The Place of Truth in Journalism: An Interview with Robert F

[Rubo]

The Place of Truth in Journalism: An Interview with Robert Fisk

 

“RF: I have suggested that the Armenians recognize the Turks, of which there were many and whom the Armenians know, who helped the Armenians during the Genocide in a manner similar to that in which the Israelis recognize the "righteous gentiles" of World War II [note: the reference to "righteous gentiles" refers to those non-Jews who saved Jews during World War II]. This recognition would make it easier for the Turks to recognize the Genocide. It also makes it harder to deny the courage of their own people, who took great risks to assist their Armenian friends and neighbors.”

 

“Stephen Kinzer published an article on April 24, 2002, in which he states that there is no need for a museum in Washington for the disputed Armenian Genocide, especially because a museum already exists for the undeniable Holocaust of World War II. This type of journalistic distortion by claiming a well-documented genocide is questionable while another is undeniable highlights the often one-sided nature of American reporting.”

 

http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/frames.html

 

You can read this interesting interview in full at the site above

[Pulp]

How will the Turks accept to recognise the genocide when Ottoman Armenians have committed treason/massacres to Turks too ? Secondly they say there has been no will to commit genocide (Armenians in the western part have not been deported) but only to deport from troubled area. How would you convince them ?

[gamavor]

Without being an expert on the field I believe there is a big misunderstanding among people who more or less are involved with the Genocide issue from both sides. The basic premise of the turkish historians is that Armenians were minority in the Ottoman Empire. Hence, the similarities with the Jews. Wrong.

Although Armenians in terms of numbers were minority just like any other Christian minority, they were living and inhabiting their OWN lands, occupied by foreigners. Suppose that Germans invaded Israel, and emptied the country from Jews. This is not the case with Armenian Genocide.

Asking for credit for someone who came by force and then showed mercy for the outrages deeds of his folks cannot be at issue at all.

[Twilight Bark]

How will the Turks accept to recognise the genocide when Ottoman Armenians have committed treason/massacres to Turks too ? Secondly they say there has been no will to commit genocide (Armenians in the western part have not been deported) but only to deport from troubled area. How would you convince them ?

1. It is impossible for a conquered nation to commit treason against an empire.

2. Armenians did not stage a militarily significant "rebellion" before the genocide. And it was too late after.

3. Virtually all the killings by Armenians were "acts of revenge" after the genocide; they cannot be used as an excuse, explanation, or extenuating circumstance. Only a sadistic scoundrel would say "I know you will be my mortal enemy after what I am about to do to you. So I will punish you for your future thoughts and actions."

4. In fact, Armenians from towns far removed from Eastern Anatolia were deported as well. Only Istanbul and its environs were spared for the simple reason that deporting and killing 100,000 Armenians from the capital city of the empire would have been, shall we say, "diplomatically challenging", with the city full of diplomats, foreign journalists and visitors. Of course, virtually the entire intellectual class of the Armenians in Istanbul were rounded up on April 24, 1915, and killed . That essentially lobotomized the Armenian nation to the point of paralysis, and they obediently walked to their deaths like sheep, save for a few remarkable acts of resistance.

5. The issue of "convincing" is more about the Turkish elite "convincing" themselves that it is time to allow the nation to evolve to the level of contemporary civilization. They have not yet done so. So you are asking the question to the wrong audience.

6. Read the archives of the forum for long and detailed discussions of all these issues.

[THOTH]

Super response TB!

[MadArmo]

How will the Turks accept to recognise the genocide when Ottoman Armenians have committed treason/massacres to Turks too ? Secondly they say there has been no will to commit genocide (Armenians in the western part have not been deported) but only to deport from troubled area. How would you convince them ?

You say how will they recognise!?

 

 

Let them stare long enough into a mirror and wonder why. Secondly who is going to question a well documented travesty of justice other then Turks, Since many are in denial and refuse to make amends Armenians shall pursue justice. Let's not forget who's guilty here and why they evade the truth...

 

I say to my fellow Armenians, Unite because it's time to eradicate them while we still have the chance... Sweet revenge !

 

 

 

 

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

[Knight of Armenia]

1. It is impossible for a conquered nation  to commit treason against an empire.

2. Armenians did not stage a militarily significant "rebellion" before the genocide.  And it was too late after.

3. Virtually all the killings by Armenians were "acts of revenge" after the genocide; they cannot be used as an excuse, explanation, or extenuating circumstance. Only a sadistic scoundrel would say "I know you will be my mortal enemy after what I am about to do to you. So I will punish you for your future thoughts and actions."

4. In fact, Armenians from towns far removed from Eastern Anatolia were deported as well. 

 

[...]

