Comments on: Armenia

By: Bedros

Bedros — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:12:40 +0000

Genocide in turkey 1975 , The Union of Armenian Students in Manchester

By: Robert

Robert — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 21:22:31 +0000

Eugenie, you think I am "propagand…ical" ??? (Post#29) 75% of my readings come from Armenians, 15 % from Turks and the rest from various archive documents. Here are some that are freely available: http://armenian.tales.googlepages.com/Dasnabedian.pdf http://armenians.1915.googlepages.com/Pastermadjian-1918.pdf http://armenian.tales.googlepages.com/E-Book-Aya.exe O, and I've been driving by 2 times a day here since around 2 years, if I include the MVDG Wordpress site... And I get a BIG FAT check from the Turkish Gov to do my "propagand…ical" thing here !!! And my wife is Turkish... Did I forget anything ??? }:-)))

By: P. Connolly

P. Connolly — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:39:06 +0000

Seeing this issue from the point of view of the Turks is not like "saying that World War II must be seen from the point of view of the Germans" (post #27). This is a typical tactic of the Armenian Propagandists. When backed into a corner they blackball and calumniate the Turkish Government and people. If there were a discussion on World War II and Nazi ideology were introduced, the fallacy of their arguments would be clear and evident to everyone. But what the Armenians insist on doing is arguing that the Turkish side must not be heard because that would be like listening to Nazis or to Daniel Irving. This logic is clearly circular and fallacious.
Regarding the argument that the "exterminators refuse to acknowledge their culpability" – The individuals who ordered the relocation of the Armenians in 1915 are quite dead; not only are they dead but they were killed by Armenians. The problem is that the Armenians in their frenzied thirst for revenge are trying to take out their hatred on people who weren’t even alive at the time of the events in question.

Regarding the accusation that I stated that "The Russians were to blame for the slaughter [of the Armenians]" …I never said this. In fact, it was Armenian leaders themselves who stated IN WRITING -after the events in question- that the decision of the Dashnaqs ("Armenian Revolutionary Federation") were reckless and placed the Armenian civilian population in great danger:
"…the methods used by the Dashnagtzoutune in recruiting these regiments were so open und flagrant, that it could not escape the attention of the Turkish authorities…"
Finally, I am not defending the relocation. Armenian Propagandists are insisting on nothing less than the "genocide" label for the events of 1915. The Turkish people overwhelmingly reject this charge which places them in the same category with the Nazis and their arguments are sound while the Armenian arguments attempting to place the relocation in the same category with the Nazi Extermination of the Jews are completely fallacious.

By: JudasPriest

JudasPriest — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:33:58 +0000

"I am hopeful in the end that you might be a bit more educated" is exactly kind of logic that P. Connolly was indicating as hypocritical. Burnell, I’d say the same for you and that is a totally meaningless, pointless remark. You make your arguments, and we debate on those. I’d admit having read other comments particularly #20 by Burnell, It certainly helped me to calibrate my guessing regarding the extent of diaspora’s influence or power over Armenia’s internal politics. The later comment regarding "Most Armenians view the people who remain in Armenia as the "left overs" and look down their nose at the citizens of Armenia." was exactly my take on this subject anyways. So, when we say if the diaspora exerts more attention or money into their motherland, it’d certainly make more sense in terms of the reality of what could be achievable from Armenian perspective. In my opinion, recognition of the genocide claim which is not the main subject of discussion on this post, is something that Armenian lobby could declare victory since many countries around the world bought their story. Personally, I dont see any benefit from Turkish perspective to whine about it every time the claim is recognized by a new country. You guys did a great job lobbying for selling it in every possible way and we Turks have failed to show what we believe as the right version of the story. Great many number of Turks perished during those years in the eastern provinces massacred by then turned militia of perfectly Turkish speaking Armenian residents who were happily supported by Russian army as the X-factor in the harsh territory. This the crux of the issue that makes us think that it should not be treated as genocide but certainly be recognized as a great human tragedy affected all races in the region during WWI. Anyways, like I said before, I have no hope that you’d even be willing to debate what has happened 93 years ago historically, you’d flat out want everyone to define it as genocide, and that is not a subject to be up for debate in your logic. This uncompromising, one-sided approach would certainly fail to produce any possible consolidation on this hotly debated subject.

By: P. Connolly

P. Connolly — Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:32:15 +0000

Burnell first states that he is amused that I take his comments as denigrating, then he feigns apology. For his information the following comments from his post #23 most certainly are condescending, denigrating and veiled attacks:"your continued combativeness has propelled this discussion forward, your lack of information and perspective on the issue is certainly evident."
"you have not understood the interaction of the various ethnic groups that exist in Anatolia as well as the Middle East"
"Once you are a bit more educated on the topic, I would welcome further comment."

And in the same post in which he feigns apology (#27), he goes on with:

"…you need to go beyond the survey material you have been reading from Wikipedia…"

"…You can remain smug in your argument…"
Apology is not accepted; it is clearly insincere. It’s quite clear that the Armenian position on this "genocide" issue is indefensible; we repeatedly see them resort to this tactic of attacks on their opponents instead of sticking to the subject at hand. The whole tactic of accusing their opponents of being "genocide deniers" and "Daniel Irving" is just another example of this inability of the Armenian Propagandists to defend their position. Ultimately they repeatedly resort to these personal attacks.

By: Eugenie

Eugenie — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:46:10 +0000

Wow, thanks for the drive-by thoughtful comment Robert! Really appreciate all the thought you put into that one line rhetorical (or should I say propagand…ical?) comment. Really adds a lot to the discussion.

