Dear Editor,
Another year, another substance-less Armenian Genocide-related controversy. This time France is criminalizing the denial of the Armenian Genocide, making it punishable with imprisonment as well as hefty fines.
I will not elaborate long on the background information; I assume those are pretty well known.
Voltaire once said, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” Robert Kennedy once suggested changing the First Amendment of the Constitution to have it read, “The greatest of these [freedoms] is speech.”
Unless speech is meant to incite violence, there are absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting it. None at all. The benefits of banning speech will never be equal to the harm of having a silent society. Have we suddenly forgotten that line of the First Amendment that we hold so dear—the one referring to Congress making no laws abridging the freedom of speech—when the issue at hand deals with us, with our personal/collective histories?
There has been the stench of hypocrisy in the air regarding this issue. When Hrant Dink was killed, we all jumped on Turkey, condemning the fact that the government, with its constant prosecution of Dink thanks to laws that curtail freedom of speech, was ultimately responsible for the murder. We condemned a so-called progressive country for trying to join the European Union while allowing its citizens to be killed for expressing opinions. And now, France, a member of that same dysfunctional group called the European Union, is emulating Turkey. Yes, there are no ifs or buts about this. The law in France is not there to prevent future genocides. The law in France is there to punish Turkey (don’t underestimate the anti-Muslim bias of many Europeans), and to curtail the freedom of speech in a free country.
In addition, it is ridiculous in the sense that the law could only lead to the opposite of what it intends to do. Does anyone actually believe that making a conversation taboo will decrease the incidence of that conversation? We all know that what is not allowed is even more attractive, or that, at least, just by disallowing something, one certainly can’t kill an idea. Whatever the quality of that idea, it will never be killed by a ban. Ever. It will fester, it will infect, it will invade the minds of those who never thought of it. In fact, banning an idea will give it a new shine, a new attractiveness to certain people.
Although I am an Armenian, if such a law were to be enacted in the United States I would fight against it, because the fact that I’m a free human being is more important to be than being Armenian. Because the idea that a government can tell me what to say or what not to say makes me angry, makes me rebel against the whole concept, makes me lose a bit of hope in humanity. I can say whatever I want. A Turk can say whatever he wants. A Frenchman can say whatever he wants. The worst way of trying to make the Armenian Genocide a part of history is by criminalizing its denial.
And by the way, before anyone asks, yes, I feel the same way about the Jewish Holocaust. I am glad, in a sense, that I do not live in European countries where the denial of the Holocaust is a crime. I would never, in a million years, deny it or listen to someone denying it, but I will vigilantly guard that freedom, even if unused.
Freedom—the only real condition for happiness—should never be curtailed unless it impinges on someone else’s freedoms and rights. I simply do not understand how the same Armenian leaders and writers who constantly chant freedom suddenly feel like the freedom to say whatever you want is unimportant. So, in the spirit of that great luminary Voltaire, to anyone who denies the Armenian Genocide, I say, I disagree with you, but I will protect your right to say such ridiculous things.
Simon Beugekian
Boston, Mass.
Guest Contributor
Latest posts by Guest Contributor (see all)
- ANC of Illinois hosts commemorative events throughout April 24 week - May 1, 2024
- USC Libraries celebrate major new book collection on Armenian Genocide - May 1, 2024
- Hakan Seckinelgin’s new book “The Armenian Genocide and Turkey: Public Memory and Institutionalized Denial” published - April 30, 2024
I agree with the substance of the article. However, if a country already has a law against denying the Holocaust, then it is only fair that that same law be applied to other genocides. France already had a law on the books making it illegal to say the Holocaust is a myth. That is the key piece you are missing.
I agree with him, whish there will be more of this …..
AR,
The other key piece to consider is that the Holocaust also occurred in France. The Armenian genocide did not. And there is no anti-denial law in the US, although there are anti-hate laws
France itself, the government that was recognized did not partake in the Holocaust, and there were no camps in France.
France was involved in the Armenian Genocide, indirectly. They were fighting the side responsible for the genocide, the Ottoman Empire, and they gave shelter to the survivors of the Genocide. Moreover, France handed Cilicia back to the Turks in the early 20s and we saw pogroms against the remaining Armenians.
Well said Avery. It is easy to speak of freedom of speech when you are in a civilized country with civilized people. It is another issue when you consider that the people and culture we are talking about have no qualms about bashing your face in if you insult them, regardless of how minor the offense may be.
I happen not to agree on grounds that denying what happened to my great grand-parents does incite violence in me. I get angry. And why shouldn’t I? I am not going to go into what I particularly know about the fate that befell my ancestors but if a person were to seriously deny this to my face I would be unable to talk through it and would bash him in his face.
Is this concept hard to accept? There are thoughts that ought to not be expressed when it comes to denying history, or say praising a violent act that was committed, or say spreading falsehoods about someones spouse/parents/kids and so on… These examples fall outside of the narrow exception you allow: “speech meant to incite violence”.
Denying killing my great grandfather’s 8 brothers 1 sister and their father by burning them alive in a barn incites violence in me. I would take it as a great personal insult if someone were to refuse truths that have been passed down to me by my grandmother who in turn heard it from her father who in turn was an eye witness.
Only fools get confused about the limits of their privileges and speech is both a right and a privilege. The nuance is for an intelligent man to interpret properly.
I get your point Simon and sympathize with your views, but AR is right. France’s proposed new law is consistent with its Holocaust denial law. I wish it wasn’t necessary to take such actions, but without it the genocide denial industry proceeds unfettered to manufacture lies and distortions that hurt not only Armenians but all humanity. I think even Voltaire would take pause to consider the words of another great mind, Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.”
Genocide denial for the sake of avoiding responsibility or protecting national pride is more than just ‘ridiculous.’ It is an evil that has been shown to beget similar evil. Should we do nothing?
Simon Beugekian:
As AR noted, where just as concerned when France passed laws criminalizing JH Denial ? Or you remember the great luminary Voltaire only when it comes to the AG ?
Mr. Beugekian, were you in Artsakh when AzeriTurks, who have joined the Turks in the AG Denial campaign and militarily supported by Turks, were attempting to exterminate your Armenian brothers and sisters ? Was Voltaire there ?
Were you in Sumgait with a copy of Voltaire’s writings as Azeri mobs were gang-raping Armenian women and massacring unarmed Armenian civilians ?
You sit safe and comfortable in Boston and dispense advice to Armenians who face an existential threat from Azerbaijan and Turkey.
When Japan attacked US, it killed less than 3,000 American in uniform.
In response to the unprovoked attack, US vaporized two Japanese cities.
After 9/11, when 3,000 Americans were murdered, the US Constitution was practically suspended (Patriot Act).
Today, POTUS can have you arrested and sent to Guantanamo on his word alone: you will disappear without a trace with no access to lawyers: all it takes is the he/she declare you a ‘terrorist’.
So stop preaching us about the French law, and devote you energies to make sure the remaining Armenians in the world do not become the Dodo Bird.
And before you concern yourself with Voltaire and France, try to publicly state that the Jewish Holocaust is a hoax: see what happens to you in Boston.
(Hint: David Duke)
“Today, POTUS can have you arrested and sent to Guantanamo on his word alone: you will disappear without a trace with no access to lawyers: all it takes is the he/she declare you a ‘terrorist’.”
I am a little confused as to what point you are trying to make. Are you arguing that calling out France is pointless because even the freest of countries like the US have limitations to freedom and freedom of speech?
When Japan attacked US, it killed less than 3,000 American in uniform.
In response to the unprovoked attack, US vaporized two Japanese cities.
And here. I didn’t quite understand the connection you were making with France’s bill and Armenian Genocide.
And… “You sit safe and comfortable in Boston and dispense advice to Armenians who face an existential threat from Azerbaijan and Turkey.”
You live in the US, no? Are you also not dispensing advice to Armenians from a safe distance even though your message is for Armenians to defend themselves against a constant threat?
Yes, I do live in the US. And yes I do dispense advice from a safe distance.
(I do a lot more than dispense advice, BTW)
If you are not able to see the difference between my advice and that of Simon Beugekian, then it will be a waste my valuable time to try.
I told you this before, RVDV: you are too intelligent to pretend you do not see the difference. So obviously your post has an ulterior motive. And you are intelligent enough to know I am intelligence enough to pickup on it. Like I said, you need to be on the level.
Dear Simon
Genocide is a universal crime and its denial is part of that crime – it’s the last stage and the first stage of the next genocide. Genocide denial has meant that Armenians have continued to suffer in Turkey since the First World War. Denial means that Turkey can blockade Armenia and cause financial pain to the descendants of the victims of genocide. Denial means that Turkey can support Azeri Turks to massacre Armenians in Karabakh, Sumgait, Baku etc. Denial means that Armenian heritage can continue to be destroyed and the world does nothing about it. Genocide denial means that tomorrow’s genocide in _____ will not be prevented.
In America, one is free to drive but not free to speed because speeding is recognised as causing injury. One is allowed to advertise but not to use ‘misleading and deceptive advertising’. We have many laws in society that curb our rights for the good of society. Genocide incorporates death, it represents suffering, it represents slavery – all on a massive scale.
Criminalising genocide denial is the lesser of the evil. France has shown that it recognises the many facets of the crime of genocide, that it’s not simply an act of killing but an intellectual crime which has a component called denial which needs to be curbed for the betterment of humanity. If Turkey comes to terms with the genocide, than there would not be any need for such a law.
The denial of Genocide functions in this instance to incite to violence — it is not only a sanction for denied violence on a mass scale, but it it a continuation of the cover up that genocide needs in order to succeed. Those who viciously deny the fact of the Armenian Genocide do so with an agenda — they come from a place where Hrant Dink was assassinated for trying to be both a proud Turk and a proud Armenian, and this was too much. It is in its deepest sense an incitement to violence, the necessary cover-up for violent racist practices. This is why the denial needs to be criminalized, whether we are talking about Neo-Nazis or Grey Wolves.
I completely DISAGREE with this author and I DO NOT UNDERSTAD WHY THIS TYPES OF articles are being published in such a journal as AG, now, when the French Senate had done such a tremendous job in establishing THE justice The author must be using other media for posting his”free-style” and ”hard-to-dispell’ viewpoints.
Armenian Weekly, by publishing this article, is presenting both sides of the criminalization bill argument. Things like this are what make it a legitimate and credible news outlet.
I could comment almost on every sentence of Beujekian’s article. Since that would take too many words and time, I will comment only on a couple of items.
1. Voltaire never said what Mr. Beujikian twice claimed that the French writer had said. The quote was written by one of Voltaire’s biographers. It’s absolute phony. So please don’t drag Voltaire’s authority to buttress your argument..
2. I wouldn’t quote Robert Kennedy as an authority on freedom of speech. We know only too well how he operated. People, unaware of the man’s opportunistic and corrupt ways, might have given him some credence to him in the ’60s. Not now.
3. “Unless speech is meant to incite violence, there’s absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting it,” you say. Although I would argue with that assertion, I would point out that the denial of genocide is an incitement not only to violence but also to future genocides. As genocide scholars agree, denial is the last stage of genocide. Denial says you can get away with it… that genocide can vanish into “he said this” and “she said that” mire.
4. The French bill doesn’t silence society. It says people can’t PUBLICLY deny genocides–Armenian, Rwandan, Jewish, Cambodian. They may do so in the privacy of their home but not in the media or at public gatherings. Turks in France can continue to deny the Genocide of Armenians in the privacy of their homes as often as they wish, but doing so in public is now banned. A minor inconvenience for their bloody hands.
5. You call the European Union “dysfunctional.” The EU has been an effective, progressive and humane organization much more than the United States. It’s unbecoming of Americans to gloat over the recent financial problems of EU. I am sure European nations will overcome their current problems and make sure their continent doesn’t imitate the American model of 99:1 ratio of inequality.
6. “Freedom–only real condition for happiness,” you say. This is a highly debatable assertion. If you were correct billions of Chinese, Indians, Indonesians, Mexicans…in fact most of the world must be living in misery day in day out.. By the way, happiness–a naive and childish concept much marketed by Americans–is wishful thinking. Lucky people experience instances of joy but no happiness–a long-term, almost permanent psychic state.
I had great difficulty segregating facts from opinions as expressed in this letter, especially since the use of adjectives there seemed rather exagerated and uncalled for : dysfunctional E.U. , hypocrisy etc. etc. Quoting Voltaire has been fashionable in recent weeks … A lot of people do so without realizing that this is apocryphal, meaning it is a statement of doubtful authenticity , although widely circulated as being true. In fact this phrase was created in 1906 by a British writer named Evelyne Beatrice Hall in her book titled ” the Friends of Voltaire” and is nowehere found in Voltaire’s writings.If these were there for effect, then where is the substance ? In fact where is the beef?