1- Once a minority collabrates with the enemy occupation powers and fights against the country it's living in, that is called a "treason". However, if you insist that it's a "conqured nation", even after 700 years of cheek-to-cheek living with Turks and other minorities in the area, then consider it a "war against Ottoman empire". (Not the mention the fact that there was no Armenian state when Turks arrived at the area)

 

2&3 - Armenians did indeed stage uprisings before the relocation process. That was the whole reason of relocation. 100 Turks in Zeytun in 1914, 3.000 Turks in Van events in 1915, and 20.000 Turks lost their lives 1914 — 1915, in Mus Events. Also the Armenians who joined the Russian Army against Ottoman empire, with their arms, committed collectively the guilt of being “ treacherous to the land “. Not to mention the revolts ince 1870s...

 

4 - You are speculating. Armenian patriarche and missinories were fast enough to contact outer powers (Britain , US etc.) accuse Ottoman with a genocide taking place in eastern Anatolia . There's no rationale behind keeping the Istanbul ARmenians in place if Ottoman had really desired a genocide. Powers like Britain was in war with Ottoman at that time already, there's no reason for keeping the diplomacy up anyways.

 

In addition, keep in mind that Istanbul was not the only place that Armenians are not relocated.

 

5- Well, maybe they're not convinced because there's no evidence.

 

Regards,

 

Knight of Armenia

Edited June 23, 2003 by Knight of Armenia

[gamavor]

He, he, he, what a "clever turk"!

 

1. There were Armenian principalities in Eastern Armenia upon the nomadic Seldjucs arrival. Read more on this topic before making fun of yourself.

2. Cilician Kingdom felt to Mameluks of Egypt in 1394 which are the same barbarians as your kind.

3. The uprising that you are talking about from 1870 and beyond took place 1000 kilometers north-west of the arias inhabited of Armenians ( You remember the General Skobelev’s words “McGahan watch me how I will trash those turks . However there were no any uprisings in 1894 and 1906 but we all (i hope) know what happened in Adana.

4. The fact that there were Armenians who were happy with the Ottoman yoke doesn't mean that every other ordinary Armenian was happy with the status quo. We see those "Armenians" even today. I will take your words "chick -to - chick" as euphemism as oppose to "devisherme" tax paid by Christians (which was kind of political "nebet sheker" for the "happy" minorities).

5. Suppose that tomorrow Russians invade Turkey and you are about to caputulate in ...say 2 days and suddenly the British are coming to your rescue ( I think this is called deja vu), aren't you going to join your liberators against Russians?

[Twilight Bark]

1- Once a minority collabrates with the enemy occupation powers and fights against the country it's living in, that is called a "treason". However, if you insist that it's a "conqured nation", even after 700 years of cheek-to-cheek living with Turks and other minorities in the area, then consider it a "war against Ottoman empire". (Not the mention the fact that there was no Armenian state when Turks arrived at the area)

 

2&3 - Armenians did indeed stage uprisings before the relocation process. That was the whole reason of relocation. 100 Turks in Zeytun in 1914, 3.000 Turks in Van events in 1915, and 20.000 Turks lost their lives 1914 — 1915, in Mus Events.  Also the Armenians who joined the Russian Army against Ottoman empire, with their arms, committed collectively the guilt of being “ treacherous to the land “.  Not to mention the revolts ince 1870s...

 

4 - You are speculating. Armenian patriarche and missinories were fast enough to contact outer powers (Britain , US etc.) accuse Ottoman with a genocide taking place in eastern Anatolia . There's no rationale behind keeping the Istanbul ARmenians in place if Ottoman had really desired a genocide. Powers like Britain was in war with Ottoman at that time already, there's no reason for keeping the diplomacy up anyways.

 

In addition, keep in mind that Istanbul was not the only place that Armenians are not relocated.

 

5- Well, maybe they're not convinced because there's no evidence.

 

Regards,

 

Knight of Armenia

"Dear" Night of Armenia,

 

1. There was no "treason", even in your sick world where a rapist expects loyalty. That is because the vast majority of Armenians were gullible enough to actually show the said "loyalty". Ditto for the vast majority of Armenians murdered for the fictitious "lack of loyalty". Armenian "treason" is a "speculation", if there ever was one.

 

Imperial rule doesn't attain legitimacy when its treatment of the subjugated peoples deteriorates over time. While an elite among the Armenians of the capital Constantinople enjoyed good success in business and the arts, the Armenian heartland kept suffering at the hands of the state and its gleeful tolerance of the Kurds' parasitic behavior at their expense. Not exactly happy-go-lucky, cheek-to-cheek coexistance. More like an extended gang-rape.

 

And I don't give a dead rat's behind whether the Ottomans took over from another oppressor, or had the honor of being the first in the gang rape. If you do, you need a shrink a lot more urgently than any "convincing". The issue for this item is "how were the Armenians being treated at the time of the genocide". And the answer is "so horribly in the Armenian provinces that, only a broken, spineless bunch could keep tolerating it". And they did largely tolerate, until they were murdered. Not a source of pride for Armenians.

