Turks?

[ahm]

The only lie that I can think of are the excrements that you posted here.

why... because you didnt liked.

After the Young Turk Revolution, Armenian revolutionary societies stopped fighting.

they were fighting and stopped? yes i was trying to say that. they were fighting against the goverment when they wants (it means terrorism in this world). and they sometimes decide to stop.

How could the Armenians, a minority in the Ottoman empire, apply ''genocidal activities to the Moslem people''? They were only a minority and were barely able to defend themselves in some rare areas. It is not enough that you are denying the Genocide, you are also reversing the role of the criminal and the victim

"Armenians joined with the Russian forces, and grouped into guerrilla bands. They began attacking the Turkish Army in the rear, and even before the Russo-Armenian forces arrived, they succeeded in capturing Van, massacred its entire Muslim population, and razed the entire city. They then proceeded to “soften up” the area, and in the process killed thousands of Turks and Kurds. There was a massive flow of refugees into Central Anatolia, who survived under extremely harsh conditions.

At this point, the Ottoman Government faced severe problems. The Army was being attacked by Russo-Armenian forces in the North and Armenian guerrillas in the South. On the other hand, there were the many Armenian communities who appeared uninvolved in the fighting, but in fact were providing food, shelter and new recruits to the guerrillas. The Muslim populations were beginning to react in kind, and the region was rapidly falling into full-fledged inter-communal warfare.

After much hesitation, the Ottomans decided to relocate the Armenian communities to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, which at that time were still Ottoman provinces. Ottoman archives chronicling this decision show that this decision was not punitive, and that Ottoman soldiers were ordered to escort the Armenians and protect them from any vigilantes. As it turned out, though, this decree had tragic consequences, not just due to the warfare in the region, but due to disease, harsh weather, exposure and hunger. However, a few facts should be noted. First, most Armenian casualties occurred in regions where Ottoman control was the weakest. Secondly, a great many Turks and other Muslims also died from the same causes. "
[http://www-tech.mit.edu/V119/N23/col23guest2.23c.html ]

Nobody cares about the origin of the word! The same BS material, again and again... Don't you get tired of copy-pasting like this?

it is about why it is not "genocide" word. it is for thinking minds.

If the so-called ''immigration'' only took place in the Eastern Vilayets, or Western Armenia, where are the Armenians of Western Anatolia? There are only 50 000 Armenians left in Istanbul today.

because terrorists (armanian fighters as you said) were at these places, Eastern Vilayets not in istanbul.

They simply ''borrowed'' elements from the Middle-Eastern natives (Persians, Arabs, Anatolian Greeks, Armenians, etc.) and called it their own

please... you are talking about one of the highest culture in the world. you can find some nice information, images, documentation about turkish culture at this page: http://www.turkishculture.org/

The Armenian Genocide has been proved again... and again... and again. Around 20 Western countries have recognized the Genocide, but there isn't a single country that supports Turkish claims.

lots of goverments accepted USA's Operation on IRAQ. is it right?? goverments are not trials. the justice is not goverments' decisions. it is only a politic action, armenian lobby's effects upon goverments. every goverment can accept anything or affect their people wrongly but they cant change history. turks didnt genocide any race.

 

[Kyriakos]

i really don't think that this thread has a reason of existence anymore; it isnt about the ottomans in civ4 at all. moreover it was an outdated issue to begin with, since it was started after the announcement of the final 18 civs. i think that when an x-pack has been announced to be in development it will be a more logical time to start again some thread about what civs should be in, but at the moment you can see for yourself that this thread will only be about accusations.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

All I'm going to say is that if we make "can't have commited terrible acts" a pre-requisite for being a civilization we won't have a game.

 

[Armenian Rebel]

they were fighting and stopped? yes i was trying to say that. they were fighting against the goverment when they wants (it means terrorism in this world). and they sometimes decide to stop.

Are you sure you read the whole paragraph? The Dashnak rebels stopped (unfortunately), because they believed in the new Ittihadist government. The Dashnak leadership even agreed to help out the Young Turks in overthrowing the Sultan.

