[Kona_Silat]

Muslims committed atrocities too. In Indonesia they raped and pilage the Chinese. 9-11 is another atrocity by Muslims.

[albano]

Originally Posted by Kona_Silat

Muslims committed atrocities too. In Indonesia they raped and pilage the Chinese. 9-11 is another atrocity by Muslims.

I don't know about Indonesia but I know 9/11 is fake. Too many details not to beleive muslims did 9/11.

[wheelworks]

Originally Posted by MuslimahDaTurkish

They have plans, but Allah is the best of planners. InshaAllah.

uhh you can't say InshaAllah after a fact about Allah

[Revert]

Originally Posted by Kona_Silat

Muslims committed atrocities too. In Indonesia they raped and pilage the Chinese. 9-11 is another atrocity by Muslims.

Muslims commit atrocities in the Middle east too...every group has idiots in it.

[Variable]

Originally Posted by Arabesque

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.

So goes the Turkish side of the debate. But those weren't random killings on Turkey's part, it was an organized forced relocation. It's acknowledged that massacres were conducted against the Turkish population by the Armenians, but the disproportionate number of casualties on the Armenian side raises doubts on the Turkish claims.

I'm not going to pretend to be well-read enough on the topic to know who's estimate is most accurate, but point to it as a reason for the continued debate.

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.

They helped the Muslim segments of the population fight the Ottomans too. They were intervening in Ottoman affairs because they were at war with them.

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".

Again, though I admit I don't have a thorough understanding of the structure of the Ottoman government at the time, it would seem to me that the Sultan wasn't the key player in this. Instead the nationalistic government based around the Young Turks movement was calling the shots. This combined with legislation regarding the forced relocation, and seizure of Armenian property is enough to show that it wasn't simply the military getting carried away.

The debate I've always thought arose from whether or not the Turks knew that their actions would have the effect they did. Armenians point to the fact that no measures were taken to limit action by the armed forces or provide any sort of support necessary for their survival once they were evicted and their property was confiscated. According to them, the scale of the atrocity is enough to satisfy the condition for 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.

Dropping the atomic bombs on those cities wasn't genocide. Neither was Dresden. They weren't trying to wipe out the Germans or Japanese as a people, niether in whole nor in part. They were trying to win a war, a total war unique to the planet's experience. There are plenty of debates on the morality of strategic bombing during the Second World War, but it's separate from this one. They don't fit the profile for genocide... not in any definition I've scene.

On the contrary... Albano... you are arguing that what happened to the Armenians wasn't genocide and then immediately describe these strategic bombing campaigns, and sanctions as genocides. I'm questioning which definition of the term you are using; because if it's cast as loosely as this, then what was committed against the Armenians certainly fits the bill.

It's not like they were ethnically-cleansed or anything.

Based on many of the casualty estimates out there, it could be said that a sizeable portion of the Armenian population was killed, on account of them being Armenian.

[MossadConspiracy]

The Armenians certainly were victims of very serious atrocities which resulted in many hundreds of thousands of them being murdered and many more being expelled. The question is whether this was planned with the intent to get rid of the Armenians from Turkey (making it genocide) or whether it just happened making it a series of large scale atrocities against them but not genocide. Scholarship on the matter seems to indicate that it was the former, but does it really make a difference whether the Turks committed outright genocide against the Armenians or whether they simply massacred hundreds of thousands of them in a series of crimes against humanity?

[Arabesque]

Originally Posted by Variable

I'm not going to pretend to be well-read enough on the topic ...

Obviously.

They helped the Muslim segments of the population fight the Ottomans too. They were intervening in Ottoman affairs because they were at war with them.

There's a difference. They did not intervene to protect the rights of other Muslims (the Arabs), but instigated the Arabs against the Turks and helped promote Arab nationalism. They weren't really helping. They were looking out for their interests. It's probably the same with the Greeks and Armenians, except religion was involved. Or at least it was used as an excuse to intervene.

Again, though I admit I don't have a thorough understanding of the structure of the Ottoman government at the time, it would seem to me that the Sultan wasn't the key player in this. Instead the nationalistic government based around the Young Turks movement was calling the shots. This combined with legislation regarding the forced relocation, and seizure of Armenian property is enough to show that it wasn't simply the military getting carried away.

Interesting. So if you believe that the Young Turks were the ones in control, why do you call it an Ottoman/Turkish massacre against the Armenians? If the Sultan had no power over what was happening then, what makes it a state-crime against a minority group? Do you even know that the Young Turks Revolution was supported by the Armenians?

FYI - Muslims were displaced from areas to be later occupied by Armenians. After the Russian-Turkish war in 1915, more than a million Muslim were expelled from the conquered areas only to have Armenians come and settle themselves in.