 

2&3. You don't say? You won't find many Armenians denying that there were acts of desperatrion. The perennial pleas for reform were not about lack of luxury living. It was about not being treated like full human beings, even by the miserable standards of the place and the time. The sporadic act of desperation had no military significance. And whatever their significance, assigning the blame to the whole nation could never be justified except as a thinly veiled excuse for genocide. For example, I do not hold the entire Turkish nation collectively responsible for your apparent lack of compassion, inability to reason, and unwillingness to change. You have only yourself to blame for how you have turned out.

 

4. It's one thing to get the odd report from far, inaccessible provinces, and quite another to see the murder in front of you. In the former, as a diplomat, you have wiggle room to chicken out and do the "right" (i.e. morally wrong) thing. In the latter, the diplomats' need for a fig leaf is not satisfied. As far west as western Anatolia saw Armenians removed. What village do you have in mind that escaped the exile and slaughter? "Istanbul and its environs" doesn't cover it?

 

And yeah, I am sure the Young Turk government was keeping up apearances only for the benefit of the British. Come now, you can lack a conscience and the feeling of compassion, but you lack logical reasoning as well? How about you think about "German discomfort", and "American interest" a little bit, alright? All the government needed was enough uncertainty and confusion to allow them enough time to finish the deed. Murdering the Armenian intelligentsia allowed enough silence and lack of "intelligence" (of both sorts) to do just that.

 

5. Oh come on. You have convinced yourself that the Abdulhamid regime and the Young Turk government were benevolent entities, deserving of loyalty and respect. And you are asking for evidence to be convinced of something? Evidence is not what it takes to convince you, Night. The real question is, have you convinced yourself that it is time to evolve?

 

Good night, Nighty-night.

 

I hope you enjoy the darkness.

Edited June 23, 2003 by Twilight Bark

[McCarthyiologist]

1- Once a minority collabrates with the enemy occupation powers and fights against the country it's living in, that is called a "treason". However, if you insist that it's a "conqured nation", even after 700 years of cheek-to-cheek living with Turks and other minorities in the area, then consider it a "war against Ottoman empire". (Not the mention the fact that there was no Armenian state when Turks arrived at the area)

 

First of all, the Ottoman empire was not a country, being not a country, it loses every right to claim its protection from a minority, because it was an Empire, an empire is maintained on conquest and massacres. Furthermore, there was no Amernian state at those periods, because the concept of state did not really exist at that period, this claim is used by ignorants such as you, and even used by so-called professionals such as McCarthy, during those periods Empires emerged by conquest, some areas were independent, some were not, what distiguished an area was its native population, and not if whatever or not there was any state or not. As for "treason", the word "treason" could not be applied in away for any subject waiting an empire, because there is no such concept of citizenship in the Ottoman empire, but rather the concept of Milleti and "Subject" a "Subject" can not commit treason, because the relationship between the subject and the "master" is not by choice but by obligation. If you take a hostage, and the hostage escape and alert authorities, you can't call him a traitor, because the relationship between the criminal that you'd be and the hostage, is a one of the imposer and the imposed. So, in no way the Armenians could be traitors, because the Ottoman was not a country, there was no concept of equality based on some sort of concept similair to citizenship. In the same way, we can't call the many Circassian tribs, traitors, when they revolted against the Russian Empire. The differenciation is very important, and the uses of the word treason by any so-called specialist downgrade their own claims, because the usage of the word demonstrate an ignorance from their parts of the notion of "treason."

 

Another important point, you can't call "war" a fight between a minority and an empire, its like for example France that could decide to attack its Arabic minority, the disproportion is too much important to call it a war, its simply impossible, both in term of numbers and the sole definition of what a war is, and I don't think I need to developpe this subject any further, because I believe that you are intelligent anough to read few books about war, and compare it with the situation of the Armenian minority in the Ottoman empire.

 

 

2&3 - Armenians did indeed stage uprisings before the relocation process. That was the whole reason of relocation. 100 Turks in Zeytun in 1914, 3.000 Turks in Van events in 1915, and 20.000 Turks lost their lives 1914 — 1915, in Mus Events. Also the Armenians who joined the Russian Army against Ottoman empire, with their arms, committed collectively the guilt of being “ treacherous to the land “. Not to mention the revolts ince 1870s...

 

The revolts "since" 1870 ? Give me any example of such revolts "starting" in 1870, if you can't, excuse yourself for having typed such a compleat nonesense, the said revolt activities started when the Ottoman entered in the Erzeroon Cathedral to allegedly find arms, and butchered those in, destroying anything they could, at the end there was no arm found. And since you though you were enough knowledgeble of the subject you think you can discuss about, I would give you the opportunity to search the date yourself, from your Turkish sources. Because the only thing before that, was the war of 1877-1878, that ended up with the Treaty of Berlin, that BTW was never respected by the Ottoman empire, that war, was a war like many others, between empires, minorities can take positions or not, that does not make any difference, it does not make them traitors, because this is one of the prizes to pay when you build an empire and have subjects under your hand, if you can't accept that, you just don't build an empire.

