France recognizes the Armenian genocide

Give it up for governments to legislate truth.

There should be other laws: 2+2=4, that should be a law, anyone who claims otherwise to be thrown in jail. How about the fact that the sun rises every day? That the Earth revolves around the Sun once every year, almost precisely.

Who knows would poison our children's minds if it weren't for these laws. I mean, people will start believing all sorts of ideas... like that there is actually a God... (wait, they already do!)
 
Or what poison it is for our children grow up believing that governments can commit atrocities like genocide and have the gaul to say that it should be left to debate.

Our children should grow up knowing that if you kill and hate in the same way inacted by the Ottoman Empire against Christians that you will not be allowed to sweep it under a rug of debate and have the world step on the dignity of all the Christians killed in Turkey during WW1.

Freedom is also justice.
 
We have videos of planes crashing into the WTC. AFAIK we don't have videos of Turkish troops killing over a million Aremenians over a period of 2 years. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but there are certainly different ways to interpret what happened and to assign a degree of "badness" to it. If this wasn't the case The Turks and the Armenians would have already agreed what actually happened and wouldn't be arguing about it today.

We have video of the Smyrna Massacre and the hangings of Armenians priests, bishops and arch bishops down the public streets of Constantinople. There thousands of photos and journals in the American Library of Congress and in London. The Departments of Defense in all Italy, Nazi Germany, France, Britain, Greece, and America all document the atrocities throughout Ottoman Turkey. They are all public files and are endless in their eye witness reports.

9/11 was not a genocide, the planned massacres of Greek, Nestorian, Armenian, Pontic and Assyrian peoples were systematic and ranged into the tens of thousands per village per island per massacre starting as early as the Massacre of Chios killing 5/6ths of the islands Greek and Genoan population ending less than a mile away by the sword of Turkish calavry as 200,000 citizens crowded the Aegean Sea to escape butchry and rape. You cannot document these events as battles because they were civilians who were rounded and faced torture as Turkish soldier cut civilians piece by piece, raped young women/old women on the street and in the churches. The streets to the harbor ran with rivers of blood and they ran with blood continuously. The Turkish troops gauged the eyes out of regular people's heads if they were Christian and laugh as they stabbed at their dead bodies.

This wasn't a battle or war between two armies. It was a systematic record of massacres against Christian populations to make the land a 'Turk Only' Empire. The slogan for the Young Turk ruling political party was "Turkey for Turks Only" the intent was not a secret.
___

I agree that America and France have committed genocide, but do not try to blindside the debate. The topic is about Turkey, the Genocide is real.
 
Greek Stud said:
I agree that America and France have committed genocide, but do not try to blindside the debate. The topic is about Turkey, the Genocide is real.
If you speak about the almost millions deaths in Algeria during French occupation (1830 - 1880 if you read the link I provided earlier), you will see a small difference.
The article, which is quite interesting because written by a French historian in the 1880s if I remmber correctly, doesn't present the deaths as a systematic attempt by the French to kill the Algerians. He writes that the Arabics and Berbers are a decadent degenerated people, inferior to Europeans, as the rapid decrease in population proves it.
It seems it's a perverted and extreamly biased way of thinking: in war time, starvation and disease happen, the Algerians suffers from it and have many deaths, it proves they are weak and their people is naturally doomed to disappear. But the important thing here seems to be a belief it's "natural", and not a systematic attempt to kill them.

I think it may have been a bit similar for Americans and Natives. Can an American confirm how the Americans saw the matter at the time?
 
There was no french genocide of France over the algerians.

When France started to colonize Algeria, that nation was stagnant and decadent to the point that their only glory was piracy, and in the middle of the XIX century that territory was even less populated than in roman times.

The fench brought modern technology, modern medicine, modern agriculture, fought malaria, to the point that the algerian population multiplied almost 4 times under french rule.

That is the opposite of genocide.
 
Well its good they recognize it...

...but ******** that they pass anti-free speech laws. But hey, i'm not a European, I haven't had the world's worst war in history on my front door, so I can't empathize.
 
