Some empirical data please, Dr Polya

I was unable to find much empirical data on how many perished and if there are any official orders from Ottoman government specifically for extermination of Armenians. Few dozen survivor stories and comments made by Christian missionaries of the time do not amount to any type of proof.  
Most in the West know about this issue through media without any real data, and then assume that it is real.  
 
Could it be real? Maybe. As there are no written evidences, only the tales of survivors, how can we come up with 1.5 million deaths? Did anyone counted? The numbers were half a million in 20s, then 750K; in 80s it went up o 1.5 million. Some today suggest that it was 2 million. Can the number of victims increase 90 years after their deaths?  
 
Why don’t West accept Turkish government's offer for a joint historic research based on empirical data? Is Westerners become such emotionally charged and illogical people in shining armor thinking that they are honoring Armenians while Iraqis are dying in masses as we speak?

Guest

re=

Quote:

---

 
"the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide",

---

 
 
This quote was taken from the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee resolution.

Registered

Armenian genocide scholarship

The assessment of 1.0-1.5 million Armenians perishing in the WW1 Armenian Genocide comes from major scholarly sources e.g. 
1. One of the world's top genocide experts, Professor Colin Tatz, Director of the Centre for Comparative Genocide Studies, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia e.g. in his article "Genocide in Australia" [Google search for this phrase for link) in which he analyzes the 20th century Racist White Australian forcible removal of 0.1 million Indigenous Children from their mothers, he refers thus to the Armeanian Genocide: "There has been an emotional, even an hysterical, response, to the word genocide. This century has seen several particularly well-documented episodes of the removal of children. The Turks killed close to 1.5 million of their Armenian citizens between 1915 and 1923. One "choice" for Armenian parents was to save their Christian children by "giving" them to Turkish Muslim families. Turkey ferociously denies these events and rejects all talk of restitution. Of importance in our context is the origin of Article II (e) in the Convention. Certainly Lemkin, Donnedieu de Vabres and the other drafters of the Convention didn't seek to include "the forcible removal of children from one group to another group" on the basis of the Jewish experience. Jewish children had no such Armenian choice. Clearly they had the latter's case in mind. They may have had a thought for the 200,000 Polish children who were taken by Nazis to Germany to be raised as physically desirable Aryans. Again, they may have been well aware of the Swiss practice of removing Romani (Gypsy) children over the decades. Both Raphael Lemkin and the United Nations (especially the Greek delegate, Vallindis) ensured that removal of children, and hence their disappearance through assimilation, was a (physical) genocidal act." 
 
2. A classic book on genocide is that by Frank Chalk. and Kurt Jonassohn (1990), The History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies (Yale University Press, New Haven). The authors state unequivocally in their preface to the chapter of the Armenian Genocide (pp249-289) that, QUOTE : “The genocide of the Armenians in 1915 was the first of the modern ideologically-motivated genocides” and indicates that of 2.1 million Ottoman Empire Armenians only 0.6 million escaped death. Others use a rough figure of about 1 million victims. 
 
What is clear is that a 3,000 year old community in Turkish Anatolia was completely destroyed - an Armenain Genocide that is still being DENIED by Turkish Governments - and is also being DENIED as a genocide by the racist, war criminal, mass murderering, genocidal Bush Administration, notably by Bush and Dr Rice (Dr Death).

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/

Guest

Armenian genocide scholarship

Argue all you want but the horror stil persists because nearly 50% of that panel VOTED NO. Disgusting. Absolutely disgusting.

Registered

Genocide deniers unfit for office

I agree James - absolutely disgusting that about 50% voted no.  
 
The outcry over Iran's President Ahmadinejad merely suggesting more scholarly research into the Jewish Holocaust (e.g. he was FALSELY described as a holocaust denier) indicates general passionate acceptance of the view that Genocide Deniers are UNFIT for public office - ERGO the American public should demand the dismissal of Dr Rice (Dr Death) and her boss George Bush for their public denial of the Armenian Genocide.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/

Guest

re=Ali Bey

This web site is exclusively about Armenian Genocide.  
 
http://www.genocide1915.info/

Guest

Sqawsh that subject

They would just assume that their authoritarian input on thesubject would silence the debate on the subjet matter. The know they are cited for violations of genocide and war crimes in Brussels. They would censor such words from the the english lanquage if they could have their way, so would many of the knowing complicint U.S. public. As in germany they must think they can pretend to turn their heads, as the crimes are commited and at worst only the leaders will pay for the crime.

Guest

Silence is murder

Dr.Polya, to kind to only point to the goverment administrations. People I imform respond back as, maybe it is better to not know, or what to you hope to prove? Or the next generation will have to get it right or revolt. I am revolted at my fellow man. I see no allegiance to this country or its spoiled capitalist fed public. I am greatful for this site for knowledge and support, as their is little to none around me, I refuse to let them turn their heads and pretend innocence. Of course I have become the bearer of bad news, never the less I believe in the power of one.

Guest

CAAAA (C4A) & Genocide Denial in 2007

In 1945 ordinary Germans claimed that \"they didn\'t know\" about the Jewish Holocaust (6 million vicitms) but then followed a post-Holocaust protocol that can be summarized by the acronym CAAAA (C4A) involving Cessation of the killing, Acknowledgement, Apology, Amends and Assertion \"Never again to anyone\".  
 
In relation to the Armenian Genocide (1.5 million victims) , there are few Turkish Armenians left to kill (although Turkey continues to abuse and hamper the independent state of Armenia) a succession of racist psychopath Turkish governments are in total denial and offer no Acknowledgement, Apology, Amends or Assertion of future god behaviour.  
 
History ignored yields history repeated. Genocide denied yields genocide repeated.  
 
Genocde denying Turkey is involved in the continued gross abuse of the Kurds (and indeed has now started shelling the relatively peaceful Northern Iraq) and is actively involved in the US-administered Iraqi Genocide (post-invasion excess deaths 2.0 million, 4 million refugees). 
 
Of course it is perhaps a bit unfair to single out the Turks. The \"democratic Nazi\" US and its mainly Anglo-Celtic Allies (UK and Australia) plus others (Turkey is involved too) are involved in simultaneous Genocide Commission and Genocide Denial in relation to Occupied Iraq (2 milllion post-invasion excess deaths, 4 million refugees). 
 
The US and its Anglo-Celtic allies (UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia), Japan and NATO (Germany, Netherlands, France) are involved in Genocide Commission and Genocide Denial in relation to Occupied Afghanistan (3.2 million post-invasion excess deaths, 3.7 million refugees). 
 
Decent folk are obliged to INFORM OTHERS - and to insist under threat of comprehensive Sanctions and Boycotts that the anti-Genocide Protocol CAAAA (C4A) is stringently observed.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/

Guest

armenian genocide

shame on anywhone who no recognize the armenian genocide,

Guest

Shame on all genocide deniers

You are absolutely correct Gagik - shame on all genocide deniers.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/

Guest

Shame on all genocide deniers

How do people “officially” deny genocide?

Guest

Genocide denial by US, Turkey & Israel

Governments "officially" deny Genocide (Genocide being as defined by the UN Genocide Conventions; see Article II in the BLUE PANEL in the article) when they assert that a Genocide Event as thus defined (such as the Armenian Genocide) is not a Genocide.  
 
That indeed has been the contemptible, repugnant position of successive Turkish Governments for 90 years and is the CURRENT contemptible, repugnant postion of the Turkish, Bush US and Racist Zionist Apartheid Israeli Governments.  
 
All decent people believe that there should be zero tolerance for Genocide Commisssion and Genocide Denial. 
 
Decent folk can do their bit by (a) informing others about Genocide atrocities and (b) having no avoidable dealings with those individuals , corporations or countries complicit in Genocide Commission and Genocide Denial (e.g. don't vote for them, don't purchase their goods or services etc).

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/

Guest

Will the real perpetrator please step fo

Reciently I watched a docuumentary on the armenian genocide. It expained the changes happening in Turkey at the time of WWII. As much to say no one was watching as they made their march and how they sudued the armenians to leave and then would kill them enroute, rape the women. At some point years latter in Germany a turk or armenian murdered a man who was supposedly party to some of the crimes commited against the armenians. He murdered the man out in public, the trial recieved alot of press. This was how the genocide was exposed to the world, I don't remember if he was convicted of murder. He claimed the man had done some horrendous crime agaist him or his mother. I wish I could remember the details of the trial, because they were crutial in helping to bring it to the medias attention. The verdict of the trial was to be instrimental in helping to LEGITIMIZE what happened not to the incident in Germany but to the armenians. I question all the documentaries now, seeing how the capitalists have distorted the facts, demonization to inform the public, to allow intervention. Strange how the NYT is undieing about the attrocities in Darfur, yet not a peep hardley of a suggestion that the US is inducing genocide, with all the caos and talk of failed attempts for democracy, in Iraq and Afghanistan. Quite the contrary, they are succeeding at (occupation), remaining at the bequest of the legally elected president of Iraq, thus dodging the true meaning as defined as a occupier. In the NYT yesterday Sun 10-14-07 Turkey threw out threats to the US, should those in Washington vote to legitamize the armenian genocide. The injustices and crimes against ethnic groups and people of color silenced. Politics as usual.

