Bedros :Lucrece , for your information , you can read this

This has nothing to do with Morgenthau’s book. You are confessing that you have no argument against Heath Lowry and Guenter Lewy. You are trying to go to an “argument” to another.
Your new text is a compilation of half-truth and tendencious commentaries. For example, from 19 February to 22 May 1916, 70 Ottoman Muslims were tried for crimes against Armenians. The instigator of these trials was Talat Pasha himself (Yusuf Halaçoglu, “The Story of 1915. What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians?”, Ankara, TTK, 2008, p. 84-86).
During the Spring 1915, Armenian gangs exterminated Turks in Hirik, a village of Diyarbekir vilayet. In Diyarbekir itself, Ottoman police found arms depots in Armenian churchs or houses.

Finally he threatened: “Vous aller voir maintenant, ce que c’est que de réclamer des reformes”.166 Other CUP sympathizers in Diyarbekir were Pirinççizâde Sıdkı (Tarancı), Yasinzâde Şevki (Ekinci), his brother Yasinzâde Yahya (Ekinci), and Müftüzâde Şeref (Uluğ), among less prominent others.167 The CUP’s policy towards the inhabitants of the eastern provinces varied between containment and repression. The day after the Kurdish revolt of Bitlis, on 4 April 1914, the Central Committee of the CUP convened to review its policy towards the eastern provinces. Mithat Şükrü (Bleda) pointed out that Russia was gradually tightening its grip on many Kurdish tribes in both the Ottoman Empire and Persia. According to him an other danger were Armenian revolutionaries, who were awaiting the right opportunity to revolt and could at any time strike. He concocted a divide-and-rule strategy and maintained that on no account should Kurdish and Armenian politicians be allowed to unite. He suggested that the CUP should now adopt a more sophisticated stick-and-carrot strategy, enrolling potentially loyal chieftains through rhetoric and bribery, while threatening potentially disloyal chieftains with deportation and incarceration.168 The assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo on 28 June 1914 stirred up acute international tensions. In the midst of this belligerent atmosphere, the CUP sought to forge alliances with any of the Great Powers in order for the empire to emerge from its diplomatic isolation. Cavid Bey, the pro-British Minister of Finance, had appealed to Britain in 1911, but apart from Winston Churchill, the Foreign Office was not interested.169 Talât flirted with Russia on his trip to the Crimea in May, where he spoke to the Russian Foreign Minister Sazonov about a possible alliance. The Russians expressed ambivalence in judgement but in essence were not interested. Cemal Paşa approached France but left empty-handed, lamenting the negotiations with the French as “a huge disappointment” (büyük bir hayal kırıklığı). On 24 July 1914 a general mobilization was issued by the Ottoman general staff. On 28 July, the same day that Austria- Hungary declared war against Serbia, Enver Paşa proposed a defensive alliance between Imperial Germany and the Ottoman Empire to the German ambassador Wangenheim. In the next days Grand Vizier Said Halim, Chairman of the Parliament Halil, Enver, and Talât launched intensive negotiations with the Germans behind closed doors. Finally, on 2 August, one day after the German declaration of war against Russia, a written agreement was signed between the two states. The discussions were top secret, and even Cemal Paşa had no knowledge of them. Three days later Austria-Hungary joined the Turko-German alliance and completed the Central Powers bloc, whereas Russia, France and Britain united into the Entente Powers. The Ottoman Empire was now officially allied to Germany and on account of the treaty was inevitably obliged in this political constellation to prepare for war. Following the succession of declarations of war in August 1914, the Germans urged Minister of War Enver Paşa at the end of October to act against Russia. Without a formal declaration of war, Enver ordered the Ottoman navy to immediately bomb the Russian shore, destroying oil tanks and sinking 14 vessels.Though few politicians in Istanbul knew of Enver’s solo adventure, this fait accompli triggered declarations of war by the Triple Entente powers. From 11 November 1914 on, the Ottoman Empire was officially at war with Russia, France, and Britain.