Dawgphood001 said:
But hey, i'm not a European, I haven't had the world's worst war in history on my front door, so I can't empathize.
It wasn't on our front door. It was the other side of the door, inside our houses
 
Steph said:
It wasn't on our front door. It was the other side of the door, inside our houses

Ah yes, the German concept of "Rattenkrieg".

It was coined at Stalingrad, where the joke was made amongst German soldiers that:

"We have taken the kitchen, but are still fighting for the bedroom."
 
warpus said:
We have videos of planes crashing into the WTC. AFAIK we don't have videos of Turkish troops killing over a million Aremenians over a period of 2 years.

There are some videos showing mass executions of Armenians, actually. I've seen one of them yesterday on one of our TV channel. Anyway, there are tons of photos, there are testimonies of eye witnesses, there are official documents and orders for the troops, there are documents proving that the government sanctioned it. As far as I know, there is little doubt that it was a planned extermination of the Armenian nation on the Ottoman territory.

0,1020,417965,00.jpg


Turkish soldiers stand next to Armenians who have been hanged: Today Atatürk would wind up behind bars for his criticism of the crimes against the Armenians.

I'm not saying it didn't happen, but there are certainly different ways to interpret what happened and to assign a degree of "badness" to it. If this wasn't the case The Turks and the Armenians would have already agreed what actually happened and wouldn't be arguing about it today.

Yes, and there are actually different ways how to interpret things that happened in Auschwitz, Katyn Forest or Srebrenica. The problem is that there is only one truth. Logically, the perpetrators of genocide always try to conceal their crime. That's why some people say that Jews were killed by someone else, that the Polish officers were killed by Wehrmacht and not the NKVD and that victims of Srebrenica were actually terrorists.

Once you start debating the facts, you're on an inclined plane - everything can be disputed and if you allow simple facts to be distorted by relativising lies, you lose.

It might be defined, but then again every single term in the English language is defined - even if people disagree about its true meaning.

Who reviews the criteria? A robot with no bias? How much evidence is needed? Who decides that?

I know what point are you trying to make here, but I won't fall to it. I am refusing to accept that there is no truth and everything is relative. Our goal should be the truth and if there will be some mistakes in search for it, so be it. It is less wrong than giving up on it.

I don't think that the government should be allowed to be given a monopoly on truth.

That's where I agree with you. I didn't said that it should.

But if you were, you would be denied an opportunity to present a case for what you thought was the truth, in my hypothetical example.
 
Aphex_Twin said:
Give it up for governments to legislate truth.

There should be other laws: 2+2=4, that should be a law, anyone who claims otherwise to be thrown in jail. How about the fact that the sun rises every day? That the Earth revolves around the Sun once every year, almost precisely.

Who knows would poison our children's minds if it weren't for these laws. I mean, people will start believing all sorts of ideas... like that there is actually a God... (wait, they already do!)

I think it is clear why genocide denial is an exception from this rule.
 
Dawgphood001 said:
Well its good they recognize it...

...but ******** that they pass anti-free speech laws. But hey, i'm not a European, I haven't had the world's worst war in history on my front door, so I can't empathize.

Finally someone who got the point...
 
Bad Player said:
I think this thread topic is over anyway...
Are you an accountant or a lawyer or other?
No, I am more on the investigation side, it is as far as I can say. I am not currently in a bad country... but I still live there...

Bad Player said:
Does it backfire because the money gets spent on more guns which then get used the next time around?
Not always: it is the tip of the iceberg. More commonly: it shows to warlords that Western countries have double language: the official/public display for medias, and what is done in the background. More money calls for more money and higher prices to any negociations, and shows that somehow, somewhere, someone/something can pay for your ugly things and then, those who pay, are bound by a pact of silence with some uglies... style: I-know-what-you-did-last-summer and me-too-I-know-what-YOU-did...