Guest

armenian genocide

el genocidio armenio es real crime contra el pueblo armenio.turquia no va escapar a la hora de justicia.I COLD OLL THE WORLD RECOGNIZE THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE!

Guest

watch this watch that!

yeah! I watch this, watch that so I know the truth. I dont need data, all I need is gossib, 12 b&W photoz and sad stories. Truth can be written any way we like now.

Guest

Scholars indicate Armenian Genocide

In an age of Bush-ite lies and spin people naturally get cycnical about the "truth". 
 
Rule of thumb - always remain sensibly sceptical but on matters of great import such as genocide, climate change, threats to society etc turn to the world's most outstanding scholars. 
 
Thus the Nobel Prize Committee in its recent award to the IPCC and Al Gore agreed with the greatest scientists in America and the world, the premier scientifc organizations in America and the World etc and IGNORED the dishonest, corrupt, climate criminal lying of the Bush-ite flat-earther climate change deniers. 
 
Ditto in relation to the Armenian Genocide - world's leading Genocide scholars recognize the Armenian Holocaust as an Armenian Genocide involving 1.5 million people murdered out of a population of 2.1 million - but this is denied by Genocide Committers and Deniers Turkey, Israel and Bush US. 
 
The Armenian Holocaust (1.5 million victims) is unequivocally described as the Armenian Genocide by top world genocide authorities e.g. Australian genocide scholar Professor Colin Tatz who headed up a Centre for Comparative Genocide Studies at Sydney’s Macquarie University indictaes 12.5 million deaths and is unequivocal in his condemnation of Turkish denial of the Armenian Genocide (see:  
link ), QUOTE: "The Turkish denial [of the Armenian Genocide] is probably the foremost example of historical perversion. With a mix of academic sophistication and diplomatic thuggery -- of which we at Macquarie University have been targets -- the Turks have put both memory and history into reverse gear."  
 
The classic book on genocide by Frank Chalk. and Kurt Jonassohn (1990), The History and Sociology of Genocide. Analyses and Case Studies (Yale University Press, New Haven). The authors indicate 1.5 million deaths and state unequivocally in their preface to the chapter of the Armenian Genocide that, QUOTE :“The genocide of the Armenians in 1915 was the first of the modern ideologically-motivated genocides”.

http://mwcnews.net/content/view/1375/247/

Guest

armenian genocide

the recognizing armenian genocide is crieting animal sentiments beetwin the the turks like their anestores.the turks can repit this in now days without proplem.

Guest

armenian genocide

this cirminal MAFIA genocidal us client regime WILL fall. the turkish asses will be hauled before world court to be FINALLY gudged for the crimes they committed against ALL peoples.

Guest

Well Polya..

I just want some explanation on a few statements you made.. 
1. How can you call Northern-Iraq, (home to a terrorist organisation recognised by Nato, US, EU and UN called PKK) a peaceful land? 
Starting from this statement, I can feel the anti-Turkish mentality you have.. 
2. How can scholars and historians from the U.S, most lived on these times know about particular events that happened 100 years ago on the other end of the world, better than those people who lived there? An information if you dont know, Turkish people are also known for their perfect archiving of events.. 
3. If this genocide is planned and programmed, as indicated in the definition of the word "genocide", do you find it rational that a nation, who lost a world war, whose biggest city Istanbul is occupied by Allied forces, and who is fighting an "independence war" in it's western regions against the bigger armies of the times with people contributing even with forks, and people waiting for fellow soldiers to die to pick up a weapon for themselves, would really find the time to plan and accommodate an actual genocide? 
 
This you got there is the wrong mentality my friend.. You should look in both sides of the arguement if you want to find a conclusion to your never-ending genocide stories.. 
Do you tell the U.S public that, the Armenians that Ottoman Empire fought against were seperatist groups mostly living on mountains and attacking traders and passangers on the ways between cities in eastern regions, at the times of war? 
In today's terms you would call them terrorists, wouldn't you? 
And many pictures shown as evidence, are partly irrevelant, and even worse some are fake pictures and those people there are Turkish casualties not Armenian.. 
 
Bur since Turkey, can not lobby around the western world like Armenians, Saying "those muslims killed this many christians there." it's quite harder to take people's attentions to our arguements.. 
 
Thanks for your time..

Guest

Choose Truth over Propoganda...

1 
The topic of genocide is a very emotive one and carries with it stigma and shame and recompense, that not only effects the people of the time that it occurred/allegedly occurred in, but also for many, many generations thereafter. Therefore, it is important to be careful that you have your facts straight, when making such a claim.  
 
In every case where an alleged criminal act has been committed and there is a suspect and an alleged victim, the common presumption (at least in Australia, as I understood it from basic legal studies in public high school in Australia), is that the suspect is ‘innocent until PROVEN guilty’. The accused is given the benefit of doubt. The onus is on the ACCUSER to PROVE guilt. 
 
In order for the charge against the defendant to be proven, there needs to be an impartial hearing of both sides, where both parties are allowed to present their own evidence and testimony and cross examine the evidence and testimony of the counter party. After which, the judge/s or arbitrator/s examine/s ALL of the evidence and testimony and come/s to a decision. This is called a FAIR TRIAL. 
 
In this respect, where the Alleged Armenian genocide is concerned, the Turks have not been given a fair trial.  
 
The Armenian diaspora have, over the years, worked endlessly in the west, lobbying governments, collecting donations and spreading their own word. They have been reaping the ‘rewards’ of their efforts over the past few years. Many nations have accepted and officially recognised their ‘ALLEGATIONS’ as ‘TRUTHS’, without questioning the accuracy of their evidence or testimony. So much so that, it is now a crime in some parts of the western world, (where free speech is, hypocritically, said to be held in high regard) to state that the Armenian genocide is a fallacy.  
 
Any evidence and or testimony submitted to counter their ‘ALLEGATIONS’ have been denied an ‘impartial’ and ‘fair’ hearing by particularly the western world, and are merely discarded as ‘genocide denial’.  
 
‘Denial’, in my understanding of the word, is the refusal to admit that which is true or real. As ALL of the evidence and testimony of BOTH parties to the ALLEGED Armenian genocide have NOT been examined by an IMPARTIAL ARBITRATOR’S and as NO FAIR CONCLUSION has been reached, it is in NO WAY FAIR, to state that the occurrences of 1915 was genocide. That is, the alleged ‘Armenian genocide’ has NEVER BEEN PROVEN to be ‘true’ or ‘real’ in the observances of an impartial arbitrator. Thus, stating that the Armenian genocide is a fallacy, cannot and should not be referred to as ‘denial’. Except of course by those who are either ignorant, or have other agendas to pursue.

Guest

Choose Truth Over Propaganda

2 
The term \\\"genocide\\\" is a well defined crime. The definition was given at the international \\\"Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide\\\" after the Second World War, approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N. General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Entry into force: 12 January 1951. (See http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm#II) 
 
Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide  
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the U.N. General Assembly on 9 December 1948.  
Entry into force: 12 January 1951. 
 
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:  
(a) Killing members of the group; 
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; 
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.  
The word ‘INTENT’ is of particular importance in Article II. Article II states “…committed with intent to destroy…”. That is, ‘Intent’ must be proven for genocide to be proven. It is my understanding that ‘intent’ has never been proven in the ALLEGED Armenian genocide.  
Here is what some world renowned historians have to say on the topic of ‘intent’ in this case: 
- Guenter Lewy (author, historian, and a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Massachusetts ) has to say on the topic of ‘intent’ regarding the ALLEGED Armenian genocide ( The Middle East Quarterly, Fall 2005, Volume XII: Number 4 http://www.turkishembassy.com/II/II.htm ) 
 
“…Historians do not dispute these events although they may squabble over numbers and circumstances. Rather the key question in the debate concerns premeditation. Did the Young Turk regime organize the massacres that took place in 1916? 
 
