 Let Historians Decide On So-called Genocide |
|
|
|
|
 10/22/06 04:47 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
 Let Historians Decide on So-called Genocide QUOTE Part I: Nationalists who use history have different goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their nations' battles. They have a purpose -- to triumph for their cause, and they will use anything to succeed in this goal Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his error when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools a logical and consistent account results. Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians' attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so. There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to find the truth, whatever that may be. Nationalists who use history have a different set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his purpose' ignoring the others. Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit intellectual crimes. The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results. "Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies historical principles and comes to logical conclusions. Historians first ask the most basic question. "Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state? To find the answer, historians look to government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves. They want to know their populations so they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures, there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there. Two inferences can be drawn from the relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves, the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there. To understand the history of the development of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories. Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times. 1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries. 2. Until very modern times most mass mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two warring sides. 3. When conflict erupted between nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens. With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this. On these principles, the histories of Turks and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied. The conflict between Turks and Armenians did indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks, were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the 1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians were either expelled or killed by Russians. Of that number, one third died as victims of the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could expect from a Russian conquest. Members of the Armenian minority in the Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to force them to take sides. The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians, Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000 Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran. The great population exchange had begun, and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police. In Erzurum, for example, British consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city. When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them, fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and the exodus of Laz in 1882. By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus. This was the toll of Russian imperialism. Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but ethnic peace had been destroyed. The Muslims had been taught that their neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder. The actions of Armenian rebels exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of the Ottoman East. The main Armenian revolutionary organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the rebellion, nor the Turk's intention. The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan. The Armenian rebellion began with the organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials, attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and Armenians resulted. But it all went wrong for the Armenian rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal problems stayed the Russian hand. What were the Armenian rebels trying to create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians. They expelled Turks and other Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not true for the Armenians. The lands they covered were overwhelmingly Muslim in population. The only way they could create an Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in which two conflicting sides developed. Russian imperialists and Armenian revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal of the Armenian rebellion. The preview to what was to come in the Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war. Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and bloodshed. The sides were drawn. In late 1914, inter-communal conflict began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion. Military objectives were the first to be attacked. Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials, particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior. The most successful rebel action was in the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve, outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge on any Armenian villagers they found QUOTE
Part II: Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.
It is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered
Historical principles were once again at work. Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless conflict. For the next five years, total war raged in the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained. They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated, then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity, sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims, however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their families. Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers. It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all. One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.) Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat. No claim of genocide can rationally stand in the light of these facts. If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered. That is the history of the Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those who accuse the Turks be understood. In examining the claims of Armenian nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies. The most well-known of many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians. These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people cannot be convicted of genocide on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad. These were not the only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds. One of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book. The use of quotes from Americans is selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored. Why? Because Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes. The most often seen fabrication may be the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question: How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted? Politically, "Hitler" is a magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of history. Population has also been a popular field for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman Empire. The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted today. The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city. The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth. The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered. Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention. Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared. For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan. Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians. The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres. QUOTE
Part III: A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.
A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-I Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician: It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died. Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide. A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began. Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced. Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed. Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted. The only question is the truth. Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name? I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others. To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character. When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do. In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it. The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless. Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political. What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals. Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide. Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide. The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide. The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide. Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable. Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own? Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well. I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly. Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain. The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass. Professor Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. Source : www.ataa.org Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/23/06 05:59 AM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
QUOTE you really have gone above and beyond the call prot. i would love to be able to respect you but you make it impossible when you post things like this that have no basis 9in reality at all. Dear veritas, Please reply to me: historians or politician? Who more know history? Who more know 1915? My article source based real historical events and telling by historians or vote hunter politicians? It's proofs, it's evidence? Where armenian replies? Why can't reply any armenians? QUOTE utter un-sourced crap. Show to me, where? Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/24/06 07:14 AM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
QUOTE the last place i get my history from is the states. Also our honors! Catastrophe! Anzaks Catastrophe! Your grandfathers Catastrophe! Get your history! QUOTE The Gallipoli Catastrophe   QUOTE The Epic Of Gallipoli  QUOTE [ b]Gallipoli[/b] QUOTE Gallipoli QUOTE  [img]http://www.preisvergleich.org/pimages/Gallipoli-1915-Frontal-Assault-on-Turkey_203__11177_20.jpg[img] Don't forget! Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/24/06 12:02 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
QUOTE HA HA. How low can you get, you retard. I'm shwoing you clips from a documentary that was shown on tv. You are showing me clips that were made by other turkish retarded creatured such as yourself. Yerevan, you are wrong. Please look all links. My links included more. Also we will added 57 more document to youtube and others end of the 2006. Also releised new VCD- DVD - BlueRay media in Europa and America in this month : QUOTE English, German, French  11 language included Arabic  English, German, French  Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/25/06 04:08 AM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
QUOTE those youtube things are quite interesting prot...