In 1918, in fact, Armenians committed horrendous massacres against the Muslims of Erzerum. Even those Armenians who began the rebellion documented the Turkish losses, taking pride in not having lost as many as the Turks have. And no, they weren't targeting soldiers only.

Worst of all was the fact that they joined the Russian army to fight against the Ottoman state. That was an act of treason.

The debate I've always thought arose from whether or not the Turks knew that their actions would have the effect they did. Armenians point to the fact that no measures were taken to limit action by the armed forces or provide any sort of support necessary for their survival once they were evicted and their property was confiscated. According to them, the scale of the atrocity is enough to satisfy the condition for genocide.

Well, they'd better produce solid evidence then. Ottoman archives exist, as well as Armenian archives, but the latter is not open to inspection. The massacres against Muslims have been well documented by the Ottomans, and in some reports, the numbers are said to have been half a million. With the Armenians, you'll hear a lot about oral history and how someone's grandma was an authority because she lived through it. I think serious scholarship requires more than just undocumented oral history to prove an incident had in fact occurred in history. Right?

"According to them" is not enough to convince me. I'm not denying the Armenian suffering. I'm sure many Armenians were subjected to indiscriminate killings by the Turkish forces. I still maintain that these killings would be best described as massacres, not genocide. Armenian archives (and those of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation) are still inaccessible, which doesn't help their case. Or maybe it does, if they're trying to hide something.

I think I need to emphasise that I am not trying to take sides here. The brutality of Turkish troops wouldn't surprise me, as it was experienced first hand in Syria. But there are no claims of massacres there.

Dropping the atomic bombs on those cities wasn't genocide. Neither was Dresden. They weren't trying to wipe out the Germans or Japanese as a people, niether in whole nor in part. They were trying to win a war, a total war unique to the planet's experience. There are plenty of debates on the morality of strategic bombing during the Second World War, but it's separate from this one. They don't fit the profile for genocide... not in any definition I've scene.

Did the dropping of the bombs not result in the annihilation of a huge number of people? But they were not wiped out, right? What's the difference here? You want to call the killing of Armenians a massacre; then by all means ... There are Armenians living in Turkey today. One author who wrote an extensive report about Armenians in Turkey (in 2002) estimated their number to be 40,000. That, in addition to the fact that Armenia is an independent country today, shows that it could not have been a genocide or an attempt to systematically exterminate the Armenians.

Based on many of the casualty estimates out there, it could be said that a sizeable portion of the Armenian population was killed, on account of them being Armenian.

Casualty estimates recorded where, when and how? The archives are closed, so your information is based on what? They weren't killed for being Armenians; they were killed for being rebels, who employed violent (and I dare say terrorist) means and collaborated with the enemies (the allies at that time) against their country of "citizenship". You can choose to ignore the fact that they had fired the first shot, but that won't change facts.

[albano]

There was genocide committed in Bosnia by Serbians of Ex-Yugoslavia(Serbia+Bosnian serbs). Last year they came tp conclusion that Serbia didn't commit genocide. So why Serbia was sanctioned during that period? Because Serbia was involved in the war. Isn't this a paradox. In Bosnia they really tried to kill all muslims they could but at the end they didn't call it genocide. If anybody has proof that Ottoman Empire tried to wipe out Armenians let see it.

[psychoteddybear]

Originally Posted by albano

Good reminder. Russian people commited genocides against caucasian people. Last one is against Chechnya.
By the way. There is Circassians all around the world. Even in Balkans there is villages or last names 'Cerkez'-Circassian. In Ottoman Empire there were vezirs with Circassian origin. Another thing is that everybody talks about Circassian Women. They say they are very beautiful

Yes, it's a stereotype for us :P

and sadly, yes, they are dispersed all over. just like now chechens are throughout europe for the past 20 years... so sad.

[ShiaHazara]

Originally Posted by albano

I don't know about Indonesia but I know 9/11 is fake. Too many details not to beleive muslims did 9/11.

indonesia:

Beheaded girls were Ramadan 'trophies' | The Australian

as for 9/11,

YouTube - Killing of Non-Muslims is Legitimate (British Mullah)

watch that video of a muslim supporting 9/11 from england.

[ShiaHazara]

as for proof, i do recall that Robert Fisk (a man that is constantly referenced on here) has been a staunch advocate of the recognition of the genocide.

Turks need to get over it and admit their faults. they also murdered hundreds of thousands of assyrians and greeks as well, but hey, they're christian, they're worthless, right?

[ShiaHazara]

And since we are on the topic of the Caucasus, here's some good stuff:

Who Is Killing the Non-Muslims in Ingushetia?