Bad Player said:
Why do these organisations continue to do this?
Grants and Loans are the essence of influence over a country.
Why diplomat exists? Why some countries are declaring war on others for getting their resources? Why internationnal financial scandals and lobby groups?
Why... if only we had a single answer...
But if you want to have a better idea, read this (Do donors promote corruption?), I am not the one who wrote it, but what is in it is 99% correct...:
http://www.open.ac.uk/personalpages/j.hanlon/Hanlon_3WQ_Moz_corruption.pdf

Bad Player said:
Does your anti-corruption mandate allow you to stop/speak out against this practice?
No / No.
It means: no intrusion or interferences while into a ForeignState or into diplomatic immunities…

For going back to the topic, I now think that Turkish (background) price for getting quieter with the E.U. will simply be higher now...
 
Everyone is angry about Freedom of Speech but it should be measured against truth, justice and being realistic.

Example: Screaming fire in a public place. It is not true, therefore you do not have the freedom to say FIRE!

Example:You disagree with your President and post rendered pictures and a methodic way on how you will assassinate him or her. You have to be realistic and consider this situation as a threat. Speech is protected so that you can debate your President's actions. You do not have the freedom to make public threats because the reality is that you are expressing the hate that leads to crimes like murder or in this thread's case genocide.

Example: The police receive a 911 call of domestic abuse and go to the house watching a married couple fight. Four policemen watch the husband pull a knife from the kitchen and cut his wife finger by finger by nose by ear by toe all the while she screams at the policemen standing there watching. Then she is raped and dies within the hour. Then the husband is taken to court and he pleads not guilty. He wants to debate the facts of the case and says that this was not a state matter it should be left to historians and newspapers. This is a case about what is just. Did the husband commit a crime and even though in this story the police may have had the authority to do something their testomy as witnesses should be strong towards the case. If you haven't notice I made this story to compare it to Smyrna. The Police being France, Italy, Britain and American naval ships surrounding the city and making accounts of the atrocities they say. They documented it as witnesses, but accordingly since the husband who committed the crime pleads not guilty then this case should be left to debate? No way. There should be government action to make sure that other people cannot commit crimes like this ever again.
____

I would also like to remind you all of the dangers of changing history. Communist countries did not burn books for no reason at all. You can not make up a lie to be presented as truth so long as the truth still exists. The Turkish government wants debate because survivors still are living. Luckily Greeks and Armenians alike have been videotaping interviews with these survivors. None of it matters inside of Turkey because like North Korea there is an alternate reality of truth and what is taught. Imagine if in our negotiations with North Korea if we are to debate if their concentration camps exist. We know they exist and we know people are starving. But lets debate it for 50 years and then say well this happened so long ago let us just forget the debate and leave it to historians. That is injust, it is getting away with murder.
 
Greek Stud said:
Everyone is angry about Freedom of Speech but it should be measured against truth, justice and being realistic.

Example: Screaming fire in a public place. It is not true, therefore you do not have the freedom to say FIRE!

Example:You disagree with your President and post rendered pictures and a methodic way on how you will assassinate him or her. You have to be realistic and consider this situation as a threat. Speech is protected so that you can debate your President's actions. You do not have the freedom to make public threats because the reality is that you are expressing the hate that leads to crimes like murder or in this thread's case genocide.

Example: The police receive a 911 call of domestic abuse and go to the house watching a married couple fight. Four policemen watch the husband pull a knife from the kitchen and cut his wife finger by finger by nose by ear by toe all the while she screams at the policemen standing there watching. Then she is raped and dies within the hour. Then the husband is taken to court and he pleads not guilty. He wants to debate the facts of the case and says that this was not a state matter it should be left to historians and newspapers. This is a case about what is just. Did the husband commit a crime and even though in this story the police may have had the authority to do something their testomy as witnesses should be strong towards the case. If you haven't notice I made this story to compare it to Smyrna. The Police being France, Italy, Britain and American naval ships surrounding the city and making accounts of the atrocities they say. They documented it as witnesses, but accordingly since the husband who committed the crime pleads not guilty then this case should be left to debate? No way. There should be government action to make sure that other people cannot commit crimes like this ever again.
____

I would also like to remind you all of the dangers of changing history. Communist countries did not burn books for no reason at all. You can not make up a lie to be presented as truth so long as the truth still exists. The Turkish government wants debate because survivors still are living. Luckily Greeks and Armenians alike have been videotaping interviews with these survivors. None of it matters inside of Turkey because like North Korea there is an alternate reality of truth and what is taught. Imagine if in our negotiations with North Korea if we are to debate if their concentration camps exist. We know they exist and we know people are starving. But lets debate it for 50 years and then say well this happened so long ago let us just forget the debate and leave it to historians. That is injust, it is getting away with murder.