If the writer had followed the debate in the French Senate, which I did, he would have discovered that nowhere in the proposed text mention was made of the Armenian Genocide, and that the proposed law was meant to stop ALL negations of genocides. The Armenian Genocide was there by inference only, France having officially recognised the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide.So the law applies to these genocides and any other genocide that France will or may recognize. French Minister Patrick Ollier, and other speakers, repeatedly emphasized this important point.
The issue of the “freedom of expression” is an artificial argument that Turkey inserted in the debate from the very beginning of its offensive against this measure striking, I must admit, a sensitive cord in one segment of the society. But then you must credit the French with the same attachment to freedom of expression as other western democracies profess. In fact , since 1990 when the Gayssot Law was passed in France against Holocaust denial, not a single case has been brought againsy this measure as restricting freedom of expression. As always the courts are there to settle such issues and so far no one has heard anything to the contrary. You can rest assured that the French people , the press, their elected representatives can take care of themselves , the same way Switzerland and Slovakia who have passed similar measures are handling their side of civil liberties.
Raising issues should be based on facts , not on second hand opinions.
Hi,
As the person behind the article, I’d just like to make ONE point. This is not a response to anyone. The responses on this page are not, to be honest, challenging my arguments, rather, they’re challenging my quotations and my “naive” assertions. Nobody is actually debating the argument behind it, as in, should personal freedoms outweigh whatever social “good” comes of this.
But my one point is, I bet the same people here who call freedom of speech a naive and childish concept, or the idea that freedom is the condition of happiness a childish concept, PROBABLY USED THE SAME ARGUMENTS I AM USING WHEN HRANT DINK DIED – that Turkey is a place where freedom of speech is curtailed, etc, etc.. The same people who hold those ARF maxims about freedom to the heart.
It is this HYPOCRISY that must be terminated.
I disagree with you Simon. I think several of the commentators presented ideas defending the spirit of the French bill and reasons to support it, not merely an argument against your quote of Voltaire. Please re-read these and you may see that no one disputes the virtue of freedom of speech, or argues that you are wrong in suggesting that there is some hypocrisy at play (given a black and white interpretation of the concept). To me, the defense of the bill comes from a more nuanced understanding of freedom of speech and parameters for its occasional limitation in service of a greater good. As in many things in the life, the gray area may make things more complicated but it makes for a deeper appreciation for the concept in question.
Simon, you began your arguments with this statement:
Unless speech is meant to incite violence, there are absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting it.
I believe my comment directly challenged this assertion, on which seems to hinge the whole argument about “free speech.”
PS I mean to say my response challenged the assertion that genocide denial is not meant to incite violence
Dear Mr.Simon
after 32 years in America,I dont really feel or experiance freedom of speech,what freedom of speech are you talking about? or are you just talking about the law?
are you capable of asking a question or holding a conversation with Obama?
you are living in a fantasy.but when turks use freedom of speech to insult the momory of my relatives whom are deceased and insult me,thats when you lost your argument.
Is yelling “fire” in a crowded theater a right of speech? of course not. “Free Speech” comes with responsibilities..The denial of Genocide will and does make history repeat itself. And for the same reasons if these laws stop humanity from mass murder then I believe there are exceptions to any free speech rules within a free society.
It pains me to see that the hard work and the stupendous result achieved by the joint efforts of Armenian organizations in France is being overshadowed by the byzantine discussion of a topic that was skillfully planted by Turkish lobbyist efforts internationally and subsequently swallowed hook,line and sinker by some here,as this discussion shows. Frankly, the issue of restricting freedom of expression was never the intention of the measure but was designed rather as a means to combat negationism, particularly the type of negationism that hired “provocateurs” seize upon to spread their hatred and disrespect towards the memory of the just. Switzerland in fact had to fine and threaten with imprisonment on March 15, 2007 a Turkish national named Dogu Perincek who had dared authorities there to try him for challenging the veracity of the Armenian Genocide as recognized by the Swiss Parliament in a law enacted in December of 2003. The provision of the law were crystal clear and Perincek defied the law in full cognizance of its provisions and consequences while on Swiss soil. Therefore the French measure has nothing to do with limiting freedom of expression but more with stopping this type of hate speech that disturbs societal peace and order. All the noise that the Turkish authorities are making serve only one purpose and one purpose only: to stop all possible references to the Armenian Genocide from gaining further international traction in anticipation of the Tsunami they anticipate with regard to the 100th anniversary of the 1915 events. Who is therefore limiting freedom of expression – Armenians in France and the diaspora intent on seeking justice for atrocities committed against our nation or Turkish authorities who are trying to muzzle all possible references to this Genocide?
“It pains me to see that the hard work and the stupendous result achieved by the joint efforts of Armenian organizations in France is being overshadowed by the byzantine ”
Right Hamasdegh.
I am furious that the countless hours spent by Armenian organizations and volunteers to add a powerful layer of security and safety to our vulnerable Artsakh and Armenia brethren – is being so cavalierly dismissed by Mr. Beugekian.
My Dad used to say that many Armenians are: Պապեն ավելի պապական.
It is the residue of having been subjugated for so long.
Of having been a second class gyavur for generations.
There is the desire to show your masters that you are a loyal servant.
The adoption of French Senate Genocide Denial Bill is a political maneuver more than anything, executed by France in an attempt adding an extra block on the wall to keep Turkey out of EU. There is a possibility that France will try to promote a similar resolution in EU which will make it impossible for Turkey to join EU at any time soon. I don’t think that French people in general have lost their sleep or appetite over the denial of AG.
Also, we need to take into consideration the current geopolitical situation in the Middle East and North Africa where France and Turkey are competing over leadership and the natural resources. Nevertheless, I respect the courageous decision by the French displaying leadership in Europe, where as in ME most of Arab countries had succumbed to Turkish pressure.
Noble ideas and principles like freedom of speech, human right, Democracy and so on are modern tools that are being used by regional players to create suitable conditions to push forward their national agendas. So, as much as it sounds noble not be a “hypocrite”, in the political arena there is no place for ethics and morals.
Dear Simon,
Since you do suggest that hypocrisy must be terminated, then I would like you to take a look at the hypocrisy and suppression of freedom of speech in Turkey and maybe it will inspire you to write an article about it before attacking your own kind.
“Our neighbors and friends in the region should take their people’s wishes into consideration,” said Davutoglu. “Turkey is a democracy and everyone has the right to meet and discuss things here. This should not be construed as meddling in someone else’s internal affairs,” said Davutoglu, referring to a meeting in Istanbul by some Syrian opposition figures.
• The Turkish representative for U.S.-based Human Rights Watch, Emma Sinclair Webb, says the latest detentions are part of a worrying trend.
“The arrests represent a further clampdown on dissenting critical voices in Turkey,” said Webb. “This has become a pattern, of the last few months. It has intensified since the general election. The trouble with Turkey’s terrorism laws is that [they are] so widely drawn and vague that any of us can find ourselves suspect in terrorism investigation.”
But Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan defends the ongoing probe, even making a thinly veiled threat against its critics, saying they should question their motives.
• Former Turkish ambassador and teacher of international relations at Kultur University, Murat Bilhan, says the journalist detentions and the resulting intimidation in the wider society is a worrying sign about what direction Turkey is heading. He says the removal of democratic checks on the government could have major regional repercussions.
“Turkey is changing to a civilian dictatorship now,” said Bilhan. “If this continues like that, our allies and partners will feel [it] to their bones. Maybe hostile Turkey, more ‘Arabized’ Turkey, Turkey changing its identity.”
• Dr. Ahmed Uysal, General Coordinator of the Congress of Arab-Turkish Social Sciences announced: “Relations between Egypt and Turkey improved considerably after the Revolution succeeded in overthrowing the previous regime, stressing that Egypt gives freedom to all other religions of non-Muslims, while Turkey does not provide such freedoms to the communists, adding that Egypt does not need to take the Turkish model”. Dr. Ahmed continued, “Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey restricts freedom of media and imprisoned many media members after newspapers published cartoons portraying Erdogan having Islamic background but claiming to be secular”.
• Turkish Ambassador in Lebanon, Annan Ozheldez claimed that “Turkey’s policy toward Syria has not changed and that the mutual trust between the two countries still exist, and that Turkey was and still keen on stability in Syria. Mr. Ozheldez stressed that “Turkey cannot be part of any foreign plot hatched against Syria”.
It is an open secret now, Turkey has been harboring and arming Islamic Brotherhood of Syria and directly interfering in Syria’s internal affairs.
The next article was written in an Arabic news paper:
Since the successful popular revolution in Tunisia and Egypt, and the wave of protests in a number of Arab countries, Turkey is presenting herself as the leader of the Movement for Change in the Arab world using the language of a superpower.
Turkey talks about democracy and pluralism and human rights, only to discover that Kurds in Turkey who number more than fifteen million are being showered by bombs by Turkish planes while they are living on their own mountains.
Turkey talks about human rights and democracy, and then she denies the identity and the rights of sects and national/religious minorities. And so she finds herself facing history with chronic issues and problems, like the Armenian genocide and Orthodox Church in Istanbul.
Turkey talks about diversity, only to find herself being transformed into one-party rule (Justice and Development), who gained the control of the government, the parliament and the Republic. After gaining the upper hand, Justice and Development Party seeks to change the Constitution to appease Erdogan’s wishes…
Turkey talks about Zero problems and strategic depth, to find out that they have chronic problems with neighboring States from Armenia in the east to Greece and Bulgaria in the West, Iraq, Syria and Cyprus in the south. Then to realize that the theory of zero problems have turned in a few years to the theory of zero confidence.
Turkey claims that the events that are taking place in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and Libya … are Turkish internal affair, but she refuses any interference from outside in regards to Turkish internal issues, though recognized by international resolutions for decades.
In Her way of addressing the brothers “neighboring Arab countries”, soon they realize that the brotherly speech has turned into warnings, threats, deadlines and opportunities …
Turkey also has non-Turkish nationalities like Kurds, Arabs, Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks numbering over twenty-five million who’s rights are not recognized. There are also religious minorities and sects (Alawis, Shiites, Christian and Jews) that live in Turkey who are denied of their rights.
I do agree with my compatriot Avery, it easy to sit in a safe environment and to be “Holier Than Thou”
Seems ridiculous…
Criticizing the law, Talking about the rights of freedom of speech, phylosophysing around… Thats the easy way out to fill out pages and publications…
Any idea how to get 1.5 million Armenians express their feelings and fight for their freedom of speech after being banned of that right forever…!!!???
Stop being babaganem aveli babagan…
Simon, please respond to Boyajian’s rebuttal in the preceding comment. He put it extremely well.
I read all the comments also and it seems to me that many folks are trying to tell you that denying genocide should not be protected under the freedom of speech banner which is the foundation of your article. If defemation/libel is a crime why wouldn’t genocide denial be a crime? And also why isn’t defemation protected by the 1st amendment? Explain the differences please. Another person commented that in the privacy of ones home one can deny anything they want but in public surroundings denial of genocide shouldn’t be protected. Keep in mind that the word genocide was coined to depict what happened to the Armenians in 1915 and claims by Turks that it simply shouldn’t be called genocide but mass killings is thus a moot point.
Ar
if you agree with the substance of the article, wouldnt the consequence be that France should repeal its existing law against denial of the Holocaust? The same arguments as Simon Beugekian forwards would apply whether the law against denial is passed in the country where the crime was committed or not. But if victims and/or descendants are traumatised it means that particular care should be used in how to formulate an opinion which will hurt people. But to outlaw an opinion just because some people are offended by it, is highly questionable juridically speaking. It is against rule of law.
David
you write:
Genocide is a universal crime and its denial is part of that crime – it’s the last stage ….Comment:
Are you not turning the things on its head here? First, you have to agree on whether something happens or not and then you can apply your logic.Otherwise there would be no difference between a rumour and a true statement.
Melkonian
interesting that the proceedings did not mention the AG specifically. But this does not make much difference from a point of principle. Why should one criminalize a false opinion, priovioded that you agree that it is false?
Boyajian
I cannot see that there are any real arguments against mr. Beugekian’s point of view in the posts so far.
On the Criminalization of the Denial of Genocides
By: ARA PAPIAN
Since when has the protection of a criminal act been “freedom of
speech” or “holding an opinion”?Go to Canada, for example, and publicly “express your opinion” that, say, black people or Armenians are filthy or lazy. You do know what they would do to you, right? You would end up in jail or be penalised in some other fashion for inciting “hate speech”. Declare in Germany that Hitler had his reasons for massacring Jews. Don’t deny the Holocaust; simply try to bring up some justification or basis for it. I believe you would know the consequences better than I do. Well, where is that “freedom of speech”, then? Or is that some people consider us Armenians more democratic than Canadians or Germans?
