Turkish Embassy Disinformation

[THOTH]

Has anyone looked this over. Its the slickest piece I have ever seen from their side. Of course all is counterable - but not simply - requires more info then most Americans are able/willing to process in one sitting.

 

http://www.turkey.org/governmentpolitics/i...uesarmenian.htm

 

[ July 30, 2002, 06:24 AM: Message edited by: THOTH ]

[Rubo]

Dear Thoth, my article was in responce to sites like above you mentioned. It does sicken me as well.

 

Weems of this world

 

Human life is full of decisions, including significant choices about what to believe. Although everyone prefers to believe what is true, we often disagree with each other about what that is in particular instances. It may be that some of our most fundamental convictions in life are acquired by haphazard means rather than by the use of reason, but we all recognize that our beliefs about ourselves and the world often hang together in important ways.

If I believe that whales are mammals and that all mammals are fish, then it would also make sense for me to believe that whales are fish. Even someone who (rightly!) disagreed with my understanding of biological taxonomy could appreciate the consistent, reasonable way in which I used my mistaken beliefs as the foundation upon which to establish a new one. On the other hand, if I decide to believe that Hamlet was Danish because I believe that Hamlet was a character in a play by Shaw and that some Danes are Shavian characters, then even someone who shares my belief in the result could point out that I haven't actually provided good reasons for accepting its truth.

I needed to expand on some basic fundamentals of logic

Fact is not a fact unless proven by logical evidence and the source of the evidence must be unbiased.

For example

Flat earth society members believe that the earth is flat therefore there is a definite edge when one can fall.

The first proposition is highly subjective and based on believe system and devoid of any scientific argument therefore the conclusion is false.

Genocide revisionists always based their propositions and “facts” on dubious sources and come to subjective conclusions.

Just because a book is written by a revisionists it does not mean anything unless he or she back up with verifiable facts. Subjective arguments are not valid unless those arguments fall into category of logic.

Weems arguments are laughable and have no logic. The guy is making thousand of dollars by making Turks feel good about themselves. By the way words like” facts about Armenian Genocide” which are so prevalent in Azeri and Turkish sites are meaningless scribbles without serious scholarly research. The fact is not a fact unless proven!

[THOTH]

Yes I saw when you posted this before and understood the gist. I think it is important though that we counter these type odf misrepresentations with hard facts. If I had the time (and I don't at the moment) I would adreess these point by point. I think I will try to do such in September when I am back from my European holiday.

[khodja]

This propogandizing is nothing new. Dadrian's works have brilliantly neutralized every one of the Turkish government's discussion points. It is all about money and power. Until the Turkish military finds themselves losing ground due to the Genocide issue, nothing will change. Just like the Mullahs in Iran hold the real power, it is the military in Turkey. As long as Turkey has geographic leverage they will play it to the max. We should strengthen our alliance with Greece and Iran and improve it with Bulgaria. Every one of Turkey's neighbors should jointly demand a return of territory confiscated by the Turks, including Kurdish lands. The issue should be raised on the floor of the U.N.

[THOTH]

Hagarag -

 

I can agree with most everything you have said here - but don' you mean Kurdish independence aspirations - a political situations vice Kurdish lands - a bit of a misnomer. Most of these land that you spaeak were in fact Armenian lands with the Kurds recent interlopers settled there (to some degree) by the Ottomans. I do not question that (in an ideal world) the issue of a Kurdish political entity (with allocated lands) should be discussed (and perhaps eventually worked out between [the lands of] Turkey and Iraq) - however this issue is far from reality at this time for various reasons (similar to those which you allude to). I think the Kurds really lost out in '91 when after the war with Iraq - Iraq could have been partitioned into 3 with the Kurds gaining control of the north. We all know why this didn't and likely will never happen.

[khodja]

Yes, Kurds live today in many regions which are a part of historical Armenia. We should not expect to regain ALL of our former territories. Many in the Diaspora will NEVER return to the homeland. We should focus on areas adjacent to the ROA. As for the thousands of acres of lands confiscated from my family, the lands confiscated from other Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians and the millions of dollars of funds in the Ottoman Imperial Bank confiscated from my family and other Armenians, these should be tried in the Turkish civil courts and the Internation court in the Hague.