also interesting that there are english errors which seem to be quite the turkish hallmark..again..stop showing us turkish government manipulated websites...thats not how you convince people... Dear Hosank, Youtube, google video never proof or evidences about WW1. I see lots of Armenian, Greek video using Turk pictures and killed Anatolia peoples. History is document, history is proofs, history is evidences. Right? Armenians and Turks can evidence history with youtube videos? If okey, why armenians loaded lots of fake videos in youtube? QUOTE and that was quite wrongly documented too... Please show to me. I can entering Turkish National archives and we have research team about Armenian subject. We can reply all questions, all pictures. We dont wany change your minds. Our target research all and find right evidences. QUOTE if you look at the terrain of the pictures...and know anything about geography...you would know that greeks were...before they were quite forcably removed...living on the mediteranian coast..but the pictures show lines of prisoners..or corpses in a desert...or close to mountants...the tipical route of armenian genocide...not greek...and then..it says: "now you understand that armenians and greeks murdered turks?"..i donn't get the logic.. I dont understand what you mean video or pictures. Please write to me link. Also about Greeks, Grecee founded with Turks genocide. Almost 20.000 Turks were killed in Mora land when founded todays Greece. Also Izmir, Manisa, Aydin like Agerian city peoples killed by Greek soldiers, missioners and some radical Greeks. I dont mean all, because some greek peoples dont attached to Turks. Therefore Greek, Armenian, Pontus, Assyrian so called genocides are not REAL. But almost 5 million Turk killed in WW1 and ~542.000 peoples killed by armenian dashnak and tashnaksutyun terorist. I never say Armenians, Greek, Assyrian don't killed or don't dead. But please be logical, WW1 was big and bloodly was. When WW1 times in world millions peoples dead. Only ~260.000 Anzaks and ~780.000 Turks dead in Gallipoli year of the 1915. Why it's not genocide? Only Adana - Dortyol French soldiers killed ~35.000 Turk + Kurd peoples, why it's not genocide? Only Kars - Ardahan and Sarikamıs lines killed / dead ~473.000 Turkish peoples and soldiers, why it's not genocide? Also Turkey, Germany, England, Avustria - Hungary, France, Italy, Anzaks and other countries soldiers - peoples dead and number of the million peoples, why these countries dont say "genocide" and only Armenian deads genocide? Turk, German, England, Anzak, Italian was not human? Turks, German, Italian, Anzak mothers dont cry? Only armenians cry? Only Armenians are human? We have losting ~5 million peoples in WW1 and if needed finding a genocide for WW1, it's Turks genocide. Because 5 million peoples dead for defend our land, Turks never attached to other countries. QUOTE no you state that armenians 'genocided' 500 000 turks...quite interesting how you keep contradicting yourself...and..YOU STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT GENOCIDE MEANS....THERE CAN BE NO GENOCIDE, BY DEFINITION...UNLESS A GOVERNMENT REPRESENTING AN ETHNIC MAJORITY DECIDES TO CAREFULLY PLAN AND ORCASTRATE THE ELIMINATION OF A RACIAL MINORITY... Dear Hosank, maybe more much than ~542.000. We have national documents and French, USA, Italian, England documents about this deads. Today we are calculate and ~542.000 Turkish peoples killed by Armenian terorist with Russian soldiers. Yours think Turks killed racidal armenians but yours dont think maybe dead armenians killed by radical Turks and kurds. Why? Ottoman or Turkish soldiers killed only one armenian? Have any source, any photo or any document about this? But we have Armenian + Russian soldiers photos, documents. QUOTE now please explain to me how...barely 2.5 million armenians..WHO WERE NOT REPRESENTED BY A SOVEREIGN STATE...who were not allowed to cary any weapons...were able to 'genocide' the turkish ethnic majority????? Yours attached to Turks with russian soldiers. Russia and France gave to yours weapons. Also your dont killed only Turks, also yours killed your peoples so armenians. Because some armenians dont want fight opposite to Ottoman. Today, total 189 batch graves in Anatolie waiting ID confirmation before opening. 189 batch graves included burning, killed, knifed Anatolian peoples by armenians. All peoples are freedom for coming / searching and looking about these batch graves. You can coming here and please come and see. After war, we did founded new Turkish countrie. We want always peace and therefore we dont entering WW2. We are talking with documents, evidences and proofs and we are say "Armenian genocided did not happened". We can evidence this why did not happened genocide. If yours have real and trust evidence, welcome. We are ready always for all questions. Our choise is living in 2006+ into peacefull. But if needed we can fight again. Armenians first understand these subjects: - Yours not have real - trust - national documents, evidence and proofs. Also your national archives and Boston Dashnaksutyun archives still closed. Armenia archives closed, Russia Armenia archives closed. - Yours cannot get any cities from Turk, Agri - Kars - Erzurum are Turkish cites and will never changed this. Still dont dreaming. Your military powers and our military powers cannot compared. We dont needed but, Turkey NATO member and Russia cannot help to yours. If try help, start WW3 and this very bad for all World. Turkish second military power after USA in NATO. - Yours just cause grudge and religional enemity. Therefore beleived power of the peace - neighbour and peacefull live. We are beleived this. We are waiting this from yours. - We are ready meeting, showing all documents, proofs, evidences to world about armenia subject. We want non-side historians and non-side confirmations. Not like France, Holland parlamanens only one side laws. - Turk genocide very important and very serious, because 5 million Turks were killed in WW1 by Armenians, French, Italian, Greek, Russians, Anzaks soldiers. If needed a genocide for WW1, 5 million Turks were genocide. Also Hocaali, Karabah genocides, Adana genocide by French soldiers, Izmir genocide by Greeks, Trabzon genocide by pontus greeks. Gallipoli genocide by Anzaks and more...- Yours losting lots of economical, cultural supports from Turkey and Azerbaican. Maybe not late, but i dont think will be do oldies. For more good days and peacefull world! Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/26/06 05:51 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,755
Joined: 09/20/06 08:07 PM
Member No.: 966
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: armenia, turkey, azerbaijan, mostly, ...christian lebanon...
|
QUOTE(prot9999 @ 10/23/06 11:59 AM) [snapback]95875[/snapback]
Dear veritas,
Please reply to me: historians or politician? Who more know history? Who more know 1915? My article source based real historical events and telling by historians or vote hunter politicians?
It's proofs, it's evidence? Where armenian replies? Why can't reply any armenians?
Show to me, where?
