mentions how afraid they were from day to day living in the Ottoman Empire that they too will be killed any given moment........

 

 

I believe Armenians were definitely singled out for killing, destruction, removal or whatever else, but I don’t think the explanation for this is to be found in the pre-modern Ottoman period. Yes, there were some groups who were killed, tortured and destroyed, but these were not the Armenians. In my opinion, the genocide victims of the pre-modern Ottoman world were Alevis. They were the ones from whose heads mountains were made. [

 

You are dead wrong again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

During the massacres read about the Kharpert Vilayet's slaughterhouse. The bodies of Armenian men were rotted in the outskirts of Kharpert. The Ottoman Turkish government have ordered their bashibozukles to slaughter every Armenian mails first then they have raped the pretty Armenian women, stole their money and jewelry and clothes then made them walk in the desserts without food or drink. Further, the remnants of the Armenians that the turks made them walk from Erzeroum, the Northern part of the Armenian Plateau, the Turkish gendarmes have killed them all in the outskirts of Kharpert City. READ LESLIE DAVIS' REPORTS ON THIS MATTER.

 

He says "I have heard such stories and mumblings that the Armenians were being taken away from the mainstream of the city and being killed there; that is on the outskirts of Kharpert. One very early morning to be sure, I walked to the outskirts of the city and what a grim sight I saw. The Armenians' masses of bodies were all thrown one on top of the other in large ditches. I was afraid and reluctuant to go during the day time; but I wanted to know for sure for myself." He also says that; he saw enormous amount of dead Armenians bodies by the river. Again enormous amount of dead rotted bodies. All Armenians. Davis was horrified.

 

The Turks indeed have made huge amount of mountains of Armenian males' heads. This is not a myth. THIS IS HISTORY, our sad but indeed our true and dismal history left from the Ottoman Empires' days. The true and the horrifying picture of the Turkish 'yataghan'. The Turkish bloody sword.

 

Wake up from your dream house and know your facts before you talk nonsense to us!!!!!!!!!

Edited November 26, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[zurderer]

Armenians lived under ottoman rule for about 600 years

 

Selcuks? Ottoman were not only Turkish tribe.

 

we can argue about whether the differences were racial, cultural or religious, but one thing is clear. THERE WERE BIG DIFFERENCES. Otherwise turks and kurds would be calling themselves GAVUR. Or they'd not be singling out armenains for killing

 

what do you mean? Sure, their religions were different. I dont think christians called muslims as christian too.

 

Gavur literally means not muslim. For killing issue, Turks and kurds killed each other too. When Timur camed anatolia, It didnt treat turks much different.

 

Can you tell me why should be a big cultural difference?

 

 

 

My point was that, Armenians or others should not be blamed for what Enver did. Often this disaster is used to relativize what happened to the Armenians, when the blame is on Envers sholders.

 

 

I didnt say something like this, It had no relation with armenians. I mention it only to show ignorance of enver.

 

 

The conditions of extreme persecution and brutality eventually pushed Alevis towards a hidden cultural existence, away from the mainstream Muslim ideology.

 

This is also not complately true. Sure ottomans didnt threat them well, because of safavids. but to say extreme persecution and brutality is only a joke. Ottomans threat every rebellion with brutality. After rebellion there were not suc extreme persecution or brutality. Specialy comparing alevis with armenians are more than ridiculus. There is still a very huge number of alevis(And they were never majority), but cannot say this for armenians. Ottomans brutality is not aimed over an ethnic.

 

sut up will you? What about the 1896 massacres? these weren't the young turks were they?

 

Sure it is not, but it is also not a genocidal action. do you think if arabs ,kurds or even turks tried to kill ottoman patisah, result would be different?

 

 

The only solution there is for turkey to recognize the genocide and make the proper apology, like the germans did to jews.

 

so should we lost a war?

[gamavor]

The turks lost all possible wars. The Balkan War, The WWI, the Armeno-Turkish war, you name it. In their twisted homophobic minds killing civilians is a war. This is the only war they can win. When they face an armed enemy, suddenly they become lower than the grass.

[Takoush]

The turks lost all possible wars. The Balkan War, The WWI, the Armeno-Turkish war, you name it. In their twisted homophobic minds killing civilians is a war. This is the only war they can win. When they face an armed enemy, suddenly they become lower than the grass.