You can read the whole article of Ara Papian’s On the Criminalization of the Denial of Genocides
http://www.ramgavar.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=392%3Aon-the-criminalization-of-the-denial-of-genocides-by-ara-papian&catid=56%3Aramgavar-mamoul&Itemid=27&lang=en
I totally disagree with Simon Beugekian.
Great article by Mr. Papian
In the meantime just check this link to see how the Turkish mafia is manipulating the results of an online survey to drive home the message that France’s decision to criminailize denial of the Armenian genocide was wrong.The French daily has been conductin since Tuesday an online survey.
The survey questions are as follows:
a) France showed its greatness by voting this law
b) France made an error
c) do not care about the issue
d) no opinion
Since the survey was launched an avalanche of entries was recorded to say that France made an error in passing the law. Guess who initiated this campaign?
Here is the link to the ongoing survey.
http://www.lemonde.fr/a-la-une/sondage/2012/01/24/le-senat-a-adopte-definitivement-la-loi-penalisant-la-negation-du-genocide-armenien-pour-vous-cela-est-le-signe_1633951_3208.html
In all this shuffle we seem to have forgotten the nonsense that Mr. Boghos Beugekian has written causing all this commotion. Has he learned anything from all these exchanges? I wonder.
“Speech meant to incite violence” will also fall under freedom of speech, unless it eventually causes harm to others. Is one allowed to shout “Fire” in a theater? Why isn’t it a case of “freedom of speech?” because it will cause harm to others. In the case of the damage to Armenians, it is the psychological and emotional harm brought upon the descendants of the victims.
Simon, I really appreciate that you were free to express your opinion and took the time to present a thoughtful letter. I am glad to have this discussion, which in the end helps us to understand that we don’t have to completely agree with one another to respect one another. And with respect, I have to say that I think your criticism of this bill is too simplistic.
Of course I see the inconsistency in criticizing Turkey for free speech violations and at the same time supporting the French genocide denial bill. I also understand the slippery slope it puts us on. But I don’t call it hypocrisy, which implies that different rights exist for me than exist for you or them. The French are simply applying the same limits on genocide deniers that would be applied to you or I if we were trying to obstruct justice. This bill has to do with preventing negationism (lying) which has dangerous consequences for all. Where on earth does freedom of speech guarantee the right to lie in order to cover up a crime or to avoid punishment?
Absolute freedom of speech is a construct that exist only in the realm of the ideal, not in everyday society. Many examples have already been offered above. What happens in reality is that people make choices everyday about what they express publicly and privately, and often the two are very different. We weigh our thoughts and at times censor ourselves according to the social mores of our environment; sometimes out of fear of rejection by others, but also out respect for one another.
In my opinion, there are always times when individual freedom bows to social “good.” This is a lesson we all learn at home from our parents and siblings and in the sandbox at kindergarten. None of us escapes this honing and shaping of our concept of freedom as we grow. Our freedoms come with responsibility to one another and often require compassion and empathy in their expression. When we choose to ignore how our free expression affects others, than we have to be ready to face the possible consequences. C’est la vie!
I wonder if your objection to this bill is made with full knowledge of the avenues taken by the negationist Turkish government to avoid facing the truth of the crime committed against our ancestors? These actions cause real harm, and are a crime in and of themselves. I wish it was as simple as a person asserting an uninformed or misinformed opinion, but it goes well beyond this. Turkish negationism has hijacked justice when it comes to the Armenian Genocide, and allowed to flourish, it will pave the way to the next genocide. When do people of good will have the right to say “Not in my backyard, you don’t!”
To Simon The Libertarian, a few points:
You would do well to differentiate wit from wisdom. There is a big difference between the two.Trying to dignify your libertarian opinions by associating yourself with Voltaire does not work. Voltaire said many witty things, often contradictory, including “A witty saying proves nothing”. You say “There are absolutely no philosophical grounds for restricting speech”. No, the grounds are not philosophical, they are legal, as in perjury, libel, slander, obstruction of justice, etc. as others have suggested to you in this forum. I would suggest to you that in terms of the crime of genocide which Turkey committed against its Armenian minority, obstruction of justice is very descriptive of its program to finance and support a worldwide network of denialists who daily pour salt into the unhealed wounds of the Armenian people.
You apparently feel that a little more salt would do. France has raised a finger in objection, France, a nation that was intimately involved in saving the lives of the Armenians of Musa Dagh, whose navy bravely battled the angry waves of the ocean to launch the rickety ramps and rafts which transported the embattled survivors of Musa Dagh to salvation on the “Guichen” and other allied ships.
But, no, you don’t wish to “elaborate on the the background information.” Your stance reminds me of the Turkish guards who shouted, “It is forbidden!” at the emaciated Armenian refugees who looked with longing eyes at the water spilling from the pails of Turkish villagers going by, water that could sustain them for one more day but which they were forbidden to drink. I hesitate to recommend you look at the relevant passage in “Armenian Golgotha” (chapter 27) by Krikoris Balakian. It might cause you undue discomfort in your sanitized world of libertarian abstractions.
jerry
you write:
The denial of Genocide functions in this instance to incite to violence — it is not only a sanction for denied violence on a mass scale, but it it a continuation of the cover up that genocide needs in order to succeed.
Comment:
I believe you miss the point about freedom of expression here. Your type of argument was raised by the nobility and the clergy in 1600- and 1700-eds: “The opinion X functions as…”. The answer from the supporters of freedom of expression was invariably: yes, but who is to decide? And who is to decide that the opinions of others should be forbidden? For this reason philosophers like John Locke, Spinoza and the Enlightenment philosophers in general supported the principle of freedom of speeech. And they were successful.
The argument that people can deny the AG in private, but not in public does not touch the core of the question: that the majority is allowed to outlaw a minority opinion. The private/official distinction cannot adress this principle.
Boyajian
you write:
The French are simply applying the same limits on genocide deniers that would be applied to you or I if we were trying to obstruct justice. This bill has to do with preventing negationism (lying) which has dangerous consequences for all. Where on earth does freedom of speech guarantee the right to lie in order to cover up a crime or to avoid punishment?
comment:
but again this does not adress the question of freedom of speeech. For how do we decide who is lying and who is speaking the truth? If the AW was built on the “French” principles, we would never have a real debate! We could not have the psychological tradition of therapy in which the patient simply speaks hus or her mind….The whole of the enlightenment concept of freedom of speeech rests on the assumption that freedom of speech and informed discussion in the long run is the only guarantee of good and truthful decisions. For this reason the West in the cold war did not outlaw Communist parties, not in the US, not in France, not in Norway, where I come from. Only open debate can safeguard a sane society in the long run.
Now Thierault in an article in AW some time ago made a plea for outlawing denial of genocide which was based on a critique of a naive liberalism that does not realize that there exist conscious misinformation and agents of conscious misinfiormation. I agree that many politicians and much of the Turkish official literature carries a heavy stamp of negastionism, by engaging in the debate by only considering the arguments that support one’s own position, by never referring the arguments of the opponent in a correct way, by mixing slander and unfounded accusations with real arguments. But can one solve this problem by outlawing certain opinions? I believe one can only solve this question by a vigilant public who actually judges arguments, not only listens to the received wisdom which in many cases commits mistakes
Lastly, Boyajian, this has nothing to do with the ideal of “absolute freedom of speech”. We all agree that hate speech should be forbidden. Why do you come up with this point which you certainly know is not part if the real question?
Ragnar, the non academic:
To the degree they can be penetrated, your arguments fail to deal with the situation before us. And, as usual you play the pedant by alluding to scholars for your own prestige.
The French authorities put Jewish children on trains to Auschwitz. They stained the honor of France in a way that can never be cleansed or forgotten. When in 1990 Neo-Nazis rose in France and Germany, France enacted laws to deter Genocide again. Voltaire and Spinoza never visited Auschwitz.
A society that murdered its children is entitled to view preventing Genocide as paramount. Reasonable people can make this judgment.
Your arguments are years overdue. The only philosophical idea in play now is consistency: should denial of the Armenian and other Genocides be treated differently than the JG? France says Non! So do we.
Please take your great erudition and pedantry to Trabzon. Wear a prominent pectoral Cross. Let us know what happens.
Ragnar Naess you write: “inbreds” when referring to Armenian posters @AW.
Ragnar Naess you write: “disposed of” when referring to victims of AG.
Ragnar Naess you write: ““what the ittihadists did by deporting close to one million Armenians before they could support the Russian army…….”
(in effect justifying the AG).
boyajian
and then you write:
quote:. Turkish negationism has hijacked justice when it comes to the Armenian Genocide, and allowed to flourish, it will pave the way to the next genocide. When do people of good will have the right to say “Not in my backyard, you don’t!”. Unquote.
Yes, people have a right to say no, the have it by force of the right of freedom of speeech! Please dont tamper with this principle! And people have a right to outlaw hate speech, but not arguments, properly put, even if they are offensive to some.—About Turkey paving the way for the next genocide. Please, when the problems augmented in Rwanda, the french more or less supported the Hutu government for finacial and political reasons. THIS was the French responsibility, not any failure to write in the press about the Armenian Genocide. When the alert went regarding the areas in the middle Sudan – we were actually commenting on it seven-eight months ago, remember? – then the task was to intensify focus on Sudan if we were to prevent anything, not organise protest against the AG!
Ragnar Naess you write: “inbreds” when referring to Armenian posters @AW.
Ragnar Naess you write: “disposed of” when referring to victims of AG.
Ragnar Naess you write: ““what the ittihadists did by deporting close to one million Armenians before they could support the Russian army…….”
(in effect justifying the AG).
THIS is the calling card of an Armenian Genocide Denier.
THIS is the hate-speech polluting the blogoshere.
Instead of spending your remaining years on this planet insulting Armenians at an Armenian site, why don’t you go and organize another DenialFest with your buddy Justin McCarthy: it should be more fun for you Deniasts.
“spending your remaining years on this planet ”
very good example of speech by civilized armenians…
Avery ,
we Turks have a saying: noone can predict who will die first ..
do you have some agreement with god to live long ?
someone who wrote the following is too far removed from civilization to even know what civilization is, much less a civilized Armenian:
{necati , 26 December 2011 , 00:22
_________, whenever your grand mother opens her underwear in the tomb, then ATASE will open strategic archives of Turkish Army..} (addressing an Armenian poster)
And don’t read dark thoughts into what I wrote:
Mr. Naess is 70 years old. A 70 year old man has far fewer years remaining on this planet than a 30 year old young Turk like you. Simple, statistical life expectancy. Got it ?
Avery ,
i know he is 70. that is why your words irritated me much.
you need to respect people older than you are..
the concept of ‘respect’ does not exist in your twisted world: in no culture is it acceptable to insult one’s dead Grandmother in such vile manner. Or maybe your hatred for ‘Ermenileri’ is so pathological that you find nothing wrong with insulting an Armenian’s grandmother, while at the same time professing, alleged, concern for the seniority of a Turcophile AG Denialist Norwegian.
Like I wrote previously: you need competent profession help.
Simon, I just noticed that in your reply to the collective disagreement, you wrote: “The responses are not, to be honest, challenging my arguments.” Are you that obtuse or is your facile reply, compliments of Rhetoric 101? Send the cheap trick to Newt Gingrich.
David, among others, has shown you where your argument went wrong. Re-read his letters.
Nekati Genis,
You say, (sic) “we Turks have a saying: noone can predict who will die first…”
You are too modest. Turks can predict who will die first.. After all, you planned the killing of 1.5 million civilian Armenians because racists that you still are, you wanted a “100% pure Turkey,” although the land you illegally occupied belonged mostly to Armenians and to Greeks.
By the way, according to recorded history, Armenians have been around at least since 2,250 B.C. (that’s Before Christ, for your information.) We intend to be around for another 2,250 years. I wish you roll your tents and go back where you came from in Central Asia, contrary to the raving fabrications of ataturk that Turks are Hittites!
“you planned the killing of 1.5 million civilian Armenians”
correction Jirair: it should say “you planned the murder…”
In certain cases Homicide (killing) is justifiable.
Murder is always a crime.
Killing unarmed civilians, including children and babies is – Murder.
Ragnar, the speech in a therapy session is private and protected speech and has completely different rules than that of public expression. You need not fear that the French bill criminalizing Armenian Genocide denial will trickle down and inhibit a therapy session.
“TURKISH MINISTER: I DENY THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE, COME ARREST ME” (headline at TodaysZaman Jan 29, 2012)
We eagerly await to see the email that Mr. Simon Beugekian would have sent by now congratulating Mr. Bağış on his exercise of free speech.