Regards,
i agree with prot historians do know more about it then politicians..thats why erdogan needs to shove off, thats why mccrapthy needs to stop calling himself a historian. the majority of real historians acknowledge the genocide. it has already been acknowledge by many internationnal assemblys (EU, UN...so on and so fourth) your article speaks about nationalists using it as an excuse, i agree totally...get your bill 301 off, then stop persecuting real historians! read your articles when u post them, it only backfires and makes you look stupid...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/27/06 02:37 AM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
Turks genocide by Armenians document 1 Document 2   These documents are [b]REAL and anybody can see / read / research in Turkish archives. Whats telling, are yours wondering? How killed Turkish peoples in anatolia, How fighting armenians opposite to Turks, How much Turks killed by Armenians, Why armenians start killing Turkish peoples, Where and when Turkish peoples killed, Documents are arabic and any arabic language spoken peoples can be confirmed to me. These pictures (we have 10.000+ more), these documents (we have 8.000+ more) Showing :[/b] Turks genocide in Anatolia by Armenians 542.000 Turkish peoples did killed by Armenians dashnak, tasnaksutyun and Armenian + russian soldiers. It's was not GENOCIDE?
Turks did killed by Armenians in WW1 and it's was genocide... Turkish genocide by Armenians...
Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/27/06 09:51 AM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 597
Joined: 03/04/06 01:42 PM
From: AUSTRALIA
Member No.: 399
|
QUOTE(prot9999 @ 10/26/06 12:12 PM) [snapback]96320[/snapback]
Why Anzaks coming to Gallipoli? : For killed Turks
Turks was attached to Avustralia or Anzaks? : NO, Never!
How much Turk's killed by Anzaks : ~ 700.000 +
What is this? TURK GENOCIDE BY ANZAKS (1915) And thanks admitting other items, i think you don't have more word. Unarmed ciwils?  Armenians was unarmed? Regards, that is utter bullcrap and you know it. firstly, turkey declared war on the british empire by aligning with GERMANY who was at war with england. we killed seven hundred thousand ARMED TROOPS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE WERE NO ARMED ARMENIANS IN TURKEY AT THE TIME......I AM SAYING TURKEY KILLED UNARMED WOMAN AND CHILDREN BY MAKING THEM GO INTO THE DESERT AND STARVE AND THIRST UNTILL THEY DIED.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/27/06 12:58 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
QUOTE that is utter bullcrap and you know it.
firstly, turkey declared war on the british empire by aligning with GERMANY who was at war with england. And England sending Anzak's to Gallipoli? Why English soldiers don't fight opposite to Turks? What's telling in "he Story of Anzac" book? Turkey declared war to England not Avustralia. Anzak coming here for killed Turks. Because Avustralia was colony for England. Wrong? Thanks admitting colony by England. QUOTE we killed seven hundred thousand ARMED TROOPS. Yours attached, we are fight. Please first understand differents. Yours coming here killed my peoples! WHY? We was declared war to Avustralia? QUOTE I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE WERE NO ARMED ARMENIANS IN TURKEY AT THE TIME......I AM SAYING TURKEY KILLED UNARMED WOMAN AND CHILDREN BY MAKING THEM GO INTO THE DESERT AND STARVE AND THIRST
UNTILL THEY DIED. MY DOCUMENTS, PROOFS, PICTURES, EVIDENCES ARE ABOVE! SHOW TO ME YOUR EVIDENCES, PICTURES AND PROOOFS!!!!
WHY YOURS DONT PUTTING ANYTHINK HERE? WHERE KILLED ARMENIAN CIWILS? WHERE EYEWITNESSES? WHERE NATIONAL PAPERS? WHERE ARCHIVES FROM 1915?
WHERE GRAWES?
WHERE DOCUMENTS
WHERE, WHERE WHERE????
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ANZAKS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ARMENIANS SOLDIERS AND TERORISTS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY FRANCE SOLDIERS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ENGLAND SOLDIERS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ITALIAN SOLDIERS?
MY PEOPLES NOT KILLED / BURNED / TO BE KILLED BY GREEK SOLDIERS AND TERORISTS?
ONLY ARMENIANS DEAD? ONLY ANZAKS DEAD?
NEVER!!!!!
MY 5 MILLION PEOPLES TO BE KILLED BY YOURS,
WE DID NOT ATTACHED TO ANY COUNTRIE!!!
WE DID NOT ATTACHED TO NEIGHBOURS
WE DID NOT GRUDGE TO OUR PEOPLES
BUT MY 5 MILLION PEOPLES KILLED!
THIS BIG GENOCIDE! YOURS KILLED MUSLIMS! YOURS KILLED YOUR PEOPLES! YOURS KILLED CHILDRENS, WOMANS AND INNOCENT ANATOLIAN PEOPLES!
TURKS DID GENOCIDED IN ANATOLIA BY ARMENIANS
TURKS DID GENOCIDED IN GALLIPOLI BY ANZAKS
TURKS DID GENOCIDED IN ADANA BY FRANCE SAVAGES
TURKS DID GENOCIDED IN IZMIR - AYDIN - MANISA BY GREEKS
AND OTHERS......
5 MILLION TURKS GENOCIDED IN ANATOLIA AND YOURS STILL DONT SHAME!
ARMENIA DID NOT GENOCIDED, ARMENIANS, ANZAKS, FRENCH, GREEKS DID GENOCIDED TO TURKS IN ANATOLIA YOURS FIRST MUST ADMIT YOUR CRIMES!!! YOURS TO BE GENOCIDED 5 MILLION TURKS IN ANATOLIA!!! Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/28/06 12:00 AM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 597
Joined: 03/04/06 01:42 PM
From: AUSTRALIA
Member No.: 399
|
if turkey declared war on england it declared war on every nation england has a mutual protection pact with,
so yes you did declare war on australia.
secondly if turkey declares war then how is it genocide by us.
there was more british troops in gallipoli than anyone other than ottoman
Gallipoli casualties
Died Wounded Total
Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150
New Zealand 2,721 4,852 7,553
The United Kingdom 21,255 52,230 73,485
France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000
India 1,358 3,421 4,779
Newfoundland 49 93 142
Total Allies 44,072 97,037 141,109
Ottoman Empire 86,692 164,617 251,309
wikipedia.
yes your poeples killed by english soldier but that usually happens WHEN YOU BLOCKADE THE BLACK SEA AND DECLARE WAR ON ENGLAND .