In 1909, just when Turkish-Armenian relations were improving, massacres take place in Adana.

And no. Fighting for freedom does not mean terrorism. State terrorism, which the Ottomans practiced, is scarier. Wasn’t Mustapha Kemal fighting for the freedom of his people? Yet you do not call him a terrorist.

Armenians joined with the Russian forces, and grouped into guerrilla bands. They began attacking the Turkish Army in the rear, and even before the Russo-Armenian forces arrived, they succeeded in capturing Van, massacred its entire Muslim population, and razed the entire city. They then proceeded to “soften up” the area, and in the process killed thousands of Turks and Kurds. There was a massive flow of refugees into Central Anatolia, who survived under extremely harsh conditions.

The rebellion of Van is comparable to the Warsaw uprising. They did not massacre the entire Muslim population during the event. If they did, we might have kept Eastern Anatolia for ourselves.

At this point, the Ottoman Government faced severe problems. The Army was being attacked by Russo-Armenian forces in the North and Armenian guerrillas in the South. On the other hand, there were the many Armenian communities who appeared uninvolved in the fighting, but in fact were providing food, shelter and new recruits to the guerrillas. The Muslim populations were beginning to react in kind, and the region was rapidly falling into full-fledged inter-communal warfare.

Do any of these supposed events justify genocide on an entire population?

After much hesitation, the Ottomans decided to relocate the Armenian communities to Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, which at that time were still Ottoman provinces. Ottoman archives chronicling this decision show that this decision was not punitive, and that Ottoman soldiers were ordered to escort the Armenians and protect them from any vigilantes. As it turned out, though, this decree had tragic consequences, not just due to the warfare in the region, but due to disease, harsh weather, exposure and hunger. However, a few facts should be noted. First, most Armenian casualties occurred in regions where Ottoman control was the weakest. Secondly, a great many Turks and other Muslims also died from the same causes. "

Let us suppose that this is true. Didn’t the Ottoman government know that sending the Armenians through the Syrian Desert by foot is not a good idea? They could have at least ‘escorted’ them alongside the Mediterranean coast.

Correction: The Ottomans decided to massacre the Armenian minority in the Syrian Desert, which at that time was still Ottoman land. Worldwide archives and testimonies from Armenians and Bedouin Arabs show that the Deir-el-Zor desert was a large concentration camp, were hundreds of thousands of Armenians were massacred by the Turkish ‘’escorts’’ and criminal bands. This had tragic consequences, as the Armenians were left there to starve and rot, and were massacred by Turks. However, a few facts should be noted. First, some Armenians were able to escape (with the help of Bedoin Arabs) where Ottoman control was weakest. Secondly, Armenians were not the only victims of the Genocide. Greeks and Assyrians were also massacred (outside the 1.5 million number).

it is about why it is not "genocide" word. it is for thinking minds.

Isn’t it strange that the archives in the rest of the world show exactly the opposite of what is shown in the Turkish archives? Doesn’t it show that these so-called ‘archives’ are distortions and lies?

because terrorists (armanian fighters as you said) were at these places, Eastern Vilayets not in istanbul.

The only reason why some of the Armenians were spared in Constantinople was that many foreign embassies were located there. Many European officials protested.

please... you are talking about one of the highest culture in the world. you can find some nice information, images, documentation about turkish culture at this page: http://www.turkishculture.org/

I tried visiting your website. The first link I clicked was ‘Mosques’. What do I see? Mimar Sinan – an ethnic Armenian converted into Islam.

There was no need to continue. I closed the site.

lots of goverments accepted USA's Operation on IRAQ. is it right?? goverments are not trials. the justice is not goverments' decisions. it is only a politic action, armenian lobby's effects upon goverments.

So I suppose there’s an Armenian lobby in Venezuela. [sarcasm]

every goverment can accept anything or affect their people wrongly but they cant change history.

We’re not living in Turkey here…

turks didnt genocide any race.

Is that why 99% of Turkey/Anatolia – which used to be a center of Christianity - is Muslim?

I can’t stop laughing!


Cheers!