[MadArmo]

Hagarag Jan,

 

You have to be more specific with alliances I think, Military wise they are indeed very powerful, Thats a good reason to hold us all on high alert, We have that fear factor built In automaticaly.They are also great warriors no question about it...

 

I disagree with this antiquated tactic, I don't think its wise to demand. We should set expectations from U.N. and Turkey and it should be time restricted. Turkey has a few critical issues to address internally and externally and to bring em to trial might have severe ramifications, It may have damaging effects to the entire region. Turks are not fools and Armenians always percive them as inferior, Go figure they beat us didn't they however dirty they fought... Their egos are just as large.

They also have proven over time to be exellent statesmen and diplomats, They can Weasel their way out of anything ! We should really consider to be more politicaly correct and play that card with a poker face... Who knows it may pay off !

 

We can all be in Concert

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~artsakh/_images/armen.gif

 

http://home.earthlink.net/~artsakh/_images/faraway.jpg

 

ARMENIANS ANSWER THE CALL

 

[ August 02, 2002, 12:19 AM: Message edited by: MadArmo ]

[Rubo]

History melts like a dripping honey

Sweet emanating from its luscious countenance

Attracts the bigots with gaping mouths

 

After consuming its flesh and spirit

They debate the death’s motives

Endlessly to repugnant pity

We are left with stanching bones

News clips and horror tales

Unearthed from the deep echoes of memory

Where the victims wished buried undisturbed

 

Relative merits of the known and unknown

Overrides the memory

Lost untold

What merit shall there be?

When conscious act unconscious

 

RS

[aurguplu]

hagarag,

 

was it you who had told me in a previous discussion under a different thread that you guys were not trying to carve up my country, or was it someone else, and if it was someone else, could i please get a coment from him about your posting?

[khodja]

Ali,

 

It was not me who stated that there were no designs upon present Turkish territory. YOU are WELL aware that most Armenian organizations AND the ROA consider varying parts of eastern Anatolia to be rightfully part of Armenia. Please do not feign ignorance in this matter. I take a more moderate approach than most, because I feel that the majority of this territory would be more of a burden upon Armenia than it is worth and believe that Armenia has enough problems at present without having additional territory that few Armenians would wish to return to. BUT the border is not locked in cement. As you have stated, as Europe is becoming borderless perhaps the region of Turkey/Armenia will one day become borderless. Once bitter enemies in western Europe are peacefully co-existing.

[nairi]

My thoughts exactly.

 

Nairi

[Twilight Bark]

Hi Ali,

 

I do not know if I am the “someone else” you had in mind, but I'll use the break I granted myself to pitch in anyway. First, "you guys" and "hagarag" are not synonymous, to say the least. "Us guys" (and there is really no such coherent entity as far as the issue is concerned) includes people who want nothing more than an acknowledgement (not even an apology) of history, and move on with their lives toward full assimilation into cultural oblivion, feeling good that their grandparents did not hallucinate the whole genocide thing. In fact, "us guys" includes those who want to drop the whole issue and move on, and pretend that Armenians are a "normal" nation, hoping that it could become one by declaring itself so. “Us guys" includes those who enjoy dreaming that a few of the provinces containing the most "significant" Armenian totems like Mt. Ararat and Aghtamar can become Armenian again. And of course "us guys" includes those whose wet dreams involve a "sea to sea" Armenian Empire. And then of course there is the "mainstream" Armenians, who are too busy with life to think much on such silly subjects one way or the other. I am sure you can make a similar categorization about "you guys", except that your "empire builders" are a lot more numerous, are on the ground (rather than in some faraway place a continent or two away, fully submerged in the safety and comfort of the eventual graveyard of their culture and identity), and have afrighteningly cosy relationship with the army, which happens to be the most powerful one in the region by far.