AGAIN TURKEY VICTIM, TURKEY INNOCENT, WHY EVERYONE ATACKED TURKEY?
WE ARE PEACEFUL ISLAMIC NATION WHY US?
FUNNY I HAVE NEVER,EVER HEARD AN ARMENIAN ON THIS FORUM SAY THAT NO TURKS WERE KILLED BY ARMENIANS AT THE SAME ERA.
WHY IS THAT PROT? BECUASE THEY ARE HUMAN WHO ADMIT A LITTLE WRONG DOING AND TURK ARE DEMON WHO DENY MASSIVE WRONG DOING.
of coarse ther were partisan groups of armenians riding around fuking stuff up for the turks.
turks were forced marching their woman and children into the desert....you deny this?
you deny relocation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/28/06 01:40 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,103
Joined: 12/13/05 03:26 PM
From: Central of the Turkey
Member No.: 291
|
QUOTE if turkey declared war on england it declared war on every nation england has a mutual protection pact with,
so yes you did declare war on australia.
secondly if turkey declares war then how is it genocide by us. First! England declared war to Ottoman, not Ottoman. Second! Avustralia how far to Gallipoli? Why Anzaks coming here? If you want say "this was war times and deads are normal" , why you and armenians dont admit "war time" status? Why armenians and you said "genocide"? Why you dont admit Turks did genocided by Anzaks? there was more british troops in gallipoli than anyone other than ottoman QUOTE Gallipoli casualties
Died Wounded Total
Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150
New Zealand 2,721 4,852 7,553
The United Kingdom 21,255 52,230 73,485
France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000
India 1,358 3,421 4,779
Newfoundland 49 93 142
Total Allies 44,072 97,037 141,109
Ottoman Empire 86,692 164,617 251,309
wikipedia.
yes your poeples killed by english soldier but that usually happens WHEN YOU BLOCKADE THE BLACK SEA AND DECLARE WAR ON ENGLAND .
AGAIN TURKEY VICTIM, TURKEY INNOCENT, WHY EVERYONE ATACKED TURKEY?
WE ARE PEACEFUL ISLAMIC NATION WHY US?
So? You should choise one, English soldeirs or Anzak's? We are admitting long years Anzaks mistaken to English goverment. Why you tried damaged this? Why you putting here strange enemity messages? Why you tried cause to enemity between Turkish and Avustralian peoples? You must answers these questions now. Our peoples killed and dead, your soldiers killed and dead. But you dont think your peoples but your defend armenians? Why? I'm putting here lots of page proofs, documents, pictures and are you see any armenian proofs or documents? Because prot9999 are muslim, because prot9999 peoples fighting for freedom in 1915 opposite to Anzaks. Right? I think you can get answers. We are not any problems with Anzaks or Avustralian peoples. But what is your problem with Turks? Your peoples dead in Gallipoli but my peoples dont dead / killed? I'm asking to you "show to me", "give to me", "reply to me" WHERE ANY RESULTS? QUOTE AGAIN TURKEY VICTIM, TURKEY INNOCENT, WHY EVERYONE ATACKED TURKEY? We are wondering this 85 years ago? Why Anzaks attached to my countrie? Attachers are yours and should yours reply this. We was any problem with Avustralia or England? No, Why Mr Veritas? QUOTE FUNNY I HAVE NEVER,EVER HEARD AN ARMENIAN ON THIS FORUM SAY THAT NO TURKS WERE KILLED BY ARMENIANS AT THE SAME ERA. Both Armenians and Turks killed / dead. We are never say different. But Armenians telling a genocide lie to world. But our peoples killed more than Armenians and we dont telling and story to world. WHY? Because genocided did not happenend. In war times 40 million peoples dead in WW1 but only 80.000 armenians genocided? Where 5 million Turks? If yours want to find a genocide for WW1 it's Turks genocide. QUOTE WHY IS THAT PROT? BECUASE THEY ARE HUMAN WHO ADMIT A LITTLE WRONG DOING AND TURK ARE DEMON WHO DENY MASSIVE WRONG DOING. If my proofs, evidences and sources was show to me "a genocide" i can admit. No problem for me. But my sources, proofs, evidences, pictures, events, history show to me only : "did not genocide". Also when searching history, we are understand "We was genocided by Armenians and other enemies". Today we are wake-up, we was forgot WW1 but today all Turks learning, searching and understanding own history. And today our mind more clear about how peoples killed / genocided our Elders and innocent peoples. Therefore we are starting national action for our genocided peoples. Izmir Genocide, Gallipoli Genocide, Trabzon genocide, Adana genocide, Azerian genocide so Turks genocided by enemies. We are remember these genocides opposite to us, thanks your for remembered. QUOTE of coarse ther were partisan groups of armenians riding around fuking stuff up for the turks.
turks were forced marching their woman and children into the desert....you deny this?
you deny relocation? It's very silly question sorry, i dont stopping when laughning. Relocation are never genocide. We are protected armenians opposite to WW1 war. Because Turkish soldiers was defending Turkey, also we was defending our countrie opposite to traitors and terorists. Ottoman protected by ottoman soldiers on the armenians peoples. What you say? Ottoman attached to armenians? Turkish peoples attached to Armenians? Armenians did dead for illness, not killed by Ottomans. Also our lots of peoples dead because illness. Because Turkish soldier are busy about defending own countrie. Only Gallipoli was dead ~ 1 million peoples and in long times. Do you think 1.5 million armenians killed in 1 year and in war times? Also, i'm invate lots of times here, if yours have document, source, evidences, photo etc please putting here. We are ready for reply your all questions. Because we have large archive, proofs , documents and more. So yours cannot evidence any, your not have any REAL proof, or documents. Yours always using our villaged, and killed peoples for mistake. Where blue book? Where Armenia graves? Where killed armenians peoples? Where withness? Where documents? WHERE ? Regards,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/28/06 03:12 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,755
Joined: 09/20/06 08:07 PM
Member No.: 966
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: armenia, turkey, azerbaijan, mostly, ...christian lebanon...