Perhaps Mr. Beugekian can further the cause of free speech even more, by urging other Turkish officials to publicly deny the Armenian Genocide.
(BTW: A cheap publicity stunt. Mr. Egemen Bağış knows very well he enjoys diplomatic immunity)
I value freedom of speech as much as any of those who worry the French bill will harm this universal principle, but I have a few questions…
What do you call the forced deportation of all members of a particular ethnic group to inhospitable regions without provisions for their survival and with concurrent redistribution of their property and wealth left behind to the dominant ethnic group?
What do you call providing no protection to deportees along the routes of their deportation and allowing chettehs open access to commit all sorts of acts of thuggery and depravity against vulnerable women, children and elderly?
What do you call abduction of children and forced conversion or servitude?
What do you call purging people, streets and towns of their traditional names and reassigning names that reflect the aggressor ethnic group?
What do you call the virtual elimination of an ethnic group from their homeland in the matter of a few short years?
What is debatable about this?
Are these common acts of ‘civil war’?
Is this the way to conduct relocation for security measures? If it was merely a case of badly mismanaged security measures, why not just say that and take responsibility for the injuries incurred? Wouldn’t this be the normal response of a government to such an ‘unintended’ tragedy?
Why should ‘freedom of speech’ be misused to allow the denial of such a crime? How is this about differing opinions?
Not only has Turkey been permitted to avoid responsibility for the destruction of the Armenian community of Asia Minor for 97 years, but now they shamelessly want the world to guarantee their right to re-write history and denigrate the memory of 1.5 million innocent victims of a depraved campaign to save Turkey for Turks.
Does protecting their right to freely deny and distort this truth serve the spirit of freedom of speech which was intended to protect individuals from government oppression?
Should freedom of speech now be used to protect government oppression in its penultimate form?
Re-reading many of the posts above, I think that Hamasdegh put it best on January 27 when he said:
“Who is therefore limiting freedom of expression – Armenians in France and the diaspora intent on seeking justice for atrocities committed against our nation or Turkish authorities who are trying to muzzle all possible references to this Genocide?”
As has been said here, freedom of expression is not an absolute. The country he is citizen of has curtailed freedom left and right in the past decade. While “Harpers’ and “Nation” have done their expected critique, the American people have become the Amen Corner and have overwhelmingly approved (Dubya was elected twice) these limitations on rights.
Turkey has for far too long exploited “freedom of speech” in Western countries to deny its crime. What’s the good of a principle when it is used to defend proven mass criminals? Turkey has been laughing all the way to the nearest “meykhana” (tavern) at the naive, romantic and misguided Europeans while Ankara retains Article 301 of the penal code in place, imprisons more journalist than any other country, oppresses 15 million Kurds, in addition to other minorities.
So the author wants to defend freedom of speech. He can always take a hike in Walden, Concorde and commune with Thoreau, Emerson, et al and invoke Voltaire’s non-existent quote. I am sure he will feel elevated and very superior to Armenians who continue to commemorate their martyrs despite it being another year, another April 24.
Boyajian
Armenians must have answered all the questions you raise before they showed hostility toward Turks
boyajian
with your last post “Who is—“, you are not adressing the freedom of expression issue at all. There are many things we are convinced of and convinced that the other ones are wrong. the question of whether an opinion is mnistaken, wrong or immoral or not is an issue different from the issue of whether certain statements should be prohibited by law or not. So you simply miss the issue, to my mind.
It’s still a pig,even if it flies…
I see no flaw in that argument.
Ragnar naess
Where do you discuss the Armenian genocide subject with Turks other than this site so I can take a look at
Sorry, Ragnar, but there is no mistake that the Armenians were subjected to deportations and conditions that caused death and permanent displacement by the order and full knowledge of the CUP government and that resulted in the permanent loss of inheritance to their descendants and the virtual elimination of their existence on their homeland. You yourself have used the term ‘genocidal consequences’ when discussing CUP actions in 1915.
The French deemed these actions to be genocide in 2001. They have every right as a sovereign nation to view denial of this fact as an incitement to hate and to pass laws within their own territory to limit such incitement.
I think you miss the point that freedom of speech is intended to protect the rights of the individual against the government; not to permit a government to get away with a crime. Again, the French bill is not intended to limit speech. It is intended to stop negationism—the deliberate distortion of history. The Armenian massacres and the CUP complicity in the death of over a million Armenians is history. It is not merely a case of being ‘convinced’ of something. Where are the Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians of Asia Minor today? The proof of the ethnic cleansing is in the population numbers, not to mention the vast body of archival evidence, news accounts and eye-witness reports and victim narratives..
No one is disputing the merits of freedom of speech as a universal right to an individual, just defending the right of a state to limit speech they deem to be hate speech or an incitement to violence, which could be argued in
the case of genocide denial.
Ragnar,
There was no Genocide of Armenians; there was no deportation of Armenians. One day in the summer of 1915 Armenian en mass (old people, women, children included) decided to go camping in the searing deserts of Syria, some thousand miles away. Since the desert is close to the Land of Milk and Honey (that’s what the Bible says), they didn’t take any food or water with them. I guess they were planning the biggest picnic in the world. They hit the road on foot.
The friendly Turkish gendermarie, Turkish and Kurdish prisoners released from jail tried to persuade these Polyanna Armenian folk not to join in the picnic caravan. But you know, Armenians can be funny sometimes: they insisted to hold their picnic.
Turks told Armenians that they would look after their properties while Armenians were suntanning in the desert. The Turks would also look after Armenian churches, schools and other community buildings until Armenians returned from their vacation.
For some reason, Armenians decided not to return to their ancestral homes: I guess the allure of 100 degree temperatures, the hostile landscape and the hungry wolves was irresistible to Armenians.
Somebody should write to the “Guinness Book of Records” and to nominate the Armenian Picnic as the biggest ever.
Jirair,great sense of humor.You forgot to write about the bbq-s with the flesh of their starving children…
Thank you, V Tiger. In fact, my version is not that different from the fables Turkey has been telling to the world. If the Pinocchio tale was true, Erdogan, Davutoglu, Ataturk et al would have three-metre noses.
boyajian
you write:
Sorry, Ragnar, but there is no mistake that the Armenians were subjected to deportations and conditions that caused death and permanent displacement by the order and full knowledge of the CUP government and that resulted in the permanent loss of inheritance to their descendants and the virtual elimination of their existence on their homeland. You yourself have used the term ‘genocidal consequences’ when discussing CUP actions in 1915.
The French deemed these actions to be genocide in 2001. They have every right as a sovereign nation to view denial of this fact as an incitement to hate and to pass laws within their own territory to limit such incitement.
I think you miss the point that freedom of speech is intended to protect the rights of the individual against the government; not to permit a government to get away with a crime. Again, the French bill is not intended to limit speech. It is intended to stop negationism—the deliberate distortion of history.
comment:
I have been trying to get a copy of the actual law text. What you say now is different from what has been said before. “The deliberate distortion of history” is something different from “denying The Armenian” genocide, which in ordinary palance means to say “There was no genocide committed against the Armenians” along with an explanation.
Your formula “deliberate distortion” brings in a new concept. Yes, of course one might penalize “deliberate distortions” in given cases. So please choose what theme we are discussing!
You write:
The Armenian massacres and the CUP complicity in the death of over a million Armenians is history. It is not merely a case of being ‘convinced’ of something. Where are the Greeks, Assyrians and Armenians of Asia Minor today? The proof of the ethnic cleansing is in the population numbers, not to mention the vast body of archival evidence, news accounts and eye-witness reports and victim narratives
comment:
Well, I have to repeat myself. I Believe in their responsibility, if not necessarily complicity Further, the thesis of an extermination program og genocidal intent is as far as I know not finally established historically. There is a considerable number of historians who doubt or deny that the events should be characterized as genocide:Lewy, Lewis, Mango, Mcarthy, Shaw, Yapp, Veinstein,Stone, gunther, lowry, hurewitz,Davison, Salt, Murphey,mantran, bazin, rhodinson, Finkel, Conroy, Boekstijn,courbage, Dumont, E. Erickson, Fargues, Henze, pope, Radu, Piccoli,Young, Kerem, Wheal,williams, Zeidner, and some more. These historians are exployed by universities all over the workd. They represent the profession of historians. We may disagree, but historians as a group have got given anny definite answers. The facts you adduce cannot count as evidence of genocidal intent.
you wrote:
No one is disputing the merits of freedom of speech as a universal right to an individual, just defending the right of a state to limit speech they deem to be hate speech or an incitement to violence, which could be argued in
the case of genocide denial.
comment:
then we are back again at our former point: to present a disagreement, with due respect for those who are hurt by our opinions, is not hate speech.
Boyajian
we have now been arguing for almost two years. I like that you say “….could be argued”, because I believe you are sure about this. And believe me, your argumentation is a mess – this time – sorry for saying so
Will France take responsibily of killing Algerians in sixties and make it a crime to deny that genocide,
will you first learn the difference between: atrocity, massacre, deaths during war, etc and Genocide – before you ask a vacuous question ?
Ragnar, I see we are repeating ourselves. Let’s not belabor our debate which in the end always hangs on your ‘ambivalence’ or ‘lack of being convinced’ that the Armenians suffered genocide. I won’t pretend to be a historian who has read every word written on the subject or that I can hold my own when the pro and con citations start flying.
For me it is simply this: Lemkin coined the word in part based on what happened to the Armenians. I accept his assessment.
I see the debate that it was not genocide as a manufactured and specious argument that allows Turkey to avoid responsibility for the great crime, the great catastrophe, the great tragedy, that was the death of Ottoman Armenians. No matter what you call these events, justice has not been served in almost 100 years, and this is in itself a tragedy. I welcome the support of the French who by passing such a bill are attempting to ensure that ‘negationism’ is not permitted within their sovereign territory; not because they value free speech any less than its staunchest supporters, but because they reject the specious denial of genocide and its unjust impact on the victims.
I will wait to see what the French Court determines regarding the constitutionality of the recently passed bill. But no matter what they decide, the fact remains that Turkey has a responsibility to Armenia, Armenians, and the world to face justice for what happened to the Ottoman Armenians, and may further be culpable for using history, politics, and unabashed denial to obstruct justice.
Anis, Some history for you. The Algerian/French war of the ’50s was a war of independence. France had been occupying Algeria for 120 years. Algerians wanted the French out. Both sides had huge losses; there was extreme cruelty on both sides. There was no genocide. Many Algerians were pro-France. When independence was declared, hundreds of thousands of these Algerians emigrated to France. They are the core of the North African presence in France.
Do you know why the French had occupied Algeria? The Barbary pirates (in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) had been harassing Western shipping, looting ships, enslaving passengers and selling them. That’s where the “white slavery” term was coined. Finally, fed up with the pirates, Americans sent ships to Tripoli (“From the Halls of Montezuma to Tripoli…” Marine song) to stop the Barbary pirates there. France did the same thing in Algeria.
There was no Algerian genocide. France reacted to Barbary/Algerian pirates who threatened merchant and passenger ships in the western Mediterranean.
I was in Tunisia several years ago. One boastful and vicious Barbary pirate (I forget his name..perhaps Dragut) made a hillock of the skulls of European captives. The hillock (minus the skulls) is a well-known sight in Tunis.
Now go to the library and check some history books. Or better, go to Tunis.
HUMAN HISTORY IS FULL OF SKELETONS, WHOSE VICTIMS ARE WORTH COUNTING IS A POLITICAL DECISION
Avery is teaching me the difference between “atrocity, massacre, deaths during war, etc and Genocide”. Genocide is the terms coined by the modern day “civilized” man to justify or ignore some killings for political reasons but to vilify others. Please do not hide behind the technicalities and do not put value to a human life. Lives of 3000 American lost in 9/11 were as valuable as over 300,000 Iraqis ans Afghanis.
Where will you “classify” clearing of entire Americas by European settlers by killing aboriginals, millions eliminated by Stalin, 3 million Vietnamese victims, killed by Americans, throughout Americas by European settlers.
WE ALL KNOW THAT EUROPE COLONIZED AFRICA AND ASIA FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.
Jirair, is trying t give me a lesson in the history of Algerian colonization by telling me “The Barbary pirates (in Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, and Libya) had been harassing Western shipping, looting ships, enslaving passengers and selling them”.
Remember, it is Europe and USA that benefited by plundering the wealth of Africa and the Third World not the other way round. How about looting of gold/silver of Latin America by Spain (I saw that fort on the Atlantic Coast of Panama where Peruvian Gold used to be stored for onward shipping to Spain) , wealth of India by Britain, shipload timber of Java/Sumatra etc. The innocent “shipping” you are talking about was used to carry black slaves, stolen riches/raw material from the East and sending back manufactured goods to captivated markets.
