The issue of the Armenian genocide originated from the mass destruction of the Armenian people, premeditated and executed by the Ottoman Turkish government. Looking into ulterior motives to deny the Armenian genocide has no credibility. The false claims as stated above casts the victim as the victimizer, similar to the Nazi propaganda that tried to justify the holocaust of the Jewish people. A sense of "fairness" was not given to the Armenian victims of genocide who had no judge nor jury, only the (Ottoman Turkish government) executioner.

Posted by: Rich | February 8, 2007 5:22 PM

###

Notice how Armenians never talk about Turkish victims of Armenian brutality, torture, and mayhem? Do names like Dro, Pastermadjian, and thousands of others like that ring a bell? How about Ottoman-Armenians under French uniforms cutting down their Ottoman-Muslim neighbors? And under Russinan uniforms slaughtering even more? You want to see pictures? Go to www.armenianreality.com

We have an age-old saying in Turkish: "You can't cover the sun with mud." Meaning? Armenian cannot fool all the world all the time. The truth will shine on them, sooner or later. Armenian mass deception can work in Fresno or Glendale, but not in places where Armenians cannot generate "information pollution".

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | February 12, 2007 5:43 PM

###

Why is it that Armenian falsifiers never talk about Turkish victims of Armenian revolts, terrorism, and treason?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | February 13, 2007 10:56 AM

###

What can justify a genocide of innocent Armenian civilians?

Posted by: Rich | February 13, 2007 1:33 PM

###

Nothing, if there was "truly" a genocide. On the other hand, Armenian terrorists using Armenian civilians as "human shields" can justify civil wars and civilian casualties.

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | March 14, 2007 7:27 AM

###

Sadly we have fringe groups, and advocates who deny the genocide of the Jews during WWII. Sadly, similar denialist attitudes pertain to the Armenian genocide. There are two paths to the Armenian genocide -- one of its occurrence at the hands of the Ottoman Turkish Government, and the other, of denial.

I commend the Turkish civilians at the time of the Genocide who saved Armenians from death, putting their own lives at risk. I also commend my Turkic people of today, for standing up and facing the dark past of Turkish history, and accepting the "truth" of the genocide.

Posted by: Rich | March 18, 2007 9:30 AM

###

Jewish Holocaust is an undisputed fact; Armenian Genocide is a hotly contested allegation. Jews did not kill or backstab Germans to establish a Jewish state on German soil; Armenians did all that and more in the Ottoman Empire. Turkish acts were a wartime military necessity in the spirit of defending one's country in the face of internal and external threats to existence.

I keep asking and the Armenian lobbyists keep skirting this simple question: in your best informed estimate, how many Muslims (mostly Turks) did the Armenians kill in 1914-1918?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | March 27, 2007 12:50 PM

###

Obviously failing to see the distinct parallels between the innocent mass killings of Armenians and the Jewish people by the perpetrator governments is something that you need to seriously re-evaluate.

The German government did fabricate propaganda to justify killing innocent Jewish people, starkly similar to the Turkish government of that era until today.

The Germans at the time and fringe groups of today deny the Jewish killings, not unlike the Turkish government and fringe groups of today. During the civil unrest of the era a more sensible question may be: How many ethnic Turkish people killed each other?

Posted by: Rich | March 28, 2007 6:49 AM

###

How many Muslims (Turks, Kurds, and others) did the Armenian kill during 1914-1918? How many?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | March 29, 2007 4:00 PM

###

The point is the governments propaganda of Turkey and Germany tried to justify the killing of innocent lives. The ends and the means were the same, killing without justification. It may be possible that the ethnic Turks were killing each other over the spoils of the Turkish government sanctioned rape, killing, and outright pillaging of innocent Armenians throughout Eastern Anatolia. Also the Turkish internal governmental power struggle contributed to the civil war i.e. death of its ethnic Turkish people.

Posted by: Rich | March 30, 2007 12:25 AM

###

…...

###

I have coined a new term "Ethocide™" at exactly at 8:58 am, on Wednesday, May 7, 2003, after being frustrated by the incredibly biased coverage of Turkish-Armenian issue in the American press and prejudiced writers who blindly and faithfully recite the "official Armenian position" on the Turkish-Armenian conflict.