|
prot i have to say this, but you are the cream of the embecile on this planet..
for months, i have explained to you that you can only use the term 'genocide' when a crime against humanity is perpetraited by a higher form of authority...namely: a government of a nation-state....now...as we all agree apon...there was no nationstate of armenia in ww1..so for bloody christ sake...how can any death of ottomans ever be considered genocide????
second...
you always argue that it was impossible that turks genocided 1.5 million armenians..because you always say that there were less than 500 000 armenians in anatolia..
so, using your logic...how could...less than 500 000...( keep in mind that at least3/4 of this number are women, children and disabled people)..not allowed to carry weapons... kill 5 million turks????..
another interesting thing is the pictures you sent to prove that armenians were armed...you showed a picture couple pictures of the van resistance where men are shooting antique muskets...and call them terrorists.. one of the only places where armenians actually defended themselves...and then, you show pictures of russians soldiers...
more fun facts for mister prott....
the actual region of galipoli had been completely evacuated of civilians months prior to the battle..i donno who tough your history.. probably the same people who tought you to deny genocide)..
not only that...but talaat bay actually wanted to take all the western diplomats and so on living in constantinople and send them to gallipoly to blackmail the english...
actually...turkey deliberately joined the war on germany's side...even though england asked it to join the entente many times...so turkey is completely responsable for what it has done...
next...anzacs did not genocide anyone..another thing about the term 'genocide' ... military units don't do genocide..especially not those of the british empire...we wern't the uncivilised brutes the ottomans were...
back to youtube....the armenian stuff is real, and posted by multible NGOs, and they all coincide....
the vids posted attacking them are turkish government...another media propaganda attempt..
in your opinion? which one is closer to the real historical accounts?
if the new republic of turkey was a peacful nation..why did it invade greece? why did it send an army of islam to attack armenia? even after the war.? thats no peacful nation...what about the turks killing thousands of kurds..or invading cyprus.??
prot..once again..you are a mentaly encapable being...and your posts are a waist of time...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/28/06 05:08 PM
|
TURKIST
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 11/08/05 12:31 PM
From: WESTERN TURKISTAN
Member No.: 262
|
QUOTE(veritas @ 10/27/06 10:51 AM) [snapback]96427[/snapback]
that is utter bullcrap and you know it.
firstly, turkey declared war on the british empire by aligning with GERMANY who was at war with england.
we killed seven hundred thousand ARMED TROOPS.
I AM NOT SAYING THAT THERE WERE NO ARMED ARMENIANS IN TURKEY AT THE TIME......I AM SAYING TURKEY KILLED UNARMED WOMAN AND CHILDREN BY MAKING THEM GO INTO THE DESERT AND STARVE AND THIRST
UNTILL THEY DIED.
Verry ; First of all , could you imagine the distance between GELIBOLU (gallipoli) and Australia ? What were the Australian & New Zealand Armed Corps. DOING THERE ? TO DEFEND Britons ? LoL , They were actually colonials that were collected like the Africans of The English army . You see , no English was dead in the war of ENGLAND-OTTOMAN ! England used you and brainless men that were thinking like you . Since you carry your skull with a nun-functioning BRAIN inside ,you gotta die in the order of OTHERS . Nothing to tell much . You deserve it .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10/29/06 01:23 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 597
Joined: 03/04/06 01:42 PM
From: AUSTRALIA
Member No.: 399
|
QUOTE(Mordoth @ 10/28/06 06:08 PM) [snapback]96538[/snapback]
Verry ;
First of all , could you imagine the distance between GELIBOLU (gallipoli) and Australia ?
What were the Australian & New Zealand Armed Corps. DOING THERE ? TO DEFEND Britons ? LoL , They were actually colonials that were collected like the Africans of The English army . You see , no English was dead in the war of ENGLAND-OTTOMAN ! England used you and brainless men that were thinking like you .
Since you carry your skull with a nun-functioning BRAIN inside ,you gotta die in the order of OTHERS .
Nothing to tell much .
You deserve it .
no english died huh? Gallipoli casualties Died Wounded Total Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150 New Zealand 2,721 4,852 7,553 The United Kingdom 21,255 52,230 73,485 France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000 India 1,358 3,421 4,779 Newfoundland 49 93 142 Total Allies 44,072 97,037 141,109 Ottoman Empire 86,692 164,617 251,309 wikipedia. and you call me dumb? yes it was on the other side of the world, it just proves australains will travel to the other side of the world to attack our enemy. what is it that you dumb turks do not understand about"mutual protection treaty"....we were bound by law to go and fight. I think those casualty rates speak for themselves. even with the high ground in your hands you still lost twice as many men. you guys are crap. you deserve it. prot i am not even going to answer you for you are far too ignorant of the definitions of words for me to say anything that was not said by hosank to make any difference. YOU CANNOT COMMIT GENOCIDE ON A QUARTER OF A MILLION ARMED TROOPS. TYPE IT INTO A SEARCH ENGIN AND SEE WHAT COMES UP. G E N O C I D E
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/01/06 12:14 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,253
Joined: 03/03/06 02:27 PM
Member No.: 392
|
QUOTE(prot9999 @ 10/27/06 01:58 PM) [snapback]96439[/snapback]
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ANZAKS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ARMENIANS SOLDIERS AND TERORISTS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY FRANCE SOLDIERS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ENGLAND SOLDIERS?
MY PEOPLES NOT TO BE KILLED BY ITALIAN SOLDIERS?
MY PEOPLES NOT KILLED / BURNED / TO BE KILLED BY GREEK SOLDIERS AND TERORISTS?
ONLY ARMENIANS DEAD? ONLY ANZAKS DEAD?
NEVER!!!!!
MY 5 MILLION PEOPLES TO BE KILLED BY YOURS,
WE DID NOT ATTACHED TO ANY COUNTRIE!!!