 

As far as “carving up my country”, how melodramatic of you. You think hagarag will draw his sword made of celery, and throw bean-powered bombs to carve up “your” country? Even if the territory in question were granted to Armenians, it wouldn’t qualify as “carving up”. And in some unlikely scenario where Armenians re-populate their ancestral lands and proceed to demand independence, why do you think it would be such a tragedy? And do you think there are ways in which Turkey could prevent such a “tragedy”? If you don’t, then I suggest you think harder. And in case Turkey couldn’t prevent oh-such-a-melodramatic tragedy, you can take comfort from the fact that Czechoslovakia split into two pieces, and produced two stable and healthy countries, without the Czechs feeling the urge to wipe the Slovaks out of existence, or refusing to deal with Slovakia. And Canada has no immediate plans to punish Quebec into submission or send its residents to France. There is no question that Armenians have the moral right to live on their ancestral lands of many millennia, especially considering the circumstances of their “removal”. Now if you cannot make them happy after they come back, perhaps the land in question does not and should not belong to you. If Armenians do not bother to come back in significant numbers, then they forfeit their moral right to live on it except as tourists or “ordinary” Turkish citizens. In any event, I suspect that a country with the vision to invite back the few Armenians that would bother to come would also have the level of intellectual development that ensures a harmonious coexistence, with all the cultural freedoms and local governance. But don’t worry Ali, the paranoia and territorial obsession displayed by “the best and the brightest” of your society makes a true reconciliation seem like a distant dream that it probably is.

 

Finally, it seems that it is not enough for us to say “we can’t imagine demanding lands from you, because you are too powerful” (paraphrasing Kocharian). You want to censor our thoughts and emotions, so we cannot even wish to live on those lands as Armenians without being accused of complicity in land-grabbing. You want us to tear away from our hearts the places that formed the main body of our nation. As an avid proponent of realpolitik thinking, you surely understand the polite position of “We don’t demand it because we know we cannot get it”. Leave it at that. When discussing matters related to genocide and ethnic cleansing, there is one overriding factor above all else: morality. It is morally hollow (to say the least) to “repent” and yet forbid the descendants from coming back to those lands. Once you fulfill your unavoidable and morally required task, it is then your responsibility to ensure that those that come back have no reason to ask for outright independence. If Turkey can’t imagine doing that, it need not bother the Armenians with silly displays of “Oh I am so sorry”. Here is one censorship (or perhaps self-restraint) homework for you Ali: until you feel in your heart and know in your mind that the land in question belongs as much to Armenians as to Turks and Kurds that now live on it, refrain from trying to sound so enlightened. Once you and the rest of the “best and the brightest” internalize that notion, the two nations can “play it again”, hopefully with much happier results this time for all involved. This may be news to you, but the ball is in your court.

 

Regards,

Twilight Bark

[Sip]

If Armenia doesn't get anything else, can it at least have the Sip sar (mountain) back? I don't want to be named after a mountain in turkey for the rest of my life

[gamavor]

Taron / Daron!

[aurguplu]

hi tb,

 

1. i reasoned that hagarag did not mean to get all the land by and for himself, and that he was referring to a desire common to many armenians. i am of course aware enough of the fact that armenians are as diverse on this subject as any nation would be to make a detailed point of the matter unnecessary.

 

2. the "empire builders" of ours (who are they?) you refer to have cosy relations with the army, just as everyone else in the country, simply because the alternative has proved too dangerous. i am not a bit proud of that fact, but wouldn't blame our civilians for it. moreover, what "empire building" activity have we engaged in after the fall of the last one (and don't cite me cyprus, you know it wasn't one)?

 

3. i am a bit disappointed that after two years of my presence in this forum (gosh, it has been long) some people still do not dig it that i do not for a moment question/challenge armenian moral right to live in anatolia. in fact, i propose solutions that involve resettlement of armenians in turkey that are derided/refuted/taken as dishonest by many. and then you talk about getting the lands back, fully realising at the same time that you don't and won't have the power in the foreseeable future to remove the turks from there by force. don't you see a contradiction there?

 

4. i think i had stated clearly that what at least i am against is not armenians coming back to turkey, but a part of turkey being ceded to armenia or any other country. it is a basic desire to keep your territory intact.

 

5. i agree with your czechoslovakia example, but do not forget that these people were until relatively recently under austro-hungarian empire, and czechoslovakia came into being after the wwi, and then it was run over by the germans in wwii, and by the russians in 1967. besides, the czechs were quite happy to see slovaks go because they were a bit of a burden, and it was that ex-commie former boxer meciar who wanted his own little turf closer to russia who engineered the whole thing. i should very much ask the slovaks now whether they are so happy with it now.

