Quote:
Originally Posted by Variable
If sanctions against Iraq are to be considered genocide, then what the Turks did to the Armenians would certainly fit some sort of profile for it.
|
Not to justify the massacres against the Armenians, but the fact that these random killings were a reaction to what the Armenians had done to the Muslim population in these areas tends to get glossed over by Armenian rhetoric. Yes, massacres happened. On both sides.
The European powers, and especially England and Russia wanted to intervene in the internal affairs of the Ottoman Empire and used the non-Muslim millets as an excuse. They wanted to supposedly protect and promote the rights of their co-religionists (namely the Armenians and Greeks), and mistakenly gave them a sense of empowerment. Because of that misleading assumption that they'll have their backs covered, the Armenians engaged in the random killing and displacement of their Muslim neighbours. Mosques were desecrated, and women were raped, too.
Sultan Abdulhamid II sent the army "to curb down rebellion." He did not order the killing of Armenians. He totally considered them Ottoman citizens and they had already gained so much rights unknown to them and other millets before the Sultan's reign. The fact that the army went overboard in trying to control the rebellion is what makes this a debatable question of "massacre" or "genocide".
If you don't think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasai was an act of genocide, then I don't see why the Armenian massacres should be referred to as such. It's not like they were ethnically-cleansed or anything. They were given a chance to leave ... more like driven out, I know, but still. Many escaped. The unfortunate ones didn't. But then, even the innocent Muslims who were subjected to Armenian terror didn't completely escape it.