WE DID NOT ATTACHED TO NEIGHBOURS
WE DID NOT GRUDGE TO OUR PEOPLES
BUT MY 5 MILLION PEOPLES KILLED!
You attacked Armenia You attacked Kurdistan You attacked Iraq You attacked Arabian peninsula You attacked Egypt You attacked Lybia You attacked Russia You attacked Persia You attacked Syria You attacked Lebanon You attacked Jordan You attacked Georgia You attacked Cyprus You attacked Greece You attacked Macedonia You attacked Bulgaria You attacked Albania You attacked Serbia You attacked Austria You attacked Bosnia You attacked Romania You attacked Montenegro You attacked Tunisia You attacked Sudan You attacked Kuwait Of course other countries will act because: Either they are Allies with England/France/Australia They were afraid the Turks would conquer more European land The Turks blockaded every inch of land Do not act innocent prot
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/01/06 02:36 PM
|
TURKIST
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 11/08/05 12:31 PM
From: WESTERN TURKISTAN
Member No.: 262
|
QUOTE(veritas @ 10/29/06 02:23 PM) [snapback]96625[/snapback]
no english died huh?
Gallipoli casualties
Died Wounded Total
Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150
New Zealand 2,721 4,852 7,553
The United Kingdom 21,255 52,230 73,485
France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000
India 1,358 3,421 4,779
Newfoundland 49 93 142
Total Allies 44,072 97,037 141,109
Ottoman Empire 86,692 164,617 251,309
wikipedia.
and you call me dumb?
yes it was on the other side of the world, it just proves australains will travel to the other side of the world to attack our enemy.
what is it that you dumb turks do not understand about"mutual protection treaty"....we were bound by law to go and fight.
I think those casualty rates speak for themselves.
even with the high ground in your hands you still lost twice as many men. you guys are crap.
you deserve it.
prot i am not even going to answer you for you are far too ignorant of the definitions of words for me to say anything that was not said by hosank to make any difference.
YOU CANNOT COMMIT GENOCIDE ON A QUARTER OF A MILLION ARMED TROOPS.
TYPE IT INTO A SEARCH ENGIN AND SEE WHAT COMES UP.
G E N O C I D E
I think you've pasted the casualties incorrectly , so nothing could be understood. MORE THAN 2 / 3 of British soldiers are sent from their colonials , and that is WHY i said " English did not suffered like TURKS did " . You see , Ottoman lost 250.000 + but British lost ( men of British, NOT England ) not like that much . I mean Men of Island of England . How many of them are wasted , tell me ? I can say the men of colonies are much more suffered to serve tyrant englanders . You can travel to the other side of the world to protect England , right ... ( Defend yer homeland , Australia first ) Right, but u lost men more than English did . For what reason ? To invade Turkish homeland ; is that your thought of defence ? LoL , anyway , it was past , and you still seem to have the same spacey - Skull . ( As far as i remember , Australian prime minister cpmplainted English for the Battle of Gallipoli just because of English opportunism )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/01/06 05:02 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,003
Joined: 07/20/06 10:37 AM
Member No.: 707
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: ARMENIA!
i am half irish half armenian, ireland is free from england, but armenia has yet to be free from the clutches of turkey
|
QUOTE(Mordoth @ 11/01/06 08:36 PM) [snapback]97062[/snapback]
I think you've pasted the casualties incorrectly , so nothing could be understood.
MORE THAN 2 / 3 of British soldiers are sent from their colonials , and that is WHY i said " English did not
suffered like TURKS did " .
You see , Ottoman lost 250.000 + but British lost ( men of British, NOT England ) not like that much . I mean Men of Island of England . How many of them are wasted , tell me ?
I can say the men of colonies are much more suffered to serve tyrant englanders .
You can travel to the other side of the world to protect England , right ... ( Defend yer homeland , Australia first ) Right, but u lost men more than English did . For what reason ? To invade Turkish homeland ; is that your thought of defence ? LoL , anyway , it was past , and you still seem to have the same spacey - Skull .
( As far as i remember , Australian prime minister cpmplainted English for the Battle of Gallipoli just because of English opportunism )
wow, its been a while... seems mordoth and prot have learnt nothing ey... turkish homeland? english tiranny? jeez, is it just me or do you never change? this is turkish attitude...blame it on others! poor turkey did nothign to deserve this. australia went to fight for england, as did canada. personnally, i think everyone should be free. but the commonwealth have a pact, everyone must go. but england was far from tyrranical. turkey...thats a whole other story now where did this turkish homeland come in? in fact...when did TURKEy itself come in? what part of turkey is actually your homeland? constantinople? or perhaps van? what monuments are yours? haga sofia? or akhtamar? i recognise turkeys borders in eastern mongolia! PACK UP AND GET OUT!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/01/06 05:39 PM
|
TURKIST
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 2,409
Joined: 11/08/05 12:31 PM
From: WESTERN TURKISTAN
Member No.: 262
|
QUOTE(irlandahay @ 11/01/06 06:02 PM) [snapback]97090[/snapback]
wow, its been a while...
seems mordoth and prot have learnt nothing ey...
turkish homeland? english tiranny?
jeez, is it just me or do you never change?
this is turkish attitude...blame it on others!
poor turkey did nothing to deserve this.
australia went to fight for england, as did canada. personnally, i think everyone should be free.
but the commonwealth have a pact, everyone must go.
but england was far from tyrranical. turkey...thats a whole other story
now where did this turkish homeland come in?
in fact...when did TURKEy itself come in?
what part of turkey is actually your homeland? constantinople? or perhaps van?
what monuments are yours? haga sofia? or akhtamar?
i recognise turkeys borders in eastern mongolia!
PACK UP AND GET OUT!