Armenian Rebel

 

[ShunNakamura]

All I'm going to say is that if we make "can't have commited terrible acts" a pre-requisite for being a civilization we won't have a game.

I must aggree here.


Second. America has adopted many cultural values from other cultures, does this mean that America has no culture? The mongols(if I recall my history texts correctly) also adopted many cultures of thier conquered areas. Does this mean that they have no culture? Etc.. etc... etc... Adopting cultures of conquered lands is a common thing done. Also keep in mind that assimilating a culture does not negate your own. Mixing the two can actually create a whole new culture.

So how many Armenians were killed?

The Japanese in WWII killed many Chinese. Stalin also killed many many many people. The germans commited the Holocaust. The Chinese killed many many people(under Mao's rule in particular if I recall).The Americans slaughtered the Native American tribes tribes. The english weren't kind to there colonies(Though they didn't genocide.. or at least I haven't heard that. But I do recall one massacre that was quite awful in India).

Just cause the Turks weren't the kindest nation doesn't negate them. Just cause they assimilated much culture also doesn't disable them. If this was the case we wouldn't have many nations at all, if any, that could be in the game.

I will admit I ain't a scholar on history however I know enough to know that all cultures have commited acts that are questionable in the past.

Oh yes. Fighting for freedom can indeed be considered terrorists. The Palestinian terrorist acts against Israell can be considered by some as fighting for freedom but it doesn't change that it is terrorism. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

That asside "terrorism" can be a very effective way to fight a larger opponent.. sometimes the only way. However, it can easily go astray and bring the kettle onto one's head.

For me terrorism is just targeting civilians instead of troops in war or out in order to create fear and the like.

 

[Crayton]

Forgot what I was going to say....

Oh yah! Turks are ethnically most similar to Mongols. Right (or Persians)?
Can there be any compromise to merge the two. I mean, was Timurlane a Turk or a Mongol? Are the Turks just the Mongols 2.0 (or 1.2, whatever)? The next Great thing to come out of Central Asia.
I'm not too familiar with any Turkic-Mongolian tensions; so, sorry I'm if this idea is outright disgusting.

 

[Armenian Rebel]

Second. America has adopted many cultural values from other cultures, does this mean that America has no culture? The mongols(if I recall my history texts correctly) also adopted many cultures of thier conquered areas. Does this mean that they have no culture? Etc.. etc... etc... Adopting cultures of conquered lands is a common thing done. Also keep in mind that assimilating a culture does not negate your own. Mixing the two can actually create a whole new culture.

America cannot be compared with the Turks, because unlike America (initially), the Turks were their own nation and had their own ethnic identity, etc. America was simply a group of British colonies.

The Mongols and Turks weren't much different. They were living in yurts in Central Asia, while Mesopotamia and Armenia were centers of Civilization.

So how many Armenians were killed?

Is that a rhetorical question? I'll answer anyway... 1.5 million Armenians were killed during WWI. This does not count the Assyrian and Greek victims, nor does it count the Armenian victims of the Hamidian massacres (200 000 to 300 000), nor does it count the victims of the Adana massacre (approximately 30 000).

The Japanese in WWII killed many Chinese. Stalin also killed many many many people. The germans commited the Holocaust. The Chinese killed many many people(under Mao's rule in particular if I recall).The Americans slaughtered the Native American tribes tribes. The english weren't kind to there colonies(Though they didn't genocide.. or at least I haven't heard that. But I do recall one massacre that was quite awful in India).

Do these events downplay the Armenian genocide in any way? A lot of these genocides have been acknowledged and the perpatrating nation has apologized (the Japanese apologized to the Chinese a few months ago). Ex-Pope John-Paul II has apologized for the Crusades, etc... But Turkey did not apologize for anything.

Unfortunately, this is how the world is - genocide or be genocided. Kill, or be killed. The rules of the forest. Is this what ''Civilization'' in general is all about?

Just cause the Turks weren't the kindest nation doesn't negate them. Just cause they assimilated much culture also doesn't disable them. If this was the case we wouldn't have many nations at all, if any, that could be in the game.