 

Another thing, I am in my knowledge the only one, recognising the genocide, that prefer to call the deplacement of the Armenians, "relocation" rather than "deportation," because the word relocation in itself is an evidences that what happened in fact was a genocide. Deportation allude that the Armenians were pushed out of the Ottoman, this word goes better with the European Jews that were deported from Europe inside the concentration camps, pushed out from many countries, such as Italia, France, etc... the other part, those in Germany, the word relocation would fit better... there was no "deportation" of the Armenians, because the Armenians were not pushed outside from the Ottoman.

 

What happened is that the Armenians had their circulation permits destroyed, they had no right to leave the Ottoman empire, they were relocated in the desert, many names of the concentration camps were given in Turkey.com by the alias Yolla(all of the posts being deleted, against the UN charter of freedom of opinion). I'm sure you have seen them, since I already know you come from there. The World is such a little place, right ? So calling it "relocation" bring evidences that it was an extermination, because they were relocated in the desert, and not deported in the exterior. Yolla as well has presented a work studying concentration camps in history in Turkey.com, the work in the chapter covering the Armenian genocide, present the difference of the concentration camps put in place by the Ottoman empire, and any other concentration camps known in all history. The authors of the work(none are Armenian BTW, you know it, because you probably have read this fact by Yolla) writes that unlike any other concentration camps, the Armenian concentration camps, had one perpuses, and always had one, and it was to exterminate the Armenians, while the concentration camps of NAZI Germany, were first build for isolation, than they were modified. I can treat about the subject of Van, Mush and any other locations you refer, if you want to be butchered intellectualy, go ahead be my guest, but if you decide to discuss about the matter, give me a garanty that you won't run away on the middle of the discussion.

 

 

4 - You are speculating. Armenian patriarche and missinories were fast enough to contact outer powers (Britain , US etc.) accuse Ottoman with a genocide taking place in eastern Anatolia . There's no rationale behind keeping the Istanbul ARmenians in place if Ottoman had really desired a genocide. Powers like Britain was in war with Ottoman at that time already, there's no reason for keeping the diplomacy up anyways.

 

In addition, keep in mind that Istanbul was not the only place that Armenians are not relocated.

 

Istanbul Armenians had to be deported and exterminated like the rest, your claim is a myth brough by ignorants, or forger of history like McCarthy(fervant defenser of this absurd claim).

 

"Chargé d'affaires" of German embassacy.

 

"According to a source worthy of faith, the Turkish gouvernment , contrary to all the promesses, decided to also deport the Armenians of Constantinople."

 

AA Türkei 183/40, A33705

 

 

The German embassador Metternich in December 7, 1915 informed Germany that there was 30,000 Armenians of Istambul that were already deported, and added.

 

"will evacuate gradually the 80,000 Armenians which still remains"

 

AA Tütkei 183/40, A36184

 

 

"I even learned that the entirety of Constantinople Armenian population was to be deported"

 

A. Refik, Iki Komite, iki Kital, Istambul, 1919, p.40

 

Ernst von Nahmer, correspondent of the Kölnische Zeitung, AA Türkei, 183/38, A30432, 5-6 Sep, 1915

 

"I have authentic information on the fact that the arrests are carried out completely arbitrarily. Prudence with which they are conducted explains by the presence of the ambassadors. Once that the mesures in force inside the country will have succeeded, the capital(Constantinople) will be next."

 

The Ottoman just was not able to compleat the final stage by wipping out the Armenians from Istanbul, because the minorities like the Armenians were controling Instanbul economy, and that since the government was controled from there, it would have been very irresponsable to pass to plan Ex.(plan to exterminate those Armenians by sending them to the concentration camps). But the documents are abund, and they demonstrate that a considerable part of the Armenians there were "evactuated" and that it should have been done gradually to not disturb the capital city, there was as well the fact that the various embassies from other countries were situated there. Later, the Ottoman was not able to compleat the task, the allies occupied the city, but still, gradually the genocide persued taking another form, before 1915, the Armenians were constituing near 20 % of the population of Istanbul, now they represent less than 0.1 % of the population, if thats not a compleated work, what it is then ?

 

 

5- Well, maybe they're not convinced because there's no evidence.

 

Be my guest, try me, say there is no evidence, what I ask you to do is not be a chicken and escape on the middle of the conversation, or start attacking me by telling how more intelligent you are, or how I am an idiot etc... like every other Turks before you. I dare you to prove me that what I present are not evidences, I give you the opportunity to refer me to any works, like I gave to any other denialists, you can bring me McCarthy, Shaw, Mango, who ever you want, when ever you want, and how you want it, the only thing I ask you is to have the face later to admit if you can't continue, that you can't continue the discussion because you don't have the knowledge, and that you are denying the genocide, not because you have done a study, but because you are a Turk, and that the victims were Armenians.