How true!!!!!!!!

 

The same applies in the recent the Armeno/Azeri wars and till now. When they are faced man to man wars they are like chickens. But when everyone's sleep then they attack and having no recognition or regards towards the elderly, the women or the children. Just like chickens or lower than the grass.

Edited November 26, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[DominO123]

Yalpa was not talking about 1915, but before the arrival of the Young Turks. While from the general term, the 1894-96 might be considered as genocide, it isn't by the restrictive term. The pre-Young Turk regimes lacked of a nationalistic ambition. Various massacres happened, but only one genocide, and that was under the Young Turk regime(more exactly under the reign of one party which worked in parallel to the government). And please, for the last time, cool down.

 

 

Hytga, you are most certainly speaking of the Tygris massacres of 1867, which is ignored by many, and was more recorded in the French World. But the Ottoman during those periods could not have managed to get rid of the totality of the Armenians for many considerations(such as economic, cultural etc.), the Young Turk with their nationalistic ambitions and economical projects realized that their ambitions were in contradiction with the Armenian presence. That's the major distinction. And I think Yalpas point was that, the separation between the pre modern Ottoman period and the modern one.

 

You are wrong. Which part of the world are you coming from?????????

 

The Armenians were so discriminated that two Armenian Federations were in existence for about 30 years and started fighting on the Armenian mountains so that Armenians would not be abducted, raped or killed.

Read Soghoman Tehlirian's Testimonials, you'll see that he mentions how afraid they were from day to day living in the Ottoman Empire that they too will be killed any given moment........

You are dead wrong again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

During the massacres read about the Kharpert Vilayet's slaughterhouse. The bodies of Armenian men were rotted in the outskirts of Kharpert. The Ottoman Turkish government have ordered their bashibozukles to slaughter every Armenian mails first then they have raped the pretty Armenian women, stole their money and jewelry and clothes then made them walk in the desserts without food or drink. Further, the remnants of the Armenians that the turks made them walk from Erzeroum, the Northern part of the Armenian Plateau, the Turkish gendarmes have killed them all in the outskirts of Kharpert City. READ LESLIE DAVIS' REPORTS ON THIS MATTER.

 

He says "I have heard such stories and mumblings that the Armenians were being taken away from the mainstream of the city and being killed there; that is on the outskirts of Kharpert. One very early morning to be sure, I walked to the outskirts of the city and what a grim sight I saw. The Armenians' masses of bodies were all thrown one on top of the other in large ditches. I was afraid and reluctuant to go during the day time; but I wanted to know for sure for myself." He also says that; he saw enormous amount of dead Armenians bodies by the river. Again enormous amount of dead rotted bodies. All Armenians. Davis was horrified.

 

The Turks indeed have made huge amount of mountains of Armenian males' heads. This is not a myth. THIS IS HISTORY, our sad but indeed our true and dismal history left from the Ottoman Empires' days. The true and the horrifying picture of the Turkish 'yataghan'. The Turkish bloody sword.

 

Wake up from your dream house and know your facts before you talk nonsense to us!!!!!!!!!

[DominO123]

Yalpa, do you consider the modernization started in the 1860s etc. ?

[Takoush]

Yalpa was not talking about 1915, but before the arrival of the Young Turks. While from the general term, the 1894-96 might be considered as genocide, it isn't by the restrictive term. The pre-Young Turk regimes lacked of a nationalistic ambition. Various massacres happened, but only one genocide, and that was under the Young Turk regime(more exactly under the reign of one party which worked in parallel to the government). And please, for the last time, cool down.

You are rude and I don't like your tone of voice.

 

I have been cool and but matter of fact.

 

You are constantly bothering me and are being overly critical towards me and I suggest you make your tone of voice towards me much better than what it is as of late!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

And for the last time YOU COOL DOWN YOURSELF AND COOL DOWN FROM BEING OVERLY CRITICAL AND STOP BEING AT TUG OF WARS WITH ME BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU SOUND LIKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited November 27, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[hytga]

Selcuks? Ottoman were not only Turkish tribe.

weren't we talking about ottomans?

there were a lot christian armenian, who dont know armenian langauge but turkish(or If you prefer ottoman langauge)

 

what do you mean? Sure, their religions were different. I dont think christians called muslims as christian too.

not in those days it wasn't. As valpa said it had an inherent meaning designed to dehumanize GAVURs.

