Mamigonian: Tlön, Turkey, and the Armenian Genocide

The Armenian Weekly Magazine
April 2012 

“It has allowed them to question and even to modify the past,
which nowadays is no less malleable or obedient than the future.”
—Jorge Luis Borges, ‘Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius’

It has long been clear—at least since 1950 and the publication of Esat Uras’ Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi,2 though, in fact, probably since 1915 itself3—that the Turkish state, with its allies and hirelings,has sought to construct an alternative history in which, at various times, the Armenians have either not existed, or existed only as a tool of Western imperialist powers threatening the integrity of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire; a history in which the Armenian Genocide cannot be named independent of the words “alleged” or “so-called.” In this sense, the writing of history has served as a continuation of the genocidal process.

Mainstream journalism and scholarship undertake the work—sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly—of constructing Turkey’s Tlön.

In the past decade, even as a few scholars from Turkey and Turkish citizens have begun to talk and write more openly about their history, including the Armenian Genocide, Ankara, perhaps concerned that it is losing the battle to erase and rewrite history, or, on the contrary, perhaps because it believes that victory is achievable, has raised its efforts to a new level. This article examines some of the ways Turkey creates and disseminates its perversion of history and how its narrative is (unknowingly or knowingly) passed along to mostly uninformed readers, with the end result of skewing the discussion towards a narrative acceptable to Turkey. A comprehensive history and analysis is well beyond the scope of this article and, in fact, calls for a book-length study.

Outside Turkey (and perhaps even inside the country) it is not too well known that there has existed since 2001 an entity called, in Turkish, Asılsız Soykırım ddiaları ile Mücadele Koordinasyon Kurulu (AS MKK) or, in English, the Committee to Coordinate the Struggle with the Baseless Genocide Claims.

According to Jennifer Dixon, a scholar who has researched the development of the official Turkish historical narrative on the “Armenian Question,” the committee is “[c]o-headed by the Foreign Minister and the general who heads the National Security Council” and “also includes high-level representatives from a number of key government ministries and organizations, including the Ministry of the Interior, the Turkish Historical Society and the archives.” Dixon further explains that “it appears that its main goals have been to coordinate and execute a centralized strategy for responding to international pressures on this issue, and to shape public opinion in Turkey and abroad on this issue.”5

Turkey is thus perhaps the only state with an official or semiofficial entity devoted exclusively to events that it maintains did not occur. The committee has not been idle, and the number of publications devoted to refuting the “Baseless Genocide Claims” has increased substantially since 2001.6

On June 10, 2010, Turkey’s state news outlet Anadolu Agency reported that in 2011, the Turkish Historical Society (Türk Tarih Kurumu) would publish a 20-volume encyclopedia that “aims to create the most comprehensive resource on Armenian problem [sic].” Project director Prof. Enis Sahin stated, “When we first started this project, we thought it would be comprised of 5,000-6,000 pages . . . Now it seems to be a set of books of nearly 20 volumes each with 600 or 700 pages. It will become an encyclopedia.”7 Although the encyclopedia has yet to appear, this author is informed that it is still in the works.

The creation of the 20-volume Un-cyclopedia of the Armenian Non-Genocide would likely represent a milestone of sorts in the state’s untiring efforts to negate history. Sahin wrote in 2003:

If Turkey wishes to become a global state or an influential power in its region, it should overcome the difficulties it faces in the Armenian Question just like in each issue and should formulate highly realizable policies in line with its geopolitics and put them in place. These policies should be adopted as imperatives for the country; never should there be any concessions from them… It is evident that Armenian allegations of genocide are a complete deception… There should be an abundant number of works translated into foreign languages supporting the Turkish thesis in libraries and research institutions in these countries.8

Sahin’s statements suggest that his agenda is to support and advance the state’s interests (as represented by its official thesis on the “Armenian Question”) by any means necessary. Such remarks might seem unusual coming from a professor of history, but they are less so when one remembers that the Turkish Historical Society was created in 1931 by Atatürk for the development and dissemination of Turkey’s official, state-generated history.9

 

A DIGRESSION BY WAY OF BORGES

The Turkish Historical Society’s uncyclopedic undertaking—as a part-for-whole representation of the entire monstrous apparatus dedicated to creating a fake history—strongly calls to mind Jorge Luis Borges’ uncanny, nightmarish ficción “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius.” Not a short story in the usual sense, it is, as the author points out in the foreword to the collection The Garden of Forking Paths (1941) in which it first appeared, an example of what he calls “notes upon imaginary books.”10

It is difficult to summarize a commentary on an imaginary book. The Borgesian narrator describes his dawning awareness of the land called “Uqbar” (which, as coincidence would have it, is supposed to be located near Armenia), which is mentioned in some copies of a certain encyclopaedia. Doubting the very existence of such a place, he reads that “the literature of Uqbar was fantastic in character, and that its epics and legends never referred to reality, but to the two imaginary realms of Mlejnas and Tlön…” (19).

