Talk:Armenian genocide/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Armenian genocide. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Comment

I really couldn't see any evidence in the archives section that can prove that this was a genocide. The pictures, the letter of the genocide scholars .. none of them can be accepted as an evidence to justify the title armenian genocide. All I read was sayings of military leaders' or government leaders' words which make me think Bush's claim about the Nuclear weapons of Iraq. But if sayings are important I must say as a Turkish from Harpoot that armenians and russians deported my grandmother's father's family and many others from Caucausia and as a 10 years old kid he lost all his family during the deportation. The main point most of you keep missing is that armenians and Turks died but it wasn't a genocide. Moreover I can't understand why the words of a figure like Hitler are given that importance.

Hitler's quote and Holocaust

If Hitler's quote was not a hoax, then why did the U.S. prosecutor refuse to use it in the Nuremberg trials? This unisgned, undated page bearing the Hitler quote stuck out like a sore thumb in the otherwise flawless documentation with sequential numbering system showing dates, signatures, and minutes all in keeping with German high precision. The fact of the matter is, the fabricator -- believed to be an Armenian nationalist or a sympathizer -- managed to slip his "work of art" among the court documents, but faile to convince the U.S. prosecutors, nor the impartial observers and scholars. Prof. Heath Lowry researched this matter well and exposed yet another Armenian fakery tainting the "alleged" genocide debate.

Please, don't try to again change the quote to imply,that Hitler was talking about Jewish Holocaust. Without trying to disregeard enormous suffering of people tied Jewish nation or religion, or both, "Who remember the Armenians" is about killing Poles, not Jews. Just try to read the quote for God's sake.

Please, let this stay on top, since this question was disputed here dozen times. Szopen 10:03, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The rest of discussion

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

To provide context and contrast to the term "Holocaust" and its association with the genocide against the Jewish people, I've created this entry. But I have to be honest and say that I know next to nothing about the actual history of the Armenian Holocaust. Please fill in the blanks! Thank you for your help. Modemac

Why was a lot of useful information deleted by User:H7asan? Actually, I think that was a POV-deletion, and warrants at least a merge if not a revert -- with all due respect to User:H7asan, but it has to be said --Kaihsu 13:34 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

No one answers? --Kaihsu

--- Kaihsu, I give respect to you, but you are wrong to suggest revert or merger. The information I present (in the first two paragraphs) is based on only extremely well regarded sources (e.g. EB), whereas the information for the previous article – I got the feeling – was mostly from webpages. In addition to inaccuracies, too much was only marginally or insignificantly affected the topic. I kept the Usenet spamming story because it was interesting and because of the importance it might have to some internetfanatics (a large percent of wikipedia). User:H7asan

ps - If you want to discuss the article in detail, I can.

Thank you for the clarification. I have no particular interest in this topic, and am not keen to extensively discuss this article. But I think the particular specialty of Wikipedia may be helped by the inclusion of the novel and film references (especially the recent film by Egoyan, which I read about recently in the Guardian of London). I think I have read the Hitler quote from a book by Norman Davies, a respectable historian. Certainly, you may want to check the accuracy of these citations, but the deletion of the last few paragraphs is a bit rash, I think. In general, please try to discuss here before substantially deleting anything and adding judgemental statements. Sorry for presuming this, but I feel that there may be emotional reasons for your modification, and may affect the NPOV-ness of Wikipedia. --Kaihsu 13:13 Apr 21, 2003 (UTC)

I've attempted to merge the old article text together with the new, editing it in a way so that they don't conflict with one another. Hope this helps. --Modemac 13:21 Apr 26, 2003 (UTC)

I ahve removed the following textL "The term Holocaust is seen in modern-day society as irrevocably linked with the Nazi regime's infamous act of genocide against the Jewish people; but other major human catastrophes have been largely ignored by historians, including the Armenian Genocide, the killing fields of the Pol Pot era of Cambodia, and the Soviet purges, where Stalin's government murdered over twenty million Russian citizens."

The reason I removed it is that it is totally false. I understand that some Armenians may be unhappy with the amount of publicity that this event has generated, but libels against American and European historians, professors and universities won't change anything. And libel this is; the indisuputable fact is that professors and historians in both America and Europe have done a huge amount of research, lecturing and writing on the Aremenian genocide, on the killing fields of the Pol Pot era, on Stalin's purges, etc. A trip to any good bookstore will uncover a large amount of books on these subjects. A trip to any colllge or universoty library will uncover a large amount of articles on these subjects in academic journals. I fear that these kind of grossly false comments will allow Armenian genocide deniars to come here and denounce the entire article as false. After all, if it contains some lies, isn't it all false? (No, but that is the argument they will use.) RK

--

Basically – the Hitler quote is from document USA-28 of the Nuremberg trials. The document is about the invasion of Poland (which was 10% Jewish), not about the Holocaust and it does not mention the Jews specifically. Either way the document is considered a semi-forgery. Apparently for this reason the prosecution never entered the document as evidence using it only for “indentification”. User:H7asan

H7asan, why are you removing the previous material about the history of the Aermenian Genocide? The information there is factual and (as far as I can tell) accurate. I see no reason to remove it. If you feel that it needs to be changed to make it more accurate, please do so. But I do not see justification in removing it completely. -- Modemac 23:26 Apr 28, 2003 (UTC)

Modemac, I support that you just go ahead and merge back whatever H7asan deleted, if you think it appropriate. --Kaihsu 13:55 May 3, 2003 (UTC)

I've restored the deleted text -- again -- on the grounds that the information is factual, NPOV, and useful. Existing edits have been maintained and not deleted. This restored text also includes links to external Web sites that deal with the Armenian Genocide. H7asan, I also dispute your statement that the information about the movie and the Hitler quote being only "marginal." They are still facts that are worth noting in an encyclopedia article such as this one. --Modemac 11:31 May 5, 2003 (UTC)

Once again, H7asan has removed a large chunk of text. This is getting tiresome. Danny

-

Look at the amount of repetition and contradiction in the article. Your reverts have been very stupid. User:H7asan

-

Modemac, fair enough about the movie and novel. But you obviously did not see my reason for removing the Hitler quote. Likewise for the hr-action link. User:H7asan

I redirected an imho NPOV Armenian massacres article and Armenian genocide article to this one. The European Union also seems to have taken a stand that Turkey should acknowledge the AG before admission talks can start (google gives a lot of links when searching for european union armenian genocide), but I have been unable to locate original documents on the offical site. If someone finds this, I think it might well be added to the paragraph on political attention. TeunSpaans 10:55, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Why changing the sentence about Hitler? He was talking about specific actions against POLES, not jsut about actions taken during invasion of Poland. Why changing that? If there is no reaction, i will revert in two days. szopen

Where have you seen that Hitler was talking about the Poles? Please reply as this is the first time I am hearing this.

Well, it's well established fact for example you can find it here:

http://www.holocaust-trc.org/uniqueness.htm

On August 22, 1939, several days before Hitler launched his attack on Poland, he implored his military leaders to show no mercy toward those who stood in his way. I have placed my deathhead formations in readiness. .. with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space [Lebensraum] that we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Or full quote here:

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/statements/hitler.htm

sometimes the authenticity of the quote is doubted, especially by revisionists and Turks, but never ever none doubts that this is about killing Poles.

I tend to think that attributing the quote to Jews started when it became uneasy to write about Poles as victims too, not happy bystanders or collaborators, as it became tendency in recent years.

szopen

--

Szopen, thanks. You had a fair edit back on Nov. 4, where you said "Some also attribute this quote to talking about the 'Jewish Question'." How about a similar disclaimer be re-added?

Why not. Even although quote is clearly about Poles, it's also swhos attituted of Hitler which later was decisive in deciding fate of the Jews. Also, in popular belief quote is tied more in Jews and original context is usually forgotten. szopen

2003-12-15

600 000 death ?! What fucking number !! 1 500 000 !

Yes, an extremely intelligible statement. Read the "Statistics of the Second Massacre" statement, and tell me that those reliable sources are wrong and that someone who uses such language as "What fucking number !!" is more truthful. ugen64 02:26, Dec 17, 2003 (UTC)

I have reverted the edits by User:81.212.126.173: the entire article was deleted and replaced with what looks like a copy&paste job from a Turkish negationism website. To the anon with IP 81.212.126.173: you are more than welcome to edit the article if you feel it does not have an NPOV (Neutral Point Of View), but do not simply delete everything. Jo r 20:14, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The stuff being used to replace the text of this article has been cut and pasted from http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/ - which means that it is a copyright violation. Another reason not to let it remain here. --Modemac 17:18, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The section "Statistics of the second massacre" looks a lot like the entry in the Britannica (as far as I remember it). Is this a copyright violation?

Was the majority of Armenians Roman or Armenian Catholic?

Hi,

I want to comment on the 1.5 million part of this story. I will give some numbers and you can reach to some conclusions...

First number: Number of christians living in Asia Minor in 1907. This is taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907. It may not be exact but it gives an idea. Total population 9.235-10.750 million of whom about 1.5 million were Christian. This is not a pro-Turkish source as the name of the source suggests. [1]

Second: Number of Greeks deported from Asia Minor after Greek-Turkish War(1921-1922) as a result of the population exchange agreement between Turkey and Greece. 850 thousand... [2][3]

The math: Assume the 1.5 million number is small, add 500 thousand to it. Assume 850thousand is large, subtract 250 thousand... The maximum total number for Armenians is about 1.4 million... And this is a very high estimate. I don't know how people come to 1.5 million number...

Soli1978 15:36, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I can't find where the source you cite actually claims that there were 1.5 million Christians. Rather, it says...

"In the absence of a reliable census the population of Asia Minor is variously given. Larousse (1898) puts it at 9,235,000, of whom 7,179,000 are Moslems and 1,548,000 Christians."

...which is not quite the same thing! While you are right that the author has no obvious reason to underestimate the number of Christians, populations are notoriously hard to gauge, and honest mistakes can happen. It is quite possible that the estimate was made by somebody who only visited a few parts of Asia Minor, and attempted to extrapolate figures for the whole country, without having any real idea how demographics varied across the area. Such a study could easily have completely overlooked most of the Armenian population, if the areas where they predominated were not visited.

I think, to be honest, we will never be able to know the true figures, and in keeping with the NPOV principal, all we can do is try to explain the different points of view.

Cambyses 13:35, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There are actual Ottoman census data about the population of the Armenians [1]. Given that I put a huge error margin to the data in the Catholic Encyclopedia for the Armenian population, it can be assumed that I am kind of taking honest mistakes into account (actually the honest mistake could have been to overstate the numbers as well). You are right, we will never know the true figures. But the sad thing is people act like they (and only they) know the true figures. This issue is highly politisized. I don't think it is upto MP's to decide if Turks commited genocide 90 years ago. Most of them only care about votes and unfortunately there are many Armenians in very influential positions in a lot of countries.

Soli1978 14:42, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

hi,

i have removed the reference to hellenic holocaust since (a) the exchange after the greco-turkish war does not take place at the same time, as was stated in the link (b) as the referred article explains, the so-called "hellenic holocaust" was not an action taken to exterminate greeks in turkey, it as much drove the turks from their homes in greece. any comments? User:Ato

maybe i did wrong, since the term hellenic holocaust seemingly does not refer to exchange after the greco-turkish war (see Talk:Greco-Turkish relations). however, the nature of two events is still looks very different. Ato 20:13, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Strong bias

This article as it is now is more like a propaganda article, rather than something that is based on facts. Varlik Vergisi is one example which has nothing to do with Armenian Genocide. It is simply an attempt to discredit the Turkish side (as if, look these guys are really bad people). Another bias emerges in the numbers. Usually, the numbers are exaggarated here and there. For example, is 1.5 million dead is really accepted? Who accepts that number, there is absolutely no clue. Also in France, it is mostly due to the Armenian lobbies that France signed a law about a historical event. Since this is a highly debated issue, it is wrong to state that everything here is a fact. Rick seem to be the main reason that leaves this article as it is. He is from California, thus probably sided with Armenian side (he accused me of being Serdar Argic and blocked me from editing claiming that I am vandalizing. Wikipedia clearly describes what vandalism is). I think Wikipedia should revoke his adminship if he continues to use his power to prevent people to bring more objectivity to these articles.

I don't see the Varlik reference, so I guess it has been removed. It doesn't sound like a propaganda article though, it sounds like history, and it sounds like you don't like this particular history. Well you can rest assured that neither do Armenians - it happened to them. Numbers? Of course it is important to use the best available, but first of all many different sources are mentioned, including very pro-Turkish. Second, numbers are frankly irrelevant in whether it was a genocide, something you seem to be trying to cast doubt upon. So on that note let me just say that when the US Congress discusses Armenian Genocide bills, the pro-Turkey congressmen do NOT ever argue against it on the basis of whether it happened or not, everyone agrees it did happen. They argue solely based on whether it is worth damaging relations with the govt. of Turkey. In France I believe the passage was unanimous. So really if you think that if the resolutions are only about pleasing one side of the other, you should then realize that the substance of the matter is never in doubt. --RaffiKojian 02:29, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Events of Musa Mountain

I have some doubts about the date I quoted (September 22nd, 1915) since [2] gives dates inconsistent with this. Also, I am not sure about the number of ships involved in the rescue and transfer of Armenians from Musa Mountain to Port Said. [3] says there were five ships, but the reference I put into the article says two. I think five is a better number as the same article mentions five thousand people. Is there something like the memoirs of the captains of the ships? There must be a log book at least! Unfortunately I cannot read French. ato 18:22, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Should it be added into the article that Armenian genocide inspired Hitler to say: "Who nowadays mentions the extermination of Armenians" or something like that?

Well, there was the mentioning the quote previously. I don't know why it was removed. The full quote was something like "Exterminate all woman, men, and children of POLISH descent... Who, after all, remember the Armenians"? Note that the quote is about the fate of Poles. What suprises me, the quote was removed almost immedietely when i corrected original erroneus statement that it was about Jews (which it wasn;t) Szopen 08:47, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Musa Mountain

While I went ahead and cleaned up the text of this section, I have to say that the section comes off as being biased and I am not sure how to fix it. I would think it would be better to move discussion of the disputed events to a separate entry for the book and just put here that the book deals with the genocide and the veracity/factuality of the events in the book are at this point uncertain. Any ideas? I'm I wong here? - Mr d logan

Move Musa Dagh

I propose that the Musa Dagh section be moved to a seperate article. It was a well publicized event thanks to the bestselling book, but it seems to me to have outgrown this page. I also think that "some Armenian guy there told me there was no fighting" seems to go against everything ever said, written or recorded on this subject, and I would like to remove it. I was there in June and the villagers talked openly about the fighting during WWI. I have video of it. Perhaps there was a language barrier/misunderstanding? Maybe they were talking about the handover of Musa Dagh and the surrounding area from Syria to Turkey a few decades ago? I don't know, but I will see what others think before doing anything. --RaffiKojian 18:01, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Mr d logan and RaffiKojian. The whole section may or may not be factually accurate (as far as I know, Feigl is not an undisputed figure), but its inclusion in this article, claiming This book has been a central point in the Armenian Genocide campaign worldwide is definitely Turkish (or rather Ato's) POV. (I doubt that the book has been quoted as a historical source. Whenever I saw it mentioned it was only referred to as an artistic expression.)

The section should be moved to The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. regards, High on a tree 02:03, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Examining chiefly Turk-unsympathetic sources for the "Armenian Genocide" article

1) The "Definition of Armenian Genocide" article's neutrality earns a plus by taking the 50,000 Armenian mortality figure during the mid-1890s, instead of the more commonly accepted and Armenian provided 200,000 to 300,000 figures.

The counterpoint, from Kamuran Gurun's excellently researched "The Armenian File," using mostly western sources: "...Even if we are to include the Armenians killed by the bullets of the Armenian rebels as having been killed by Turks, the number of Armenians who died during the rebellions in the 1890s will hardly reach 20,000."

"There is a great difference between 20,000 and 300,000...it would be fair... to remember how many people lost their lives in rebellions or disorders in their own or other countries, and think how much right they have to use the term massacre."

Gurun estimates the number of Muslim dead during these rebellions in a two-year period is not less than 5,000. (Most were killed without provocation, so that the rest would be aroused to attack the Armenians.) "This is the real murder, the real massacre."

One main reason for this conclusion is because unlike what the article provides as the reasons ("harassment by the Kurds and an increase in taxes"), what really lay at the bottom of these activities was that Armenian revolutionary committees had begun forming in 1878. This is a critical development often neglected in this politicized discussion. The aim of the Dashnaks, Hunchaks and others was to massacre Turks, hoping to invite counter-massacres, and thus pleading to sympathetic imperialist powers to intervene... powers that were looking for any excuse by this time to meddle in the affairs of "The Sick Man of Europe."

2) In the "Second Armenian Massacre" section, we are told "Most of the Armenian recruits were later turned into road laborers and executed." No doubt crimes were committed against some of these soldiers, but there is no proof to verify this claim as occurring against "most." The fact of the matter is, the charters of the revolutionary groups (as recorded by Louise Nalbandian in her book, for one) specified revolt to take place against their homeland when the country was at its weakest: while at war. To the letter, this policy was followed; five days after Russia declared war (that is, on November 7, 1914), the pro-Armenian newspaper The New York Times reported "ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS -- Besieging Van; Others operating in Turkish Army's Rear."

"The (Turkish) Armenians everywhere welcomed the Russians... reports of armed conflicts arising from the refusal of Armenians to become Turkish conscripts and to surrender their arms. It is now rumored that the important city of Van is today besieged by Armenian guerrilla bands in great force. In Feltun the number of insurgents is said to exceed 20,000 and they are reported to have defeated all the Turkish troops sent against them, causing heavy losses to the Turks."

This was in late 1914, half a year before the "April 24" order to resettle the Armenians was issued, one that wasn't carried out until the following month. Another major Armenian rebellion took place in early April, triggering the issuance of this order.

The New York Times (often following war propaganda reports blindly... Wellington House illegally had a branch operating out of U.S. soil... today its articles are used as "proof" for the genocide) is not the only source that tells us Ottoman-Armenian troops behaved traitorously, many having deserted. What nation would not have disarmed troops that shared the same ethnicity of those who betrayed their country?

What we see here is the one and only reason why there was a relocation program: the Armenians rebelled at an agonizing "life or death" moment of their country, where they had been regarded as the "faithful nation" for centuries, allowed to rise in the highest ranks of society and government... thanks to the instigation of their fanatical leaders, following a period of terrorism that lasted some 35 years. There is no nation on the planet that would not have moved a dangerous population out of the way, given such dire circumstances... fighting a war on multiple fronts against world superpowers. The bankrupt nation did not have the manpower and resources to adequately handle such a huge task of transporting hundreds of thousands, and thus the innocent suffered with the guilty. This is a far cry from a planned extermination policy.

While fortunately Wikipedia's article examines various sources in its "statistics" section, the following statement is irresponsible: "Several hundred thousands more were massacred by Kurdish militia and Ottoman army, giving an estimated total of 1,500,000 Armenians dead."

We don't know if "Several hundred thousands more were massacred," especially by government agents. Massacres were perpetrated mainly by revengeful or opportunistic clans, and most Armenians who died did so from famine, disease, harsh weather and combat. Richard Hovannisian, for example, estimated some 150,000 Armenians died accompanying the Russian retreats (in his 1967 book); thousands died similarly accompanying the French at Marash. On the other side of the coin is the massive number of Turks dying under the same conditions; anti-Turkish Ambassador Morgenthau (in his book) figured thousands of Turks were dying daily of starvation, estimating a quarter of the empire's population was lost in this regard. (Because the men were all desperately needed at the fronts, and few were left to till the fields.) Even thousands of Turkish soldiers were dying of starvation! (According to Liman von Sanders, in the trial of Soghoman Tehlirian.)

As far as the 1,500,000 figure: Armenians from Boghos Nubar then to Peter Balakian today concede one million survived. In order for 1.5 million to have died, there would have needed to be 2.5 million Ottoman-Armenians before the war.

Yet, over a dozen western (almost always anti-Turkish) sources... including the Armenian Patriarch Ormanian... figured there were from one million to 1.6 million Armenians before the war.

3a) The "Statistics" section:

"Arnold J. Toynbee who served as an intelligence officer during World War I estimates there were 1,800,000 Armenians living in Anatolia in 1914. Arnold Toynbee's estimate is generally considered the most accurate of the ones given above. Encyclopaedia Britannica upon reviewing all available estimates took 1,750,000 Armenians living in Anatolia as their estimate."

I would rephrase "intelligence officer" to "propaganda minister"; Toynbee worked for Lord Bryce's Wellington House, whose chief purpose was to dehumanize the enemy. The British apologized to the Germans in the mid-1930s for the lies contained within their Blue Books, such as bayoneting Belgian babies.

In point of fact, before Toynbee joined Wellington House, he figured there were only around one million Ottoman-Armenians. ("Nationalism and the War," 1915.) In his notorious 1916 Blue Book report, "Treatment of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," Toynbee took the median figure between the Ottoman census' 1,100,000 and the Armenian Patriarch's 2,100,000: 1,600,000. So I don't know where this report came up with the 1,800,000 figure. Not that it matters, as propagandists can change their facts and figures at will.

In fact, Toynbee was mistaken about the Ottoman census; a more recent census had the Armenians at 1,300,000. Ironically, even the older 1,100,000 figure was more than what Toynbee thought before he became a propagandist.

The 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica had the Ottoman and Russian Armenian figures at 1.1 million each. If they later "revised" their figure to 1,750,000, they listened to the anti-Turkish propaganda that was omnipresent in the west.

On the "Talk:Armenian Genocide" page, a reader brought up yet another source not sympathetic to the Turks, the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1907. ("Total population 9.235-10.750 million of whom about 1.5 million were Christian.") Another reader who may not have liked these figures reminded us "populations are notoriously hard to gauge." That is true. This is why in order to get closest to the truth, we have to examine a multitude of sources. And the multitude of sources -- even among Turk-haters like Lepsius -- tell us before the war, from 1 million to 1.6 million Armenians existed in the Ottoman Empire. Only Armenian sources tell us 2 million and over.

3b) "Talat Pasha, a prominent Young Turk and Grand Vizier from 1917-1918, claimed that 800,000 Armenians died."

Is that from http://www.cilicia.com/armo10a.html, where "Cemal" was confused for "Talat"? Many fraudulent quotes were put in the mouths of Ottoman officials, by immoral parties as Aram Andonian, who forged many documents for propaganda purposes... still unethically being passed off in propaganda sites today as factual. In point of fact, Talat Pasha estimated this figure at around 300.000, in a presentation at the last congress of the Union and Progress Party.

I don't understand why the "Definition of Armenian Genocide" page ventured to tell us about foreign governments recognizing this episode of history as a genocide, as the one from France... where half a million Armenians live and have plenty of francs to sway politicians with. Does anyone think these politicians made an objective study of this history? And of what relevance is our being told an Armenian rock band has politicized some of their songs, unfairly influencing the ignorant minds of their young fans?

It is time to examine the other, always neglected side of this story; the intentional ethnic cleansing perpetrated by Armenians (to justify the hoped for "Greater Armenia") when they gained control of eastern lands with and without the help of the Russians. (One of the main perpetrators, General Dro, would later become known as the "Jew Hunter," working for the Fuehrer in WWII.) It is hard to find "neutral" (that is western) sources documenting the Turkish losses, because these Muslim lives (Ottoman Jews were also targeted by the Armenians) were (and are) regarded as disposable and not as valuable... but I believe over one-half million Turks/Muslims were directly slaughtered. (Out of a total of 2.5 to 3 million who died from all causes combined.)

Some "neutral" sources include a British colonel reporting the Armenians massacred between 300,000 and 400,000 Kurdish Muslims in the Van and Bitlis districts. (12.9.1919, U.S. Archives 184.021/265). Gotchnak, an Armenian-American newspaper, May 24th, 1915 issue: "There are only 1500 Turks left in Van, the rest having been exterminated." (In the French "Yellow Book," Cuinet figured 250 000 Moslems in Van in 1892.) The Turks have registered 517,955 casualty figures. That would mean more Turks/Muslims were directly killed by Armenians than the other way around.

Well this is a very long post and all over the place, so I can only respond to parts of it, but here goes. Yes, numbers are important to report as accurately as possible, but really they are not relevant on the whole to the central question you seem to want to refute - whether this was a genocide. So I will not sit here and argue this source vs. that source since we seem to have the high/low numbers covered very well on the page, and that should be enough to satisfy all. However your out of thin air figure the "you believe" 1.5 million Turks and Jews (yes, Jews no less, not Kurds, but Jews) out of 2.5 million lost during the war. So the British and Russian troops were so ineffective? Sorry, but this figure is so incredibly large, with absolutely no scholarly backing. It is something even the biggest proponents of the Turkish Government have ever dared to claim. Your great respect for Gurun as a valuable scholar is also misplaced. Good scholarly books do not include judgemental quotes such as "This is the real murder, the real massacre."

The System of a Down and France recognition are certainly relevant to genocide discussion. The post-genocide campaign of denial by Turkey has been unparallelled in the history of genocides, so far as I can think of. The need for Armenians to remember and make sure the world remembers is a great driving force that you cannot underestimate - a direct result of an unacknowleged genocde. Even in the oppresive Soviet Republic of Armenia, a prominent genocide monument was built, and millions commemorated the genocide. The generation of survivors spent most of their lives rebuilding and starting new lives. The next generation, with no acknowlegement of what their people were subjected to, and now more comfortable in their new countries expressed themselves as System of a Down is today.

Your other miscellaneous attempts to make Armenians out to be anti-Semetic based on a reference to one general who I am guessing has only been called "Jew-hunter" by you... I have certainly never heard such a title given to him. I would be curious to know what his supposed work for the Nazis entailed, even though that is SO irrelevant to the genocide it probably shouldn't be discussed here. --RaffiKojian 01:44, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Response to Raffi Kojian

Thank you for your analysis, Raffi; I'll try to address some issues you've raised:

1) You misread my belief of over one-half million (0.5 million+) Turks/Muslims being slaughtered by Armenians as 1.5 million. Far from being from "out of thin air," I'm basing my belief mainly on this page: http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/massacres/lists.html. I realize because the world has perceived the Turks as the total villains in this equation, thanks to the near-unilaterally and relentlessly provided pro-Armenian perspective (added to western bias against the Turks since the Crusades), anything provided by Turkish sources would automatically be deemed suspect. However, since the Turks unavoidably represent one-half of this equation, and nobody really cared about Turkish losses to document them other than the Turks (accounting for the lack of "scholarly backing"), this list can't be dismissed automatically. For one thing, the incentive to lie was not there; whomever prepared these lists did not do so with an eye to fool future historians. Furthermore, the rare western reports dealing with this unpopular topic do back up that there was a massive loss of life during the time of Armenian occupation of Ottoman lands. Pro-Armenian Americans Niles and Sutherland significantly indicated as such in their 1919 report (which was suppressed), and here's another: "For each of the provinces which suffered from the Russian occupation and from the Armenian militias acts of vengeance, an important demographic deficit appears in the statistics of the post-war years adding up to several hundred thousands of souls due largely to the massacres committed by the enemy." ("Histoire de l'Empire Ottoman," supervised by Robert Mantran, Paris, 1989, page 624)

2) Regarding "Good scholarly books do not include judgemental quotes such as 'This is the real murder, the real massacre'," if the murders of Turks by Armenians of the mid-1890s have been and still are so monumentally ignored, even the most respected historian would be justified in making such a conclusion. Had Ottoman-Armenians remained loyal as they had been through the centuries, there would have been no massacres in either the mid-1890s, or "1915." I don't know if you have read "The Armenian File," but before you attempt to discredit it, be aware the references almost entirely derive from western sources. (Rare is the western source raised to be fond of the Turks.)

3) "The System of a Down and France recognition are certainly relevant to genocide discussion." Only among those who have made genocide conclusions. Here we are defining "genocide" in layman terms: a planned extermination of a people, a la how this episode is presented by pro-Armenians; what the Nazis did to the Jews. Even the 1948 U.N. Convention, which is broadly based, requires "intent" to be proven, and exempts political groups. (In this case, the Armenians who allied themselves with the enemy.)

There are those of us who feel this episode has been falsified and politicized; the tragedies that resulted occurred from the Sick Man's unpreparedness. For example, a genuine "1915" eyewitness, American war correspondent, George Abel Schreiner stated in The Craft Sinister, 1920:

"On a trip I made through Asia Minor in May, 1915, I accidentally encountered a large column of deported Armenians in the Cicilian Gates in the Taurus Mountains.... I saw none of the cruelties the Turks have later been charged with... The inquiries I made at the time and later have caused me to believe that Turkish ineptness, more than intentional brutality, was responsible for the hardships the Armenians were subjected to."

This is why pro-Armenians have been desperate to find hard evidence. For lack of any, some have been made up... like the Andonian forged Talat Pasha telegrams. Even Richard Hovannisian is reported to have said in the "Congress on the Problems of World Armenians" held in 1982: "The Armenian problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription."

Moral people among us would not loosely make a charge of the highest crime against humanity, unless there was ironclad proof.

4) You are right; the Armenian-Nazi episode is irrelevant to our discussion. Since you asked, however, let's get into it a little. Maybe there is some relevance, as Dro organized wide-spread ethnic cleansing against Turkic populations in 1920-21, as documented by U.S. Naval officer Robert Steed Dunn in the book, "World Alive." (He was not alone, of course; others, such as Antranik, Garo, and the Hunchak Hamparsum "Muradyan" Boyaciyan joined in the fray from earlier years.) At the least, there is bitter irony.

I did not make up the "Jew Hunter" description for Dro. Perhaps wherever I read it from had made up this title, but to me it's apt enough to have been applied. Generally, the Armenian regiments in the Nazi forces were not good enough to be used at the front, and were better utilized for rounding up operations. There is an extremely loose indication that Armenian-Nazis might have even had a hand in collecting Anne Frank's family.

The famous Armenophile Christopher Walker wrote (in "Armenia The Survival of a Nation," page 357, para 2): "...(T)here remains the incontestable fact that relations between the Nazis and Daschnaks living in occupied areas were close and active. On 30 december 1941 an Armenian batallion was created by a decision of the Wehrmacht, known as the Armenian 812th Battalion. It was commanded by Dro... Early on the total number was 8000; this number later grew to 20,000."

Other information: "In fall 1942, the Armenian infantry battalions 808 and 809 were formed, to be followed by battalions 810, 812 and 813 in spring 1943. In the second half of 1943 infantry battalions 814, 815 and 816 were created. [Joachim Hoffmann, _Dies Ostlegionen 1941-1943, Turkotataren, Kaukasier und Wolgafinned im deutschen Heer_ (Verlag Rombach Freiburg 1976), p. 172.] Some Armenian regulars formed part of the general Nazi regiments, such as the 58th Panzer Corps, and the Ostlegion of the Wehrmacht's 19th Army. Ara J. Berkian broke a number of 30,000 Nazi Armenians down as: 14,000 in predominantly Armenian army units, 6,000 in German army units, 8,000 in various working units and 2,000 in the Waffen-SS.[Enno Meyer, A. J. Berkian, _Zwischen Rhein und Arax, 900 Jahre Deutsch-Armenische beziehungen_ (Heinz Holzberg Verlag-Oldenburg 1988), pp. 118/119.] The latter source also mentioned Dro as having worked closely with the German Secret Service, entering enemy territory with his own men and acquiring important intelligence about the Soviets.

When you write things like "There is an extremely loose indication that Armenian-Nazis might have even had a hand in collecting Anne Frank's family.", it is clear you are only interested in simply making Armenians look bad, and are willing to believe anything bad written about them by anyone. This is confirmed by all of your other references. Your martyr attitude about being the poor Turk that the world hates isn't believable, since the facts are there. This history is not being made up. The Ottoman Turkish government planned and executed genocide. Anyway, back to your quoting of anything that has a shred of anit-Armenian arguement, and ignoring the vast majority of proof.

"The Armenian File," is an absolutely atrocious hack job. It does not pretend even to be fair or scholarly, and is full of massive inaccuracies, and judgemental statements. Nobody can take this book seriously, and I would be amazed if the "normal" Turkish paid scholars like McCarthy ever refer to this material. Plus his typical "there was no genocide" followed by "if the Armenians had remained loyal the Turks wouldn't have had to kill them all" is just not as convincing as you may like to believe.
When you say, "Armenians who allied themselves with the enemy". Again. The vast majority of Armenians in Eastern Anatolia were peaceful, loyal citizens. You cannot show otherwise. If some Armenians preferred to take their chances with Russian rule, perhaps you should ask why.
If George Schreiner saw ONE group of Armenians being deported in one place, and said he did not see cruelties, this does not overule ALL of the photographs, memoirs, etc which say there were extremely bad conditions and horrible cruelty. Of course we don't know what the exact conditions of the group was, only that he thought the bad conditions were due to ineptness, more than intentional cruelty. This is not the kind of evidence you should be proudly posting.
How can you write "This is why pro-Armenians have been desperate to find hard evidence."??? The evidence is like an avalanche, and you sit here quoting one guy in one spot saying intentional cruelty probably wasn't as big a problem as ineptness, talking about one Armenian guy during WWII, and quoting "The Armenian File".

I don't know who reported Hovanissian saying "The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription", since that would go against everything I have heard him say, but fortunately we know the answer to this question too. Go to the website of the International Center for Transitional Justice, and read the .pdf report on exactly this question. The report was commissioned by TARC (Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission) and before you try to jump all over it, you should know that the Turkish members of the commision were virtually all part of the highest level of recent Turkish government and a few were STRONGLY anti-genocide. Nevertheless they comissioned the report from this center and here is the conclusion:

"There are many accounts of the Events, and significant disagreement among them on many issues of fact. Notwithstanding these disagreements, the core facts common to all of the various accounts of the Events we reviewed establish that three of the elements listed above were met: (1) one or more persons were killed; (2) such persons belonged to a particular national, ethnical, racial or religious group; and (3) the conduct took place in the context of a manifest pattern of similar conduct directed against that group. For purposes of assessing whether the Events, viewed collectively, constituted genocide, the only relevant area of disagreement is on whether the Events were perpetrated with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such. While this legal memorandum is not intended to definitively resolve particular factual disputes, we believe that the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the various accounts of the Events is that at least some of the perpetrators of the Events knew that the consequence of their actions would be the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Armenians of eastern Anatolia, as such, or acted purposively towards this goal, and, therefore, possessed the requisite genocidal intent. Because the other three elements identified above have been definitively established, the Events, viewed collectively, can thus be said to include all of the elements of the crime of genocide as defined in the Convention, and legal scholars as well as historians, politicians, journalists and other people would be justified in continuing to so describe them."

So I hope you stop seeking out any sliver of any document that you can find that simply makes Armenians look bad, and move to the big picture. You are fighting the truth here, whether you have realized it yet or not. If you are open minded, and interested in genuine scholarship, you'd read Dadrian, you'd read the Miller book "Survivors", and the report above and see what you think. Not just post a knee-jerk response with more of the same.

Continuing our Discussion

You are mistaken. I am not looking to believe everything bad about the Armenians. I consider every claim on its own merit. Can you say the same about yourself?

This is why my jury is very much out on the Anne Frank possibility, and the reason why I added the extra-fair disclaimer, "extremely loose." Nobody in Anne Frank's family would have dared asked the background of the soldiers or Gestapo agents who carted them away. So we will never know for sure. What raised my eyebrow was a description I came across referring to these Nazis as "dark-skinned," which didn't sound typically Aryan.

If we are to examine the reverse side of the coin you raised, I wonder if you are not looking to believe everything bad about the Turks. Note this comment of yours: "Turkish paid scholars like McCarthy." The reason why neutral academicians don't dare enter this fray is because the pro-Armenians don't hesitate to focus on the messenger instead of the message, and start their age-old smear campaign tactics. Vahan Cardashian was a master at this, when the Rev. James Barton, who dutifully vilified Turks for over a generation in missionary fashion, bitterly complained to Adm. Mark Bristol that he has now been targeted with a smear campaign by the Armenian lawyer and propagandist. Peter Balakian helped spearhead a smear campaign against Heath Lowry in recent years. The sinister motive is to stifle honest academic debate.

What is your proof the Turks have been paying McCarthy? I've read in pro-Armenian literature -- the kind that too often bends the truth -- the Turks financed a chair. Whether that's true or not, Prof. McCarthy was earning a paycheck at the University of Louisville for years beforehand, and that is how he is making his money today... and that would have been the case with or without this chair. I've read he makes sure not to have any semblance of getting paid by the Turks, simply to avoid accusations like the one you put forth. But that doesn't stop people from making accusations.

To address other issues:

1) "The Armenian File" is "an absolutely atrocious hack job," you wrote. I heartily disagree. It's an impressive work that makes its case mainly derived from western sources, which are primarily anti-Turkish. Is "if the Armenians had remained loyal the Turks wouldn't have had to kill them all" a direct quote from the book? The word "all" makes me think you might have paraphrased, because far from "all" the Armenians were killed. As far as the core truth behind that statement, the Armenians were faithful for centuries. You had better believe the Armenians would not have experienced their hardship had they not fired the first shot and betrayed their country, in their country's darkest hour. Check out what happened (or didn't happen) to the loyal Ottoman Jews, if you don't believe me.

2) When I wrote "Armenians who allied themselves with the enemy," that does not mean all Armenians betrayed their country. Of course, there were many who were enjoying prosperous lives, and wished their crazy leaders hadn't muddied the waters. Unfortunately, even those who did not willingly comply were coerced. Targets of Armenians terrorism were not only Turks. For example, remarkably, in the three year period of 1904-06, two out of three victims of Armenian terrorism were fellow Armenians.

3) I don't know why Armenians preferred to take their chances with Russian rule, as you suggested I ask myself why. Since Peter the Great, Russians have always used the Armenians as pawns, breaking all of their promises. I got a picture of Armenian life under Russian rule in "Men are Like That" (1926), and it sounds pretty disgusting. The average Ottoman-Armenian enjoyed a much better quality life, being among the upper, wealthier classes. I guess the "Christian" connection had a part to play with some Armenians' zeal, but mostly their fanatical leaders saw a chance to form their own state (encouraged by what was happening in the Balkans), and they needed a European power to help them on their way. (Little realizing the Russians would absorb them at the first opportunity. No wonder William Saroyan wrote the real enemy of the Armenians was not the Turks, but the Russians... in "Antranik of Armenia.")

4) Photographs? Plenty of Armenian sites show photographs, the origin of which are suspicious. Even the rare "legitimate" photos, as Armin Wegner's, show mostly suffering people with a few corpses... and that's not genocidal proof. The entire Ottoman Empire was a catastrophe area... with "thousands of Turks dying daily," as Morgenthau reported.

Memoirs? Missionary stories don't count. In their prayers, they believed it was their godly duty to demonize the Turk. Most of these bigoted westerners only listened to the Armenians, for whom they felt a great sympathy, and they rarely (if ever) witnessed any atrocity firsthand. (And singular atrocities, even if witnessed, don't prove systematic government sponsorhip. Unless you believe the My Lai Massacre demonstrated American intentions to wipe out every single Vietnamese.)

Hearsay does not constitute as evidence. That goes double for much of Armenian "oral history," where it's common to hear they were "told" of what happened. (For if they witnessed events firsthand, how could they have survived? The entire idea of genocide was to kill them all off.)

And George Schreiner did not base his opinion on the one example cited. He was all over the empire in most of 1915. "This is not the kind of evidence you should be proudly posting"?? It is extremely valuable evidence from a western eyewitness who truly eyewitnessed, coming from the rare honorable man who kept his bigotry in check.

5) I agree; "avalanche" is an appropriate word for all the "evidence" presented. Unfortunately, hearsay and fabrications... as, for example, all of those New York Times articles, the gobbledygook made up by foreign consuls motivated by religious and racial prejudice (and spurred by those as Morgenthau who had a propagandistic agenda, hoping to get the USA into the war), along with all the war propaganda created by Lord Bryce and Arnold Toynbee's Wellington House... does not constitute actual evidence. Maybe that's why Richard Hovannisian said what he said, in a rare fit of honesty... that the genocide cannot be proven.

The Nuremberg of WWI should make anyone stop and wonder. The Malta Tribunal lasted from 1919-1921. For over two years, the British -- anxious to justify their hysterical propaganda from the war years -- attempted to find actual judicial evidence for this so-called genocide. Despite appointing an Armenian to head the Ottoman archives in Allied-occupied Istanbul, and despite having that whole "avalanche" of evidence at their disposal... every single one of the initially held 144 Turks was released.

So when you make damning statements like, "the facts are there. This history is not being made up. The Ottoman Turkish government planned and executed genocide," what makes you think you can find the actual evidence that even the British could not? What are these facts? (What you need is the kind of proof Aram Andonian offered, making Talat Pasha say something to the tune of "every Armenian man, woman and child needs to be exterminated." Unfortunately for you, such proof needs to be genuine.) And don't think I haven't read Dadrian, who mainly resorts to the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts as his evidence. Dadrian is a prosecutor, not a professor; he only selects damning claims, to further his unscholarly mission.

6) Lastly, I'm already aware of the International Center for Transitional Justice report. That body was manned by lawyers, not historians, who almost exclusively referred to the omnipresent pro-Armenian references. Their definition of genocide: only ONE person needs to be killed. In that context, yes, the Armenian tragedy can definitely be called a "genocide." But so can the murders in the O.J. Simpson affair, as well as just about any other conflict where a fatality is involved. .

Wow - again I just don't know what the point is of writing to someone who says they are not looking to believe everything bad about Armenians, then says he suspects the Nazis who arrested Ann Frank were Armenian because they were described as "dark skinned".

Please don't make me laugh with consipiracy theories. I am telling you, I know this subject VERY well. McCarthy has gotten grants from both the "Turkish Studies Institute", in Washington D.C., whose honorary chairman is the Turkish Ambassador to the U.S., and from American Research Institute in Turkey. Both funded by Rep of Turkey. Heath Lowry's (who recieved a couple of grants from the latter) embarrasing closeness to the Turkish government, including penning letters for the Turkish Ambassador is well documented online at: http://users.ids.net/~gregan/pac.html I suggest you read every page in there, including the parts where the Turkish Ambassador and Heath Lowry freely discuss the Armenian Genocide as just that. Not as "alleged".

For your other points:

1) I have nothing to add. "The Armenian File" is "an absolutely atrocious hack job," and no scholar would ever put it in their footnotes. Whoever can appreciate that book wants to believe any evil rumor about Armenians possible. That seems to be your thing though. And if you want to know why Armenians were especially targetted, read up on Pan-Turkism, and think about what some Turkish generals were fighting for in Central Asia after WWI.

2) Oh, so there were still good, obedient Armenians. Yes, yes, too bad they were deported/murdered too, huh? And too bad none of them were allowed to reclaim their homes or move back by Ataturk. Oh well, huh?

3) Oh brother. No comment needed.

4) Alright, then the complete absense of Armenians in Anatolia and the stories of all of the survivors will just have to be my proof. Have you read Survivors by Miller? You ought to. If you claim that nobody's words are relevant because they were either biased or should have been dead, then you have no business reading ANY history. It's all peoples words.

5) Yes, it is unfortunate that the Ottomans were not as good a record keepers as the Nazis, and too bad the Republic of Turkey kept the Ottoman Archive closed for 60 years of "sanitizing" and still do not allow free access. Convenient too, eh? What was being hidden in there do you think?

6) Thank you for admitting it was a genocide by the "definition" of genocide. I like to stick to the definition, personally. If you read carefully it was the intent of the murders that are important, and the intent they say, was elimination of the Armenians of Anatolia.

Anyway, I don't see really where you want to go with this discussion, or the point. So I am finished with this conversation.

--RaffiKojian 04:08, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Reference and link titles

I have removed that reference because it is used only for Musa Mountain events which are not in the article any more. Please do not introduce it. Also, please do not change the titles of links to give impression that Wikipedia endorses Armenian point of view. If you want you can write neutral titles like "Sources that support one point of view" and "Sources that support other point of view" and let readers discover what opposing PoVs defend, rather than stamping them one way or other. at0 20:11, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Is Raffi Responding Roughly?

Raffi, I don't know if you're being fair with the Anne Frank point. 1) Armenian-Nazis were used to round up the Jews 2) "dark-skinned" was a description for at least some of the captors of Anne Frank's family 3) It's the rare German who would be placed in that category, except in those old Italian-produced WWII movies. The possibility of these Nazis being Armenians is valid speculation. And that's what "extremely loose indication" means: speculation.

I can see you "know this subject VERY well," but you are only knowledgeable about this subject subjectively; you only listen to Armenian sources, and your aim is to discredit anything that does not support your exclusive point-of-view.

Dr. Leon Picon once wrote: "The (Armenian) mythology that has been developed around the events of 1915 has been repeated so often that large segments of even educated people have come to to accept the mythology as History."

This is what we are dealing with. The "avalanche" of your Armenian evidence has been so near-unilaterally presented in the west, it has become the commonly accepted wisdom. Once a lot of people also believed the earth was flat. Let's not look at the quantity of the evidence, but its quality. Sources without conflicts of interest earn the most points.

Armenians are so obsessed with this "genocide," they support the curricula of many western schools and universities (Let's focus on America's). The multitude of Armenian studies are financed by Armenians, whereas non-obsessed Turks twiddle their thumbs. The way to balance this overly lopsided scale is for someone to step up to the financial plate to create Turkish studies, and the only institution with the monetary muscle to do so becomes the Turkish government. This invites charges of corruption (as with the page you offered), since the "avalanche" of propaganda has done its dirty work all too well through the years.

It is common practice for professors to get grants from various sources, and if Prof. McCarthy received grants from the two Turkish institutions you mentioned, your conclusion that McCarthy has become a paid propaganda tool is absurd and defamatory. If McCarthy is getting his salary from the American University of Louisville, he doesn't need grants to compromise his integrity.

By your standards, Richard Hovannisian's Armenian Educational Foundation (AEF) Chair in Armenian History at UCLA (since 1986) and his belonging to the Academic Council of ANI that openly declares its historical partisanship are better indications of playing propagandist. And Vahakn Dadrian's having drawn his salary from the Zoryan Institute far from indicates Dadrian's being on the level as an objective scholar.

It's the quality of the research we should be considering, not the source of financing. Trying to defame professors like Justin McCarthy and Heath Lowry (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/lowry.htm offers the other side of your coin) is yet another example of the time-honored Armenian smear campaign tactic.

1) We got your opinion that "The Armenian File" is "an absolutely atrocious hack job," while I believe the book was thoroughly researched, offering a slew of original sources that were unknown at the time of its release (belying the definition of "hack," which means lacking talent or ability); so let's allow the reader to decide. Here is an online version: http://www.eraren.org/eng/armfile.htm

Pan-Turkism is just another phony theory concocted to provide a motive as to why there was a "genocide." It makes no sense, as if the idea was to get rid of the non-Turkic races in the greatly heterogeneous empire, why would the others have been untouched? I already gave the Jews as an example, but the Arabs may be a more fitting one. They, too, traitorously rebelled, like the Armenians; yet I don't know of an Ottoman extermination plan against the Arabs.