Most of those who maintain that Armenian deaths were premeditated and so constitute genocide base their argument on three pillars: the actions of Turkish military courts of 1919-20, which convicted officials of the Young Turk government of organizing massacres of Armenians, the role of the so-called \\\"Special Organization\\\" accused of carrying out the massacres, and the Memoirs of Naim Bey[3] which contain alleged telegrams of Interior Minister Talât Pasha conveying the orders for the destruction of the Armenians. Yet when these events and the sources describing them are subjected to careful examination, they provide at most a shaky foundation from which to claim, let alone conclude, that the deaths of Armenians were premeditated.”  
 
Professor Lewy goes on to detail why the sources are ‘shaky’ and concludes: 
 
“The three pillars of the Armenian claim to classify World War I deaths as genocide fail to substantiate the charge that the Young Turk regime intentionally organized the massacres. Other alleged evidence for a premeditated plan of annihilation fares no better.” 
 
In an interview with Selçuk Gülta_l1, journalist for ‘Zaman’, Published: Monday, April 24, 2006 :  
 
Q: Though you reach a figure of 642,000 Armenians killed in 1915-16, you argue that there was no intention to wipe out the Armenian race. Is lack of intention on its own sufficient not to call the incidents genocide?” - Selçuk Gulta_l1 
 
A: …”According to Article II of the Genocide Convention of 1948, “intent to destroy” is a precondition of genocide. A large number of dead alone is not sufficient. Thus, for example, collateral casualties of an aerial bombing do not constitute genocide, no matter how large the number of victims. There exists no evidence that the Ottoman regime had intent to destroy the Armenian community.” – Prof. Lewy 
 
Dr. Bernard Lewis (Princeton University; Best expert on Islamic Empires and Ottoman Empire in the United States) Le Monde, 2002 
 
\\\"There is no evidence of a decision to (Armenian) massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it, which were not very successful… In 2006 he re-iterated this point, arguing that \\\"the issue is not whether the massacres happened or not, but rather if these massacres were as a result of a deliberate preconceived decision of the Turkish government,\\\" and that \\\"there is no evidence for such a decision.\\\" 
 
…”However, when you brought up the question of \\\"genocide\\\", you imply that there was a deliberate policy of extermination, to annihilate systematically the Armenian nation. This is very doubtful. The Turkish documents prove an action of relocation, not extermination.”  
Dr. Norman Stone (British historian of modern Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe, served at the University of Oxford) 
“…The fact is that there is no proof of ‘genocide’, in the sense that no document ever appeared, indicating that the Armenians were to be exterminated. There is forged evidence…” 
 
These are but three world renowned historians who believe that the term ‘genocide’ is not applicable in the case of the tragedies that befell the fate of the Armenians in 1915. Among the many other well-known historians who do not name the 1915 civil war a genocide and are against calling these events a genocide are Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville), Heath Lowry (Princeton University), Gilles Veinstein (College de France), Stanford Shaw (UCLA), J.C. Hurewitz (Columbia University), Roderic Davison (Central European University), Jeremy Salt (University of Melbourne), Malcolm Yapp (University of London) and Rhoads Murphey (University of Birmingham). 
On May 19, 1985, 69 scholars from various American universities sent a letter to the U.S. House of representatives opposing the House Joint Resolution 192, which defined the events of 1915 as genocide. On April 23, 2001, 120 Turkish Academics, signed a declaration in support of the letter sent by their American colleagues.  
The letter states in part : 
“ Statesmen and politicians make history, and scholars write it. For this process to work scholars must be given access to the written records of the statesmen and politicians of the past. To date, the relevant archives in the Soviet Union, Syria, Bulgaria and Turkey all remain, for the most part, closed* to dispassionate historians. Until they become available the history of the Ottoman Empire in the period encompassed by H.J. Res. 192 (1915—1923) cannot be adequately known.  
 
We believe that the proper position for the United States Congress to take on this and related issues, is to encourage full and open access to all historical archives, and not to make charges on historical events before they are fully understood. Such charges as those contained in H.J. Res. 192 would inevitably reflect unjustly upon the people of Turkey, and perhaps set back irreparably progress historians are just now beginning to achieve in understanding these tragic events.  
 
As the above comments illustrate, the history of the Ottoman-Armenians is much debated among scholars, many of whom do not agree with the historical assumptions embodied in the wording of H.J. Res. 192. By passing the resolution Congress will be attempting to determine by legislation which side of a historical question is correct. Such a resolution, based on historically questionable assumptions, can only damage the cause of honest historical enquiry, and damage the credibility of the American legislative process.”

Guest

Choose Truth Over Propaganda...

3 
What happened to the people of Ottoman ruled Anatolia in and around 1915 was truly tragic. Many Ottomans, both Christian and Muslim died tragic deaths. Many died of famine, disease and ethnic violence.  
 
It is my observation that The Government of the Republic of Turkey has not taught it’s children the total extent of the tragedies that befell their forefathers, who were then citizens of the Ottoman Empire. Not because they have something to hide, but rather because they do not want to fill the hearts of their future generations with the pain endured by their ancestors. Because they do not want to fill the minds of their future generations with information which may lead them to be angry at the people who caused their ancestors such pain. They do not want to fill the souls of their future generations with such pain and anger, as this may lead future generations to hate the initial perpetrators of that pain and anger. They do not want this pain and anger because they do not want any more bloodshed. In this regard, the government of The Republic of Turkey, since 1915, has tried hard to hold onto it’s motto, first stated by Ataturk, ‘Peace at Home, Peace in the World’. 
 
This general attitude of peace towards previous enemies can particularly be seen in the relations of Turks with the ANZACS. It is generally accepted that during the battle of Gallipoli, there were over 100,000 Turkish deaths with 250,000 Turkish casualties. Regardless of this, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, founder and first president of the Turkish Republic and also a military officer who fought alongside his soldiers at Gallipoli, in a speech he gave in 1934, wholeheartedly said:  
 
"Those heroes that shed their blood and lost their lives... You are now lying in the soil of a friendly country. Therefore rest in peace. There is no difference between the Johnnies and the Mehmets to us where they lie side by side here in this country of ours...  
 
"You, the mothers, who sent their sons from far away countries wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well. " 
 
As noble as this attitude the Turks have of not holding on to past animosities is, in the case of the Armenians, it appears to be working against them. It is because the Turks of present day Turkey do not fully know their own history, that the Armenian diaspora have so far had a free reign on voicing their ALLEGATIONS of an Armenian genocide on such a large scale with very limited arguments to the contrary.

Guest

Choose Truth Over Propaganda

4 
It’s quite ironic that it is these very voices of the Armenian diaspora that has catalysed the Turkish Government to open up it’s archives pertaining to that period. It has also lead more Turkish historians to do more research and report their findings, using those very archives. It has lead the Turkish people of today to ask many questions about that period and fostered much debate in Turkey. Perhaps most importantly, it has lead the current Prime Minister of Turkey, the current President of Turkey, and the current Grand National Assembly of Turkey to make the following, separate statements (which seems to have so far landed on deaf ears): 
 
President Abdullah Gul (In an article titled ‘Politicizing the Armenian tragedy’ published March 28, 2007 in “The Washington Times”. ): 
 
“…With regard to the Armenian allegation describing the tragedy that befell them as genocide, the question, from the point of view of international law, is whether the Ottoman government systematically pursued a calculated act of state policy for their destruction in whole or in part. 
 
The answer to this question can only be established by scholars who have the ability to 
evaluate the period objectively, working with the full range of available primary sources.Hence Turkey made a proposal to Armenia in 2005 to establish a joint commission of 
historians to find out once and for all what really happened, and how it took place. 
Turkey has no difficulties in facing its past. All Turkish archives, including the military 
archives of the period, are open to the entire international academic community. However, important Armenian archives are not. 
 
We eagerly await a positive response from Armenia, agreeing to establish this joint 
commission and declaring its readiness to accept its conclusions. We are also prepared to work together with other parties to conduct this research. I hereby extend an invitation to any third country, including the United States, to contribute to this commission by appointing scholars who will earnestly work to shed light on this tragedy and open ways for us to come together. The establishment of such a commission will also help shape an atmosphere conducive to the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations. 
 
A recent resolution introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives makes mention of the events of 1915 as "genocide." Its passage will be tantamount to legislating a skewed version of history, which will be totally unjust and thus deeply offensive to the Turkish people who have expressed their readiness to seek out the truth....” 
 
Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoan (In an official letter sent to Robert Kocaryan, President of the Republic of Armenia, 10 April 2005. To read full letter, see http://www.turkishembassy.com/II/O/ErdogantoKocaryan.htm ): 
 
“…These views are also shared by the leader of our main opposition party, Mr. Deniz Baykal, the Chairman of the Republican People’s Party (CHP). In this connection, we are extending an invitation to your country to establish a joint group consisting of historians and other experts from our two countries to study the developments and events of 1915 not only in the archives of Turkey and Armenia but also in the archives of all relevant third countries and to share their findings with the international public. I believe that such an initiative would shed light on a disputed period of history and also constitute a step towards contributing to the normalization of relations between our countries…” 
 
The Turkish Grand National Assembly (Official Declaration, to read in full, see http://www.turkishembassy.com/II/O/declaration_by_the__turkish_gran.htm): 
 
“…the Governing and the Main Opposition Parties have made a proposal which aims to shed light on historical facts through scientific research and to free history from being a burden for these two nations. This proposal envisages the establishment of a joint commission composed of historians from Turkey and Armenia, to open without any restriction their national archives, to disclose the findings of their research, which will also cover the archives of related countries, to the international public and determination between two countries the establishment and working methods of the said commission. 
 
… upon the countries which took decisions regarding the Armenian allegations in their Parliaments. If these countries attach importance, as they claim, to the improvement of the relations between Turkey and Armenia, they should demonstrate their good will and support our proposal to set-up a joint commission of history between the two countries.” 
 
As can be seen by these statements, Turkey has no qualms about facing it’s past. In fact, it is most open to it. It’s archives pertaining to 1915 are open and awaiting research.  
 
I am aware, that there are those who claim that any ‘proof’ that the ALLEGED Armenian genocide took place have been destroyed by the Turkish Government before making the archives public. They claim that it would therefore be pointless to look at the archives.  
 
I would like to remind those so misguided that the Ottoman Archives were in the hands of the Allies for four (4) years after the war. All of the archives of the Ottoman government were examined. They found nothing, and therefore could not put on trial the 100-odd supposed Turkish war criminals that they were holding.  
 
If no such ‘proof’ ever existed, then it is only logical that it will not be found.  
If ‘genocide’ never occurred, it is only logical to state that genocide did not occur. Anything to the contrary would be a vicious, criminal, shameful lie. Supporting such a lie would be slanderous of one’s own honour, to say the least.  
 
Note how The President of Turkey, The Prime Minister of Turkey, and The Grand National Assembly of Turkey do not fervently reject the notion of genocide. On the contrary, they have opened up their archives, including military archives pertaining to that period. They ask that Armenia and all relevant third countries open up their archives. They ask that a joint commission of historians and other experts be established. They extend an invitation to any third country, including the United States, to contribute to this commission by appointing scholars. They propose that the findings of said commission be disclosed to the international community. They are willing and eager to accept the findings of such a commission. They are willing and eager to accept these findings, because they believe the research will be scientific and the findings will be objective truths, not propaganda or hearsay. They believe that this is necessary in order for future generations to put aside any animosities and to live in peace. Theirs is a search for truth and peace. Their search can not, should not be labelled ‘denial’.

Guest

Choose Truth Over Propaganda

5 
In an article written to the Chicago Tribune, October 16, 2007, Professor Normon Stone supports Turkey’s call for a joint historical review:  
 
“Unfortunately, the issue has never reached a properly constituted court. If the Armenians were convinced of their own case, they would have taken it to one. Instead, they lobby bewildered or bored parliamentary assemblies to ‘recognize the genocide’. 
 
Congress should not take a position, one way or the other, on this affair. Let historians decide. The Turkish government has been saying this for years. It is the Armenians who refuse to take part in a joint historical review, even when organized by impeccably neutral academics. This review is the logical and most sensible path forward. Passage of the resolution by the full House of Representatives would constitute an act of legislative vengeance and would shame well-meaning scholars who want to explore this history from any vantage point other than the one foisted upon the world by ultranationalist Armenians." 
 
In a speech given by Professor McCarthy, an expert in Ottoman history, he gives an analysis of events at and around that period in history. After which, he explains the difference between reasoned historical analysis and ideology (to read full speech http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html ), : 
 
“How do we know that this analysis is true? It is, after all, very different than what is usually called the history of the Armenians. We know it is true because it is the product of reasoned historical analysis, not ideology.  
 
To understand this, we must consider the difference between history and ideology, the difference between scientific analysis and nationalist belief, the difference between the proper historian and the ideologue. To the historian what matters is the attempt to find the objective truth. To the nationalist ideologue what matters is the triumph of his cause. A proper historian first searches for evidence, then make up his mind. An ideologue first makes up his mind, then looks for evidence.  
 
A historian looks for historical context. In particular, he judges the reliability of witnesses. He judges if those who gave reports had reason to lie. An ideologue takes evidence wherever he can find it, and may invent the evidence he cannot find. He does not look too closely at the evidence, perhaps because he is afraid of what he will find…. 
 
A historian first discovers what actually happened, then tries to explain the reasons. An ideologue forgets the process of discovery. He assumes that what he believes is correct, then constructs a theory to explain it… 
 
A historian knows that one has to look back in history, sometimes far back in history, to find the causes of events. An ideologue does not bother. Again, he may be afraid of what he will find… 
 
The historian studies. The ideologue wages a political war… 
 
We must affirm a basic principle: Those who take propaganda as their source themselves write propaganda, not history…  
 
Scholars have the right to make mistakes, but scholars also have a duty to look at all sources of information before they write. It is wrong to base writings on political propaganda and to ignore the honest reports of the Ottomans. The first place to look for Ottoman history should be the records of the Ottomans.  
 
Why rely on Ottoman archival accounts to write history? Because they are the sort of solid data that is the basis of all good history. The Ottomans did not write propaganda for today's media. The reports of Ottoman soldiers and officials were not political documents or public relations exercises. They were secret internal reports in which responsible men relayed what they believed to be true to their government. They might sometimes have been mistaken, but they were never liars. There is no record of deliberate deception in Ottoman documents. “ 
 
Professor Justin McCarthy, from the University of Louiseville... first Presented During A Conference at Yeditepe University in Istanbul: 
 
 
….. “They have no time for detailed research on historical issues. They have little or no training in the study of history. To them I offer this unsolicited advice: if you cannot do the work necessary to find the truth, say nothing.”… 
 
…. “Historical knowledge depends on debate. No matter how hard we try to see all sides of an issue, each of us is fallible. All historians can make mistakes. We learn our mistakes through debate. We listen to others who disagree with us, consider our evidence, and sometimes change our minds. Someone who will not study the evidence brought by others is not a scholar. Someone who will not listen to the judgments of others is only pretending to be a historian.”… 
 
…”I renew the call for honest debate. Those who believe in their cause should be willing to defend it with their words. They must be willing to argue, not just to preach to those who agree with them.”… 
 
I, personally, will not believe any ALLEGED genocide took place, unless it can be proven by objective historians, who have scientifically researched all the material available to them in the archives of Turkey, Armenia and other relevant nations, debated the issues, and come to a consensus on the issue and notified the world of their findings. If it is proven, I will voice my condemnation. If it is disproven, I will expect an apology to be made to the people of the present Republic of Turkey and the people of the past Ottoman Empire and public condemnation of all those who perpetrated the lies against them. As I see it, this is the only JUST and CONSCIONABLE way to address the issue.

Guest

Choose Truth Over Propaganda

6 
As for Dr. Polya’s claim that: 
 
“Turkey has been involved in genocidal violence and discrimination against its Kurdish minority, is party to the US Iraqi Genocide and is now threatening to bring the carnage of war to relatively peaceful Northern Iraq.”  
 
Being a person with Kurdish ancestry and residing in Turkey for 16 years and having worked in Turkey, I TOTALLY REJECT this proclamation and I question Dr. Polya’s sources and motives.  
 
Dr. Polya seems to believe that the PKK (Internationally recognised TERRORISTS) represents the ethnic Kurds of Turkey. I can assure you that nothing is further from the truth. The PKK does NOT represent the Kurds. The citizens of Turkey have enough commonsense and are broad-minded enough to recognise this and to not fall prey to the PKK’s efforts to try to make them believe otherwise. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for many in the west who have become pawns in their game. 
 
In my life here in Turkey, I have often openly stated my Kurdish ancestry and never have I been discriminated against because of it. I have worked with doctors and other professionals and non-professionals of Kurdish origin. I did not witness any discrimination against them.  
 
I have often been surprised at how minimal the prejudice and negative reactions against Kurds in general has been, particularly after a PKK terrorist attack. My surprise is due to the fact that I have experienced prejudice in Australia for years as a migrant muslim, which was much exacerbated post 9/11.  
 
In Australia, whenever a Turk did anything criminal or offensive, all Turks were generally blamed. The same went for people of other nationalities. On my visit to Australia a couple of years ago, I witnessed first hand the negative impact of 9/11 and Bush’s and Howard’s ‘war on terror’, on members of the muslim population of Australia. The fear and discomfort I was made to feel for being a migrant/ muslim in Australia, far outways any fear and discomfort I might feel for being of Kurdish origin in Turkey.  
 