I guess you're right... But false Turkish propaganda does not belong in this forum.

Oh yes. Fighting for freedom can indeed be considered terrorists. The Palestinian terrorist acts against Israell can be considered by some as fighting for freedom but it doesn't change that it is terrorism. "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."

I guess the Turk fooled you. Armenians did not practice terrorism during the rebellions. They did not blow themselves up in Turkish buildings, for example. They recruited volunteers, or fedayees and faught only in defence of Armenian towns and cities. They were always largely outnumbered. Armenia was reborn thanks to them.

There were only a few cases of 'terrorism'. The assassination of Talat Pasha (the Turkish equivalent of Hitler) is an example. The Armenian who did it didn't even go to prison afterwards.

 

[Invisible Rhino]

Forgot what I was going to say....

Oh yah! Turks are ethnically most similar to Mongols. Right (or Persians)?
Can there be any compromise to merge the two. I mean, was Timurlane a Turk or a Mongol? Are the Turks just the Mongols 2.0 (or 1.2, whatever)? The next Great thing to come out of Central Asia.
I'm not too familiar with any Turkic-Mongolian tensions; so, sorry I'm if this idea is outright disgusting.

Luckily there are people like me who study things like this so normal people don't have to

The "Turks" in a historical context refers to "Turkic langauge speaking peoples" of whom there were dozens upon dozens of different ethnic groups scattered from the mediteranean to central asia. Some were quite similar to Persians, some more resembled central asian nomads, some even ruled China for periods of time, and I'm sure there were some that resembled other groups of people you could think of as well.

The Mongols were not Turkic in origin, but some of the tribes they interacted with first and assimilated first were, this has led to the misconception that the Mongols are all Turkic, but this is not the case. It is true however that many important people in the Mongol empire had Turkic backgrounds.

Tamerlane (which means Timur the Lame, correctly he should be called Amir Timur) was of Central Asian origin. He was NOT a Mongol by their own defintion, I could look up whether he was a Turk or not but I'm moving in a few days and all my books are packed away . While he could claim dubiously a Mongolian female ancestor or two, Mongolians are patrilineal (meaning they trace descent from the male) so this was not valid in their eyes. He married a Chagataid (descendant of a son of Chinggis Khan) princess in order to be seen as Mongol, but this was never really taken seriously by anyone other than Amir Timur himself.

Amir Timur differed very greatly from his role model, Chinggis Khan in ways besides ancestry. If you want to read more there is a book by a woman who I think is named Beatrice Forbes or Manz called "The Rise and Rule of Tamerlame." Once again if I had my books unpacked I could give you the right citation. It's a slow read but its really the only good source on the matter.

The Turks and Mongols, while they worked side by side on some occassions, also fought bitterly and other than those turkic speaking peoples taht were assimilated by the Mongolians in the Central Asian steppe the two never merged culturally. Later on in the Mongol rule large groups of Turkic language speaking nomads from further west (such I believe as the Kipchaqs someone correct me if I'm wrong) joined their armies and such, but they did not adopt Mongolian culture or anything like that.

So thinking of one as an "upgrade" of the other is completely wrong, but not "disgusting." At least you asked.

 

[ShunNakamura]

Alright I am mad... computer went down just as I was going to post.

So here I go again.

The whole point of my above post was to try and point out that just cause it was nasty to people doesn't disqualify it from being a civ in Civ4.

Asking how many were killed was kinda to try and force comparison between other atrocities(to help drive my point home). How many did Hitler kill? How many Chinese did the Japanese kill? How many were killed during Mao's reign? How many Indians died when America took thier land? Etc.. I am sure you are getting my point, it is just to show that the turks aren't alone.



Since there are Armenians today it couldn't have been genocide(the complete anniliation of a particular group of people) however attempted genocide it could have been, I don't know.


The comment on Terrorism is just my way to say that the line between freedom fighter and terrorist is a fine line indeed. Also that terrorism can be subjective. I don't know how the armenians fought so I can't make a decision either way, just wanted to make sure thier were no misconceptions.(Such as I know some that view Palestinian terrorists as freedom fighers... but since they do target transist and such as well as attempt to cause fear.. they are terrorists, that doesn't mean they also arent' freedom fighters. Terrorism is just a way to fight, just like gureilla warfare and the like.)