 

So what you say ? Would you be my guest ?

 

 

Regards,

 

Knight of Armenia

 

Yeh sure, and I'm Gengis Khan

Edited June 24, 2003 by McCarthyiologist

[Knight of Armenia]

He, he, he, what a "clever turk"!

 

Thanks for your compliment. I am glad that you are not one of those racist bigots insulting at the intelligence of a whole race.

 

You changed the reference numbers, but anyways, I'll follow your sequence.

 

1. There were Armenian principalities in Eastern Armenia upon the nomadic Seldjucs arrival. Read more on this  topic before making fun of yourself.

 

Well, actually I was referring to Ottoman Turks, not as old as Slejcuks, but that's an interesting story too. When Seljuks captured the lands of the Armenian Principality of Ani in l064, but it had already been brought to captured by the Byzantine in 1045, nineteen years earlier, with Greeks being brought in to replace the Armenians who had been deported. It is therefore false to claim that the Seljuk Turks destroyed any Armenian principality, let alone a state. This already had been done by the Byzantines, and it was in fact the social and economic ferment that resulted which greatly facilitated the subsequent Turkish settlement.

 

Anyways, I am not trying to justify Seljuks conquest or anything like that. I am basically saying that 700 yrs of non-existence of a state negates the existence of that state. During those times borders of countries were determined by battles unfortunately. Existence of Armenians or any other race on a land does not necessarily mean that those lands belong to that ethnic group. Ethnic groups come and go and change the ownership of a land. Which one are you gonna give the land to? Armenians? Civilization after Armenians? Civilization BEFORE Armenians? What would the world be like if every race had claimed the lands they lived on 700 yrs ago???

 

2. Cilician Kingdom felt to Mameluks of Egypt in 1394 which are the same barbarians as your kind

 

Righhht, Turks were barbarians. All other empires such as Byzantine or British or Russian were very cute empires respecting other countries' borders!

 

3. The uprising that you are talking about from 1870 and beyond took place 1000 kilometers north-west of the arias inhabited of Armenians ( You remember the General Skobelev’s words ...

 

I was referrring to ARmenian Patriarch , Nerses telling British gov't that Armenians would not live together with the Turks any longer.

 

If you want chaotic uprisings in the area you can look at the 1890 revolt of Erzurum, or 1893 revolts of Kayseri and Yozgat , or 1896 Van Revolt, or 1915 (before april 24) second Van revolt.

 

4. The fact that there were Armenians who were happy with the Ottoman yoke doesn't mean that every other ordinary Armenian was happy with the status quo. ..

 

Ofocurse, Armenians wanted to rule over the majority. If everybody were happy, revolts wouldn't happen.

 

5. Suppose that tomorrow Russians invade Turkey and you are about to caputulate in ...say 2 days and suddenly the British are coming to your rescue ( I think this is called deja vu), aren't you going to join your liberators against Russians?

 

That's a pretty good question. But we will have to change your example a bit in order to make it equivalent to Armenian-Ottoman case. Let's say Turkey was conqured from Byzantine Empire by Russian Empire in around 13th century. So I would be a Turkish-Russian in 21st century, and I'd probably have strong ties with other people living in the area since my grand grand grand grand grand grand .. parents were born in Russia since the last 700 years. And probably my next door neighbor would be Kurdish-Russian, my best buddy would be a Persian-Russian and my girlfriend would be a Russian girl per say. Note that Turkish-Russians will be a only a minority in the eastern anatolia, where our ratio changes between 17% to 30% depending on the city we are living in.

 

Now one day British comes and tells me: "Ok help me to destroy Russian Empire, join my army, and let us inavde together, kill the Kurdish-Russians, Persian-Russians and Russians in your neighborhood, and in return we will give you a independent Turkish state."

 

Would I accept? NO WAY!! I am not going to fight against my 700 years old neighbors! My moral values don't allow that.

 

Ofcourse people's moral values differ, and I understand that an ultra-nationalistic member of my Turkish-Russian community can start killing neighbors. But I can tell you that I would not be surprised or feel sorry when Russia responds in a harsh way!

 

I am Turkish now, I was born in Turkey, but who knows what nationaloty were my grand grand grand parent 700 years ago? DO I care? No, I would NOT kill my neighbors today if anybody had brought an offer like that.

 

Anyways, that's the story, I hope I could have explain myself well. Take care.

 

BTW, DEAR MODERATOR,

 

Really very nice forum setup, especially the quote function is very user friendly.

[McCarthyiologist]

Knight of Armenia, would you be glad to tell me what the hell your answer has to do with the genocide in itself ? Since your first post was about denying it.

 

And furthermore, why having called yourself "Knight of Armenia" ?

Edited June 24, 2003 by McCarthyiologist

[Knight of Armenia]

.