P34 : http://www.ermenisoykirimi.net/thesis.pdf

http://www.eraren.org/index.php?Lisan=en&Page=YayinIcerik&SayiNo=18

On the other hand, the edito-in-chief or armenews.com, Ara Toranian, was the spokesman of two terrorist groups: the ASALA from 1976 to 1983, and the ASALA-RM (dissident) from 1983 to 1985. Until 1988, Mr. Toranian edited a newspaper, “Hay Baykar” (Armenian Fight), who supported vehemently the principle of terrorism.
What a reference, Bedros!

an article of M.Morgenthau in The Red Cross Magazine March 1918 : Henry Morgenthau The Greatest Horror in History :

http://www.armenews.com/article.php3?id_article=45850

The Armenians knew they were not powerful enough in number or strength to defeat an Ottoman Army, so they relied on propaganda, firstly provoking attacks by Kurds and local Muslims, which they immediately reported to European consuls, who did not mind telling about suffering of Armenians, even though the suffering was initiated and provoked by the Dashnaks.

The Result? More people joined the Dashnaks, and the Dashnaks became powerful enough to FORCE every Armenian to enlist with the Dashnaks. The Armenian revolt had begun, and every time, Christian deaths were reported and spread with such passion, while Muslim deaths or massacres were ignored. Public opinion in Europe changed to a more Anti-Turkish attitude, which aided the governments who already wanted to divide up the Ottoman Empire, but they did not trust each other on who would receive the spoils.

By the way… The Armenian Revolt Documentary first appeared in Armenian Genocide Debate. Not in Poligazette. Michael you should really check your emails.
Armenian Revolt Documentary

They weren’t interested in the wellbeing of Armenians.  They were interested in toppling the Ottoman Empire through the use of minority group rebellions, which were so effective in the Balkans.

Throughout the 19th Century the British were focused on protecting their interest in India, which they had colonized, and maintaining trade routes to India.  The British feared that if Russia and the Ottoman Empire ever forged an alliance, that would create an axis of power that Europe could not counter effectively.

In an effort to weaken the Ottoman Empire and to ensure an alliance between the Ottomans and Russia would never be formed, the British began fomenting rebellion among Armenians, many of whom were also Russian subjects, thus ensuring that Russian interest in hostilities between the Ottoman regime and its ethnic Armenian minority would force Russia to take sides with its "Christian brethren", as opposed to the Ottomans.  The British began this work in the mid-1800s.

The British and France incited and supported Ottoman Armenian violence against their state and their Muslim Ottoman neighbors throughout the 19th Century.  And, as we all know, it came to a head during WWI when Russia, France and England armed, trained and worked in concert with Armenian militias to fight against and bring down the Ottoman regime.

And, it worked.  The only problem is that Russia, to promote its own interests, planted a geogrpahic Armenia within its own territories by ethnically cleansing a segment of its own territory of all Muslims to fulfill its promise to Armenian revolutionary leaders to form a country for Armenians. 

Armenians, however, wanted their country to stretch over vast lands encompassing the eastern third of Anatolia.  Unfortunately for Armenian leaders, France, Britain and Russia didn’t have the stomache for the ethnic cleansing that would have required and dropped the "Armenian question" altogether– excluding them from the Paris Peace Conference and the discussions leading to the Lausanne Treaty.

No, Europe and Russia were definitely not interested in the "wellbeing" of Armenians.  They were only interested in maintaining and increasing their own power over lands that were vital to the stability of their own economies and expansionist aims, so they used Armenians for their own benefit.  And, when they no longer needed the Armenians to cause problems in Anatolia, they dropped them like a sack of potatos.

Rather than being rightfully angry with those that made promises and then didn’t deliver (i.e., France, Britain and Russia), Armenians focus the anger resulting from their frustrated political aims at Turks who rightfully and legally defended themselves and their lands.

19th Century Armenian leaders miscalculated and overestimated the support they would receive from the west and from Russia, as they still do today.

http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/7-Konukcu(143-154).pdf

http://www.karabakh-doc.azerall.info/ru/armyanstvo/arm12eng.htm#z2-1