LoL ; it seems you have to learn much "boy" . Blaming their crimes onto others ? Hm , sounds familiar . At least about the Armenian Question ... Blame all the crimes and convict them injustly . As did Canada ? Look ; Canadians also need a brain too , we could send there some ( I'll be there and only might i illuminate them ) YOU CONFESS it by yourself ; HOW MANY English Britons are dead ? ( I do not suppose Canadian army , e.g. the Canadians in British army ) I also think everyone should be free , and no nation has the right to invade the land of others . So , the Pact dé Lausanne is signed and the modern-day Turkiye is founded . NO TURK cecede land from others , unlike them . ( Resume ; Treaty of Gumru , Treaty of Brest-Litowsk , Treaty of KARS ... Sounds bad ? ) We have plenty of monuments in Balcans , Middle East , North Africa , Iran . ( akthamar is restored in every 50 years by Ottoman tributes ) ( e.g. Sulaymaniyah ; Sultan Ahmed , Selimiyah , many monuments of Anatolia that i can't memorize ...etc ) And probably ; IRISH people are the immigrants of Central Asia too ; their roots are related with Scythians. Let the Irish come back to steppes of Mongolia then . And , Armenians are proven to be the immigrants of India , what now ? Let us go back to here, pack it . You have to swim through the Great Ocean .
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/01/06 07:36 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,003
Joined: 07/20/06 10:37 AM
Member No.: 707
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: ARMENIA!
i am half irish half armenian, ireland is free from england, but armenia has yet to be free from the clutches of turkey
|
QUOTE(Mordoth @ 11/01/06 11:39 PM) [snapback]97102[/snapback]
LoL ; it seems you have to learn much "boy" .
Blaming their crimes onto others ? Hm , sounds familiar . At least about the Armenian Question ... Blame all the crimes and convict them injustly .
As did Canada ? Look ; Canadians also need a brain too , we could send there some ( I'll be there and only might i illuminate them ) YOU CONFESS it by yourself ; HOW MANY English Britons are dead ? ( I do not suppose Canadian army , e.g. the Canadians in British army )
I also think everyone should be free , and no nation has the right to invade the land of others . So , the Pact dé Lausanne is signed and the modern-day Turkiye is founded . NO TURK cecede land from others , unlike them . ( Resume ; Treaty of Gumru , Treaty of Brest-Litowsk , Treaty of KARS ... Sounds bad ? )
We have plenty of monuments in Balcans , Middle East , North Africa , Iran . ( akthamar is restored in every 50 years by Ottoman tributes )
( e.g. Sulaymaniyah ; Sultan Ahmed , Selimiyah , many monuments of Anatolia that i can't memorize ...etc )
And probably ; IRISH people are the immigrants of Central Asia too ; their roots are related with Scythians.
Let the Irish come back to steppes of Mongolia then .
And , Armenians are proven to be the immigrants of India , what now ?
Let us go back to here, pack it . You have to swim through the Great Ocean .
well that was a whole lot of nothing... dont call me boy turk! what? armenians have no right be angry? that some 9/10ths of our lands are not in our ahnds? that in order to take these lands your ancestors butchered all the inhabitants? we have no right to be angry that you, the youth, completely wash your hands and say that nothing happened? dont try to turn it around...turkey is guilty, the world knows it, theres blood on your hands, blood that time wont wash away! right, so the world needs a brain? and turkey is out to educate the world? i dont see the logic, i dont think the world will stand to be taught lessons by barbarians, the english have had their share of battle, your just complaining because you lost ww1. hahah irish people are not immigrants of central asia you moron...where do you come up with this stuff? yes and huns are descendants of turks HAHAHA irish,and scottish are CELTS! natives of these areas, they are also a mixture of norse tribes. not from central asia. and no, im not asking for anyone to pack up... but im saying give the lands you stole from us, give them back to the greeks, the Assyrians, the syriacs, the pontians, the kurds and all others whos civilisation youv destroyed. hahah akhtamar renovated? sure, turks say it is being renovated, but we see it falling apart! and who does your government say it belongs to? an indigenous christian tribe? do they happen to tell you that the armenian civilisation was thriving before you slaughtered every last one of them? look, whatever, i, hosank, yerevan, Assyrianking, gudea, chaldean...and everyone else, were all the remnants of turkish tiranny, and by god none of us will stop until we get justice! you tried to get rid os us, but you only created new problems! be a man and admit....thats all we want
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/01/06 07:58 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 597
Joined: 03/04/06 01:42 PM
From: AUSTRALIA
Member No.: 399
|
This is what you wrote alziehmers BOY.
that were collected like the Africans of The English army . You see , no English was dead in the war of ENGLAND-OTTOMAN ! England used you and brainless men that were thinking like you .
HERE LOOK UNDER UNITED KINGDOM, YOU SAY I HAVE POSTED IN A CONFUSING WAY........
SO I WILL BREAK IT DOWN A LITTLE FOR YOU.
THE FIRST NUMBER NEXT TO A NATIONS NAME IS THE NUMBER OF DEAD PEOPLE.....TOTALLY CACTUS.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE NUMBER OF WOUNDED PEOPLE.......PARTIALLY CACTUS
THE THIRD NUMBER IS THE TOTAL. SEE BELOW AND LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE UNITED KINGDOM.
no english died huh?
Gallipoli casualties
Died Wounded Total
Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150
New Zealand 2,721 4,852 7,553
The United Kingdom 21,255 52,230 73,485
France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000
India 1,358 3,421 4,779
Newfoundland 49 93 142
Total Allies 44,072 97,037 141,109
Ottoman Empire 86,692 164,617 251,309
AND YES AUSTRALIA WAS VERY ANGRY FOR THE STUPID ENGLISH COMMANDER WINSTON CHUCHILL SENT US TO THE WRONG POSITION. WE WERE SUPOSED TO LAND ON A LITTLE BEACH MILES AWAY FROM WHERE WE LANDED.