 

Can you tell me why should be a big cultural difference?

i don't know why you concluded that i said there were big cultural differences. I said, in case you have difficulty absorbing information, that there were BIG DIFFERENCES and we could argue which ones were bigger, and which ones smaller.

 

Ottomans brutality is not aimed over an ethnic.

oh right. it was aimed at turks.

 

Sure it is not, but it is also not a genocidal action. do you think if arabs ,kurds or even turks tried to kill ottoman patisah, result would be different?

of course it is genocide. any massacre that is aimed at civilian population qualifys as genocide. I don't recall 250 - 300000 armenians making assasination attempt at "ottoman patisah"

 

so should we lost a war?

didn't you say yourself that you think it was a genocide? If you think that accepting the genocide is loosing a war, then you answered your question yourself. Edited November 27, 2005 by hytga

[hytga]

While from the general term, the 1894-96 might be considered as genocide, it isn't by the restrictive term.

i don't think i can agree with you there. Talking about restrictive term. Why would the ottoman government need to massacre such a large amound of civilians? It doesn't need to be associated with nationalistic or racist fealings. If that's the case then hitler's getting rid of cripled could just be clasified as a normal house cleanup

[DominO123]

i don't think i can agree with you there. Talking about restrictive term. Why would the ottoman government need to massacre such a large amound of civilians? It doesn't need to be associated with nationalistic or racist fealings. If that's the case then hitler's getting rid of cripled could just be clasified as a normal house cleanup

 

How brutal the Hamidian regime was, it could not be compared with what happened in 1915 and after. Abdul Hamid still needed the Armenians, the Ottoman structure at that time could not have managed to live Armenian-free. Abdul Hamid used brutality and massacre, as a sick father who will hit his son continuisly to make him do and behave how he want.

 

The Armenian genocide was made possible, with the arrival of the Turkish nationalism, which arrived later than the Armenian one. It happened in a course of event, and culminated; where the Turks were "us" and Armenians were "them." It happened during a course of event, where Armenians had to go, to make the realization of a Turkish nation possible(at least what they thought). The Young Turks had aims and a policy which were in contradiction with the existance of the Armenian milleti.

 

It will be wrong to compare what happened during the Hamidian regime, with what happened during the Young Turk regime. Abdul Hamid used fanatism and brutality nearly exclusivaly, while people like Sukru and Sakir were plans set, direct orders. This plan lacked in 1894-97, Hamid purpouses was discribed by his secretary as follow.

 

“decided to pursue a policy of severity and terror against the Armenians, and in order to succeed in this respect he elected the method of dealing them an economic blow ... he ordered they absolutely avoid negotiating or discussing anything with the Armenians and to inflict upon them a decisive strike to settle scores.”

 

This brutal matter to deal with the Armenians was Hamids solution, it succeeded for the time being. The Brutal matter of the Ittihadist was the complet and total destruction of the Armenian presence from Anatolia for the realization of nationalistic ambitions. It was about a Turkish nation as opposed to an Islamic one under Abdul Hamid.

[Takoush]

What's the difference? They both acted in a barbaric and inhumanly manner with us and they both bit by bit or in mass killings they have annihilated us.

 

You can know your history; but the outcome was the darn same bloody thing.

 

We lost most of our people and our lands anyhow!

Edited November 27, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[DominO123]

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? THEY BOTH ACTED IN A BARBARIC AND INHUMANLY MANNER WITH US AND THEY BOTH BIT BY BIT OR IN MASS KILLINGS THEY HAVE ANNIHILATED US.

 

YOU CAN KNOW YOUR HISTORY; BUT THE OUTCOME WAS THE DARN DARN SAME BLOODY THING.

 

WE LOST MOST OF OUR PEOPLE AND OUR LANDS ANYHOW!

 

Address your points with the caps off, or I'll keep ignoring you.