Amen to that :goodjob:
 
... debating for ages and doing nothing??
I see this daily with all ambassy people, where I am. Bla bla bla...
But it is exactly what happens 99.99% of the time, for little of big things.

Rwanda was on its own long enough for having the killing going and going... and Cambodia, and and and ...

Good points Greek Stud!

Never ending crime requires never ending memory.
Memory is knowledge. If you know, you must react, otherwise you are only a coward and you belong to the bad side...
 
Winner said:
I think it is clear why genocide denial is an exception from this rule.
Why?

Greek Stud said:
Example: Screaming fire in a public place. It is not true, therefore you do not have the freedom to say FIRE!
You may not have that right, but it's NOT about freedom of speech. The spectators have paid to watch a movie in silence. Panicking them for no good reason is an infringement on their rights.


Greek Stud said:
Example:You disagree with your President and post rendered pictures and a methodic way on how you will assassinate him or her. You have to be realistic and consider this situation as a threat.
A (credible) threat is different from a pure act of speech. You are justified in attacking such a person if he is a threat to you (and you are not an initial aggressor). But if he just limits himself to speech (outside these threats), then it's an entirely harmless act and it's not just to restrict it.

Greek Stud said:
Example: The police receive a 911 call of domestic abuse and go to the house watching a married couple fight. Four policemen watch the husband pull a knife from the kitchen and cut his wife finger by finger by nose by ear by toe all the while she screams at the policemen standing there watching. Then she is raped and dies within the hour. Then the husband is taken to court and he pleads not guilty. He wants to debate the facts of the case and says that this was not a state matter it should be left to historians and newspapers.
What we have here is clearly not a case of speech. The murder act may be debateable, but it's besides the point. First of all, there is one thing called innocence until proven guilty. If the man has been proven guilty, then he is liable for punishment. But if another person claims he is innocent, that is just an act of speech. For instance, his lawyer could make that claim. So if we're to follow your principle, then all advocates of convicts who have been proven guilty should face trial for a particular crime called: "denying the truth."


Greek Stud said:
I would also like to remind you all of the dangers of changing history. Communist countries did not burn books for no reason at all. You can not make up a lie to be presented as truth so long as the truth still exists.
The problem here is that the truth should stand on its own. It does not require the power of arms, threats or violence to establish it. On the contrary, if someone feels that truth must be inforced in such a manner then he can be reasonably thought to promote exactly the opposite of truth. By legislating it, truth becomes a matter of politics.

Yours is the avenue of the Spanish Inquisition, truth is about science and facts. The two paths are intrinsicly opposite and separate.
 
You had some good points in your post.

Winner said:
That's where I agree with you. I didn't said that it should.

You are saying that though. You're saying that the government should be able to say: "Believe this or be thrown in jail". I don't think they should be allowed to mandate such a thing.
 
To Winner, to the bunch of Greeks indoctrinated from birth to be anti-Turk at all times, and to various other owners of ignorant and/or prejudiced messages,

Let's clear the plate of the small things.

1- One side says 1.5 million, the other side says 500k, blah blah, who cares, that's not the point. Everybody agrees that a horrific number of Armenians died.

2- The majority of you non-Turkish posters, stop putting words int Turks' mouths. Nobody is saying Armenians did not die, nobody is saying Armenians did not suffer horribly. Even the "official position of the Turks" that you ridicule acknowledges this. So stop cluttering the discussion with comments of otherwise.