2) Boghos Nubar stated that 280,000 Armenians remained in the Ottoman Empire after the war (and some 700,000 emigrated elsewhere). A good portion of the Armenians who were relocated to Arab lands (Morgenthau and Toynbee both on record for 500,000 being alive by 1916) remained. The USA had an open door policy for the people there was such great sympathy toward, and the bulk of Ottoman-Armenians chose these greener pastures. And for one who professes to know this subject "VERY" well, I guess you haven't read the Treaty of Gumru between Armenia and Turkey, where Ataturk did allow Armenians to return to their homes for a limited time after the treaty's signing.

3) The Russians, the great friend of the Armenians, were not as generous... according to Dennis Papazian's "What Every Armenian Should Know": "Russia even forbade Armenian refugees, who had managed to flee the Genocide, from returning to their lands, which the Russian armies had overr(u)n during the war." Brother!

4) As far as "the complete absence of Armenians in Anatolia," refer to (2). The aim of Armenian propaganda is to make it seem the Armenians were all "murdered," when in fact the bulk survived. Let's keep in mind that many of the Armenians travelled to "Greater Armenia" and "Cicilia" when Armenians held the top cards (with the help of the Russians and the French, respectively). Once the Turks regained their strength, many Armenians ran away for fear of repercussions for their treachery.

5) Ah, the standard charge proclaiming the Turks "purged" their evidence from the Ottoman archives. However, in preparation for the "Nuremberg" of WWI, the Malta Tribunal... where your genocide simply could not be proven, even by the British... as soon as the ink was dry on the armistice signed on October 30, 1918, the Allies occupied Istanbul -- and the British High Commission immediately confiscated all the official documents, including the Ottoman State archives; an Armenian (Haigazn K. Khazarian) was appointed its head, and for all the time until 1921, not a single incriminating shred of evidence could be found. This was all before the Turks had a chance to perform their "sanitizing." (And you are wrong: the archives are open to all but the handful who proved themselves to abuse the system, as reportedly with the cases of Hilmar Kaiser and Ara Sarafian.)

6) The main reason why the decision by the non-historians of the ICTJ is meaningless boils down to their definition of genocide... where only one person needs to be killed; such does not conform to most people's definition. "Intent" is what is necessary to prove, and that is exactly what the pro-Armenians lack. Even one of the many hypocritical genocide scholars, Henry R. Huttenbach, has proclaimed: "There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof."

Since you write you have "finished," thank you for your participation in this discussion.

,

And thank you, too Mr/Ms. Anonymous. You do as good a job discrediting yourself as I can. And as for "Armenians are so obsessed with this "genocide,", I dare you to switch Armenian with Jewish and put that message on the Jewish Holocaust page. It is apparently normal to "obsess" after a genocide. --RaffiKojian 14:12, 18 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Let us recap the foregoing discussion

Ladies and gentleman, the response you see above is common when Armenians get exasperated. What do we have? A reference to my anonymity, as if revealing my name, address and social security number would make my message any less or more valid. Shooting the messenger when the message can't be dealt with is the time-honored response... this is why Armenians excel in the art of the smear campaign. And when traditionally pro-Armenian sources are given that can't be argued with... that is, sources that turn the mythical genocide on its ear, what do we get? "You do as good a job discrediting yourself as I can." In other words: "liar, liar, pants on fire."

Nobody is saying the Armenians did not suffer. Some were treated most atrociously. The whole point is whether the Armenians were targeted for extermination as a whole (and it would have to be as a whole, since the main phony motive provided is that the Turks were following a policy of pan-Turkism/Turanism, that is, trying to do away with all non-Turkish elements) by the Ottoman government. However, "intent" needs to be proven, and that's what the Armenians have never been able to come up... genuine proof. Certainly, Vahakn Dadrian and associates have done a marvelous job contributing to the "avalanche" of "evidence," including opinions of individual Turks and Germans... but this does not translate to actual evidence. Many people could be saying Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, but opinions do not count. What is required is real, hard proof.

What happened is that the Armenians rebelled. They posed a serious threat behind-the-lines to the desperate Ottoman army, fighting against superpowers on multiple fronts. The life and death situation required the Armenians be moved out of the way, something the Americans did with their Japanese during WWII (for much less justifiable reasons, as Japanese-Americans were not disloyal and the United States of America was not in immediate danger)... something that any country would have done. Yes, the innocent Armenians suffered along with the guilty, as the "Sick Man" was in no shape to carry on such a colossal task adequately. (Although the bankrupt government set aside today's equivalent of millions of dollars to finance the operation, money that could have been used elsewhere in their extremely desperate situation. Murdering on or near the spot, as Armenians did with the Turks, would have been a much cheaper alternative... if murder was the real idea.) However, such are the ugly consequences of war.

Armenians need to be "man" enough to blame the real parties for their disaster: their fanatical leaders, and the Allies who used the Armenians as their pawns. If there was no Armenian uprising, none of this would have taken place.

It is immoral to be pointing fingers and accusing others of committing high crimes if there simply is no legitimate proof.

Among other reasons, there is no "intent" because:

1) 200,000 Armenians were exempt from the relocation policy in the west. In addition, the law provided for other Armenians to be exempt, including Catholics and Protestants, the disabled, soldiers and their families, and certain workers. (These rules weren't always followed to a tee, thanks to Ottoman corruption and incompetence, but they prove the government's heart was in the right place.) If the relocation was a guise to kill off the Armenians, there is no conceivable reason for any Armenian to have been exempted. Since Raffi helpfully suggested we think of the role of "Jews" for "Armenians," let's do so for a better reason: Hitler did not exempt any Jews.

2) Never mind the nearly 1,400 who were found guilty at the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts, anxious to punish members of the former administration. Some Turks who committed crimes against Armenians were punished DURING the war, at times to the point of execution. Hitler did not punish any SS man for harming the Jews.

3) The British were desperate to convict the Turks held at the Malta Tribunal, the "Nuremberg" of WWI. For one thing, the British desired to give credence to their propaganda hokum partly intended to justify the Ottoman land grab scheme of the Allies, set up through secret treaties... laid out by the King-Craine Commission. The tribunal process lasted nearly two-and-a-half-years, and the British searched under every rock, even the archives of the United States, in order to find REAL evidence. Every single Turk had to be released at the end. (In line with typically deceptive Armenian strategy, you will encounter the pro-Armenian smoke and mirrors for this chapter: it was all about British POWs. However, all one needs to do is read the British archives; their main concern was the Armenian massacres.)

4) How could there have been so many Armenian survivors... one million, according to the Armenians, out of a pre-war population of from 1 to 1.6 million... if the idea was to get rid of them? Yes famine and disease claimed many of the relocated, just as thousands of Turks were dying daily from the same causes, according to the racist Ambassador Morgenthau. The same Morgenthau revealed in his private diary (but not his propagandistic book) that 500,000 resettled Armenians were doing well, and getting on with the business of their lives. If these Armenians were in the hands of the Turks, and the idea was to exterminate them, not one Armenian would have survived.

5) Even Arnold Toynbee -- master propagandist against the Turks during the war years -- later wrote (after he paid attention to the other side of the story, mostly salvaging his reputation as historian): "The Ottoman institution came perhaps as near as anything in real life could to realizing the ideal of Plato's Republic." I'd doubt the idea of extermination would have had any place in Plato's Republic.

As Raffi told us, there is an "avalanche" of "evidence" for the Armenian genocide, almost all presented by parties with conflicts-of-interest.... like missionaries, war propaganda offices, prejudiced newspapers that mindlessly printed their claims, religious and racist bigots like western consuls (including those from the Central Powers, the Germans and Austrians, who also grew up with tales of the Terrible Turk), and the Armenians themselves. This is why those in my position have to constantly defend. After debunking one of the countless claims, there is always another to take its place.

But if we are people of honor, it is time to see what is going on here. The Muslim Turks have a stain through centuries of prejudice in the west, and those like the Armenians have been exploiting this disadvantage to a tee. Thus the Turks are presented as the barbarians, and the Armenians are the persecuted innocents. The west likes these roles, as they have been conditioned for so long to believe them. (Check out the other definition of "Turk" in English dictionaries.)

However, as "The Jewish Times" wrote in June 21, 1990: "An appropriate analogy with the Jewish Holocaust might be the systematic extermination of the entire Muslim population of the independent republic of Armenia which consisted of at least 30-40 percent of the population of that republic."

The Dashnaks were driven by their bloodlust to do away with non-Armenians (Muslims and Jews) when they heartlessly slaughtered all those they could get their hands on to "purify" their "Greater Armenia," Turkish lands they were briefly in control of. (In Armenia proper today, never mind the Muslims -- how many Jews are left?)

This is why we even have Armenians on record, confessing to their strategies. Those such as Sahak Melkonian, who wrote in "Preserving the Armenian Purity" (1920): "In Soviet Armenia today there no longer exists a single Turkish soul."

It is time to consider this much neglected side of the story; the over 500,000 Turks/Muslims the Armenians did away with. Did so many people lose their lives because of coincidence, or was there a Dashnak-directed policy to clean them all out? In other words, was there "intent" on the part of the Armenians?

Why don't the genocide scholars... the modern day counterparts of the dishonest missionaries, duty-bound to vilify the infidel Turks... ever explore what the Armenians have done? Is it because deep-pocketed Armenians help to finance their institutions, riding the coattails of Holocaust sympathy? And as Raffi implied regarding the obsession factor for some Jews, could it be because some of these so-called scholars are so Holocaust obsessed, they irrationally fear devaluing the established "Armenian Genocide" could somehow harm belief in the very proven Holocaust?

Ottoman bureaucrats documented the crimes committed by Armenians. Are they lies? By WWI, the Turks had given up on the west giving the Turks a fair shake. So papers as these that were prepared were to be used among the Turks only... they were not prepared with an eye to fool future historians.

The deadly details may be read at http://www.turkses.com/issues/ermeni/documents_of_the_massacres_by_armenians.htm. Let's reproduce #31 ("Massacre perpetrated by retreating Russian and Armenian forces"):

While retreating before the advance of the Ottoman army, Armenian bandits, first of all general Antranik’s bandits had attacked the villages of Bedrevans, Kalender, İslâmsor, Ahalik-i Ulya, Hoşu, Zanzak, Sıçankala, Ağviran, Zivin, Menevürt, Zars, Gerek and Azab and killed or captured 10.000 persons; those taken prisoners had been either killed or unheard of; the murdered prisoners were first crowded into houses and stables, in rivers' bed and shot and bayoneted, then cut into pieces; some of them were drenched with gasoline and set fire on; children's ears and noses cut off, some nailed down in their chests and bayoneted or had the throats slit; women tortured and their breasts amputated only few people had narrowly escaped death and saved their honors.

The Armenian bandits had pillaged the entire goods, chattels and provisions of the said villages looting and destroying and burning thousands of houses, shops and mosques, robbing and taking away hundred thousands of oxes, calves, cows, buffalos, horses, mares, donkeys, lambs, goats and provisions of hundred thousands bushels of wheat and barley; money by ten thousands, thousands of gold coins, women's jewelries, hundreds of mattresses, honeycombs, copper wares; seventy carpets had been also stolen from the mosque of the town of Ağviran. 22 L. 1337 (21. VII. 1919)

The above is only one small chapter documenting the crimes of the Armenians. Old habits die hard; the western media reported similar brutalities some twelve years ago, when Armenians chased away around one million Azeris from their homes. Interesting parallel, is it not, when the world doesn't even care about the Karabakh episode? That's what happens when the victims are disposable Turkic folk.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/ (Armenian National Institute) http://www.cilicia.com/armo10.html (various materials at cilicia.com) http://www.armenian-genocide.org/ (educational resources and genocide research) http://www.theforgotten.org/ (multimedia resources, survivor accounts) http://www.hyeetch.nareg.com.au/genocide/ (detailed description of events and background) http://www.genocide1915.info/ http://www.armenocide.am/ (Armenian Genocide Institute-Museum) http://users.ids.net/~gregan/pac.html (Details of Turkish Government activities in genocide denial which raised ethical concerns) http://imia.cc.duth.gr/turkey/index.e.html (Resources about Turkish war crimes in the 20th century, warning of possible bias)

I am not going to sit and recap what is a well known and false Turkish Government line. Just read the resources above. You wouldn't sit and write a multi-page defense of my one line if you weren't hiding the truth, but the fact that you either know you discredit yourself, or suspect you do has inspired your anonymousness to response as such. --RaffiKojian 02:18, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Raffi, I thought you were "finished"!

Well, I suppose Raffi was "finished" in another sense; he could not counter the evidence provided by his own traditional sources that demonstrates how concocted this "genocide" really is, and in desperation, he offers a sampling of the countless hatefully propagandistic sites that have little or no bearing on historic truth. In other words, the "avalanche" of these sites is so overwhelming, as much as the Wikipedia article... for example... attempts to maintain a neutral tone, it can't help but wind up with a pro-Armenian slant. This nonsense is everywhere, and everyone has come to believe in its truth.

It is really sad that those like Raffi are so ingrained in this topic they seem totally incapable of weighing the evidence objectively. It's "my people, right or wrong," all the way. We have brought up enough facts and figures for the moment; I'd like to now touch on the psychology that enables this kind of outlook. Why can't Armenians be "MAN" enough to accept responsibility for what happened in this religiously held, century-old account of history? Perhaps Hovhannes Katchaznouni, Armenia's first Prime Minister, said it best in 1923:

"[One of the main aspects of Armenian] "national psychology... [is] to seek external causes for [Armenian ] misfortune."

In their perception of themselves as eternal victims, it's always: Blame the other guy. Why can't they do the right thing?

I'd like to offer revealing insight to help us understand this mentality, by referring to Sir Mark Sykes' "The Caliph’s Last Heritage," London, 1915 (This British gentleman would do his patriotic duty when Wellington House -- his country's WWI propaganda division -- recruited him to come up with an image-tarnishing report against the enemy, "The Clean-fighting Turk, a Spurious Claim."):

"The Armenians will willingly harbor revolutionaries, arrange for their entertainment and the furthering of their ends. The pride of race brings about many singularities and prompts the Armenians to prey on missionaries, Jesuits, consuls and European traveler with rapacity and ingratitude. The poor Armenians will demand assistance in a loud tone, yet will seldom give thanks for a donation. Abuse of Consular officers and missionaries is only a part of the stock-in-trade of the extra-Armenian press."

"That the Armenians are doomed to be forever unhappy as a nation, seems to me unavoidable, for one-half of their miseries arises not from the stupid, rangy, ill-managed despotism under which they live, but from their own dealings with each other. In a time of famine at Van, Armenian merchants tried to corner the valuable grain; the Armenian Revolutionaries prefer to plunder their coreligionists to giving battle to their enemies; the anarchists of Constantinople threw bombs with the intention of provoking a massacre of their fellow countrymen. The Armenian villagers are divided against themselves; the revolutionary societies are leagued against one another, the priests connive at the murder of a bishop; the church is divided at its very foundation."

"Never were a people so fully prepared for the hand of a tyrant; never were a people so easy to be preyed upon by revolutionary societies; never was there a people so difficult to lead or to reform. That these characteristics are the result of Muslim oppression I do not for one moment believe."

I am finished, thanks :-) --RaffiKojian 02:54, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

80.177.169.33

Thank you for your edits, 80.177.169.33. Please consider registering since it helps us identify the useful editors. Also, please consider consolidating multiple edits into a smaller number. It helps keep the page history list managable. Hu 21:02, 2004 Nov 19 (UTC)

Do these people have scruples?

It's infuriating that some creep has come in and altered the entire article. The following has been submitted to the Request for Mediation Department of Wikipedia.

Obviously this is one controversial, hot-button topic, and this is not a request for a user vs. user sort of mediation process but for the idea of someone to honestly and neutrally step in, do away with possible prejudices and look at arguments from both sides to determine a page of true even-handedness. Once determined, this is a page that needs to be locked, as there can be fanatics from both sides.

I'm new at Wikipedia, and I've been clicking around in an effort to learn how the fairness of this page may be resolved. I hope posting here is the right way to go about it. The story is: I hopped aboard on the Discussion section of this genocide page and took issue with many of the points raised within the clearly pro-Armenian article. I traded opinions with one whom I later discovered was the operator of an "Armenian Genocide" web site, and after the dust cleared I felt justified in making changes for points that appeared fairly solid. 10 Nov 2004

The one thing I liked about this page was that at least an effort was made for some fair play. For example, helpful links at bottom were labeled in impartial fashion, e.g., "one point of view," and "another point of view." Since this is such an emotional arena for many Armenians and their sympathizers (who have mainly been exposed to their fairly omnipresent view), I kept fairness in mind and did not perform major edits; I let everything stand, and simply added explanations for the other side of the story.

I had reason after learning of the shocking overhaul (on Nov. 26, 2004) that prompted this request (described below) to check the page's history, and noticed people on both sides went somewhat out of control. For example, a pro-Turk felt free to add a long list of American academicians who signed a statement in 1985; that opened the door to a pro-Armenian's putting up a 1998 statement signed by writers and scholars. There's too much material on both sides to arbitrarily put up dizzying documentation in such a manner, and the purpose of this page should be to present genuine historical facts in an even-handed manner. (Since a genocide devotee evidently wrote and titled this page to begin with, already the rules of fairness had been compromised, as the word "genocide" itself is in dispute.)

Today I noticed some fanatical partisan 68.40.117.214 has stepped in and has done away with this carefully cultivated article almost entirely; furthermore, even the links section has been altered to be completely one-sided. It's difficult to imagine anyone would have the audacity to intrude and totally wipe out a page's history in such a matter. When such zealots enter the fray, there is no point in civilized discussion; a genuinely neutral party needs to step in, restore the former page so that both sides of these events are in place, and lock things up to prevent such unethically dogmatic actions in the future. So where to go from here? : Torque, Nov. 30, 2004

The original article is back

In the free-for-all that is Wikipedia, when it comes to potentially faith and not reality based topics, it seems the "official" checks and balances in place are largely ineffective. I figured when some fanatic comes in and completely does away with what everyone has worked on and installs a singular propagandistic view, some veteran with integrity would come in and restore the carefully cultivated page that came into being. Disappointingly, nobody cared. So before the new one-sided page became firmly established, I restored what was there before.

I don't believe there was a genocide, but I respect the other view enough to leave their points alone. That's why I came on this talk page to air my views, mainly supported by sources that could hardly be called "Turkish propaganda." Then and only then did I make my contributions, based on my conversation with Raffi, who is an expert on the Armenian perspective. But when I did so, I left every pro-Armenian statement alone, and didn't touch many sections I have strong disagreements with.

With fairness in mind, I even left some of the claims made by the unknown interloper alone. But the old page "evenly" exploring both sides is back.

I've learned Wikipedia desires for its articles to be of a certain length, 32 kbs. I caution future contributors from bombarding the article with endless lists of petitions and the names of the many people who signed them. It's an article, and an article should be readable; facts supported by sources should succinctly be stated. : Torque, Dec. 3, 2004

Armenian Genocide

According to the rules of this website sources must be given for comments. I provided the source of Ambassador Henry Morganthau for the Armenian Genocide. This is a fact. Someone added that Morganthau was biased without providing any legitimate or authoritative source for this nonsense. I think this is very serious to deny the Armenian Genocide and find pretexts to deny it. Armenians themselves have written books about the genocide, however, Ambassador Morganthau is an unimpeachable source because he was in Turkey and witnessed the atrocities himself. If people can dimiss a man like Morganthau alter this website in such a manner, it only devalues this entire website. Also I see profanity on some of the comments, this also devalues this website. I will not keep returning to this website to correct those who do not follow basic logic: find legimate sources for denying the Armenian Genocide or do not write nonsense. Calling Ambassador Morganthau's eyewitness observations biased is ridiculous! Overall this site is disappointing that changes can be made without providing valid sources. The evidence of the Armenian Genocide is a mountain made of graves of at least 1.5 Armenians in Turkey. My father was a witness to the barbarity and he relayed to me what occurred in his village during the period of WWI. He was 10 years old. Driven into the desert with women and children with no food or water. Various pretexts, such as announcements of being drafted into the Turkish Army, were used to get the Armenian men out of villages prior to going in and moving the people to remote desert areas. Many died on the trek. When they reached a desolate area they camped living on the ground with no cover or tents. My father's job for several years was to bury the dead in a ditch. After burying his grandmother he escaped in the night at about the time the British entered Turkey and he was saved. The International Red Cross helped him to leave Turkey for the United States. He is listed in the Ellis Island website as a 16 year old Armenian from Turkey: Karikin Pilavian

The Vandal Speaks

I presume you are the one who came in and did away with the cumulative efforts of a lot of people in one fell swoop, replacing what had evolved into a fairly even-handed article into one with your exclusively biased views. You ought to be ashamed, and hope you will keep fairness in mind, in the future.

I understand how passionate you are about this topic. But if you enter someone's house, you must follow their rules. Wikipedia's Site Policies clearly state "Wikipedia is committed to making its articles as unbiased as possible... The aim is... to fairly present all views on an issue, attributed to their adherents in a neutral way. However, establishing a consensus on what views should be thus attributed can require much heated discussion and debate..."

That's what I did. I discussed and debated on this page, and when my sources appeared objective enough, then I went in there and added the counter-view. Even then, I did not touch what was said before, because I understand and respect that there are people like you who treat this "Armenian Genocide" issue as a religion, and have gargantuan trouble tolerating views other than their own. I don't believe "consensus" on this emotional topic will be easily possible, so the next best thing in a neutral arena is to present both sides of the issue.

That said, let's address your concerns. From what you have written above, it's obvious you have made little effort to look at this issue scientifically. For example: "The evidence of the Armenian Genocide is a mountain made of graves of at least 1.5 (million) Armenians in Turkey." Actually, the absence of these graves in itself should give any reasonable person cause for doubt. (There have been many excavated graves in Turkey, but the corpses from this period come from the victims of Armenians; the lands where the Armenians were resettled into do not comprise today's Turkey, and I'm not aware of mass graves bearing evidence for the hundreds of thousands you believe were murdered.) Regardless, had you taken the trouble to read what was already said above:

"As far as the 1,500,000 figure: Armenians ... concede one million survived. In order for 1.5 million to have died, there would have needed to be 2.5 million Ottoman-Armenians before the war. Yet, over a dozen western (almost always anti-Turkish) sources... including the Armenian Patriarch Ormanian... figured there were from one million to 1.6 million Armenians before the war."

Only Armenians say nearly 2 million and above of their people existed before the war. The patriarchs ballooned up their figures for obvious reasons I hope I don't need to explain. For example, prior to the "1915" period, Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan estimated an Armenian population of 1,150,000. That sounds reasonable, but we get a clue as to how he came up with that figure in a letter he wrote to the British Ambassador on June 24, 1880; he counted "12 to 60 in Armenian house..."!!

(Revealingly, he ends his letter with "I realize how much your excellency is already inclined in favour of the Armenian Cause.")

Which leads us directly to your insistence on what "an unimpeachable source" Ambassador Morganthau was. It's likely you have no idea how seriously you have damaged your credibility with such a foolish claim. Morgenthau was the epitome of being "inclined in favor of the Armenian Cause." He desperately wanted to get the USA into the war. (Among other reasons, Rabbi Stephen Wise told the ambassador-to-be that he could "help foster a Zionist future." [The Burning Tigris]) He gave his Armenian assistants permission to write his letters. He was never an eyewitness to any serious sufferings of Armenians, having never left Istanbul. Yet he went out of his way to portray the Turks as less-than-human creatures in his ghostwritten book filled with fabricated quotes (unethically formed around quotation marks), describing events that were often not backed up in his private diaries and letters. (See "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story.") The source you brag about having provided -- "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story" -- is not a work any serious scholar can accept as true history, given the underhanded motivations of the man.

You write: "Someone added that Morganthau was biased without providing any legitimate or authoritative source for this nonsense." That someone was I, and you ought to read more carefully. Look again, and observe the source was indeed provided, coming from your very own "unimpeachable source": Morgenthau's book. Here are the page numbers for the disgusting ways in which the racist ambassador described the Turks, as referred to in the article.

When pro-Armenians get frustrated and can't provide actual facts to prove their so-called genocide (The British desperately tried to find such facts in Malta, but could not. There is no factual evidence, if you don't count Aram Andonian's forgeries, which Vahakn Dadrian actually tries to pass off as genuine), they resort to "oral history," as you have done. Nobody is arguing many Armenians did not suffer dreadfully. But what happened to your father does not provide proof there was a systematic plan for extermination. If there were, it would have been impossible for as many as one million Armenians to have survived, out of a pre-war population of around 1.5 million. The Armenians prospered for centuries in the empire where they were known as "The Faithful Nation," but when most decided to follow their fanatical leaders, a tragedy befell them; a tragedy that was not shared by, say, Ottoman Jews, who did not betray their country. These were ugly times where all suffered horribly (Your "unimpeachable source" had (ghost)written Thousands of Turks were dying daily of famine), not excluding the forgotten one-half million Turks/Muslims who were victims of an ethnic cleansing policy of your forefathers, in an effort to justify a "Greater Armenia," when they and the Russians occupied eastern Anatolia. To take these tragic events and accuse another of a crime without evidence is unconscionable.: Torque, Dec. 4, 2004

Professional Denier Speaks

Facts can always be denied by anyone at anytime. The references cited to denigrate Ambassador Morgenthau are specious and unreliable. A mountain of truth cannot be wiped away by verbiage. The End.

Denying is a Two-Way Street

When the facts and common sense become too much to bear, the pro-Armenians must focus on the messenger instead of the message. The character-slamming charge becomes that one is a "denialist" or a "denier"; it means the Armenian "Genocide" is so obviously a done deal, such as the Holocaust, anyone who says otherwise must assume the same driving force as a loony neo-Nazi type who denies the obvious.

Unfortunately, the only way to prove whether there was a state-sponsored extermination plan is to look at the genuine historical facts beneath the easy surface, and common sense... and to look at the political and/or bigoted motivations of people who offer their genocide dogma.

Professor John Dewey wrote in The New Republic on Nov. 1928 ("The Turkish Tragedy"): "It is... time that Americans ceased to be deceived by (Armenian) propaganda..." Here we are, three-quarters of a century later, and the world is still conned by this propaganda.

We have been told I'm not only a "denier" but a "professional" denier. What does that mean? Do I do this for a living? Am I being paid, as Prof. Justin McCarthy was unjustly accused of being a paid tool of the Turks, in the discussion above? Where does one get a job, in order to be such a denier? Raffi must know, because I subsequently discovered in the (Oct. 13) history of this page that he labeled me as a "pro-Turkish govt positionee." (!)

Our vandalizing friend doesn't realize he's also a denier; he denies his genocide does not exist. I'm sure he's not a "professional," in the sense that he makes a living at this. It's simply that he has subjectively chosen to look at tainted sources he passionately desires to believe in, and closes his mind to all else. It can be said more accurately that he is "in denial."

Let's take a look at his current offering, to prove how hopelessly this person is in denial; he tells us, "The references cited to denigrate Ambassador Morgenthau are specious and unreliable." The irony, of course, is that the references cited to denigrate Ambassador Morgenthau are... Ambassador Morgenthau himself. Torque, Dec. 5, 2004

Jewish lobby groups

I've heard of Jewish lobbying groups lobbying against official recognition of the Armenian genocide - either to maintain US/Israeli relations with Turkey or to maintain the uniqueness of the genocide of the Jews in WWII. Anything to these?

Another Partisan at work

Yet another (if not the same) obsessed fanatic, 69.169.84.41, has come in and completely altered a section with his propaganda. He has completely disregarded the pre-existing discussion of these issues, and the hard facts contained within; once again, do these people have scruples?

Here is a telling example of his addition: "One and a half million Armenians were killed, out of a total of two million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. Most Armenians in America are children or grandchildren of the survivors, although there are still many survivors amongst us."

"Us"? Does this foolish pharisee think the article is a page written by Armenians, for Armenians? Respect for the neutral point of view that Wikipedia requires is not a matter concerning such fanatics, nor is respect for the facts. For example, as has already been discussed, the typically propagandistic figure of "One and a half million Armenians... killed" is an impossible number, given that was around the total pre-war Armenian population, and Armenians concede one million survived. Moreover, the bulk of the Armenians died from the same reasons all Ottoman civilians died, not from outright murder as this poor soul so passionately believes. Much of this has been explained, frequently backed up by pro-Armenian sources, in the section that the fellow unethically and improperly replaced.

The carefully cultivated section exploring both sides has been put back in. Major deviations need to be addressed in this discussion page, first. Torque, Dec. 29, 2004

As a first time reader of this article, I was struck by the sincere efforts of most contributors to come to agreement. But I wonder if the article doesn't suffer from a consensus at any price approach that sacrifices a measure of truth for in pursuit "balance." Does a neutral point of view really mean giving equal weight to all viewpoints -- as though all were equally grounded in fact?

I refer specifically to the second paragraph of the article:

The Armenian Genocide is not agreed to by everyone; the term "genocide" generally defines a state-sponsored extermination plan but it is the position of Turkey and some academics that the majority of losses were a result of clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans. Armenians and other academics state at least 1.5 million Armenians perished in Turkey. France

The Bold textexistence of Bold text 'the Armenian Genocide is not a'Bold textuniversally accepted.

The term "genocide" generally defines a state-sponsored extermination plan. It is the position of Turkey and some academics that the majority of losses were a result of clashes between the two-sides, and causes such as famine and disease claiming the lives of all Ottomans. But Armenians and Bold textthe preponderance of scholarly opinionBold text is that at least 1.5 million Armenians perished in Turkey. France is among a growing number of countries that now officially recognized the Armenian Genocide.

What does it mean when a nation recognizes the "genocide"?

The above writer is concerned that truth might be sacrificed in pursuit of balance. This is a valid concern. In our politically correct times, truth can frequently take a back seat to currently prevailing forces that insist a particular viewpoint is correct.

All viewpoints naturally cannot be equally grounded in fact. This is why those who don't believe in this so-called genocide are forced to be on the defensive; since this story has been told nearly without opposition for around a century, and is now the commonly accepted wisdom.

Therefore, those who are genocide advocates but are not unreasonable fanatics, as I suspect the above writer leans toward, must examine the real history and the pro-Armenian and even Armenian sources that expose the gigantic holes of this story. They must examine that there was a "Nuremberg" conducted by the one party -- the British -- anxious to convict the Turks after the war, but they could not. Why? Because there was no evidence. The only "evidence" is composed of hearsay, canards and fabrications (like Aram Andonian's Talat Pasha forgeries that the unethical Vahakn Dadrians of the world still persist in presenting, as authentic).

What happened is the Armenians rebelled. Even loyal Ottoman-Armenians (who were in no mood to forsake their relatively greater prosperity than the average Turk's) were involved, because the terror groups like the Dashnaks made fatal examples of those who would not comply. The whole treacherous network had to be moved to another part of the country in a life-and-death wartime situation. The bankrupt "Sick Man" was in no position to perform the gargantuan task adequately, and Armenians suffered terribly. Some were vindictively killed on purpose, as would have happened in any other country, under the same circumstances. Does that equal a Nazi-like state-sponsored "Final Solution" plan? Not by any stretch of the imagination, if one considers the actual facts.

Truth happens to be sacrificed in the article, because there was no genocide. Yet, the article is actually called "Armenian Genocide." Too much of the world believes in the alleged genocide. Because of respect for Wikipedia's neutrality policy, that and the other pro-genocide nonsense remains.

Taking the last sentence of the above, "France is among a growing number of countries that now officially recognized the Armenian Genocide"... is this supposed to count as evidence? (1) Christian Europe and America have a centuries-long imprinting of Turks as barbarians, since the Crusades (2) The pro-Armenians, with their obsession and wealth, have fortified this brainwashing with their genocide tale (3) Politicians the world over woo the wealth of the diaspora Armenians (4) It's the politicians who vote on these meaningless genocide resolutions (5) History is the last consideration for the actions of most politicians.

Many of France's half-million Armenians reinforce their obsession to an already brainwashed French public, with the aid of the hypocritical "genocide scholars" they have on their side. (And it is these non-scholars, along with those who mindlessly accept their unilateral view -- for those of us who like to define a scholar as one who dispassionately examines all sides -- which constitute that "preponderance of scholarly opinion." It is a preponderance made more preponderous since opposing academicians have been intimidated to touch the subject, thanks to effective smear campaigns by Armenians and these "genocide scholars") Most of the French Parliament stayed home the day the Armenian Genocide issue came to a vote. Funny that with all the historical examples of inhuman acts, including French action in Algeria resulting in some 200,000 deaths, it is the political "Armenian Genocide" that gets the attention.

The irony is, France, along with Britain and Russia (another genocide recognizer), had secret WWI treaties between themselves to pilfer Ottoman land. It was these nations that encouraged the Armenians to rebel, to increase their chances in making off with the loot, thus bearing indirect responsibility for the tragedy that befell the Armenians. France, in fact, organized an Armenian legion responsible for committing unspeakable atrocities against the Ottoman population. When France's fortunes turned, and they were forced to retreat from cities like Marash, the fearful Armenians had no choice but to accompany them. In this particular example, some 5,000 Armenians died from starvation and disease, with the Turks nowhere in sight. These Armenians are no doubt counted as among "genocide victims." The level of deception in this story is nothing short of despicable.

A request has been made on Wikipedia for this article to be deleted in accordance with the deletion policy .

This request is being discussed to form a consensus whether this is, or could be, an article appropriate for Wikipedia. Please see this page's entry on the votes for deletion page for details. Also see possible outlets for removed articles. If you feel deletion is not justified by Wikipedia deletion policy you may vote against its deletion. Please do not remove this notice or blank this page while the question is being considered. However, you are welcome to continue editing this article and improve it, especially if you can address the concerns of those who believe the article should be deleted.

Category:Pages on votes for deletion, Jan. 4, 2005

Need Link

Hello, I am a German newbie trying to improve the German wiki article about the armenian genocide subject. Maybe you can help me. In the article under "Later assessments" there is written something very interesting: "Recently Sweden has changed its official position quoting the historical accuracy, and currently does not recognize Armenian genocide." I tried my best to find further information about that but was unsuccessfull. Maybe you can give me a link to that? TIA Nitec 11:30, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The probelms with this article are so pronounced that I have taken the extreme step of requesting its deletion. In essence, a vigalante has poisoned the well. He pays lip service to Wikipedia's NPOV policy while subverting Wikipedia's very mission. He writes:

"Truth happens to be sacrificed in the article, because there was no genocide. Yet, the article is actually called "Armenian Genocide."

This is not a matter on which reasonable people can disagree....or can be addressed by piecemeal revisions to the article. It simply flies in the facres of the overwhelming weight of scholarly evidence. Of course, the vigalante who has worn down and intimidated well-meaning revisers has an answer for that:

" Many of France's half-million Armenians reinforce their obsession to an already brainwashed French public, with the aid of the hypocritical "genocide scholars" they have on their side. (And it is these non-scholars, along with those who mindlessly accept their unilateral view -- for those of us who like to define a scholar as one who dispassionately examines all sides -- which constitute that "preponderance of scholarly opinion." It is a preponderance made more preponderous since opposing academicians have been intimidated to touch the subject, thanks to effective smear campaigns by Armenians and these "genocide scholars"ToTpuque

So scholarly opinion means nothing. They have been corrrupted. Our vigilante knows better. He is a lonely man in sole possesion of the truth. He must not be allowed to prevail.

The vigalante has made a few token concessions to opponents. A special notice at the top of the page discoutrages revision. The result is a poorly written article that is the enemy of the truth.

A more balanced article is required. Normal procedures have failed....and will continue to fail. We need to start over.

Well, I disagree. I found the article very good and very neutral. Greetings from Germany. Nitec 08:47, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The "Vigilante" has a name

I suppose it was user 69.158.32.127 making the above complaints. A "vigilante," dear 69, is one who takes the law into (his) own hands without concern for the views of others. You are exposing your own zealotry when you resort to such unfair labeling, and by refusing to acknowledge the name I've been using to identify myself. If I possessed a true vigilante mentality, I would have done what so many pro-genocide fanatics have already demonstrated: clean out everything to impose their singularly propagandistic view. Quite the contrary, I have done most of my communicating within this talk page, and the few contributions I have made to the article resulted only after airing my views and evidence on the talk page, with one who mentioned he knows this subject "VERY well." You can read what has been happening, above.

"He must not be allowed to prevail"? Sounds like there is a vigilante around here, but it's not me.

I see you have replaced the box that was on the top of the page reminding us the article was the result of many contributors over a long period of time (that is, carefully cultivated by all parties), reaching an imperfect sort of "consensus," well before I came in. Now you have put in a box saying the contents are "disputed." Definitely, I dispute many of the contents, myself; but I can see what is getting your goat are the sources from genocide-friendly sources that are turning this so-called genocide on its ear.

So your solution is to throw out the article, and to start from scratch. Do you feel that will succeed in getting your partisan view across, more exclusively as you would desire? Is this how you convey your devotion to the truth, as you attempt to make us believe your best interest is in "A more balanced article"?

Since you have taken this rash, "godlike" step (indicating your displeasure with an article that doesn't go far enough to advocate your genocide, thus proclaiming its "disputed" status for us all), why don't you dispute it here? To avoid repeating what has been already discussed, please keep in mind the arguments that have already been presented... from Turk-unfriendly sources. Tell us why these sources would have been dishonest. Since you are accusing a party of a crime (the greatest crime), the burden of proof is upon you.

Yes, there are quite a few factors in the article that are "the enemy of the truth," as you wrote. Just giving the article a quick eye, I see there is the statement, "Armenians in Musa Dagh and Van organized their self defense." The evidence points strongly toward the Armenians going on the attack, rather than "self defense." Now the "scholarly opinion" you are quick to defend will disagree; that is why these genocide zealots are not true scholars, since they have an agenda and look at only one side of the story. (That is not my definition of "scholarly"; why is it yours? Do you know of any of these "scholars" who acknowledge the deaths of 518,000 Ottoman Turks/Muslims and Jews whom the Armenians ruthlessly slaughtered, with some Russian help?) This is why we look at the testimony of pro-Armenian sources to get at where the truth really lies.

So I'll try and make a point of checking in more often to hear your arguments; remember, all we are interested in are the facts, not the typically propagandistic hearsay. And as far as the rest of us (of more "reasonable" persuasion) who are keeping track, please do not forget our only motivation needs to be the adherence to the truth. As Raffi stated above, yes, there is an "avalanche" of "evidence" out there, because the pro-Armenians are obsessed, and few care to speak for Turks. However, as Goebbels teaches us, simply because a point-of-view has been repeated often does not make it true. I partly repeat a quote from above, by Dr. Leon Picon: "...large segments of even educated people have come to to accept the (Armenian) mythology as History." Torque, Jan. 24, 2005

History is written by winners

History is never accurate of based on just the facts. History is written by winners who use their power to make the winers look like barbarians. If Germans had won WW2, we would be talking about the camps where America put its Japanese citizens(This is real, America DID put Japanese living on its borders in camps). But because Ottomans lost the war, the so-called Armenian genocide became an issue while the Algerian Genocide is not. So why don't anyone accept the Algerian genocide while it was much greater in magnitude. Edited by: Deniz

The Armenians were not, in any way, shape or form, "winners". --RaffiKojian 14:49, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Absolutely correct. The Armenians suffered terribly. The "winners" in this case are the Allies. The Allies in question (the British, Americans, French, Russians and Italians), thanks to their centuries-long indoctrination against the Terrible Turk, preferred to give attention only to the Armenians' telling of the tale, rarely described honestly, from the Patriarchs on down. This is why even today the Armenians are perceived as the exclusive victims, neglecting the fact that the Armenian terrorist leaders are ultimately responsible for the hardship the Armenians endured; if they were loyal, nothing would have happened to the Armenians, as in the case of the Ottoman Jews. And this is also why today the 518,000 Turks/Muslims and Jews the Armenians slaughtered, with a little Russian help, is tragically still not acknowledged. In short, the Armenians have had the luxury of owning and thus manipulating the willing ear of the Allies, or the "winners." Torque, Feb. 7, 2005

Disputing the Article

Over a month ago, I put in the following in a box to dissuade fanatical partisans from coming in and making wholesale changes, as has taken place several times:

"This page is the result of careful cultivation by all parties. Wikipedia requires for contributors to use a neutral point of view, and to cite your sources so others can check and extend your work. Any major disagreements should first be resolved in the talk page."

Now this has been removed and replaced with "The factual accuracy of this article is disputed."

I asked the one I believe made this change (69.158.32.127) to go over the "disputes" on our talk page. So far, not a peep.

I'm considering putting back my original box. Is there reason to not do so? In the history page of the article, I noticed the following argument:

"It is surely a result of 'careful cultivation' but definitely not 'by all parties' as alleged. Label 'Disputed' should be retained."

I invite anyone who believes this article has been altered unfairly by myself (or others who think this genocide story is based on myth) to check the "history" section of this page. You will see that while the article (mostly preserved) had a pro-Armenian propagandistic slant before I came in, it was fairly balanced, and the page was truly a result of 'careful cultivation' 'by all parties.'

Because this genocide myth is based on faith instead of reality, I'm aware of the faithful's feathers being ruffled. This is why whenever I've countered the pro-genocide claims, I have used only pro-genocide sources or inarguable common sense. Those who can't stand their belief systems to be challenged should not simply cry "Disputed!" Tell us why these Turk-unfriendly sources would have lied, or have been in error.

Let me take this occasion to offer my own disputes. I've already provided one above, regarding the statement, "In desperate attempts at survival, upon hearing of massacres of nearby villages, Armenians in Musa Dagh and Van organized their self defense." (In the "The Armenian Genocide" section.)

(Notice I haven't touched this, or ANY of the pro-genocide claims the article had. I've only added rebuttals. This is what we call striving for a neutral point of view, as Wikipedia requires.)

Now we know from the New York Times article from November 1914 the Armenians were ready to rebel the moment their nation went to war ("ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS -- Besieging Van — Others operating in Turkish Army's Rear"), following the Hunchak program instructions ("The most opportune time to institute the general rebellion for carrying out the immediate objectives was when Turkey was engaged in war"; Louise Nalbandian, "Armenian Revolutionary Movement," 1963) ... along with other sources. Armenians rebelled several times at Van in early 1915, and the one that precipitated the relocation orders occurred in April of that year. And anyone who uses Franz Werfel's "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh" as a historical source has another thing coming.

For another viewpoint, Rabbi Albert Amateau, who was in the Ottoman Empire and who had the confidence of young Armenians (thinking he was a Frenchman and fellow Christian), and also a personal friend of Franz Werfel, wrote in a sworn testimony: "Moussa Dagh... if the truth be known, is the best evidence of the Armenian duplicity and rebellion. Fifty thousand Armenians, all armed, ascended the summit of that mountain after provisioning it to stand siege. Daily sallies from that summit of armed bands attacked the rear of the Ottoman armies, and disappeared into the mountain. When the Ottomans finally discovered the fortification the Armenians had prepared, they could not assault and invade it. It stood siege for 40 days, which is a good indication of the preparations the Armenians had made surreptitiously under the very nose of the Ottoman Government. Nor was it ever explained that the rebellion of the Armenians had been fostered, organized, financed, and supplied with arms and munitions by the Russians."

Neither Van nor Musa Dagh are examples of "self defense."

Dispute #2: Under "First Armenian Massacres," we have the statement, "Mobs mostly of Muslim Turks are then alleged by some to have killed 50,000 Armenians." (In the aftermath of the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover.)

The saving grace is the word "alleged," but this statement relies on the vicious propaganda of the period. It's revolting that such poppycock is still allowed to pass for fact, in light of the mind-numbing destruction these terrorists (led by Garo, who took part in the ethnic cleansing of innocents during the war) accomplished, with their deadly rain of bullets and 200 bombs that they flung indiscriminately at the crowds below.

Prof. Erich Feigl, "The Myth of Terror": "...it was now possible to dream up tales of '4000-6000 Armenians killed in the rioting'. Not the least bit of evidence could be found to support these figures in the secret report of the British Embassy (F. 0. 424/188, Nos. 149 and 169). But what difference did that make?"

What difference did that make. Exactly. The European powers and Armenian propaganda sources of the period had only one purpose in mind: to make the Turks into devils.

(And how did we get from 4000-6000 Armenians to the 50,000 Armenians in our article?)

True believers: Now is your chance to prove your story. Where did you get this 50,000 Armenians story from?

If you can't prove it, somebody march in there, and change this ridiculous assertion. Here is the real truth, according to British author C. F. Dixon-Johnson (whose country was at war and who had no reason to lie), from his 1916 work, The Armenians:

"A cry went through the city that the Armenians had risen in revolt and were massacring the other citizens. Many persons armed themselves with cudgels and, joined by a cosmopolitan mob from Pera and Galata, many of whom were Greek anxious to pay off old scores on their hated commercial rivals, wreaked vengeance on the Armenian population. The soldiers and police took no part in the killing. It is estimated that about 1,000 persons perished, including those killed by the bombs and revolvers of the conspirators. What happened in London and Liverpool after the sinking of the Lusitania affords an idea of how the East End people of London, who claim to be far more highly educated... would have behaved if German desperadoes, after murdering twelve of the sentinels on guard at the Bank of England, had been allowed to escape free in deference to the representations of the American and Spanish Ambassadors, especially after the fears and passions of the mob had been aroused by German aliens shooting and bombing from the roofs of the houses..."

I have one more "Dispute." In the links section, someone had the poor taste to include the hate site, http://imia.cc.duth.gr/turkey/index.e.html. A fair minded individual (from the history section of the page, a few days ago, Feb. 3) changed from the original description: "(...warning of extreme bias, false information and over-exaggerated numbers)."

This is a disgusting site originating from Greece, lost in an orgy of making the Turks out to be monsters. From their Armenian Genocide page, we have words sure to warm the hearts of the faitful whose feathers are being ruffled here: "One can sunmarise the genocide of the Armenian nation by giving the figure of 300.000 dead during the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid and 1.500.000 killed during World War I."

Now that (and the rest) is exactly "extreme bias, false information and over-exaggerated numbers."

Yet Malcolm Farmer stealthily changed this back to "possible bias." Malcolm Farmer: if you're listening, defend your partisan stance. Support the above wildly exaggerated figures, and why you feel this hateful site should be taken so seriously.

This is the problem, ladies and gentlemen. We have very prejudiced people in this world. I hope those who are following this page will let truth and fairness be their guide, and not allow the prejudiced to have their way. Especially since these prejudiced have had their way for so long, allowing for these prejudiced views to be accepted as the common wisdom. Torque, Feb. 7, 2005

When you write something inflammatory like "Because this genocide myth is based on faith instead of reality, I'm aware of the faithful's feathers being ruffled." All I can say is to look in the mirror, since you are actually talking about yourself but you just can't see it. The whole world - and many Turks know that the genocide, like the holocaust, is a fact. Your government disputes it for obvious reasons. You dispute it out of either belief in your government, or a misplaced sense of honor.