Hi Twilight Bark, what a pleasant name, anyways, let's get to the point:

 

1-

Imperial rule doesn't attain legitimacy when its treatment of the subjugated peoples deteriorates over time. While an elite among the Armenians of the capital Constantinople enjoyed good success in business and the arts, the Armenian heartland kept suffering at the hands of the state and its gleeful tolerance of the Kurds' parasitic behavior at their expense...... 

 

I must remind you that Armenians were not the only race suffering during the collapse of Ottoman Empire. Political elite in Istanbul, and the wars ate the money at that time, and not only Armenians but also Turks, Kurds, Greeks have suffered from lack of food, medicine, fuel and whaeever else. That's why organizations like Ittihat and Terakki made plans to save the country from the hands of incompetent Sultans &*****s, and to fight against the occupying enemy powers such as Britain, Russia, Greece, France etc.. . And they applied their plans in order to end the suffering in the empire. And what did Armenian nationalists do? They collabrated with the enemy and fought against the people they live with!! See my neighbor example above. That's outright "treason" and "backstabbing" all in one combo!

 

2&3 -

You don't say?  You won't find many Armenians denying that there were acts of desperatrion... 

 

Hahaha , murder neighbors, civilians , then call it an act of desperation. Do you think Al-quida attacks was acts of desperation too??

 

And you think Ottoman is gonna wait and watch without doing anything when Armenians are "desperately" on rampage?

 

The sporadic act of desperation had no military significance. 

 

Riiight, join the Russian army, then call it no military siginificance. Ofocurse thousands of dead non-Armenians do not constitute a "significant" bloodshed right??

 

It was about not being treated like full human beings, even by the miserable standards of the place and the time. 

 

 

Armenians were by far, the greatest beneficiaries of the opportunities offered by the Ottoman Empire to all industrious, efficient, honest and productive subjects of the non-muslim communities. Being exempted from the military service and to a great extent from taxation, the Armenians had the opportunity to make headway in trade, agriculture, craftsmanship and administration, and by reason of their loyalty to the Empire, as well as their ability to intermingle with other subjects, they had duely attained the title of "loyal people".

 

4-

It's one thing to get the odd report from far, inaccessible provinces, and quite another to see the murder in front of you.  In the former, as a diplomat, you have wiggle room to chicken out and do the "right" (i.e. morally wrong) thing.  ..

 

Is that why Morthengau rushed all the propaganda that it took from Armenian Patriarche without feeling the need to step out of Istanbul and verify whether those sotries are correct??

 

Come now, you can lack a conscience and the feeling of compassion, but you lack logical reasoning as well? How about you think about  "German discomfort", and "American interest" a little bit, alright? All the government needed was enough uncertainty and confusion to allow them enough time to finish the deed.  Murdering the Armenian intelligentsia allowed enough silence and lack of "intelligence" (of both sorts) to do just that.

 

See above.

 

5-

.  You have convinced yourself that the Abdulhamid regime and the Young Turk government were benevolent entities, deserving of loyalty and respect.  And you ....

 

I never said that. Abdulhamid and Young Turk gov't were mostly incompetent traitors living in romantic adventures instead of making a plan to defend the country.

 

But this doesn't mean that I'll buy everything blamed on them without credible evidence and logic. I wouldn't buy if you claimed that Young Turks killed Jesus.

 

Night night my friend.

 

knight of Armenia

[Knight of Armenia]

Hi Mccarthy, which answer are you asking about? I just responded to the 4-5 things that Twilight Bart has written. I didn't intend to say whether there was a genocide or not, but if you ask my opinion, there's just suffering of Armenians, accompanied with bunch of lies thanks to British propaganda.

 

The trial has already been done, the case has already fallen, I still can't see the reason for warming up the thing and pushing it again.

 

And furthermore, why having called yourself "Knight of Armenia" ?

 

It's just a beautiful name. I hope you guys don't mind my anti-genocide views given that my nick has the word "Armenian" in it.

 

By the way,your post looks pretty long, give me some time, I can't catch up with all, I am outnumbered .

[Twilight Bark]

Now one day British comes and tells me: "Ok help me to destroy Russian Empire, join my army, and let us inavde together, kill the Kurdish-Russians, Persian-Russians and Russians in your neighborhood, and in return we will give you a independent Turkish state."

 

Would I accept? NO WAY!! I am not going to fight against my 700 years old neighbors! My moral values don't allow that.

The sad truth is that Armenians foolishly responded the way you claim you would respond (which I doubt, given the extremely low moral standard you are displaying; I bet you would just say "Yeah, yeah, yeah, give me the territory, give me the territory").

 

In return for their passivity, Armenians were singled out as easy picking.

 

Now, I have no intention of sinking time into this ugly discussion. I propose you do the following. Prove that the Turks were in mortal danger because of the Armenian children, mothers, fathers, elders, and the peaceful peasants that formed the vast majority of their nation, that a genocide of a whole nation was necessary, that it was absolutely necessary for some "greater good", and you can consider yourself the winner of an argument. I will not mention what you should consider yourself until you provide such proof, in order not to discourage you. If you keep working on your proof for the rest of your life, at least you couldn't do any real harm to anyone. Now that is something.