P.S. Most I know do view the turks as having thier own culture.

P.S.S. Btw wasn't Saladin a turk? That has been niggling my noggin for a while now. Many sources I have read say he is a turk(Seljuk if I recall) and I believe that is what we were taught in history class too. Yet he is listed under Arab.
Not that games have to be particually historically accurate.. but it does urkle me when they create misconceptions. If you are going to put it in do your research(course I could be mistaken on the Saladin issue.. and also there is the possiblity he was both.. but more arab.. or of turkish decent and of Arab culture.. blah... blah... blah.. many possiblities actualy).



And thanks for the good read Invisible Rhino.. I was going to say I had always seen them as fairly different but didn't know the history.. perhaps I should look some of those books up. History I have always found interesting.

 

[Kyriakos]

Since there are Armenians today it couldn't have been genocide(the complete anniliation of a particular group of people) however attempted genocide it could have been, I don't know.
.

well, this is just a wrong definition of the word. Ofcourse the word genocide means literally murder of a race, but it is used to mean the murder of a very large part of a race.
The jewish genocide by nazi germans didnt result in the extinction of the jewish race, so according to you it wouldnt have been a genocide either.
1.5 mil people are a huge number, at any rate. that is 1,5 million times YOU.


as for Saladin: i think that he was a Kurd. there are around 20 mil kurds in modern turkey (which would make 2 out of every 7 turkish citizents kurds)

 

[Himalia]

Historically speaking many nations have parts in there history that they would probably rather not talk about. Regardless of there past in these respects a nations history must be taken in its entirety not selectively. Therefore having aspects in your history like this does not mean you dont qualify simply beacause if it did many nations would have to be removed from the game. Ok so some would be more obvioues to remove than others but many would be lost this way.

 

[ShunNakamura]

I am not trying to say that 1.5m isn't a lot of people just that it wasn't genocide. Slaughter perhaps.. attempted genocide perhaps. In Sociology we were taught that Genocide is the "complete anniliation".

gen·o·cide Audio pronunciation of "genocide" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (jn-sd)
n.

The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.[\quote]

There are other definitions that are slightly more easy to interpret as less then all. But this is the one I most commonly see, as well as all of them that I have read still imply that all are killed. I still stand by that genocide here is being used wrong. Genocide is a strong word, and should be saved for when it is truely needed.

 

[ahm]

...

how can your mind let comparing mustapha kemal and armenians no comment. and how about 1.5 million (!) do you know the ermenian population at that time : 1.056.000 (1917 - English Archives), 1.475.011 (French Archives). in our archives it is 1.001.465(1893), 1.120.748(1906), 1.221.850 (1914). how can anyone kill more than population you are criticizing our archives look my link at my last message : "Massachusetts Institute of Technology". that is no matter if you accept or not. first Mimar Sinan was not an armanian (you have not any magnate, big sorry ). He was albanian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinan). He was not turkish origin but he absorbed turkish culture well, you can easly notice it if you look his works.
we commanded very large area as you see at the map. there is so many nations here after ottomans. we were more strong to assimilate or genocide especially at 1500-1600. we could assimilate all of them how we want but we didnt (yes 90% of anotolia is turk. but only ~%40 (perhaps more less) of ottomans were turk (there were Arabs, greece, makedonia, romania, persians, ...). so the races are living at past and now... turks didnt genocide any race.

I can’t stop laughing!


Cheers!

I can’t stop you from laughing too, sorry you have some problems in your mind.

 

[ahm]

there are around 20 mil kurds in modern turkey (which would make 2 out of every 7 turkish citizents kurds)

there is 4-5 million kurts in turkey.

 

[Armenian Rebel]

@ShunNakamura

Here's the exatct definition of genocide according to the UN convention:
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html

The Armenians were completely annhialated from their historical lands. There aren't any Armenians left in Western Armenia (eastern Turkey) anymore. The Armenian massacres clearly apply as genocide according to the link.