Turks in general see the difference between the TERRORIST PKK and Kurds. Westerners appear not to see the difference between TERRORISTS CLAIMING TO REPRESENT ISLAM and the people who believe in Islam. 
 
In fact, there are many Kurdish citizens of Turkey, in many walks of life, living and working freely in Turkey. At least one of the President’s of Turkey, namely Turgut Özal, was of Kurdish origin. There are parliamentarians, doctors, lawyers, engineers, professors, nurses, teachers, clerics, clerks, actors, musicians etc. etc. etc. who are also Turks of Kurdish ancestry. There is a government channel where the language spoken is Kurdish. There is even a political party, namely DTP, which is said to be the political arm of the PKK! Now which other supposed ‘discriminatory, genocidal’ nation on earth would allow such a thing?? 
 
Here is an excerpt of a letter written by Australia\'s former ambassador to Ankara, Mr. P. F. Peters, back in 1994, in response to an anti-Turkish letter written by a Mr. George Karagiannakis, and published in the daily The Australian: 
 
 
“The PKK, like IRA, is a terrorist organization, supported materially by the Greeks and Armenians, with the stated objective of destabilizing Turkey. It has so far assassinated over 10,000 people in Turkey. It has no justifiable claim to represent the Kurdish people. 
 
Most Kurds are integrated into Turkish society. About one-third of the Turkish Parliament is of Kurdish origin. This illustrates the absence of discrimination. 
 
P. F. Peters 
 
Former Australian Ambassador to Turkey” 
(The Australian, June 9th, 1994) 
 
It must be said, that it is not only the Greeks and Armenians who have been supporting this terrorist organization. Many countries in Europe and some not in Europe, have over the years allowed PKK supporters to collect funds for the PKK, in their countries, irrespective of Turkey’s constant request that they stop. Some countries have also actively harboured known terrorists including the leader of the TERRORIST PKK, namely Abdullah Ocalan.  
 
Currently, the total deaths as a result of PKK terrorism is estimated to be over 30,000. Many men, women and children were killed and are being killed indiscriminately by the PKK. Just yesterday, the Hürriyet newspaper reported that 10 suspects (3 of whom were known bombers) were arrested, in relation to a bomb which was placed inside a thermos and left at Ko_uyolu Park in Diyarbak1r on 12.09.2006, leading to the deaths of 10 people, 7 of whom were children. (http://arama.hurriyet.com.tr/arsivnews.aspx?id=11273221)  
 
This is just one of the way too many  
acts of terrorism perpetrated by PKK. It is these terrorists that Turkey attacks, not the ethnic Kurds of Turkey, or it’s neighbours.  
 
Is Turkey perfectly innocent , and commits no offence to anybody? Of course not. It is sure to have made mistakes. But it is not as ugly as it is painted to be either. 
 
Finally, ignorance breeds hate and hate breeds violence. Let’s work together in educating ourselves, and each other, on objective truths, with the aim of achieving sustainable peace. In all conscience, this should be the true aim of ‘decent folk’ not regurgitated hateful propaganda for the masses.

Guest

Turks, Armenians, Greeks & Kurds

I agree with duyum that violence and terrorism - whether state terrorism or non-state terrorism - are to be unequivocally deplored.  
 
The state terrorism of Turkey against its Armenian, Greek, Kurdish and Syriac Christian minorities over the last century constituted genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention (see: UN Genocide Convention ) which states: "Article II. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: a) Killing members of the group; b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." 
 
Of these genocides the Armenian Genocide was the most horrendous (1.5 million Armenians killed, a whole ancient society destroyed in Turkish Anatolia). 
 
Ignoring the realities of history won't make them go away and an increasing number of courageous Turkish intellectuals are recognizing this and are facing up to the realities and lessons from the past - not in a counterproductive "blame and shame" sense but to rationally inform present and future conduct in conformity with international humanitarian conventions and the humanitarian principles of decent humanity.

http://mwcnews.net/gideon-polya

Guest

Turks, Armenians, Greeks & Kurds

Dr. Polya gives a link to an article written in 1996, by Australia's Professor Colin Tatz, who is said to be ‘one of the World's top expert on genocide’. Professor Colin Tatz apparently believes the tragic events of 1915 constitutes genocide. Having read his article in the link provided by Dr. Polya, I must say, I find professor Tatz’s logic, arguable. Here’s why: 
 
1. Professor Tatz attempts to equate the Holocaust with the fate of the Armenians in 1915. Thereby trying to legitimise the allegations of Armenians and their apologists, and to gain sympathy for their cause with their manipulations.  
 
Here are some counter arguments: 
 
Prof. Justin McCarthy (University of Louisville, First Presented During A Conference at YEDITEPE University, Istanbul): 
 
“The differences are worth considering. The Nazis called upon a long tradition of hatred of the Jews. The history of Europe had been filled with attacks on Jews. There was also a long German tradition of evil literature written against the Jews. Hitler and his followers thus called upon a long tradition of hatred. They used prejudice against Jews as a tool to aid their rise to power. 
 
Was anything similar ever seen in the Ottoman Empire? Before the beginning of Armenian revolts had there been attacks on Armenians like the German attacks on Jews? No. Was there a long tradition of Ottoman popular writings against Armenians? No. Did any Turkish political parties base their campaigns on animosity to Armenians? No. In fact, even while Armenian nationalists were rebelling against the Ottomans other Armenians were welcomed into the Ottoman Government. Armenians rose to high positions in the Ottoman State. European-style racial hatred was foreign to the Ottoman Empire. The sort of prejudice that resulted in the deaths of the German Jews was virtually unknown in the Ottoman Empire. Any claim that "racial hatred" led to aggression against Armenians is pure fantasy. 
 
It is better to look for rational reasons for the conflict that developed between Turks and Armenians. The real reason the Turks fought the Armenians is easily explained and completely rational. The Turks were defending themselves.” 
 
Prof. Justin McCarthy, ("Armenian Terrorism History as Poison and Antidode," in Ottoman Archives, Yildiz Collection, The Armenian Question: Talori Incidents, The Historical Research Foundation, Istanbul 1995, pp. 71-77.) 
 
“If the case against a genocide of Armenians needed any further proof, one would only have to look to Istanbul, the capital of the Empire and the area most under government control. In Istanbul, to the shame and guilt of the Ottoman government, perhaps 200 Armenian politicians were executed without trial. But all the rest of the Istanbul Armenians, who presented no threat to the Ottomans, lived through the wars. Their sons and daughters live in Istanbul today. Considering actual genocide in its worst manifestation, Nazi Germany, can one imagine Hitler sparing the lives of all the Jews in Berlin? 
 
Any comparison between the Ottomans and the Nazis is ludicrous, as is the use of the word genocide to describe the actions of the Turks. What passed between the Armenians and the Turks was not genocide; it was war.” 
 
Prof. Bernard Lewis (Unofficial translation from Hebrew original, of an interview with Dalia Karpel Haaretz daily (Weekend Issue), Jerusalem 23/01/98) 
 
"The Armenians want to benefit from both worlds. On the one hand, they speak with pride of their struggle against the Ottoman despotism, while on the other hand, they compare their tragedy to the Jewish Holocaust. I do not accept this. I do not say that the Armenians did not suffer terribly. But I find enough cause for me to contain their attempts to use the Armenian massacres to diminish the worth of the Jewish Holocaust and to relate to it instead as an ethnic dispute."  
 
Stephen Solarz (Representative in the U.S. Congress — in Opposition to H.J. Res. 192 Congressional Record—House (December 12, 1985) 
 
“…what then distinguishes the resolution before us today which memorializes the victims of what has been characterized as the Armenian genocide from another resolution which might memorialize the victims of Hitler’s genocide against the Jews? The difference, I would submit, is the difference between a universally accepted historical reality and a hotly disputed view of events. . .” 
 
'The Jewish Times', (June 21, 1990 ) 
 
"An appropriate analogy with the Jewish Holocaust might be the systematic extermination of the entire Muslim population of the independent republic of Armenia which consisted of at least 30-40 percent of the population of that republic. The memoirs of an Armenian army officer who participated in and eye-witnessed these atrocities was published in the U.S. in 1926 with the title 'Men Are Like That.' Other references abound." 
 