Then you write: "This is why whenever I've countered the pro-genocide claims, I have used only pro-genocide sources or inarguable common sense. Those who can't stand their belief systems to be challenged should not simply cry "Disputed!" Tell us why these Turk-unfriendly sources would have lied, or have been in error." No, it is not about any beliefs being challenged. It is about being drowned in misinformation, irrelevant texts, non-sensicle arguements, and incredibly unreliable sources. You did add all kinds of sources, and a few of them were even valid, but some were pretty much as valuable as "my friend Joe told me so". Rabbi Albert Amateau is a great example of this. Whether he existed, how a Rabbi supposedly convinced "young Armenians" he was not Jewish, and they (whoever these Young Armenians were) TOLD him something we are sure must be true, and that he related correctly, and all of this in direct conflict with what his friend Werfel saw and every other testimony says is just a big confusing mess. But then I believe that is the point of this sort of quote. Confuse. Give the impression that there are other sides to the story. And all this when Musa Dagh was a massive exception to the normal Armenian obedience to deportation and massacre anyways.

You write: "Erich Feigl, "The Myth of Terror". You use Feigl - as a SOURCE?? That book, like the racist and disgusting material on Tall Armenian Tale and that other lame book that came out a couple of years ago by an American guy (certainly not a scholar) married to a Turkish woman who died about the time of publication (I forget the name of the book now) are full of so many lies, mistakes, racist comments and more that any time you quote them you lose major credibility. Responding to that drivel is pointless.

I can go on and on (as I'm sure you can guess), but I am sure there is little point. There was a genocide. There have been studies to prove it and I am SURE you know of them and have read them. The one by the International Center for Transitional Justice, which was commissioned by higher up retirees from the Turkish government, who were very anti-genocide is a perfect example. It is online if you'd like a link. My point is there is room for discussion, fine points, etc, but there is one truth, one conclusion. The genocide is a fact. How many Armenians died is irrelevant. How many Armenians would have preferred Russian rule is irrelevant. What matters is that it happened, that the Turkey of today must come to terms with it, and then let life go on.

I hope we can work together to come to an article we can both agree is strictly correct and relevant - though past experience tells me odds are slim. We have to stick to good, reputable sources, not add random extraneous quotes and materials, and see where we can get. I am willing to work with you and to get rid of bad links, etc as well. But seriously - the genocide is only disputed by one party - and that is the party that is the direct linear replacement of the perpetrator, the government of the Republic of Turkey. It is a fact, and that needs to be faced.

--RaffiKojian 17:59, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Fresh Overhaul

This article has gone WAY off course. Errors, hugely biased statements and the like have been inserted all over. I am extremely busy - but I will slowly find the time to go through and fix the blatant stuff. I doubt my good deed will go unpunished, but I will do what needs to be done. --RaffiKojian 17:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Raffi, for offering yourself as the knight in shining armor to right your perceived wrongs. I suggest, however, that if you are of the mind to fix anything, first bring it up in this discussion page.

Allow me to respond to the points you've raised.

Regarding your suggestion to look at myself in the mirror, this is what I see: one who is aware of the wrongs your fanatical side has committed, and at the same time, one who always allows the truth to take precedence; even if it hurts.

I do not believe you are capable of the same. You've exposed your character time and again, in our earlier rounds of discussion, as may be read above. You are the author of www.cilicia.com. You are responsible for the deviations from reality that you've allowed on your site, with no remorse... such as your quotes page, where you've actually taken the quotations from "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," and from Andonian's forgeries, and put them up as actually having emanated from the mouths of the speakers. Totally irresponsible.

Obviously, you are so emotionally married to this issue, you are incapable of objectivity. Unfortunately, you fit the pattern of the "Armenian genocide partisan" to a tee. This includes freely making statements that has no basis in fact. For example, when you write, "Your government." Whether I tell you the truth, that I am not a Turkish citizen and know little of that country firsthand, is not as relevant as how you can allow your conscience to make a statement that we all know you have no possible way of knowing is true. Similarly, when you felt free in the (Oct. 13) history of this page to label me as a "pro-Turkish govt positionee."

You are obliterating your credibility when you display your lack of concern for the truth.

"The whole world - and many Turks know that the genocide, like the holocaust, is a fact." In order to accept this myth as a fact, we have to have evidence. This is what even the British failed to come up with at the Malta Tribunal, as desperate as they were to railroad the Turks in the beginning of that "Nuremberg" trial process. The fact that this genocide lie has been repeated over and over again with nobody speaking for the Turks does not make it a fact.

If you think you have the evidence, come up with the goods. Prove the Ottomans had "intent." Unfortunately for you, and very ironically, everything you can come up with is on the order of -- as you've written -- "my friend Joe told me so."

"Rabbi Albert Amateau is a great example of this. Whether he existed, how a Rabbi supposedly convinced 'young Armenians' he was not Jewish..." Whether he ... "existed"?? Why don't you educate yourself before making irresponsible statements like that? You know how to run an Internet search, don't you? Amateau was not a rabbi when he was a youth in the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians among his fellow students took him into his confidence because of his French-sounding name. Are you saying because he happened to be Jewish, the Armenians should have been able to identify him as a Jew? Perhaps you are mistaking these Armenians with your General Dro, who worked for the Fuehrer in later years.

"... All of this in direct conflict with what his friend Werfel saw..." With each statement, you proceed to shoot yourself in the foot. Do you know anything about how Franz Werfel came to write his "40 Days" book? It had nothing to do with his being an eyewitness... Werfel was an Austrian Jew and was not in the Ottoman Empire. He relied on Andonian's forged telegrams. Werfel later discovered he had been duped, but kept quiet for fear of the fanatics among your kind.

" And all this when Musa Dagh was a massive exception to the normal Armenian obedience to deportation and massacre anyways." Get the truth into your head: The Armenians rebelled, and the relocation policy was the end result of that treachery. The Musa Dagh you know is a MYTH, just like your genocide; Musa Dagh was the perfect example of the Armenians' stabbing their nation in the back.

Here is a passage corroborating Amateau's assertion of Armenians "firing the first shot" at Musa Dagh; from "Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War," by Edward J. Erickson (2001):

Compounding the implementation of these policies was the continuing Armenian Rebellion, which included bombings, assassinations, and the wholesale slaughter of Muslim Turkish villages. In some places the rebels even gained the upper hand. The rebels in the city of Van were ultimately relieved by advancing Russian forces. At Musa Dag in Cilicia, highly organized Armenians fought the Turks for forty days. These events were bound to inflame an already angry Turkish population and bureaucracy. In spite of this, the Ministry of the Interior continued to muddy the organizational waters by establishing further regulations that safeguarded the homes of the deportees.

"You use Feigl - as a SOURCE??" Here you are pulling the typical Armenian tactic. If you don't like what's being said, smear. You should be ashamed of yourself. You respect the Austrian Werfel, but you don't care for the Austrian Feigl. Why would Feigl have had any reason to report anything but the truth? Are you going to tell us he is a "pro-Turkish govt positionee"? Are you going to tell us he has a "Turkish wife"?

As far as the author with the Turkish wife (Sam Weems, who wrote "Armenia - Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State"), your foot is getting drilled full of holes by now. You didn't even read this excellent book. Yet, with your aversion for truth, you feel comfortable in stating the book is "full of so many lies, mistakes, racist comments..."

Weems took Richard Hovannisian's "The Republic of Armenia" and exposed the Armenian professor's "exaggerations." Weems learned of the Armenians' disregard for the truth before he met his Turkish wife while doing research in Turkey, as the Christian scholar he was. His wife advised him AGAINST writing the book, knowing of the shenanigans of the Armenians. Indeed this fanatic crowd made the Weems' lives hell (and perhaps precipitated his premature death), harassing them with numerous death threats and smearing Weems' reputation. Is it any wonder genuine academicians don't dare to enter this minefield? (The historian Erickson above is one of the few exceptions, but he is so wary of the crazies that are out there, he tries to cover himself by writing, "It is beyond the scope of this book to assess or to comment on whether or not there was a deliberate or systematic genocide...")

If the reader got married to someone who believed in something the reader knows couldn't be true, what power could your spouse possibly have in forcing you to accept their views? Is Raffi expecting us to believe Weems was a puppet of his "Turkish wife"? Even if he was, all we need to judge him by is the quality of his research. Raffi doesn't even know his research, and he goes for the underhanded smear tactic.

"The International Center for Transitional Justice" does not prove your genocide. One of your fellow fanatics beat you to it, and already posted a link in the article. A rebuttal follows. (I already explained above, in my last paragraph under "Continuing our Discussion." Why are we repeating past ground?)

"We have to stick to good, reputable sources, not add random extraneous quotes and materials." I gave the article a quick eye just now, and the ones that lack "reputable sources" are the pro-genocide claims such as "Mobs of Muslim Turks then massacred tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians. It is alleged by some that 50,000 Armenians were killed." I look forward to your providing a good, reputable source for that one.

As far as the rebuttal lines in the article that you don't like, here are the sources, in sequence: Amb. Morgenthau proving his racism in his own words, and providing anti-genocide words. The wildly pro-Armenian NY Times that Peter Balakian likes to brag furnished so much genocidal proof. Boghos Nubar. The Dashnak Party Military Minister. Arnold Toynbee. Armenians who contend one million survivors. (Nubar, Balakian.) The Patriarch Ormanian. Hovhannes Katchaznouni. The Encyclopaedia Britannica.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO "TURKISH PROPAGANDA" IN SIGHT.

Ladies and gentlemen, can you believe this? The sources Raffi would like us to accept at face value are all biased and pro-Armenian. The sources provided to turn his genocide on its ear are ALSO ALL PRO-ARMENIAN.

Yet this author of a pro-Armenian propaganda web site is so possessed, he actually tells us with a straight face that "This article has gone WAY off course. Errors, hugely biased statements and the like have been inserted all over." "HUGELY BIASED STATEMENTS" from... PRO-ARMENIANS???

If you're going to go in there and "fix the blatant stuff," what you're going to wind up with is another one-sided story of propaganda. You have cilicia.com for that; this is Wikipedia, and here we strive for a neutral point of view.

And you are dead wrong when you state, "The genocide is only disputed by one party, (Turkey)." Times are changing, the Armenians are losing their century-long luxury of monologue, and your genocide is becoming more and more recognized as the immoral myth that it is. (What could be more immoral with charging another of a crime... especially the most heinous crime... when there is no evidence?) You have compromised your own credibility with your statements. You strike me as a good person, but like too many of your brethren, you are too emotional about the topic to look at it in clear-headed fashion. Why don't you take your own advice, and look in your mirror. Ask yourself, were my forefathers innocent, or were they to blame for the Armenians' resettlement, once the leaders set upon their murderous course?

Or are you forever going to be... here, let me repeat what I once wrote, from "Raffi, I thought you were 'finished'!", above:

Why can't Armenians be "MAN" enough to accept responsibility for what happened in this religiously held, century-old account of history? Perhaps Hovhannes Katchaznouni, Armenia's first Prime Minister, said it best in 1923:

"[One of the main aspects of Armenian] "national psychology... [is] to seek external causes for [Armenian ] misfortune."

In their perception of themselves as eternal victims, it's always: Blame the other guy. Why can't they do the right thing? --Torque Feb. 9, 2005

Fresh Overhaul -- Dialogue Continues

This article has gone WAY off course. Errors, hugely biased statements and the like have been inserted all over. I am extremely busy - but I will slowly find the time to go through and fix the blatant stuff. I doubt my good deed will go unpunished, but I will do what needs to be done. --RaffiKojian 17:17, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Raffi, for offering yourself as the knight in shining armor to right your perceived wrongs. I suggest, however, that if you are of the mind to fix anything, first bring it up in this discussion page.

Always ready to be the martyr, like a good Armenian :-)

Allow me to respond to the points you've raised.

Regarding your suggestion to look at myself in the mirror, this is what I see: one who is aware of the wrongs your fanatical side has committed, and at the same time, one who always allows the truth to take precedence; even if it hurts.

We'll see.

I do not believe you are capable of the same. You've exposed your character time and again, in our earlier rounds of discussion, as may be read above. You are the author of www.cilicia.com. You are responsible for the deviations from reality that you've allowed on your site, with no remorse... such as your quotes page, where you've actually taken the quotations from "Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," and from Andonian's forgeries, and put them up as actually having emanated from the mouths of the speakers. Totally irresponsible.

Always happy to discuss my deviancy. I know the Turkish government position is to disparage both Morgenthau and Andonian, and if need be we can ignore them as sources, but I feel they are quite solid. In fact, Dadrian has written an excellent piece on the Andonian documents, which you would like to believe are forgeries. Have you read his (as always) impressive authentication of the documents?

Obviously, you are so emotionally married to this issue, you are incapable of objectivity.

Amazing how acceptable it is to say this about Armenians, but not Jews. Of course, when the Turkish goverment finally does apologize, it will make all of this that much more ridiculous.

freely making statements that has no basis in fact. For example, when you write, "Your government." Whether I tell you the truth, that I am not a Turkish citizen and know little of that country firsthand, is not as relevant as how you can allow your conscience to make a statement that we all know you have no possible way of knowing is true. Similarly, when you felt free in the (Oct. 13) history of this page to label me as a "pro-Turkish govt positionee."

Well I apologize for calling someone who takes the postion of the Turkish govt, a "pro-Turkish govt positionee" if it is so offensive. I wouldn't have thought that to be the case. And yes, I assumed you are of Turkish nationality, since I assumed your signature "Torque" had something to do with Turquie... most Turks outside of Turkey are still citizens of that country. You don't have a page associated with your login name, and your presence here, so far as I can tell is comepletely anonymous. I on the other hand am completely open and so is my background. Interesting, huh?

You are obliterating your credibility when you display your lack of concern for the truth.

I have displayed nothing of the sort.

"The whole world - and many Turks know that the genocide, like the holocaust, is a fact." In order to accept this myth as a fact, we have to have evidence. This is what even the British failed to come up with at the Malta Tribunal, as desperate as they were to railroad the Turks in the beginning of that "Nuremberg" trial process. The fact that this genocide lie has been repeated over and over again with nobody speaking for the Turks does not make it a fact.

The British failed in Malta, therefore it was not a genocide? Well why didn't someone tell this to me earlier? Or to the ICTJ? I guess the fact that the Ottoman government ordered the expulsions, murders, deportations and neither made provisions for the deportees nor allowed them their own is no sort of evidence at all. And certainly the telegrams are all fakes. And obviously the American Ambassador - a Jewish American - lied about the content of his conversations with Talaat. That Mustafa Kemal subsequently declared all who had survived the deportations traitors who could not reclaim their homes or return, and then drove out the Armenians of Cilicia, and attacked the absolutely miserable newly born, refugee Republic of Armenia, took two provinces from it (and would have taken more if they had not defeated his army) and depopulated them of Armenians too, also then is irrelevant. That the leadership of the Young Turk government was sentenced to death in abstensia for these crimes in Ottoman tribunals couldn't mean anything, since the Allies won and therefore the trials have to be false. They couldn't be right.

If you think you have the evidence, come up with the goods. Prove the Ottomans had "intent." Unfortunately for you, and very ironically, everything you can come up with is on the order of -- as you've written -- "my friend Joe told me so."

Well - there are the telegrams, whose authenticity has proven. There is also the testimony of thousands of survivors and eyewitnesses, which corrobarate exactly what the telgrams order. So I dunno - what else do I need to show you? An Anatolia completely free of Armenians? I can show you that, too.

"Rabbi Albert Amateau is a great example of this. Whether he existed, how a Rabbi supposedly convinced 'young Armenians' he was not Jewish..." Whether he ... "existed"?? Why don't you educate yourself before making irresponsible statements like that? You know how to run an Internet search, don't you? Amateau was not a rabbi when he was a youth in the Ottoman Empire. The Armenians among his fellow students took him into his confidence because of his French-sounding name. Are you saying because he happened to be Jewish, the Armenians should have been able to identify him as a Jew? Perhaps you are mistaking these Armenians with your General Dro, who worked for the Fuehrer in later years.

I am saying that I highly doubt that a non-Armenian could pass for an Armenian back then. Whether French or Jewish. I am saying exactly what I said above.

"... All of this in direct conflict with what his friend Werfel saw..." With each statement, you proceed to shoot yourself in the foot. Do you know anything about how Franz Werfel came to write his "40 Days" book? It had nothing to do with his being an eyewitness... Werfel was an Austrian Jew and was not in the Ottoman Empire. He relied on Andonian's forged telegrams. Werfel later discovered he had been duped, but kept quiet for fear of the fanatics among your kind.

Not forged. And if fanatics like me, and those nut Jews who claim there was a "holocaust" were so scary, you wouldn't be here calling us names. But we aren't, and therefore you are.

" And all this when Musa Dagh was a massive exception to the normal Armenian obedience to deportation and massacre anyways." Get the truth into your head: The Armenians rebelled, and the relocation policy was the end result of that treachery. The Musa Dagh you know is a MYTH, just like your genocide; Musa Dagh was the perfect example of the Armenians' stabbing their nation in the back.

"The Armenians rebelled". So easy to say. So easy to lie. Lump all Armenians together, call them a menace, claim they brought the genocide upon themselves, and then say it wasn't a genocide though. Ah, you are in perfect form. Unfortunately for you, "the Armenians" didn't rebel. By and large they were incredibly loyal and obedient. INCREDIBLY. To the point of digging their own graves. Were there revolutionaries? Sure. How many? A few hundred, or a few thousand? Out of 2 million. The only towns that eventually showed ANY resistance, were subjected to such abuse heaped upon abuse that the only amazing thing is that these people took it for so long.

Now, let us more closely examine your "truth". Here it is, in a nutshell: "The Armenians rebelled, and the relocation policy was the end result of that treachery." Two statements - the natural conclusion of which is that there was a genocide, and that the Armenians really deserved it. But in fact, "the Armenians" did not rebel. It's really quite simple. There was no revolution. Sure, the Turks were afraid the Armenians would revolt, and why not, they were hardly even second class citizens in their own homeland. But there was no Armenian revolution. Then to call what happened next a "relocation", is like calling the turning of Jews into soap some kind of "recycling program". There was no relocation. There was massacre and rape, there was plunder and kidnapping, and certainly there were death marches. But no, there was no relocation. Now this is a very sore subject, because you essentially admit to the genocide when you say this, so forgive me if I don't drop it so easily. It is the meat of the matter which you like to obscure in all this other fluff, hoping that normal people will lose their determination to wade through it all. So let me focus on this a moment.

You said the Armenians were relocated. Let's accept that at face value for a second, since it is clearly a lie. Show me all these documents showing that first that there were relocation order, then that there was any provision for these people to be fed or housed or transported along the way, then that there were any provisions for them/housing/anything for when they reached their final destination. In practice what happened was when the Turkish gendarmes came to take the Armenians on their relocation marches, by and large they were not allowed to take much with them, including usually animals to ride on. Then, under Turkish gendarme watch (and often by their hands) the Armenians were robbed and raped and kidnapped and murdered. There were only women and childredn and elderly, because the men had already been rounded up and killed. They were often not allowed to drink or eat that which they could have along the way. These are the experiences that are well documented by firsthand survivor accounts, and by foreigners, including the ally Germans who saw this. The final destination? The desert. Der Zor. Where neither shelter nor food awaited, and you were lucky if decapitation or another form of death was not your reward for surviving to the end.

Here is a passage corroborating Amateau's assertion of Armenians "firing the first shot" at Musa Dagh; from "Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War," by Edward J. Erickson (2001):

Compounding the implementation of these policies was the continuing Armenian Rebellion, which included bombings, assassinations, and the wholesale slaughter of Muslim Turkish villages. In some places the rebels even gained the upper hand. The rebels in the city of Van were ultimately relieved by advancing Russian forces. At Musa Dag in Cilicia, highly organized Armenians fought the Turks for forty days. These events were bound to inflame an already angry Turkish population and bureaucracy. In spite of this, the Ministry of the Interior continued to muddy the organizational waters by establishing further regulations that safeguarded the homes of the deportees.

Hah - further regulations that safeguarded the homes of the "deportees"???!?! Well I drove all across Western Armenia last summer... none of the houses had been safeguarded. Of course, they never in fact had been.

"You use Feigl - as a SOURCE??" Here you are pulling the typical Armenian tactic. If you don't like what's being said, smear. You should be ashamed of yourself. You respect the Austrian Werfel, but you don't care for the Austrian Feigl. Why would Feigl have had any reason to report anything but the truth? Are you going to tell us he is a "pro-Turkish govt positionee"? Are you going to tell us he has a "Turkish wife"?

Nope, if I remember correctly, what he stated was that his Turkish diplomat friend was killed by an Armenian terrorist. I don't have his book handy, but perhaps you do and can check.

As far as the author with the Turkish wife (Sam Weems, who wrote "Armenia - Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State"), your foot is getting drilled full of holes by now. You didn't even read this excellent book. Yet, with your aversion for truth, you feel comfortable in stating the book is "full of so many lies, mistakes, racist comments..."

His "excellent book"? Did I need to read it? Or did his website tell me more than enough? Or perhaps the name alone, "Armenia: Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State" was more than enough for me. Where did his hack job of his publishers website go (http://www.stjohnpress.com)? Was it too embarassing and was removed? In any case, here are some excerpts from the book (http://turkishforum.org/archives/wa.cgi?A2=ind0202d&L=grassroots&F=P&S=&P=843) on a Turkish website that show how worthless it is. If you can call it an "excellent book", while it tries to thrash Dr. Richard Hovhanissian's work, what do we have left to talk about??? Dr. Hovhanissian is one of the foremost scholars, respected by his peers, professor at UCLA, etc, etc. He uses firsthand sources. He is impressive. Weens is a disbarred lawyer.

Weems took Richard Hovannisian's "The Republic of Armenia" and exposed the Armenian professor's "exaggerations." Weems learned of the Armenians' disregard for the truth before he met his Turkish wife while doing research in Turkey, as the Christian scholar he was. His wife advised him AGAINST writing the book, knowing of the shenanigans of the Armenians. Indeed this fanatic crowd made the Weems' lives hell (and perhaps precipitated his premature death), harassing them with numerous death threats and smearing Weems' reputation. Is it any wonder genuine academicians don't dare to enter this minefield? (The historian Erickson above is one of the few exceptions, but he is so wary of the crazies that are out there, he tries to cover himself by writing, "It is beyond the scope of this book to assess or to comment on whether or not there was a deliberate or systematic genocide...")

"The shenanigans of the Armenians"? "Made his life a living hell"? "Perhaps precipitated his premature death"? Did you leave anything out? Do you take yourself seriously when you write this? Are you getting ready for April Fools Day? This disbarred lawyer did nothing close to "expose" "exaggerations" of one of the most respected scholars in the field, a Dr and Professor of Armenian History at UCLA. His book is an embarassment to himself and anyone who would tout it as anything else. I have posted a link to some of the quote from his book, which sit proudly on a Turkish website. It's absolutely incredible that anyone could take it seriously.

If the reader got married to someone who believed in something the reader knows couldn't be true, what power could your spouse possibly have in forcing you to accept their views? Is Raffi expecting us to believe Weems was a puppet of his "Turkish wife"? Even if he was, all we need to judge him by is the quality of his research. Raffi doesn't even know his research, and he goes for the underhanded smear tactic.

Nah, save the namecalling for yourself. The book falls flat on it's own accord. I just like how Weens points out to the "unsuspecting" that Hovhanissian is a (gasp!) Armenian, but it's not kosher to mention that Weens has a Turkish wife. Whatever.

"The International Center for Transitional Justice" does not prove your genocide. One of your fellow fanatics beat you to it, and already posted a link in the article. A rebuttal follows. (I already explained above, in my last paragraph under "Continuing our Discussion." Why are we repeating past ground?)

Because the report was by a well respected group and organizations. An organization whose lawyers determined that the events were a crime which matched the criteria of genocide, as outlined by the United Nations. The rebuttal, that they were merely lawyers, who only went by the literal definition of genocide, is so ludicrous, I don't know why I have to waste my time explaining it to you. If only it would sink in. But it won't. Otherwise I wouldn't have to explain this to you to begin with.

"We have to stick to good, reputable sources, not add random extraneous quotes and materials." I gave the article a quick eye just now, and the ones that lack "reputable sources" are the pro-genocide claims such as "Mobs of Muslim Turks then massacred tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians. It is alleged by some that 50,000 Armenians were killed." I look forward to your providing a good, reputable source for that one.

I'll poke around.

As far as the rebuttal lines in the article that you don't like, here are the sources, in sequence: Amb. Morgenthau proving his racism in his own words, and providing anti-genocide words. The wildly pro-Armenian NY Times that Peter Balakian likes to brag furnished so much genocidal proof. Boghos Nubar. The Dashnak Party Military Minister. Arnold Toynbee. Armenians who contend one million survivors. (Nubar, Balakian.) The Patriarch Ormanian. Hovhannes Katchaznouni. The Encyclopaedia Britannica.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO "TURKISH PROPAGANDA" IN SIGHT.

Ladies and gentlemen, can you believe this? The sources Raffi would like us to accept at face value are all biased and pro-Armenian. The sources provided to turn his genocide on its ear are ALSO ALL PRO-ARMENIAN.

Ladies and gentlemen, can we please continue to go back and forth like we have nothing better in life to do? Can we all just read Sam Weens' drivel entitled: "Armenia - Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State", and believe it like the word of God himself? Then we'd all get along and see eye to eye. Of course, for well over 500 years Armenia has never been independent except from 1915 to 1918, and then finally in 1991, so there was no Armenian State, but we'll keep that a secret too.

Yet this author of a pro-Armenian propaganda web site is so possessed, he actually tells us with a straight face that "This article has gone WAY off course. Errors, hugely biased statements and the like have been inserted all over." "HUGELY BIASED STATEMENTS" from... PRO-ARMENIANS???

Oh, I'm sorry. Who are you again? Or is that a secret? I have a great web site, with reliable information and sources. Like a Jewish site on the Holocaust, only I am Armenian and it is therefore not real history, it must be "propoganda". I am a real human. I know my family story. I know why there are no Armenians left in Anatolia. I am a good guy - fair, open-minded, not full of hate, intelligent, well read, and yes, interested in making sure that the truth be told. Sorry if that bothers you.

If you're going to go in there and "fix the blatant stuff," what you're going to wind up with is another one-sided story of propaganda. You have cilicia.com for that; this is Wikipedia, and here we strive for a neutral point of view.

Oh right, not the "truth", but rather a "neutral point of view". Then by all means, go into the Jewish Holocaust article and add the "neutral point of view" there. Here is how it can go. "The Jews say 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, but the neo-Nazis say it was more like none, and that actually, the Jews deserved it anyways". I think that will make the article much more balanced and believable. Hey, after all, there are two sides to EVERY story, right? Every single one!

And you are dead wrong when you state, "The genocide is only disputed by one party, (Turkey)." Times are changing, the Armenians are losing their century-long luxury of monologue, and your genocide is becoming more and more recognized as the immoral myth that it is. (What could be more immoral with charging another of a crime... especially the most heinous crime... when there is no evidence?) You have compromised your own credibility with your statements. You strike me as a good person, but like too many of your brethren, you are too emotional about the topic to look at it in clear-headed fashion. Why don't you take your own advice, and look in your mirror. Ask yourself, were my forefathers innocent, or were they to blame for the Armenians' resettlement, once the leaders set upon their murderous course?

Oh, you are rich! Again with the "resettlement". I will leave that alone though since you have to answer for it above. What Armenian leaders took a murderous course? All the Armenian leaders were arrested and most killed on April 24, 1915.

I see your strategy though, and must admit it does have some effectiveness. If you drown people in words, confuse them, act self-righteous, talk as if the whole world clearly agrees with you (unless you are busy playing your "everybody hates the Turks" card), never accept good evidence, only non-scholarly random materials, and just suffocate them in volume... well, most people will give up, assume there's something to it, or fall asleep.

Or are you forever going to be... here, let me repeat what I once wrote, from "Raffi, I thought you were 'finished'!", above:

Well I was finished talking to the guy who wasn't signing his posts. Did I mistakenly assume you were someone different?

Why can't Armenians be "MAN" enough to accept responsibility for what happened in this religiously held, century-old account of history? Perhaps Hovhannes Katchaznouni, Armenia's first Prime Minister, said it best in 1923:

"MAN enough"??? What are we in kindergarten? Why isn't Turkey MAN enough to admit to the genocide? Oh that's right. It's afraid of the "r" word... reparations...

"[One of the main aspects of Armenian] "national psychology... [is] to seek external causes for [Armenian ] misfortune."

In their perception of themselves as eternal victims, it's always: Blame the other guy. Why can't they do the right thing? --Torque Feb. 9, 2005

What he was talking was saying is that Armenians should not allow themselves to be genocided by the Turks. That if they walk like obedient sheep to their slaughther by the Turks, they must accept some responsibility for not resisting. He may have something there. Maybe the genocide was our own fault. Imagine if the Armenians had actually resisted... that would have spelled a complete end to the Ottoman Empire right then and there.

I don't know if you are capable of cutting to the meat of the matter, it seems not, but feel free to surprise me. Reply to that which is important and relevant, don't add new tangents, and let's see what you have to say for yourself.

--RaffiKojian 22:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TORQUE'S RESPONSE:

Always happy to discuss my deviancy. I know the Turkish government position is to disparage both Morgenthau and Andonian, and if need be we can ignore them as sources, but I feel they are quite solid. In fact, Dadrian has written an excellent piece on the Andonian documents, which you would like to believe are forgeries. Have you read his (as always) impressive authentication of the documents?

Since Vahakn Dadrian's mission is to examine only one side to support his agenda, his "authentication" of the documents was anything but impressive. He uses his weasely facts to cast doubt, in typical Armenian style. The fact that he even tried to legitimize Andonian was particularly despicable, when everyone knows they are forgeries. Even Andonian admitted his work was meant to be used as propaganda in a 1937 letter to Mary Terzian. As for Morgenthau, his racist book speaks for itself, along with the deviations from his own letters and diaries that were exposed in "The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau's Story." If you feel he is so "solid" as a source, that reveals a lot about your concern for the real truth.

Obviously, you are so emotionally married to this issue, you are incapable of objectivity. Unfortunately, you fit the pattern of the "Armenian genocide partisan" to a tee. This includes

Amazing how acceptable it is to say this about Armenians, but not Jews. Of course, when the Turkish goverment finally does apologize, it will make all of this that much more ridiculous.

I don't see how the Jews are relevant. You've made your subjectivity crystal clear; that's the only point we're discussing here.

Well I apologize for calling someone who takes the postion of the Turkish govt, a "pro-Turkish govt positionee" if it is so offensive. I wouldn't have thought that to be the case. And yes, I assumed you are of Turkish nationality, since I assumed your signature "Torque" had something to do with Turquie... most Turks outside of Turkey are still citizens of that country. You don't have a page associated with your login name, and your presence here, so far as I can tell is comepletely anonymous. I on the other hand am completely open and so is my background. Interesting, huh?

Providing my name, address and genitalia size is not going to make me more legitimate; if the Armenians don't like the message, they always go after the messenger. The only issue that matters are the credibility of our facts. I am not taking the position of the Turkish government. I am taking the position of the truth. No need to play innocent; a "pro-Turkish govt positionee" implies the Turkish government has positioned said positionee, acting no less than a paid propagandist. That's the kind of disrespect for the truth you have exhibited.

You are obliterating your credibility when you display your lack of concern for the truth.

I have displayed nothing of the sort.

Your words: "pro-Turkish govt positionee." Only one of the many examples. Feel free to peruse in the "Raffi's 'good, reputable sources'" section below, examining your changes.

The British failed in Malta, therefore it was not a genocide? Well why didn't someone tell this to me earlier? Or to the ICTJ? I guess the fact that the Ottoman government ordered the expulsions, murders, deportations and neither made provisions for the deportees nor allowed them their own is no sort of evidence at all. And certainly the telegrams are all fakes. And obviously the American Ambassador - a Jewish American - lied about the content of his conversations with Talaat. That Mustafa Kemal subsequently declared all who had survived the deportations traitors who could not reclaim their homes or return, and then drove out the Armenians of Cilicia, and attacked the absolutely miserable newly born, refugee Republic of Armenia, took two provinces from it (and would have taken more if they had not defeated his army) and depopulated them of Armenians too, also then is irrelevant. That the leadership of the Young Turk government was sentenced to death in abstensia for these crimes in Ottoman tribunals couldn't mean anything, since the Allies won and therefore the trials have to be false. They couldn't be right.

Whew! (1) The fact that the British could not prove your genocide at Malta speaks volumes, when they had every intention of doing so (2) The opinion of ICTJ lawyers relying almost exclusively on your widespread "avalanche" of propaganda is irrelevant. (3) Not all telegrams were fakes, like the Andonian ones. The official ones from the Ottoman government were designed to protect the Armenians. The instructions were not always followed, but they prove the Ottomans' heart was in the right place. (4) The ex-lawyer Morgenthau was indeed a liar. His correspondence with Wilson proves his intention was to support the (at the time) building war effort. Moreover, his secret purpose was to knock out the Ottomans, to better pave the way for a Jewish homeland; as Balakian outlined in his "Tigris" book, Morgenthau was under heavy Zionist influences, as the Rabbi Stephen Wise. (5) Mustafa Kemal certainly did not declare "all" the Armenians traitors. He acknowledged the Armenian network did act treacherously, and this was a fact. Even some of those who were loyal Ottomans were forced to comply when coerced by example of the murderous Armenian leaders, whose victims included in no small part fellow Armenians. (6) Is your memory short? In our above discussion, the Treaty of Gumru allowed for the Armenians to return within a limited time. The Armenians' allies, the Russians, were not as generous. (7) In a Sept. 27, 1919 letter written by the French High Commissioner in Istanbul to French Minister of Foreign Affairs Pichon: "The policy followed in Cilicia which aims at making Adana a province solely populated by Armenians is certainly one of the factors behind this departure en masse...." Of course if the Armenians in Cilicia performed atrocities against the Muslims under French protection, in the same way the Armenians chased away the Azerbaijanis in 1992 with massacres and the resulting forced expulsions, once the tables turned, how many of the Armenians would have had the courage to stick around? Many accompanied the French, as the French withdrew. (8) As far as the attack upon Armenia, who is to blame? The first prime minister of that country, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, explained in 1923: "...we had not done all that was necessary for us to have done to evade war... We were not afraid of war because we thought we would win... When the skirmishes had started the Turks proposed that we meet and confer. We did not do so and defied them." (9) I don't know of any "depopulation" of Armenians from conquered provinces. The Armenians who left fled on their own accord, out of fear for having acted traitorously. (10) Indeed, the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts could not be taken any more seriously than decisions made in any Nazi-occupied European courtroom during WWII. The purpose of these trials was to pin blame on the former administration, and to find culprits for the Armenian massacres, just as Vahakn Dadrian himself explains: "When Turkey at the end of October 1918 laid prostrate and asked for a suspension of hostilities, the victorious allies France, Britain, and Italy stipulated, among others, a condition to postwar Turkish authorities... They said, Unless you prosecute and punish the authors of Armenian deportations and massacres, the conditions of the impending peace will be very severe and harsh. In part, to accommodate the victorious allies, successive postwar Turkish governments established court martials in Istanbul, Turkey."

If you think you have the evidence, come up with the goods. Prove the Ottomans had "intent." Unfortunately for you, and very ironically, everything you can come up with is on the order of -- as you've written -- "my friend Joe told me so."

Well - there are the telegrams, whose authenticity has proven. There is also the testimony of thousands of survivors and eyewitnesses, which corrobarate exactly what the telgrams order. So I dunno - what else do I need to show you? An Anatolia completely free of Armenians? I can show you that, too.

Funny. If you're believing in the Andonian telegrams' authenticity, you're inviting ridicule. ("...My work was not a historical one, but rather one aiming at propaganda." -- Aram Andonian, July 26, 1937 letter; published in the Dashnak publication, Justicier du Genocide.) As Capt. Norman said about the 1890s (which I see you have unethically deleted from the article), "none of these (massacre) stories have been corroborated by a single European eye-witness." The same can be said of "1915." As for the stories of surviving Armenians, if the idea was to exterminate them, how could so many have survived to tell the tale? If you'll notice, a lot of these stories are of the caliber, "Joe told me so." Anatolia's being free of Armenians wouldn't have happened if the Armenians didn't pose a significant military threat. ("The Armenian threat affected the military situation not only for the Third Army, but potentially for the Fourth Army in Syria and the Sixth Army in Mesopotamia." Erickson) Regardless, the three million worldwide Armenian population of the period, according to the pre-war Encyclopedia Britannica, has today mushroomed to some seven million. This would have been impossible if the Armenians were all so genocidally wiped out.

I am saying that I highly doubt that a non-Armenian could pass for an Armenian back then. Whether French or Jewish. I am saying exactly what I said above.

Amateau was not taken as a fellow Armenian, but as a fellow Christian.

(The Andonian documents were) Not forged. And if fanatics like me, and those nut Jews who claim there was a "holocaust" were so scary, you wouldn't be here calling us names. But we aren't, and therefore you are.

I see you have staked your entire belief system on Andonian's forgeries. Erich Feigl raised this possibility to Gerard Libaridian in "Myth of Terror," and the Armenian professor acknowledged the fakery. Yet, he continues to refer to them as "evidence," as does many of the rest of your unscrupulous Armenian professors.

Prof. Norman Stone, in a 2004 Times Literary Supplement letter: "...the chief Turkish ally of the Armenian diaspora historians, Taner Akcam, remarks* that 'there are important grounds for considering these documents fake'. There are, too: the paper, the dating, the calligraphy, the signature of the governor, the absence of any back-up copies in the archives, and the refusal of British and German lawyers to use them. Professor Dadrian had a wonderful time trying to salvage the documents, and I vastly admired the prestidigitation involved for instance, if the paper was of the type used in French schools, and not of the type used in government offices, this can be explained by the paper shortage, he says. But if he cannot convince his major ally, who knows the Ottoman documents, well, there we are." (* 'There are important grounds for considering these documents fake'; Taner Akcam, "Turkish National Identity and the Armenian Question," 1992)

"The Armenians rebelled". So easy to say. So easy to lie. Lump all Armenians together, call them a menace, claim they brought the genocide upon themselves, and then say it wasn't a genocide though. Ah, you are in perfect form. Unfortunately for you, "the Armenians" didn't rebel. By and large they were incredibly loyal and obedient. INCREDIBLY. To the point of digging their own graves. Were there revolutionaries? Sure. How many? A few hundred, or a few thousand? Out of 2 million. The only towns that eventually showed ANY resistance, were subjected to such abuse heaped upon abuse that the only amazing thing is that these people took it for so long.

For heaven's sake, Raffi! Are you living in a dream world? The Armenian rebellion is a fact. The influence of the Dashnaks and Hunchaks was immense. Even everyday Armenians got caught up in nationalistic fever. (Read "Men Are Like That.") Certainly there were innocent and loyal among them. (And their population was not 2 million, but around half a million less.) By and large, however, the Armenian network who supported the enemy during this period of Ottoman national life and death was large enough -- and those who suffered have only these fanatics to blame. As for numbers, Boghos Nubar bragged of a total force of 200,000, all of whom originated from the Ottoman Empire at one time or another... even if 150,000 was officially now part of the Russian forces. The numbers in one vilayet alone: "Muammer Bey, the Governor of Sivas... noted that in his vilayet... about fifteen thousand Armenian men of military age had departed to join the Russians" (Erickson)

Now, let us more closely examine your "truth". Here it is, in a nutshell: "The Armenians rebelled, and the relocation policy was the end result of that treachery." Two statements - the natural conclusion of which is that there was a genocide, and that the Armenians really deserved it. But in fact, "the Armenians" did not rebel. It's really quite simple. There was no revolution. Sure, the Turks were afraid the Armenians would revolt, and why not, they were hardly even second class citizens in their own homeland. But there was no Armenian revolution. Then to call what happened next a "relocation", is like calling the turning of Jews into soap some kind of "recycling program". There was no relocation. There was massacre and rape, there was plunder and kidnapping, and certainly there were death marches. But no, there was no relocation. Now this is a very sore subject, because you essentially admit to the genocide when you say this, so forgive me if I don't drop it so easily. It is the meat of the matter which you like to obscure in all this other fluff, hoping that normal people will lose their determination to wade through it all. So let me focus on this a moment.

Most of the truth of the above can be characterized by your statement that the Jews were turned into soap. Even Holocaust scholars, some of whom can be pretty fanatical in their own right, have come to admit this particular crime did not occur. If the Armenians were second class citizens, Mesrob K. Krikorian begged to differ in "Armenians in the Service of the Ottoman Empire," 1977: "... it is clear that none of (the other communities) had such a large and permanent co-operation with the Ottoman Government in the public affairs of Eastern Anatolia and Syria as the Armenian 'millet'." Twenty-nine Armenians achieved the highest governmental rank of pasha, and there were 20,000 government officials altogether. How were Muslims faring in Europe and the United States?

You said the Armenians were relocated. Let's accept that at face value for a second, since it is clearly a lie. Show me all these documents showing that first that there were relocation order, then that there was any provision for these people to be fed or housed or transported along the way, then that there were any provisions for them/housing/anything for when they reached their final destination. In practice what happened was when the Turkish gendarmes came to take the Armenians on their relocation marches, by and large they were not allowed to take much with them, including usually animals to ride on. Then, under Turkish gendarme watch (and often by their hands) the Armenians were robbed and raped and kidnapped and murdered. There were only women and childredn and elderly, because the men had already been rounded up and killed. They were often not allowed to drink or eat that which they could have along the way. These are the experiences that are well documented by firsthand survivor accounts, and by foreigners, including the ally Germans who saw this. The final destination? The desert. Der Zor. Where neither shelter nor food awaited, and you were lucky if decapitation or another form of death was not your reward for surviving to the end.

You have a lot of homework to do. The documents you ask for are available on the Internet. Here's one: Armenians in Ottoman Documents. The directive sent from the Prime Minister's office to the Ministries of Finance, War and Treasury on May 30, 1915 set forth the guidelines for the relocation: (a) the Armenians would be moved to places reserved for theim with due care to the safety of their lives and property as well as their comfort (b) Until they were settled in their new homes, their upkeep would be provided from the Refugees Fund (etc.; from "Realities Behind the Relocation, " with BOA, BEO, No. 326758 provided as the document number.) Gurun states (citing a report from the Minister of the Interior to the Grand Vizier on Dec 7, 1916) 25 million kurush were spent in 1915, and 236 million in 1916. ("Realities" breaks it down as such: "The 1915 budget of the Directorate for the Settlement of Nomadic Tribes and Refugees was 78,000,000 kurush and its 1916 budget was 200,000,000 kurush. The funds were spent for the deported Armenians, Greeks and Arabs as well as Muslim refugees coming in from territories invaded by the enemy"; BOS, BEO, No. 334063.) I understand these figures equalled millions of dollars in today's value, remarkable sums for a bankrupt nation to spend if the idea was extermination.

You're right, there were certainly abuses of Armenians under the watch of their gendarmes. As far as the men being rounded up and killed, are we assuming there were no men who populated eastern Anatolia when the Russians came in? (That is, were the Armenian women, children and elderly committing atrocities upon the defenseless Ottoman villagers, whose men were away at war?) Now let's get to Zor, where as we all know your propaganda informs us the Armenians were all marched off to their death. Since you haven't provided a "good, reputable source" to confirm your conclusions, how about if I offer Boghos Nubar as one? In a 1918 report sent to French Foreign Ministry Rep. Gout, Nubar broke down the number of Armenians dispersed to various areas after the "deportation" as such: Caucasus: 250,000, Iran: 40,000, Syria-Palestine: 80,000, Mosul-Baghdad: 20,000 (Note the high number of survivors in Der Zor's region, 80,000.) Nubar argued that the number of the deportees actually ran into 600-700,000 that excluded the exiles dispersed in the deserts. (As comparison, the Dec 7, 1916 report mentioned above -- from Gurun -- states that 702,900 were relocated.) If we subtract 290,000 from this figure (The Caucasus and Iran were not controlled by the Turks, so the Armenians who went there went on their own), we are left with a 400,000-plus figure. This is in accordance with the 500,000 figure of surviving Armenians both Toynbee and Morgenthau referred to. In "Realities Behind the Relocation," 50,000 Armenians are estimated to have died on the march, from massacres, famine and disease, with 9,000 - 10,000 dying from massacres, in the form of bandit attacks. Not too far off from the "15,000 Armenians dead from shootings, sickness and deprivation on the march," that the French newspaper Le Figaro arrived at in 1977 (which you deleted from the article). These are the plain facts, and they don't add up to "genocide."

Here is a passage corroborating Amateau's assertion ... from "Ordered to Die: A History of the Ottoman Army in the First World War," by Edward J. Erickson (2001):

Compounding the implementation of these policies was the continuing Armenian Rebellion, ... In spite of this, the Ministry of the Interior continued to muddy the organizational waters by establishing further regulations that safeguarded the homes of the deportees.

Hah - further regulations that safeguarded the homes of the "deportees"???!?! Well I drove all across Western Armenia last summer... none of the houses had been safeguarded. Of course, they never in fact had been.

(By "Western Armenia," he means Turkey, ladies and gentlemen. Perhaps he also still refers to Istanbul as "Constantinople," like Richard Hovannisian the scholar.) Erickson refers to the official Ottoman orders actually safeguarding the property of the relocated Armenians. Certainly not all were followed by local corrupt, incompetent or vindictive officials. The fact is, these orders were a reality. Because of your ignorance, are you trying to tell us Erickson made this up? Could he possibly be a "pro-Turkish govt positionee"?

...Why would Feigl have had any reason to report anything but the truth? Are you going to tell us he is a "pro-Turkish govt positionee"? Are you going to tell us he has a "Turkish wife"?

Nope, if I remember correctly, what he stated was that his Turkish diplomat friend was killed by an Armenian terrorist. I don't have his book handy, but perhaps you do and can check.

Certainly, Prof. Feigl had to have some incentive to do his research. (What Westerner suddenly gets the idea to go against the anti-Turkish tide?) His friend's murder was the spark. What does that have to do with your terrible implication that Feigl's findings would be invalid? Are you saying in order to avenge his friend's death, he would endanger his academic reputation and make things up?

...You didn't even read this excellent book. Yet, with your aversion for truth, you feel comfortable in stating the book is "full of so many lies, mistakes, racist comments..."