Now some history

3- Here is the main point behind what you call denial; here is the issue that the two poor Turks in this thread whom you have been attacking blindly failed to mention: We are talking about the single period during which Turkish nation suffered the most in its history. Most of the world got away with only 4 years of WW1, while we had to fight defensive wars against superior military forces for TWELWE straight years (1911-1922). During this time Turks experienced the meaning of the term "genocide" in many localized events (not only in eastern Turkey), summing up to several millions of civilian deaths (again, numbers don't matter, it is some catastrophic number). I empathize with Armenians, theirs is a sad tragedy. But I would die before commemorating their dead, while nobody commemorates my dead, killed by Armenians and Europeans. Other countries killed my people and they got praised while Turks tried the only feasible alternative to genocide and got blamed. (This last sentence should become clearer later)

4- According to Armenian sources, 200k Armenians enlisted in the Russian Army, and became the main fighting force commanded by Russian officers against the Ottoman Empire. Turkish officials often call Armenians traitors because of this, but I disagree. They were a nation fighting to gain independence from a larger empire, which has countless examples over the world. Ironically, after they got their independence, they asked for military assistance from Turkey - would a nation that was genocided a few years before ask that from their genociders? Alas, Turkey was still busy fighting off the Greek invasion, the last leg of our 12 years of war. Later, during WW2 Armenians also enlisted in the German Army when the Reich went deep into Russia. Perfectly rational early 20th century behavior from a small and desperate nation trying to break free from a large empire, be it Ottoman or Soviet.

5- Talking of desparation, do you know what else is 1915? It is the Dardanelles campaign. It is the biggest battle/operation in Tukish history, ever, during which a total of 1 million soldiers fought on a tiny peninsula. For those who don't know where it is, Dardanelles is not far from Istanbul - then the capital - and is the direct route. If it fell, so would the empire. Armenian troops stroke hardest at these times. Again, no blaming, it was strategical opportunity, they would be stupid not to take it. Ottomans would be stupid not to respond. The way wars were fought then - and still - is by cutting the military unit from it's supply base. Just like the deliberate incineration of German and Japanese civilians in the Firestorm bombings by the allies in WW2. (If you don’t know what those are, they are the conventional equivalent of nuke, incinerating everything to dust. For more info search for Dresden, that’s the most famous one). So how do you cut the supply, if the supply is everywhere? You get rid of the people.

6- Again, we are talking about an Empire that is so poor that it can’t afford to equip its troops with coats in winter, such that in one batch 90000 of the 110000 men it sends at the Armenian army froze to death before reaching the front. Even at these desparate times, the fact that they tried to get the Armenian civilians out of the way, and succeeded in a small proportion shows good intention. (I must admit some unit commanders improvised “easier” solutions and saved themselves the long walk, but these were scattered events, and to this day no supporter of Armenian cause was able to prove any deeper organization behind them). If you think sending these civilians into mountains is murder, keep in mind that you cannot expect an army to provide coats to its country’s citizens while it can’t provide coats to its own soldiers.

(Interceding flashback: the Turkish-Kurdish-Armenian conflicts have been continuing in that region since 1890s. To understand what is going on you must understand the tribal/feudal society of the region. Think of the fighting of factions in Iraq, and then uncivilize the people by a century, and finally remove any substantial security force from the area. And for all the 21th century city boys out there, these feudal societies consider pursuit of vendettas to be one of the most important measures of their honor. Of course everybody owned a gun. Consider three factions out of these sorts and consider them fighting each other for 25 years. Now that you have an idea of how much these peoples hated each other, we may continue)

7- Now imagine this kilometers and kilometers of horde of 1+ million civilians, flanked by Ottoman soldiers, at a frequency of about one (or two, I’m not sure) per 100m (as their orders were). These soldiers had no way of stopping any assault from some local tribe, as they would be outnumbered. And a good number of them probably had lost some relatives or neighbors to the Armenian gangs, so he would happily look the other way while evil was happening anyway. Here I must also note that although the official Turkish position is that these were Kurdish gangs, in my opinion Turks must have played an equivalent role, as there were equivalent numbers of Turks and Kurds in that area.

8- In the end, a substantial portion, but still less than half of them completed their torturous journey. Of course, in the meantime the Armenian army in the north, with the promise of an independent state, was cleansing as much land as possible from Turks and Kurds by the hundresd of thousands. And this is as documented as well as Armenian deportation and sufferings. And not only from Turkish survivors, but also from the reports of sickened Russian officers. (quasi-related comment: Among the tree nations, only Kurds did not have an organized army. I remember someone made that into a criterion for genocide in this thread. By that consideration Kurds, not Armenians were subjects of genocide).