"Ethocide" , my humble gift to the English language, is coined from the words "ethics" and "cide". Short definition of Ethocide is "deliberate and systematic extermination of ethics via mass deception". If you want to know what "ethocidal coverage" of a controversial issue is, just read the Armenian writers above. For a more detailed study of "Ethocide", you may wish to google the word "Ethocide".

Also, I am in the process of writing a book titled "Ethocide, Not Genocide" exposing the Armenian lobby for the mass deception they cultivated since 1915. After my book, the future generations will dismiss the Armenian claims with a simple statement: "What happened during WWI was not genocide, but what the Armenian lobby did since WWI is clearly ethocide."

One of the key questions in exposing the Armenian lobby is a simple one that I have already asked and the Armenian writers carefully avoided answering many times before: How many Muslims (mostly Turks, but also Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, and others, too) did the Armenian nationalists kill during 1914-1918? How many?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 2, 2007 2:56 PM

###

You may have added to the English language but it's hardly a "contribution" to humanity from a denialist perspective of the Armenian genocide.

Posted by: Rich | April 2, 2007 10:11 PM

###

How many Muslims (mostly Turks, but also Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, and others) did the Armenian nationalists kill during 1914-1918? How many?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 3, 2007 2:47 PM

###

Go to an Armenian Genocide denialist web site to find an answer that you may believe is true.

Posted by: Rich | April 3, 2007 6:30 PM

###

I can always do that. But I want your "learned" opinion. How many Muslims (mostly Turks, but also Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, and others) did the Armenian nationalists kill during 1914-1918? How many?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 4, 2007 8:50 AM

###

If you can always do that then what Armenian Genocide denialist web site would someone go who is interested to answer your question?

Posted by: Rich | April 4, 2007 12:29 PM

###

You are not fooling the readers with your evasive answers. Why is it so difficult for you people to answer a simple question? Why must you endlessly recite what you memorized since your childhood?

And what part of the following question don't you understand? Isn't it in plain enough English? Let me ask one more time: How many Muslims (mostly Turks, but also Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, and others, too) did the Armenian nationalists kill during 1914-1918? How many?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 4, 2007 2:56 PM

###

If you have been reading the previous posts you may already find that your question did receive a number of responses. Otherwise, it is yourself that is running away from the issue that (as you stated) "frustrates" you the most: coming to terms with the Turkish Government's policy of genocide against the innocent Armenian people.

Posted by: Rich | April 4, 2007 5:52 PM

###

I know too well I cannot change your mind and I don't intend to. All I am doing here is documenting for all to see how disconnected the Armenian writers are to the historical facts and how they are brainwashed to disregard the truth. They are taught to recite what they have been fed since early childhood.

This question, as I explained above, is at the crux of the matter. This debate cannot advance if the Armenian writers (who seem to know all there is to know about the Turkish-Armenian conflict) try desperately to evade a simple question with an honest answer. So, I must insist on asking it:

How many Muslims (mostly Turks, but also Kurds, Circassians, Arabs, and others) did the Armenian nationalists kill during 1914-1918? How many?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 5, 2007 2:04 PM

###

From reading your same posts it is evident that you are the one who is "brainwashed" with the repeated questions. And as I stated before, your question did receive a number of responses already. You are also under the assumption that the Armenian Genocide is subject to debate? How insulting to humanity.

Posted by: Rich | April 5, 2007 5:15 PM

###

Your answers were no answers; evasion, diversion, excuse, and/or dismissal. Your answer to my question, or rather lack of it, is a clear proof that there was no genocide and that it was a civil war within a world war.

How can Armenians love "monologue" so much and hate "responsible debate"? What are they afraid of? That their genocide fraud would be exposed?

When Erdogan, the Turkish PM, proposed to Armenia that a joint research group be established to properly analyze the Turkish-Armenian conflict, the response was the same as the above Armenian writers: "No need for study or debate. We know it all. That's that."

Well, if you know it all, then would you please have the courage to answer my simple question with a straight answer: How many Muslims did Armenians kill during WWI? (I am still waiting... No easy escape for you...)

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 6, 2007 7:03 PM

###

Ergun wrote: "Your answers were no answers; evasion, diversion, excuse, and/or dismissal."