Please do not tell me that France reacted to Barbary/Algerian pirates who threatened merchant and passenger ships in the western Mediterranean.
According to Alistair Horne, a western historian, during the eight years of their war for independence (1954-62) 700,000 Algerians were killed by the French army. The official estimate of France is 350,000 casualties as against 1.5 million deaths estimated by Algeria’s FLN (National Liberation Front). However, this is barely mentioned in French high school textbooks. It’s still such an emotional issue that a few months ago a group of right-wing deputies took advantage of a nighttime session of parliament to push through a law requiring schools to focus on the positive aspects of colonialism. Not only that, France is still bitter over the “loss” of Algeria; a country declared to be part of French territory.
AVERY & JIRAIR: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION BUT NOT YOUR “FACTS”
Anis, it just isn’t appropriate to try to shun punishment for a crime by citing other crimes that have gone unpunished.
I think you are taking this matter a bit too personally. This isn’t about you or your Turkishness. Although, looking back into the pages of history I just can’t see what there is to be proud of if you are a Turk. I acknowledge your nation’s achievements in terms of land and wealth but those came at the expense of spilling the blood of other peoples and thus have net worth of nothing. Otherwise, Turks haven’t contributed much either internally or internationally to the betterment of man-kind in terms of areas of human development (ie: art, psychology, medicine, science, technology, math, social development…). Maybe just music and cuisine but this isn’t my personal opinion, I’ve heard others argue that your food is good and some like your music. But the millions of lives the Turks have extinguished have certainly had a negative effect on human development in general.
Anyway, I digress, I am trying to say that Turkey committed an international crime and judgment is long overdue and the court is still in session. Your argument regarding “HISTORY IS FULL OF SKELETONS” helps you not.
Anis, your idea of “equivalency” is strange. Of course, the French and other European imperialists exploited most of the world, starting in the 15th century. However, that has nothing to do with vicious pirates attacking innocent people in the Mediterranean. Are you saying these freebooters were avenging, say, the Haitians, the Incas, the Aztecs?
North Africa was nominally part of the Ottoman Empire, although the local beys ran the place as they wished. Their attacks on Western shipping pleased the Turkish sultan because Europe was Turkey’s enemy. Of course, these pirates sent some of their booty, including captives, to the sultan. The captives were bought and sold by Turks as slaves.
By the way, the Barbary coast., as the name implies, was populated by white Berbers, until the imperialist Arabs conquered it in the 8th century and turned Berbers into third-class citizens. Even today, Berbers have no rights in the Maghreb, although they fought along the foreign Arabs against the foreign French.
It’s obvious you don’t know the meaning of genocide. The word means exterminating a people because of their race, ethnicity. The French killed Algerians because the latter (rightly) wanted the French out of Algeria. Injecting death statistics doesn’t change the intent. The French didn’t commit genocide in Algeria. The Turks did against Armenians.
Anis, as all Turk and Turcophile Denialists routinely do, conflates all human tragedies in one large cauldron of human suffering.
Pursuing justice for the crime of the Armenian Genocide by us Armenians does not imply indifference to the suffering of others.
Armenians and Armenian groups were very active fighting the Darfur Genocide on the political arena shoulder-to-shoulder with other humanist groups.
And if you recall, your PM Erdogan is buddy-buddies with the Indicted War criminal Genocidal Omar Hassan Ahmad Al-Bashir
Nobody in the Armenian community is stopping anybody else from pursuing justice for their own cause.
If we had the resources, we would do it all. But we have our hands full just trying to fight off Denialist assaults by the mighty Turkish State, their hired agents, and volunteer Denialists such as yourself, honored Turk guest Anis.
(I generally honor our Turkish guests with the honorific –oglu, or –Bey, or -Hanum. But since I do not know your gender, I regret that I will not be able to do so. Nothing hurts me more than not being able to greet our Denialist guests properly)
As to Genocide and Algeria: French did not invade Algeria with the intention of exterminating Algerians. That is why there are about 35 million Algerians alive today. That is why Algeria’s President told PM Erdogan to “shut it” about French committing “genocide”.
Nazis planned and carried out the extermination of Jews in Europe. That is why from pre-war population of about 9.5 million Jews in Europe, only about 1 million remain now, including European Russia (repatriation, natural growth). You may have heard that 6 million Jews were exterminated. Most of the rest escaped to other countries, or were in a safe country (e.g. England).
Turks planned and carried out the extermination of indigenous Armenian population of Western Armenia. That is why, while there were about 2-2.3 million Armenians there in 1915, now there are fewer than about 60,000 left in all of Turkey.
Genocide denial is the process perfected by the modern day “civilized” Turk&Turcophile-man to justify or ignore the extermination of Armenians for political (and economic, and strategic) reasons.
ANIS: YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION BUT NOT YOUR “FACTS”.
Jirair, the phrase you have used “innocent people in the Mediterranean” reveals your mind and why you can not think in terms of humanity. All those colonialist living north of Mediterranean were worst exploiters of the mankind.
In your first posting you called Berbers pirates now you call them victims of the Ottomans and how they were turned into third class citizens. Please make up your mind if Berbers were pirates of oppressed people.
What difference does it make if 350,000 Algerians (taking the French official figures) were killed by French army for seeking independence or because of their race, nationality or religion.
What label will you put on those millions of Americas original natives exterminated by your “innocent people in the Mediterranean” to clear the land. Was it “simple” atrocity, massacre or death caused by innocent Europeans coming from Mediterranean. Was it not “Genocide” ?
You remember “The captives were bought and sold by Turks as slaves” but forgot 42 million blacks in USA who are still fighting for their rights. Most of them were brought in inhuman conditions as human cargo. The first English colony in Virginia, acquired delivery of its first African slave in 1619, after a ship arrived that carried about 20 Africans. The practice established in the Spanish colonies as early as the 1560s was expanded into English North America.
Same innocent Spaniards started the practice of Inquisitions and targeted Muslims as well as Jews, just because they were Muslims or Jews. In 1483 Tomas de Torquemada became the inquisitor-general for most of Spain. You know where those persecuted Jews got refuge; in Muslim Ottoman-ruled North Africa.
Jirair, please stop defending some as “innocent” and accuse others as “guilty”. This is a zero sum game. I see all atrocities committed by man in human terms. Killing an innocent is wrong, regardless of justification. There will be no peace unless we accept that we all have committed wrong against each other. I repeat what I said before:
HUMAN HISTORY IS FULL OF SKELETONS, WHOSE VICTIMS ARE WORTH COUNTING IS A POLITICAL DECISION
“but forgot 42 million blacks in USA who are still fighting for their rights.”
Not only are you a Denialist, but also misinformed: surprise, surprise.
There is residual racism at the personal level for sure.
But if you think Blacks are still fighting for their rights in the US, you must be living on Mars.
A Black man, whose father was born in Kenia, is the President of the USA.
Voted with great popularity. Black, White, Brown, Yellow, whatever color, whatever nationality – everyone has the same rights.
In your country, President Gul sues because someone “insulted” him by claiming his mother is Armenian.
Read that again: in your country, saying someone’s mother is Armenian is considered an insult.
Boyajian,
Naess throws off citations the same way an overmatched porcupine throws off harmless quills. Its meant to impress.
His usual refrain is that he has yet to be persuaded of Genocide in what he calls “the juridical sense,” by which he means that he thinks the evidence would not persuade him if, God forbid, he was a judge.
The first fallacy is that he is a jurist. As his resume shows, he has no training in The law or this or any related field. Geoffrey Robertson, by comparison does.
The second fallacy is that historians decide things the same way jurists do.
I know you appreciate these and other points I haven’t thought of, but i find his fronting for Nazis here as the genocide dilettante nauseating.
Thank God for historians, politicians and those in the media with scruples! I am so tired of the noisy ‘historians’ and opportunistic parasites who make their living playing the Armenian Genocide Debate game. There was a time that there was no debate anywhere, even in Turkey, that the CUP/Ottoman Turks were responsible for genocidal acts against Ottoman minorities, especially the Armenians. Talaat knew it, Ataturk knew it , Morgenthau knew it and Wilson knew it. The fact that geopolitics of the time allowed Turkey to slip by with virtually no consequence for these murders doesn’t change their responsibility for a crime that has no statute of limitation. Historians who now, naively or deliberately, take advantage of the passing of time, and the fading of memory that accompanies it, are creating a debate where there should be resolution that justice must be served. It really is reprehensible.
Dear Boyajian
Thank you for the explanations above to Ragner .
In my opinion we (Armenians) want justice no mater what they try to do or to say, while us (Armenians) still are suffering from the effects of the crime which was called GENOSIDE, the criminals by disrupting the absolute truth, must not be let to walk away unpunished, Denying it will benefit the criminals for sure, but not the victims (Armenians), and we all know that it is wrong thing to do, and must be stopped somehow for the sake of the justice to prevail .
You’re welcome Armen. Unfortunately, my discussion with Ragnar really has little immediate impact on him or on the struggle for overdue justice we face as Armenians. But we all do what we can do, and I can and will speak the truth in the face of distortion, in the hope that the seeds that are planted in some uninformed minds will take root and produce good fruit. We can’t let denial win.
Where are you from?
Anis,
I don’t whether you are digressing deliberately or are unaware of what you are doing. The topic under discussion is the Genocide of Armenians. It’s not about every historic tragedy, atrocity, massacre, etc. you remember. It’s NOT about the depredations of Sargon, Nabuchadnessar, Xerxes, Darius, Alexander the Great, the Romans, Arabs, Crusaders, Huns, Mongols, Tartars, Mamelukes, British-Germans-French-American-Russian-Belgian-Italian imperialists. Neither is it about Napoleon or Bismark. Stick to the topic, please.
For no reason, you assume that I am minimizing the atrocities Europeans inflicted upon Asians, Africans and Latin Americas. You have an obvious bee in your bonnet about imperialism. Fine, but the discussion is not about that topic. The broad, scatter-gun approach will fail you.
There’s no contradiction in my view of the Berbers. These indigenous WHITE people were conquered by Arabs. Arabs forced assimilation and Islam on Berbers. From 16th to early 19th century, Berber pirates harassed Mediterranean shipping. The majority of Berbers were peasants in the hinterland, uninvolved in piracy. So… Berbers good; Berber pirates no good. Is that comprehensible to you?
Avery, says: “In your country, President Gul sues because someone “insulted” him by claiming his mother is Armenian” The fact is that I am not Turkish and Gul is not my President.. Turkish might have felt insulted that it was claimed that Gul’s mother was Armenian. In the last American election it was claimed by his opponents that Obama was a Muslim as if it was a crime to be a Muslim.
We all have our prejudices. That is my point.
One commentator objected to my pointing out other killings, call them by any name you like. He said that we should discuss only Amerindian Genocide. I know it is Armenian paper and raising non-Armenian killings is not welcomed. However, my Armenian friends should realize that they can not live for ever in past. Also Armenians are part of human race. You can not discuss one genocide and ignore others. Every genocide or wanton killing should be discussed without selectivity. In humanity there is no special race. We may belong to any region, color or religion our blood is red.
One commentator claims that Blacks got equal right in USA just because the country elected a black president. Stalin was Georgian; so does mean that all minorities got equal rights under his presidency Soviet Union. The current president of Chechnya is a Muslim, so does it mean that Chechnya got freedom.This an absurd argument to say the least.
PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR COCOON AND BE PART OF HUMANITY. Have you ever heard Vietnamese making noises against Americans for the atrocities they committed or Japanese calling Americans for accepting responsibility of dropping Atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
“However, my Armenian friends should realize that they can not live for ever in past.”
A standard Denialist phrase: forget the past; move on; what’s done is done.
Your mythical Armenian friends don’t need your advice about the past.
Don’t give us advice about the past from the comfort of your living room.
Armenians barely survived another attempt to exterminate and ethnically cleanse them barely 20 years ago.
The attempt can resume any day.
You want to help your mythical Armenian friends and prove your love for humanity ? – go and stand guard at the LOC in Artsakh. Maybe you can save a couple human lives.
Stalin was a Dictator who obtained his dictatorial position by intrigue and murder.
Obama was elected in a free and open election. By an electorate that is about 80%-85% White. By a very convincing margin.
You claim you are not a Turk ? you sure have a lot of hostility towards Armenians and the Armenian Genocide not being a Turk.
Why is it I do not believe you ?
PLEASE COME OUT OF YOUR DENIALIST COCOON.
Anis,
You say that because “Armenians are part of the human race” they should discuss non-Armenian genocides. Gee, thanks, Anis. So you think Armenians are part of the human race? Such generosity! Such perspicacity! Where can I send the flowers and the thank you note, Anis?