[Twilight Bark]

I never said that.

You implied as much. If you didn't mean to imply it, the rest of your so-called arguments become invalid.

 

Abdulhamid and Young Turk gov't were mostly incompetent traitors living in romantic adventures instead of making a plan to defend the country.

While their treason against the Turkish element of the Ottoman nation had been unintentional, their treason against the Armenian element of the Ottoman nation was very deliberate and enthusiastically bloody.

 

 

But this doesn't mean that I'll buy everything blamed on them without credible evidence and logic.

You are in no position to lecture on either cold logic or compassionate morals. You lost your credibility on both counts. Unfortunately you are too thick to realize it.

 

my friend.

That's insulting.

[McCarthyiologist]

Knight, how do you expect being taken seriously after your last reply to Twilight Bark, there is basic mistakes in your post, you even start refering to races rather than “ethnicity,” furthermore, the reason the Armenians suffered has little to do with the reason the Turks and Kurds suffered of. Yes ! there was lack of food, lack of medecine, lack of fuel, but it was the Armenians that were sent in the desert left to starve, not the Turks, the Ottoman Empire blocked any help provided to the Armenians, the reason given to the Red Cross and various relief organisations was that they wished nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. Here it is not only about starving and not enough food supply, here it is a question of blocking food supply and as pretext telling that they wish nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. There is even more to that, not only the Ottoman empire has forbidden any possible help destinated to the Armenians by various organisations, but they even refused the help offered by the Germans to feed the Armenians, the Germans in various secret reports, report how the Ottoman authorities were happy on letting the Armenians starve and how this time they have not lost the opportunity, such kind of evidences could even not be found in the cases of the Holocaust. This is even not all, the Turkish military war tribunal made it clear, that there was a plan destinated to destroy the Armenians, they present documents on the participation of physicians in poisoning people, drowning children, evidences of mass burning etc...

 

As for collaborating with the Enemy, here is the official declaration of the Armenian said revolutionary commity.

 

“[…] It was not enough to arrest and imprison the well-known and respected members of the Armenian community or exile them to remote areas; to create fear and terror among the whole nation. No, it was not enough, for the whole of Cilicia and Armenia had to be turned into one vast graveyard.[…] We wished to convince you [CUP] of the consequences of ill-fated policy you wished to pursue. We begged you not to bring about your downfall by starting hostilities with Russia. We implored you not to be swayed by German influence and not to take up arms against the Triple Entente, two of whose members, England and France, have always been loyal allies who have repeatedly saved the state from danger.[…] You behaved with ingratitude and turning your upon your former allies you threw yourself into the arms of Germany whose power turned your head. And, by abandoning the policy of neutrality which you had so far been pursuing you dragged the Ottoman state to destruction. The country, already poor, was totally ruined. You prepared the ground for serious disorders and the bloody defeats that violated the borders of Armenia. You destroyed and annihilated innumerable young lives. Today, incapable of saving your country, you are desperately fighting your last battle and are treacherously assaulting the unfortunate, unarmed and helpless Armenian nation. It is your own policy that has forced the Armenians to take up weapons and form bands in order to protect their communities from systematic extermination. You are reaping what you have sown. The press organ of the Armenian Revolutionary committee, independent of the Party, on its own responsibility, accuses you – those members of the government and of the Society of Union and Progress involved in these incidents – of having inflicted atrocities and murders on the Armenian nation and, likewise, of having committed crimes against the Ottoman state, and declares that it holds you morally and legally responsible. Signed: Dashnaktsutiun”

 

This version has been little bit manipulated by Uras, but in order that you don’t cry for fraud, I presented you the version “collected” by Uras, one of the head of the Ottoman propaganda machine. The source: Uras, Esat, “The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, Istanbul: Documentary Publications, 1988.(Turkishe Erstausgabe 1953) pp. 874-77

 

I have another version published in a Canadian newspaper, that is actually closer to the true one, but lets take your own sources. The document is clear cut, it present how the Ottoman violated the border of Armenia, the “Armenia” that is refered here is Russian Armenia that the Ottoman tried to annex, if there was any traitor here, it was the Ottoman that decided to annex and take Russian Armenia, than after that the Russian Armenians fough against the Ottoman, the Ottoman took vengence against the Ottoman Armenians, the same way that the decision to exterminate the Jews was taken after the defeat in Soviet front. The Germans used that as a “said” evidence for a world Jewish conspiration. In this official document, we see nowhere that the Armenians decided any revolution, in fact, the Ottoman sieced the bureau of any Armenian organisations, and they found not any documents or any papers supporting any such thing, if you read the said compilation of Uras, he don’t refer to any such documents that were in the pocession of the Ottoman, because it would disprove what he try to prove. Do you imagine how his claims were unsupported ? The above text was the best he came to claim what he claimed, and this best, even disprove your own claim. Face it, you can’t back up your claims with any valide documentation.