INSTEAD WE HAD TO ATTACK A NEAR VERTICLE CLIFF FACE, AND WE STILL TOOK IT AND HELD IT FOR MONTHS AND MADE THE TURKS PAY DEARLY FOR LOSING IT.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/01/06 08:11 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,003
Joined: 07/20/06 10:37 AM
Member No.: 707
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: ARMENIA!
i am half irish half armenian, ireland is free from england, but armenia has yet to be free from the clutches of turkey
|
QUOTE(veritas @ 11/02/06 01:58 AM) [snapback]97123[/snapback]
This is what you wrote alziehmers BOY.
that were collected like the Africans of The English army . You see , no English was dead in the war of ENGLAND-OTTOMAN ! England used you and brainless men that were thinking like you .
HERE LOOK UNDER UNITED KINGDOM, YOU SAY I HAVE POSTED IN A CONFUSING WAY........
SO I WILL BREAK IT DOWN A LITTLE FOR YOU.
THE FIRST NUMBER NEXT TO A NATIONS NAME IS THE NUMBER OF DEAD PEOPLE.....TOTALLY CACTUS.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE NUMBER OF WOUNDED PEOPLE.......PARTIALLY CACTUS
THE THIRD NUMBER IS THE TOTAL. SEE BELOW AND LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE UNITED KINGDOM.
no english died huh?
Gallipoli casualties
Died Wounded Total
Australia 8,709 19,441 28,150
New Zealand 2,721 4,852 7,553
The United Kingdom 21,255 52,230 73,485
France (estimated) 10,000 17,000 27,000
India 1,358 3,421 4,779
Newfoundland 49 93 142
Total Allies 44,072 97,037 141,109
Ottoman Empire 86,692 164,617 251,309
AND YES AUSTRALIA WAS VERY ANGRY FOR THE STUPID ENGLISH COMMANDER WINSTON CHUCHILL SENT US TO THE WRONG POSITION. WE WERE SUPOSED TO LAND ON A LITTLE BEACH MILES AWAY FROM WHERE WE LANDED.
INSTEAD WE HAD TO ATTACK A NEAR VERTICLE CLIFF FACE, AND WE STILL TOOK IT AND HELD IT FOR MONTHS AND MADE THE TURKS PAY DEARLY FOR LOSING IT.
agreed, well said. in both cases, allies lost the battle...true, but turks died more, and in the long run...allies won the WAR! and btw...hahah newfies, newfoundland is like the blonds of canada, all our jokes are on them lol cheers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/02/06 08:23 AM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,755
Joined: 09/20/06 08:07 PM
Member No.: 966
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: armenia, turkey, azerbaijan, mostly, ...christian lebanon...
|
one...anzaks were not the only troops landed in gallipoli, there were british and indian.
now...as australia, and canada where integral parts of the british empire...when turkey declares war on britain...it declares war on the british empire, totalling one quarter of the worlds population and land mass, and at least a third of the worlds economy...
ever wonder why it was called a world war?..people from all over the world came to cease your turkish tyranny...
now...if we take your logic and apply it to you...if it is not normal for people from australia to fight in turkey, then how is it normal, that the weapons you had used to fight them came all the way from germany?
(though, i don't know if there were many newfoundlanders in gallipoly, because i hear they were all mowed down in the somme)
and it is not true that not a single brit died against the ottomans...british troops, not colonial, marched up through egypt, arabia, palestine, syria all the way to azerbaijan. (you can imagine that the turks did not simply let them walk up there..there was fighting, and the turks suffered humiliating defeat after another)
btw....troops from british dominions were not incorporated in britidh army units...canada had its own armed forces, as did australia.
now...genocide usually refers to the mass murders of unarmed civilians. but if the allies never went too far off the beaches...and the entire region was cleared of civilians..how could they have possibly murdered hundreds of thousands of civilians as you clame?
and again...to you every people in this planet are a turkish tribe..i told you before..that is not the case...irish people trace their roots, as do most europeans,armenians, persians, afgans...to the ancient aryan race...(or the indo-european race if you want to be politically correct), as turks are mongolic...
now...in 300 years..approx. 40 million britons emmigrated from the british isles and moved to the colonies....
so most of the soldiers forming these colonial corpses are british of origin.
finally, it is quite discrediting as well as disrespectful for you to use the term 'boy' to refer to other members
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/10/06 03:37 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,003
Joined: 07/20/06 10:37 AM
Member No.: 707
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: ARMENIA!
i am half irish half armenian, ireland is free from england, but armenia has yet to be free from the clutches of turkey
|
QUOTE(Yerevan @ 11/10/06 06:39 PM) [snapback]97930[/snapback]
portsumei tesnei dzax kogmi nkare erevume te che.
ayo yeghbair, erevoum é you wouldnt happen by any chance to be hellektor on hyeforum? noyne ngare ounis ev noyne kire, ev iren bes khosoum es in any case, cheeers mate, love your pic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11/11/06 05:35 PM
|
Member
Group: MEIC Conversion Group
Posts: 1,003
Joined: 07/20/06 10:37 AM
Member No.: 707
Conflict/Cultural/Country Interest: ARMENIA!
i am half irish half armenian, ireland is free from england, but armenia has yet to be free from the clutches of turkey
|
QUOTE(Mordoth @ 11/11/06 07:16 PM) [snapback]98009[/snapback]
A country named Azerbaijan north of the Arax River NEVER existed before 1918
AHAHAHAHA !! ! Perfect stupidity of an Armo .
Good to go.
And a place -named- Armenia existed +3000 years before . ( IN my opinion , no Armenia has existed )
BTW ; Change your nick erevan . IT IS GUMRU , not erean
your quite the idiot. azerbaijan never existed period...its a fake nation..almost like yours, only youv been here a while longer. it was called caucasian albania and had nothing to do with your brothers from the east. azeris are just turks. armenia doesnt exist..HAHAHA perfect stupidity of a turk! in your opinion? no one asked for it, it is well documented and recognised by the entire world. azerbaijan is a fraud and a fake. ask the REAL azeris, the iranian ones. not the turks the persians. GUMRU? why because turks were there first? the same turks that have only been here some 1000 years...compared to armenians whov been here 3 000 years. your a real idiot mordoth...a real idiot...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