9- Of course, these events were perfect tools for UK to rally its colonies into war. The British government ordered that a propaganda book be written for this purpose. Of course only with the stories of Armenians, this wartime publication became “the blue book” that is the most cited source of Armenian cause. No historian (except those bribed) ever takes wartime publications seriously.

10- DO NOT MISS THIS ONE!!!
Here comes the fun part…In 1918, UK fully occupied Istanbul, and arrested some 50 or so high ranking Ottomans – most of them ministers and parliamentarians – and set up a tribunal in Malta. Consider it the precedent of Nurenberg (for those who don’t know, after WW2, Allies trialed the top-nazis in Nurenberg and found them guilty of genocide of Jews). After months of British prosecutors scouring the Ottoman administrative documents, interrogation and trial, came the verdict: There was not enough evidence, and all Ottomans were acquitted.

11- For a couple of decades everyone was preoccupied with more important things like great depression and WW2. At the end of WW2 Allies founded Israel, a country that gets unprecedented benefits from the western world. Only then Armenian diaspora remembered to advertise their suffering, because they wanted the benefits too. Then for a while (70s) they became terrorists and killed innocent Turkish diplomats and families. They also generated some fake documents, be it a painting by some russian about some unrelated war of 19th century, be it a telgram order for genocide from the Ottoman government with so many discrepancies and errors that no non-Armenian historian ever took seriously. There was even one that angered other Armenians because it was too obviously fake (but I don’t remember what it was). Of course there is a lot of undeniable proof that Armenians suffered in great numbers, and died. But until now, they failed miserably to produce any authenthicated evidence that Armenian suffering was the result of a policy, intent, or order. They also failed to counter the proof of documented deaths of Turks and Kurds (of course in the end there are mass graves belonging to all three nations, so there is no way for them to argue within the boundries of logic).

12- Unfortunately, at some point the Armenian diaspora realized they don’t need to prove anything. When they mix some lies and some truths, and tell these repeatedly to people who know nothing about it, they can rewrite history. And they are doing it in a most obscene manner. They keep adding hatred to our already saturated world. They influence naïve countries and make them teach their kids hatred and racism (I am not exaggerating, if you teach schoolchildren “Turks did genocide”, they will think Turkish nation as monsters, and subconsciously be racist)

13- I see the Armenians have three kinds of people:
i) Good people who just want an apology or commemoration, my heart aches with you, but as I said above, I can’t commemorate your dead while you refuse to commemorate mine. Majority of Armenian citizens are this bunch.
ii) Dreamy people – Israel aspirants – who want nice things for their country and expect money and land from Turkey, sorry, nothing short of absolute extinction of Turkish nation can give you that, stop dreaming and go join first group.
iii) Bad people – the best lobbyists of the bunch, they do everything in their power to keep the hatred in Armenians alive. To this end they plot schemes designed specifically to infuriate Turks with hopes of hardening thir stance. As long as the two people disagree, they have their inflow of money and power. That’s why they threaten more moderate Armenians from interacting with Turks. Guess what, some do anyway.

I am afraid ours is a losing battle as third group’s abuse of first group’s sincere feelings continue.


14- I would gladly have my nation’s name (not country though) in a historical list of strong militaries that bullied smaller ones, or a list of killing civilians. But both of these would be very very long lists. Even a list of bloody mishandlings of internal unrests is fine (although list would be shorter). Because all of these are true. But singling out my nation and declaring it evil is plain racist. And that’s exactly what Armenians want you to do, without considering historical context.

Well, I know this will be strange to some Europeans with addled brains, but in civilized countries like Turkey everybody is innocent until provn guilty, not other way around. Therefore, I am innocent (as yet) on your charges of genocide. As a scientist this is my logical deduction, and I’ll proudly say it in any EU country with barbaric laws.