By Andrei Smirnov

There has been a recent upsurge in the murders of non-Muslim residents in Ingushetia. On September 11, a Gypsy family was killed in the village of Sleptsovskaya (Ordzhonikidzevskaya). Four days earlier, a Korean family in the village was shot dead by masked gunmen.

These brutal night killings are something new for the troubled region. Last year and particularly this summer, there were several night raids on private houses of ethnic Russians in Ingushetia. But other non-Muslim ethnic groups have never been targeted.

More than a dozen ethnic Russians have been killed in Ingushetia during the past two years. An ethnic Russian woman, Natalya Mudarova, who was the chief physician at a blood transfusion center in Nazran and the wife of a Chechen, was the latest victim. She was shot dead in Nazran in broad daylight. Russian officials have no doubts that this terror campaign against Russians is being conducted by rebel gunmen. Nikolai Kovalev, the former Federal Security Service (FSB) director who is now a State Duma deputy, said: “I think that Chechen militants who want neighboring Ingushetia to be drawn into the bloodshed and to take a more active position in opposing the federal center are behind this” (Izvestia, September 10).

The article published on September 10 in the Kremlin-controlled Izvestia newspaper stated that the main goal of the killing of Russians in Ingushetia is to force them to leave the North Caucasus. Indeed, after the demonstrative murder in August of the husband and two sons of Vera Draganchuk, many Russians started to look for ways to leave Ingushetia. On September 1, Vremya novostei reported that neighbors of the Draganchuks had loaded their belongings onto a truck and left the next day after the murder of Vera’s family.

The suggestion that the rebels are killing ethnic Russians in order to force them from Ingushetia and to ruin plans of the authorities to settle more Russians in the Caucasus looks natural. Early last year, on January 9, the rebel Kavkaz-Center website published an interview with the Chechen warlord and then-commander of the North Caucasus rebel forces Shamil Basaev who said that it had been decided at a meeting of the Caucasian rebel field commanders “to eliminate the colonists across the entire Caucasus who collaborate with the Russian occupation forces.” That same year, two Ingush officials in charge of the program to entice Russians to return to the republic were targeted. Magomed Chakhkiev, a deputy to the parliament of Ingushetia and the father-in-law of Ingush President Murat Zyazikov, was kidnapped, while Galina Gubina, deputy head of the Sunzha district administration, was shot dead.

This year, a new wave of murders of ethnic Russians in Ingushetia began almost simultaneously with rebel attacks on police and Russian army facilities in the republic. What is strange is how the Russian media, usually under the firm control of the Kremlin, especially with regard to the topic of the Caucasus, has been covering the recent rise of violence in the republic. This summer, almost all newspapers and TV channels focused on the murders of the Russians, while much more serious events such as attacks on military garrisons were barely mentioned. When an additional 2,500 troops were sent to Ingushetia, the reason given for the troop increase was the rise in crime and attacks on Russians in the republic. It looked as if the Russian authorities had an interest in the attacks on Russians. The murders of Russians could be used for propaganda purposes since they helped shift public attention away from the serious rebel operations, which demonstrated the weakness of the Russian police and military forces and at the same time allowed the insurgents to be described as brutal inhumane criminals.

On September 3, the rebel Daymohk website posted a statement by the Ingush insurgents declaring that “we (the militants) do not distinguish people by ethnic origin and if people live quietly and do not take part in the struggle against Islam and Muslims, we do not have anything against them.” The rebels declared in the statement that the bomb that detonated during the funeral of Lyudmila Terekhina, a Russian teacher killed by masked armed men, was planted by Russian intelligence. They pointed to the fact that the explosion was filmed live by a journalist from the state-owned ORT TV channel. The rebels appealed to Russians by saying that their sons were sent to the Caucasus to die by the authorities who defend the interests of a small group, but not those of the Russian nation.

The murders of Russians continued and expanded in Ingushetia despite the statement by the rebels. After the murder of the Korean and Gypsy families, it was possible to talk about a demonstrative terror campaign against not only Russians, but all non-Muslim residents of Ingushetia. It is becoming more and more difficult to say who really has an interest in such killings.

psycho, any comment on this?

Chechnya Weekly from the Jamestown Foundation

[ShiaHazara]

Originally Posted by psychoteddybear

Yes, it's a stereotype for us :P

and sadly, yes, they are dispersed all over. just like now chechens are throughout europe for the past 20 years... so sad.

i find it ironic that you of all people hold serious disdain against armenians.

Armenians lived peacefully with Iranians for centuries, and were welcomed with open arms by Muslims in the Levant. in addition, armenians in general have always been sympathetic to palestine and have been staunchly pro-palestine. they even paid a price during the civil war in lebanon for refusing to side with the pro-israeli militias.