Bruce Fein (Bruce Fein is an adjunct scholar and general counsel of the Assembly of Turkish American Associations) 
 
“The differences between the alleged Armenian genocide of the World War I era and the Holocaust are overwhelming, something akin to the legal chasm between first degree murder and negligent homicide. To equate the two would be to vitiate the moral stigma that should attach to the crime of crimes, and to violate the rule of law itself…” 
 
“…The differences between the Holocaust and the alleged Armenian genocide are cosmic. The Ottomans relocated Armenians because of suspect political loyalties, not because of race or religion. They were thus left undisturbed outside militarily sensitive areas. Hitler exterminated Jews precisely because of their race, not because of suspect political allegiance…” 
 
What I found particularly interesting whilst searching for information about this topic, was the information regarding Armenian collusions with Hitler and the Nazis against the Jews at that time. (e.g.:1- http://www.ataa.org/reference/nazi-ozer.html 2- http://www.ataa.org/reference/s-amateau.html ) . If this be true, there seems to me to be something inherently wrong with Armenian genocide allegers claiming similarities to the Holocaust.  
 
2. Prof. Tatz states that “An extraordinary Court Martial was instituted in Turkey in March 1919.” 
 
- Yes, there were trials, but they occurred in the Ottoman Empire. The Republic of Turkey was not founded until 1923 and therefore cannot be, and should not be, held accountable for anything which occurred before its establishment. 
 
3. Prof. Tatz states that the accused were leaders of a political party, including ‘Pasha’s’ (Turkish for ‘General’), medics, members of wartime cabinets, provincial governors and high ranking military and political officers. “The principal charges were ‘massacres and unlawful, personal profiteering’ there from.” 
 
The very fact that the trial was instituted by the Ottomans, against those of it’s members it believed to have acted in a criminal manner and against the laws of the land, by performing, as Prof. Tatz states, ‘massacres and unlawful, personal profiteering’, to me is evidence in favour of the Ottomans, suggesting that the Ottoman Empire did not in any way condone the massacres which occurred and which are today labelled as ‘genocide’ by some in the modern world. The fact that those found guilty of the charges were either sentenced to death in absentia, executed, or received sentences, is further evidence in favour of the Ottomons. 
 
That the British insisted on removing 64 (Prof. Tatz gives the number as 64 other sources say differently, e.g. http://www.ataa.org/reference/facts-ataa.html), of the accused to Malta, suggests to me that they did not have much confidence in the Ottoman penal system and believed that they themselves could do better. After all, the Ottoman archives were in their hands during that period and they had plenty of time to uncover any and all evidence therein to prosecute those it held in captivity.  
 
4. As Prof. Tatz states, ‘Very little happened to them.’.  
 
This to me suggests that the British could find no evidence to prosecute and convict the 64 people it held captive in Malta. It’s interesting how Prof. Tatz provides no insight as to WHY ‘very little happened to them’.  
 
I will provide some insight. ‘Very little happened to them’, because after carefully searching the Ottoman archives, no evidence was found which might be used to convict the alleged. This led the British to write to the Americans and ask if they had anything which might be construed as proof. To which Lord Curzon received this reply from the British Ambassador in Washington, Mr. R.C. Craige, on 13 July 1921 (PRO.FO. 13th July 1971, 371/6504/E8519.):  
 
“I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty’s Government against the Turks.”  
 
On 29 July 1921, the legal advisers of His Majesty’s Government documented this statement (Foreign Office, 29th July 1921, 371/6504/E8745): 
 
“No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties.” 
 
5. Prof. Tatz sates that “Many of the accused escaped or were set free and it was left to Armenian ‘avengers’ to assassinate Talat, Sakir, Cemal, and Enver.” 
 
The word ‘avengers’ which Prof. Tatz chooses to use to describe the murder of these people is interesting, to say the least. ‘Avengers’ is a word which, to me, insinuates that the people committing the act were in some way righting a wrong. In this case, the ‘righting’ included the COLD BLOODED MURDER of 4 people. Prof. Tatz’s words may be interpreted as condoning these murders. If this interpretation is in fact true, that, I believe, is a great black stain on Prof. Tatz’s character.  
 
The reason these people had been ‘set free’, was because there was NO EVIDENCE to continue to detain them. Some had been held captive, without any charge, for over two (2) years. (Sound familiar?) 
 
Armenian assassinations and terrorism did not stop with the murders of those mentioned above. They continued. The bombing of UCLA Professor Stanford Shaw's house by Armenian extremists in the late 1970s, the assassinations in Sydney, Australia, of the Turkish Consul General Sarik Ariyak and his bodyguard Engin Sever, by two Armenian gunmen, on December 17, 1980, and the bombing of the Turkish Consulate of Melbourne on 23 November 1986, claimed by the Greek-Bulgarian-Armenian Front, are but three of the many examples. See http://www.ataa.org/reference/cause-gunter.html and http://www.ataa.org/reference/diplomats.html and http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/diplomats/index.html for more detail about Armenian terrorist activities and their innocent victims around the world. Of course, we should not and cannot forget Khojali http://www.ataa.org/reference/khojaly_az.html .  
 
Prof. Tatz. himself makes mention of the ‘thuggery’ with which Prof. Heath Lowry was treated by The Armenian National Committee Eastern Region who called on Princeton to end its association with the Professor. (Though Professor Tatz does not call Prof. Lowry’s experiences ‘thuggery’, instead, stating it as though it were something that ought to have happened, whilst stating the pressures put on himself was ‘thuggery’) Professor Lowry is not the only person persecuted by the Armenian diaspora and their supporters, for their beliefs based on scholarly research. There are many more. 
 
Apparently, the cold blooded murder of Turks by Armenians did not start with the assassinations of those Prof. Tatz refers to either. Those who have done the relevant research, say it can be seen prior to the relocations of 1915 and traced well back into the late 1700’s. (For more information about Ottoman history of that time, http://www.ataa.org/reference/shot-carthy.html)  
 
6. Prof. Tatz places great importance on the trials instituted in The Ottoman Empire. Stating, “these courts martial were, in my view - as a Turkish newspaper editorial said in April 1919 - ‘the most important trial in the six-hundred year history of the Ottoman Empire.’ ” 
 
There are those who have a different view: 
 
Guenter Lewy (Middle East Quarterly, ‘Revisiting the Armenian Genocide’, Fall 2005) 
 
“Armenian writers have praised the contribution of the military tribunals for their elucidation of historical truth, but such broad conclusions are problematic given both the procedures of the trials and questions over the reliability of their findings. The tribunals lacked the basic requirements of due process. Few authors familiar with Ottoman jurisprudence have a positive assessment, all the more so with regard to military courts. The Ottoman penal code did not acknowledge the right of cross-examination, and the role of the judge was far more important than in the Anglo-American tradition. The judge weighed the probative value of all evidence submitted during the preparatory phase and during the trial, and he questioned the accused.[14] At the 1919-20 trials, the presiding officer acted more like a prosecutor than an impartial judge. Ottoman rules of procedure also barred defense counsel access to pretrial investigatory files and from accompanying their clients to pretrial interrogations.[15] On May 6, 1919, at the third session of the main trial, defense counsel challenged the court's repeated references to the indictment as proven fact, but the court rejected the objection.[16] Throughout the trials, the court heard no witnesses, and the verdict rested entirely on documents and testimony never subject to cross-examination. Heck expressed disapproval that the defendants in the Yozgat court were tried on the basis of "anonymous court material"[17]…”  
 
…” Contemporary Turkish authors dismiss the military tribunals of 1919-20 as tools of Allied retribution.[21] At the time, the victorious Allies considered them a travesty of justice. The trials, British high commissioner S.A.G. Calthorpe wrote to London, are "proving to be a farce and injurious to our own prestige and to that of the Turkish government."[22] In the view of Commissioner John de Robeck, the tribunal was such a failure "that its findings cannot be held of any account at all."[23] When the British government considered holding trials of alleged Ottoman war criminals in Malta, it declined to use any evidence developed by the 1919-20 Ottoman tribunals.” 
 
Professor Justin McCarthy ( Testimony by Dr. Justin McCarthy at the Congressional Hearing on H. Res 39. House Committee on International Relations Subcommittee on International Operations and Human Rights September 14, 2000) 
 
“They were quisling courts, convened by a non-elected government under the watchful eyes of the British and other Allies. The accused could not defend themselves at these mock courts. The resolution does not mention that the courts also found the government guilty of all sorts of preposterous crimes, every thing the courts could invent that would discredit the previous government and please the Allies, The resolution does not relate that the British themselves admitted that they could find no evidence that the Ottoman government was guilty of planned extermination of the Armenians, although they tried very hard to do so. The British at the time were in control of Istanbul. Archives and government records were in their hands. Yet they could not find the evidence. Facts such as this are essential to an understanding of the Armenian-Turkish conflict; they are omitted from House Resolution 398” 
 
 
7. Prof. Tatz states that the Permanent Peoples Tribunal sitting in Paris confirmed the ‘genocide by The Young Turks’. 
 
However, Prof. Tatz fails to give us any information as to what they based their decision on and no insight into why he believes the decision is in any way credible. What if any evidence exists to prove that the finding of the tribunal was correct? Did they have the documentary archival proof of genocide? If so, how did the Brits occupying Turkey miss such evidence? Or, did the Permanent Peoples Tribunal rely only on propaganda and hearsay and circumstantial evidence and forged documents? Could they have come to that decision because of the complicity France and Italy etc. may have had in the events of and around 1915 and was their decision intended to divert the gaze of the world from themselves?  
 