His "excellent book"? Did I need to read it? Or did his website tell me more than enough? Or perhaps the name alone, "Armenia: Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State" was more than enough for me. Where did his hack job of his publishers website go (http://www.stjohnpress.com)? Was it too embarassing and was removed? In any case, here are some excerpts from the book (http://turkishforum.org/archives/wa.cgi?A2=ind0202d&L=grassroots&F=P&S=&P=843) on a Turkish website that show how worthless it is. If you can call it an "excellent book", while it tries to thrash Dr. Richard Hovhanissian's work, what do we have left to talk about??? Dr. Hovhanissian is one of the foremost scholars, respected by his peers, professor at UCLA, etc, etc. He uses firsthand sources. He is impressive. Weens is a disbarred lawyer.

Yes. If you're going to make a comment accusing a source of lies, mistakes and racist comments, you are required to read the work. Otherwise, how can you allow your conscience to make claims such as the research not using firsthand sources? There is a lot of original material in that book, culled from the archives of several nations.

I looked at the page of excerpts you provided and I failed to see where the worthlessness lay. Everything is based on fact. Here's one that shows up the shoddy history of your "foremost" scholar: "If there were some one million Armenians in these six provinces within the war zone, who were removed by the Ottomans, and if 200,000 of this number moved to Russian Armenia (in later chapters the professor states 500,000 refugees moved to Russian Armenia) and in addition, "countless women and children were apportioned to Muslim households and compelled to embrace Islam", then how can it be that 1.5 million Armenians were murdered in 1915 as claimed by today's Armenians? After all, the same professor claims that the total Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was about 2 million. Do the math and you will see that numbers simply do not add up! The numbers presented by this Armenian historian do not support this wild claim!..." Perhaps you have trouble with arithmetic?

"The shenanigans of the Armenians"? "Made his life a living hell"? "Perhaps precipitated his premature death"? Did you leave anything out? Do you take yourself seriously when you write this? Are you getting ready for April Fools Day? This disbarred lawyer did nothing close to "expose" "exaggerations" of one of the most respected scholars in the field, a Dr and Professor of Armenian History at UCLA. His book is an embarassment to himself and anyone who would tout it as anything else. I have posted a link to some of the quote from his book, which sit proudly on a Turkish website. It's absolutely incredible that anyone could take it seriously.

Relax, Raffi. Weems made the Armenian responses publicly available, and it should be no stretch of the imagination for the fanatics among your crowd to have crossed the line. And how would you know how he exposed Hovannisian, particularly Hovannisian's cooked book figures (using the same Armenian numbers for refugees as he does for victims, for example), if you haven't read the book? Even though you read a few excerpts, you're still in denial.

"We have to stick to good, reputable sources, not add random extraneous quotes and materials." I gave the article a quick eye just now, and the ones that lack "reputable sources" are the pro-genocide claims such as "Mobs of Muslim Turks then massacred tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians. It is alleged by some that 50,000 Armenians were killed." I look forward to your providing a good, reputable source for that one.

I'll poke around.

So you admit you haven't poked around, and yet you felt free to alter that line in the article already, raising the stakes from 50,000 to upwards of hundreds of thousands. REALLY, Raffi! Are you trying to reduce your credibility to zero?

Ladies and gentlemen, can you believe this? The sources Raffi would like us to accept at face value are all biased and pro-Armenian. The sources provided to turn his genocide on its ear are ALSO ALL PRO-ARMENIAN.

Ladies and gentlemen, can we please continue to go back and forth like we have nothing better in life to do? Can we all just read Sam Weens' drivel entitled: "Armenia - Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State", and believe it like the word of God himself? Then we'd all get along and see eye to eye. Of course, for well over 500 years Armenia has never been independent except from 1915 to 1918, and then finally in 1991, so there was no Armenian State, but we'll keep that a secret too.

I'm resisting the temptation to suggest you take your own advice and read the book before you criticize it. I fear it would do little good, as your mind is too sealed. Regardless, you're compromising your credibility by making these statements.

Oh, I'm sorry. Who are you again? Or is that a secret? I have a great web site, with reliable information and sources. Like a Jewish site on the Holocaust, only I am Armenian and it is therefore not real history, it must be "propoganda". I am a real human. I know my family story. I know why there are no Armenians left in Anatolia. I am a good guy - fair, open-minded, not full of hate, intelligent, well read, and yes, interested in making sure that the truth be told. Sorry if that bothers you.

Propaganda is determined by the sources you use. If you're trying to pass off sources such as Andonian and Morgenthau as legitimate, we've all come to have an excellent idea as to how "reliable" your web site is.

Oh right, not the "truth", but rather a "neutral point of view". Then by all means, go into the Jewish Holocaust article and add the "neutral point of view" there. Here is how it can go. "The Jews say 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis, but the neo-Nazis say it was more like none, and that actually, the Jews deserved it anyways". I think that will make the article much more balanced and believable. Hey, after all, there are two sides to EVERY story, right? Every single one!

If you're going to make your genocide into a parallel with a proven genocide like the Holocaust, then you cannot in good conscience point to the ICTJ's findings, with their broad definition of genocide that can apply to any conflict, with only one person needing to be killed. You are comparing your genocide with what the Nazis did to the Jews, a deliberate campaign of mass extermination. For that you need evidence, and please try and understand your Andonian forgeries are not going to do the trick.

Oh, you are rich! Again with the "resettlement". I will leave that alone though since you have to answer for it above. What Armenian leaders took a murderous course? All the Armenian leaders were arrested and most killed on April 24, 1915.

Refer to Boghos Nubar's own figures from 1918 that I provided above. If the Armenians weren't resettled, they would have all been killed. What do you think the reason is for the large Armenian communities in Arab states today? The Armenians who resettled decided to stick around. These are plain facts. Your belief system is steeped in faith, not reality.

And, no, those arrested were not killed on the same day, as even Peter Balakian's "Burning Tigris" spells out. And, NO, there were plenty of Armenian leaders left to do the dirty work of extermination. Will you ever manage to get your belief system on the course of reality?

I see your strategy though, and must admit it does have some effectiveness. If you drown people in words, confuse them, act self-righteous, talk as if the whole world clearly agrees with you (unless you are busy playing your "everybody hates the Turks" card), never accept good evidence, only non-scholarly random materials, and just suffocate them in volume... well, most people will give up, assume there's something to it, or fall asleep.

The reason why I'm taking my time with this is because I am bitterly aware the whole world far from agrees with me, thanks to the near-exclusive telling of your tale to sympathetic "Christian" ears for about a century. It's going to take a lot to undo this nonsense, and I only accept good evidence. What is the evidence you're presenting? Andonian and Morgenthau! And as for the "non-scholarly random materials," in deference to the widespread acceptance of this mythology, I'm only presenting pro-Armenian sources, for the most part... to forestall the ready charges of "Turkish propaganda." If you want to discredit (for example) those Armenian patriots such as Nubar and Katchaznouni, or propagandists like Arnold Toynbee, then you're going to have your genocidal rug pulled out from under you.

Well I was finished talking to the guy who wasn't signing his posts. Did I mistakenly assume you were someone different?

I was new to Wikipedia and didn't know how to sign my name.

"MAN enough"??? What are we in kindergarten? Why isn't Turkey MAN enough to admit to the genocide? Oh that's right. It's afraid of the "r" word... reparations...

A crime needs to be proven before it can be admitted to. You have enough evidence on hand from pro-Armenian sources to at least shake your belief foundation... if you were just a bit more reasonable, and weren't so obsessed. As for your "R" word, John Roy Carlson (Arthur A. Derounian) from the 1955 booklet featuring Katchaznouni's 1923 manifesto, referring to the Treaty of Gumru: "Highly significant Is Article 8, wherein Dashnags agreed to forego their rights to ask for damages . . . as a result of the general war, thus closing the doors FOREVER to reparations for the enormous destruction of Armenian life and property." You're not suggesting the Armenians wouldn't be "MAN" enough and welch on their word, do you?

"[One of the main aspects of Armenian] "national psychology... [is] to seek external causes for [Armenian ] misfortune."

What he was talking was saying is that Armenians should not allow themselves to be genocided by the Turks. That if they walk like obedient sheep to their slaughther by the Turks, they must accept some responsibility for not resisting. He may have something there. Maybe the genocide was our own fault. Imagine if the Armenians had actually resisted... that would have spelled a complete end to the Ottoman Empire right then and there.

Even if that's what he was referring to, his end conclusion was that it's part of the Armenian psyche to blame others. And you have proven your ignorance once again. Here is the Katchaznouni statement: "When the Russians were advancing, we used to say from the depths of our subconscious minds that they were coming to save us; and when they were withdrawing, we said they are retreating so that they allow us to be massacred. . . .In both cases we misinterpreted the consequence with the purpose and intention. We sought proofs of Russian treachery and of course we found them exactly as we sought and found proofs of the same Russians undeniable benevolence six months before. To complain bitterly about our bad luck and to seek external causes for our misfortune . that is one of the main aspects of our national psychology from which, of course, the Dashnagtzoutiun is not free." It doesn't look like he was referring to being "genocided by the Turks" one bit. (Interesting usage of the genocide word there, by the way.)--Torque Feb 11, 2005

Raffi's "good, reputable sources"

After writing my response to "Fresh Overhaul," I noticed instead of moving "slowly... to fix the blatant stuff," Raffi had already moved in and made his changes. Let's see what he has wrought. (Article History, Feb. 8-9, 2005)

I shouldn't be spending this time on this, but I am.

I would like to thank Raffi for not going hogwild, like yet another Armenian fanatic (35.9.20.85) who felt free to make wholesale changes on Feb. 8. Thanks as well to Aramgutang to be on guard against these unscrupulous vandals. Aramgutang commented, "Raffi's version may be a little too POV too though." A little? Follow with me on a separate window Raffi's changes.

Fine - but I still am waiting for a proper response to my comments above (I am sure it will eventually come though, be very wordy, and not address my questions/points at all).

1) and despite second class citizen status on the law books and in practice as "infidels". Here Raffi is trying to convey the idea that the Armenians were oppressed when in fact practically all avenues of Ottoman society and government were open to them. (During days when Muslims were not regarded as human beings in Europe and the USA.) For example, mass murderers Garo and Muradyan were Parliamentarians; the former served in Ottoman government even after taking many lives in the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover. With the Second Constitution, unparalleled freedoms were opened to Armenians, as Van Vice-Consul Dickson confirms. These freedoms only encouraged Armenian subterfuge more greatly. I'll let that stand.

Of course they were oppressed. They could not stand in court as equals and expect fair treatment. They were infidels and their women could be kidnapped into harems, the men could be killed, houses taken, all with a great deal of impunity. Of course you will quote some guy nobody who has ever heard of before who said, "Armenians were worshipped by the Muslim Turks, and each was given a constitutionally guaranteed massage in a Turkish Bath each day!".

2) as it was the communities in Anatolia proper that were subjected to the deportation orders and massacres. Ironically, Raffi's statement provides evidence against his genocide, as why would the Armenians from other districts have been exempt if there was an extermination policy? The word "massacres" implies the Ottoman government deliberately conducted a murder campaign, when the Armenians who were victimized on the march were mostly the target of bandit attacks. And the word "deportation" means banishment outside a country's borders. When the Japanese in WWII America were moved away, they were not "deported," but resettled.

No, the only large community that was relatively unaffected was that of Constantinople, which was argueably too under the international eye.

3) to the plight of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. There was no significant "plight" of the Armenians prior to roughly 1877-78, when the terrorist bands were first formed. Armenian terrorists incited massacres to get the Europeans to muscle in. When Ottomans reacted, as the people in any country would have against an insurgent minority, their "plight" began. What utter dishonesty.

Of course there was, Armenians were always second class citizens. By law and practice.

4a) then massacred tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians. It is alleged by some that 50,000 Armenians were killed, This is the line (see "Disputing the Article," directly above) where I had challenged Raffi to come up with a "good, reputable source." He actually took the dubious 50,000 claim and added "tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians." Incredible! Even after he had read C. B. Dixon-Johnson's truth where the total who were killed in the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover, including the victims of the Armenians, was only 1,000.

Oh, Dixon-Johnson's truth, how could I forget?!?!! All I was doing was condensing what was already there, that's all. Not changing the meaning. The section went on to quote some sources saying x tens of thousands died, and others saying 200,000 or even more died. So I just condensed it all. No more. No new information, no out of context quotes. Just condensing without altering.

4b) and that there was a level of Ottoman government involvement with the mobs. Deplorable. This is after Raffi had read (see "Disputing the article," above) that "The soldiers and police took no part in the killing," and "Not the least bit of evidence could be found to support these (4,000-6,000) figures in the secret report of the British Embassy (F. 0. 424/188, Nos. 149 and 169)." Raffi must maintain his propaganda in lieu of the real facts.

Certainly there were no soldiers/police stopping the killing, arresting killers, etc - not that I am saying there was no outright participation by them.

5) He unethically removed the assertion of unbiased observer Captain C. B. Norman that the Armenian numbers were exaggerated. This is critical evidence pointing to how these made up figures ... whether they are 1.5 million from 1915, or Raffi's crazed "massacred tens or hundreds of thousands" from above... are created completely from the air!

As I said, I merely condensed what was there already. The ambiguity of the figures is almost ridiculous, but I don't want the blind POV followers to have heart attacks.

6a) Raffi removed Others are aware there would have been no valid reason to massacre Armenians who were allowed to prosper for centuries. What was the reason, Raffi? "Pan-Turkification"? Then why were the other minorities, like the Jews, unmolested?

Nationalism was a relatively new concept, as were nation-states, and Pan-Turkism. I don't think it is a secret that a new Turkish nation/empire was dreamt of from Constantinople to Tajikistan. One of the 3 leaders of the Ottoman Empire at this time spent his waning years in Central Asia, fighting for this cause, no? So yes, the Armenians were the only ones in the middle of all this. The only ones in the way. And the European powers cared somewhat about the plight of the Armenians, making them even that much less convenient for the government. Not that there are ever sane, good reasons for genocide.

6b) Raffi removed 5,000 Turks were massacred by Armenian terrorist activities. That's according to Kamuran Gurun. Yes, those like Raffi must preserve the myth that only Armenians suffered, and that Armenian terror bands did not harm a single Turk (in this case, during the 1890s.) Let's have some "good, reputable sources" to prove these Turks were not murdered. While you're at it, prove the 518,000 the Armenians slaughtered during the years 1914-1921 is not true.

I did not remove it because of any belief that the Armenian Fedayi never killed a Turk, but due to my questioning of the number and it's combination with the use of the word "terrorist". One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Who was targetted, and why?

7) Raffi removed Other parliamentarians such as Muradyan and Garo would go on to lead Armenian rebels in ethnic cleansing campaigns against Muslim and Jewish Ottoman villagers.

"After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzurum, Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands." (Frequently cited as pro-Armenian witness) Rafael de Nogales, "Four Years Beneath the Crescent," 1926.

"All Turkish children also should be killed as they form a danger to the Armenian nation," Hamparsum Boyaciyan, aka Muradyan; M. Varandian, "History of the Dashnaktsutiun," p. 85.

I don't know where to begin with this entire sequence, especially the last part. We should put in racist comments by one guy to prove that every Armenian should have been executed? Not that there was a genocide, people were merely relocated into their graves.

8) Raffi altered After signs of treachery, most of the Armenian recruits were later turned into road laborers and some were executed. Those who escaped joined the Russians on the east.

Continuing directly after the de Nogales quote from above: "... These bloody excesses had as their necessary corollary the immediate disarmament by the Ottoman authorities of the gendarmes and other Armenian soldiers who still remained in the army (probably because they had been unable to escape) and the utilization of their labour in the construction of highways and in carrying provisions back and forth across the mountains. The altogether unjustifiable desertion of the Armenian troops, united to the outrages they committed afterwards, on their return, in the sectors of BashKaleh, Serail, and Bayacet, did not fail to alarm the Turks and rouse their fear lest the rest of the Armenian population in the frontier provinces of Van and Erzurum revolt likewise, and attack them with the sword. This indeed is precisely what happened ..."

The dishonest Armenian contention is that Armenian troops were turned into slaves and all killed. Some were mistreated and killed, it's true. But only after they proved unreliable. Imagine arming and training these troops only to turn around and disarm them for no reason... particularly when manpower was so scarce, with three world superpowers threatening to crash through the gates at multiple fronts.

(Among those killed, even Vahakn Dadrian reports in one episode the perpetrators were punished during wartime. How could there be punishment, if the idea was extermination? How many SS men were tried by Hitler?)

Well if you follow this theory, then every single Armenian soldier committed treachery, and the number of cases would not be one, but hundreds of thousands. Obviously that is not the case. Why would you kill useful, productive citizens? We gee, what a great point... there must never have been any genocides or murders in the history of mankind, since it is a waste of useful manpower. Imagine what 6 million more Jews could have done for Germany... but I guess that never occurred to Hitler. Too bad you weren't at his side to point this out.

9) Raffi removed In early 1915, simultaneously with a disastrous Ottoman defeat at the hands of Russia at Sarikamish, with the loss of over 80% of a huge military force, battalions of Russian Armenians organized the recruiting of Turkish Armenians from behind the Turkish lines. Why? Is it untrue? (Actually, the recruitment of Turkish Armenians began well before 1915. However, the above is an important statement, explaining why Ottoman villagers were near-completely exposed to Armenian atrocities. This lack of manpower is a significant reason why most of the gendarmes escorting the resettling Armenians were taken from low-quality sources.)

Because a cause-effect is being implied, which is not historically shown to exist.

9b) Raffi removed "nationalist" from "the Young Turk government executed 300 Armenian nationalist intellectuals." This was a good change, as some among the arrested were innocents; the Ottomans relied on Armenian informers to select them. (According to Balakian's "The Burning Tigris.")

10) Raffi added: "Regardless of the chronology above, when the deportation orders were issued to Armenian villagers across Anatolia, the vast majority obediently followed orders, even when near certain death was obvious." Okay. (However, if "near certain death was obvious," why would the majority of Armenians have complied? And how obvious was "near certain death," anyway? Morgenthau and Toynbee are on record that 500,000 Armenians had survived, from the 700,000 or so who were relocated. Most died from famine and disease, the same reasons why "thousands of Turks were dying daily," to paraphrase from Morgenthau. How could one million Armenians have survived from the initial population of around 1.5 million, if the idea was to exterminate these Armenians?)

Totally emotional... totally dishonest.

Here's an eyewitness report from someone who definitely was not a "pro-Turkish govt positionee": "Poor devils, no one seems to want them anywhere, and yet despite all they have gone through, I did not see a thin one amongst a good many thousand I saw, and most looked cheery too. The massacres seem to have been a good deal exaggerated..." Lt. General Sir W. N. Congreve, 19 October 1919.

Have you read survivors? Have you seen the photos of the living naked skeletons the Armenians had been turned to? Have you seen the ones by German troops (yes, your allies)? Have you read "Survivors"? Can you sleep peacefully at night? You are amazing. Yet another absolutely ridiculous quote. "Lt. General Sir W. N. Congreve" didn't see emaciated Armenians on 19 October, 1919 (when most of the Armenians were dead and rotted), so that is all you need to tell me the Armenians were plump and happy.

Also, your fascination with the numbers game does not interest me. Different estimates of the Armenian population range up to over 2 million. The number who survived or died we will never know. Never. Not even within a few hundred thousand. And as you have pointed out to us, if one single person dies, it can be genocide. So whether the number is 1 person dead or 1.5 million, what we do know quite clearly is that there was a desire to wipe out the Armenians from Anatolia, and it was quite successful.

11) Raffi removed "After waves of massacres and countermassacres." Why? Were the Armenians not massacring? In fact, as usual, the Armenians "fired the first shot" and started the massacring. We would not be having this discussion if the Armenian revolutionary leaders did not start their campaign of terror, mayhem and murder.

Please list all the massacres by Armenians, since we know that after the war, there were millions of Turks left in Anatolia, and no Armenians.

12) Raffi removed "(while other gendarmes gave up their lives defending the Armenians)." Why? This is absolutely true. Raffi wants to preserve his propagandistic notion that the gendarmes acted as the SS. Some gendarmes acted irresponsibly, and criminally. Some gendarmes acted heroically, to the cost of their lives. It is despicable of those who deny these gallant guardians their due, those who sacrificed the ultimate in order to protect Armenians, in the line of their duty.

Some Turks certainly saved numerous Armenian lives - I will never, ever deny this. Some did equally remarkable things after the war. But please list at least (since you have used the word gendarmes) two cases where a gendarme lost his or her life defending the lives of Armenians. And who killed them for protecting the lives of Armenia? That is quite curious to me, since you say there was no genocide.

13) Raffi removed "Sympathetic sources as Le Figaro, prompted by Armenian terrorism in 1977 France, figured only 15,000 Armenians as having died from shootings, sickness and deprivation on the march. It also must be borne in mind that of the 2.5-3 million Turkish mortality, many succumbed to the same factors as famine and disease." Now why would Raffi do that? Is he figuring "Le Figaro" is a "pro-Turkish govt positionee," or that the newspaper has a "Turkish wife"? And why would Raffi deny the mortality of the Turks? Why must we weep only for the Armenians? Don't the Turks count as valuable human beings as well?

If they wrote only 15 Armenians, would that also have been valid? It is a ludicrous figure, regardless of whether a French newspaper that you say is pro-Armenian printed it in 1977. You will pass over 1,000 sources saying x, and take the one source you find that says y.

14) Raffi removed the ICTJ rebuttal ("On the other hand, Prof. Justin McCarthy points out the ICTJ lawyers [not historians] who arrived at these conclusions relied almost wholly on pro-Armenian sources, and that their definition of 'genocide' requires that only one person need be killed, which can describe any conflict."), explaining, "McCarthy himself says 'By the UN definition there indeed was a genocide of the Armenians.' I believe that is the definition we are all talking about.")

Anything that you disagree with is "pro-Armenian", never objective, never simple truth. This objective, well respected, third party could never come to the right conclusion unless it comes to your conclusion. There will never be anything good enough for you until the Turkish Govt outright admits to it, which I think will happen in the next few years. As soon as they get the Armenian govt to promise them not to seek heavy reparations. That is what this is all about for the Turkish government after all.

How dishonest can you get?

If by you you mean yourself, we are all watching to see.

The whole ICTJ report is meaningless, as McCarthy goes on to explain in his immediately following sentences ("There also was a genocide of the Muslims and a genocide of the Turks. When the Armenian Nationalists killed the Muslims of Van, was that not genocide? ..."). If the biased ICTJ lawyers' definition of genocide is so broad that it could apply to any conflict (with only one person needing to be killed), it has no relation to the presentation of the Armenian genocide myth, since this story is presented along the exact same lines as what the Nazis did to the Jews.

Oh, how convenient. The actual definition of Genocide is irrelevant, because more than the minimum number of deaths are said to have occurred. Are you SERIOUS??? No, really, are you? Are you admitting then that by the REAL definition of genocide, certainly the Armenian Genocide counts. But by your own, personal definition, it really wasn't bad enough, especially since the Armenians asked for it? If that is true, then we can end this whole dispute right now. You can agree that it was a genocide by the UN definition, but we can add the "Torque Genocide" word to wikipedia, you can define it nice and clearly, and show how the Armenian Genocide does not match the definition.

Besides, I believe McCarthy was being generous. (The American university professor is the one Raffi unethically attempted to defame earlier in this discussion page, branding him as a "Turkish paid scholar.") There are two provisions of the 1948 U.N. Convention that have yet to be met in the case of Raffi's genocide. As I already wrote in "Response to Raffi Kojian" above: Even the 1948 U.N. Convention, which is broadly based, requires "intent" to be proven, and exempts political groups. (In this case, the Armenians who allied themselves with the enemy.)

Oh, I am sure McCarthy is a very generous guy, but yes, he is a Turkish Government paid scholar, and yes, that makes the ICTJ report immensly more unbiased and believable.

The problem is that Raffi does not care about the substance of the truth. All that matters to the cicilia.com site owner is the propagation of his religiously held "genocide."

Don't think I don't appreciate that you are plugging my website - this is very kind of you. Of course, I assume you are hoping that nobody actually goes to it with some reverse psychology theory of yours, but I appreciate it nonetheless.

A related question: why am I operating on a different set of rules than Raffi? If you notice the discussion above, starting with "Examining chiefly Turk-unsympathetic sources," I didn't touch the article until I discussed the issues. I didn't feel it would be correct for me to go in there, into the depths of this highly disputed topic, and make rash, godlike changes. I cleared my sources here first. Why didn't Raffi do the same? (Sure, there have been plenty of vandals already, attempting to make wholesale changes. But I'd like to think Raffi is a little more "reasonable." Perhaps I'm in denial, proving that I'm a "denialist"?)

That is the first step to recovery.

We all know the answer to why Raffi did not do the same. He does not have "good, reputable sources." Unless he can provide them (especially the one about up to hundreds of thousands of Armenians being massacred after the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover... when the total in all of the 1890s was well under one hundred thousand), his "I doubt my good deed will go unpunished" prediction will become true. -- Torque, Feb. 9, 2005

Well you certainly have all the answers... except to my questions. But here is yet another chance for you to shine - or flop. (and as I said about the quote above that is bothering you so much, if you look at the entire section, it has just been condensed is all. It was too wordy and it still conveys the same exact information, you just have to look past at the section as a whole, not the one sentence).

--RaffiKojian 06:37, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TORQUE'S RESPONSE:

Raffi represents the typical Armenian religiously immersed in their genocide. No rhyme or reason can shake them. Dealing with such dogmatic pharisees can be an exercise in futility.

The reader can determine who has been offering the "good reputable sources" Raffi indicated he valued so much. What determines a good reputable source are those that have no conflict of interest. When he has had the opportunity, Raffi has proceeded to discredit these sources. What has he offered in return? His opinion. Let's see how he has fared.

I shouldn't be spending this time on this, but I am.

I'm glad you are. You are demonstrating how flimsy your position is.

Fine - but I still am waiting for a proper response to my comments above (I am sure it will eventually come though, be very wordy, and not address my questions/points at all).

Every one of your questions/points have been directly answered, as usual, and backed up by respectable evidence whenever possible.

(1) Of course they were oppressed. They could not stand in court as equals and expect fair treatment. They were infidels and their women could be kidnapped into harems, the men could be killed, houses taken, all with a great deal of impunity. Of course you will quote some guy nobody who has ever heard of before who said, "Armenians were worshipped by the Muslim Turks, and each was given a constitutionally guaranteed massage in a Turkish Bath each day!".

There were crimes committed against Armenians, especially by lawless bands. What is never taken into account is that lawless bands do not discriminate, and crimes were committed against every citizen; it's the ones against the Armenians that were solely heard in the West, and often exaggerated. Again, Armenians try to claim exclusive victimhood. The fact of the matter is, the Armenians composed the upper class, by and large; the average Turk was much poorer. If the Armenians' wealth could be taken at will, the Armenians could not have maintained their status as the wealthy merchants they came to be. Again, this is the Gladstone/Morgenthau racist propaganda that worked so well back in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and won't die out even in this day and age, thanks to those such as Raffi. The bit I like best are the "harems." There was only one harem in the Ottoman Empire I'm aware of, and that was the imperial one. The reader can refer to the Mesrob K. Krikorian book cited above (under "Fresh Overhaul -- Dialogue Continues; TORQUE'S RESPONSE), along with the statistics of how these "second class citizens" were permitted to become so accomplished.

(2) No, the only large community that was relatively unaffected was that of Constantinople, which was argueably too under the international eye.

I had a feeling a person who would have the gall to describe Turkey as "Western Armenia" would call Istanbul "Constantinople"! (The Turks had called their city "Istanbul" since its conquest.) Foreign consuls were established throughout the Ottoman Empire, and there was no way to escape the "international eye," even in the far corners of the land. Moreover, this was the time the Ottomans had freed themselves of the Europeans' Capitulations, and didn't care what the West would have thought; particularly since the West never gave them a fair shake, anyway. Thirdly, Istanbul was not the only city that remained relatively untouched by the relocation process; the western region as a whole was considered "under control," and the Armenians in Edirne, and Izmir, for example, were mostly exempted.

(3) Of course there was, Armenians were always second class citizens. By law and practice.

Raffi offers his opinion. No "good reputable sources" are in evidence.

(4a) Oh, Dixon-Johnson's truth, how could I forget?!?!! All I was doing was condensing what was already there, that's all. Not changing the meaning. The section went on to quote some sources saying x tens of thousands died, and others saying 200,000 or even more died. So I just condensed it all. No more. No new information, no out of context quotes. Just condensing without altering.

Raffi doesn't like the Briton's truth, and dismisses it. He actually took the dubious 50,000 claim and added "tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians," as the number of Armenians who died in the aftermath of the 1896 Ottoman Bank takeover. He merely "condensed" it. I have a feeling he might have confused this singular event with all the Armenian casualties of the 1890s. If he's going to be that sloppy, what business does he have in editing the article?

Yet he's being totally insincere. If we go to the "First Armenian Genocide" section, it's clear this passage refers to the 1896 bank affair. The following paragraph begins with "Armenian-sympathizing estimates of the total killed run from 100,000 to 300,000." This one refers to the total casualties of the 1890s. So why would he add "tens or hundreds of thousands of Armenians" if the article already explores this total mortality? Far from condensing, he's repeating the higher numbers in an attempt to stress Ottoman villainy. He becomes such a poor and innocent Armenian when busted.

(4b) Certainly there were no soldiers/police stopping the killing, arresting killers, etc - not that I am saying there was no outright participation by them.

Of course, that would go against Raffi's genocide line. What does he care about the truth? He speaks as though he was there, telling us conclusively there were no arrests. And how does he know that? He doesn't. He's just offering his opinion. Furthermore, is he countering Dixon-Johnson's truth that "The soldiers and police took no part in the killing."? No. Would Dixon-Johnson have had any reason to lie? No.

(5) As I said, I merely condensed what was there already. The ambiguity of the figures is almost ridiculous, but I don't want the blind POV followers to have heart attacks.

Heartwarming that Raffi is looking out for his fellow blind POV followers. Captain Norman wrote, "only five lives were lost" in a town (Berecik) where 2,000 Armenians were supposed to have been murdered." Would the Briton have had any reason to lie? No. Is Raffi offering "good reputable sources" to counter this truth? No. In his genocide mania, he is incredulous that only five lives would have been lost, when there were 2,000 juicy Armenians ripe for the slaughter. Once again, we get his opinion and nothing else.

"I merely condensed"... who elected you as The Condenser? This is an extremely valuable source with no conflict-of-interest, demonstrating how exaggerated Armenian propaganda has been and continues to be.

6a) Raffi removed Others are aware there would have been no valid reason to massacre Armenians who were allowed to prosper for centuries. What was the reason, Raffi? "Pan-Turkification"? Then why were the other minorities, like the Jews, unmolested?

Nationalism was a relatively new concept, as were nation-states, and Pan-Turkism. I don't think it is a secret that a new Turkish nation/empire was dreamt of from Constantinople to Tajikistan. One of the 3 leaders of the Ottoman Empire at this time spent his waning years in Central Asia, fighting for this cause, no? So yes, the Armenians were the only ones in the middle of all this. The only ones in the way. And the European powers cared somewhat about the plight of the Armenians, making them even that much less convenient for the government. Not that there are ever sane, good reasons for genocide.

Thank you for your worthless theories. What's missing are good, reputable sources. I don't know what Enver Pasha was fighting for (how he died is still a matter of conjecture); if he had a mad dream to make all Turkic countries one, he sure didn't pick the right time, with the Ottoman Empire on its deathbed. If individuals in a government have beliefs, one can't extend those beliefs as a matter of national policy without evidence. Where is the evidence? Nowhere. Assuming this mad dream was a matter of national policy, were the Armenians "The only ones in the way"? No. There were plenty of non-Turks in the Ottoman Empire. The Jews were in the way. The Arabs were in the way. The Arabs also rebelled like the Armenians. Was there a genocide policy against the Arabs? No. Why not? Wasn't Pan-Turkism the goal? That's what Raffi is telling us. Is his opinion good enough? Not for me.

6b) Raffi removed 5,000 Turks were massacred by Armenian terrorist activities. That's according to Kamuran Gurun. Yes, those like Raffi must preserve the myth that only Armenians suffered, and that Armenian terror bands did not harm a single Turk (in this case, during the 1890s.) Let's have some "good, reputable sources" to prove these Turks were not murdered. While you're at it, prove the 518,000 the Armenians slaughtered during the years 1914-1921 is not true.

I did not remove it because of any belief that the Armenian Fedayi never killed a Turk, but due to my questioning of the number and it's combination with the use of the word "terrorist". One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. Who was targetted, and why?

If you're stating your belief that the Armenian Fedayi killed at least one Turk, because of your strict adherence to the ICTJ ruling's validity, you are now admitting the Armenians committed a genocide against the Turks.

So Raffi questioned this figure, and without any rhyme or reason, without offering any "good reputable sources" to counter this figure, he proceeded to remove it. It's a pity studies have not been done in this area of Turkish mortality by Westerners, because Turkish lives were never considered valuable. Nevertheless, if that is the best figure we have as to the mortality of Turkish murdered in the 1890s, we don't go ahead and remove it unless we have "good reputable sources" that say otherwise. And while it's true "One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist," nobody can dispute that when innocent lives are targeted, that is called "terrorism." How do we know these lives were innocent? There was a wealth of Western observers (e.g., Consuls Mayewski, Currie, Graves) who were keenly aware of the aim of fanatical Armenian committees to commit massacres, in the hopes of inciting counter-massacres, so that the European powers could step in and grant the Armenians free favors. Massacres are committed indiscriminately. If one is to massacre, one selects a target that doesn't defend itself easily. Thus, these 5,000 murdered were not soldiers. Just like the documented 518,000 mostly defenseless villagers the Armenians ruthlessly slaughtered during the war years.

(7) I don't know where to begin with this entire sequence, especially the last part. We should put in racist comments by one guy to prove that every Armenian should have been executed? Not that there was a genocide, people were merely relocated into their graves.

Note how off-handedly Raffi dismisses the evidence against Garo and Hamparsum Boyaciyan, aka Muradyan. He doesn't like it, so he removes it. He doesn't offer any "good reputable sources" to counter the evidence. No, he simply removes things because of his opinion. Muradyan was not just "one guy." The Hunchak leader was in charge of massive ethnic cleansing. Raffi's Armenian propaganda does not acknowledge the crimes of the Armenians, and Raffi is displaying his ignorance once again, because he only prefers to read his side of the story.

8) Raffi altered After signs of treachery, most of the Armenian recruits were later turned into road laborers and some were executed. Those who escaped joined the Russians on the east.

Well if you follow this theory, then every single Armenian soldier committed treachery, and the number of cases would not be one, but hundreds of thousands. Obviously that is not the case. Why would you kill useful, productive citizens? We gee, what a great point... there must never have been any genocides or murders in the history of mankind, since it is a waste of useful manpower. Imagine what 6 million more Jews could have done for Germany... but I guess that never occurred to Hitler. Too bad you weren't at his side to point this out.

What a despicable and insulting line of reasoning. Most of the Armenian soldiers rebelled, deserted, acted treacherously by firing blanks at the enemy, and they made things bad for all the Armenian soldiers, and they got disarmed. They had to do something in the army, and since they couldn't be trusted with arms, they were enlisted to do labor. "Slave labor," Armenian propaganda tells us, as if all soldiers are not slaves. As if the Turkish soldiers who were sent to the front to get killed were better off. The fact is, we don't know how many of these Armenian soldiers were "executed." Where are the "good, reputable sources" demonstrating they were all executed? Once again, we get Raffi's opinion that there was a "genocide."

9) Raffi removed In early 1915, simultaneously with a disastrous Ottoman defeat at the hands of Russia at Sarikamish, with the loss of over 80% of a huge military force, battalions of Russian Armenians organized the recruiting of Turkish Armenians from behind the Turkish lines. Why? Is it untrue?

Because a cause-effect is being implied, which is not historically shown to exist.

Historically, there is no question Armenian Turks betrayed their country, and joined the Russians. Boghos Nubar attested to this, as did many of the Dashnak/Hunchak proclamations. All Raffi can offer is, once again, his opinion. There are no "good reputable sources" in sight.

(10) Have you read survivors? Have you seen the photos of the living naked skeletons the Armenians had been turned to? Have you seen the ones by German troops (yes, your allies)? Have you read "Survivors"? Can you sleep peacefully at night? You are amazing. Yet another absolutely ridiculous quote. "Lt. General Sir W. N. Congreve" didn't see emaciated Armenians on 19 October, 1919 (when most of the Armenians were dead and rotted), so that is all you need to tell me the Armenians were plump and happy.

Poor Raffi. He doesn't address any of the issues raised under (10), and goes off the deep end based on one propaganda book conducting interviews with 100 survivors, accounts on the "Joe told me so" level that Raffi wrote he couldn't respect. The authors are highly biased (a husband-and-wife team--one is a sociologist of religion and the other is "the daughter of survivors of the genocide"), and value sources that have great conflict of interest, such as missionaries. Note how Raffi ignored Morgenthau's paraphrased quote, "thousands of Turks were dying daily" of famine, clearly indicating "the living naked skeletons" in the Ottoman wartime hellhole was not strictly an Armenian phenomenon. And yes, I've seen the photographs of Armin Wegner, but images of suffering people in a wartime apocalypse where everyone was suffering does not prove a genocidal systematic extermination plan.

Would Lt. General Sir W. N. Congreve have had any reason to lie? No. Does Raffi go out of his way to try and discredit him? Yes.

Also, your fascination with the numbers game does not interest me. Different estimates of the Armenian population range up to over 2 million. The number who survived or died we will never know. Never. Not even within a few hundred thousand. And as you have pointed out to us, if one single person dies, it can be genocide. So whether the number is 1 person dead or 1.5 million, what we do know quite clearly is that there was a desire to wipe out the Armenians from Anatolia, and it was quite successful.

Yes, everyone would agree the murder of one person would constitute a "genocide." The Armenians love to have it both ways. On one hand, they try to inflate their figures as much as possible to extract maximum sympathy value (as Raffi tried to do in the article by putting in his totally unnecessary and inaccurate "hundreds of thousands," but when they are forced to get down to the brass tacks, then the line becomes "numbers don't matter." The hypocrisy and dishonesty is dizzying.

(11) Please list all the massacres by Armenians, since we know that after the war, there were millions of Turks left in Anatolia, and no Armenians.

There were millions of Turks left, other than the 2.5+ million who died from all causes, 518,000 at the hand of murderous Armenians. And are you trying to tell us the Armenians who were no longer in Anatolia were done away with? Are you now trying to adopt Richard Hovannisian's cooked book figures, forgetting there were many refugees who took off to different countries, forming the diaspora? Are you now trying to make these refugees into victims, now that it suits your purpose?

12) Raffi removed "(while other gendarmes gave up their lives defending the Armenians)." Why? This is absolutely true. Raffi wants to preserve his propagandistic notion that the gendarmes acted as the SS...

Some Turks certainly saved numerous Armenian lives - I will never, ever deny this. Some did equally remarkable things after the war. But please list at least (since you have used the word gendarmes) two cases where a gendarme lost his or her life defending the lives of Armenians. And who killed them for protecting the lives of Armenia? That is quite curious to me, since you say there was no genocide.

The ones who killed them were bandits who attacked the caravans, mainly Kurdish or Arabic... the ones who committed most of the massacring of the 9-10,000 Armenians who lost their lives in this fashion.

(1) From Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, with the only Ottoman official Morgenthau declined to paint as a monster (Foreign Minister, Halil Bey):

"A great many suffered," he added, "simply because Enver could not spare troops to defend them. Some regular troops did accompany them and these behaved very well; forty even lost their lives defending the Armenians. But we had to withdraw most of the gendarmes for service in the army and put in a new lot to accompany the Armenians. It is true that these gendarmes committed many deplorable excesses." "A great many Turks do not approve these measures," I said. "I do not deny it," replied the ever-accommodating Halil, as he bowed himself out.

(2) From the trial transcript of Soghoman Tehlirian's trial:

DISTRICT ATTORNEY The defendant testified that the massacres took place just outside the city limits of Erzinga. I am informed that, after the caravan had gone quite a distance from Erzinga, armed Kurdish bandits attacked the caravan in a pass and even many Turkish gendarmes were killed trying to protect the caravan. Would the defendant please answer whether or not they were attacked by Kurdish bandits? DEFENDANT (Tehlirian) I was told that it was the Turkish gendarmes who opened fire on us.

(Note Tehlirian's "eyewitness" testimony, so similar to the oral history of Armenians, like the one in "Survivors": He was merely told.)

(13) If (Le Figaro) wrote only 15 Armenians, would that also have been valid? It is a ludicrous figure, regardless of whether a French newspaper that you say is pro-Armenian printed it in 1977. You will pass over 1,000 sources saying x, and take the one source you find that says y.

It's only ludicrous because your mind is hermetically sealed shut. Readers can check the comparison with Boghos Nubar's figures and "Realities Behind the Relocation," provided under "Fresh Overhaul -- Dialogue Continues; TORQUE'S RESPONSE" above. As far as your 1,000 sources, we've also covered there is an "avalanche" of materials supporting your genocide, given the one-sided coverage through the many years. The question is, are the biased sources at the root of much of this testimony without conflict of interest, such as with the missionaries and foreign consuls? Quantity does not equal quality.

(14) If by you you mean yourself, we are all watching to see.

He's referring to my dishonesty. How does he prove I've been dishonest? Does he offer good reputable sources? No, we only get his opinion.

Oh, how convenient. The actual definition of Genocide is irrelevant, because more than the minimum number of deaths are said to have occurred. Are you SERIOUS??? No, really, are you? Are you admitting then that by the REAL definition of genocide, certainly the Armenian Genocide counts. But by your own, personal definition, it really wasn't bad enough, especially since the Armenians asked for it? If that is true, then we can end this whole dispute right now. You can agree that it was a genocide by the UN definition, but we can add the "Torque Genocide" word to wikipedia, you can define it nice and clearly, and show how the Armenian Genocide does not match the definition.

Being sarcastic is not getting you anywhere. The definition of genocide is not irrelevant, not the U.N. Convention one, which is the one we must adhere to. This is why I've spelled out the reasons why this definition does not apply to your myth, in the passage I'll include below. What we need to be wary of are the many politicized definitions of genocide, where the word has been rendered meaningless... such as describing a genocide as only one person needing to be killed. And nobody is saying the Armenians deserved their hardship ("the Armenians asked for it?"); what's being said is that the responsibility of their hardship falls upon those who instigated their rebellion. You get violent, you get consequences. It's not honorable to make up stories and theories like "Pan-Turkism" to pin the blame. (Here's the passage):

Besides, I believe McCarthy was being generous. (The American university professor is the one Raffi unethically attempted to defame earlier in this discussion page, branding him as a "Turkish paid scholar.") There are two provisions of the 1948 U.N. Convention that have yet to be met in the case of Raffi's genocide. As I already wrote in "Response to Raffi Kojian" above: Even the 1948 U.N. Convention, which is broadly based, requires "intent" to be proven, and exempts political groups. (In this case, the Armenians who allied themselves with the enemy.)

Oh, I am sure McCarthy is a very generous guy, but yes, he is a Turkish Government paid scholar, and yes, that makes the ICTJ report immensly more unbiased and believable.

Note Raffi is not addressing the two provisions of the U.N. Convention that does not apply to his genocide. (His only proof of "intent" are the Andonian forgeries, which he sadly keeps insisting are legitimate.) And he has forgotten our discussion in the past, regarding his despicable attempt to try and defame Prof. McCarthy. As if any grants McCarthy might have received from the Turks -- and there is no proof offered -- would have been enough for McCarthy to have sold his soul. The nonexistent level of scruples is sickening.

A related question: why am I operating on a different set of rules than Raffi? If you notice the discussion above, starting with "Examining chiefly Turk-unsympathetic sources," I didn't touch the article until I discussed the issues. I didn't feel it would be correct for me to go in there, into the depths of this highly disputed topic, and make rash, godlike changes. I cleared my sources here first. Why didn't Raffi do the same? (Sure, there have been plenty of vandals already, attempting to make wholesale changes. But I'd like to think Raffi is a little more "reasonable." Perhaps I'm in denial, proving that I'm a "denialist"?)

That is the first step to recovery.

Thanks for the advice. I'll try to suppress my belief that you are a little reasonable, and pay greater heed to how out of control you have been with your arguments, offering only your opinion, and never any real facts. -- Torque Feb 11, 2005

Numbers changed by 213.39.165.161

I noticed 213.39.165.161 changed a couple of numbers in the article ([4]). Could someone more familiar with the subject check if the changes are correct?

cesarb 17:48, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

From the RC patrol:

I've reverted that nuber change, the sources I found are all in the range of the original numbers. The changed numbers appear to be off by a factor of 10. Lupo 20:38, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

cesarb 00:50, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Torque is at it again

Torque AKA Wanderer AKA Holdwater, and other aliases used, is the author of the website tallarmeniantale. He is using this good intentional Free Encyclopedia to propagate his propaganda. I have read the exchange between this individual and Raffi, and I have decided to answer him, if he miself doesn't chose to stop this hijacking.

Torque AKA Holdwater, stop asking evidences to Raffi that I have provided to you in my over a hundred pages of answers in another medium. If you are honest and really care about fairness you will stop doing that, or I will have to add in the genocide website section the links to all of our exchanges where I demonstrate how you have used fabricated materials, manipulated materials, distortions and falsehood. I do believe that like me, you don't want to enter in this confrontation.

If on the other hand, you are after that, I will have to use this discussion section and answer your answers to Raffi.

Regards, Fadix

Master Propagandist at Work

Allow me to introduce you to our new Wikipedia friend, Fadix. He has been on the front lines of genocide forums for years. Unlike other obsessed Armenians who put a twist to "I think, therefore I am" (winding up with "I think Armenian genocide, therefore art my total identity"), Fadix is a very special breed. Nicknamed "Armenian Beast" by his own account, he has made a professional study of the "avalanche" of Armenian genocide information near-unilaterally presented in the West. He is a walking encyclopedia in his own right of this endless propaganda. While he loves to spread unsubstantiated rumors behind others' identities (in typical fashion of his perspective's strategies, without care for the real facts), he goes by many pseudonyms; for all we know, he could be Vahakn Dadrian himself, informally letting off steam in behind-the-scenes fashion.

Fadix certainly would make Dadrian proud. When a genuine fact is presented before Fadix, he doesn't ponder over its authenticity. His first instinct is to come up with the sneaky methods that have fueled his people's propaganda for so long: how to cast doubt upon the real truth? If you give him white, he will do whatever he can to prove white black.

Armed with his retinue of endless minutiae, his main strategy is to bombard the reader with reams of surface "facts and figures," with the purpose of numbing the reader into submission. Look at what he has done to the article; he has had the audacity to fill it up with an array of claims, seemingly authentic but often without sources (and even when sources are provided, one can never be certain of their legitimacy; for example, later editions of some books by pro-Armenian publishers have been known to be revised), doing whatever he can to fulfill his driving passion. He has turned the article into a total propaganda piece.