We are not scholars of all the genocides of the world. As ordinary people, we are not expected to know the details of all the genocides since day one. We, naturally, are well informed about the genocide which Turkey and her fellow Muslim states don’t recognize. We talk–unlike you–about a topic we know, rather than repeat propaganda, the way you do, courtesy of Ankara.
Turks not only killed us, they also took 80% of our 4,000-year-old homeland. And now it helps its oily offshoot–the Tatar Azeris–to finish the job the Young Turks started. Sweet dream to Turkbeijan.
While the Turks oppressed Armenians for more than half a millennium, they didn’t learn much about Armenians. They didn’t learn about our patriotism, our unbowing spririt, our perseverance. The Turk thought we and the world will forget the genocide. Ahem. Turks are beginning to learn: we will chase them forever, until truth and justice is served.
Dear Boyajian, I allow AW to let you have my Email. I’ll also like to let the genocide deniers to know that both my grandparents from my mother side were orphaned by the turkish government at the age of six and eight years old respectively. My grandma was taken into orphanage in Lebanon mountains in a village called Shemlan,where she grew up with 3 to 4 hundred other kids. she had a very tough childhood and couldn’t forget her little sister that she lost in Homes, Sirya until the day she passed away. She witnessed the death of her mother and brother before ending up in the orphenage . There is no need to tell about my grandpa’s story, and that of dad’s parents. Sometimes I wonder why God does forsake his people to go through the pain and suffering at the hands of evil governments? I also wonder why some politicians think the genocide that occured is a thing of the past and historical issue? Meanwhile, the criminals are enjoying the wealth of others including that of my grandparents; something that they took by robing and killing the others. Today Turkish government gives her blessings to these criminals by covering up and denying the truth. Can somebody tell me that this did not happen?
The Turkish-American Association, with the assistance of Ankara, has enrolled Turks to follow Armenian and non-Armenian Web so as to spread Turkish denial propaganda. I understand they get paid by the word. Considering the standard boilerplate denialism code words Anis uses, I wouldn’t be surprised if he is one those young Turk scribes. Turks have money and PR agencies on their side; we have justice and a commitment to justice.
YOU CAN NOT CHANGE YOUR PAST BUT YOU CAN CHANGE YOUR FUTURE
I know it is Armenian paper and there is no place in it for moderate views. I would advised my Armenian friends to see the example of China. They suffered worst conditions under Japanese occupation but today Japan is their largest trading partner. They buried past and today they are world power. In hundred years the world changed a lot. .
Believe me world powers and western politicians are using your anger for their benefit.
HOWEVER, IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN 1915 AND THINK THAT IT IS GOOD FOR YOUR FUTURE GENERATIONS THEN GOOD LUCK.
I am 72 year old and not a Turk as you all think. I just want a peaceful world. I am more concerned by the current conflicts rather then historic injustices. I would also advise Turks to be just with their Kurdish minority.
This is my last posting. I apologize if I have hurt your feelings. That was not my purpose.
You insulting our intelligence and trying our patience is too much to bear.
The ridiculous Chinese example clearly demonstrates either your ignorance or deliberate attempt to insult our murdered ancestors.
The Rape of Nanking was not a Genocide.
Population of China today is 1.3 BILLION.
Worldwide population of Armenians is 12 million.
China is in no existential threat from Japan.
Armenia is under constant and growing existential threat from Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Again, you can claim to be whatever you claim to be.
But your posts reveal you are an Anti-Armenian Denialist.
“Believe me world powers and western politicians are using your anger for their benefit.”
No, we don’t believe you.
Nice try. No cigar.
Your invocation of the rape of Nanking proves too much. You show ignorance.
Chinese people here and throughout the world loathe Japan and its people precise because Japan downplays and denies the unspeakable brutality of the Japanese occupation. They may and must trade, but that does not mean the two nations get along culturally or person to person. Japanese denial is at the heart of why economics does not trump memory.
I disagree with Avery that the murder of 300,000 Chinese in Nanking alone was not Genocidal. I suggest he read Iris Chang’s book. Iris, who killed herself five years ago, was a strong supporter of recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
Anis,
Although you deny being a hired spreader of Turkish propaganda, your “swan song” repeats the Turkish line: that Armenians should forget 1915, they should live in the present, they should look forward to the future… and similar nonsense. And wouldn’t that be nice for Turkey? You kill 1.5 million and the world and Armenians forget about it. What would you do if someone came and threw you out of your house, killed/raped your family, confiscated your property, etc. Would you say “No problem. I’ll marry again; I’ll have other children; I’ll build another house.” Get serious, Anis.
Those who don’t learn from the past are prone to repeating it. Turks almost exterminated a whole nation and confiscated 80% of that nation’s lands, and now have the temerity to say Armenians never ruled Western Armenia, that Turks are indigenous to Asia Minor, that Tatars, who call themselves Azeri these days, are indigenous to the Caucasus, although everyone knows they, like the Turks, are marauders from the Central Asian deserts. I’m glad I will not read your ramblings again.
My dear Jirair
“What would you do if someone came and threw you out of your house, killed/raped your family, confiscated your property”
That is exactly what happened to Palestinians in 1948. Today more Palestinians are living outside Palestine than inside. My advice to them is also to forget the past, have peace with Israelis and move on. Palestinian cannot live in rage for ever.
By the way I am not hired by anybody as you have suggested. I am of Indian origin and not even remotely connected to Turkey and I have thing against Armenians.
My family also suffered in 1947; at the time of Partition of India when over a million people were slaughtered just because they were Muslims or Hindus . We had to flee from our ancestral home when I was a child. You can call me a pacifist if you want and I will accept that charge.
However, if you think that continued acrimony with Turkey is the right thing for your people then continue what you have been doing for last hundred years.
Anis
Ok Anis, so you are not biased in favor of Turkey but it is so not your place to tell others how to react to crimes committed against them.
You might as well stay out of this conflict.
Do you go to Turkish sites and say things like: “You guys should accept the crimes you’ve committed and apologize so that those peoples can move on with their lives” or is your advice just one sided towards the victims?
I am not one of those great French-Armenians who tirelessly worked and formulated a Bill to suppress the basic rights of denial to suppressors of its own citizens (article 301 Turkish penal code) since its formation on the ashes of Armenian Genocide!
But I feel GREAT and thankful (though simplistically seems against basic freedom of speech) and hope that beside France many other European countries will adopt similar Bills to restrain the red-face restrainer!
The writer has to live in Turkey for a while, walk on the streets with a placard around his neck saying “Armenian Genocide was committed by Ottoman Turks” and see what happens to him in a matter of no time!
I don’t disagree with him on his support of freedom of speech in humane societies, either.
But, he should not let his face be slapped forever, while asking for justice, either!
The day that Pakistan recognises Armenia, Genocide & the right of the of Artsakh people for self determination & independence then I’ll listen to the advice of a Pakistani.
You have just to read the super biased Pakistani media towards Armenia & most favorable towards Turkey & Azerbeijan. Let’s ask the question ‘why’. The answer is so obvious.Cherchez le religion. Middle ages mentality… I’ll support my coreligionist even if he’s a criminal…
According to a Pakistani we have to forget about asking for justice, we have to let the criminals go unpunished… For the next thousand years I’ll ask for justice & punishment of the criminals & thieves.
Did the Palestinians forget about asking for justice? Go & advise them & see what they’ll do to you.
Dear Anis,
Although you promised not to write again, I see you’ve had change of heart.
I am Palestinian. So, please don’t tell me about the misery that Israel inflicted upon Palestinians.
Your advice to forget the past and “to move on” is a crass, if not mischievous, Western cliche and plot.. “Why don’t you, third-world people, get sensible, make up, and move on,” is their “humanistic” advice, although Europeans fought for centuries and there was no peace until a defeated Germany withdrew from the fight. In other words, peace was achieved in Europe, and EU was created, because Germany stopped being a threat. Thus peace and “justice” was determined through arms. If pacifism was the answer, why does the world’s number-one power maintain bases in more than 100 countries? If pacifism was the answer, why is the world run by the most powerful. Now, even tiny Israel, is threatening the whole Middle East and Europe (their atomic bombs can reach Moscow, Paris, London…).
More than 10,000 years of history hasn’t taught you the lesson that the world is run by the powerful… that includes the UN, where five militarily strong powers have the veto option.
To be kind, I would say your advice to Armenians is naive; to be realistic, I would say your advice is destructive. You want us to become permanent wanderers, exiles, while Turkey sits on our lands, destroys Armenian historic buildings, erases all traces of 4,000 years of Armenian presence in Western Armenia and then says Armenians were minority peasants who never ruled the land while Turks from Central Asia are the descendants of the Hittites!
Perhaps it was Indian pacifism which enabled 40,000 British to rule 500 million plus India for nearly 150 years. The British didn’t leave until the Indians showed muscle.
Please no more of your Boy Scout advice. First advise your people (India and Pakistan) to get rid of their nuclear weapons. When you succeed in that venture, come and talk to us.
You seem to consider the Armenian/Turkish, Palestinian/Israeli, Pakistani/Indian conflicts similar. There’s absolutely no similarity among these three conflicts, other than that injustice was done.
VTiger pegged him correctly.
Anis claims to be of Indian origin, but his first example being that of oppressed Palestinians clearly shows his bias.
Why not the example of Christian Serbs being brutalized by Kosovo’s Albanians ? (in their own ancestral land, BTW)
Why not the example of 40% of Christian Cyprus being occupied by “secular” Turkey ? (yeah, secular with a 99.98% Muslim population)
Why not the example of Artsakh’s Armenians ?
No matter how much brutality racist Likudnik Israelis have inflicted on Palestinians, like it or not, Palestinians are under no existential threat from Israel. Since the conflict began, about 12,000 Palestinians have been killed by Israel. There are about 4 million Palestinians alive today in the Palestinian Territories alone.
Artsakh’s Armenians would have been wiped out if Armenians had not fought off AzeriTurk invaders, who, BTW, were supported by Mujaheddin from Afghanistan, Chechens, Turks from Turkey. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were Pak fighters also.
The massacres of defenseless Armenians of Sumgait, Kirovabad, Baku clearly demonstrated what would have happened if Azeris had won.
“Why not the example of Christian Serbs being brutalized by Kosovo’s Albanians?”
Why not example Christian Serbs attempting to wipe out Bosnian Muslims, in a PROVEN genocide?
Oh I forgot, genocide is only a crime when it happens to one of the Christian club. Silly me.
Before you rag on the Christian club, remember who hunted down and brought to the Hague war criminals Slobodan Milosevic, Radovan Karadic and Ratko Mladic.
Was it your Muslim Turk buddies or the members of the Christian club ?
I say it was Christian Serbians: what do you say ?
Your Muslim club, including Turkey and Azerbaijan, are actively working against the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
Which Christian country worked against the recognition of the Bosnian Genocide ?
Name me ONE Muslim country that has recognized the Armenian Genocide.
Just one.
If you find one, then you can rag on Christians – my Muslim Turk (nee Kurd) friend.
Milosevic wasn’t arrested by Serbian police for war crimes. Karadzic was arrested in 2008 after 12 years of evading Serbian officials, in BELGRADE. Convenient. Why would Turkey hunt for Serbian war criminals in Serbia? They might take that as an invasion.
One Muslim majority country that has recognized AG: Lebanon (59% Muslim). Muslim enough?
I found one, but I will not “rag on Christians.” I don’t rag on anyone, not my style. But if you bring up the atrocities Christian Serbs suffered you can bet I will bring up the sufferings of Muslim Bosnians and Kosovans. No doubt Serbs also suffered as the result of their genocidal government, but keep things in perspective, they call it the Bosnian genocide for a reason.
Which Christian country worked against the recognition of the Bosnian Genocide ?
Here is a link, you may choose to not read it, but it explains Bosnian genocide denial attempts by Serbia. I do recommend it though, their tactics are similar to Turkish tactics. Seems they learned from the best.
http://www.bosnia.org.uk/news/news_body.cfm?newsid=2638
Fine, Slobodan Milosevic was not arrested for war crimes: but who arrested him, Bosnians ? No, Serbs.
Who delivered him to the Hague, Muslim Bosnians ? No. Christian Serbs.
Who indicted him for war crimes and crimes against humanity (for what was done to Muslim Bosnians), Muslims ? No, European Christians.
And Lebanon is not a Muslim country. Not by a long shot.
Lebanon has a majority Muslim population, but the Government has a very strange arrangement, with the post of the President reserved for a Christian Lebanese, and Parliamentary seats split 50% Christian, 50% Muslim – regardless of population mix.
And, the Armenian Diaspora of Lebanon is quite wealthy and politically potent
Also, like it or not, Maronite Christians run the country.