 

6. our right to be in anatolia does not only derive from our sword. we have mixed with the indigenous population to such and extent and took over so many aspects of their culture that in practical terms we are turkish-speaking anatolians. if it weren't for our different language and a few items in our arts & crafts & music, and a few other cultural things, how would you be able to tell us from the rest? we are almost as anatolian as you are, and central asia is as strange place to us today as it is to you.

 

7. if i didn't feel that the land belonged as much to the armenians, greeks and kurds and others who lived on it for ages as it did to turks, then what in the hell do you think i am doing here talking to you?

 

sorry this has not been in very clear sequence, but i hope it is clear.

 

regards,

[aurguplu]

hagarag,

 

1. you say ROA rightly considers parts of eastern anatolia as rightfully part of armenia. i remember having said things to that effect under various past threads, and almost uniformly got replies like this was sheer nonsense, that it all was turkish government propaganda to justify the denial of genocide etc. so it turns out it wasn't after all. it isn't me who feigns ignorance of it, it's some on the armenian side, and in fact i was trying to prove my point, you've done it for me, thank you.

 

2. i am relieved to see that you can see the third option, namely a borderless turkey-armenia. but don't you realise that asking for removal of borders and uninhibited settlement is one thing, asking for change in borders is another.

[Rubo]

If I didn't feel that the land belonged as much to the Armenians, Greeks and Kurds and others who lived on it for ages as it did to Turks, then what in the hell do you think I am doing here talking to you?

Kudos to you Ali for the statement above! I am happy with that. I just hope lot of Turks think like you but I suspect you are in extreme minority perhaps due to your presents on this forum for two years and perhaps having education outside Turkey nevertheless it is nice to think that Turks like you are open to communal sharing of Anatolian lands. Let me know if you are planning to run for office, you got my vote.

[Twilight Bark]

The point is, dear Ali, what Armenians wish in their hearts is their own business. It has nothing to do with what they would actually attempt to do. It is not even obvious that Armenians would attempt to grab land (populated by other people) if they had the chance (which they won't, as the time required for the prerequisite power-shift in the region is longer than the likely time-scale of EU-type integration.) You can safely let Armenians feel as they wish, without losing a square inch of your oh-so-sacred Territory (may peace be upon It).

 

Oh this is simple. Three letters: MHP. I hoped it was apparent that I used the term "empire builder" somewhat sarcastically to refer to their wet dreams.

 

"I" am not talking about getting any lands back. Others might, over shish-kebab and pilaf in a backyard somewhere in Los Angeles. So what? I only suspect your dishonesty when you say it would take another 100 years (after the recognition and possible reparations) or so to safely invite Armenians back to their ancestral lands. I won't repeat why it is absurd and disingenuous, but I will say that Armenians are not the dangerous animals you appear to imagine them to be (I know you don't think that; which leaves the only rational alternative of your being less than sincere).

 

I know that you are not against their return on a geological time scale. Preferably after the diaspora completely disappeared, Armenia got depopulated further, Turkey reached a population of 250 million, and started running the EU.

 

Whatever. Civilized countries handle self-determination in a manner radically different from (and superior to) the uncivilized ones. End of story.

 

In fact, your moral rights are compromised by your sword. But it is irrelevant now. So is your "indigenous" genes, when you reject the identity of the bearers of those genes. The genes are relevant only in the laboratory. So, what is relevant? Just the fact that people that call themselves Turks or Kurds live on the land now, and they themselves are not invaders. That is where their right comes from. End of story. I don't care if their parents were Martian invaders.

 

You are marketing a vision that is orders of magnitude better than the sophomoric silliness cooked up by your government. I am simply saying that you still need to revise your product before a serious introduction into the market. Then again, I am not the person that you need to talk to. If Turkey bothered to allow diplomatic relations, you could visit the Armenian embassy and perhaps talk to someone relevant.

 

In the time we can spare for this dialogue, this is the best we can be expected to do.