There are many questions which DEMAND answers… by those who SEEK the TRUTH. 
 
8. Prof. Tatz states, “Documents, especially trial documents, have long seemed to me to be the obvious, and the irrefutable counter to denialism” 
 
I agree that documents and archives are the ‘obvious, and the irrefutable counter to denialism” of BOTH sides of the argument. Therefore I reiterate Turkey’s call for Armenia to open up it’s archives and for a joint commission of historians and scholars be assembled, including historians and scholars from third countries, whose aim it will be to research ALL of the relevant archives of Turkey, Armenia and relevant third countries and come to a consensus on the events of 1915 which they will report to the world and which will then be accepted by the whole world, without argument. 
 
For the sake of Sustainable Peace, let us all Demand and Choose Truth over Propaganda!

Guest

Innocent until PROVEN guilty!

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY 
 
Article II of the UN Genocide Convention (see above posts) states “genocide means any of the following acts committed with INTENT to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group”. The key word here is INTENT. Intent needs to be proven for genocide to be proven. INTENT has never been proven. For INTENT to be proven, the Ottoman archives, the Armenian archives and archives of third countries such as Russia, France, England and America etc., pertaining to 1915 need to be EXAMINED FULLY. After careful and objective examination of all of these archives, if INTENT is proven, genocide will have been proven.  
 
What, if any, PROOF OF INTENT do allegers of genocide have? What are their sources for such a claim? Did they look at ALL of the relative archives (including those of the Ottoman Empire, Armenia, Russia, England, France, America etc.) before making such a claim? Or did they only listen to hearsay evidence and look at documents in the hands of the Armenian diaspora, many of which have been proven to be forgeries?(For example, see: http://www.ataa.org/reference/forgeries-delen.html) Did they listen to eyewitness accounts from BOTH sides, or just that of the Armenaian diaspora? Are they objective researchers seeking the truth, or ignorant followers of what appears to be ‘politically correct’ on the day? Or worse yet, are they people with ulterior motives?  
 
Where is the evidence of INTENT? Does it exist? Did it ever exist? The onus is on the accusers to PROVE their claims. 
 
 
If time is not taken to do this research, it is UNJUST and UNACCEPTABLE to claim that the tragedies of 1915 were genocide. State it, but only if you can PROVE it UNEQUOVICALLY. Demanding PROOF before labelling a nation and it’s people, or the long dead ancestors of said nation and people, ‘genocidal’ is in NO WAY ‘denial’, ‘ignorance’, ‘indecent’ or ‘inhumane’. It is the only HONOURABLE thing to do. 
 
Often, the allegers and apologists of the Armenian genocide theory claim that 1,500,000 Armenians were killed by Turkey.  
 
Firstly, The Ottoman Empire existed until 1923. Under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the Ottoman Empire was OVERTHROWN and The Republic of Turkey was established, in 1923. Therefore, The Republic of Turkey cannot, and should not, in any way be held accountable for any event that may, or may not have, occurred prior to it’s existence.  
 
Secondly, the claim of 1.500.000 is proven to be false. How? This is one way:  
 
First, One needs to look at the population census prior to 1915 to establish the total number of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. Then, one needs to look at the number of surviving Armenians after the tragic period. Then, the latter number needs to be subtracted from the prior number, to get the number presumed dead.  
 
So, how many Armenians lived in the Ottoman Empire prior to 1915? There are varying records and numbers. Some of these are: 
 
- Cuinet 1.045.018 (Uras, Esat, a.g.e). 
 
- British Annual Register 1917 1.056.000 (Annual Record of Britannica, 1917) 
(the recorded figure for the Armenian casualties was 600,000 in the 1918 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, while it was specified as 1,5 million in the 1968 edition of such.) 
- Patriarch Nerses Varjabedyan 1.150.000 (Uras, Esat, a.g.e.) 
- The French Yellow Book 1.475.011 (1893-1897 Ermeni Isleri, Paris, 1897 Uras, Esat, a.g.e.) 
- Patriarch Ormanyan 1.579.000 (Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler ve) Ermeni Meselesi, Istanbul 1987 
- German Priest Johannes Lepsius 1.600.000 (Uras, Esat, a.g.e.) 
- The Armenian historian Kevork Aslan 1.800.000 (Aslan, Kevork, Ermenistan ve Ermeniler, Istanbul 1914.) 
- The Armenian historian Basmajian 2.280.000 (Uras, Esat, a.g.e.) 
 
Then, of course, there are the Ottoman archives.  
 
The Ottoman Directorate of Statistics was founded in 1892. The first director was Nuri Bey. From 1892-1897 a Jewish official Fethi Franco took over this post. Between 1897-1903 an Armenian director named Midirgic Sinabyan and from 1903-1908 an American called Mr. Robert ran the department. (Mazici, Nursen, Belgelerle Uluslar arasi Rekabette Ermeni Sorunu, Istanbul 1987.).  
 
As can be seen, the demographic information of the Ottoman Government, were controlled by officials of various ethnic backgrounds and this point helps to establish the reliability of Ottoman documents. As does the fact that these documents, in the words of Prof. Justin McCarthy, “are the sort of solid data that is the basis of all good history. The Ottomans did not write propaganda for today's media. The reports of Ottoman soldiers and officials were not political documents or public relations exercises. They were secret internal reports in which responsible men relayed what they believed to be true to their government. They might sometimes have been mistaken, but they were never liars. There is no record of deliberate deception in Ottoman documents.”  
(http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html) 
 
So how many Armenians did the Ottomans record? 
 
* Ottoman census statistics for 1893 1.001.465 
* Ottoman census statistics for 1906 1.120.748 
* Ottoman census statistics for 1914 1.221.850 
(Karpat, Kemal, H. Ottoman Population 1830-1914 Demographic and Social Characteristic, The University Of Wisconsin Press, 1985 London.) 
 
That is, 1,221,850 Armenian citizens lived within the borders of the Ottoman Empire, nearly all are said to have lived within the borders of what is today known as The Republic of Turkey. 
 
The first population census, of the newly founded Republic of Turkey, was recorded in 1927. The number of Armenians living within the borders of the Republic of Turkey, were about 100,000. (Umumî Nüfus Tahriri (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Ba_vekalet 0statistik Umum Müdürlüü 28 Te_rinievvel 1927) 
 
A document released by the League of Nations states that the number of Armenians in 1922 who originated from Turkey was 817,873 and that “the total given does not include the able-bodied Armenians” who still lived in Turkey. (NARA 867.4016/816). 
 
From this information, we can assume that roughly 917,873 Armenians, previously citizens of the Ottoman Empire, remained alive after the ALLEGED Armenian genocide. 
 
Now, taking the Ottoman census records of 1914 as the number of Armenian’s recorded alive in 1914, LETS DO THE MATHS…  
 
Recorded living Armenians in 1914 = 1,221,850 
–  
Recorded living Armenians post events = 917,873  
Unaccounted for, presumed dead = = 303,977  
 
303,977, whilst being a very large and tragic number of deaths, is a far cry from the claimed 1,500,000! As can be seen from this calculation, 1,500,000 dead, is a clear EXAGERATION to say the least! Particularly given the fact that only 1,221,850 is recorded to have even existed to begin with! 
 
I am not claiming that 303,977 is the true total of Armenian deaths. (Deaths and births and other evidence of numbers of Armenians recorded alive in other parts of the world and also other detail would have to be factored in or out etc. to get the true figure.) What I am stating, is that OBJECTIVE RESEARCH is needed to find the most accurate, the most true figures. Listening to only one side of an argument (a side whose evidence has been proven incorrect time and time again by those who have done the research) and coming to a conclusion based upon hearsay and forged documents and circumstantial evidence is no way for any responsible, conscientious, just, person, group or government to behave. 
 
Thirdly, in the words of Professor Justin McCarthy (11 April 2001, Copyright © Turkish Daily News): 
 
“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.” 
 