So, No: Lebanon does not count as a ‘Muslim’ country that has recognized the AG.
Try again: give me a single Muslim country that has recognized the AG.
Regarding:
{“Here is a link, you may choose to not read it, but it explains Bosnian genocide denial attempts by Serbia. I do recommend it though, their tactics are similar to Turkish tactics. Seems they learned from the best.”}
I read the article.
Not even close.
You are comparing efforts of Serb individuals with the concerted efforts of the Turkish State.
I do not know a single Serb Government official that publicly denies the Bosnian Genocide. Do you ?
Yet the entire Turkish State is on a worldwide speaking tour denying the Armenian Genocide.
EU Affairs Minister Egemen Bağış daily taunts Armenians with his public pronouncements that he denies the AG.
You comparing that with what private Serb individuals do, even if they are members of the elite ?
Avery: I did not know that about Lebanon, I looked it up, it’s actually really cool that Christians, Sunnis, and Shias have found a way to cooperate. But I’d still say a Muslim majority country is a Muslim country, but the Christian influence probably had a great deal to do with the recognition.
But how were Bosnians going to arrest Milosevic? Invade Serbia and find him? But I will say this of Serbia, willingly or unwillingly they paid the price for their crime, the same cannot be said for Turkey.
Now that Anis has withdrawn from the discussion, RVDV has picked up his/her baton. He, like Anis, is wandering all over the place, rather than discuss the issue at hand: the Turkish genocide of Armenians. Any day now, he will bring up the massacre of Muslims of Jerusalem by the Crusaders. He might also tell us that there was civil war in the Ottoman Empire and more Muslims than Christians died during the said war.
Any day now? You seem to have me figured out pretty well, you forgot to add that I am a notorious denialist, everyone here can attest to that. I deny AG on a daily basis, it was all a fabrication in fact, much like the Holocaust. More Muslims died than Christians in the Ottoman Empire “Civil War.” The Crusaders massacred Muslims in Jerusalem during the Crusades. Oh, I am also a racist. I am intolerant of all other people, Armenians in particular. Again, anyone who has read any of my posts on AW can clearly see these facts.
There, I have successfully satisfied all of the stereotypes of a Turk on these forums. Sadly, I fulfill none of these stereotypes. I understand the inconvenience I am causing by not fulfilling your stereotypes. It seems you might need to work a litter harder, and perhaps refine your tactics to attack me. Don’t worry though, I’m told it builds character, so some good will come out of this.
My best regards dear sir or madam.
Anis, perhaps you mean well but I take acception to what you wrote:
‘However, if you think that continued acrimony with Turkey is the right thing for your people then continue what you have been doing for last hundred years.”
Truth is something worth fighting for. It is not about acrimony. It is about dignity and having one’s history acknowledged instead of being negated and having one’s existence be devalued. There is a difference between pacifism and passivity. I respect pacifists, especially those who doggedly fight for a cause in a noble and nonaggressive manner and at a sacrifice to their own security and creature comforts.
“continue what you have been doing for last hundred years.”
This is not an accurate statement as the Armenians were in no position to struggle for justice for about 40 years following the devastation of genocide, Sovietization of Armenia, and the utter abandonment by world powers who should have held Ataturk’s Turkey accountable. This is quite an uninformed and insensitive statement, at the least, or one intended to diminish Armenians and their cause. Besides, 100 years is a short time frame for Armenians who occupied those lands for 4000 years. There are still Armenians on those lands, some in the open and some hidden behind forced muslimization or Turkification, fighting for their dignity against a corrupt government everyday. I speak up for them.
Boyajian,
Thanks. I’ve been trying to find the right word to respond to Anis. I think you found some good ones here.
I tried to stay away but couldn’t, and here I am posting again.
Anis, are you familiar with how the Republic of Turkey has been deliberately trying to hide 1915, through school curriculums and coercion of allies to stay silent? This is actively going on up to today. Do you have anything to say about Turkey’s paranoia about facing her own history?
You listed a long string of historical tragedies and atrocities, including one experienced by your own family. Does the Armenian genocide not belong on this list as well? We are talking about history here. And it’s a history that is being actively suppressed by Turkey. You seem to have a strong opinion of us Armenians. How about Turkey?
RVDV,
Since you use the same logic and the same tired boilerplate phrases of official Turkish propaganda, it’s not a stretch to assume that you would also use the identical inane falsehood that there was “civil war in Ottoman Turkey and more Muslims than Christians died in that unfortunate conflict.”
You rhetorically ask whether you have met my stereotype of Turks. How could anyone describe 50 million Turks with the same adjectives? The mind boggles.
I did not say that I believed you are a Turk. However, you have exposed yourself by your Turkish state-sanctioned indoctrination. I have nothing against Turks, as long as they recognize the Genocide and admit justified reparations, compensation, restitution have to be made to Armenians. I naturally oppose any non-Turk who doesn’t recognize the Genocide with the same intensity as I oppose a Turk who denies the Genocide.
I hope the above is clear to you.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained what happened in 1915. I am all ears.
You wondered whether I am a he or a she. To help you learn a wee bit about Armenians: the same is that of a male. In fact, the “air” means “man” in Armenian. Hey, you’ve learned two Armenian facts. I hope you pursue this line and learn more facts about Armenians and their history.
Your last sentences are an embarrassing demonstration of verbal diarrhea.
“Perhaps it would be helpful if you explained what happened in 1915.”
Whatever you believe I believe. Whatever reparations you rightfully demand, I support. I’ve made that clear since day one, sir.
RVDV has been consistent in his acceptance of the genocide as the proper description of the crime committed against Ottoman Armenians in 1919-23.
Oops! Typo: 1915-1923.
RVDV,
I am happy to hear that. Sincerely.
Jirair, Boyajian: thank you. I know we don’t see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I am truly on your side when it come to AG.
RVDV is sincere and I appreciate his contributions here. Cut him some slack please.
boyajian
sorry for the late reply- you write:
Ragnar, I see we are repeating ourselves. Let’s not belabor our debate which in the end always hangs on your ‘ambivalence’ or ‘lack of being convinced’ that the Armenians suffered genocide.
comment: I agree that they suffered genocide, but I am not convinced on the role of the ittihadists regarding intent. But their responsibility, even criminal responsibility is clear to my mind.
You write:
I won’t pretend to be a historian who has read every word written on the subject or that I can hold my own when the pro and con citations start flying.
For me it is simply this: Lemkin coined the word in part based on what happened to the Armenians. I accept his assessment.
Comment:
lemkin read in the papers about the 1919-22 trials as a student. He had no possibililty to know the facts we know today. that he coined the word based on what he read cannot be used as an argument about what really happened.
You write:
I see the debate that it was not genocide as a manufactured and specious.
argument that allows Turkey to avoid responsibility for the great crime, the great catastrophe, the great tragedy, that was the death of Ottoman Armenians. No matter what you call these events, justice has not been served in almost 100 years, and this is in itself a tragedy.
comment: I agree 100 percent
You write:
I welcome the support of the French who by passing such a bill are attempting to ensure that ‘negationism’ is not permitted within their sovereign territory; not because they value free speech any less than its staunchest supporters, but because they reject the specious denial of genocide and its unjust impact on the victims.
comment:
well, you have hardly answered the general arguments on freedom of speech that lay at the base of Western societies. I believe the French Bill is a gift to reactionary Turks
you write:
I will wait to see what the French Court determines regarding the constitutionality of the recently passed bill. But no matter what they decide, the fact remains that Turkey has a responsibility to Armenia, Armenians, and the world to face justice for what happened to the Ottoman Armenians, and may further be culpable for using history, politics, and unabashed denial to obstruct justice.
Comment:
again I agree. On feb 2 I had my usual lecture and ended up with the moving video of the kids who were singing in the Sourp Khatch, asking the students – there were close to 200 of them – to ask Turks what happened to the Armenians, to strive towards justice for the Armenians. This is not only a matter between Armenians, Turks and myself, it is a matter of my own conscience once I started to relate to the Armenian question, or the Armenian genocide, and since I started discussing here on the pages of the AW. I dont take lightly on these things….
“lemkin read in the papers about the 1919-22 trials as a student. He had no possibililty to know the facts we know today. that he coined the word based on what he read cannot be used as an argument about what really happened.”
Ragnar, please don’t criticize Lemkin for formulating his opinions in exactly the same manner that you have—-by reading what others have written. Shall we restrict ourselves to eyewitness reports from the period and formulate our opinions based on the words of those who actually lived through the events? Bring it on!
I don’t really understand what you are asking of me regarding the arguments on freedom of speech. I believe I have addressed this issue several times in several comments. Does the French Bill restrict freedom of speech? Yes, but the precedence for such restriction of speech, when deemed too grievous to tolerate, exists elsewhere in most civilized nations who have guaranteed ‘free speech.’ I believe and support freedom of speech but also welcome the moral support of the French in limiting negationism. Sorry if this appears incongruous to you. I tend to tolerate dissonance well.
Do I fear that this Bill will fuel reactionary Turks? I expect that it will, but I also expect that many moderate Turks and others may be moved to accept the Truth based on France’s strong stand against denial.
Is this bill the best way to bring Turkey to justice? No, but that is not the intent of the bill. It simply intends to prevent the harm done by denial of genocide. A very limited and specific scope; not an assault on freedom of speech, in general.
boyajian
just one idea as food for thought
you write:
I see the debate that it was not genocide as a manufactured and specious.
argument that allows Turkey to avoid responsibility for the great crime, the great catastrophe, the great tragedy, that was the death of Ottoman Armenians. No matter what you call these events, justice has not been served in almost 100 years, and this is in itself a tragedy.
comment:
who keeps this very special debate going? There must be two parties for a debate, mustnt it? We see now that even the ARF wants to make other priorities than participating in the “was it or wasnt it?” debate. The great crime, the great catastrophy, the great tragedy is a fact beyond doubt, and these facts are a better starting point than the embittered insistence on a specific term to describe what happened. – For me the facts of the massacres, deportations and the complete ethnic cleansing of the Armenians, coupled with the unwillingness of the Turkish side to go seriously into it, in spite of Talaat’s confession, is enough..
What stops Turkey from saying, “Though we don’t call it genocide, we admit that the CUP/Ottomans were guilty of the death and destruction of the ancient Armenian civilization of Asia Minor. As heirs to the Ottoman Empire we accept responsibility, offer our sincerest regrets, and willingly enter into negotiations with Armenia and neutral arbiters in order to make restitution.”
The onus is on Turkey to end the denial of a well established fact by admitting to the crimes of their ancestors—-regardless of what it is called.
Without making any references to anyone´s in particular,I say freedom of speech is fine and it should be accepted universally.
However, refusal and disapproval of silly things,lies,frauds,copiers and the lsit goes on…should be turned down,refuted.
If one thing is good another maybe bad.One should have RIGHT OF CHOICE as well.
It seems the majority of mankind(thanks God) pertain to the side(category)that has a right mind,is clever(rather than cunning like a fox,an example) and is creative ,rather than destructive, denialist without any true correct reason.
So if all above talk is to justify that great Turkey has the right to DENY…O.K:
But like just said above that is good for the <UGLY people, those who still believe to destroy is better than to construct to achieve to advance…
Bravo Gaytzag! Freedom of choice and discernment!
Boyajian
You unfortunately live in a delusional world. What you need to understand is Turks have never forgiven your treason in their difficult and weak times. If a government makes a lighter statement implying what you have said any government wouldn’t stand a slim chance to occupy the office one more extra day. There is a very strong animosity against Armenians in Turkey let alone compensation. Do not look at a few people statement here or in the media and fooled
Thanks for the free diagnosis,John. At least my delusion is based on hope and the belief that justice will be done in the end. Unfortunately, you live in a psychotic delusion if you believe that the actions of a few activist groups, seeking self-determination and defending their villages, warranted the deportation and murder of all Armenians including innocent women and children. It is a lie you and your government tells its citizens in order to justify what was done to the Armenians. Time to face reality and end the delusion.
I should mention, however, that Armenians were as much traitors to Turks as slaves were to their slave owners in the US Civil War. They got screwed by us for 400 years, took a chance on the Russians, and got screwed for 70 more. Whatever they allegedly did, I think it’s safe to say they’ve suffered enough for it.
John the turk, I’m sorry to let you know that I think you are the one who unfortunately is still living in a delusional world not Boyajian, people like you never know how to live in peace with others, and that’s how it has been from the time of your ancestors arival to Asia Minor, killing, robing others and burning everything comes on their way, no need for asking for forgivness from man like you, who by keep living ignorant about his government majore crime or covering it up, and then by blaming others and not yourself, perhaps one day you realize about your problems and become a civilized man, untill then since no Armenians anymore are living in Asia Minor like use to be to rob and kill, I don’t know how you will survive without robing and killing, that is a very tought question to be answered by me, but you and your friends I’m sure you will find somone else to kill and rob, but there is an end for everything and you will realize that one day, if not your fallowers for sure will realize and ask for forgivnes of the Armenian people in order to bring peace for themselves .