 

Another mistake of yours that is ridiculous, the claim that the Armenians were exempted from taxation. Who are you trying to foul ? From the caclulation I did in the past, and I am ready to provide here evidences and documentations, the Armenians were paying 3 times more taxes than the Turks, and even more for some, they were the subjects that were paying the highest amount of taxes, they were the only having to pay the said Kurdish taxes, that was in part responsable of what happened in 1894. The only reason why the Armenian were exempt from military service was because no Christian subject were trusted to serve in the army, in order to compensate that, the Armenians had to pay the exemption taxe, the boy “head” tax, a taxation pied for any born boy. I am just refering to those, but I can be more specific about the taxation system if you’d like, I have no problem with that. Before claiming something verify if what you said has any sense, because you will only destroy your own credibility if you write such nonesense. Beside that the Young Turk took off the exemption thing.

 

As for British propaganda, and trial. The Turkish military after war tribunal has proved the genocide did happen. DO you know of any trial proving it never happened ?

[gamavor]

To the turk

 

Hey turk,

 

Your filthy country (i.e. Turkey) existed for only 85 years. Shall we consider this too short as a period and negate the existence of your race? How about East European countries that were subjected to turkish yoke that continued for 600 years? Are you going to negate them too?

 

The Ottomans concurred Armenian lands which are occupied to this day. Ethnic groups inhabit certain lands and those are their lands as long as they were inhabiting them prior to the forceful coming of somebody else that claimed them as their own. I know that you cannot grasp this concept because you are nomad. Gypsy.

 

If Armenians have had equal rights in Ottoman Empire why would they revolt? To rule over the majority of freaks like you? You missed to explain to me the equal treatment of the citizen of the Ottoman Empire? Tax, court appearance and truthfulness of the testimonies of the Christians, ability to develop their own culture, religious freedoms, etc...

 

For a person like you, it would be a complement to call yourself Russian turk.

 

 

You are right I'm not racist, I even have great admiration for dogs!

[joseph parikian]

To the son of turk

Armenia is here to stay if you dont believe it ask your cousins the azerbayjaniz they will let you know what Armenians can do .

Armenia will be the knife in the side of turkey and azerbayjan and we will bleed you untill one day you will give the Armenian lands back like it or not.

[joseph parikian]

When i said son of turk i did not mean insulting you although i know it is insulting to be called a turk .

I can give you some names that the Arabs describe the turks with but i cant do it in this forum .

:box:

[Knight of Armenia]

Wow, I got a lot of attention. Let me put some quciky replies out.

[Knight of Armenia]

To the son of turk

Armenia is here to stay if you dont believe it ask your cousins the azerbayjaniz they will let you know what Armenians can do .

Armenia will be the knife in the side of turkey and azerbayjan and we will bleed you untill one day you will give the Armenian lands back like it or not.

Armenia should stay ofcourse. I don't have any intentions on Armenian lands or anything like that. However Armenia should learn about keeping good relations with neighboring countries and prosper instead of being a knife whining about meaningless things.

 

Let's face it, today Armenia is a land-locked country. People immigrate from Armenia, not to Armenia. Armenia's long time main export is terrorism, nothing else. Whole Armenian nationalism is built on Turkish hatred as far as I observe.

 

You gotta make major changes in your ideals, and you'd better start doing something good about your country soon, because I doubt if any Armenian will be left in Armenia in 50 yrs.

 

Regarding your careful typing of all "Turk" and "Azerbayjan" words with small letters and all "Armenian" words with big letters, it's childish.

[Knight of Armenia]

[....]

As for British propaganda, and trial. The Turkish military after war tribunal has proved the genocide did happen. DO you know of any trial proving it never happened ?

 

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.

[gamavor]

Why do you think guys the turk above is so much concerned about having good relations with Armenia and Armenians? Is it because of lack of super-ego or plain political game?

 

Answers will be graded 1-10! I'm going to be the Judge?

[MadArmo]

Why do you think guys the turk above is so much concerned about having good relations with Armenia and Armenians? Is it because of lack of super-ego or plain political game?

 

Answers will be graded 1-10! I'm going to be the Judge?

Well, We all have witnessed Turkesh tap tancing...

 

 

Great logic to point the finger at victims and claim my forfathers did nothing wrong, They suffer from super guilt not ego. Someone called him a Gypsy, he should thank them for the off handed compliment.

 

They are masters of trickery and make great statsmen, A deadly combo and they have survived countless wars, Never to be trusted ! Be wise like an fox when you debate with a Turk, They like to become your best friend to only rob you later. I take great pleasure to discredit them and tell all thier existance is Farce...

 

As for Armenians and Armenia we are better off without them, And then finally we might be able to shake that Ottoman yoke.

 

 

 

Turk Pezevenglar !!! :

 

 

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