One needs to keep in mind there has been a great unequal equation where the Ottoman Empire was concerned. The one-time feared enemy of the West filled the role of bogeyman for centuries, and tales of the barbarian "Terrible Turk" were fueled by racism and ignorance. Consequently, one can come up with countless claims of what an American, Briton or German has said. The cumulative effect of these incriminating quotes and assertions is what has driven the Armenian genocide industry. Rare has been the Western so-called "witness" or even historian who has looked at the subject objectively.

For example, a whole section on Rafael Lemkin has been presented (as if the page were about genocide in general), and his beliefs based on the one-sided accounts he was exposed to. (1.2 million Armenians killed?) We have (American Embassy Rep. George Cox estimating 2.4 million Armenians in the 19th century. I have no idea where that's from, but does it matter? We all know Cox did not personally take a head count, and based his conclusion on who knows what tainted source. Here we’re on track for the typical deception; what we need to look at are more authoritative sources lacking conflict of interest, determining the pre-war Armenian population shortly before the 1915 period. Sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, which determined 3 million Armenians worldwide, and 1.1-1.5 million in the Ottoman Empire (which Fadix unscrupulously edited out, because it does not support his POV), depending on which page you read. (This edition is online. Later editions became politicized from relentless Armenian propaganda.)

Fadix has gone haywire and made too many changes for all to be analyzed. But evidence of his aversion to truth comes with trying to minimize the importance of the Armenian rebellion, such as the killer NY Times account in Nov. 1914, appearing only days after war was declared. Fadix writes these revolts were incidental and "localized." (Not if you read the article, and not if you count many supporting "neutral" sources. Not that the pro-Armenian NY Times was "neutral.") Then he counters Amb. Morgenthau’s confirmation of armed and ready Armenians throughout the land. Now this is really funny; Fadix uses the fact that Morgenthau never left Istanbul, thus discrediting Morgenthau for everything else Morgenthau claimed. The difference is, Morgenthau’s purpose was propaganda when he had someone else write his book. If he's going to include the rare line that doesn't make the Armenians so poor and innocent, we can believe it, because that goes against Morgenthau’s purpose. Besides, there is numerous evidence the Russian-financed Armenians were ready to turn traitor and rebel at the first sign of war. (Which they followed to the letter.)

Here is a wonderful example of his trying to fudge a fact he doesn't like: "It is said by the Turkish side that accounts from Armenian newspapers hailing the rebellion exist, but so as accounts in newspapers about Jewish declaration of wars before Germany declared war, declarations, and acts are two different things, and this is a pretty well known thing and recorded in history." What?

Fadix overlooks all evidence that’s not supportive of his identity-nurturing genocide. Fadix has zero credibility.

And what’s this about deleting the passage by Armenia’s first prime minister, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, that flies in the face of Fadix’s genocide? (Even Katchaznouni confirms the Armenian rebellion.) A little too uncomfortable for the propagandist Fadix, so out it goes. (He has tried to discredit Katchaznouni elsewhere by stating this translation from the original Armenian must have been altered, without adding Katchaznouni’s manifesto was made available in 1955 by an Armenian patriot.)

Fadix has zero credibility.

There's no way to go toe-to-toe with a master fanatic like the "Armenian Beast." Try to show reason, and he will maliciously twist your logic in any underhanded way he’s capable. Discredit his dubious "facts," and he will put forth five more, aided by his "avalanche" of "evidence."

The way to prove whether this high crime of genocide truly occurred is not by deluging with an endless array of prejudiced or misleading information. One needs to come up with the hard goods. Raffi's answer to proving "intent," aside from the unreliable testimony of Armenian oral history, has been Andonian’s forged telegrams. Unfortunately for genocide advocates, where hard goods are concerned, there is none.

With the presentation of his Dadrian-style "weasel facts," Fadix attempts to distract from the big picture:

Armenians got along well in the tolerant Ottoman Empire for centuries, as the "faithful nation." (Fadix’s reply to this might be the Armenians didn’t know any better; they were too unaware of how badly off they were and shouldn’t have enjoyed their status as the wealthy merchant class.)
When the Sick Man started to disintegrate, greedy and fanatical Armenian revolutionists started terrorist groups roughly coinciding with the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78
For around forty years, Armenians incited violence and massacres, hoping for a reaction so that the Europeans can step in.
Surrounded by world powers anxious to take the Ottomans apart via already established secret treaties, the treacherous Armenians rebelled.
Posing a significant military threat, the traitorous minority had to be resettled elsewhere in the empire. Actual documents prove the government established safeguards for the Armenians, instead of a plan for extermination for which there was no motive, nonsensical theories of pan-Turkism aside. Ottoman corruption and incompetence didn’t allow for the Armenians to be protected all the time in the chaos of the period where all citizens suffered.
When the threat to "homeland security" declined, the policy came to an end in 1916. (demonstrating there was no genocide; compare with Nazis continuing with the Final Solution until war’s end), and Armenians were allowed to filter back. Many immigrated to other countries or stayed in their new homes. At any rate, 1 million survived, from an original population of around 1.5 million.

It is the BIG PICTURE we need to contend with, and not get lost in the endless detail of prejudiced speaker A saying such and such, and ignorant speaker B saying so and so. I attempted some balance in Fadix's soapbox, and strove for more brevity, but I predict he will ignore Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy. There will be a back and forth, and probably mediation will be the final outcome.

Torque's supposed "big picture"

I know it is a waste of time to respond to you, and have said I wouldn't, but your big picture is just too funny... is that what we are trying to distract from? Really? What we are discussing is a GENOCIDE - which makes your big picture one big distraction. Watch and see.

Irrelevant how relations were for centuries before the genocide.
Irrelevant what Armenians and Russians may or may not have done 40 years before the genocide.
See #2.
Irrelevant what the world powers did. Irrelevant if you are a racist and think Armenians are treacherous. Even irrelevant if Armenians did rebel. There is no clause in the definition of genocide that says, "it is actually ok to commit genocide if...".
Irrelevant if Armenians were a threat (which they clearly were not, but why argue the irrelevant). As I said, no excuse for genocide. Certainly there were no attempts at all to resettle anyone anywhere, but at least for the first time you said something relevant. Good job!
Irrelevant when the genocidal policy ended, or if Armenians were allowed to filter back. That doesn't show that it was not genocide at all (Jews are allowed back into Germany, but they admit to their genocide), and is such an exaggeration it is for all practical purposes a fallacy (as evidenced by the lack of Armenians), as is the figure that 1 million survived.

You are the verbose one who doesn't know the meaning of the word brevity, or how to stick to what is relevant, who first introduced the "drown them in text" method. You have learned well from your mentor, Serdar Argic. Is that you Ahmed? We didn't miss you, you know... --RaffiKojian 16:00, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Raffi, I just have read your answer. Excellent the way you stick to the point. Just one point though, the claim that the Armenians were allowed to return back is one of the biggest lie ever. Armenians properties were sold for the fraction of the price; I have few lists published in Turkish newspapers announcing that those properties would be sold. Many others were placed in auction.-Fadix

Answering Mr. Torque [again]

Allow me to introduce you to our new Wikipedia friend, Fadix. He has been on the front lines of genocide forums for years. Unlike other obsessed Armenians who put a twist to "I think, therefore I am" (winding up with "I think Armenian genocide, therefore art my total identity"), Fadix is a very special breed. Nicknamed "Armenian Beast" by his own account, he has made a professional study of the "avalanche" of Armenian genocide information near-unilaterally presented in the West. He is a walking encyclopedia in his own right of this endless propaganda. While he loves to spread unsubstantiated rumors behind others' identities (in typical fashion of his perspective's strategies, without care for the real facts), he goes by many pseudonyms; for all we know, he could be Vahakn Dadrian himself, informally letting off steam in behind-the-scenes fashion.

Mr. Holdwater, it is a two sided game that you are playing here. First of all the titled “Armenian Beast” as I have said earlier was given by a Turk. Talking of rumors, you just have spread rumors yourself.

Secondo, I do not make rumors behind peoples identity without evidences, as I have demonstrated in the other forum, from which you run away, statistically speaking, the probability that you are whom I affirm is very high. Another alias has done this in the past, while I knew he was not the person I said he was, I still maintained the charge against him, because he was refusing to admit that he copied from the person I accused him to be. But you are a different bread, and you know well that I have brought an armada of strong evidences supporting what I affirm. I have demonstrated that the aliases I accuse you of being uses the same expressions, uses the same sources, many of those sources originate from one site, yours. You have the same interpretations of those sources, and you are the only having them, you had the same exact charges, you appear at two different places after that you kept silent for a time, practically at the same time, one as a guest and the other as Torque. You know that the evidences I brought linking you with all those aliases are very strong, don't make me post them here, because they are irrelevant to the discussion.

Oh and, if I were Dadrian, I would not have taken you seriously to the point of answering you. And the last time I have checked, Dadrian does not live in Montreal.

Fadix certainly would make Dadrian proud. When a genuine fact is presented before Fadix, he doesn't ponder over its authenticity. His first instinct is to come up with the sneaky methods that have fueled his people's propaganda for so long: how to cast doubt upon the real truth? If you give him white, he will do whatever he can to prove white black.

You pretty much sum up what you are good at. I am not the individual that copypast trash and even include them in a website without checking their authenticity, you are. I am not the individual using quotes that do not exist and use them even after it was shown to me they do not exist. You are, and I have provided many examples of such cases, but then, you did ignore them. So now, whom instinct is it? Oh and, will you finally stop defaming Dadrian, you repeat his name in every given occasion, if I didn't knew you better, I would call this an extreme cases of paranoia.

Armed with his retinue of endless minutiae, his main strategy is to bombard the reader with reams of surface "facts and figures," with the purpose of numbing the reader into submission. Look at what he has done to the article; he has had the audacity to fill it up with an array of claims, seemingly authentic but often without sources (and even when sources are provided, one can never be certain of their legitimacy; for example, later editions of some books by pro-Armenian publishers have been known to be revised), doing whatever he can to fulfill his driving passion. He has turned the article into a total propaganda piece.

This is how it works, a peer reviewed article is published based on the integrity of the material, and the right interpretation that the author come with, and interpretation based on the material submitted by the evidences collected. I am not reinventing things here. I do admit that it was wrong from my part to shout numbers and sources like this, but it was as an answer to your claim that the numbers Raffi provided have no sources, now I have shown they do have and you cry the “wolf.” If you are not ready to accept the materials submitted, why do you ask for materials then? And beside that, those references, non come from pro-Armenian publishers. If you don't agree, define me what you mean by “pro-Armenian” publishers. And, those works first editions are conform, so your charges are erroneous, as expected.

One needs to keep in mind there has been a great unequal equation where the Ottoman Empire was concerned. The one-time feared enemy of the West filled the role of bogeyman for centuries, and tales of the barbarian "Terrible Turk" were fueled by racism and ignorance. Consequently, one can come up with countless claims of what an American, Briton or German has said. The cumulative effect of these incriminating quotes and assertions is what has driven the Armenian genocide industry. Rare has been the Western so-called "witness" or even historian who has looked at the subject objectively.

A cases is called a historical reality when it passes the scrutiny of time. This means that what is called a historical reality should be supported, again, and again no matter in which year we are. All sides including the Ottoman Empire, have admitted the crime, what you can do best is find few individuals to support your cases, this is not how history is written, what you are doing is selectivity at best. This is known in pure science, where the standard of the hypotheses, evidences and conclusion is above any others. And in science, we know that an experiment should be repeatable by most of the studies to be considered as deterministic evidence, or proof by its legal definition, which is: “beyond any reasonable doubt.” It is not because some studies demonstrate the contrary of most studies, that it means that the theses supported by most of them is erroneous. It is NOT! In every discipline of science there is the known “deviation” and there is even a whole mathematic area that study this deviation. If we were to apply your logic of things, no any medication should be approved by the FDA, by the sole reason that there are few studies that demonstrate the contrary of what the majority demonstrate. This is why meta-analysis has been developed, because it is the most precise tool we do have to measure the efficiency of a medication. This known deviation is even one of the foundations of quantum Mechanic. In the orbitals we know there is a presence of electrons, we know where most of them are concentrated, we know that in some region the probability of presence of an electron is 1% of the total electrons in the orbital. Could we affirm that the electrons in this orbital are localized in that region? Of course not, but if we were to use your logic, and take that region and search an electron, we will find out that there will be electrons on the region and conclude that that was the cases. Was it? The answer is obviously no.

BTW You claim that I have not provided sources for my claims, tell me which one was it, and I will fill it by sources.

For example, a whole section on Rafael Lemkin has been presented (as if the page were about genocide in general), and his beliefs based on the one-sided accounts he was exposed to. (1.2 million Armenians killed?) We have (American Embassy Rep. George Cox estimating 2.4 million Armenians in the 19th century. I have no idea where that's from, but does it matter? We all know Cox did not personally take a head count, and based his conclusion on who knows what tainted source. Here we’re on track for the typical deception; what we need to look at are more authoritative sources lacking conflict of interest, determining the pre-war Armenian population shortly before the 1915 period. Sources like the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica, which determined 3 million Armenians worldwide, and 1.1-1.5 million in the Ottoman Empire (which Fadix unscrupulously edited out, because it does not support his POV), depending on which page you read. (This edition is online. Later editions became politicized from relentless Armenian propaganda.)

First of all, Lemkin reference is very relevant, he's the inventor of the word, so obviously he has a place in the genocide article, and why the Armenian genocide should be called such. But of course you prefer filling the article with irrelevant crap, and justify me why Lemkin numbers should not be accepted. But for any independent observer, Lemkin is more credible than you.

Secondo, Cox figures are based on US foreign diplomacy figures, they are numbers like others, one wonder why they should not be included as estimates, is it because those figures are higher than your liking?

Third, you refer to Britanica and call it a more authoritative source, you claim that I have deleted the entry because it was against my POV. You are dishonest here, and you know it. You know why I edited this entry, don't you? We have already discussed about this in another forum. What you claim is wrong. You wrote that Britannica 1911 edition provided 1.1 million and Toynbee 1915 provided less than a million. Both of those were lies. For the concerned 9 Villeyets Britannica (1911 Edition) provide the figure of 925,000, which represents about 1.5 million for the Ottoman Armenian population. The source in question is presented in “Zapiski” published in 1896(Britannica is enough honest to place the sources in parentheses). With a moderate population increases 19 years later, we come up with an Armenian population of above 1.75 million, note here that in his demographic map, disputed bordering territories were excluded, and as well as an actual CLEAR undercount of Catholic and Protestant Armenians. Every time the 1.1 million figure was mentioned anywhere, it was either Lynch figure of 1,058,000 for the year 1896(representing Ottoman Armenia NOT the entire Ottoman Empire), published in his work “Travels in Armenia,” or those partial Ottoman statistics of 1896.

Fadix has gone haywire and made too many changes for all to be analyzed. But evidence of his aversion to truth comes with trying to minimize the importance of the Armenian rebellion, such as the killer NY Times account in Nov. 1914, appearing only days after war was declared. Fadix writes these revolts were incidental and "localized." (Not if you read the article, and not if you count many supporting "neutral" sources. Not that the pro-Armenian NY Times was "neutral.") Then he counters Amb. Morgenthau’s confirmation of armed and ready Armenians throughout the land. Now this is really funny; Fadix uses the fact that Morgenthau never left Istanbul, thus discrediting Morgenthau for everything else Morgenthau claimed. The difference is, Morgenthau’s purpose was propaganda when he had someone else write his book. If he's going to include the rare line that doesn't make the Armenians so poor and innocent, we can believe it, because that goes against Morgenthau’s purpose. Besides, there is numerous evidence the Russian-financed Armenians were ready to turn traitor and rebel at the first sign of war. (Which they followed to the letter.)

I could have deleted the NY Times entry, but did not, I left this little comfort for you. But since you bring it on, you just gave me the occasion to answer and discredit it. As I told you before, the article published by the New-Yorks Times is nearly identical to those published very soon in the German press when the information was dispatched by Turkish officials(I have covered already as you know, the entire affair with the History of Van and the German Press about it, and from where it originated, don't force me to start again.) The Russian press took it from there, they even copied the words “Turkish town” when referring to Van, word by word the information dispatched from the Ottoman to the Berlin Press. This mistake was very huge, when considering that beside this article, and its near identical versions appearing in the German Press, the word “Turkish town” has never been uttered again, rightfully so, because even the Ottoman Empire beside those propaganda materials never called it Turkish Town, Turks were a minority there, representing a little fraction of the population... this word came after the Ottoman decided to forge figures of population and Turks killed to be published in the German press to ally the German public opinion to their causes, and this information was taken later by a Russian Newspaper and ended up in the NY Times. But of course, lacking of any valid materials to support your claims, you run after the few references, no matter how doubtful it is. Beside that, you were the one telling all of us, how the Press is not credible, and I have even agreed with you, but you hypocritically use it when it contain articles that fits with your beliefs.

As for Morgenthau, I don't remember having used him when trying to support my theses. Have I ever used him? I always admitted that he has never left the capital and was never on the scene. I only use the consuls that were actually there and reported to him. The Van story referred to him was a heroic myth of few well armed Armenians defending an entire city... this myth has even been ridiculed by Egoyan in his movie. Ussher in his memoirs talk about the failed Armenian attempts of heroism there. Leslie Davis covers such things himself. Even Nogales that was researched for war crimes admit in his work that what was reported to him about Van was different than what he saw with his own eyes. It was said to him Armenians were fighting, he has seen from far and heard what appeared to be a devastation caused by the Armenians. He said to himself: “The Armenian revolution has started.” Those things were reported to him by the Ottoman officials and soldiers, but once he was there, he saw Armenians being attacked. McCarthy himself when covering Van, claim Armenians have started it, and footnoted it with two references, one of those was Ussher, and the other was Nogales, both works show that this was not what happened, it was the contrary. You claim that chronology was important. But don't cry if you get busted, and then change alias and come again like nothing happened, like you have done in the past when discussing with me. This is dishonest.

Here is a wonderful example of his trying to fudge a fact he doesn't like: "It is said by the Turkish side that accounts from Armenian newspapers hailing the rebellion exist, but so as accounts in newspapers about Jewish declaration of wars before Germany declared war, declarations, and acts are two different things, and this is a pretty well known thing and recorded in history." What?

“What?”? Do you mean you do not understand? You claim chronology is important here,(even though, the chronology you give is erroneous), but even taking your own chronology, if that was as important as you try to picture it, it could well serve to deny the Jewish genocide as well, using the same sort of doubtful materials you yourself use.

Fadix overlooks all evidence that’s not supportive of his identity-nurturing genocide. Fadix has zero credibility.

You very much like to claim repeatedly that I have zero credibility, you did so with nearly all of your aliases. But don't you realize that by doing this you are yourself placing yourself in a situation you think I am in? Shall I make that clearer Mr. Holdwater? I have demonstrated that you use forgeries, manipulations, fabrications, reinterpretations etc. I have answered you with over a hundred pages, documenting every points I made. And now, I'm the one not having credibility? I doubt that you even believe that yourself.

And what’s this about deleting the passage by Armenia’s first prime minister, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, that flies in the face of Fadix’s genocide? (Even Katchaznouni confirms the Armenian rebellion.) A little too uncomfortable for the propagandist Fadix, so out it goes. (He has tried to discredit Katchaznouni elsewhere by stating this translation from the original Armenian must have been altered, without adding Katchaznouni’s manifesto was made available in 1955 by an Armenian patriot.)

I have deleted the entry because it is a mistranslation, the verbatim does not concord with the original. There is an elementary mistake that is proper to Darounian as I have repeated countless numbers of times. Transcaucasia has nothing to do with the Ottoman Armenians, the Erzeroun congress content has nothing to do with what is reported here, what I claim is confirmed by the Dashnaktoutiun official press organ, and a copy of this is even found in Uras own documents(I have shown you a copy in the past from Uras collections). This is why I have deleted it, the Verbatim(and the first seven pages and a half were) is not his manifesto that was already written nearly as a Bolshevic Red army pow.

Fadix has zero credibility.

You like repeating this countless numbers of times, but sorry, this is only true in your universe.

There's no way to go toe-to-toe with a master fanatic like the "Armenian Beast." Try to show reason, and he will maliciously twist your logic in any underhanded way he’s capable. Discredit his dubious "facts," and he will put forth five more, aided by his "avalanche" of "evidence."

You are repeating what you have repeated countless numbers of times. You are trying to justify your inability to confront me. You found many other reasons to justify it in the past, like claiming that you do not have as much resources as me etc. But all of your reasons doesn't mean anything. What mean something is that I counter all of your claims, and that you are unable to do so with mines. Be honest enough to admit your defeat, and stop sabotaging this place.

The way to prove whether this high crime of genocide truly occurred is not by deluging with an endless array of prejudiced or misleading information. One needs to come up with the hard goods. Raffi's answer to proving "intent," aside from the unreliable testimony of Armenian oral history, has been Andonian’s forged telegrams. Unfortunately for genocide advocates, where hard goods are concerned, there is none.

First of all, you know that I have demonstrated that there was a clear intend in my over a hundred pages of answers to you. I have provided every pieces of evidences you wanted, while you were not able to document what I have asked you to document. I even asked you after providing those evidences, what evidences is present in the cases of the Holocaust that does not exist in the Armenian cases. You were not able to give me any single example. It is clear, you have no knowledge regarding other genocides, you have read nothing about those genocides, the only reason why you deny what happened to the Armenians is because you are a Turk and the victims were Armenians. This is a form of racism, and you have demonstrated yourself to be a racist yourself in countless numbers of occasions, with your exchange with me, and in your own website where you have even affirmed that Turk=Truth and that was a formula. You pack the Armenians as all, while I claim your side to be denialists, you directly refer to the Armenians all packed together as parasites. Just from there, you would have already lost your credibility, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt and tried following you and reading all of what you have written(when you yourself have admitted not having read what I have posted yet claimed them to be full of crap).

If you want to be embarrassed here, where there are probably more reader than the other board, go ahead, and I will provide all the evidences needed to show that there was a clear intend.

As for the Andonians, only the fact that you claim them to be forgery is another evidences that you catalgue things without even studying them, because you don't like the content. But yet, you have to answer my post in the other forum reviewing Orel analysis of the Andonians.

With the presentation of his Dadrian-style "weasel facts," Fadix attempts to distract from the big picture: 1.Armenians got along well in the tolerant Ottoman Empire for centuries, as the "faithful nation." (Fadix’s reply to this might be the Armenians didn’t know any better; they were too unaware of how badly off they were and shouldn’t have enjoyed their status as the wealthy merchant class.)

This is totally irrelevant, how Armenians lived before the event doesn't show anything here. What is important is what happened in 1915, and the process of extermination. Beside that, I have as well demonstrated with my exchanges, that the Armenian situation was far from being good before what happened.

2.When the Sick Man started to disintegrate, greedy and fanatical Armenian revolutionists started terrorist groups roughly coinciding with the Russo-Ottoman War of 1877-78

Again, irrelevant, what happened in 1877-1878 is what happened in 1877-1878. Beside that, what Armenians did during that war, was in no way better or worst than what Russian Muslim subjects have done. The Circassians and other Russian subjects had revolutionary groups supporting the Ottoman Empire. After the war there even was a plan of population exchanges between the Ottoman and Russian Empire.

3.For around forty years, Armenians incited violence and massacres, hoping for a reaction so that the Europeans can step in.

Again, you lose by referring to the Armenians as an all. I do know that you are a racist, you don't need to expose this fact with every comments you make. The Armenians compared to the Greeks and Serbs and other minorities were very passive when their condition was worst than others. It wasn't the Greeks that had to pay the unfair Kurdish tax that no one in the Ottoman Empire were paying, neither the Serbs, or any other groups. But yet, those minorities rebelled and founded their own nations while Armenians were sitting like a “fidel” house pet, when the Ottoman empire was dissolving their presence by relocating Muslim populations and accepting Muslim immigrants from the Russian Empire. Had the Serbs and Greeks been in the position of the Armenians, you could say bye bye to present East Turkey, because the 1923 declaration of the republic would have excluded those lands. If Turks were in the same condition as the Armenians, they would probably revolt more so than the failed isolated attempts from the Armenians part.

4.Surrounded by world powers anxious to take the Ottomans apart via already established secret treaties, the treacherous Armenians rebelled.

Again, you are exposing your racism. First of all, Armenians were the subjects of an Empire, those for the word treachery can not be applied to describe a rebellion. There is a difference between citizen and subject, there is no allegiance in the cases of a subject. Furthermore, if there was a real rebellion, and if Armenians would have killed half as much as what you affirm, it would have been impossible for the Kemalist to reclaim the East, it would have been not only physically impossible, but as well statistically impossible, given that later the Kurds decided themselves to revolt using the Arab revolution in their favor. The Armenians would have controlled half of present Turkey when taking in consideration how many men it took to the Kemalists to take back the entire Eastern zone. But again, obviously you have no clue of what I am talking about.

5.Posing a significant military threat, the traitorous minority had to be resettled elsewhere in the empire. Actual documents prove the government established safeguards for the Armenians, instead of a plan for extermination for which there was no motive, nonsensical theories of pan-Turkism aside. Ottoman corruption and incompetence didn’t allow for the Armenians to be protected all the time in the chaos of the period where all citizens suffered.

A traitorous minority consisting of women, children and elderly,(since the men on age to be a threat were separated from the rest at the beginning of the deportation) another example of your disgusting hateful and racist rhetoric. As for your safeguard crap, the methodology of mass killing required Armenians to be fed by group. The plan was to send a group of Armenians from A to B, and fed a selected number... so that only a group survive to prevent the corps to all accumulate in the same area. This is why the “stopping locations” that were not localized in the desert, were nearly always localized in desertic zones. The Ottoman was so eager to destroy the Armenians, that the plan of destroying Armenians slowly by slowly to prevent an accumulation of corps didn't worked everywhere as expected, the Vali of Harput reported about the corps of women and children filling the roads and how the bodies were too much to be buried there. But now, after hiding most of the documents, the Turkish ministry release documents that show how Armenians were taken care off, and how they were fed, when it was obvious that they were fed to prevent all of them to starve at the same spot. But you will never tell us why the Ottoman barred access to the Red Cross, and even to their own allies, when they have decided to feed Armenians themselves, and they have even pretexted that they wished nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. Oh and BTW, in my essay about Malta I provide Ottoman sources with many references regarding your said Ottoman records. Don't make me post them here. Because I usually don't answer when the adversary is already on the floor, don't make me change my behavior. Oh, so this has nothing to do with safeguard? Well, you know how kind I am so I gave you a chance to safe your face here by not adding the records regarding how the special organization was formed, and how prisoners released from the central prisons were trained to butcher. Don't make me cover that part, safe your face while it's still time.

6.When the threat to "homeland security" declined, the policy came to an end in 1916. (demonstrating there was no genocide; compare with Nazis continuing with the Final Solution until war’s end), and Armenians were allowed to filter back. Many immigrated to other countries or stayed in their new homes. At any rate, 1 million survived, from an original population of around 1.5 million.

Are you insinuating that the Armenians were only temporary “relocated” and that after the war they were allowed back? Because even Gurum writes that this was not the cases. Furthermore, one million Armenians can not have survived, the highest figure is the one considered by the League of Nations that is of 900,000 Armenians, that was incomplete. The figure I have demonstrated to be the closest to the truth is probably 800,000-850,000, which BTW, isn't far from what McCarthy himself came up with. The Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire was of near 2 million, Alexander himself in his work refer to Djemal memoirs where Djemal cite 1.5 million as the number of people deported, the fraction of those having been deported was provided after the official statistics, which will make of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire as above 2 million. The German war intelligentsia with a very close connection with Ottoman authorities evaluated the Armenian population to be above 1.9 million. I have provided many other sources as well, and can provide others. Armenians were as well killed when the Kemalists took parts of Russian Armenia, those killed there should be added to the list, as well as those killed when the Ottoman Empire invaded the Armenian province in Persia. In conclusion, above one million Armenians perished, and those figures are even supported by the official Ottoman statistics. Beside that, the majority of Jews in Germany survived the Holocaust, most Jews that died were those in the territories captured by the NAZI. So even if what you claim was to be true(it is not in the first place), it won't mean anything.

It is the BIG PICTURE we need to contend with, and not get lost in the endless detail of prejudiced speaker A saying such and such, and ignorant speaker B saying so and so. I attempted some balance in Fadix's soapbox, and strove for more brevity, but I predict he will ignore Wikipedia's "Neutral Point of View" policy. There will be a back and forth, and probably mediation will be the final outcome.

Actually, I call mediation right now, and I believe it is the best thing to do, I call for a mediator, a neutral individual, to come here. And you know that if that was to happen you will lose. I am not prejudiced, you are, while you are racist against the Armenians, I am not racist against the Turks, so no, you are not here to balance anything, you are here to spread your propaganda, while I am here to stop it. NOW! I call for mediation. NOW!!!

Part I before a mediation, the Malta tribunal that never was

I will be covering all the distortions brought by Torque and then will be asking for a mediation, and if it does not work, I will be asking for an arbitration.

So, here is part I. In his exchanges with Raffi, Torque refer to an alleged Malta tribunal that actualy never was.

For the readers on this board, Malta never existed, in fact, there is no work written by a Turkish historian that I am aware of, referring to anything called “Malta tribunal.” Typing those words on google, the only references to it comes from (in an opposite order). 1- turkishforum, in an article not really authored, 2-a publication of the “Office of the Prime minister, Directorate General of Press and Information of Turkey,” titled: “The Armenian Allegation of Genocide,” (Mars-April 2001). 3- (The first link we find) tallarmeniantale. The rests are references taken from either of those three.

Actually, there was only one Turkish searcher that really adventured in this subject. He published various works (Turkish and English(mostly the translation and reedition of the Turkish versions) about this topic, and it is Bilal N. Simsir. I will just quote the last words from his work: “The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question.”

“As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.”

So, here is my answer Torque, which I already have posted to you, by you prefer ignoring it and repeating your lie again.

Denialists of the Armenian genocide like you often claim that a “Malta tribunal” was conducted by the British, and after investigations and prosecutions, the prisoners were released because of lack of “proof.” But according to historical records there never was any Malta tribunal; such lies are meant to fool the innocent reader into believing that the extermination of the Ottoman Armenians never occurred and in the same time to divert the attention from a real tribunal which concluded that, in reality, the Armenians were victims of extermination. In fact, the Turkish military tribunal brought evidence from Ottoman high officials that the Armenians were victim of a premeditated plan to annihilate them. The apologists of the genocide claim that the tribunal in question was set by the Allies and therefore not credible. Such denialists don’t realise that such a claim would just as well discredit the Nuremberg Tribunal that brought NAZI war criminals to be judged; because the Nuremberg Tribunal was conducted by the Allies, while the military tribunal was a Turkish tribunal, so, if a "Turkish" tribunal was controlled by the "invaders," so was the Nuremberg. And if, in fact, the documents presented during the Turkish tribunal were forged, one wonders why the Turkish government until today forbids access to them. If they are forged???, why the fear of making them public?

Additionally, what denialists fail to mention is that many of the prisoners of Malta were handed to the British officials after being convicted as guilty by the Turkish military tribunal; in fact, there was supposed to be two tribunals, the first one being a Turkish one to judge and send to Malta those being charged, and after the end of the same tribunal to provide to the British officials the documents that allowed them to charge the criminals sent to Malta.

The claim that Malta prisoners were taken without any selections is groundless when reviewing the files attached to each prisoner. One example here is the one of Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey.

Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey Malta No. 2800 Interned 7.6.20

Appointments:

“Vali of Bitlis, March 1914 to September 1915. Under Secretary of State, Ministry of the Interior. Vali of Aleppo October 1915 to April 1917 Brother in law of Talaat.

Lists:

His name appears on Lists VI and VII ( List VII is the F.O. List).

Arrests:

A. He was arrested by the Turkish Government on 9 March, 1919, not upon our suggestion. The charge was murder. On the Turkish prison list of 7 February, 1920, he is stated to have been released on bail; date not provided (probably some time between 20.9.19 and 7.2.20).

B. He was again arrested by the British Military Authorities on or about the 14 May, 1920.

Petitions: None to date, 25.2.21

Accusations:

5027/A/20. Through Mr. Ryan on 19th September 1919. Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, took part in the councils held at Erzurum to decide on the deportations and massacres of Armenians. These councils were presided over by Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, delegate of the Central C.U.P. (one of the Principal Eight); other members were Tashin Bey (a deportee), Vali of Erzurum; Muammer (a deportee), Vali of Sivas; and Djevdet (a deportee), Vali of Van.

5030/B/10. On September 26, 1919, Mrs. Sophie Varjabedian, a Bitlis refugee then at Haidar Pasha, c./o. Rev. B. Bedrossian, Bible House, Constantinople, writes accusing Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, of having carried away under his personal superintendence the safe from the American Mission in Bitlis. The safe contained her money and jewellery. Miss Chane, now at Erivan, reported this to Mrs. Varjabedian. She asks for the restoration of her property and gives a list.

Assistant High Commissioner approved the suggestion of making inquires at the United States Embassy but there is no record as to whether any action was taken.

5031/A/6. Name merely appears on a Bureau d'Information Armenien list of 30. 12.18, as the Vali of Aleppo, in connection with Marash massacres.

5035/C/178. On June 7th, 1919, Mrs. Ahisag Ahet Ahlahadian writes, through the A.C.R.N.E (American Committee, Relief in the Near East), saying that she is a Protestant Syrian of Bitlis and that all her relatives had been massacred in 1915 in Bitlis in spite of the fact that she had paid the Vali, Mustafa Abdul Halik, to the extent of LT 541 gold.

5036/48. A. Account by Sympat Kerkoyan of crimes committed by Mustafa Abdul Halik at Bitlis in 1915. Starving prisoners; massacring 200 to 300 at a time outside the town; ravishing and massacring the women; extorting and looting of Armenian property. The stench from putrefying bodies was so bad that Buheddin, Director of Health, Bitlis, received orders to have the bodies incinerated. Buheddin was in Aleppo in 1918. B. Also murder of Djerdjis Kerkoyan, brother of Sympat after Mustafa Abdul Halik had extorted his fortune on promising to spare his life. C. Mustafa Abdul Halik replaced Bekir Sami Bey (the "good" Vali, now a prominent Nationalist) at Aleppo on 4.10.15. There he gave orders for the deportation and killing of Sympat Kerkoyan. Thanks to Hadji Yehia Galib Bey, the defterdar (now the defterdar of Kastambol), Sympat reached Mossul alive. The above per Mr. Rizzo on 16.10.19.

5030/A/21. Statement by Sympat Kerkoyan, merchant of Bitlis dated 19.5.20. Bitlis May 1915 atrocities. Massacre of Kerkoyan's family; wife and three children; three brothers and their families. Kerkoyan's deportation to Mossul by the Vali of Aleppo; Mustafa Abdul Halik.

…”

This prisoner (Abdul Halik Bey) was not arrested without reason; from British archival records it is evident that Abdul Halik was present at the Council held in Erzurum to put in application the extermination measures. From the same British archival records, Cevdet the governor of Van, Tashin, Muammer, and Dr. Sakir were also present during that Council. The group was even called “all the very worst of criminals.” (Source: Report of September 19, 1919, Andrew Ryan, BFO 371/6501, pg 4, folder 540/40)

The British had even selected some of the prisoners that should, under no circumstances, be released, and about the four governors that planned and executed the eradication of the Armenians in Eastern Ottoman, after documenting their guilt they concluded, “whom we propose to retain to the last they are gravely implicated in the crimes of massacre.” (Source: BFO 371/6504, folders 136, 146. As well, BFO 371/6504/E10023)

But later the War Office implored Foreign Secretary Curzon to release the group in order to exchange them with the two British prisoners that the Kemalists took, Rawlinson and Campell.(Source: BFO 371/6504, E10411) By doing such Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) refused to honour the Exchange Agreement of March 16, 1921 that was excluding in the exchanges several Ittihadists that had a key role in the Armenian genocide. (Source: FO 371/6500/E3375 (folio 284/15)) In fact the new Foreign Minister Youssouf Kemal asked for the “all for all” exchange. (Source: FO 371/6509(folio 47)) But the British had still tried to impose the agreement and the promises given by Mustafa Kemal himself, more particularly regarding about 20 of the most criminals among them. First, Cevdet the governor of Van with another (they and some others were called “the most notorious members of the group”) escaped (source: FO 371/5091/E16080 (folio 85)); upon finding out about the escape the British Foreign Office responded that the two prisoners “have broken parole.” On September 6, 1921, 16 other Ittihadists excluded from the exchange as well were able to escape. Angry, the Foreign Office remarked, “how little Turkish sense of honor can be relied on.” (Source: FO 3071/6509/E10662 (folio 159))

The Turkish sociologist and publicist Yalman, who had secret discussions with many of the Ittihadists, has been himself detained at Malta and has stated that the anti-Armenian measures reflected a "policy of general extermination" to remove "the danger" to Turkey of "a dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces." (Source: A. E. Yalman, Turkey in the World War (New Haven, 1930), 220.

The British plan to send to justice more criminals was becoming more problematic by the end of September, 1919, when Sultan Damad Ferid's Cabinet was being dissolved slowly in the profit of the Kemalism. On November 17, 1919, the new High Commissioner Admiral de Robeck, told Curzon that

“…the present Turkish Government...[is] so dependent on the toleration of the organisers of the [Kemalist] National Movement that I feel it would be futile to ask for the arrest of any Turk accused of offences against Christians, even though he may be living openly in Constantinople...I do not consider it politically advisable to deport [to Malta] any more prisoners.”

(Source: BFO 371/4174/15672 1 (folios 523-24))

And later also noted:

“…the question of retribution for the deportations and massacres will be an element of venomous trouble in the life of each of the countries concerned.”

(Source: BFO 371/4174/136069 (folio 470))

During the 20’s, Lamb, the political-legal officer of the British High Commission at Istanbul, understanding the non-seriousness in the judging of the criminals detained in Malta, warned his superiors:

“Unless there is whole-hearted co-operation and will to act among the Allies, the trials will fall to the ground and the direct and indirect massacres of about one million Christians will get off unscathed.”

(Source: FO 371/6500/, W. 2178, appendix A( folio 385-118, 386-119), Aug. 11, 1920.)

One must not ignore that in addition to the fact that the prisoners were released because they were exchanged with British prisoners, as well the fact that it was advised to release them because the imperial government decided to have good relations with the Kemalists???. Another major reason was responsible of the release of the prisoners, a reason that apologists have tried to keep under the carpet. On March 10, 1921, Ankara's Foreign Minister Bekir Sami assured the British that the prisoners being released would be judged in a court. Later officially on June 11, 1921, the Ankara government informed the British that when the Malta prisoners will be released in exchange of British prisoners:

“…those accused of crimes would be put on impartial trial at Ankara in the same way as German prisoners were being tried in Germany.”

(Source: FO 371/6499/E3110, p. 190; see also FO 371/5049/E6376, folio 187; A. Yalman, Turkey in My Time ( Norman, OK, 1956), 106.)

The British at the end had no reason to keep the prisoners anymore. By releasing them they scored many points. Firstly, the British prisoners would be released in exchange. Secondly they would not have to deal with what they viewed as “venomous trouble.” Thirdly, in the eyes of the Kemalists they would gain some respect which as a result would open the roads of economic exchanges. Lastly, why keep those prisoners and go through the trouble of judging them, when the Kemalists promised that those prisoners would be judged in Ankara?

It is true that many Ittihadist high ranked were judged by judicial proceedings in Izmir and Ankara. Among them were??? Halis Turgut who had escaped the prosecutions of the Turkish military tribunal previously, Ahmed Shükrü, Ismail Canbolat (the right hand of Talaat), Dr. Nazim, Yenibahçeli Nail, and Filibeli Hilmi (Dr. Shakir’s right hand). Some of the killed/condemned to death were brigands and military officials and soldiers used by the Ittihadists. One of those, Yahya Kaptan, was killed in July 1922 by unknown assassins. The rumour was that he had threatened Turkish officials with releasing state secrets if they were to carry investigations on him (he had a major role on the drowning into the sea of thousands of women and children). Topal Osman was killed by a military unit trying to capture him in March 1923. Halit (Deli) was killed in the Turkish parliament on February 9, 1925.

Even after those trials, the honesty of the Kemalist government could still be questioned, since many influential figures in the Young Turk government as well as pan-Turkists and ???Turanists were later introduced in the Kemalist administration. The Young Turk ex-minister of finances, Djavid Bey, was the nearest collaborator of Bekir Sami during the London Conferences. Yunus Nadi Bey, who was as well in the Turkish delegation in London was deputy of Smyrna; he was head of the “Yeni Gün” that was the principal Kemalist organ. Doctor Ziya Nur, considered by some the father of the neo-Turkism, was the private advisor of Youssouf Kemal (he himself found a place in the Kemalist administration), the then-minister of foreign affairs. Ahmed Nessimi Bey, the minister of foreign affairs under Talaat’s government, had leading roles in the administration. Sami Bey was placed at the head of the postal and telegraphic services at Ankara. Furthermore many pan-Turkists like Youssouf Aktchoura, Aghaoghlou Ahmed, Husseinzade Ali, Ziya Gökalp, Köprülüzade Fuat, Mehmet Emin, Hamdullah Suphi, Ali Haidar, Halide Edip, Celal Nuri, Falih Rifki, and Yacub Kadri, among others, were introduced in the Kemalist administration.

The two district governors that had a leading role in the genocide, Kemal and Nusret who were executed by the Kemalist government, were considered as “national martyrs” their families received large sums of money. Nusret got a region, a school, and a street in Urfa in his name; in Bogazliyan, Kemal was honoured with the erection of his statue in the public square. Ankara’s government also allocated pensions for the families of those executed by Armenian “avengers,” such as the families of Talaat and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir.

Now, back to Malta, Simsir in his work about Malta, with the aim of supporting his claim that the prisoners were released because there was no evidence, has referred to Curzon, but what Simsir ignores in his work is that Curzon later calls this decision a "great mistake," and he even admits that the rationale had been to support the release of the prisoners.

“The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused.”

British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7882/E4425, folio 182

Curzon’s claims that they were released because there was no evidence, from his own admission, were just a reason among many to justify the decision (release of the prisoners), when in fact there was no justification whatsoever.

The claim that there was no evidence in US archives falls short when referring to the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921, when he declared,

“The U.S. archives contain a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres.”

FO 371/6503/E6311, folio 34

There never was any prosecution, pre-trial investigation, or interrogatory. So how is anyone to claim that any tribunal “proved” them not guilty, when there was no tribunal in the first place? The Turkish military tribunal on the other hand had charged many prisoners as guilty before sending them to Malta. This is why many were sent there. The Ottomans were supposed to send the documents supporting their guilt. No document was ever sent, however; the Kemalists dissolved the tribunal and the files were stolen.

Another interesting point is how Simsir uses in his article Undersecretary W.S. Edmond’s quotations, when the individual in question was one of those recognising that the documents giving accounts of the guilt of the prisoners were in Istanbul. He was troubled by the fact that Turks would react very badly if criminals were hung because of their participations in the massacres of Armenians. He himself declared even at an early stages:

“Not one Turk in a thousand will think that any other Turk deserves to be hanged for massacring Christians.”

(Source: FO 371/4173/61185, folio 1270/278. Minutes recorded on April 22, 1919)

The British judge Lindsey Smith August 10 1921 declared:

"…a considerable amount of incriminating evidence was collected by the Turkish government but it is idle to expect to get it. The only alternative is therefore to retain them as hostages only and release them against British prisoners."

(Source: FO 371/6509/E10023 (folios 100-01))

Now, it is important to ask the question, “Where were those documents?” since it is often claimed by denialists that the allies had the capital under control and that after searching they had found no evidence. It is even more important to know where the documents are, since the Turkish military tribunal brought to light that such documents in the form of “secret orders” did exist:

“The massacre and destruction (taktil ve ifna) of the Armenians was executed through secret orders by men who ostensibly had the assignment to implement the law of deportation. (zahiren tehcir kanununu tatbik etmek). “

Source: Published on August 6, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3616, p.1, Trabzon Verdict, 22 May 1919

This reference in the military tribunal refers to secret orders; references about those signed orders are abundant in the transcripts of the military tribunal published in the Ottoman Law gazette "Takvimi Vekâyi"

“The documents, personally signed by the defendants, confirm the fact that the gendarmes escorted the deportee convoys for purpose of massacre. There can be no doubt and hesitation about this. (maksadi ... taktili oldugundan süphe ve tereddüt birakmadigindan). “

Source: Published on August 7, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3617, p.2, Yozgat Verdict, 8 April 1919

On 10 February 1919, British High Commissioner, Admiral Calthorpe sent to London reports from the British intelligence agency, from where the Turkish Public security official Mr. Aziz in charge of Interior Ministry's wartime archives declares:

“Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making clean sweep of most of the documents.”

Source: British Foreign Office Archives. FO371/4172/31307, folio 385.

Tunaya relying on Ittihad's Secretary-General Midhat's testimony writes:

“The documents of Ittihad party were crammed into a suitcase by Dr. Behaeddin Sakir after they had been removed from the party headquarters by Dr. Nazim. The suicase was taken to home of attorney Ramiz, Sakir's brother-in-law.”

Source: Tunaya, T.Z. "Türkiyede siyasal partiler, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Istanbul: Hürriyet Vakfi publications. p. 96, n.16.

The Turkish press reported in December 1918 ("Aksam," 12 Dec. 1918; "Tasviri Efkâr," 13 Dec. 1918) that when the police raided Ramiz’ homes, they found documents that were still intact and handed these documents to the Martial-court??? Following the dissolution of the martial-court the documents left were never handed to the British like promised. Mr. Aziz, contrary to the promises he had made, never handed those documents to them.

It must be noted here that Djemal's bureau's Deputy Director stated that, before Djemal, flight from Istanbul:

“...some of his files [containing] official documents were left in the custody of Syfi, one of his men, who out of fear burned them. “

Source: Atay, F.R. "Çankaya." Istanbul: Sena. pp. 127-128

The then minister of education Midhat Shukru…

“…made most of the CUP documents relative to Armenians disapper.”

(Source: FO 371/6500 p.480)

The documents incriminating some of the prisoners in Malta that the British were able to locate in Istanbul were reported disappearing. And the Nationalist government was suspected of being the responsible.

“…disappearance of documents incriminating certain persons …saying that the matter has been arranged by local Nationalist leaders.”

(Source: Weekly Summary, March 4, 1920, British Embassy publication)

Other references to the destruction of those documents could be found in Aydemir’s work, where he writes:

“Before the flight of the top Ittihadist leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of Ittihad's Central Committee are nowhere to be found. “

Source: Aydemir, S.S. "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa." Vol. 3, 1914-1922. Istanbul: Remzi. p. 493

It is evident when referring to those pieces of references that the allies had no access to the documents contrary to what is claimed by denialists. A telegram ordering the destruction of telegrams, from the Turkish Interior Minister to the provincial governor at Ayintab, was intercepted by the General Headquarters of the British Army's Egyptian Expeditionary force on 24 January 1919.