 

I don't think you have reading comprehention problems, so I guess you'll understand if you read a second time. Brutality existed for long in the Ottoman Empire, with an intensification under the Hamidian regime. Then, there is what happened in 1915 which was a final solution, 1915 is not to be compared with any other event in the Armenian history. But of course, you now can find bugs where there isen't any.

[Takoush]

dkdkdk Edited November 28, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[zurderer]

The turks lost all possible wars. The Balkan War, The WWI, the Armeno-Turkish war, you name it. In their twisted homophobic minds killing civilians is a war. This is the only war they can win. When they face an armed enemy, suddenly they become lower than the grass.

 

Complately unnecessary words, building one of most powerful empire is not happened with becoming grass to every swords.

 

They have their share for covardice or courage, like armenians, not much different.

 

 

weren't we talking about ottomans?

 

When I am talking about cultural relation, I am talking about Turks not ottomans. Selcuk effect over middle or east anatolia is more than Ottomans.Most of mosques kervansarays or building made by selcuks not ottomans.(at anatolia)

 

 

not in those days it wasn't. As valpa said it had an inherent meaning designed to dehumanize GAVURs.

 

Well so? dont you have special words for turks. This type of words are normal(If used by minority)

 

You cannot say, Turks were so so much hating from armenians. Locals have not much choice. Remember because a lot Turk took armenians to their home, young Turks banned this, and put a punishment over act of hiding armenians. If there were such a common hate against armenians, why do this happened?

 

i don't know why you concluded that i said there were big cultural differences. I said, in case you have difficulty absorbing information, that there were BIG DIFFERENCES and we could argue which ones were bigger, and which ones smaller.

 

Ok understood, sure religion is a big difference.

 

oh right. it was aimed at turks.

 

It was aimed to every rebellion and be sure rebellions of Turks were not so uncommon. Anatolian rebellions are one of big reason to decline of ottomans.

 

of course it is genocide. any massacre that is aimed at civilian population qualifys as genocide. I don't recall 250 - 300000 armenians making assasination attempt at "ottoman patisah"

 

Well so we have millions of genocide in world. why is armenian genocide so special? every race met with genocide, and this consist of turks too.

 

 

didn't you say yourself that you think it was a genocide? If you think that accepting the genocide is loosing a war, then you answered your question yourself.

 

Well do you think, there is only two country who made a genocide? Turks and germans?

 

Or do you think germans accepted genocide because of their humanity. There is only one country who accepted her genocide(And we have a lot country who made genocide), and she had no choice. Tell me one country who may accept her genocide. would do ROA?

 

Even I see 1915 as genocide, I dont think(and I dont care) Turkey will accept this.

[Takoush]

777 Edited November 27, 2005 by Anahid Takouhi

[hytga]

It will be wrong to compare what happened during the Hamidian regime, with what happened during the Young Turk regime.

 

Abdul Hamid used fanatism and brutality nearly exclusivaly, while people like Sukru and Sakir were plans set, direct orders. This plan lacked in 1894-97, Hamid purpouses was discribed by his secretary as follow.

of course. they both had different preconditions and purposes. You have some valid points, and i agree with some of what you said, but i think Hamid's massacres still qualify as genocide (including in restrictive terms).

 

 

 

ANAHIT-TAGUHI. Don't take me wrong but i you're overreacting for nothing. I think Domino's comments to cool it down were directed more towards me than you. There's no need to create drama.

es fadiits chem neganum vorovhetev indz chi tvum te fadin inch vor vat mtqove et asets. Am i right Domino?

[hytga]

Well so? dont you have special words for turks. This type of words are normal(If used by minority)

i don't recall any special words. Maybe you can refresh my memory. we just call turks turks. If you're talking about insults, then those can happen on individual bases. For example i can call a turk a retard, you can call an armenian an idiot. But those are on the personal level. Which is quite different when an ethnik group (turks, kurds) thinks of armenians as gavur.

 

You cannot say, Turks were so so much hating from armenians. Locals have not much choice. Remember because a lot Turk took armenians to their home, young Turks banned this, and put a punishment over act of hiding armenians. If there were such a common hate against armenians, why do this happened?

again those acts of turks taking armenians to their homes, despite the fear of punishment were more on the personal level during the genocide than on the whole. It was not that every single turk hated armenians and vice versa. There were some instances where armenians and turks were friends.