Interlude
My dear WINNER, that photo in message #169 is nothing more than a propaganda tool designed to stir feelings of the rest of the world, unless you prove all of the following: (a) the men in uniforms are Turks, (b) the dead men are Armenians, (c) they are innocent civilians as opposed to gang members or soldiers (note they are all men). For all I know they can be Turks hanging Turks, the death penalty was quite common in those times. Finding a picture of a bunch of Turkish-looking guys hanging a totally nondescript bunch of guys at a nondescript location…way to go…great proof, really… And in the end, as I said, nobody denies Armenians were killed.




Finally to the main subject, the laws…

15- Turkish criminal law 301 makes it a crime to insult Turkish nation and Turkishness. It has nothing about Armenians. Still, I am not going to defend it because I think we shouldn’t have such a law and it should be abolished. My understanding is it was originally intended against open offensive comments or burning the flag etc. And lately there has been talks about that in the parliament. Of course politicians happily disagree on whether to just abolish it or to replace it with a better worded and more narrow one that will disallow its abuse. Meanwhile some overnationalist lawyers try to get in a few last kicks from it. It is always celebrities that get prosecuted, because the Armenian diaspora turned it into a publicity stunt. Too bad, our idiot nationalist lawyers don’t realize they are harming Turkey with their actions.

16- In Turkey, people discusses whether Armenian tragedy was genocide or not. The government brings in people to discuss it into cabinet meetings. There even was a conference to which people defending both theses attended. I am not saying it is a nice absolute freedom of speech, as these people had to worry about the 301. Some got prosecuted too, but…

17- To my knowledge, no one that has been charged under this law 301 in relation to the Armenian issue EVER got sentenced to anything. This is thanks to the maneuvering space provided by the ambiguity of this law, and judges’ wise understanding that this is not the purpose of this law. The French bill, on the contrary, is very clear, with no such maneuvering place. If the bill passes, the French judges have no choice but to sentence every one prosecuted. As Hrant Dink, the editor of the Armenian newspaper in Turkey said "if this law passes, I'll go to France and deny the genocide, just for the sake of freedom of speech"


My final comments: War is bad, its consequences are even worse. But there is no point in crying about it either. Everybody must grow up and accept that every nation did bad things at some point in history. We must establish friendship and mutual understanding. From where I look, the Armenian diaspora is against both of these. And now, so are the 100 French politicians who sold themselves for 2% more vote.


Disclaimer: These are not the official opinions of either side. They are my opinions after the things I have read/heard from both sides. I am not a historian.

Disclaimer2: I am not trying to justify atrocities. I just think this kind of issues must be discussed within their context, understanding the reasons.


“There is only one civilization, and that is humanity” - Ataturk
 
Greek Stud said:
We have video of the Smyrna Massacre

That is not relevant to the Armenians, but I am guessing you are talking about the second Smyrna Massacre, because in the first one in 1919, Greek army invading the city killed 5+ times as many Turks as Turks killed Greeks in 1922. This is not for the sake of blaming, I am just saying any army going into a city containing civilians from the enemy country is bound to inflict some collateral casualty. Izmir (Smyrna) happened to have civilians of both nations.

Greek Stud said:
and the hangings of Armenians priests, bishops and arch bishops down the public streets of Constantinople.

And yet interestingly, since those times tens of thousands of Armenians and their archbishops have been living in Istanbul. (As have Greeks and their archbishops by the way)

Greek Stud said:
There thousands of photos and journals in the American Library of Congress and in London. The Departments of Defense in all Italy, Nazi Germany, France, Britain, Greece, and America all document the atrocities throughout Ottoman Turkey. They are all public files and are endless in their eye witness reports.

Just like the endless eye witness reports by Ottoman and Russian archieves documenting Muslim sufferings.

Greek Stud said:
9/11 was not a genocide, the planned massacres of Greek, Nestorian, Armenian, Pontic and Assyrian peoples were systematic and ranged into the tens of thousands per village per island per massacre starting as early as the Massacre of Chios killing 5/6ths of the islands Greek and Genoan population ending less than a mile away by the sword of Turkish calavry as 200,000 citizens crowded the Aegean Sea to escape butchry and rape.