“Burn originals of official telegrams since mobilisation on files of district. “

(Source: FO371/4174/15450)

On 17 June 1919 the Turkish foreign Minister Safa protested to the British High Commissioner regarding British intrusions by trying to examine documents, and finally answered that such an intrusion will be unsuccessful, because the Diyarbekir-based Director of Telegraphic Service sent a circular telegram ordering to destroy these documents. Admiral Calthrope reported to London after this message:

“…attention to the tenor of this note which treats as a mere matter of office routine such an important matter as the proposed destruction of documents relating to the period of deportations, massacres, and the activities of the Turkish authorities during the war. “

(source; FO371/4174/102551)

The British, facing the destruction of the documents, in a weekly summary of intelligence report, dated 4 March 1920, declared from the British Military Intelligence Bureau:

“…the disappearance of documents incriminating ... Ittihadist. Talking of Rauf: he urged the destruction of incriminating documents. It is understood that Rauf had already arranged the disappearance of documentary material implicating himself and Enver Pasa.” [source: FO371/5166/E1782, Reports 575, 592]

Karay, who in 1919 was the General Director of Telegraphic Service in Turkey, wrote that Mehmet Emin, his predecessor, had sent orders to all principal telegraph centres in the country, directing them to:

“…destroy all official papers, the originals and copies of all telegrams. “

(Karay, R.H. Minelbab lelmihrab, Istanbul: Inkilâp and Aka, p. 221)

Post minister Hüseyin Hasim admitted ordering the destruction of telegrams in 3 June 1919:

“…all military telegrams burned on orders from the War Office.” [source: "Takvimi Vekayi." No. 3573, 12 June 1919]

From these Turkish and British evidences, the present Turkish documents relating to the Armenian massacres are either forged or manipulated, because the Turkish authorities, in an attempt to deny the Armenian genocide, use documents that according to their own sources should have been destroyed. If in fact they were destroyed, then the documents the Turkish government presents are "reconstitutions" and more probably "forged," invalid in court of law.

Part II before a mediation, 1894-1897 statistics.

Armenian losses from 1894-1896

Mr. Torque quotes Bliss, and claims his figures were of 42,000. He is again manipulating.

But of course, Mr. Torque uses Kamuran Gurun manipulation, when he advance the figure of 42,000 referring to Edwain Munsell Bliss book: “Turkey and the Armenian atrocities.”

But are those figures really those of Bliss? NO!!!!

Bliss gives the figure of 35,032, and most of his figures represents those of Sep. 30, 1895, the last three months of 1895, were one of the worst in term of the massacres. But are those figures the total figures for 1895, NO!!!!!

“But absolutely no account can be taken of the number killed in the villages remote from the cities. The following table has been made up from the best returns available, and in all probability represents the facts in regard to the places noted, which are all well known. The figures in regard to the interior cities include also the figures for the villages in the immediate vicinity, but not those for the remote sections. Some of them were quite large districts.”

Bliss figures for 1895, were 50,000, those are the figures representing almost only Armenian men loss, as he note. He as well adds: “It is evident that statistics as to the number of women and girls outraged are absolutely unattainable.”

For this reason, this is what he say for the 50,000 figures: “We may then, in the most conservative way, summarize the whole as follows:”

The 42,000 figure was Gurun numbers, by adding to the 35,032, the supposed 6,000-7,000 thousands of victims in 1896. It is kind of ironic, that 1896 which is considered as the worst year for the massacres would record only 6-7 thousand losses, when most conservative Western estimates for 1896 were above 50,000...(see the statistics of Sir. John Thompson, for the period of two months etc.) which brings Bliss figures as being a very conservative number of 100,000, and probably over.

Mr. Torque uses Nalbandian estimate range... but it is not because an author say that most estimates range from x and y that it means it is true, there are very few estimates in Western sources that are as low as 50,000, most of them, the lowest that one could find are of 100,000. Rummel himself estimates from 100,000 to 300,000.

Mr. Torque then refers to Lepsius figures of 88,243, but of course, again, he manipulate numbers, because Lepsius made it clear that those were not final figures when he added: “based on incomplete and preliminary statistical compilations derived from authentic sources.” Which mean that most estimates really run from 100,000 to 300,000. What else Mr. Torque did was to delete my entry regarding Emperor William II. Why is it important? Well, simply because he has used the same German records that Lepsius used that didn't included most of the 1896 losses, and none of the 1897, and those numbers were even considered as incomplete for the 1895 losses. Torque quotes Pasdermadjian supposed figure, but as usual, we have no clue of if this number represent those of 1894-1897 and if doesn't restrict any dates.

Torque deletes my entry regarding Pierre Renouvin, and only maintain his name and the figures he presents. Is it not important to know that he was the “President of the Commission in charge of assembling and classifying French diplomatic documents, in a postwar volume, based on authenticated documents, provided 250,000 as being the total number of Armenians that felt victim of the massacres,” as I have said, and that as well has provided the most complete list of losses, and supporting it with bunches of documents and with lists? But Mr. Torque rather preferred mixing him with others, as if his figures were one among others.

Another thing Mr. Torque deleted, and it was the title of E. Jackh, not only has he deleted that, but as well that he was a Turkophile, Mr. Torque has no problem maintaining Lepsius was an Armenophile, of course since he was the one wanting to clarify by telling he was a pro-Armenian. What Mr. Torque has done as well was to mix many numbers, as I have stated, as if they were equally relevant, without clarifying that some are incomplete and others not. So, it would have been important to know that Jackh whom was the German ministry operative, and whom was a Turkophile author, was the one present the complete German figures(while those presented by William II and Lepsius were not) of 200,000.

So, the only two complete figures we do have are those of 200,000 and 250,000, and we could extrapolate with the other one, and come up with the very conservative figure of 100,000. Logically thosefor, Wikipedia should accept the figure of about 180,000 an average approximation of the losses, which compared to the most complete sources would be more conservative than exaggerated.

Rewriting the Armenian genocide section.

I decided to rewrite practicaly the entire genocide section. The Hamidian massacres of 1894-1897 should have its own independent entry, as well as the Adana massacres.

I think a good encyclopedia article is not what there is already here. I will be covering the concentration camps, there names, the Special organisation, their leading members and the organization behind the extermination etc. I will as well post 2-3 pictures of the concentration camps.

Before submitting it, I will post it here and defend it, if Mr. Torque does not agree with what I have writen, then I will ask for mediation, if he keep silent, as he usualy do when confronted with me, I will be posting it as a version.

I will as well include in the page, a note on top, that any edition of the article should be discussed first, or it will be reverted back.

Every points I will make will be supported with evidences and their sources, probably I will be supporting the entry with texts longer than the entry itself in the discussion section.

If people want to comment about my decision, go ahead comment. I will not let deniers hijack this good site and its nice project of free Encyclopedia. I will make of the Armenian Genocide entry, better than any existing Encyclopedia. Regards.-Fadix

Comparing the propagandistic factor of Raffi vs. Fadix

A brief response to Fadix's line above, before beginning:

"Before submitting it, I will post it here and defend it, if Mr. Torque does not agree with what I have writen, then I will ask for mediation, if he keep silent, as he usualy do when confronted with me, I will be posting it as a version."

We're already in the process for mediation with the propaganda already submitted; let's not muddy these already muddied waters with further poppycock. Fadix got cocky because I couldn't answer right away; that's because not all of us are masters at this game, with reams of information at our fingertips; the less fortunate among us needs to do research. It was no fun to address Fadix's blabber; there was so much of it, his points needed to be countered in almost equal detail.

Raffi is little more than your typically "genocide" obsessed Armenian. He has gone through the extent of creating a major Armenian site, cilicia.com, full of "facts" from propaganda sources such as Andonian's forged telegrams and Morgenthau's propaganda book. Raffi proudly exclaimed that he knows this subject "VERY well," yet it has become apparent he doesn't know that much at all... especially if he makes comments not steeped in reality, such as there was no Armenian rebellion. Like 99% of Armenians, he is only content in studying what his deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell him... of which there is an "avalanche" of propagandistic information out there, since the Turks are not a "speak up" kind of people traditionally, and current ones don't have the motivation to bone up on this topic. (Even if they do, this one-sided "avalanche" is so firmly entrenched in the West, they would not be playing on an equal playing field.) Raffi has admitted he hasn't read Sam Weems' "Armenia," even though he has felt free to knock it down, and I have no doubt he has also not come near Gurun's "The Armenian File - The Myth of Innocence Exposed," even though he knocked that one down as well. This is the job of Armenians: to knock down anything that debunks their big genocidal con job, regardless of the source, and of the truth.

Raffi has demonstrated he has an aversion to truth. One example was his referring to me as a "pro-Turkish govt positionee," even though he has no idea of who I am. But a perfect example of how the Armenian strategy works is to overlook the forest, and single out the sole tree that supports their genocide. Raffi did this with our ICTJ exchange. Once again, the ICTJ is a body of lawyers (not historians) who decreed the Armenians' experience was a genocide... and the Armenians must latch on to this, as they have no other judicial proof. In typical Armenian style, we are asked to examine the surface; but if we dig deeper, we learn the ICTJ primarily used the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda to make their determination, and that their definition of genocide is that only one person needs to be killed... so that the murder of Talat Pasha by Soghoman Tehlirian can be called a genocide, rendering the word meaningless. As rebuttal, I attached Justin McCarthy's views, where at one point he wrote the 1948 Convention is watered down enough to have the Armenians' experience called a genocide.

Forget the fact that even with the 1948 Convention's broad definition, the Armenians' story still doesn't fit, as "intent" has yet to be proven, and the convention exempts political alliances; Raffi completely disregarded McCarthy's main point, which is what happened to the Muslims at the hands of the Armenians would then also be termed a genocide. All Raffi was interested in was the one statement that was helpful, and pretended the rest did not exist. An honest person seeking the truth does not operate in this fashion.

But at least Raffi is operating from "faith," and like any religious fanatic, can be somewhat excused for his dogma. Fadix is another story.

Fadix has done what few Armenians have done; he has throughly studied this topic, making use of the limitless knowledge base of propaganda organizations like Vahakn Dadrian's Zoryan Institute. He follows in the footsteps of the slimy Dadrian, whose job it has been to try and discredit the real historical picture with the "avalanche" of selective "facts" the Armenian propaganda industry has had the luxury having produced for over a century .

There have been a host of influential Western people who have been taken in by this hogwash, aided by the fact that the "Terrible Turk" has been looked upon as outcasts of humanity ever since the Crusades. It's not difficult to find seemingly legitimate people who have been suckered in to the Armenian madness. As latter-day examples, we have Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan adding their voices to the genocide bandwagon on Raffi's quotes page. But there certainly is no shortage of duped/prejudiced Westerners from the "genocide days" that Fadix makes extensive use of.... not excluding the (WWI allies) Germans and Austrians who were the enemies of the Ottoman Turks for centuries, and not all would be able to shake their feelings of animosity. How easy it was for them to accept the sob stories of the Armenians and the missionaries, as well.

This is why I say Fadix has zero credibility. He knows the other side of the story. When he comes across evidence from sources with no conflict-of-interest (indeed, Western sources are primarily anti-Turkish, and those who would refute his genocide would have no reason to lie), does he stop and say, Wait a minute... maybe there is something to this. No. His first instinct, in typical Armenian fashion, is to think, How can I discredit this?

One of Fadix's many methods of putting up smokescreens (and to try and discredit me) is to claim I am "racist." This is ironic, because it has been documented (and hopefully it's not as true for current generations, but reading Armenian forums, I wonder) that Armenians have been bred to hate Turks. By contrast, the Turks deliberately didn't dwell on the past ills and shoved the 518,000 Muslims (the Armenians murdered) under the rug, stressing love and brotherhood.

Armenians are lovely people; we are all of the human family. But since Armenian sites like Raffi's love to put up testimony of what a "human cancer" the Turkish people are (usually from those who have never met Turks; those who have met them who say such things... like the one who wrote "The [Turkish] Blight of Asia" were zealous religious fanatics, such as U.S. Consul George Horton), should we close our eyes to how non-agenda-laden Westerners who have met Armenians typically think of them? In anti-Turkish history books documenting the Crusades, we often read how the Crusaders came out with a respect for the honor of the Turks/Muslims, and with a distaste for the Armenians/Greeks who have tried to cheat them.

June 16, 1880, Lt.-Col. C.W. Wilson, British Consul General for Anatolia described the Armenians as "immoral, fanatic, bigoted," and that "truth and honesty are sadly deficient."

Harold Armstrong, 1925: "argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know-it-alls." The Armenians are "crafty, grasping, secretive, acquisitive and dishonest, making a great pretence of religion, but using it as a cloak for treachery and greed."

Sept. 30, 1908, British vice-counsel Capt. Dickson: "unsympathetic, mean, cringing, unscrupulous, lying, thieving... endowed with a sneak thief sharpness."

WOW! What better way to describe "Zero Credibility" Fadix? Especially with that "sneak thief sharpness"! The above described qualities are unfortunately not absent from Armenians who dishonestly try to justify their huge genocidal con job... at the head of which is that master manipulator, Vahakn Dadrian, who actually tried to legitimize Andonian's forged telegrams, the ones Andonian himself indicated were fake.

I'll make use of Weems' "Armenia" and Gurun's "The Armenian File" to counter Fadix's smokescreen assertions. I urge you all to read these books... especially the mediator, who will also suffer from a bias (like the ICTJ lawyers), because of the prevalent Armenian propaganda that has brainwashed so many. Note Armenian attempts to discredit both authors have nothing to do with the immaculate sources that have been researched, particularly Armenian sources... sources that would have had no reason to be untruthful. Gurun's book is available online, here. --Torque March 1, 2005

Is it irrelevant to consider what took place before "1915"?

Raffi writes that it is "Irrelevant how relations were for centuries before the genocide. Irrelevant what Armenians and Russians may or may not have done 40 years before the genocide. Irrelevant what the world powers did."

Let's say there is a news story about how a teen-aged girl shot her uncle. Should we automatically conclude she was a cold-blooded murderer?

No, ladies and gentlemen, when there is a crime committed, or what we are told is a crime committed in case there's no proof, we don't simply look at the final act. We look into the history of what took place in order to determine whether punishment is to be meted, and how much.

(It's funny how the Armenians love to have their cake and eat it too. For example, in the trial of Tehlirian, the assassin of Talat Pasha, the murderer walked scot-free. Why? Because the events in question -- and not the murder itself -- were examined in the fixed two-day trial, where only witnesses for the defense were permitted and whose outcome was pre-determined. Tehlirian had committed a "genocide," using the ICTJ's defintion. Tehlirian was unpunished. Maybe it's true what the genocide industry tells us, that if genocides remain unpunished, genocides will be committed again. This is why countless Armenian terrorists in future years committed genocides against innocent Turks, and some of the few who were caught usually got slaps on the wrists from biased Western courts.)

This is how Armenian propagandists hope you will swallow their big con job. Look at the surface. Never scratch underneath.

On p. 162 of Hovannisian's "The Republic of Armenia," the Armenian professor explains:

In 1800, Armenians were scattered (around) Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Eastern Turkey. In all but small districts, Armenians were a minority, which had been under Muslim, primarily Turkish, rule for 700 years. The Russian empire had begun the imperial conquests of the Muslim lands south of the Caucasus Mountains. One of their main weapons was the transfer of populations - deportation. They ruthlessly expelled whole Muslim populations, replacing them with Christians whom they felt would be loyal to a Christian government. Armenians were major instruments of this policy. Like others in the Middle East, the primary loyalty of Armenians was religious. Many Armenians resented being under Muslim rule, and they were drawn to a Christian State and to offers of free land (land which had been seized from Turks and other Muslims). A major population exchange began.

In Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic), a Turkish majority was replaced by Armenians. In other regions such as coastal Georgia, Circassia, and the Crimea, other Christian groups were brought in to replace expelled Muslims. There was massive Muslim mortality in some cases up to one third of the Muslims died.

The Russians expelled 1.3 million Muslims from 1827 to 1878. One result of this migration, serving the purpose of the Russians, was the development of ethnic hatred and...conflict between Armenians and Muslims. Evicted Muslims who had seen their families die in the Russian Wars felt animosity toward the Armenians. Armenians who hated Muslim rule looked to the Russians as liberators. Armenians cooperated with Russian invaders of eastern Anatolia in wars in 1828, 1854, and 1877. When the Russians retreated, Armenians feared Muslim retaliation and fled. Hatred grew on both sides.

There you have it. The roots of the "genocide" have nothing to do with false theories like pan-Turanism, Muslims hating Christians, and the coveting of Armenian wealth. the roots of the "genocide" lie in Armenian treachery.

We can now understand how important it was for the Ottomans to take the Armenian threat seriously. If the Russians crashed through the gates, there would no longer be a refuge for Turks and Muslims to escape to. The Ottoman Empire was the last stop. The struggle was truly a matter of life or death.

Not only is it relevant to examine the past (and things really heated up with Armenian treachery after 1877, with the formation of Armenian terror groups), but the events of post-1916 as well. Hovannisian admits to Armenian atrocities ("Public opinion in Azerbaijan was incensed, and the government, revolted by the atrocities, demanded strong measures to ensure the safety of the Muslims," p. 181), well confirmed in the memoirs of an Armenian officer, "Men Are Like That." This is the Armenian M.O., following the Orthodox (including Russians, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars) method of ethnic cleansing: massacre Turks and chase the rest away. These would be "Death and Exile"s 5 million expulsed Turks/Muslims and 5.5 million killed from the Greek War of Independence until the end of WWI... the ones pro-Armenian "genocide scholars" like Israel Charny, Tessa Hoffmann and Robert Melson never talk about. This policy was followed by modern Armenia in 1992, massacring Karabagh Azeris and expelling nearly a million. (Fadix will give you weasel facts to try and dispute this, even though these events are in modern memory; note the West is largely silent about this episode, and American policy has gone as far as to punish victimized Azerbaijan, thanks to the strong power of the Armenian lobby.)

However, our topic is Armenian behavior in the Ottoman Empire; the trouble is, few impartial Western observers were present to determine the true goings-on. (One was George Schreiner, whom I've referred to earlier on this talk page.) Almost all were missionaries and racists or propagandists. After the war, we received better clues as to what really transpired, from pro-Armenians like Niles and Sutherland in 1919, and Admiral Bristol, whom the Armenians love to vilify.

It is very relevant to see how the Armenians acted murderously, in order to incite violence against them... and how the Armenians spread their false propaganda, which present day Armenians like Fadix and Raffi are still patriotically carrying out...thus inviting the European powers to intervene and give them "free land." The culmination of this treachery took place when the war broke out, and Armenians engaged in war against their country.

The ingratitude and greed is mind-boggling. British parliamentarian Sir Ellis Bartlett, 1895 pamphlet:

"The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees" and had been "wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Panslavic societies."

Bartlett's notions are well confirmed in Capt. Norman's "The Armenians Unmasked."

The Armenian claim "that the Christian subjects of the sultan were denied all liberty, and atrociously presented was a thoroughly false one... no other government had for the past four centuries shown as much toleration, or given so much religious freedom as that of the Ottoman Empire. Every form of religion-- Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Roman Catholic and all others-- were allowed perfect liberty of practice and doctrine. Had the turks been less generous in the past, they would have escaped many of their present troubles. When heretics were burnt to death in France and Germany, and even in England, the Ottoman Government allowed its subjects entire religious freedom."

We can see the truth level of Fadix's attempt to make us believe how oppressed Armenians were ("second class citizen status on the law books and in practice ...'infidels'") by looking at Armenian sources. Oscanyan was so oppressed, he was allowed to go to America to study, where he wrote "The Sultan and his People" in 1857. Cymbal-maker Zilidjian was allowed to travel to Europe on a yacht he built, in the 19th century.

This doesn't mean all Armenians were living in a utopia. Indeed there are countless hearsay accounts Fadix can no doubt unearth attesting to how Armenians were treated dismally. (I recall a story about how a Turk went to an Armenian's store, and lopped off his head. I think it was provided by a missionary.) And the Armenians of the east were subjected to injustices by lawless bands. What's never stated is Armenians suffered where Ottoman control was weak, and the ones who suffered were all Ottoman citizens, Muslims included. Moreover, among these lawless bands, not all were Kurds and Turks... there were also Armenian and Greek lawless bands, primarily targeting Muslims. Consequently, Muslims were being attacked from two sides, by Muslim and non-Muslim brigands. .

Migirdich B. Dadian, another Armenian living outside the Ottoman Empire, opined about the situation of Armenians in 1867, in a newspaper in France. What we understand is that the privileges granted the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were nothing less than a landless autonomy. These opportunities were officially given to the Armenian community, at a time when no state was interested in them (and it was these very privileges that opened the way to the troubles we are now haggling over). It can be said that of all the countries the Diasporan communities are currently living, not one of these communities has freedom to the extent granted to Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire.The Armenians were the wealthy ones, and they made the wheels turn. ("This community constitutes the very life of Turkey, for the Turks...have relinquished to them all branches of industry. Hence the Armenians are the bankers, merchants, mechanics, and traders of all sorts in Turkey." Oscanyan, 1857) Why would the Ottomans further weaken themselves during desperate wartime by ridding themselves of this valuable national resource... the ones who were so indispensible, Oscanyan stated, "without them the Osmanlis could not survive a single day"?

Would it be fair to assume Clair Price made perfect sense in 1923: "...the military situation had turned sharply against the Enver Government. The Russian victory at Sarykamish was developing and streams of Turkish refugees were pouring westward into central Asia Minor. The British had launched their Dardanelles campaign at the very gates of Constantinople, and Bulgaria had not yet come in. It does not seem reasonable to assume that this moment, of all moments, would have been chosen by the Enver Government to take widespread measures against its Armenians unless it was believed that such measures were immediately necessary. Measures were taken."--Torque March 1, 2005

Analyzing Raffi's and "Zero Credibility" Fadix's claims

Raffi: "Irrelevant when the genocidal policy ended, or if Armenians were allowed to filter back. That doesn't show that it was not genocide at all (Jews are allowed back into Germany, but they admit to their genocide)"

The Jews were allowed back into Germany when WWII ended. Not that any Jews wanted to go back. The Final Solution continued until the bitter last, taking away resources from the desperate German war effort.

Armenians were allowed back once the relocation policy ended in 1916, before the war ended. If there were an extermination policy, that makes no sense. Many Armenians cleared out with the Russian and French retreats, fearful of retaliation. A lot of interior Armenians were also called to populate Cilicia, killing Turks, in a last ditch effort for "Greater Armenia." These Armenians left with the French, and 5,000 died of famine and disease, no doubt included among the massacred in "genocide" figures. Armenia called on the Ottoman Turks for help several times during 1918-21. Imagine the Jews calling on Nazi Germany for help, assuming the Nazis were still in charge after WWII..

Fadix: "the claim that the Armenians were allowed to return back is one of the biggest lie ever. Armenians properties were sold for the fraction of the price."

What was to prevent the Armenians from leaving? The real misconception is that the Armenians were held in concentration camps, in the lands they were settled in. Of course there were "camps", but not in the sense of Dachau and Auschwitz; there were measures to discourage their leaving, otherwise the whole relocation purpose would have been defeated. Fadix will no doubt come up with "evidence," but keep in mind how these relocated people were living, from Morgenthau himself, straight from the mouth of an Armenian representative, Zenop Bezjian: "I was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being massacred. He gave me a list where the various camps are and he thinks that over one half million have been displaced." Armenian propaganda will have us believe these people were ready for the ovens.

Many obviously didn't want to leave (especially after relocation came to a close in 1916; which is why I'd imagine there are still sizeable Armenian communities in countries like Lebanon and Syria today. And of course, Armenians were economically taken advantage of in the chaos and corruption that reigned. The Ottoman orders stipulated their property was to be safeguarded, and these orders were not written to fool future historians. Witness the ruin of Japanese families in WWII America, forced to sell their properties at fire-sale prices. What prevented them from going back? In this case, the Japanese were loyal. The Armenians paid for the injustices put upon them, because the majority listened to their fanatical leaders.

"First of all the titled 'Armenian Beast' as I have said earlier was given by a Turk."

Nicknames are traditionally given by others. What matters is Fadix proudly wears this nickname as a badge of honor (he was the one revealing, and thus bragging about it), attesting to how professional his mastery of propaganda is, and how the inundation of his selective "facts" can frustrate anyone.. What I'm wondering about is what identity should we give the beast in question? There can be only one answer, given his weasel facts: Fadix, the Armenian Weasel Beast.

"Oh and, if I were Dadrian, I would not have taken you seriously ..."

Of course Fadix is not Dadrian. The idea was to point to the absurdity of trying to find out who lies behind pseudonyms, as Fadix is in a panic to do with me. The pseudonymous Fadix reveals he lives in Montreal, and I believe him. But personal information given by a pseudonymous party is to be taken lightly, because nobody can verify what's being said. What is fascinating about Fadix is his limitless stores of knowledge. I don't have a library of books at my disposal; I basically use the Internet for research... I have real life demands. Fadix, on the other hand has been an old hand at this game, judging by his own account, knowing the principals of forum participants. He comes up with references I've never heard of, and when I run searches on the Internet, I can't find them... at least not to the detail he can provide us with. A normal person interested in this topic cannot have these out-of-print books, frequently unavailable in libraries. Fadix may not be Dadrian, but he is such a professional propagandist, he must have the resources of a Zoryan Institute at his disposal.

Unfortunately, since Fadix has zero credibility, we only have his word when he points to these not-readily available weasel facts , frequently cited without sources.

"a peer reviewed article is published based on the integrity of the material, and the right interpretation that the author come with, and interpretation based on the material submitted by the evidences collected"

Highly debatable. Any number of works can easily be published by those who have come to be known as "renowned scholars," when the idea of scholarship is to dispassionately examine all sides of a story. When a Dadrian weasels with only one side of the story and deliberately falsifies information, and if he has "peers" that have similar agendas, that does not point to the "integrity of the material." This is why genocide industry participants prefer to operate behind closed doors, and don't invite members who don't belong to their club.

"I am not reinventing things here. "

For the large part, that's true. Those like Dadrian have done the reinventing, and Fadix has done an outstanding job of chronicling the weasel facts of this momentous con job.

"All sides including the Ottoman Empire, have admitted the crime, , what you can do best is find few individuals to support your cases, "

Only the criminal can admit to the crime. The other parties must prove the crime. The Ottoman Empire has not admitted to a systematic plan of extermination, which is what most would define as "genocide." What has been admitted to is the Armenians suffered terribly, and some were massacred. The officials who were outdoing one another trying to pin blame at the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts did so during British occupation. (Who told the Turks they must find culprits for the Armenian massacres, otherwise they would be dealt with severely at the Peace Conference. The Ottomans' reward for playing lap-dog: the death of the Turkish nation, via the Sevres Treaty.) These are the few individuals Dadrian and Fadix must cling to, because there is simply no judicial proof of a genocide.

Other parties have not proven the crime. The British desperately tried and failed at Malta, which we'll be getting to. The Andonian forgeries are the main proof, as Raffi believes; unfortunately, they are fake.

Since Westerners are raised to regard the Muslim Turks as less-than-human, there are few who have gone against the "genocide" tide. But it is these few who must be listened to, because they would have had no reason to lie.

"Lemkin reference is very relevant, he's the inventor of the word, so obviously he has a place in the genocide article, and why the Armenian genocide should be called such. But of course you prefer filling the article with irrelevant crap, and justify me why Lemkin numbers should not be accepted."

The point is, Lemkin was exposed to the same omnipresent "avalanche" of propaganda in order to draw his conclusions and numbers. Lemkin did not make an impartial study of this history. He was taken in by reading works such as "The 40 Days of Musa Dagh," whose author was also taken in by believing in the Andonian forgeries. (Fearing Armenian reprisals, author Werfel dared not publicly acknowledge his error.) So even though Lemkin invented the word, he based his belief on Armenian propaganda. That makes him no more legitimate than the renowned Elie Wiesel for believing in the deception of Vahakn Dadrian today. And how quaint for Fadix to refer to firsthand sources as Dashnak leader Hovhannes Katchaznouni as "irrelevant crap." We'll get to Lemkin's false numbers momentarily.

"BTW You claim that I have not provided sources for my claims, tell me which one was it, "

One answer followed in the passage directly after what Fadix wrote above, where I was quoted as saying, "George Cox estimating 2.4 million Armenians in the 19th century. I have no idea where that's from." I realize we are going over many facts and we can't always stop and give a source. But a lot of sources weren't provided in Fadix's rewriting of the article.

"Cox figures are based on US foreign diplomacy figures, they are numbers like others, one wonder why they should not be included as estimates"

Same thing: did the "US foreign diplomacy" take a head count? Of course not. We don't know what they based these numbers on, as no census was taken. Are the other examples Fadix provided of those over 2 million more legitimate? No. None of these Westerners went door-to-door in the foreign nation that was the Ottoman Empire. What they almost certainly did was rely on the Armenian Patriarch's exaggerations, counting up to 60 Armenians per household as Nerses documented in 1880. Why? Gurun: "the Armenians who came to the Berlin Congress with the hope of establishing an autonomous Armenia in the eastern provinces felt the necessity to prove that the Armenian population of the region was more than the Muslim population so that their request could be considered justifiable. Thus they gave figures, knowing no limit to exaggeration, just as they have done in every matter. Their version of the Armenian population, which did not coincide with the records of the Ottoman Empire, or those of other states, was not taken seriously at the Berlin Congress or later."

The Armenians are so self-centered, they would like to make us believe anything emanating from Turkish records is a lie, as if the whole Turkish world should be tied to the Armenians. If a country is going to take a census, it doesn't make sense if it's not going to be done accurately, for internal use. Gurun explains it was the American Ambassador who convinced the Sultan of a census' advantages in 1886, and "the preparations for a census were undertaken with the Ambassador's help. ...The results of this census were published in 1893. ...reliable, because everybody was given identity papers during the census, and from that date on it was impossible to engage in any occupation without these papers. However, the census was not taken as it is taken today, by requiring everybody to stay at home and going from one house to the next, but by asking the head of every household and by filling in a card for every member of the household. When these cards were being filled in, the muhtars (headmen of a quarter or a village) were present."

If the Ottoman census of 1893 figured 1,157,519 Armenians, what is more scientifically believable? At any rate, what we are most concerned with are numbers not in the mid-to-late19th century (particularly Fadix's Austrian from 1856), where theoretically there could have been more Ottoman-Armenians before Russia had the chance to conquer Ottoman lands and attract more Armenians to move (for reasons Hovanissian outlined, above; remember, there were 3 million Armenians worldwide, and most came from the Ottoman Empire at one point), but numbers before the war, which we'll get to in the statistics section.

"You wrote that Britannica 1911 edition provided 1.1 million and Toynbee 1915 provided less than a million. Both of those were lies. "

I read the 1.1 million on a Turkish site, but then I checked the 1911 edition, available online. On one page there is the 1.1 million, but I noticed the 1.5 million on another page. We all don't have magical access to sources as Fadix so that we can check firsthand, and note his viciousness by terming information gathering as "lies." He does not explain how Toynbee's figures were a "lie." He says the encyclopedia referred to its 1896 figures (Amazing he has such access to old editions. I didn't scrutinize the online edition, but I didn't see any such notation), but my memory tells me the 1.5 million information was provided as current; it doesn't seem encyclopedic to provide outdated 15 year information when there were studies made in the interim.

"With a moderate population increases 19 years later, we come up with an Armenian population of above 1.75 million, note here that in his demographic map, disputed bordering territories were excluded, and as well as an actual CLEAR undercount of Catholic and Protestant Armenians."

No, "we" don't come up with that population; "Zero credibility" master propagandist Fadix comes up with that, chomping at the bit to have us accept deceitful Patriarch figures of over 2 million. The fact is, Armenian authors are agreed that following the revolts of 1894-6, and not counting the additional immigration caused by the turmoil of the Balkan Wars, hundreds of thousands of Armenians emigrated from the Ottoman Empire. Adjusting for population growth, the statistics of those two periods remained fairly constant. And why should the undercount of the other religious groups be CLEAR? Because Fadix's favorite deceitful Gregorian Patriarchate did not provide the figures? Perhaps Fadix prefers the number of Greek Catholics to be added, to inflate his numbers.

"I could have deleted the NY Times entry, but did not, I left this little comfort for you. But since you bring it on, you just gave me the occasion to answer and discredit it. "

Isn't that sweet of Fadix to be so comforting. And how interesting that his first impulse is always to try and discredit. In addition, note his arrogant tone that he's in charge, free to spread his propaganda at will.

It's appalling what he comes up with. In other words, the report that has been picked up was provided solely by lying Ottoman officials, who had no reason to blame the Armenians in Nov. 1914, unless there was reason for the rebellion, backed up by numerous sources (even Armenian) of Armenian planning and Russian-financing. And if the Ottomans were behind these "lies," then it would be unlikely for the Russian press to rely upon an enemy source. Then he has the gall to suggest a city in the Turkish empire should not be referred to as a "Turkish town," for the same reason that Fresno, California should not be referred to as an "American town," because Armenians might comprise the largest number. But were Armenians in the majority, in Van?

"Turks were a minority there, representing a little fraction of the population... this word came after the Ottoman decided to forge figures of population ..."

What can be done with this "Zero Credibility" character? He'll say anything to justify his big con job, all in an effort to detract and confuse. For example, isn't it remarkable he can cite the details of how a long-ago 1914 newspaper story came to be? This is beyond the capacity of a normal interested party. Of course, all we have is his word, when he comes up with these weasel facts.

Perhaps Fadix is thinking about the Armenian population after the Armenians got through with their bloody work of ethnic cleansing and expulsing, enough so that an American-Armenian newspaper of the period bragged that only 1,500 Turks were left in Van. Then the Armenians clearly had the majority. Beforehand, Fadix would prefer us to believe the Patriarch's figures from 1912, "enhanced" further by Marcel Leart (who was a forerunner of those sneaky Armenians who like to take on non-Armenian names in an effort to come across as impartial; his real name was Krikor Zohrap): Van Turks: 47,000, Van Armenians: 185,000. (The Patriarch sometimes had a habit of leaving out other Muslims, like the Kurds.)

The reader can consult Gurun's book to see how Van statistics contrast with the Patriarch's. The most thorough foreign researcher, Cuinet, had Van Turks: 241,000 Van Armenians: 75,644. These figures are from 1880, so let's refer to what Dr. Justin McCarthy came up with, known for his pristine demographics in all but Armenian propaganda circles. "in the province of Van 26% were Armenians. However, even in these two provinces, the Muslim population was twice that of the Armenians. Bitlis was 67% Muslim, Van 61%. In the Six Vilayets as a whole, Muslims outnumbered Armenians 4.5 to 1."

It could be Fadix is referring to the city of Van, and not the province. Regardless, it's good to know the history of what went on: "Part of the reason for the low numbers of Armenians in the East was the dispersion of the Armenian people. Armenians had been migrating for centuries, a movement that continued well into modern times. Of course, Armenians had moved into Russian Armenia. They had begun to leave Anatolia in large numbers in the time of the 1827-28 Turco-Russian War and had continued to move throughout the period of the 1877-78 war. In Russia, the Anatolian Armenians took the place of Turks and other Muslims who had been forced by the Russians to migrate into the Ottoman Empire." I hope Fadix will resist his character-assassinating temptation to charge McCarthy as being a paid Turkish tool. McCarthy's estimate of the Armenian population as a whole was on the high side, about 1,700,000, and let's not forget Fadix pointed to that.

"As for Morgenthau, I don't remember having used him when trying to support my theses. Have I ever used him?"

That's besides the point; I didn't claim Fadix used Morgenthau. The point was Fadix was now trying to ironically discredit Morgenthau, a favorite Armenian guru, because Fadix did not like Morgenthau's rare support of the absolute fact that Armenians were armed to the teeth, and waiting for their rebellious opportunity. (An Armenian trying to discredit Morgenthau-- this might be a first.) We're not referring to the Armenians of Van who were armed to the teeth. We're referring to Armenians all over the empire who were armed with caches of weapons, ammo and even uniforms. this is confirmed not by a "few references" but by numerous Western sources, hardly any who had reason to be sympathetic to the Turks. For example, Felix Valyi wrote in 1925: "It is known that the attempts made by Turkey to win the support of the 'Dachnakzoutioun' party against Russia at the beginning of the War were repulsed in the month of September, 1914, by the Armenian Congress at Erzurum, which declared itself `neutral'. Nevertheless the thousands of Russian bombs and muskets which were found in the hands of its members prove what this neutrality meant." Here I am providing evidence for a demonstrated historic fact that the Armenians rebelled. It's unbelievable. Unbelievable how the poison pen of propagandists can inflict so much doubt in this day and age.

"It is said by the Turkish side that accounts from Armenian newspapers hailing the rebellion exist, but so as accounts in newspapers about Jewish declaration of wars before Germany declared war, declarations, and acts are two different things, and this is a pretty well known thing and recorded in history."

Do those accounts from Armenian newspapers exist, first of all? Yes, they do. So what is this about "it is said by the Turkish side"? Fadix wants to cast doubt, regardless. The reasons why this parallel is absurdly illogical is because if there were Jewish declaration of wars in newspaper accounts, they did not come from pro-Jewish newspapers. "Zero Credibility" Fadix will say anything in an attempt to draw a smokescreen.

"I have demonstrated that you use forgeries, manipulations, fabrications, reinterpretations etc. I have answered you with over a hundred pages, documenting every points I made. And now, I'm the one not having credibility? "

It's a good thing I'm unaware of these hundred pages, because I'm having a hard enough time responding to the few pages of blabber Fadix has provided here. the difference between Fadix and myself is that I never knowingly use false information. I'm aware not everything I report might be accurate, as only supermen like Fadix has access to hundred year old books and the inside scoop on how old newspaper articles were prepared. But we can see the extent of his weasel facts, and if there's something I'm unsure about, I can't take what he says at face value. That's because Fadix has Zero Credibility.

"I have deleted the (Katchaznouni) entry because it is a mistranslation, the verbatim does not concord with the original. There is an elementary mistake that is proper to Darounian..."

Here we have the manifesto of a prime Dashnak leader and Armenia's first president, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, and it's mind-boggling the lengths Fadix goes to discredit this primary source. The manifesto was prepared by an Armenian patriot, Arthur A. Derounian, published in 1955 by the Armenian Information Service, and we are asked to believe the translation is diametrically opposed to the original. The unreliability is "confirmed by the Dashnaktoutiun official press organ," Fadix tells us. the manifesto is entitled, "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) has nothing to do any more," and is critical of the Dashnaks; how do you think the official press organ is going to react? Then Fadix attempts to give us the true intentions of Katchaznouni, since he "nearly" wrote what he wrote as a "Bolshevic Red army pow."

There is no level Fadix won't stoop to. The terrorist Dashnaks completely mismanaged Armenia, as even Armenian historians like Hovannisian tell us. These bloodthirsty bandits didn't care what happened to their own people, following through with their policies since the 1890s, robbing and killing their own directly and by also leaving them open to massacres by committing massacres against Muslims. The corrupt officials were on the take, and left their people to die and suffer in massive numbers from starvation and disease (Hovannisian wrote 195 deaths for every birth?), after sneak-attacking two of their neighbors in 1918-9 when it was the worst time for the new nation, because of the typical Armenian land-grab greed. When these activities blew up in the Dashnaks' faces, and they meekly gave up their country (save for one short-lived attempt to fight, when they called on the Turks for help!) thus betraying their friends in the West, does anyone think the patriotic Katchaznouni would have needed a Bolshevik gun to his head to report the truth? (And Katchaznouni was not a POW, since there was no war between the Soviets and Armenia. Ohh, those Fadix "facts.")

"what evidences is present in the cases of the Holocaust that does not exist in the Armenian cases. "

Too complicated to answer fully here, but let's give a few examples. (1) No Wannsee Conference. (2) No concentration camps (at least not constructed ones; see above). (3) Punishment for some Turks who acted criminally against the Armenians during the war (4) About 200,000 western Armenians exempt from the relocation policy, along with some other groups (5) No food rations reduced or public transportation banned, as Nazis did in 1942; no "yellow star" for Armenians (6) Final Solution carried out until bitter end; relocation policy stops in 1916 (7) Nearly all Nazis found guilty at Nuremberg, conducted by Allies. No Turks found guilty at Malta Tribunal, conducted by Allies. (8) Rivki Cohen, Israel Ambassador to Armenia, Feb. 9, 2002 states a parallel must not be drawn between the Holocaust and the Armenian "genocide," following a similar statement by Shimon Peres.

"This is totally irrelevant, how Armenians lived before the event doesn't show anything here. What is important is what happened in 1915, and the process of extermination. ..."

Wrong. Highly important. Every murderer must have a motive, unless insane or totally amoral. Since spurious pro-Armenian theories like "pan-Turanism" and "Muslims hate Christians" have huge holes in them, hopefully Fadix is not claiming by default that the Turks were insane/amoral as a people. He wouldn't do that, because he's not a racist.

"I do know that you are a racist."

Of course Fadix knows this. Fadix knows everything. Fadix fits Harold Armstrong's Armenian pattern of "argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know-it-alls."

"Greeks and Serbs... rebelled and founded their own nations while Armenians were sitting like a 'fidel' house pet"

They sure learned! When it was the Armenians' turn, they outdid the Greeks' and Serbs' bloody atrocities (also nearly never heard of in the biased West) by murdering 518,000, with Russian help. And these don't cover the thousands of innocent souls the Armenians murdered in their forty-odd year terror campaign before the war. (During the time of the Serbs' revolt, by the way.)

"First of all, Armenians were the subjects of an Empire, those for the word treachery can not be applied to describe a rebellion. There is a difference between citizen and subject, there is no allegiance in the cases of a subject. "

We've already demonstrated the Armenians were anything but downtrodden; they were, in fact, mainly in the "power" position. I realize that won't stop Fadix from repeating his propaganda. I would like to add, however, that Armenians have historically proven to switch allegiances at the drop of a hat. Centuries ago, Roman historian Tacitus wrote: "The Armenians change their position relating to Rome and the Persian Empire, sometimes supporting one and sometimes the other ... they are a strange people."

When Armenia sneak-attacked neighbor Georgia in 1918, of course the Armenian-Georgians were largely in support, thus making the innocent and loyal Armenians among them suffer... just like in the Ottoman Empire! Georgia reacted, according to Hovannisian, by arresting hundreds, and then deporting them! (UNLIKE the Ottomans, who resettled their Armenians in other areas of their own country.) When the government called for elections, "the Armenians in Georgia expressed outrage that this government would require every voter to be 'registered' as Georgian citizens." (Hovannisian.) Weems writes, "All democratic republics require citizenship before an individual can vote. But the Armenians claim their people must be 'Armenian' but should be an equal partner and vote in another republic's elections without declaring citizenship. Is there a single example of this type of attitude in any other nation's history?"

I guess it's because I recount such innocence-destroying facts from his own historians that makes Fadix smear the messenger, and attempt to detract from the message, by charging me with racism.

"A traitorous minority consisting of women, children and elderly,(since the men on age to be a threat were separated from the rest at the beginning of the deportation) another example of your disgusting hateful and racist rhetoric."

Fadix has it backwards. Most of the Armenian troops deserted and men from villages traitorously joined the Russians, or the revolutionary groups behind the lines. As Gurun wrote, "Every inch of the country was filled with deserters, every part was subject to the attacks of brigands. Because every Turk capable of bearing arms was recruited, the field was left to the Armenians." It was the Muslim and non-Armenian women, children and elderly who were left open to the attacks of these murderers, whose objective was to kill and expulse as many Muslims as they could in order to create a "Greater Armenia."

Of course there were many innocent Armenians who suffered from the greedy, treacherous decisions of their fanatical leaders. But were all women and children innocent? Who took care of the traitorous rebels? Women helped in the manufacture of bullets. They were part of an entire network where the innocent could not be separated from the guilty in the desperate "life or death" Ottoman struggle, with great world powers threatening every gate. To give examples of how Armenian women and children took part in violence, albeit from an earlier period (but describing the same M.O.), here's what Aghasi (not the tennis player), who began the 1895 Zeitun rebellion, wrote in his diary:

"A great number of Zeitunites came to join us in the mountains where we had been hiding. . . . They had all come with arms; there were even children who carried a knife or a gun. (p. 189) The women, armed with axes, guns, daggers, and sticks, chased the Turkish prisoners who were escaping, and killed most of them, only 56 of them were able to escape." [p. 289]

I invite the reader to learn the rest of the harrowing account, in "The Armenian Question" chapter of Gurun's book. (Hit Ctrl+F for the "Find" function if you have I.E., and type "Aghasi.) Since Fadix read these words from an Armenian who was in charge, the idea that he would still have readers believe the innocence of Armenians serves as one of many examples of his Zero Credibility.

"But you will never tell us why the Ottoman barred access to the Red Cross, and even to their own allies, when they have decided to feed Armenians themselves, and they have even pretexted that they wished nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. "

I don't know anything about that, because I don't have access to Fadix's mysterious avalanche of professional propaganda. A country has the right to restrict access during the sensitivity of wartime. The Armenians were living in wretched conditions, as the huge operation didn't benefit from proper planning, like disasters occurring with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, also suffering from proper planning. Maybe the officials knew sympathetic foreigners seeing suffering Armenians wasn't needed to add fuel to the propaganda fires, just like the U.S. military restricts access to journalists in Iraq... they want to avoid the type of Vietnam coverage that influenced public opinion. What the Western world didn't care about was that Turks were equally suffering from famine and disease. Thousands were dying daily, according to Morgenthau, and even Turkish soldiers were dying in the thousands, as Liman von Sanders testified as a friendly witness for Tehlirian.

What's remarkable is that the Ottomans allowed relief organizations (along with diplomatic and consular agents) to take care of the Armenians during their relocations, mainly supplied by the unfriendly nation of the United States (even following the entry of the U.S. into war on the side of the Allies against Germany, the Ottomans' ally). The American , as well as the members of the “American Near East Relief Society” continued their work in Turkey. In the history of mankind, this was an unprecedented humanitarian gesture. Imagine the Turks' magnanimity, allowing the hostile agents and a fanatical religious organization to move about the country freely to provide help for the Christian Armenians, citizens of the Ottoman Empire who were actively fighting against it.

The fact of the matter is, if the Turks didn't care about prolonging Armenian lives, one million couldn't have possibly survived, out of a pre-war population of around 1.5 million.

"don't make me change my behavior."

Yes, we wouldn't want to change Fadix from the friendly rascal he has proven to be.

"so I gave you a chance to safe your face here by not adding the records regarding how the special organization was formed, and how prisoners released from the central prisons were trained to butcher. "

Yes, I've read that Dadrian garbage, concocted theories from the 1919 kangaroo courts. Fadix has no end to his propagandistic avalanche, prepared with loving care for over a century. He is well capable of smothering these pages with reams of his smokescreen weasel facts.