 

It was aimed to every rebellion and be sure rebellions of Turks were not so uncommon. Anatolian rebellions are one of big reason to decline of ottomans.

choose your words carefully. Even if there were some groups of armenian bandits, the population in the whole did not rebel.

 

Well so we have millions of genocide in world. why is armenian genocide so special? every race met with genocide, and this consist of turks too.

as i said. you don't massacre 250-300000 thousand civilians and blame them for making assasination attempt at ottoman patsha (which could not be true).

Yea sure let me massacre 50mln(2 of every 3) turks and let's just forget about it.

btw. chould you at least name 500.000 or half of the genocides in the world? you make it sound like it's an everyday phenomenon and like it's so common that it could be conused with frying a chicken. Is that how the majority of turks think? You're admitting that genocide happened. I wonder what the ones who don't admit it think.

 

Well do you think, there is only two country who made a genocide? Turks and germans?

of course not. but that doesn't take the blame off turkey's shoulders. Imagine the scenario where 100 people are fanaticly killing people around the city. Are you saying that just because there were so many of them that none of them should be punished? I can't find the right word to describe how ignorant it is.

if you're so ignorant, what are you doing in this forum, and what's your purpose of posting here?

Edited November 27, 2005 by hytga

[Vanetsi]

Well so we have millions of genocide in world. why is armenian genocide so special?

 

The issue is not about it being special. It's about Turkey fessing up to her crimes and making reparations.

 

Well do you think, there is only two country who made a genocide? Turks and germans?

 

The difference is the Germans confessed, met their punishments, and made reparations. They did not deny, deny, deny for decades. Turkey needs the to get the nerve to face up to her history.

[phantom22]

Instead of relying solely on macro historic records, I also look at the microhistory of my family members. They survived every massacre and thrived through it all-until 1915. Many prominent Turks fell trying to save them from their fate, as they had made numerous allies among the Turks. It was only when one who viewed Armenians as a bacterium to be eradicated, that their fate was sealed. It is stupid to hate all Turks.

 

The issues that we should be focusing upon should be more about today. When is the Turkish government going to return confiscated bank accounts and properties? When are religious institutions going to get back their properties and be allowed to fix their properties? When will the Turkish government stop re-writing history concerning the contributions of Armenians to Ottoman history?

Edited November 27, 2005 by phantom22

[Takoush]

The issue is not about it being special. It's about Turkey fessing up to her crimes and making reparations.

The difference is the Germans confessed, met their punishments, and made reparations. They did not deny, deny, deny for decades. Turkey needs the to get the nerve to face up to her history.

That sums it up Vanetsi yeghpayr! You said a mouthful of thruths!

 

Shad abres!!!!!

[yalpa]

Sorry! I forgot to specify how I define the divide between pre-modern and modern is in the Ottoman Empire. I simply assumed that everyone was familiar with this subject and the Ottomans in general. My fault. Although historians are still debating on the subject, it is generally accepted that the nineteenth century is the modern era for the Ottoman history. So, all of those massacres that took place in the nineteenth century had nothing to do with the pre-modern Ottoman period and since I do not deny the existence of massacres aimed at Armenians in this period, those counter-arguments against what I wrote means nothing as far as I am concerned. In fact, they support my point. By the way, I am afraid that none of those sources mentioned are relevant to the subject.

 

If I go back to the subject of when the modern era starts, it is way before 1860’s Quebecer. 1800’s is definitely the modern period and I would look for its beginning in the mid 1700’s. By the way, I am talking about the Ottoman world (with Muslims and Christians), not necessarily about the Ottoman Muslims only. The process of modernization started much earlier for the Ottoman Christians. My whole point is that the Armenian-Turkish/Muslim conflict is a modern phenomenon. It doesn’t exist in the pre-modern era. The life was perhaps not great for Armenians, but in the pre-modern period there were other groups who had it worse than Armenians. The six hundred years of brutality in the form of massacres, rapes and killings is simply a modern myth invented for nation building purposes like other nationalistic myths found in every modern nation-state. We may of course have another separation as in the form of pre-Young Turk era versus the Young Turk era or the era of Turkish nationalism, but that is a different topic.

 

I got to go now.