Commemorating and punishing genocides is good, because that way, we prevent further genocides. For example, it is proven that if the Armenian Genocide was properly prevented by the West, the Jewish Holocaust wouldn't have taken place.

@ahm

It seems that you trust Wikipedia, so why don't you read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_Population

He was not turkish origin but he absorbed turkish culture well, you can easly notice it if you look his works.

There was no such thing as a purely turkish culture. It is a mix of other cultures.

What was an Albanian doing in Eastern/Central Anatolian village? It is proven in the Turkish archives that he was Armenian and the village where he was born (Agirnas) was an Armenian village.

What about the Armenian masters of 'Turkish' music - Tatyos Effendi, Udi Hrant, etc.?

we commanded very large area as you see at the map. there is so many nations here after ottomans. we were more strong to assimilate or genocide especially at 1500-1600. we could assimilate all of them how we want but we didnt (yes 90% of anotolia is turk. but only ~%40 (perhaps more less) of ottomans were turk (there were Arabs, greece, makedonia, romania, persians, ...). so the races are living at past and now... turks didnt genocide any race.

Keeping all of them alive was the least that Turks could do. It is a very basic thing. The Armenian Genocide was another case, because the Young Turk government perpetrated it, and not the Ottoman sultanate. The Young Turks knew that they were going to lose most of their middle-eastern lands, so they chose to create a new empire by uniting with their Central Asian Turkic brothers. The Armanians were the only major christian group that standed in their path.

Thankfully, their plan did not work out.

And where are the Armenian of Western Armenia? They ''immigrated'' didn't they?

 

[ahm]

It seems that you trust Wikipedia, so why don't you read this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoma...nian_Population

lets suppose that it is true 1.5 mil or 1.8. we killed 1.5/1.8 ??? or 1.5/1.5??? who are you? are you armenian? it is impossible to kill 1.5 mil. people. it is a signal that shows you are wrong.

There was no such thing as a purely turkish culture. It is a mix of other cultures.

What was an Albanian doing in Eastern/Central Anatolian village? It is proven in the Turkish archives that he was Armenian and the village where he was born (Agirnas) was an Armenian village.

What about the Armenian masters of 'Turkish' music - Tatyos Effendi, Udi Hrant, etc.?

why is it turkish music and it is not armanian music?? because the owners ( Tatyos Effendi, Udi Hrant...) say that it is turkish music. it is tukish culture. they are performing turkish culture. if somebody says we did not affected from any foreing culture, it would the biggest lie. but i am meaning "effects". there is the grand turkish culture. but you are free you can reject it. it is not important for us.

Keeping all of them alive was the least that Turks could do

it is possible you didnt read history about ottomans 1500-1650 years. if you read, you couldnt say "Keeping all of them alive was the least that Turks could do". 1453 year is the conquest of Istanbul.

It is a very basic thing. The Armenian Genocide was another case, because the Young Turk government perpetrated it, and not the Ottoman sultanate. The Young Turks knew that they were going to lose most of their middle-eastern lands, so they chose to create a new empire by uniting with their Central Asian Turkic brothers. The Armanians were the only major christian group that standed in their path.

Thankfully, their plan did not work out.

And where are the Armenian of Western Armenia? They ''immigrated'' didn't they?

There is not "Young Turk government 'sultanate'". there is the Ottoman sultanate. and there is an ottoman state mantalite. Ottoman Sultan always decided the empire's future at every age. (with advise of vizers or advise of parlementers). i mean the last decision is given by the sultan. so if you accept the sultan dont do this, there is not genocide

 

[Himalia]

Lets clear things up. For it to be Genocide they must of completly wiped out the Armenians and they failed in that. However it was attempted Genocide and jus tan attempt still counts. If Genocide was not the goal here it is undeniable that the massacure still happened.

 

[ShunNakamura]

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

According to that I could possibly argue 9/11 was genocide... or that just about any time an ethnic group attacks and kills some from another group it is genocide.