Your interpretations of my previous response to your same question is yours to except, or reject. Asking the same question does not further legitimize YOUR evasion of acceptance of the Armenian genocide. You must not understand, most everyone (including myself) who advocate human rights particularly against government sanctioned genocide are not filled with "hate". On the contrary, we try and bring light to genocides to avoid them today and in the future. Your position seems to justify genocidal acts against innocent civilians and perpetuate hate. You need a lot of courage to face history, except it and move on as many ethnic Turkish people are doing now.

Posted by: Rich | April 7, 2007 10:17 PM

###

I am not sure if you can appreciate the difference between the terms "allegations" and "judgment". While anyone can make any wild claim, only court judgments are filtered through the "due process" by careful and orderly cross-examination of factual, relevant input. The Armenians have never won a court case authorizing them to use the term genocide. Yet, they seem to endlessly benefit from a bogus "judgment" of genocide without "due process".

Genocide is a precisely defined legal term that requires a "verdict by a competent court" to assert. Not all suffering, not all killings, not all casualties, not all "my-granma-told-me" stories can be slapped on with a casual genocide label. Armenians have many "my-granma-told-me" stories, but so do we, Turks and other Muslims. It is just that you choose to ignore ours.

You could not even answer a simple question about the Muslim suffering. I proved it above. If you don't know about it, then what kind of "human rights champion" are you advocating human rights for only certain humans but not others?

If you know about Muslim suffering at the hands of Armenians but choose to ignore it anyway, then that's selective morality at best, racial and ethnic discrimination at worst.

For an atrocity to be considered genocide, the plaintiff must prove that there was "an intention" to commit genocide; then the defendants cross examine the documents and rebut. Such a "due process", like Nuremberg, has actually been attempted by the British in Malta but never carried out due to lack of evidence that could stand the scrutiny of any court of law. Since the Armenians had not been able to come up with any evidence, other than crude forgeries and hearsay, of Ottoman intent, the Armenian activists had concocted countless conspiracy theories, based them on the documents other Armenians forged, second hand comments on "lost documents", repetitive hearsay logs that can circle the earth, and eyewitness stories which prove nothing more than tit-for-tat cruelty in a wartime, none of which would stand in a court room. If they did, then the Armenians would be in that court room back in 1918, right after the conclusion of the World War I. Just like they sued New York Life for insurance money after 90 years, they would have sued The Republic Of Turkey back in 1923 and not a moment later. The Armenian activists know that they can not win in a court room due to shaky foundation of their wild claims, so they mostly use media, politicians, and "training" to settle history by censorship.

To "prove the Ottoman premeditation" on the alleged genocide, the Armenian activists and scholars came up with three pillars, according to Professor Guenther Lewy ( "Revisiting the Armenian Genocide", Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2005) hoping that they would convince the world that the wartime measure of resettlement of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire amounted to genocide. He wrote:

" ...Most of those who maintain that Armenian deaths were premeditated and so constitute genocide base their argument on three pillars: the actions of Turkish military courts of 1919-20, which convicted officials of the Young Turk government of organizing massacres of Armenians, the role of the so-called "Special Organization" accused of carrying out the massacres, and the Memoirs of Naim Bey which contain alleged telegrams of Interior Minister Talât Pasha conveying the orders for the destruction of the Armenians. Yet when these events and the sources describing them are subjected to careful examination, they provide at most a shaky foundation from which to claim, let alone conclude, that the deaths of Armenians were premeditated...."

It is clear by even a precursory scanning of historical facts that Armenian claims of genocide cannot be substantiated and that it was wartime suffering caused by a civil war engineered, provoked, waged, and lost by the Armenians with financial, political, and military support from Russia, England, France and, tot varying degrees, other enemies of the Ottoman Empire. Turks were defending their country and their lives like any self-respecting nation would do.

Since you know all there is to know, like every Armenian around, perhaps you can help me with my second question:

How many Muslims did Armenians kill in Azerbaijan in 1992-1994 period? And how many civilian, non-combatant Azeri refugees were forced to flee their home at gunpoint by armed Armenian thugs?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 9, 2007 11:24 AM

###

You nullify your own arguments when you claim the Armenian genocide is as you say is "alleged" or "so-called" before you believe it should be tried in some kind of international court. Who suggested that this be taken to an international court? The perpetrator government? This strikes me as odd, a criminal asking to be tried in court. I am sure this is a political stunt with preconditions, as is the case with similar government talks between Armenia and Turkey. There is no reason trust can be placed in talks with the Turkish government.