And how can we forget the island of Crete? At the end of 19th century it had more Turkish population than Cyprus. Then Greeks annihilated all of them, that is 6/6 in your measures, upon joining Greece.

Greek Stud said:
You cannot document these events as battles because they were civilians who were rounded and faced torture as Turkish soldier cut civilians piece by piece, raped young women/old women on the street and in the churches. The streets to the harbor ran with rivers of blood and they ran with blood continuously. The Turkish troops gauged the eyes out of regular people's heads if they were Christian and laugh as they stabbed at their dead bodies.

Gloves of eh? Where shall we start? Warning – the next two paragraphs are disturbing, read at your own risk.

The favored game of Greeks was cutting the baby out of pregnant women’s bellies and dangling them in front of the mother until she bleeds to death. Greeks raped so many women that Turks had cavalry units made up of nothing but violated women who hunt down Greeks with hopes of one day killing their rapists.

But the Armenian gangs were the imaginative masters of obscenity. Raping both men and women using rifles (ending with a shot in there), cutting off men’s sexual organ and raping them with it, skin alive, burn alive, bury alive, and the old school throatslittings and decapitatings… these were all described by survivors as well as reports of Russian officers.

Greek Stud said:
This wasn't a battle or war between two armies. It was a systematic record of massacres against Christian populations to make the land a 'Turk Only' Empire. The slogan for the Young Turk ruling political party was "Turkey for Turks Only" the intent was not a secret.

And yet the casualties among Turks, Kurds, Armenians and Greeks were of the same proportion to their total populations. Grow up and accept the reality of war. War is not two riflemen icons in civ screen shooting at each other, war is a tragic bloodbath with no winner.

Turkish people totally dislike the Young Turk organization of 20th century, and our history books portray them as power hungry dictators.

Greek Stud said:
I agree that America and France have committed genocide, but do not try to blindside the debate. The topic is about Turkey, the Genocide is real.

Correction: the topic used to be about France.


Greek Stud said:
None of it matters inside of Turkey because like North Korea there is an alternate reality of truth and what is taught.

I have many Greek friends, and at some point we sat down and examined our history books. Just as the Turkish one has only a short paragraph about Armenian tragedy of 1915, the Greek book had only a paragraph on the invasion of 1919-1922. Yes the war that caused a coup and brought an end to the monarchy, one of the most important times of history of modern Greece, a single paragraph. The Greek army raped, pillaged and plundered western Anatolia really bad. At the end of the war Turkish troops had to protect Greek POWs from angry Turkish mobs who wanted revenge.

Obviously both sides have blood on their hands. I am sorry dear neighbor, the blood on your hands won’t go away by wiping them onto me.

So why not advertise these, you might ask… Because we don’t hold grudges and we don’t like hating people. We are not addicted to hatred. Our culture does not depend on racistically hating another nation. Unfortunately this is not the case for Greeks and Armenians. Not every individual has strong hatred as you obviously do, but both cultures indoctrinate hating Turks. Or that’s what all of my Greek friends told me. (By the way, for those of you who wonder how I find so many Greeks in Ankara, I am from Ankara but I live in Boston. Here I know more Greeks than Turks or Americans.)

Turks don’t hate, but are wary of these two nations because we know they hate us.

Greek friends, what have you ever gained from this hatred? Turks haven’t felt any such feeling towards Greeks in over half a century. So it is you who holds the key to friendship between our countries. Stop the hatred.

We started with Izmir, let’s end it with Izmir.

I know what Greeks learn about the events in Izmir in our war. I’ll tell you what Turkish children learn in school. And no, we don’t learn that Greeks massacred 5 times more Turks, I dug up that bit from other sources. Here is a piece from the official Turkish history you, Greek Stud, would like to ridicule:

September 10th, 1922: When Ataturk arrived the City hall of Izmir, there was a Greek flag in front of the entrance for him to step on upon his entrance. He said “This is the symbol and honor of a nation, you must respect it. Pick it up off the floor”



We just want to be friends, so stop hating us.



“Hate leads to suffering” - Yoda
 
Back
Top Bottom