That definition completely destroys what power the word had... before I would be first in line to flay a commiter of an act.. now... well it is no different then mass homicide, which whilst bad, was no where near the level that genocide reaches.


As for Saladin I have seen sources that say he is turk, arab, and kurd... which is why I asked.. It confuses me .

Since the turks absorbed parts of different cultures they thus created thier own in the process. Or improved on thier own. The Americans did the same from the original culture of the 13 colonies to what it is today. Though the turks may have done it on a much larger scale(as in complete assimiliation with they cultures they conquered).

 

[Armenian Rebel]

@Himalia

I see what you mean. So according to you, genocide has never taken place? Even the Genocide of the American Indians doesn't count in that logic (You can still find Aborigins here and there). The Jewish Holocaust either.

@ShunNakamura

According to that I could possibly argue 9/11 was genocide... or that just about any time an ethnic group attacks and kills some from another group it is genocide.

That definition completely destroys what power the word had... before I would be first in line to flay a commiter of an act.. now... well it is no different then mass homicide, which whilst bad, was no where near the level that genocide reaches.

The word 'genocide' did not exist before the 1940s. That is the official UN definition.

As for Saladin I have seen sources that say he is turk, arab, and kurd... which is why I asked.. It confuses me .

In modern definitions, Saladin was a Kurd from Tikrit, a city in Northern Iraq.

But he did have Turkish relatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin


@ahm

lets suppose that it is true 1.5 mil or 1.8. we killed 1.5/1.8 ??? or 1.5/1.5??? who are you? are you armenian? it is impossible to kill 1.5 mil. people. it is a signal that shows you are wrong.

Read it well. The article proves that the number of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was around 2 million. 1.5 million were killed. The 1.5 million number comes from carefuly studied sources, most notably the German archives.

why is it turkish music and it is not armanian music?? because the owners ( Tatyos Effendi, Udi Hrant...) say that it is turkish music. it is tukish culture. they are performing turkish culture. if somebody says we did not affected from any foreing culture, it would the biggest lie. but i am meaning "effects". there is the grand turkish culture. but you are free you can reject it. it is not important for us.

Tell me whatever you like... The original 'grand turkish culture' was the life in yurts.

There is not "Young Turk government 'sultanate'". there is the Ottoman sultanate. and there is an ottoman state mantalite. Ottoman Sultan always decided the empire's future at every age. (with advise of vizers or advise of parlementers). i mean the last decision is given by the sultan. so if you accept the sultan dont do this, there is not genocide

The Sultan was reduced to a simple figure after the Young Turk revolution. Just like what Queen Elizabeth II is for Great Britain.

It was the Turkish goverment of 1915-1918. That's all that matters.

 

[ShunNakamura]

In modern definitions, Saladin was a Kurd from Tikrit, a city in Northern Iraq.

But he did have Turkish relatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin
.

Right that might be where I keep recalling the seljuk termonology from.

@Himalia

I see what you mean. So according to you, genocide has never taken place? Even the Genocide of the American Indians doesn't count in that logic (You can still find Aborigins here and there). The Jewish Holocaust either.

@ShunNakamura



The word 'genocide' did not exist before the 1940s. That is the official UN definition.

Off course genocide has happened. We have genocided several animal species and I am certian animals have commited genocide against one another. We are special in that we attempt to suceed at genocide against ourselves. Though as of yet success has not happend(that I know of).

As for the UN defining somthing. That is the dictionary's job. As you may find as I am here I am quite derisive of political bodies. Leave it to linguists and the dictionary's to define words. Once you start politicalling the words(or just about anything for that matter) you just screw it up. That and the UN as we know it is pretty pointless.. how does it enable peace and co-op in the world?

It doesn't. The US was easily able to attack Iraq even without the UN's support. "Genocide's"(according to thier definition) have occured elsewhere and what have they done to stop it? Naught. Sorry but the UN as it is, is just a joke for the most part. Good intentions don't always go right.

The original culture of Anyone was living in hovels, caves etc... You evolve. You change. You assimiliate parts of other cultures. That is how you BUILD your culture.