"Are you insinuating that the Armenians were only temporary 'relocated' and that after the war they were allowed back? Because even Gurum writes that this was not the cases. "

"Deportation" means exile outside a country's borders, so why put quotes around "relocated"? Since the Armenians were not in concentration camps surrounded by barbed wire and machine guns (but there were likely times they were discouraged from free travel; see above), I don't see what would have prevented those who wanted to return from doing so, after 1916. Most preferred to go to other lands, mainly Russia, and with the sympathetic foreign organizations largely taking care of them, access for immigration to lands like the United States were made available. What does Fadix think started the million Armenian number in the USA today?

I just read Gurun's book, and I didn't come across anything stating the Armenians were prohibited from returning. (The Treaty of Gumru allowed the Armenians' return for up to a year; according to Dennis Papazian's "What Every Armenian Needs to Know," the Russians were not as generous with Armenian refugees.) What makes me sad is that Fadix professes to have read Gurun's book, as I already suspected, and yet we know his only purpose was to see not the truths provided by unbiased sources, but to see what he could discredit. This is why he has zero credibility.

"Furthermore, one million Armenians can not have survived, the highest figure is the one considered by the League of Nations that is of 900,000 Armenians, that was incomplete. The figure I have demonstrated to be the closest to the truth is probably 800,000-850,000... "

We can see the master propagandist weasel beast's tactics right here... authoritatively making claims that are simply untrue, but good enough to fool the uninitiated. A Commemoration of "Armenian Genocide of 1915," appearing in the April 24,1998 issue of The New York Times, and signed by the genocide industry's royalty, assures us a million Armenians survived. (All fleeing in exile, as they deceptively put it.) Boghos Nubar Pasha sounded a bit more reasonable, stating 280,000 Armenians remained in the Ottoman Empire after the war, while some 700,000 emigrated elsewhere. I'm curious as to how Fadix will attempt to discredit such figures as Hovannisian, Balakian, and his role model, Dadrian.--Torque March 1, 2005

On Fadix's huge essay, "the Malta tribunal that never was"

"Malta never existed, in fact, there is no work written by a Turkish historian that I am aware of, referring to anything called 'Malta tribunal'.”

Let's remember what Fadix wrote here: "Malta never existed." An INCREDIBLE statement.

Fadix's main point: Simsir's statement, "As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal." Notice he doesn't go into what came before "as a result," because his typically Armenian tactic is to only want you to consider the end result. The reason why the Tribunal never took place is because there was NO EVIDENCE. The case was dismissed by the judges before even coming to trial.

If Fadix has not run into works by other Turkish historians, that only demonstrates how much Turkish historians don't care to obsess over this passion of the Armenians. No way can the information that goes against Fadix's con job compare with the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda; searching for genocide links on the Internet bears testimony. But we don't need Turkish historians. Fadix would have you believe they are all lackeys of the Turkish government, since that government is "totalitarian," according to propagandists like Peter Balakian. All we'll need are the British archives, the documents of the Turks' enemies.

I accidentally discovered this piece -- and Fadix should not plaster long articles on this talk page, when he could have excerpted key points -- was written by Fadix (as "QueBeceR") at his Armenian haunting ground of HyeForum. Note how he enlists help from a whole network of obsessed Armenians... I'm envious! (And I like the way a fellow Armenian questions Fadix about his aversion to truth, by asking why he put quotes around "occupying" the capital.)

The Armenian Weasel Beast is now in a big trap; let's reveal him for his Zero Credibilty.

"The apologists of the genocide claim that the tribunal in question was set by the Allies and therefore not credible. Such denialists don’t realise that such a claim would just as well discredit the Nuremberg Tribunal that brought NAZI war criminals to be judged; because the Nuremberg Tribunal was conducted by the Allies, while the military tribunal was a Turkish tribunal, so, if a Turkish' tribunal was controlled by the "invaders," so was the Nuremberg. "

Here's the parallel: the 1919 Ottoman courts are illegitimate because they were conducted under the threat of coming up with the massacring culprits, or the terms in the peace conference would be harsh. (Dadrian himself reports this.) As a result, almost all (1,376; 62 executed) were found guilty, with almost no due process, and the Turks were falling all over themselves to point fingers at each other. it was all for naught; the death sentence was pronounced anyway, in the form of the Sevres Treaty. The primary objective of the new government was retribution against members of the old.

What courtroom under enemy occupation can be deemed valid? Would Fadix and Dadrian try to legitimize a court of a European nation occupied by the Nazis? The Lebanese are making the news these days... how about Lebanese courts under Syrian dominance? (In cases where Syria's interests are at stake.) What about West Bank and Gaza courts presided by Palestinians, under Israeli occupation?

So we don't compare these kangaroo courts with the Nuremberg Trial. Nuremberg was operated directly by the Allies. And even though the criminal Nazis got what they deserved overall, the Allied prosecutors didn't play fairly with every single suspect. There was an element of revenge (understandable, but still unjust) at play, an element that was not absent at Malta, as we'll discover soon.

What we compare a court directed by Allies is another court directed by Allies. The parallel of Nuremberg is the Malta Tribunal.

When the British started Malta, they too were hoping to get the matter over with, in Kangaroo Court fashion. To their credit, they ultimately decided to follow the letter of the law. The process to try and find genuine evidence took over two years. They appointed an Armenian in charge of the Ottoman archives, and all documents were available to them. In their desperation, they even examined archives in other countries. At the end, all the Turks were set free.

"And if, in fact, the documents presented during the Turkish tribunal were forged, one wonders why the Turkish government until today forbids access to them. If they are forged???"

Such irresponsible statements. To my knowledge, the Ottoman archives are open to all scholars. I understand those few who have misused them, such as Ara Sarafian and Hilmar Kaiser, have been banned. (However, only after being allowed to copy perhaps thousands of documents.) Does Fadix know this firsthand? Armenian propaganda loves to proclaim the archives are restricted. Personally, I wouldn't blame the Turks from restricting the archives to those scholarly frauds such as Dadrian, whose agendas have nothing to do with truth. They will take any information and twist and manipulate the facts, as our Zero Credibility friend is proving time and again. (ANC reports Dadrian as having said on Apr. 26, 2002: "The Turkish archival material amply implicates premeditation." Since the body of Dadrian's "proof" lies with the kangaroo Ottoman courts, how could Dadrian make such a statement if access has been forbidden?)

"Additionally, what denialists fail to mention is that ..."

Labeling does not help. Fadix is also a denialist. He denies Malta is a fact, he denies there was a full-fledged Armenian rebellion, and he denies his so-called genocide did not exist. The purpose of these defamatory labels, such as "racist," is to prevent honest discourse. Honest is the last thing a propagandist like Fadix wants, closing his eyes to honest truth time and again.

"many of the prisoners of Malta were handed to the British officials after being convicted as guilty by the Turkish military tribunal"

If they got away scot free as a result, by the British who had every reason to convict them in order to justify their hysterical wartime propaganda (they and other allies made a wartime vow to punish those responsible for the massacres), that demonstrates how invalid were the findings of the Ottoman kangaroo courts. And how honorable is that, by the way, to be found guilty and then to be tried again? (Assuming Fadix is on the ball. Maybe he meant they were charged, and the British took the more important ones away for their own trial.)

"The claim that Malta prisoners were taken without any selections is groundless when reviewing .."

Of course there was a selection of the high-ranked Turkish government officials, army commanders, governors, university professors, journalists, editors, and prominent society members. Second Political Officer Andrew Ryan, a vicious Turcophobe, employed Armenian informers to his staff, who did much of the fingering. Among them were Mihran Boyadjian, Karageuzian, Dr. Armenak Mediatian, Hagop Minas Berberian, Dr. Armenak Abu Haytaian, Eghia Bakalian, Aram Tosbikian, Hagop Terzi, Memduhi Tomasian, Aroussiagh Yervant Iskian, and Ardeshir Lepian. If whether this selection process was groundless or not rests upon the trial process and outcome, keep tuning in.

"5030/A/21. Statement by Sympat Kerkoyan, merchant of Bitlis dated 19.5.20. Bitlis May 1915 atrocities. Massacre of Kerkoyan's family"

He was not alone among Armenians making charges. There is no end to Armenians making charges. Some were true, but given the penchant for Armenian propaganda and falsification, definitely not all. Even if Kerkoyan's family was massacred, we don't know who did the massacring, and obviously his say so wasn't enough to convict the one he pointed his finger at. Could that have been because the British, who wanted to wipe the Turkish nation off the face of the earth, were "pro-Turk"?

"The group was even called "all the very worst of criminals." (Source: Report of September 19, 1919, Andrew Ryan"

Here's a great example of why Armenian claims should never be accepted at face value. This is why Armenians hate to go beneath the surface. Even if we knew nothing about Andrew Ryan, we know there is a great chance for the Irish-Briton to have been prejudiced, after being inundated by massive amounts of anti-Turkish propaganda, like most of his countrymen. But Andrew Ryan was a notorious anti-Turkish intriguer, later described by Major J. Douglas Henry during a Nov. 27-Dec. 5, 1921 interview as "the most hated man in Turkey... .an intriguer of a kind who did not scruple to employ traitors and turncoats for his purposes." Wait until you see the kind of "proof" Ryan comes up with to prove the guilt of these "worst of criminals," coming up. (It basically boils down to what Fadix presents as proof of criminality, when he provides us with the groundless "files attached to each prisoner": the fact of merely being accused.)

"By doing such Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) refused to honour the Exchange Agreement of March 16, 1921 that was excluding in the exchanges several Ittihadists that had a key role in the Armenian genocide."

How peculiar. Armenian propaganda tells us Ataturk admitted the genocide, and here we have him trying to cover it up. The fact is, the Turkish official in charge, Bekir Sami Bey, was under instructions to accept only an "all for all" exchange, and was forced to resign from his post for failing to do his job. The prisoners were all arrested falsely, as we’ll see from the sequence of events, below. Ataturk wasn’t singling out anyone; a partial exchange was out of the question. (He had arrested the British soldiers for the sole purpose of getting back at British injustice; was he going to defeat his own purpose?)

"The Turkish sociologist and publicist Yalman, who had secret discussions with many of the Ittihadists, has been himself detained at Malta and has stated that the anti-Armenian measures reflected a "policy of general extermination" to remove "the danger" to Turkey of "a dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces." (Source: A. E. Yalman, Turkey in the World War (New Haven, 1930), 220."

The latter part is accurate; the treacherous Armenian rebellion posed a dangerous military threat to the beleaguered Ottoman Army; it's the rest we need to focus on, key word being "extermination." I learned from the Zoryan Institute that Yalman earned his Ph.D in Columbia University, so we can assume he was in the USA at the time of the book's American publication, and he was free to say anything he wanted. I don't have the book, and we can't take Zero Credibility Fadix's word on how this incriminating statement was presented. If it's true, then I'd wonder in what context such ideas were presented, while Yalman was huddled up with fellow prisoners. Could some of them have been angered at the injustice of their imprisonment, and fired off steam? Could those who reached such conclusions in the position to know? (Few of the Malta prisoners were composed of the Ottoman administration's top guns. Yalman himself is described as a "publicist.") If not, and if Yalman was conscientious enough to implicate his government, and he was in a land free to write unhindered, then how could he not have provided specific details, telling us exactly what was said, and said by whom? What would have been called for here would be a full scale book, on the level of Speer's book on Spandau prison. So I'll reserve judgment; what I'm surprised about is that an Internet search didn't come up with a single find on this seemingly important revelation.

"...in addition to the fact that ... they were exchanged with British prisoners," Fadix provides several weasel theories as to why the prisoners were released, including "good relations with the Kemalists???" (The question marks are appropriate), and that the Turks promised trials of their own, "officially on June 11, 1921."

But none of these theories have anything to do with the trial process; when one examines the sequence of events, the British were desperately seeking to find evidence up until the July 13, 1921 reply from the British Embassy in Washington. The one and only reason the Malta Tribunal was aborted: NO EVIDENCE.

There never was any prosecution, pre-trial investigation, or interrogatory. So how is anyone to claim that any tribunal “proved” them not guilty, when there was no tribunal in the first place?

That's because the tribunal couldn't have taken place. Because after much pre-trial investigation, there was NO EVIDENCE.

"The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused."

That's Curzon, from Fadix's deceptively selective archival information. Indeed, there was a prisoner exchange. Yet that did not stop the trial process from proceeding. Curzon was actively involved trying to gather evidence until the end.

Since Fadix enjoys Holocaust parallels, what would we have thought about the Allies at Nuremberg if they decided to call things off because a few soldiers were being threatened? If we examine the real trial process, it was obvious the British had no faith in finding real evidence; that's the one and only reason why they called it off.

"The claim that there was no evidence in US archives falls short when referring to the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921, when he declared, 'The U.S. archives contain a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres'."

This one is a beauty from Zero Credibility Fadix. Point to a single supportive statement, while ignoring the rest. Of course, the U.S. archives contained an "avalanche" of information, forming the foundation of Armenian genocide claims. But what happened when the British Ambassador discovered the worth of that garbage? Read on.

"Not one Turk in a thousand will think that any other Turk deserves to be hanged for massacring Christians."

So opines, it appears, W.S. Edmond. It's a worthless opinion. Sure, many Turks were disgusted by the treachery of their ungrateful supposed "Loyal Millet," after enjoying high prosperity for centuries, and then going on to help bring their nation to ruin. But if this individual would like to believe most Turks would not want to see murderers see justice, then he would not be alone among Westerners who concluded the Turkish people were beyond the realm of humanity. It's the old Muslims hate Christians card being played here.

The British judge Lindsey Smith August 10 1921 declared: "a considerable amount of incriminating evidence was collected by the Turkish government but it is idle to expect to get it."

If the judge was referring to the puppet Turkish government in Istanbul, then he was showing poor judgment. The British were in charge, they had over two years to look through the archives and every available document, and didn't do so by politely asking the permission of the Turkish government.

"The massacre and destruction ... of the Armenians was executed through secret orders by men who ostensibly had the assignment to implement the law of deportation." "The documents, personally signed by the defendants, confirm the fact that the gendarmes escorted the deportee convoys for purpose of massacre..." Source: Published on August 7, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3617, p.2, Yozgat Verdict, 8 April 1919

The source is provided as kangaroo court findings. These are the courts that were anxious to find culprits because, as Dadrian himself has said, the British warned the repercussions at the Peace Conference would be disastrous. That's one reason why these 1919 Ottoman courts were illegitimate.

Now here were the findings, conveniently published as "legal" documents. As you'll soon be reading, there was a phase when the British wanted to treat the Malta Tribunal just like the spurious 1919 Ottoman courts, in similar kangaroo court fashion. Here was the "proof" they were looking for... especially if some of the more important Malta detainees were involved with the 1919 courts, as Fadix told us. Why did the British ignore this evidence, with all resources in Istanbul at their fingertips, and continue to be frustrated in their search for evidence under every rock until mid-1921?

The "deportation" was mainly implemented by local officials. The central government didn't have the manpower to spare during desperate wartime to send enough people to oversee the movements of hundreds of thousands of people. If only a handful were then sent, going door to door, like Dr. Shakir... and if you were the governor already with the official orders dictating the safety of the Armenians... would you suddenly listen to a government lackey who shows up at your door telling you the "secret" orders required you to be involved in mass murder?

And if there really were "secret" orders to systematically execute all Armenians... how could if be possible for so many Armenians to have survived, one million from an original population of around 1.5 million? Why would there have even been the need to resort to the "slow death" method that pro-Armenians love to attribute to those who died of famine and disease? (Discounting the much greater number of Turks who died from famine and disease, of course.) If these "SS men" were charged with the responsibility of murdering the Armenians, wouldn't it have been their duty to see they were killed, without leaving to chance those who would survive "slow death"?

"The documents incriminating some of the prisoners in Malta that the British were able to locate in Istanbul were reported disappearing. And the Nationalist government was suspected..." "...disappearance of documents incriminating certain persons saying that the matter has been arranged by local Nationalist leaders." (Source: Weekly Summary, March 4, 1920, British Embassy publication)"

Since the British were in charge of Malta, the valuable evidence they were able to uncover would have been guarded in the premises of the British High Commissioner. I doubt any Turks from the Nationalist government, as if they didn't have better things to do fighting the Armenians and Greeks with rag tag forces, would have been able to infiltrate British headquarters. Could it be the British were trying to save face by planting this story in their official publication, since they were doing a terrible job of finding the evidence? And it's obvious the following account regarding Talat Pasha, who had long departed by 1920, has nothing to do with the above. So why does Zero Credibility Fadix tell us, "Other references to the destruction of those (Malta) documents could be found in (a story from years ago)"?

There were obviously criminals who mistreated and killed Armenians. Some might have tried to cover their tracks by getting rid of the goods, even though the "avalanche" of information provided by Fadix in this particular installment amounts to hearsay. (It is plain mind-boggling the amount of research the obsessed genocide industry has come up with.) However, if we are to refer to Fadix's favored Holocaust parallels, we're all aware of how the Nazis tried to destroy the evidence, all the way to demolishing death camps like Sobibor. Yet incriminating evidence has survived. With the herculean job of transporting hundreds of thousands of Armenians, how is it possible not ONE document could have survived? Are we to believe Turks are more efficient than Germans?--Torque March 1, 2005

The Real Malta Tribunal

Let's take a look at what really happened at Malta, based on an article by Ayhan Ozer, entitled "British and U.S. Archives Vindicate Turks." (Borrowed from Simsir, extensively.) I left out the archival sources, in the interest of some brevity.

Armistice signed with British on Oct. 30, 1918; Allied forces occupy the capital, Istanbul.

The British High Commission immediately confiscates all official documents; Armenian Haigazn K. Khazarian appointed the head of the Archives Department, where everything would be scrutinized with a fine-toothed comb in the two-and-a-half-years ahead. These are the same archives Armenians like to claim have been "sanitized."

Jan. 23, 1919 to April 7, 1919: The Armenian Patriarchate of Istanbul helps orchestrate these activities with great zeal. Armenian informers are instrumental in preparing four "Black Lists" of Turks accused of alleged "Armenian massacres" were drawn up at the Armenian and the Greek sections of the British High Commission.

Admiral Calthrope decides to intern all suspects outside the country, in Malta; a detention camp is arranged for.

The French High Commission in Istanbul protested to the British plans, on account of a court of law outside Turkey failing to be authoritative or competent, making the process seem like an arbitrary action of revenge from the victorious Allies. Additionally, since the German, Austrian and Bulgarian war criminals were released and repatriated to their native countries before their peace treaties were ratified, a summary arrest of high-ranked Turkish officials was discriminatory. The British were determined to smear the Turkish Nation with a horrendous crime, and on Feb. 18, 1919, Reshid Bey, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, appealed to five neutral European countries (Switzerland, Denmark, Sweden, The Netherlands and Spain) to assess the "Turkish Commission," the purpose of which was to decide on crimes relating to the relocation of the Ottoman subjects of different race and religion. The Chief British Censor in Istanbul, worried the scheme of the British to falsely incriminate the Turks would now be spoiled, tried to stop this message, but was too late.

British warn the Spanish against getting involved on March 4, 1919. Paris Peace Conference delegate of the British, Balfour, makes another declaration, suggesting to Curzon that the Spanish Government should be discouraged (March 25. 1919)

In early 1919, a delegation of Indian Muslims at the Peace Conference spoke out against a revengeful act by the British. Muhammad Ali said that "If in fact the supposed casualties have taken place," the activities of the Russians and of the Armenians, "whose rebellious character was subversive of his rule" should be examined, focusing on "the provocation of the Muslim majority in the region by the Armenians through armed revolts, massacres of the civilians and the terrorism acts." The delegate explained their motive was to see that not a "stain should remain on the fair name of Islam." Finally, he pointed to historical fact and common sense: "But we know the whole history of these massacres to some extent. It is only towards the Armenians that the Turk is said to be so intolerant; there are other parts of the world where he [the Turk] deals with Christian people, and where he deals with the Jewish community. No complaint of massacres come from those communities. Moreover, the Armenians themselves lived under the Turkish rule for centuries and never complained. Therefore, we earnestly appeal to you, to the whole Christian world of Europe and America, that if the Turk is to be punished on the assumption that he is a tyrant, and that his rule is a blasting tyranny then the evidence should be of such character that it should be absolutely above suspicion."

The British were unmoved and were still intent on taking revenge. At this point, concerns for humanity, justice and morality didn't exist, and the British were in position to be exclusive judge and jury. On Apr. 13, Admiral Richard Webb suggested a retribution by "dismembering the late Turkish Empire."

On May 28, 1919, the first group of the detainees was transported to Malta, followed by subsequent transportations until Sept. 21, 1919, allowing the number to exceed one hundred. The turning point of British integrity: the appointment of Admiral de Roebeck as the new British High Commissioner to Istanbul, in September 1919. he was like Admiral Bristol, smart enough not to be influenced by massive Armenian propaganda. Just the facts was what he wanted. On Sept. 21 he wrote to Curzon that the accused were selected hurriedly "rather than relying on known facts." He realized the absence of genuine evidence could not hold up in a real court ("...it might be very difficult to sustain definite charges against many of these persons before an Allied tribunal"), and ordered further arrests to be stopped.

After the Ottomans changed their government and adopted Mustafa Kemal's National Pact, Britain applied an iron hand on March 16, 1920 -- they replaced the Ottoman police, declared martial law, and attacked and dissolved the parliament, arresting 30 deputies. Two days later, these "politically undesirable persons" were shipped to Malta.

In turn, Mustafa Kemal arrested 22 British officers in Anatolia.

Article 230 of the Sevres Treaty , imposed on August 10, 1920, stipulated persons "responsible for the massacres" to be handed over. They reserved the right to "designate the tribunals which shall try the persons so accused." SO HERE IT IS. The intention of the British to follow up on the Malta preparations they had undertaken since the end of 1918, leading up to a tribunal.

The number of detainees reached 144 between March and November 1920.

The British, in close cooperation with the Armenians, had the chance to examine their stories; serious doubts emerged. They also had a chance to get to know the character of the Armenians, and once superimposed, the truth of their wild stories seemed to evaporate. The British were slowly becoming aware they were duped.

Churchill submitted to his Cabinet a secret memorandum on July 19, 1920, stating, "It seems to me that this list (of "prominent Turkish" detainees) should be carefully revised by the Attorney General, and that those men against whom no proceedings are contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity."

The Law Officers of the Crown were consulted and their memorandum was reviewed by the Cabinet in its meeting of August 4, 1920. The Law Officers only wished to focus on the few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treating British prisoners of war. No materials or evidence of any kind ever existed about the alleged and widely propagandized Armenian massacres.

After about two years since the first detainees were sent to Malta, the British Attorney General requested that the High Commissioner in Istanbul come up with the "evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommended for prosecution on charges of cruelty to native Christians." (Feb. 8, 1921) The problem was that no such evidence existed in London's files; Lord Curzon expected a full report of the "genocide" evidence the High Commission came up with, which he requested on March 12, 1921.

When the Turkish detainees in Malta formally requested they be furnished with the "summary of evidence," in order to answer the charges (contending the British were in violation of the basic principle of justice, penning them up for 20 months), an agreement was signed with the Turkish Foreign Minister in London on March 16, 1921, stipulating the release of all 22 British prisoners of war in Turkey, and the repatriation of 64 Turkish detainees in Malta.

On March 12, Curzon's request was answered, stating the evidence in the case of those Turks awaiting prosecution will be forwarded by the next mailbag. The much expected "evidence" boiled down to information supplied by the Armenian Patriarchate; as a result, "the prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantage." Each of the accused contained "accusations" drawn up by the Armenian and Greek Section of the British High Commission, and the Turcophobe Ryan attempted to justify these by applying a pervert "principle" that considers each detainee "a priori" guilty unless they proved their innocence, contrary to the basic principle of law and justice. One of his colleagues, Sir Harry Lamb, minuted on the dossier of a deportee (Veli Necdet Bey):

"None of the deportees was arrested on any evidence in the legal sense... It is safe to say that a great majority of the 'dossiers', as they now stand, will be marked 'No Case' by a practical lawyer... none of this information in itself has a strict legal value."

In other words, there was no evidence whatsoever to prove that such a crime as "Armenian massacres" was ever committed by the government. (as Fadix provides an earlier bit from Lamb on Aug. 11, 1920, we learn he was frantic for allied cooperation, otherwise "the direct and indirect massacres of about one million Christians will get off unscathed." I wonder how he felt after he learned of the paucity of the real evidence, and how reliable his own government's war propaganda was... the kind that made him believe so fervently in those one million murdered Christians.)

Not wishing to give up, the officials at the British Foreign Office made a last ditch attempt: they hoped to enlist the assistance of the U.S. State Department, and their own Attorney General's office. On April 1, 1921, the Foreign Office forwarded all available "evidence" to the Attorney General, stressing swift action on the matter on April 29. The reply on May 20: "...their detention or release...is not dependent on the legal proceedings. The Law Office considers that their treatment is a matter for decision by the Foreign Office, and it does not desire to offer any view upon it."

The result? The Law Office of the Crown, and H.M. Attorney General refused to involve themselves with the alleged "Armenian massacres", and they also carefully avoided to use the word "massacres," so wildly used by the Allied wartime propaganda machine. The Attorney General expressed disappointment with a following communication, stating they were only concerned with eight Turks charged with cruelty to British POWs. As for the 45 (among whom two had escaped) charged with massacres: "Our difficulty is that we have practically no legal evidence and that we do not want to prepare for proceedings which will be abortive. We asked Washington if the Americans could produce any evidence of massacres against the internees."

The British had only one ace left up their sleeve. "The American government is doubtless in possession of large amount of documentary information compiled at the time the massacres were taking place," wrote Sir H. Rumbold. This was the "avalanche" of information comprising the foundation of Armenian genocide documentation, compiled by Morgenthau and his consuls, largely provided by missionaries and Armenians, and shared with Britain's Wellington House, along with Johannes Lepsius.

March 31, 1921, Lord Curzon to Sir Geddes, British Ambassador in Washington: "There are in hands of Majesty's government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacres. There are considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt. Please ascertain if the United States government is in possession of any evidence that would be of value for the purpose of prosecution."

No reply for about two months: Lord Curzon's reminder on May 27, 1921: "We should be glad to know whether there is any likelihood that evidence will be available."

Sir Auckland Geddes replied a few days later in June: "I have made several inquiries at the State Department, and today l am informed that while they are in possession of a large number of documents concerning the Armenian relocations, from the description, I am doubtful whether these documents are likely to prove useful as evidence in prosecuting Turks confined in Malta... these documents will be placed at the disposal of His Majesty's Embassy on the understanding that the source of information will not be divulged." [An intimation to save embarrassment for the U.S. State Department, alluding to the flimsiness of the "evidence."]

July 13, 1921, the British Embassy in Washington gave their report by informing his Lordship that "the most useful [reports]," judged by the State Department, "from among several hundreds," were examined by a staff member. the bubble was burst:

"I regret to inform your Lordship that there was nothing therein which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial in Malta... no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence."

"Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law... the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks which would be useful even for the purpose of corroborating information already in possession of H. Majesty's government. I believe nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further inquiries to the Department of State in this matter."

The British Archives demonstrate the chief reason for continuing to hold onto the Turks was to use them as "hostages" for British POWs. Finally all remaining 59 Malta prisoners were released, arriving in Istanbul on November 2, 1921.

An aside: a May 22,1923 letter written by then High Commissioner Nevile refers to a secret Talat Pasha telegram the British took from the Ottoman archives. The order's last article stated, "Because this order concerns the disbanding of the Committees, it is necessary that it be implemented in a way that would prevent the Armenian and Muslim elements from massacring each other.' In his memorandum about this order, D. G. Osborne of the British Foreign Office says: `. . . the last article of the order states that one must refrain from measures which might cause massacre' (371/4241/170751).

As Ayhan Ozer noted, "Thus, the meticulous search conducted by the British for 30 months with an utmost zeal to vindicate the Armenian allegations produced nothing. The much-touted 'eyewitness accounts,' 'hard proof' and 'evidence' proved to be grotesque lies." Let's not forget Raffi's favored Andonian forgeries were also available for the British to make use of. Of course, the British discovered the fake Talat Pasha telegrams within differed from the real ones, as exampled in the previous paragraph.

Here is the ironclad sequence of events, sourced from the British Archives, that proves beyond a doubt there was a zealous effort to find genocidal proof, and at the end an enormous egg was laid.

I'd like to thank Fadix for demonstrating his complete lack of ethics by singling out only archival excerpts and other information that solely serves his propagandistic agenda. A man of honor would never do such a thing, and the Armenian Weasel Beast has shown without a doubt he has Zero Credibility.

"Genocide Scholar" Henry R. Huttenbach tells us in The Genocide Forum, 1996: "There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof."

There is no evidence for this mythological con job. There was no Armenian genocide. --Torque March 1, 2005

About Fadix's 19th century Statistics

A few words about Fadix's statistics. I already got into this topic in "Analyzing Raffi's and 'Zero Credibility' Fadix's claims," above.

"Mr. Torque quotes Bliss, and claims his figures were of 42,000. He is again manipulating."

Our weasel beast friend is being unfair, as usual. Why would he say I'm "manipulating"? Does he really think I've made a detailed study of Bliss, the way Fadix has devoted his life to this obsession, pathologically finding whatever tidbit he can use to detract from the big picture? No, I used Gurun's figures, as he states, and whom he also blames as "manipulating." The reader can decide whether Gurun's mission was to manipulate, or to finally tell the truth, putting a dent in the singularly told avalanche of Armenian propaganda. Once again, an online source for his book.

Despite Gurun's impeccable research, he was only one man, and who could be a match for the massive reservoirs of propaganda that a whole network of obsessed Armenians have come up with? Gurun exceeded Bliss' 35,032 figure from 1895, because of his honesty in attempting to estimate. (If Gurun were being dishonest, he would have tried to pass off 35,032 as the total figure for the 1890s.) Did Gurun undercount the casualties of 1896, by estimating 6-7,000, coming up with what he writes is an "approximate" figure of 42,000? Perhaps, but nowhere does he give the impression of being dishonest in his book. Now Fadix says the real figure was over 100,000. Yes, that's what Fadix says, with his proven propensity for the truth.

Bliss was a missionary, whose accounts were exaggerated to begin with; he had total sympathy for the Armenians. A passage of Bliss' la-la mentality is provided: "Mohammedans ... have been taught for centuries that a Christian slain was the surest passport to the favor of God and the enjoyment of eternal happiness. Under the insane spell of this awful fanaticism, they have come down like wolves on the gentle Christian people under their sway, and within the last year have slaughtered men, women, and children without mercy,...only because they are Christians."

We've already had plenty of examples of the shameless deception practiced by Armenians, to gain Western sympathies. Capt. C. B. Norman informs us of this "quality," back in 1895, referring to Cuinet’s statistics for Sassoun: "Now, out of the Armenian population of 8,389 we were told that from 10,000 to 20,000 had been killed but it was generally assumed that 15,000 was a safe estimate." At Amasya, the Armenian teacher Thoumanian stated that 800 perished. "A German resident and an Armenian merchant, both present during the disturbances, fixed the number at 53." At Berecik, where 2,000 Armenians were supposed to have been murdered, "only five lives were lost." The impartial British officer tells us the figures given by various correspondents in Istanbul were "willfully exaggerated."

(This sort of dishonesty continued until the end of the conflict. For example, on Feb. 6 1920, Armenian Patriarch Zaven stated in a telegram to Nubar Pasha that 2,000 Armenians had been massacred in Marash. On Feb. 25, the Reuter news agency reported this figure as 70,000. What's heartbreaking is that even the original 2,000 had nothing to do with reality. French Prime Minister Millerand said in a telegram that "In particular the Armenian losses in Marash appear to be absolutely false.")

Who can believe any of these figures of biased people Fadix provides? For example, John Thompson. Most Britons were influenced by the horrendous anti-Turkish hatred spread by Prime Minister Gladstone. I don't know if John Thompson was one of them, but what I do know was that there were very few Captain Normans.

Rummel is a "genocide scholar" who primarily listens to the Dadrians of the world, as the lot of genocide scholars. His research is one-sided and flawed. For example, he refers to unfounded Walker/Boyajian massacre counts of 6,000 to 10,000 in 1920 Kars, when even anti-Turkish Near East Relief individuals (whose exclusive concern was to alleviate the suffering of Armenians) such as Edward Fox, Harris, White, et. al. said there were basically no massacres whatsoever. Why should anyone listen to a biased "scholar" like that?

And how laughable for Fadix to ridicule Nalbandian's range of 50,000-300,000, and then ask to consider Rummel's almost-as-wide range of 100,000-300,000.

Our weasel beast friend then percolates at the mouth as he rants about Lepsius' 88,243 figure. (Of course, he adds that I am guilty of willful manipulation, when I simply took that figure from Gurun's book.) He says those figures are incomplete, as they did not include the millions of slain Armenians from "most" of 1896.

All I know is that the Vicar Lepsius was another religious fanatic like Bliss, and if anything, his 88,243 count was wildly exaggerated. Here's an example of the reliability of Johannes Lepsius: Aghasi, who began the 1895 Zeitun rebellion, writes in his diary (again, he was the Armenian leader, and was in a position to know): "From the beginning until the end of the insurrection, the Turks lost 20,000 men, 13,000 of whom were soldiers, and the rest were bashi-bozuks [irregulars]. We had lost only 125 men, 60 of whom had died in battle, and 65 of whom were dastardly killed during the cease-fire. (p. 306]

Aghasi = 125 Armenians killed. Lepsius = 6,000 Armenians killed. (101, footnote, Gurun.)

The reader can determine there has been a bottomless pit of horrible propaganda, still working its evil today. 125, from a genuine Armenian source, was the kind of figure Gurun HONESTLY used to calculate his conclusions. We can readily believe the actual figures of Armenian mortality was not anywhere near the propagandistic levels of 100,000-300,000. No, as Gurun HONESTLY writes:

"One thing is certain, and that is, even if we are to include the Armenians killed by the bullets of the Armenian rebels as having been killed by Turks, the number of Armenians who died during the rebellions in the 1890s will hardly reach 20,000."

Note how HONEST Gurun is. He doesn't rely on Aghasi's figure of 20,000 Turkish dead, attempting to deliberately inflate Turkish mortality to gain sympathy Armenian-style, since Gurun knows Aghasi would have been biased in wishing to inflate his heroism. But there would have been NO reason for Aghasi to have lied about the 125 figure.

Gurun: "There is a great difference between 20,000 and 300,000. At the very least it would be fair for those who give these figures to remember how many people lost their lives in rebellions or disorders in their own or other countries, and think how much right they have to use the term massacre. In the meantime it is also necessary to compute the number of Muslims who died in the same period. If we are to take seriously Aghasi's statement that they killed 20,000 Turks in Zeitun, then the Muslim casualties would approach 25,000, and would be twice the Armenian casualties. We leave aside this exaggeration. The number of Muslims who died during these rebellions in a two-year period is not less than 5,000. Most of these Muslims were killed without provocation, by shots fired on them or with bombs, so that the rest would be aroused and attack the Armenians. This is the real murder, the real massacre.

I don't know if Ernest Jackh was a "Turcophile," although obviously Lepsius was an "Armenophile." Lepsius was a religious fanatic, he had reason to love the Christian Armenians. What reason did Jackh have to love Turks? The fact that he wrote a book called "The Rising Crescent," and reported his facts straight? Armenians are so used to Westerners who automatically hate Turks and to side with the Armenians, the instant a Westerner employs fair play, such a Westerner becomes "pro-Turk." For example, even though Admiral Bristol has been smeared as being pro-Turk, one can tell from his writings he didn't love the Turks. What Bristol respected was the truth.

The Armenians' numbers in the later part of the 19th century, from Lynch's book: "An Armenian clerical writer (Vahan Vardapet in an Armenian newspaper published in Constantinople, the Djeridei Sharkieh, dated 3/15 December 1886), who appears not to err on the side of exaggeration, has placed the entire Gregorian population, that is the great bulk of his countrymen in Turkey, at 1,263,900 souls. It is reasonable to suppose that the Armenian subjects of the Sultan number upwards of one and a half million."

Note Lynch is aware of the Armenian propensity for exaggeration, and thus commends Vardapet for being sort of honest, as far as can be expected from a people prone to exaggerate and sometimes outright falsify. Lynch probably resorted to the Patriarch somewhat himself, when he came up with his own figures; he did not research the matter as extensively as Cuinet [next section; Cuinet based his information from local Armenian Churches], although Lynch is known to have carried serious research in his own right. His figure: 1,325,000. (Breakdown: six provinces: 387,746; The rest of Asian Turkey: 751,500; European Turkey: 186,000.)

So why is Fadix attempting to fudge our minds wih the over 2 million figures of George Cox and others who conducted no serious research or primarily relied on the lying Patriarch's figures? Why didn't Fadix make note of what an "honest" ARMENIAN came up with? Because his agenda is to want to make you believe there were greater numbers of Armenians, just like the Patriarch. Fadix has Zero Credibility.

Here's an eye-opener: The Armenian Patriarch, whom we can always rely on to blow propagandistic hot air, first had the audacity to report the worldwide Armenian population as strictly from the Ottoman Empire, at 3,000,000. (At the Berlin Congress, end of 1877-78 War.) When he saw chances for autonomy slipping, and thought of the topic of taxes, he "revised" his figures to 1,780,000! That's still an exaggeration, but at least he came down from the stratosphere. --Torque March 1, 2005

The Relevant Statistics

In order to get a true picture of the population of the Armenians, so important to determine awfully exaggerated statistics like "1.5 million murdered," let's not get distracted with what some obscure Austrian figure (at least I never heard of him, and I've done some studying) stated from the 1850s. Let's focus on the Armenian population shortly before the 1915 period.

Let's face it; every dick and harry came up with numbers, but given the onslaught of religious and racial prejudice in the West against Turks, we can't give attention to every one of those who employed sky-high figures. For example, the Near East Relief, through a film they had a part in releasing, claimed 4 million Armenians perished. They also claimed close to over 1.7 million survived, meaning the pre-war population must have been nearly six million.

Take with a grain of salt when Master Propagandist fires away figures that have no basis in reality, from all kinds of sources, in his perpetual attempt to confuse the truth.

The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica figured 3 million worldwide, a jump of 100,000 from 1910. Alexander Powell agrees, granting half that figure (1.5 million) for the Ottoman Empire. Ludovic de Costenson believed 3,100,000 in 1913.

(Gurun states the 1953 edition of the above encyclopedia "revised" [Armenians hate revisionists] 1911's 1.5 million Ottoman-Armenian figure to a whopping 2,500,550. An Armenian wrote the article!)

Vital Cuinet is said to have researched the empire's population most thoroughly, among foreigners. He wrote, "The work which we present today, to the public in general, is a compilation of statistic notes gathered on the spot, during various trips of exploration we have undertaken in the last twelve years." His figure includes all Gregorian, Protestant, and Catholic Armenians in Anatolia, where almost all of the Armenians lived. The French Yellow Book used these figures, recognizing them as official: 1,475,011.

Prof. Justin McCarthy arrived at virtually the same figure from "The Anatolian Armenians," 1984: 1,465,000, in 1912. In a table presented within a chapter (entitled, ""The Population of the Ottoman Armenians") in another book, when he adds the number of non-Anatolians, he arrives at 1,698,301.

The figures presented by Armenian partisans Richard Hovannisian and Christopher Walker both give ranges of 1,500,000-2,000,000. Let's present the fair median, 1,750,000, which isn't far from the above. (Hovannisian's figure is from his 1967 book, when he was more toned down with his nationalism. By the time of "The Republic of Armenia" about a quarter-century later, he would "revise" his figures to "approximately 2,000,000.")

Now there are sources like the 1912 British Blue Book, which state about a million (authoritative, as the "colored" books carried the stamp of officialdom), but it's nice that there's some sort of consensus with the disparate sources above. Toynbee himself figured the total population of Armenians living in Anatolia as only 761,000. If we add the Armenians from the other parts of the empire, seeing what the other statisticians above came up with, Toynbee's number for the entire Ottoman-Armenian population could not have exceeded 1 million. That information is from his 1915 book, "Nationality and the War." The same year, Toynbee would be hired for His Majesty's Propaganda Division, Wellington House. He dishonestly gives greater valuation to the Patriarch's figure of 2.1 million only the following year, when he wrote "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," the basis for the Blue Book. But even Toynbee tries to be fair, finding the midpoint with the Ottoman census (not the latest one, which was 1.3 million; here he cites 1.1 million.), at 1.6 million. Note the outdated Ottoman figure he sought to discredit was 100,000 more than what he came up with the previous year.

So the range from "unbiased" Western sources is from 1 million to 1.7 million. If we take near the top of this range, and figure the 1 million who survived, we get an idea of how many Armenians perished, the brunt from causes that did not involve outright murder. I believe up to 600,000 died. Of course, the fair people among us should not forget over 2.5 million Turks/Muslims died. Outright murder at the hands of Armenians, with Russian help? 518,000. More Armenians killed Turks than the other way around. Isn't it ironic we're focusing on a "genocide" that never took place? These Turks who were killed were the victims of a real extermination policy. --Torque March 1, 2005

Other Notes

These pages are not meant to get into these detailed facts. We should encourage readability. the reason why I felt compelled to write in detail is because it is the strategy of Zero Credibility Fadix to "inundate." Pile up his "avalanche" of weasel facts, and it becomes hard to think clearly; he loves to stun his reader into submission. There's no end of biased, ignorant people who relied on Armenian propaganda, and Fadix can easily provide dozens of sources, since he is a professional propagandist, and has amassed his crooked knowledge. As Goebbels put it, the task of propaganda is "to provide the naively credulous with the arguments for what they think and wish, but which they are unable to formulate and verify themselves."

What I needed to do was take apart Fadix's rewriting of the article, but his "ton of stuff" from the Talk Page took precedence. Here are two examples of how Fadix intended to deceive, in his article re-write.

Fadix went to great lengths to demonstrate the Armenians who rebelled did not originate from the Ottoman Empire. Of course; according to preserve the Armenians' "Myth of Innocence," Armenian propaganda tells us all the men were killed, leaving the women, children and elderly free to be torn apart by the barbarian Turkish hordes.

The fact is, most of the Russian-Armenians came from the Ottoman Empire. (Boghos Nubar told us there were 150,000 Russian-Armenians, and 50,000 "volunteers.") As Ottoman control was weak in the east, Armenians from each side travelled freely across the border. There are a number of Western sources (like Rafael de Nogales, whom Armenians like to cite) telling us how Ottoman-Armenian soldiers deserted in droves. Who knows how many went to hook up with their brethren in the Russian army. Some stayed behind, along with ordinary rebels, to create havoc behind-the-lines.

"Prudence was thrown to the winds; even the decision of (the Dashnaks') own convention of Erzerum was forgotten, and a call was sent for Armenian volunteers to fight the Turks on the Caucasian front." (Papazian, 1934)

Are we going to conclude there were masses of Armenians in other countries to compose the ranks of these volunteers, fighting inside Ottoman lines? Most of the French Armenians joined a legion formed by by the French, who were put to violent use at the end of the war. And of the others who came from outside? "The Black Company," NYTimes, 12/15/1915:

"They were part of a stream of Armenians that has been pouring down into the Caucasus from the United States, Canada, England, France, and elsewhere, but particularly from America, for several months now, practically all of them Turkish Armenians, relying on the promise of the Russian Government that part of whatever territory which they may take from the Turks will be given to them as an autonomous Armenia under Russian protection. Almost every ship... has been carrying Turkish Armenians back to fight their hereditary enemy and his adopted war lord. They pay their own expenses back to Russia, are transported by the Russian Government to Tiflis, in the Russian Caucasus, where they are drilled by Russian officers and formed into Armenian regiments, the Russian Government supplying half of their equipment and they themselves buying the rest out of their own pockets. Most of them have had military training in Turkey. For instance, "Charl' Chaplin," the little leader who drilled his company on the careening decks of our ship, had been a lieutenant in the Ottoman army during the first Balkan War. By the 15th of last October 26,000 Turkish Armenians had taken the field against their ancient overloads, and 15,000 more were drilling at Tiflis, these groups being entirely distinct from the 75,000 Russian Armenians that had already been welded into the Czar's army. Fully 2,800 of these Turkish Armenians had been contributed by the Armenian colony in the United States."

Most of the "foreign" Armenians fought in Russian regiments; maybe half of Nubar's 150,000 figure, if the article's 75,000 of original Russians is correct. (Poor Armenians, believing in Russian promises, time and again. Little did they know, the Russians had no intention for an autonomous Armenia. But why not? They had over a century of Russian broken promises behind them. Fanatics simply can't think clearly.)

(This is why William Saroyan wrote the great enemy of the Armenians is not the Turks, but the Russians.)

And what of the Ottoman-Armenians who hadn't had the chance to emigrate, but were living in the country they betrayed? There are many inter-governmental Ottoman reports that were meant for internal use (only unearthed in recent years to fight the Armenian slander campaign, so it's not "propaganda"). Here's one from the Governor of Sivas, April 22, 1915 (note the date, preceding the order to arrest Armenian leaders by a couple of days):

"...a great number of illegal weapons and dynamite have been found. According to the statement of the suspects who were caught, the Armenians have armed 30,000 people in this region,15,000 of them have joined the Russian Army, and the other 15,000 will threaten our Army from the rear, if the Turkish Army is unsuccessful." Despite the weasel beast's attempts to have us believe such rebellions were "localized," Multiply the figures provided by the number of other regions, and see how extensive and dangerous the Armenian rebellion really was.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Armenians are Armenians first, and citizens of their adopted countries second. We've seen an example of this from 1919 Georgia, above. The fact is, when these Armenians were under the control of other armies, they went out of control... as Russian and French officers have documented extensively. Ask yourselves: What is the difference between a Russian Armenian and an Ottoman Armenian? Even today: take their "colony" in America. Do you think the Armenians care about U.S. national interests when they try to alienate staunch ally Turkey with their genocide resolutions, enforced by politicians in their pockets? Do you think they care about American law when they establish defense funds for their terrorist heroes who have murdered innocents?