‘Ignoring the realities of history’ DEFINITELY ‘won’t make them go away! Before EITHER SIDE tries to ‘ignore the realities of history’, an objective analysis of history must be made and ‘the realities of history’ must be determined as accurately as possible, preferably by historians specialising in the field of Ottoman History and are fluent in the Ottoman language, and other scholars/ professionals most qualified to do so. The archives of Turkey, Armenia, Russia, France, England, America, Greece, Italy, Austria etc., and any other relevant documents must be used to this effect. 
 
“Conformity with international humanitarian conventions and the humanitarian principles of decent humanity.”, for the sake of conformity with, and acceptance by the international community, with the total disregard of, and to the detriment of, truth and justice and all things good, is cowardice, not courage. 
 
Courage involves facing the whole truth, as proven by factual evidence, and accepting these facts, and insisting that these facts be heard by the world at large, irregardless of what penalties this might bring upon you and/or your family by other people, institutions or governments, without expecting any form of reward, other than knowing that truth and justice is served. It is these people I respect and thank. 
 
Dr. Gideon Polya claims, “The state terrorism of Turkey against its Armenian, Greek, Kurdish and Syriac Christian minorities over the last century constituted genocide as defined by Article 2 of the UN Genocide Convention”, whilst providing NO PROOF WHATSOEVER to back up such a serious accusation. 
 
Professor Justin McCarthy’s words address such misguided ideologues: “They have no time for detailed research on historical issues. They have little or no training in the study of history. To them I offer this unsolicited advice: if you cannot do the work necessary to find the truth, say nothing.” 
 
PS: Turkey has no issues with its ethnic Armenian, Kurdish, Greek, Syiac or any other of the 72 minority groups living within its borders. It does have issues with the TERRORIST PKK ( For more information, see http://www.ataa.org/reference/pkk/pkk.html ) and those who take up arms against the people and law of the land and those who behave in a treasonous way. Just as any country on Earth would! 
 
INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!

Guest

Armenian Genocide documentation

After a holocaust (mass killing) or genocide (such as the Armenian Genocide, 1.5 million people killed) nothing can bring back the dead - but acknowledgment of the atrocity can help prevent a repetition. 
 
Genocide denial is wrong and utterly repugnant for 3 major reasons: (1) it is falsehood; (2) it is profoundly offensive to the memory of the victims, survivors of such atrocities, their loved ones and indeed to all of decent humanity; and (3) it increases the probability of repetition of such awful crimes – history ignored and history denied yields history repeated. Indeed it is for these sorts of reasons that Germany (currently in a leadership position in the EU) has controversially proposed a measure that would criminalize not only those who deny or diminish the Holocaust but those belittling ANY genocide, mass murder, war crimes and other crimes against humanity (see Genocide Denial – No-penalty Criminalization Required Now . 
 
For a recent detailed and documented account of the Armenian Genocide and the subsequent sustained Turkish denial of this atrocity that continues to this day [this holocaust denial and genocide denial being supported by racist Zionist-run Apartheid Israel and US racist Zionists] see \"Denial. History Betrayed\" by Professor Tony Taylor (Monash University, Melbourne, Australia)(for a critical review of this very important book on genocide denial that nevertheless ignores major 20th century and 21st century Anglo atrocities see \'Denial. History betrayed\' by Tony Taylor. “Denial” book ignores UK & US genocide crimes ).

http://mwcnews.net/gideon-polya

Guest

JUSTICE DEMANDS PROOF!

I agree that if a holocaust or genocide, can be PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT (such as the Jewish holocaust at the hand of Hitler and his Nazis is), then by all means, it should be remembered and voiced loud and clear for all the world to hear.  
 
If it is not voiced, if it is not remembered, the offenders may later claim that it was themselves who were the victims of genocide, and those ignorant and/or misguided ideologues will no doubt believe them (as the millions of Ottoman Turks, hundreds of thousands of which dead at the hands of Ottoman Armenians may tell you, if they could rise up from their mass graves and speak). http://www.ataa.org/reference/tragedy_dewey.html  
(here is an article by Michael van der Galiën http://mvdg.wordpress.com/2007/11/10/armenian-atrocities-against-muslim-turks/ please read the full texts of the references he provides at the bottom of the article, paying particular attention to the dates of said references) 
 
 
I agree that if and when genocide is PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT (such as the genocide of the Jews by Hitler and his Nazis is), if it is denied, it is ‘profoundly offensive to the memory of the victims, survivors of such atrocities, their loved ones and indeed to all of decent humanity’.  
 
I also believe that if genocide is CLAIMED, when in fact NO GENOCIDE IS PROVEN to have occurred, and quite POSSIBLY NEVER OCCURRED, it is totally offensive to those being accused, particularly if they are long dead and therefore have no way of defending themselves, and may themselves have been the victims of genocide, and to all who are descendants of them, and to ‘all of decent humanity’, particularly those who seek the truth. http://www.ataa.org/reference/1915-carthy.html  
 
I agree that if and when genocide is PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT (such as the genocide of the Jews by Hitler and his Nazis is), if it is not remembered, the risk of repetition may be increased.  
 
Though knowing something of human nature, it would not surprise me if it was totally ignored and/or repeated, particularly by those who have something to gain now and who have previously massacred and seemingly gotten away with it (e.g. Millions of Ottoman Turks killed by Ottoman Armenians seemingly FORGOTTEN, leading to the genocide perpetrated by Armenians in Khojali, which many, but not all, have again conveniently forgotten… http://www.justiceforkhojaly.com/ ), and even by those who were once the victims.  
 
There is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between the holocaust, the genocide of the Jews, and the fate that befell the Armenians. The differnece being; The Jewish Holocaust IS PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT. The Armenian allegations ARE NOT PROVEN WITHOUT A DOUBT. 
 
Dr. Polya again states 1,500,000 Armenian deaths, but cites no sources, NO PROOF. See above for reasons why 1,500,000 can be PROVEN to be a TOTAL EXAGERATION! 
 
Dr. Polya continues to use the word ‘denial’. For a definition of ‘denial’ and why it cannot and should not be used (at least if there is an honest, conscientious intent and effort to find truth, and particularly when no proof of the reliability of the allegations exists) please see posts above.  
 
As stated in previous posts, The Republic of Turkey did not commit any ALLEGED Armenian genocide as it was not even established at the time the allegations are purported to have occurred. The Republic of Turkey, and its people, do not ‘deny’ any genocide purported to have been committed by the Ottomans, as it has NEVER BEEN PROVEN to have occurred in the first place. The republic of Turkey has opened its archives and has time and time again made calls for detailed joint research to be carried out, to find the closest thing to the truth regarding events in 1915, the results of which it is willing to accept.  
 
I believe that making it an offence to state ‘It did not happen’, is offensive in itself. It is offensive as what appears to be truth at one stage, can be proven to be untrue at another. To make it a crime to speak for or against, would be to forbid the topic from being researched fully, and forbid the closest thing to truth from ever being known. That would be an injustice to all.  
 
If one has nothing to hide, and can prove their allegations unequivocally, then there is no need to criminalize the thoughts and ideas and vocalisations of others. The truth, the evidence, will speak for itself…sooner or later… if you dare to allow it. 
 
Forbidding the voicing of thoughts yourself, when it suits your own purposes, yet condemning the silencing of words by others, again when it suits your own purposes, is total hypocrisy in action. It seems westerners, supposedly in the ‘developed world’, are getting better and better at this. As can be seen by the example and link given by Dr. Polya.  
 
I have not read Professor Tony Taylor’s book and therefore do not know where his ‘documentation’ comes from. I’m just guessing, but I think it would probably be safe to say that Prof. Taylor most likely did not delve into the Turkish archives which are available to researches. I’m guessing he did not delve into Armenian archives, as last I heard, they were not open. I’m guessing he did not delve into the archives of third countries such as England, Russia, France, America, Italy, Greece etc. either.  
 
I’m guessing Prof. Taylor mistook propaganda and circumstantial evidence and hearsay and forged documents, for evidence. I’m guessing he was one of those ideologues Professor McCarthy was referring to when he said “A proper historian first searches for evidence, then makes up his mind. An ideologue first makes up his mind, then looks for evidence.” (http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/Armenia/justin.html)  
 
I am open to being proven wrong. I may be mistaken, but I doubt it…  
 
Here is a quote, which aptly describes Armenians and their apologists who work fervently to have their claims of genocide accepted by the wider world, without fair research, without fair debate and without fair trial. It is said to be of biblical origin and coming from Jesus: 
 
"Let them alone; they are blind leaders of the blind. And if a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall in a pit." 
 
For justice to be served, CHOOSE TRUTH OVER PROPAGANDA!

Guest