 

Likewise

[sen_Vahan]

This topic of AG does not go further starting some moment in all the discussions unfortunately.(btw Arms and Turks)

I am sorry but it looks silly because it seems everybody understands the issue but it's all useless when we approach the points of interests. Ali, you do not deny the fact of AG,you agree that Arms have the moral right to resettle the lands in Anatolia and so on (and i guess you are not alone in such opinion among Turks) but let me just point out that the end of all the discussions is pretty standard - no lands back, no recognition of AG unless we forget the territorial demands. Which obviously means interests are much more important and higher than the morality. You should not be surprised then that in such a situation the desire of ROA to strengthen the relations with Bulgaria, greece,etc (as mentioned by Hagarag) is natural.

There is one thing which is so annoying in this issue - more than million people were killed and deported within YOUR empire but what we see today (~100 years later) is the denial of the fact that you in fact agree with(as i said before) simply because of the interests. "You" cannot and do not want to recognise the historical fact thinking it might cause problems later. Why do "you" think so if "your" sword is more powerful than "ours", if Turkish diplomacy is much stronger than Armenian, etc? Isn't that strange?

I realise that this is all just a game (btw a stupid game about recognition of killings - game on the corpse) but probably you are not civilized enough players and we are not smart and strong enough players to solve this problem.

Finally, this being the important part of the game:

 

4. i think i had stated clearly that what at least i am against is not armenians coming back to turkey,but a part of turkey being ceded to armenia or any other country. it is a basic desire to keep your territory intact.

 

I know that you are not against their return on a geological time scale. Preferably after the diaspora completely disappeared,Armenia got depopulated further, Turkey reached a population of 250 million, and started running the EU."

 

Since both sides understand this clearly do not even wish that even the recognition will take place because the players are not civilized or strong.Sorry, I would address the last to Armenians.

 

regards,

vahan

[aurguplu]

ok everyone

 

this will be a partial reply, 'cos i don't have much time.

 

1. ag will eventually (and as far as i can see, sooner than we might think/fear/hope) be recognised with or without turkey. whether turkey will join this recognition or plod along denying it time will tell. i very much hope for the first option.

 

2. several issues will surface (or resurface) when this happens, these are 1) compensation for the dead, 2) return of or compensation for lost property. since movables being movable and moved off, these will most probably be settled to some extent by compensations. i can envisage a civilised turkish government not having nightmares about that. after all, they can vaporise enough money to run a small state in a series of bank scandals and then grin to the imf and world bank and get the money. so this is a relatively minor problem.

 

the major problem is the lands. turks will not accept any claims for obvious reasons plus the fact that before the genocide there was no independent armenia. the turkish conquests of the 11th-13th centuries were like any oter conquests and you cannot realistically extend the genocide issue that far back. if you did, and succeded, then it would set a precedent for similar such claims re the americas, australia etc, indeed, much of the world.

 

and do not forget that this includes your national symbol ararat as well.

 

i do not know enough of the history of the armenian republic 1918-1922, so i cannot comment on the legality issues there.

 

the problem is that turks have a genuine fear that you guys are up to kicking our asses back to central asia, after all, the sevres treaty was very much in that spirit. so they block every move on your part that they perceive as an attempt on their country's integrity.

 

to get any headway in arguments with the bulk of the turkish population, you first have to realise and accept it as the basis of of your position toward us that no part of turkey will be ceded to anyone else peacefully. assuming that you are not envisaging a military confrontation with turkey, this basically means that you have to accept turkish teritorial integrity.

 

now about getting back to the land and living on it with those bloodthirsty bastards (us): i think that if turks are genuinely convinced that you do are not going to use your return to turkey as a step to eventual secession, they can be brought to accept it. note that many turks could be made to agree that you have a moral right to live in anatolia (it is kind of obvious), the same way that many americans can NOW (not forty years ago)can be made to accept the moral right of a native american to live on his ancestors' soil. the problem is that they fear that you will once again attempt to take the land away.

 

that is why i had said about 100 years for your return. i do not think it is a geological time scale. 100 years ago you were armenians, today you still are, and 100 years on you will still be (and the ability of the diaspora to retain its identity is really its own responsibility).