Boyajian
It is another delusion to think that the governments tell the citizens and the citizens act upon the given information.The truth is exactly the other way around.
Yes, John, in the ideal world, that is how it works. But we are talking about the home of the Deep State. In Turkey, does the government have nothing to do with what is printed in textbooks and taught in classrooms? Printed in newspapers? Broadcast on television and radio? Do lawmakers not make laws limiting what can be expressed in public, lest it insult ‘Turkishness’ or a lawmaker or a leader? Does the judiciary branch of the government not punish those who speak unpopular views or who are determined to have insulted government officials and/or ‘Turkishness’? Is this not the ‘government’ dictating acceptable thoughts to the people, and not the other way around?
Johnny the Turk,
Your letter reminds me of the Nazis. Germany needed a scapegoat for its WWI defeat. Sensing the psychological need, Hitler accused Jews of “stabbing Germany in the back.” We know what happened to the Jews, although they had nothing to do with outcome of the war. You claim that Armenians were treacherous during WWI. Yes, a few thousand woefully-armed fedayeen, who had volunteered to protect Armenian villages against Turkish and Kurdish outrages (killings of Armenian civilians, looting, rape, kidnapping, etc.), toppled the Ottoman Empire and its vast army! Do you have other similar jokes?
I guess it must be news to you that close to 200,000 Armenians were conscripts in the Ottoman Army at the time. When the decision was made to kill the Armenian population, they were the first to go: they were disarmed, taken to desolate locales and killed.
If the Genocide of Armenians in 1915 was punishment for Armenian treachery, what about the Adana massacre of 1909? Thirty thousand Armenian civilians were butchered on that festive occasion. What about the 1895 massacre of close to 200,000 Armenians by Abdul Hamid? And what about close to 500 years of Ottoman corruption, persecution, injustice, discrimination…an endless era when Armenians were called “raya” by Turks, meaning cattle?
The Young Turk decision to eliminate Armenians was made in 1913, although some scholars believe that it was as early as 1909. The implementation opportunity came about when Turkey was defeated in Sarikamish by the Russian Army. Some Turkish “historians” maintain that the Russian Army was made up of Armenians. The truth is that there were Armenians in the Russian Army because those Armenians lived in the Russian Empire, and were conscripted, just as Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire were conscripted into the Ottoman Army.
Johnny the Turk, “treacherous Armenians” will not stick. Try to find another excuse to “justify” the elimination of a people who had lived, for more than 4,000 years, in Western Armenia, now occupied by Turkey.
Of course it’s desirable for many Turks like you to justify your national crime by blaming Armenians. I realize many Turks (including Mustapha Kemal and his clique) have another reason to repeat the accusation that Armenians were treasonous: they directly benefited from the theft of Armenian property. Millions of Turks are now illegally living on Armenian personal property.
People like you should try to read a book or two or shut up.
“Turks have never forgiven your treason in their difficult and weak times.”
john the turk,
I wonder what your “justification” is for the elimination of Assyrian, Pontian Greek and other Christian communities. Where they traitors, too?
Jiriar,RVDV
It is unfortunate that I can for some reason post only %20- 30 0f what I would like to post whereas Armenians can post anything they like on Turkish sites therefore I can only suggest you to read more
RVDV
It isn’t correct that Turks screwed Armenians for 400 years. Armenians claim that they had no other option against the oppressive regime but try to overthrown however, they also claim that Turks committed this genocide because Armenians were far more richer, wealthier, educated than Turks and Turks were jealous and wanted to steal the Armenians wealth. They must decide which one is correct
John, you are not addressing Gina’s point which shot a huge hole in your position that Armenians earned a ‘just punishment’ for their treachery against the empire and CUP.
Nor are you addressing RVDV’s point that one can hardly accuse someone of treason when they stand up to defend their own basic human rights after suffering abuse and oppression for hundreds of years.
And what about Jirayr’s points regarding the attacks on Armenians that pre-dated the so-called treason of Armenians during WWI?
Help us understand how you make sense of all of this to justify the destruction of the Greek, Assyrian and Armenian communities of the Ottoman empire?
“Armenians claim that they had no other option against the oppressive regime but try to overthrown however, they also claim that Turks committed this genocide because Armenians were far more richer, wealthier, educated than Turks and Turks were jealous and wanted to steal the Armenians wealth. They must decide which one is correct.”
john the turk,
I know that you did not address the question to me but I will say it, anyway.
Both points are correct. Try to think outside the box that is imposed on you and you will see that they are not mutually exclusive. Armenians were wealthier and more educated, not because Turks helped them or gave them more privileges than they gave to their own Turks, but despite all the oppression, heavier taxation and other forms of discrimination.
Please don’t forget that the peoples indigenous to the lands that you now claim yours had been there for thousands of years before the first Turk set foot, were far more advanced culturally than their conquerors and had been creating many wonders through their hard work before the hords of your ancestors arrived. There were schools, beautiful buildings, monuments, rich culture, traditions and accumulated wealth that were passed from generation to generation. Turkish oppression through their further development back by many centuries. Isn’t it natural that nomadic tribes that had never built a house in their lives would like what they saw but would have a hard time keeping up with all the achievement? It was much easier to steal, especially that they had the power. Think about it.
Good response, Gina!
Ponder this John the Turk:
Considering the stealing of a culture and the rape and pillage that comes with it, what and who exactly is a Turk? Perhaps this is the greatest delusion of all.
RVDV writes:
“I should mention, however, that Armenians were as much traitors to Turks as slaves were to their slave owners in the US Civil War. They got screwed by us for 400 years, took a chance on the Russians, and got screwed for 70 more. Whatever they allegedly did, I think it’s safe to say they’ve suffered enough for it.”
I appreciate the compassionate view toward Armenians in this comment, RVDV. But I am curious: how do you make sense of the phrase “screwed by us?” You are both a Turkish national and an ethnic Kurd. How do you manage the dissonance caused by identification with both the oppressor and the oppressed (who were also sometimes the co-oppressors)?
This is all in the context of the AG. In that regard, Kurds were also oppressors, we also took part. Yes, we had excuses for doing it, and I believe Kurds have formally apologized, but we are still guilty. And as we do not have a state, we are not in a position to pay reparations. In other cases, I generally view myself as just a Turk, not just when the issues are good and positive. I speak Turkish, as do my parents, and grandparents. No one in my family speaks our real native language at home. I know I’m not really a Turk, but I’m pretty close.
My grandmother feared “Kyoorts” as much as Turks, but she did not know, as I do, that many Kurds refused to kill or oppress, and some took up arms to defend Armenians and Assyrians. Some Ukrainians fought Hitler, and some staffed Concentration Camps.
RVDV, don’t dismiss what many good Kurds did.
There were wealthy Armenians in Ottoman Turkey. Some Armenians, through hard work, discipline, brains and enterprise became wealthy. And remember that Armenians had been on the land for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. One accumulates wealth through generations and inheritance. They also became wealthy because they could do what the Turks refused to do or wouldn’t do. Say, you have a garden. You tend it diligently. As a result, the harvest is richer, the produce is tastier and bigger than that of the competitor. You could fetch a better price on the market. After lots of work, perseverance, saving your money, and other good management techniques, you could buy a second garden… a third, and become wealthy.
But no matter how wealthy an Armenian/Greek/Jew/Assyrian was, he was forever a raya (cattle). He was always a third-class citizen. He was tolerated by the Turks as long as he kept his head down and didn’t mind injustice, over-taxation, that their court testimony was invalid and countless other indignities. For 500 years, Armenians in the Ottoman Empire led a life of “Yes, Sir… Whatever you wish, Sir…” just like Jews did in Europe.
In the 19th century, following the spreading of ideas about liberation, equality, democracy and nationalism, various captive nations (Greeks, Bulgarians, Arabs) demanded freedom from the Turkish yoke. Armenians, who realized that they couldn’t have a free Armenia because Turks lived next door to them and because Armenians didn’t have Western support the way the Greeks did, politely demanded–for decades–equal rights. The Turkish response? Brutality, organized pogroms and more vicious injustice.
In the face of Turkish brutality, a handful young Armenian men formed secret groups to defend Armenian villages; a insignificant minority demanded independence. However, the overwhelming majority of Armenians knew that independence was a romantic dream. From the Patriarch in Istanbul to the establishment figures in Istanbul to the peasant in Western Armenia and in Cilicia, Armenians were openly opposed to ideas of independence. They just wanted to live in peace, with some semblance of equality.
Turks–Ottoman and Young Turk–decided to exterminate Armenians because Turks wanted a homogenous Turkic/Turanic state, without multi-ethnic groups, specially Christian. In other words, they were fascists, way ahead of Mussolini and Hitler. Ataturk was a pioneer of fascism. Turkey (including the current government) has continued on that same fascist path… they eliminated Greeks, Assyrians, Zazas… and now are trying to eliminate the Kurds or at least assimilate them to a degree that there wouldn’t be any Kurds left in Asia Minor.
Some survivors of the Genocide of Armenians and their children sometimes claim that they were wealthy “back home.” This is a natural tendency. You wouldn’t expect them to say they were impoverished… They predictably claim having had fabulous orchards, big houses…. just like every Palestinian I have met who claims his family had endless fields and farms in Old Palestine. One has to empathize with the hurt of these people, rather than quote their empty boasts as proof of anything. The majority of Armenians living in Ottoman Turkey were poor townspeople or peasants barely surviving under heavy taxation and were permanently threatened by corrupt Turkish authorities and by racist Turkish neighbors eager to grab Armenian property.
Jirayr, I hope that John the Turk? can put aside his bigoted indoctrination long enough to receive the lessons in this comment. I certainly appreciate it.
David, I hope Johnny the Turk learns a few things. His people didn’t learn much about Armenians, although they lived next door to us for more than 500 years.
I sometimes think that people like the Turkish John are a hopeless cases. They are fossilized in their racism and in their inferiority complex, which they express though brutality.
Jirair,
I believe, we have two Boyajians. One of them is David and he usually posts under “David Boyajian,” in case you are confused.
True
Johnny the Turk
This is Armenian website. If you agree with their views then you are most welcomed, otherwise keep your mouth shut. This is Armenian style freedom of speech. So let them agree with each other.
anis,
You have some open questions to you that are not yet answered. You’ve lectured us about how to deal with our history, how about how Turkey has dealt with her history? How do you feel about Turkey’s dealings with freedom of speech?
Also, it is the nature and arguments of the disagreement not the very act of disagreeing that is at issue.
John the Turk has shown a very racist attitude towards Armenians. Should we take your comments as sympathizing with him?
As someone who responded to you in a respectful manner, I take exception to this comment and the implied insult. You obviously have not read much on this sight or you would know that Armenians do not all agree with each other. Tell us again why you are not anti-Armenian, my pacifist, forgiving, merciful, humanist, Indian friend?
I think john the turk has shown ugly racism towards Kurds, as well. I don’t have time to go through his past comments but that’s what I remember: disrespectful and hate-filled attitude towards anyone who may challenge the notion of Turkish supremacy–Armenians and Kurds, first of all.
{“This is my last posting. I apologize if I have hurt your feelings. That was not my purpose.”} wrote Anis above (about 10 days ago).
Is it something we Armenians said that you decided to come back, Anis ?
What did we do wrong this time ?
We disagreed with a Denialist: is that it ?
If we collectively apologize, will you promise not to give us another opportunity to disagree with you ?
BTW: by the condescending, insulting tone in your post directed at Armenians, you finally showed your true face, so carefully concealed behind words such as ‘humanity’, ‘peace’, ‘feelings’, etc.
(It is quite amusing how they all slip sooner or later.)
Since you are apparently playing games, here’s a game for you Anis:
1. Anis (is your “name” the reverse of Sinan, the famous Armenian architect Turks used to insist was Turkish, but now marginally concede and describe him as “Christian?)
2. Anis is also a common Arab name, yet you claim to be Indian. Why would an Indian deny the Genocide of Armenians other than (in a misconceived attempt) to support brother Muslims? Yes, the Muslim Umma has to remain monolithic, and justice and truth be damned.
Anis (he/she) you said you would not submit comments but have made two comments since your “resignation.” Now your are giving advice to Johnny the Turk, while taking a dig at the site and its contributors.
3. Anis, are you sure you are not Johnny the Turk?
As I wrote a week or two ago, Ankara has these hired people who are paid to monitor Armenian Webs and vomit their standard issue denialist pap. Annis the Turk might be one such mercenary.