One other "weasel fact" Fadix has provided was an article (166?) in the constitution banning arms for Armenians. His purpose was to make us believe the innocent Armenians couldn't arm themselves and were laid wide open to the onslaught of the Turkish hordes. The reason for the implementation of that article was that all Armenians were free to buy all the arms they wanted. That was one reason why Adana exploded in 1909; with all the armed Armenians, the area was a powderkeg. (Naturally, the super weasel beast put in Adana as another example of innocent Armenians slaughtered, without mentioning who started it. The only reason why more Armenians got killed was because there were more Muslims, when the fierce fighting erupted.) The article prohibiting arms came too late; already, practically all Armenians were armed to the teeth. Even after the article, the Armenians got all the mausers (sophisticated pistols acting like machine guns, to the Turkish villagers' few rusty rifles, frequently breaking down after firing one shot) and other weaponry they wanted, since the Armenians were usually one step ahead of the authorities. --Torque March 1, 2005

Message to Mediator

Now the mediator, like the ICTJ, no doubt has been exposed primarily to this propaganda, an "avalanche" of which is available in the West. I urge the mediator to read Gurun's book, and to look at this topic with an open mind. And I want to remind the mediator that Fadix has exposed himself to have Zero Credibility time and again. When one only presents an exclusive side, overlooking the rest, one's credibility dissipates.

One need look strictly at the Ottoman records to see how Armenians suffered immensely. There were many innocent Armenians among the 700,000 uprooted, and how awful it must have been to give up one's home and go to places unknown, under the command of those who didn't always have their best interest at heart. It's time the Armenians acknowledge the ones who put them in this harmful position were their fanatical leaders, when "Prudence was thrown to the winds," as K. S. Papazian wrote.

The whole idea behind genocide, notwithstanding silly definitions by the ICTJ where only one person needs to be killed, involves a systematic extermination plan, with the idea of killing off everyone. Were there Ottomans intending to exterminate the Armenians? The answer is: if the idea was to exterminate, a million couldn't have survived. But there were definitely those with murder on their minds.

But who were these Ottomans? They were NOT Talat, Enver, and Jemal. The real Ottoman orders safeguarded Armenian lives and property. In other words, there is no single shred of evidence tying in the central government to this great alleged crime.

This is why we must look at the BIG PICTURE. The Armenians rebelled. Posing too great a threat to the desperate nation engaged in a life or death struggle, they got relocated. Unfortunately, things went awry. There was a deep shortage of manpower and resources, and the huge task of transporting and relocating hundreds of thousands was compounded by locals who were corrupt, opportunistic and revengeful. (But what's forgotten are those who did their job properly; some gendarmes died defending Armenians from attack, and Morgenthau got direct word from an Armenian representative that 500,000 were carrying on well with their lives in September of 1915. Since he was another weasel, he didn't report this diary entry in his book.)

Let's compare with a recent operation conducted by the world's superpower, the USA. The USA didn't have any "time pressure" to war in Iraq, since Iraq wasn't threatening to invade America. The USA had all the time in the world to make sure everything went right. We are all aware how wrong things went. While there's a news block-out (a lesson learned from the Vietnam War), the public had a chance to see the agony inflicted upon Iraqi civilians through, for example, FAHRENHEIT 9/11. We are aware video game-playing or nervous American soldiers can be trigger-happy. We know, because of poor planning, cultural rape occurred when the Iraqi museum got looted. How do you think American soldiers would behave, let alone American civilians, if Ameria were on her knees with powers threatening every front, and a traitorous minority begins massacring fellow Americans, in exchange for promises of a new homeland? Don't you think at least some of them would avenge their massacred children and spouses?

The idea was to make sure the Armenians in each town composed no greater a number than 10%. This is why the fact that we are told the Armenians were marched off into the desert to die is another myth. The fact is, Armenians were dispersed within the Anatolian heartland, as well.... from Ankara to Konya, let's say. These are all in the Ottoman archives. Downright stupid decisions were made when villages Armenians were dispersed to were Kurdish villages. That was the end of these Armenians. Were they purposely sent to these villages because of "extermination" goals? That's a matter of speculation. Perhaps the official thought "we were all Ottomans," and nothing would happen to those Armenians.

There are even genuine telegrams indicating Talat Pasha was aware soldiers killed Armenians. The question: did these soldiers get orders from the top?

Let's go back to Iraq. Not long ago, an American soldier was sentenced to 12 or 15 years for tortures committed at the Abu Gharib prison. (Let's bear in mind Ottomans were tried and punished DURING the war for crimes against Armenians, some to the extent of execution.) The American said he was following orders. Of course; some local commander gave this soldier the thumbs up. But did these orders extend up to President Bush, the counterpart of "Talat Pasha"? (We don't know, because there's no proof. We can't blame Bush for deliberately giving such orders. Unless the evidence surfaces, or unless an Andonian comes up with forgeries.)

We know there were many more soldiers involved in Iraqi war crimes than the handful charged/tried, but only these few were scapegoated. Why? Because if there's a full-scale effort to find and punish every guilty party, morale on the home front would plunge. Compound that in a situation where a nation is battling for her very life. The fact that any Ottomans were punished at all, given their desperate situation, says a lot.

An important document bearing witness to "no genocide" is one written by Enver to Talat on May 2, 1915. This was after the last of the Van rebellions (until that time) and rebellions in other cities, followed by the April 24 order to arrest Armenian ringleaders. (All murdered on the same day, according to most Armenian propagandistic sources.) Enver notes the Armenian insurrection in Van, and the Russians' traditional method of expulsion of Muslims from lands they had conquered. (He writes, "Muslims within their borders," actually. So perhaps these were their own Muslims kicked out, to further strain the limited resources of the Ottomans who had to take care of them, and to use the war opportunity to get rid of an unreliable Muslim population. This expulsion took place on April 20.)

"In order to respond to this, as well as to reach the goal (of destroying the rebellion's nest)..., it is necessary to either send these Armenians and their families to Russia, or to disperse them within Anatolia. I request that the most suitable of these two alternatives be chosen and carried out. If there is no inconvenience I would prefer that the families of the rebels and the population of the region in rebellion are sent outside our borders and that the Muslim community brought into our borders from abroad are relocated to their place."

Enver opted for expulsing his country's traitorous Christians, just like Russia had been doing with her innocent Muslims. Sounds fair, doesn't it?

Note there is no thought of extermination, because of pan-Turanism, or because Muslims hate Christians, or the other phony reasons Armenian propaganda tells us served as the motive for genocide. Just boot them into the hands of their precious Russians! Why spend the milliions of dollars to relocate, and why divert precious resources and manpower on a relocating attempt within their own country?

Ironically (given the "genocide" charge), the Ottoman government chose the more HUMANITARIAN route. Yes, things went wrong. But the intentions were good.

I would like to request, regardless of how the article is finally presented, to remove the word "genocide" from the title. Another partisan had started a page at Wikipedia, pointing to the equally phony Pontus Greek "genocide" as the "Greek Holocausf" at Wikipedia. This name was justly changed. Similarly, we should only hold truth as our parameter, within this page.

And please keep the BIG PICTURE in mind. Not the dizzying array of confusing weasel facts Fadix is sure to present from his propaganda "avalanche," all amounting to "Joe said..." Honorable people don't resort to hearsay in the charge of a crime, particularly this great crime. When the British turned honorable, they ignored all the "avalanche" of hearsay and forgeries, and freed all the Turks at Malta because there was simply no reliable evidence to be found.

Raffi may be excused somewhat for perpetuating his propaganda, because he has only studied one side of his story, and has a "religious" bent. I don't know how Fadix can live with himself, as he has scrutinized this historic episode inside out. He is determined to support his agenda, regardless of the genuine facts. This is why Fadix, the Super Armenian Weasel Beast, has ZERO CREDIBILITY.--Torque March 1, 2005

PLEASE DO NOT EDIT THIS PAGE, BOTH PARTIES WILL BE ASKING FOR MEDIATION. BE ADVISED THAT IF YOU DO EDIT, IT WILL BE REVERTED BACK.

What the heck is this? What gives any editor the right to pre-judge what other editors do on a page? Rick K 06:35, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

This place is abused by some, and used as a propaganda, it is reasonable to think that epople should refrain changing it again and again.

No, that will get you blocked from editing. Discuss it here, have an admin protect it, but don't warn others off from editing. That is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Rick K 05:42, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)

RE. Comparing the propagandistic factor of Raffi vs. Fadix

Let answer Mr. Torque yet again.

Raffi proudly exclaimed that he knows this subject "VERY well," yet it has become apparent he doesn't know that much at all... especially if he makes comments not steeped in reality, such as there was no Armenian rebellion.

Germany Ottoman ally, The commander of the Ottoman IIIrd army, on the spot, the Ottoman Intelligent department II at the front, all of them haven't reported the rebellion you claim has happened. This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your website, none of the official documents support your claim of Ottoman propaganda, including the files collected by the father of denialism Mr. Uras, including the archives released by Turkeys ministry of foreign affairs.

Like 99% of Armenians, he is only content in studying what his deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell him... of which there is an "avalanche" of propagandistic information out there, since the Turks are not a "speak up" kind of people traditionally, and current ones don't have the motivation to bone up on this topic. (Even if they do, this one-sided "avalanche" is so firmly entrenched in the West, they would not be playing on an equal playing field.)

This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your site where you can post racist generalizations. If you want to spew your hateful venom and tell us what 99% of Armenians are, go find somewhere else.

Raffi has admitted he hasn't read Sam Weems' "Armenia," even though he has felt free to knock it down, and I have no doubt he has also not come near Gurun's "The Armenian File - The Myth of Innocence Exposed," even though he knocked that one down as well. This is the job of Armenians: to knock down anything that debunks their big genocidal con job, regardless of the source, and of the truth.

I have read both works and have already reviewed them, and beside commenting about books which people have not read and yet they comment, what a hypocrite you are, you did this same thing with countless numbers of people, on the other forum, and in your official website, don't accuse others of things which you do in daily basis.

Raffi has demonstrated he has an aversion to truth. One example was his referring to me as a "pro-Turkish govt positionee," even though he has no idea of who I am. But a perfect example of how the Armenian strategy works is to overlook the forest, and single out the sole tree that supports their genocide. Raffi did this with our ICTJ exchange. Once again, the ICTJ is a body of lawyers (not historians) who decreed the Armenians' experience was a genocide... and the Armenians must latch on to this, as they have no other judicial proof.

Again hypocrisy at best, when an historian claim it was a genocide, you brag a so-called Malta tribunal that never was, and ask the thing to be “proven”in a court, when bunch of jurists do conclude it as genocide, you claim they are not historians. Do make a choice and stick to it, but I know that's to much asking to you.

In typical Armenian style,

That's the last time I will ask you to refrain making racist generalization, the next time I will complaining to Wikipedia, as I told you, this place is not your website where you can spew your racistic venoms.

we are asked to examine the surface; but if we dig deeper, we learn the ICTJ primarily used the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda to make their determination, and that their definition of genocide is that only one person needs to be killed... so that the murder of Talat Pasha by Soghoman Tehlirian can be called a genocide, rendering the word meaningless.

That's bullcrap, but I do expect from your part to assassinate the character of people supporting my theses, I do expect for you to twist what they say... you are so good at it.

As rebuttal, I attached Justin McCarthy's views, where at one point he wrote the 1948 Convention is watered down enough to have the Armenians' experience called a genocide.

I have posted in the other forum over 40 pages of analysis regarding McCarthy and his works, but of course you prefer taking the words of someone that receives grants directly from Ankara, but on the other hand you assassinate the character of people that are independent. Mr. Torque would probably be the first one to yapp, if it was to happen that a historian was to receive grants from the republic of Armenia or was to participate in a ministry publication regarding the Turks, or yet better was to participate in an institute of Turkish studies of the Republic of Armenia destinated at supporting the “Armenian” theses. But what can we expect, since McCarthy is the best Mr. Torque can get.

Forget the fact that even with the 1948 Convention's broad definition, the Armenians' story still doesn't fit, as "intent" has yet to be proven, and the convention exempts political alliances; Raffi completely disregarded McCarthy's main point, which is what happened to the Muslims at the hands of the Armenians would then also be termed a genocide. All Raffi was interested in was the one statement that was helpful, and pretended the rest did not exist. An honest person seeking the truth does not operate in this fashion.

McCarthy is an academic fraud, he has manipulated the theory of stable population, has not respected any of the 4 points of the founders of that theory, and to get his work published he had to add on the first pages that the numbers presented there are too imperfect to be considered as correct. McCarthy is a fraud, he has manipulated works when including in a footnote to support theses, when the works were telling the complete opposite of what he affirms. e.g, when he claimed Armenians started in Van, he provided to references, Ussher and Nogales, when both books say that this was not the cases. For Erzerun, he has used a propaganda material even more suspcious than the Andonians, prepared by Mehmed Sadik and the head of the Ottoman propaganda bureau, when another in that department has admitted that propaganda materials were build regarding the Armenians. But of course, again, McCarthy is probably the best Mr. Torque could get. As for 1948 genocide convention, it is recognized that not only the Armenian cases fir it, but even the restrictive term includes the Armenian cases as a part of its definition.

Fadix has done what few Armenians have done; he has throughly studied this topic, making use of the limitless knowledge base of propaganda organizations like Vahakn Dadrian's Zoryan Institute. He follows in the footsteps of the slimy Dadrian, whose job it has been to try and discredit the real historical picture with the "avalanche" of selective "facts" the Armenian propaganda industry has had the luxury having produced for over a century.

The material I use are known authentic, compared to what you use. I am not the one that uses forgeries and falsifications, I am not the one using quotations that do not exist, you are, I have given bunch of examples of falsified materials you have used, but this didn't stopped you to use them again. Stop defaming a professional, you don't come to Dadrians foot fingers in what regards integrity and professionalism, your knowledge of the event won't give a digit on a calculator that can display 10 digits when compared it with Dadrians knowledge. While I have analysed what McCarthy has actually writen, while I have commented his works, reviewed them and actually have read them all, you have slandered people and professional who's the works you have not read, you have tried assassinating their characters under the cover of anonymousness. You are both a coward and a racist.

There have been a host of influential Western people who have been taken in by this hogwash, aided by the fact that the "Terrible Turk" has been looked upon as outcasts of humanity ever since the Crusades. It's not difficult to find seemingly legitimate people who have been suckered in to the Armenian madness. As latter-day examples, we have Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan adding their voices to the genocide bandwagon on Raffi's quotes page. But there certainly is no shortage of duped/prejudiced Westerners from the "genocide days" that Fadix makes extensive use of.... not excluding the (WWI allies) Germans and Austrians who were the enemies of the Ottoman Turks for centuries, and not all would be able to shake their feelings of animosity. How easy it was for them to accept the sob stories of the Armenians and the missionaries, as well.

What an hypocrite you are, but of course you ignored the fact that in Western history books of the time, in anthropological research, Armenians were either considered as Persians or Christian Turks, they were considered by the Germans as Christian Jews, either the Jews of Orient. There are bunch of documents supporting what I advance. The King Crane report even affirmed that the Turks were more liked than the Armenians, and this is confirmed in many literatures. So here again, talking of revisionism, you shout Western biases in every given occasion by thinking that it will undo the reports, that is not how it works, you can not undo peoples reports only by claiming their were Westerns. Beside that, the Austrian and German reports supporting the theses I advance were secret reports and not for public consumption. While the documentations early in the war for public consumption were supporting your theses, the secret reports were telling the quite opposite, letter those for public consumption change, but that was due to the fact that Germany was unable to hide what was happening anymore. Beside that, not only Western sources points to the Genocide, there are more clearer documents in the Armenians cases that display a clear inetion from the government to exterminate the Armenian than the Holocaust. Hilberg an authority of the Shoah has himself claimed that there was no documents ordering the extermination of the European Jewry. In fact, you will never find any memoirs from German officials anything near to what Halil wrote in his memoirs, when he claimed that he has tried to exterminate the Armenians to the last individual, there are many such examples. But since you don't care of the truth, I do not expect you to change your mind, you are not here to know the truth contrary to what you affirm, you already have made your mind, because you hate the Armenians, and that is clear and becomes clearer in each of your posts. While the first book I have read about the subject was not supporting my cases(McCarthy), what you did is take trash and copypast them, without researching about the matter. What Yapp has claimed regarding Dadrian, that's exactly what you've been doing.

This is why I say Fadix has zero credibility. He knows the other side of the story. When he comes across evidence from sources with no conflict-of-interest (indeed, Western sources are primarily anti-Turkish, and those who would refute his genocide would have no reason to lie), does he stop and say, Wait a minute... maybe there is something to this. No. His first instinct, in typical Armenian fashion, is to think, How can I discredit this?

Stop accusing me of what you see in your reflection in the mirror. While I comment and analysis works which I actually read, you on the other hand assassinate characters who's work you have even not read in the first place. I am not the one claiming Armenians=Truth, on the other hand, you are the one claiming Turks=Truth, you have claimed that being a formula in your own web site, and told you readers to remember it. You must be a hell of a hypocrite to claimwhat you claim here regarding me, after you have displayed to be exactly that. As for zero credibility, again, as I said countless numbers of times. A credibility is lost for a reason, not because someone said it. You have lost your credibility, because you have used distortions, non-existing quotes, forgeries, fabrications, non-existing materials to support your claims, and I have demonstrated that in countless numbers of occasions.

One of Fadix's many methods of putting up smokescreens (and to try and discredit me) is to claim I am "racist." This is ironic, because it has been documented (and hopefully it's not as true for current generations, but reading Armenian forums, I wonder) that Armenians have been bred to hate Turks. By contrast, the Turks deliberately didn't dwell on the past ills and shoved the 518,000 Muslims (the Armenians murdered) under the rug, stressing love and brotherhood.

You are a racist, you generalize and characterize people based on their ethnicity, this is a form of racism. On the other hand, be glad to show me where I did that with the Turks? While I refer to your side as denialists, you characterize Armenians and attach to them behaviors, which is racistic and is against Wikipedias terms of uses. Regarding the 518,000 Muslim being killed, you know well that I have shown this number to be forgeries, I have demonstrated that 3 numbers, for the same location, the same date and the same files, in which the “8” was taken and zeros added in each of them, I have demonstrated how this news was used by the intermediary of the German Chief of Staff for German public consumption soon during the war to ally the public opinion to a German-Turkish causes. But I don't expect you to stop shouting something I have shown you more than one occasion to be a forgery.

Armenians are lovely people; we are all of the human family. But since Armenian sites like Raffi's love to put up testimony of what a "human cancer" the Turkish people are (usually from those who have never met Turks; those who have met them who say such things... like the one who wrote "The [Turkish] Blight of Asia" were zealous religious fanatics, such as U.S. Consul George Horton), should we close our eyes to how non-agenda-laden Westerners who have met Armenians typically think of them? In anti-Turkish history books documenting the Crusades, we often read how the Crusaders came out with a respect for the honor of the Turks/Muslims, and with a distaste for the Armenians/Greeks who have tried to cheat them.

What is said in those testimonies is not different than what was said regarding the Germans in World War II, after witnessing the German horrors of the war. Raffi is simply presenting the words of people being horrified. But of course you have no problem posting materials describing Armenians as worst in your own web-site. As for the Armenians being lovely people, comments like this won't undo your racist views.

June 16, 1880, Lt.-Col. C.W. Wilson, British Consul General for Anatolia described the Armenians as "immoral, fanatic, bigoted," and that "truth and honesty are sadly deficient."

Exactly what I told above, as I said, the Armenians were not viewed anywhere better than the Turks. So your claims regarding racism against the Turks and not Armenians is not valid.

Harold Armstrong, 1925: "argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know-it-alls." The Armenians are "crafty, grasping, secretive, acquisitive and dishonest, making a great pretence of religion, but using it as a cloak for treachery and greed."

Again, this support my position, Westerners didn't had any better view regarding the Armenians, I fail to see how this can be an argument to support your theses. But of course your goal is not this, since you are a racist, you use such materials to support your claim regarding the Armenians being inferior as a “race.”

Sept. 30, 1908, British vice-counsel Capt. Dickson: "unsympathetic, mean, cringing, unscrupulous, lying, thieving... endowed with a sneak thief sharpness."

Again, the same thing apply here.

WOW! What better way to describe "Zero Credibility" Fadix? Especially with that "sneak thief sharpness"! The above described qualities are unfortunately not absent from Armenians who dishonestly try to justify their huge genocidal con job... at the head of which is that master manipulator, Vahakn Dadrian, who actually tried to legitimize Andonian's forged telegrams, the ones Andonian himself indicated were fake.

First of all, Andonian never claimed the documents as being fakes, he claimed that they were used as propagandas, so stop lying, you can lie in your website, but this is not the place. Second of all, Dadrian never claimed that the Andonians were authentic, his essay was a review of Orel and his colleagues review regarding the Andonians, he analyzed their arguments, he concluded that the arguments used can not support the claim that the documents were forgeries.

I'll make use of Weems' "Armenia" and Gurun's "The Armenian File" to counter Fadix's smokescreen assertions. I urge you all to read these books... especially the mediator, who will also suffer from a bias (like the ICTJ lawyers), because of the prevalent Armenian propaganda that has brainwashed so many. Note Armenian attempts to discredit both authors have nothing to do with the immaculate sources that have been researched, particularly Armenian sources... sources that would have had no reason to be untruthful. Gurun's book is available online,

What a cheap trick, the decisions from the mediators should be taken based on what arguments are brought here. Kamuran Gurun was a Turkish diplomat at the Turkish foreign ministry and had as charge with peoples such as Ataov to deny the Armenian genocide. Gurun has used manipulations such as the figure of 702,900, the figures representing Muslim immigrants and passed them as Armenians, he brought as one argument, that since the Armenians did not exist, an Armenian genocide could not have occurred... he manipulated numbers from other sources, an example is provided in my answer regarding the Armenian losses from 1894 to 1897.

As for Weems, I had a complete review of Weems that has been shut down by the Turkish site tetedeturc and Turkishforum, I may be wrong, but the fact of the matter is that one turk whom was discussing with me has emailed Turkishforum, and soon after my site was shut down. Such cheap tricks to silence the truth about Weems work tell it all. Weems has manipulated other figures of population statistics, and I have provided many examples, he claims having done research in Russian archives, yet as a picture of the building he present the Basilica which he mistake as the archives building. His translations of those archives were word by word identical to the official translations of the Turkish governments historiographies. There are hundreds of works regarding the genocide, the Holocaust Museum has 200 books, which represent a fraction, the Armenian genocide is considered as the second most studied genocide, There are works regarding the concentration camps, the special organization, German complicity, etc. etc. etc. And yet, you have nothing to present than a work written by a Turkish diplomat at the Turkish foreign ministry.

RE. Is it irrelevant to consider what took place before "1915"?

Let's say there is a news story about how a teen-aged girl shot her uncle. Should we automatically conclude she was a cold-blooded murderer?

To determine if it was a cold blooded, traces of premeditation are researched, the history is only used to undo predetermination by claiming that since what happened in the past, the person that committed the act didn't had all his/her mind when he/she committed the crime. The prosecution, tries to demonstrate on the other hand that because of the premeditated way the crime was committed, the accused had all his/her mind. This is why history is researched, it is to undo premeditation. There is a distinction between understanding and accepting in court of law.

No, ladies and gentlemen, when there is a crime committed, or what we are told is a crime committed in case there's no proof, we don't simply look at the final act. We look into the history of what took place in order to determine whether punishment is to be meted, and how much.

(It's funny how the Armenians love to have their cake and eat it too. For example, in the trial of Tehlirian, the assassin of Talat Pasha, the murderer walked scot-free. Why? Because the events in question -- and not the murder itself -- were examined in the fixed two-day trial, where only witnesses for the defense were permitted and whose outcome was pre-determined. Tehlirian had committed a "genocide," using the ICTJ's defintion. Tehlirian was unpunished. Maybe it's true what the genocide industry tells us, that if genocides remain unpunished, genocides will be committed again. This is why countless Armenian terrorists in future years committed genocides against innocent Turks, and some of the few who were caught usually got slaps on the wrists from biased Western courts.)

What a full of crap, Tehlirian was examined by various doctors, he had epileptic seizures as a consequences of the troma, not only because of what he has witnessed, but as well because he had brain damage from the hit he received on his head during the massacres that left him unconscious for a long time. The even itself made him an epileptic with psychosis. He ended up being a psychiatric cases with heavy medications. The only reason his history was brought was because it showed that he didn't had his mind when he killed Talaat, he thought that his actions were dictated by some divine interactions, and that his mother that was butchered was telling him to avenge her. This was why no witnesses from the other side were present, because the cases was not about what did not happen, but what Tehlirian possibly witnessed that made him insane.

And no, the ICTJ definition can not be applied here, while some such definitions may consider the murder of one person as a genocide, there should be intend to harm a group, which led the death of that person, in other cases such murder is called homicide.

This is how Armenian propagandists hope you will swallow their big con job. Look at the surface. Never scratch underneath.

In the discussions we had, everytime I was discussing by going deeper in the discussion you were displaying a clear ignorance of the subject, and here again your website clearly picture that. But of course given the way you put that, your words should not be taken seriously as usual.

On p. 162 of Hovannisian's "The Republic of Armenia," the Armenian professor explains: In 1800, Armenians were scattered (around) Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Eastern Turkey. In all but small districts, Armenians were a minority, which had been under Muslim, primarily Turkish, rule for 700 years. The Russian empire had begun the imperial conquests of the Muslim lands south of the Caucasus Mountains. One of their main weapons was the transfer of populations - deportation. They ruthlessly expelled whole Muslim populations, replacing them with Christians whom they felt would be loyal to a Christian government. Armenians were major instruments of this policy. Like others in the Middle East, the primary loyalty of Armenians was religious. Many Armenians resented being under Muslim rule, and they were drawn to a Christian State and to offers of free land (land which had been seized from Turks and other Muslims). A major population exchange began. In Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic), a Turkish majority was replaced by Armenians. In other regions such as coastal Georgia, Circassia, and the Crimea, other Christian groups were brought in to replace expelled Muslims. There was massive Muslim mortality in some cases up to one third of the Muslims died. The Russians expelled 1.3 million Muslims from 1827 to 1878. One result of this migration, serving the purpose of the Russians, was the development of ethnic hatred and...conflict between Armenians and Muslims. Evicted Muslims who had seen their families die in the Russian Wars felt animosity toward the Armenians. Armenians who hated Muslim rule looked to the Russians as liberators. Armenians cooperated with Russian invaders of eastern Anatolia in wars in 1828, 1854, and 1877. When the Russians retreated, Armenians feared Muslim retaliation and fled. Hatred grew on both sides.

STOP FABRICATING!!! STOP IT!!! I have exposed you manipulating and fabricating, and yet you do it again. Those are not Hovannians words, those are the words of McCarthy, they were uttered during a speech he gave in front of the House International Committee. It contains falsifications and manipulations like the fact that the Erevan province is not present republic of Armenia , all the lands with a considerable Muslim population ended up in the hands of Azerbaijan and Turkey as well as Georgia. His numbers are bullcrap from Turkish foreign ministry historiography. Again, you got busted your pents down trying to fabricate and pass the words of an academic fraud like Faurisson or Rassinier, as the ones of Hovannessian.

There you have it. The roots of the "genocide" have nothing to do with false theories like pan-Turanism, Muslims hating Christians, and the coveting of Armenian wealth. the roots of the "genocide" lie in Armenian treachery.

Racist, as I have shown you, the quote above is not from Hovannessian, it is from McCarthy the academic fraud, the information not being accurate, the interpretation of an inaccurate qwuote can't be accurate either.

We can now understand how important it was for the Ottomans to take the Armenian threat seriously. If the Russians crashed through the gates, there would no longer be a refuge for Turks and Muslims to escape to. The Ottoman Empire was the last stop. The struggle was truly a matter of life or death.

Bullcrap, your regurgitations are the sames as those from German apologists regarding a so-called international Zionist conspiration to get by the help of the Russians the Bolshevization of Germany. The Armenian concentration camps of Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs, Kahdem. Transit camps of Kangal, Malatia, Diyarbekir, Ourfa, Alepo. Those are enough to show a clear premeditation of the extermination. Such a premeditation makes of your claim fall short. the second organization that participated in the eradication of the Ottoman Armenians was founded by the lttihad ve Terraki technically appeared in July 1914 and was supposed to be different than the already existing organization in one important point, it was meant to be a government in a government(without needing any orders to act). Later in 1914, the Ottoman government decided to draw the direction the special organization was supposed to take by releasing criminals from central prisons to be the central elements of this newly formed special organization. For example, in Sivas, as soon as November 1914, 124 criminals were released from Pimian prison, in Ankara following few months later, 49 criminals were released from its central prison. Little by little from the end of 1914 to the beginning of 1915, hundreds of prisoners were freed to form the members of this organization that later were charged to destroy the convoys of Armenian deportees, the number then grew to thousands. The commander of the Ottoman third army, Vehib called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human specy.” This organization was led by the Central Committee Members Doctor Nazim, Behaeddin Sakir, Atif Riza, and former Director of Public Security Aziz Bey. The headquarters of Behaeddin Sakir were in Erzurum, from where he directed the forces of the Eastern vilayets. Aziz, Atif and Nazim Beys operated in Istanbul, and their decisions were approved and implemented by Cevat Bey, the Military Governor of Istanbul.

The criminals were chosen by a process of selection, they had to be ruthless butchers to be selected as a member of the special organization. The Mazhar commission has provided some lists of those criminals, in one instance for example, from the 65 criminals released 50 were in prison for murder, the lists all gave such a disproportionate ratio between those condemned for murder and others for minor crimes which constituted a clear minority. This process of selection of the criminal was a clear indicative of the government intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population. It must be noted as well, that physicians participated in the process of selection, where health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing that was required. So, no one give a crap of your insinuations and regurgitations. The Ottoman has build concentration camps and formed a special organization by using murderers that were sent to escort the Armenian refugees. Those murderers acted exactly as the Einsatzgruppen.

Not only is it relevant to examine the past (and things really heated up with Armenian treachery after 1877, with the formation of Armenian terror groups), but the events of post-1916 as well.

As I repeated, there can not be treachery in an Empire, where the concept of citizenship and allegiance did not exist. Populations were dumped in an empire by force and not by choice, the same could be said with the Russian Empire and what it did to its Circassian population that BTW actively participated in the side of the Ottoman Empire during the 1877-1878 like many other Muslim subjects, yet it is not the Russians that yapp years after years of Muslim treachery. It is racist to generalize and claim that a population committed treachery, it is racist to claim that women, children and elderly, and the majority of men committed treachery, just because some have joined. And no, what happened after 1916 is irrelevant to determine if whatever or not there was a genocide. What happened after most of the Armenians were killed, doesn't change anything. It is not because the allies have bombed civilian targets in World War II, or because of the crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Union against the Germans, that it means there was no Shoah. Your twisting and playing with dates and numbers and your so-called chronology can only fool ignorants.

Hovannisian admits to Armenian atrocities ("Public opinion in Azerbaijan was incensed, and the government, revolted by the atrocities, demanded strong measures to ensure the safety of the Muslims," p. 181),

I don't remember those words uttered by him, be glad to tell me which Volume is it... sorry for the skepticism, but given your tendency to fabricate quotes, I have to do what i usually do, going at the source and see if it exist.

well confirmed in the memoirs of an Armenian officer, "Men Are Like That." This is the Armenian M.O., following the Orthodox (including Russians, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars) method of ethnic cleansing: massacre Turks and chase the rest away.

I already discussed about this work in the other forum, and explained countless numbers of time that Ohanus was referring to the 1905-1906 conflict in his village that was populated by both Tartars and Armenians, his village was part of the Russian Empire NOT Ottoman, and he claimed that both groups tried to exterminate eachothers. Now his village is part of Azerbaijan, and there is not a single Armenian recorded. Nice try, but one could expect such methods from your part.

These would be "Death and Exile"s 5 million expulsed Turks/Muslims and 5.5 million killed from the Greek War of Independence until the end of WWI...

First of all, those figures were fabricated by McCarthy, he himself admitted them being ultimate numbers, simple estimations he has taken from his hat... without supports one can not use those figures when McCarthy himself hasn't presented any supports. And beside that, what the hell does it change regarding whatever or not there was an Armenian genocide? Millions of Germans were expulsed from Europe and the Soviet Union, would that mean there was no Shoah?

the ones pro-Armenian "genocide scholars" like Israel Charny, Tessa Hoffmann and Robert Melson never talk about.

That's because as independent researchers, they don't give a thing of McCarthys claims, and consider that Muslim expulsions have nothing to do with the Armenian genocide. BTW, talking of hiding things, where McCarthy has ever said anything about the minority that has opened its door to the Balkan Muslims?

This policy was followed by modern Armenia in 1992, massacring Karabagh Azeris and expelling nearly a million. (Fadix will give you weasel facts to try and dispute this, even though these events are in modern memory; note the West is largely silent about this episode, and American policy has gone as far as to punish victimized Azerbaijan, thanks to the strong power of the Armenian lobby.)

What a hypocrite you are. While there was no Armenian state or Empire in 1915, you claim it was two sided, and Armenians were not the victims they affirm they were. Yet you shout genocide for what happened in Xojali, when there was two existing nations on war. How some hundreds of victims amount to a genocide, and not over a million? But of course, no one expect you to make any sense. What about Turkeys invasion of Cyprus and the 2000 people missing? Does that amount to genocide as well? In the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, 30,000 people died from both sides, it was the Karabagh Armenians that have used legal Soviet means which was answered by Azerbaijan by pogroms, in Sumgait, Baku etc... there was many Xojalis in the Armenian sides, but it it isn't the Armenian side that is yapping genocide there.

However, our topic is Armenian behavior in the Ottoman Empire;

Again a racist generalization, generalizing again an entire population. Do you think that a mediator will be as blind as to not see

Schreiner does not deny what was done to the Armenians. His problem was about such things as Morgenthau simplification of peoples character, but that Morgenthau liked to simplify peoples characters is nothing new, that he colored his reports is nothing new either. But I don't use Morgenthau, it isn’t the material that is lacking for me to need to use those being easy targets for denialists like you. Morgenthaus unfair treatment of Wangenheim wasn’t only reported by Schreiner. But beside that, what was as well known(from my study after that Wanderer(ehm you) referred to him), was Schreiners sympathy for the fatherland Germany, and the fact that Moregenthau, in his point of view was bringing his family’s nation into the mud. But as well, Schreiner was not a witnesses of anything from where he corresponded, and was as well completely wrong about Enver, as he refused to recognize. The esteem the Germans had for Enver had no bounds, as someone having studied in Germany, and made Germany his second nation, as far as modifying for himself the Pan-Germanist mentality that became with Hitler we know what.

Almost all were missionaries and racists or propagandists. After the war, we received better clues as to what really transpired, from pro-Armenians like Niles and Sutherland in 1919, and Admiral Bristol, whom the Armenians love to vilify.

Niles and Sutherland were not pro Armenians, Niles and Sutherland report was ignored by the Senate at that time for abvious reasons. The table he present, even McCarthy when he published them was trying to slowly pull them under the carpet because he knew it would defeat the purposes of a “report.”(adding that they reported what they “thought”/”believed”) When they claim that in Van for instance, there was nearly no Muslim villages left in 1919, and adding that the large majority of Armenian villages were left intact. Cevded himself in his dispatches at the war ministry, later followed by Halil himself reported quite the opposite, what to say about Nogales that claimed no Armenians were left. The tables anomalies clearly shows how Armenian villages in Van were repopulated by Muslims, and what was left was only devastated zones. Niles and Sutherland were under the custody of Ottoman authorities that were merely showing them what “they” wanted them to see. This can hardly be called an investigation. In 1919, there was no Armenian left in Anatolia.

In short, Niles and Sutherland were not there when the Anatolian Armenian population was destroyed, they were sent there when there was no Armenian left, yet the Turkish authorities have presented the villages and claimed them that Armenians were still living there and nothing happened to them, while the Muslim villages were destroyed, the claim is even not supported by revisionist literature that show clearly that there was praticaly no Armenian left there at that date, and even Gurun admit that.

Admiral Bristol recognize what was done to the Armenians a deliberate premeditated government plan. So stop using sources which show the contrary of what you affirm, stop acting like McCarthy.

It is very relevant to see how the Armenians acted murderously, in order to incite violence against them...

Another generalization from Mr. Racist that can't do better than falsifying, forging and manipulating, and on top of that he's a racist that generalize in every given occasion.

and how the Armenians spread their false propaganda, which present day Armenians like Fadix and Raffi are still patriotically carrying out...

Propaganda is made for general public consumption, secret reports can not be propaganda, and the German secret reports that reported that the Ottoman was conducting premeditated plan of eradication of its Armenian population can therefore not be a propaganda. Refik admission that the Ottoman has build a so-called Armenian revolution show us that it was the Ottoman that was conducting propaganda. Vehib the commander of the IIIrd army, at the spot with his army during the time and admitted the Ottoman conducted a deliberate act of eradication. The number of Turkish officials that recognized, German officials., soldiers, Austrians etc... are in the hundreds... General Halil, that became the Suprem general of the East, Uncle of Enver, the minister of war, admitted in his memoirs that he tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual. That you twist and twist and twist and try to change the subject, won't change anything here.

thus inviting the European powers to intervene and give them "free land." The culmination of this treachery took place when the war broke out, and Armenians engaged in war against their country.

The Ottoman Empire was not a country, there was no citizenship, the Armenians were a subject, and the Turks were the ruling subjects. But of course Mr. Racist Torque find it normal that war of liberation brought by the Kemalist and does not call this treachery against the Ottoman elements of the Empire. Torque double standard is purely racistic, since he characterize and has a racist hierarchy of people, Turks on top, Armenians on the bottom.

The ingratitude and greed is mind-boggling. British parliamentarian Sir Ellis Bartlett, 1895 pamphlet: "The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees" and had been "wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Panslavic societies."

Again, Torque double standards, while I refer to witnesses of the events, Mr. Torque to support his cases refers to people that were not there during the 1894-1897 massacres. When the other side does the same, he yap and claim that those people were not on the spot when it happened. While hundreds of people on the spot reports the massacres as being full scale and generalized, including the secretary of Hamid, Mr. Torque refers to the few exceptions and try to draw the norm... this is not how history is written, this is not how it works in science too... if we were to use Mr. Torque standard, no any medications should be approved by the FDA, because few studied have demonstrated no efficiencies while most have.

Bartlett's notions are well confirmed in Capt. Norman's "The Armenians Unmasked." (http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/armenian/report1895.html)

What a report of 1895 from a man representing the British public relations to secure the Ottoman loans, instored back in 1856 with the Western banks, has anything to do with 1915? Quote, quote, quote, selectively quote and extend the little materials you have. The less we have the more we expend. Again, I wasn’t expecting much from you here.

The Armenian claim "that the Christian subjects of the sultan were denied all liberty, and atrociously presented was a thoroughly false one... no other government had for the past four centuries shown as much toleration, or given so much religious freedom as that of the Ottoman Empire. Every form of religion-- Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Roman Catholic and all others-- were allowed perfect liberty of practice and doctrine. Had the turks been less generous in the past, they would have escaped many of their present troubles. When heretics were burnt to death in France and Germany, and even in England, the Ottoman Government allowed its subjects entire religious freedom."

Ottoman tolerance is a myth, here an example of a work that exposes those myths: “The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam” by Bat Ye'or, David Maisel

Armenians were the moxt taxed people in the Empire, they had under the Islamic law no right to defend themselves on court, while Muslim false witnesses were accepted, Armenians were not. Armenian witnesses to defend their cases had to find a Muslim witness or their cases was dismissed. The Muslim on the easy were exempt from the Penal Code 166 controlling the manufacturing of gun powder and arms, while this same law was applicated point by point against the Armenians. An example was when the Ottoman army raided the Erzerum cathedral in 1890, killed countless numbers in it, destroyed the inside and have found no arms at all. What Torque call treachery and Armenian rebellion, was legal for the Muslim and even supported by the government.

But of course Mr. Call that tolerance.

We can see the truth level of Fadix's attempt to make us believe how oppressed Armenians were ("second class citizen status on the law books and in practice ...'infidels'") by looking at Armenian sources. Oscanyan was so oppressed, he was allowed to go to America to study, where he wrote "The Sultan and his People" in 1857. Cymbal-maker Zilidjian was allowed to travel to Europe on a yacht he built, in the 19th century.

That Armenians were allowed to go study elsewhere is irrelevant, what is the relevancy?

This doesn't mean all Armenians were living in a utopia. Indeed there are countless hearsay accounts Fadix can no doubt unearth attesting to how Armenians were treated dismally. (I recall a story about how a Turk went to an Armenian's store, and lopped off his head. I think it was provided by a missionary.) And the Armenians of the east were subjected to injustices by lawless bands. What's never stated is Armenians suffered where Ottoman control was weak, and the ones who suffered were all Ottoman citizens, Muslims included. Moreover, among these lawless bands, not all were Kurds and Turks... there were also Armenian and Greek lawless bands, primarily targeting Muslims. Consequently, Muslims were being attacked from two sides, by Muslim and non-Muslim brigands.

Armenians were not nomads, the bands of criminals were nomads, that is why they formed bands, your claim here doesn't hold water. Just the fact that the Muslim of the East not only didn't needed to respect the Penal Code and Armenians were show us your hypocrisy. The crimes against the Armenians was not only a question of Ottoman weak control of the East, the Ottoman were not weak when targeting Armenians groups and finding caches of arms, when from the other side arming Kurdish brigands and forming an irregular police that was imposing upon the Armenians a Kurdish tax.

Migirdich B. Dadian, another Armenian living outside the Ottoman Empire, opined about the situation of Armenians in 1867, in a newspaper in France. What we understand is that the privileges granted the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were nothing less than a landless autonomy.

How an authonomy can exist with a double taxation system? And besides what the hell thise thing having happened 50 years before the event has anything to do with the genocide?

These opportunities were officially given to the Armenian community, at a time when no state was interested in them (and it was these very privileges that opened the way to the troubles we are now haggling over). It can be said that of all the countries the Diasporan communities are currently living, not one of these communities has freedom to the extent granted to Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire.

What a bullcrap, you are a pathological liar. What you claim can make no sense at all, simply because the concept of citizenship did not exist for an Empire. In any countries where the Diaspora live, everyone is equal in the eye of the law, something that wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. An Armenian, a Turk, a Chinese all will pay the same amount of tax if they have the same revenues, no double taxation system, it wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. In short, everyone were equal, and their ethnicity and religion have no take in that. So your Ottomanist propagandas you can shove them you know where.

The Armenians were the wealthy ones, and they made the wheels turn. ("This community constitutes the very life of Turkey, for the Turks...have relinquished to them all branches of industry. Hence the Armenians are the bankers, merchants, mechanics, and traders of all sorts in Turkey." Oscanyan, 1857)

The reason why Armenians have flourished has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that Armenians were the minorities that were most frequenting the schools has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that later they wanted to start their private business and leaving for some time in the West to help themselves has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances. The Armenians were more open to the European way of life, and this again has little to do with an Ottoman tolerances. It isn't because the pyramids were an archaeological achievement rarely seen, that it means that the aliens have build them.

Why would the Ottomans further weaken themselves during desperate wartime by ridding themselves of this valuable national resource... the ones who were so indispensible, Oscanyan stated, "without them the Osmanlis could not survive a single day"?

The subject has been already studied, and if you were to read the material that is available you will understand. You have no knowledge of what you are talking about, you have no knowledge regarding why the Young-Turks took power and their nationalization plan. You would rather prefer reading quotes and choosing selectively and twisting them, pass that, you have no clue of what you are talking about. If you were truly open minded and were to ask me about the Young-Turks nationalization of the Economy, and the obstacles, I would have provided you books, even Turkish ones, but you are not here to learn, you are here to spew your hateful venom.

Would it be fair to assume Clair Price made perfect sense in 1923: "...the military situation had turned sharply against the Enver Government. The Russian victory at Sarykamish was developing and streams of Turkish refugees were pouring westward into central Asia Minor. The British had launched their Dardanelles campaign at the very gates of Constantinople, and Bulgaria had not yet come in. It does not seem reasonable to assume that this moment, of all moments, would have been chosen by the Enver Government to take widespread measures against its Armenians unless it was believed that such measures were immediately necessary. Measures were taken."

Clair Price wasn't there, again you use a reference that has been published after... everyone can write a book, like Clair has written, more particularly when it is about the rebirth of Turkey and the American investment to the newly formed republic. In the entire book Clair claim, but doesn't support the claims brought. I can bring hundreds of such books from the other side, but since I do not consider those books valid, even when they support my theses, I do not quote them.

The soapbox

From now on I will be actively moderating this article strictly following: Neutral point of view and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I don't care what your claims, beliefs, hopes are. I will NOT allow this article, or any article I watch to contradict the wikipedia policy. THIS IS NOT A FORUM, THIS IS NOT YOUR PRIVATE WEBSPACE, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO FOLLOW THE RULES. You are welcome to question my edits. I do not like my edits to be reverted without a reason. For any revert of my edits I expect to see something posted here on the discussion. If you dont know what propoganda is check out the propaganda article. I dont want to hear either sides propoganda. I do NOT know the exact history. I am extremely skeptical on BOTH sides views.

In summary DON'T put annything that will insult the other party. BE POLITE. Examples:

Murderious Turks. *BAD*
Stupid Armanians *BAD*

I sincerely hope I made myself clear. --Cool Cat| My Talk 06:10, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, it would be fair according to the Wikipedia neutral point of view to have a moderator that IS NOT involved in the rest of the articles regarding Turkey. I have asked for a mediator, and I do expect to have a real neutral mediator. It is true, this place is not anyones personal webspace, but still the article that is left there contains references that do not exist, and I have demonstrated, I took myself the decision to revert the articles back to what it was before my first edition after that Torque has posted his trash. I ask for a real neutral mediator, and I know and expect that the other party will not agree, which will be followed by an arbitration.

It is true that the discussion section is starting to look like a forum, but I can't do anything about it, and will be answering every manipulations Torque brings here.(Torque bring the trash he has on his website here)

And I do repeat, and I will make that clear, WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A TURKISH GOVERNMENT PROPAGANDA FORUM, the Armenian genocide is well documented, and even the Turkish human right organization recognize it, as well as the most famous Turkish novel righter, and many other Turkish intellectuals. AND WILL REPEAT IT AGAIN, for you Coolcat, to make that clear, if you think that by “neutralising” you will try to make of this section as if the question is still debated, you have found the wrong forum to moderate. I oppose to your moderation, and I make this clear, I oppose it because of your involvement in all what concerns Turkish articles, and my concerns are real. I ask for an administrator to moderate and ask for a real neutral mediator. -Fadix

I reverted your last few edits back to your version of 6:16 today. It looks like something went wrong when you were restructuring the article as "Turkish Point of View" and "Armenian Point of View" because a great deal of text was lost, apparently mainly from the "Armenian Point of View". In fact, pretty much all that was left under "Armenian Point of View" was the section on the Memorial. I think you probably didn't intend this. --BM 13:55, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fadix' Analysis

In the interest of making the Talk page a bit shorter, I have moved the long analysis by Fadix to a sub page: Talk:Armenian Genocide/Fadix Analysis. It seems to be a cut-and-paste of an earlier dilaog, but the details are not given, and the interlocutors are not identified. --BM 21:39, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Real Malta Tribunal

The answers to Torque distortions and falsehoods can be found here:Talk:Armenian_Genocide/Fadix_Analysis -Fadix