 

now of course what turks would fear here (and rightly) is a version of the israeli-palestinian problem. this is a very pertinent example and how it could be addressed, in case what i have outlined above actually takes place, i do not know.

 

one more thing: the position "you drop land claims, we recognise the genocide" is not my moral position. it is my pragmatic position. i for one do recognise the genocide whether you drop your claims or not. the problem is that i am in a tiny minority in turkey and hence not significant. i want more people to recognise it, but the thing is i see that it won't happen unless and until you drop the land claims, and frankly speaking, i can see why. the genocide did happen whether we recongise it or not. everyone else is agreed on that whether we recognise it or not. many turks can, in private conversations with armenians, accept it and offer their regrets over it. but these are private, personal expressions of opinion that have no bearing on the state and do not put it under any kind of responsibility. and there's the crux of the matter. the state does not recognise it officially simply because it will open up pandora's box, and all sorts of issues, the most important of them being the land issue, will come out, and they will have their hands full with a serious problem. because when a state recognises something as a fact, then the responsibility to do somethng about it automatically follows. what that something is has not yet been agreed upon by both sides. and one of the sides - judging by its present position - can very well say "now that you have recognised it, get out of the land".

 

armenia on its own of course does not worry us, but armenia plus russia plus europe plus the usa does. and we know full well that russia at least is behind you (admittedly not always the way you would like it to be ). we want that issue to be sorted out first before we recognise the genocide.

 

clear?

[aurguplu]

by the way

 

guys don't take mhp that seriously. they couldn't swing öcalan, and now the death sentence is off the turkish penal code. i doubt they will make it to the parliament in the next elections.

 

do not forget that before 1980 they were what 4%, 5% of the electorate?

[Boghos]

Summary:

 

aurguplu - AG recognition for giving up land claims

 

Turkey - denial campaign

 

ROA - AG recognition and a few economic concessions, no land claims

 

diaspora - there is no unified position, realistic: AG recognition and a few economic concessions

 

See ?

 

[ September 10, 2002, 09:08 AM: Message edited by: Boghos ]

[nairi]

Then how come they are HIGHLY active and supported in Holland?

 

After Turkey won their first match this World Cup, there were more MHP flags in the streets of The Hague and Rotterdam than Turkish ones. Could you please explain this?

[aurguplu]

boghos,

 

thanks for the summary. allow me to give my version:

 

aurguplu (personal): ag recognition & compensation & resettlement. will deal with land claims separately.

 

turkey: denial until land claims drop (or until we together with azerbaijan are the only two states left to deny it). ostrich mentality.

 

roa: ag recognition, compensation, opening up the borders, normalisation of relations. unclear position re land claims.

 

diaspora: diverse. ag recognition (all), compensation (almost all), land claims (may be not the majority, but enough to block the issue), resettlement (almost none).

 

proposed solution (to be discussed behind closed doors):

 

sequence of events:

 

1. roa makes clear statement that i) it does not and will not harbour land claims, and ii) will not support diaspora claims to this effect.

 

2. representative diaspora organisations drop land claims from agenda of political goals to be pursued.

 

3. turkey recognises ag, apologises, agrees to pay compensation germany-style, and returns property to individuals (not roa) wherever feasible, allows resettlement.

 

4. relations between roa and tr normalised, trade booms.

 

question: who thinks the russians will just watch this, and how come?

 

thanks,

[aurguplu]

yes i think i could

 

1. turks in europe are like blacks in the usa. their situation is bitter, which makes them bitter, which makes them to support bitter parties.

 

2. the kurd:turk and shia:sunni ratios in europe are much higher than in turkey itself, and these conflicts are carried into europe. since europe is more liberal in terms of dissent, these groups (and their opponents) flourish more easily in europe.

 

3. mhp is one of the few turkish parties (the others are the religious guys) that took a genuine interest in turkish expats, and got itself organised there real well.

 

4. mhp is (o at least was until bahçeli) deeply embedded in all sorts of violent crime, chiefly extortion, drug smuggling, contract killing, illegal human trafficking etc, all also pkk areas of interest and they naturally come into conflict and this is reflected back on the populations that support them.

 

hope this helps.

 

cheers,