Victims of atrocities such as the Armenian genocide need "authorization" before making public in describing what happened to them? The actual victims the ones who ultimately died (not counting the additional survivors) have no voice, they are dead.

A Court case does not make a reality, untrue.

Also it seems evident that you are basing the Armenian genocide purely from an Armenians' perspective which is unsurprisingly also false. Many other Governments and Scholars, and human rights organizations (who are not ethnically Armenian) support the history of the Ottoman Turkish government committing genocide against the Armenians.

The Turkish government's denialist position which you seem to support does not justify mass killing of innocent lives of its ethnically Armenian populations.

It was a gross inhumanity to man justifying the killings of innocent lives further perpetuates hate and inhumanity to man.

No government then and now can justify killing innocent people en-mass. I have heard these propaganda positions before it is nothing new.

Calling Armenians "thugs" or any other nationality shows the lack of sensitivity you have toward other ethnicities.

These are purely hateful racist remarks. It is a disservice to your people when you hurl insults at other ethnicities. This is not a productive exchange of information. Maybe taking a racial sensitivity class is in order.

Posted by: Rich | April 9, 2007 6:09 PM

###

(Ergun Kirlikovali's note: The Armenian writer then provides this cliché of an Armenian response to perceived Turkish positions. Please read patiently and then see my responses. I am sure you have other responses which I welcome. This is why I am providing this partial debate here: to learn the Armenian propaganda and fight it with truth. )

###

Common Turkish Government apologist positions: The Turks had to deport the Armenians from the eastern war front where they were helping the Russians who promised them a homeland.

---------------

Response:

Armenians all over Anatolia, not just on the eastern war front, were wiped out. The cities of Yozgad, Sivas, Caeserea, Hadjin, Marash, Adana, and Ankara -- just to name a few -- are hardly in the east. One needs but to look at a map of Turkey to see this. Turkish apologists depend on American ignorance of geography to make such foolish claims

Both the Turks and the Russians offered the Armenians autonomy. Neither promise could be trusted. Truth is the first victim of war. Neither the Turks nor the Russians had a history of granting their subjects freedom. The last tsar, Nicholas II, would not even share power with his own Russian people, which prompted the Russian revolution during World War I. Russia even forbade Armenian refugees, who had managed to flee the Genocide, from returning to their ancestral lands, which the Russian armies had overrun during the war. Prince Lobanov-Rostovsky, foreign minister of Russia in 1895, summed up Russia's traditional stance by saying, "Yes, Russia wants Armenia, but without the Armenians."

----------------

A Turkish Government apologist position: The Armenians were killed in a civil war, or an ethnic feud; it was not genocide.

---------------

Response:

When the armed government of 25 million people turns on and attempts to exterminate an unarmed minority of three million old men, women, and children, it is hardly an "inter-communal struggle," "an ethnic feud," or "civil war"; it is nothing more or less than genocide.

The Turkish government had a bureaucracy, tax money, an army, irregular troops, the local police, and special killing squads to carry out its mission. What did the Armenians have?

If it was a feud between Turks and Armenians, what explains the genocide carried out by Turkey against the Christian Assyrians at the same time?

Turkish armies invaded the fledging Armenian Republic in the Caucasus inhabited by indigenous Armenians in order to wipe out not only Armenians in the Ottoman Empire but also Armenians who lived elsewhere.

-------------------

A common Turkish Government apologist position: Turks died too. Perhaps some three million Turks died during the period of the alleged genocide against the Armenians.

----------------

Response:

It is doubtful that three million Turks died in World War I. Turkish propagandists sometimes use the more correct, but still deceptive, expression "three million Muslims." Yes, three million Muslims probably did die in WW I, but so did twenty million Christians. What has that got to do with the Armenian Genocide?