By: Robert

Robert — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:38:15 +0000

From post #27: "…If the Turks had not slaughtered the Armenians, there would still be a large population of Armenians in Anatolia…"

That is quite true, but considering the activities of the Dashnaks at the time, I wonder how many Turks would still be living/alive in Anatolia today ???

By: Burnell

Burnell — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 22:21:19 +0000

@P. Connolly
I am amused you viewed my comments as being denigrating. I think most would view them as a in the similar tone to your comments previous to mine which are joyfully direct. Apologies if I offended your sensibilities but I was simply drawing attention to your non sequitur errors.

Your comment in #26 again uses straw man fallacies to exemplify your point. Comparing what occurred from 1915 to 1924 as war is contrary to every definition of warfare outside of genocide. Your last statement, "One must see it from the point of view of the Turks also", is like saying that World War II needs to be seen from the side of the Germans. Most Germans, my extended family included, recognise that Hitler’s plans to exterminate the Jews was unforgivable. The distinction is that most Turks do not recognise what was done to the Armenians and actively work to refute the events using much of the logic you have exemplified above.

As I pointed out directly in comment #23, you need to go beyond the survey material you have been reading from Wikipedia and being to understand the real issues involved. You do a lovely job of using basic fallacy to advance your point and walk the fence of indecision. These comments are not attacking you but pointing out the detriment of your position.

Your third point in comment #25 underscores the limited grasp of the issue. If the Turks had not slaughtered the Armenians, there would still be a large population of of Armenians in Anatolia and we could say they would be living in the same peace they have lived in for the previous 1000 years. The issue is that there was a systematic extermination of an ethnic group and the exterminators refuse to acknowledge their culpability. This was not a case of migration. This was not a case of prolonged warfare. This was a premeditated execution of a group of people.

You can remain smug in your argument that the Russians were to blame for the slaughter. You can use straw man fallacies such as comparing the atomic attack on Japan to the nine year systematic slaughter of women in children. You can complain that your peers are attacking you. You can even go so far as to reference the material put online by the Turks to refute the events of 1915. However, in the end, you are left knowing that you are defending one of the most atrocious inhuman acts of modern times.

With all this said, we can go back to the original argument. Armenians are divided and will be for generations to come. For some, the genocide has defined them. For others, the genocide was a superfluous. However, the Armenians in the US, Russia, France, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Norway, England, Wales, Israel and the Netherlands all strive to be good local citizens while they preserve what they view is a special culture. By the way, I have visited Armenians or know Armenians from all of these places. In the end, they want people to realise that the Armenians are a strong people who have made a defining mark on history but continue to be denigrated because many will not official recognise their blight.

In conclusion, P. Connelly, once again I applaud you for remaining argumentative and using basic fallacy to push along a dialogue. It is great amusement to see what you will construct next. I am hopeful in the end that you might be a bit more educated but I suspect you will stick to your current modus operandi. Of course, if you still feel I have offended, I acquiesce and apologise.

By: P. Connolly

P. Connolly — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:12:47 +0000

Eugenie’s post (#24) is most constructive and helpful in my opinion. Yes I recognize the value of Armenian culture, would not approve of any injury to it and acknowledge fully that what happened in 1915 should never have happened. Certainly I can see how the Armenians feel as Eugenie expresses it. I think many of the Turks can see this too. One must remember that the Turks are not a "monolithic group" either. Let’s look for a moment at American culture. While many Americans feel that something very wrong happened when the "Enola Gay" discharged its payload over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the official view is that America owes the Japanese no apology whatsoever. Even former president Clinton was asked this question just a few years ago and he responded "No, I think Truman made the correct decision based on the information available to him at the time". This decision brought a instant death to tens of thousands of innocent non-combatant women and children and a life of agonizing suffering from the effects of radiation and other injuries to tens of thousands of others – so many of them innocent and non-combatants. Furthermore here in America African Americans live out their entire lives suffering injustices related to the treatment meted out to their ancestors by Americans. Armenians are holding the Turks to a utopian standard. One must see it from the point of view of the Turks also.

By: P. Connolly

P. Connolly — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 15:09:53 +0000

It is not necessary for Burnell to attack or denigrate his opponent it is only necessary for him to state his arguments and proofs and let the reader decide.1. Nothing I have said shows ignorance of the condition of the milliet system under which the various ethnic groups lived in the Turkish empire. And yes, ethnic nationalism was a major factor in the Armenians’ decision to lean toward the Russians -the Hereditary enemy of the Ottomans- in 1914, in the hour of dire peril for the Turkish People.
2. Note that Burnell mentions in passing "the land which is important" – as if it were some piece of Real Estate which is up for sale. The fact of the matter is that there was a terrible war fought nearly a century ago. It’s now over, treaties were signed, peace was made and that "land which is important" has been governed by a legitimate government which the Armenians are constantly blackballing, calumniating and denigrating here in the West. This is no coincidence!
3. The Armenian argument that the "Armenians inhabited these lands for thousands of years. The Turks are the new comers to the area being there only a mere 1,100 years" (a **MERE** 1100yrs?) is precisely the problem. Similar arguments could be made for almost every square centimeter of the inhabited earth’s surface in connection with so many other ethnic groups. Armenians need to understand that World War 1 is over.Again, it is not necessary for Burnell to attack or denigrate his opponent, it is only necessary for him to state his arguments and proofs and let the reader decide.