The Turks died, unfortunately, because their own government led them into World War I against the European Allies. Many Turkish Muslims also died fighting Arab Muslims, who were seeking their freedom from Ottoman oppression, and Indian Muslims who were with the British Middle East army in Mesopotamia. All this Muslim blood, then, is on the head of the Ottoman Turkish government and not on the victimized and helpless Armenians.

There were at most around three million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, most of them old men, women, and children, and they can hardly be blamed for the death of three million "Turks or Muslims." That is absurd.

-------------------

A common Turkish Government apologist position: It is your word against ours.

------------------

Response:

The Turkish government has confessed in earlier times. Prime Minister Damat Ferid Pasha placed the blame squarely on the Young Turk Party and held war crime trials in which the chief perpetrators were condemned to death.

Prince Abdul Mecid, the heir apparent to the Ottoman Throne, said during an interview: "I refer to those awful massacres. They are the greatest stain that has ever disgraced our nation and race. They were entirely the work of Talat and Enver. I heard some days before they began that they were intended. I went to Istanbul and insisted on seeing Enver. I asked him if it was true and they intended to recommence the massacres that had been our shame and disgrace under Abdul Hamid. The only reply I could get from his was: 'It is decided. It is the program.' "

Mustafa Kemal Pasha (later surnamed "Ataturk") said in a 1926 interview with a Swiss reporter that "these holdovers from the Young Turkey [sic.] Party should be made to account for the lives of millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred. . . ."

And, of course, Hitler knew and drew a lesson from it. As he sent his Death Heads troops into Poland to start World War II, he said: "Go. Kill without pity. Who nowadays remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Posted by: Rich | April 9, 2007 10:22 PM

###

It is noteworthy that when you ask questions to yourself, you answer them with a robotic response. But when I ask you a simple question, you avoid answering. It seems you Armenians love monologues.

Since you know everything there is to know, let me ask two simple questions which you never answered properly:

1- How many Muslims did Armenians kill during WWI (1914-1918)?

2- How many Muslims did Armenians kill during their occupation of Azerbaijan (1992-1994)?

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 10, 2007 10:45 AM

###

Read the previous posts...

Posted by: Rich | April 10, 2007 12:05 PM

###

I think disinterested third parties will agree that I will not be able to get straight answers from Armenian lobbyists. If you read the entire thread above, you will see the Armenians will dart in with pre-packaged, oft-repeated, "official Armenian position", with no references to Muslim suffering that Armenians caused.

This is akin to stating the American civil war from only one side and claiming genocide. Like a Northerner, totally ignoring the Southern suffering, and claiming the Southerners committed genocide. Or the Southerners, deliberately dismissing Northern suffering and claiming genocide. It is partisan history; bad history; unfair politicization of the past.

If I could get the Armenians to set aside for a moment what they love to recite mindlessly and answer my questions, I have others to ask:

1- Did Armenians resort to armed rebellions against their own government prior to 1915?

2- Did Armenians establish terrorist groups with the aim of destroying and dismembering the Ottoman Empire (with the help of the major European powers at the time, of course)?

3- Did the Armenian don the uniforms of the invading enemy armies to kill their ow n Ottoman-Muslim neighbors?

4- What did the Ottoman-Armenians wearing Russian uniforms in Erzurum, Erzincan, Van, Bitlis, and other places, under the command of Pastermadjian, Dro, and others like them do?

5- What did the Ottoman-Armenians wearing French uniforms in Adana, Kova, Osmaniye, Maras, Urfa, and other places do to their Ottoman-Muslim neighbors?

6- What did the terrorist Armenia organizations do to Ottoman-Armenians who wished to stay loyal to the Ottoman Empire?

7- Were the Ottoman-Armenians who stayed loyal to the Ottoman Empire and refused to take part in the murder of Ottoman-Muslims subjected to "TERESET" (Temporary Resettlement order)?

There are more... many more...

But do you think I can get a straight answer to any of my questions from the Diaspora Armenians?

After all, I could not even get an answer to the most basic one of those questions after asking it a million times: How many Muslims did Armenians kill in 1914-1918 period?

Armenians don't like reasoned, responsible, and documented debate with "denialists" like me... You see, "denialists" challenge the bogus genocide because they ask too many hard questions...

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 11, 2007 9:52 AM

###

(to be continued…)