Later, much to his surprise, the narrator encounters one volume of A First Encyclopaedia of Tlön: “clearly stated, coherent, without any apparent dogmatic intention or parodic undertone” (22).

It emerges, finally, that this is all part of a vast intellectual conspiracy born in the 18th century: “A benevolent secret society.. . came together to invent a country. . . [and] in 1914, the society forwarded to its collaborators, three hundred in number, the final volume of the First Encyclopaedia of Tlön. The edition was secret; the forty volumes which comprised it (the work was vaster than any previously undertaken by men) were to be the basis for another work, more detailed, and this time written, not in English, but in some one of the languages of Tlön. That review of an illusory world was called, provisionally, Orbis Tertius11…” (31–32).

This might be the end of the story. Except that in a postscript written seven years later (that is, seven fictional years later), the narrator reveals, with quiet horror, that the “unreality” of Tlön begins to intrude into the “reality” of this world:

Contact with Tlön and the ways of Tlön have disintegrated this world […] Now, the conjectural ‘primitive language’ of Tlön has found its way into the schools. Now, the teaching of its harmonious history, full of stirring episodes, has obliterated the history that dominated my childhood. Now, in all memories, a fictitious past occupies the place of any other. We know nothing about it with any certainty, not even that it is false. Numismatics, pharmacology and archaeology have been revised. I gather that biology and mathematics are also awaiting their avatar. . . . A scattered dynasty of recluses has changed the face of the earth—and their work continues. If our foresight is not mistaken, a hundred years from now someone will discover the hundred volumes of The Second Encyclopaedia of Tlön. Then, English, French, and mere Spanish will disappear from this planet. The world will be Tlön (34–35).

For those who follow closely the historiography of the Armenian Genocide and the simultaneous anti-historiography of the Armenian Non-Genocide, much of this should sound less like fantasy than like grim realism. Because when it comes to the history of the Armenian Genocide, to an alarming extent, we are already living in Tlön.

But how does this process work? How does the unreality of genocide denial enter into and permeate our world? It is not by means of a secret society as in Borges’ fiction. Mainstream journalism and scholarship undertake the work—sometimes knowingly, sometimes unknowingly—of constructing Turkey’s Tlön.

For the purposes of this article, one example must suffice: a work of journalism that swallows whole the idea that the discussion of the Armenian Genocide is a “debate” and the virtual unknowability of what is actually a rather well-documented historic event or series of events. The article by Jack Grove, which appeared last year in the (London) Times Higher Education, “Can We Ever Know the Truth About the Armenian ‘Genocide?’”12 serves as a good case study, as it is almost the apotheosis of a “neutral journalistic”13 approach to the Armenian Genocide that probably unwittingly serves to advance the cause of genocide denial and the dissemination of unreality.

The strategy of denying the Armenian Genocide outright has mostly become the exception rather than the rule. This is not to suggest that what one might call classic, old-school denial14—“There was no Armenian Genocide and besides they deserved it” does not live on. Unfortunately, virulent and blatant denial and victimblaming—unlike analogous Holocaust denial, for instance—is readily available and often is authored by figures associated with one or more of the several Turkish-American groups one of the tasks of which is to import Turkey’s war on historical truth. More than 20 years ago, the pioneering genocide scholar Roger Smith wrote that “[t]he Turkish argument is elaborate and systematic and, though some of its surface details have changed over time, its basic structure has remained one of denial and justification.”15 This is still largely the case today, though one must qualify the phrase “Turkish argument” because not only, of course, is this not an argument made by all Turks, but also because denial and justification of the Armenian Genocide are not limited to Turks.16

Overall, since Smith wrote his important essay, the language and the content of Turkey’s denial have evolved,17 and this evolution has had its impact on the kind of genocide denial that the average person might encounter. The blunt instrument of old-school denial has been honed into a more precise dagger. In the U.S. and Europe, in particular, in order to advance its agenda of spreading mistruth, denial exploits cherished ideals such as freedom of speech and the belief that there must always be two sides to each story.

Instead of confronting the genocide head-on, deniers play upon widespread ignorance of the subject and seek to create doubt. By reframing well-documented history as a “controversy” with at least two legitimate “sides,” they engage in spurious, circular debates with the goal of indefinitely deferring genocide recognition and its consequences. Prof. Taner Akçam has formulated it well: “we can observe that on the subject of the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government and entities that support its positions follow a very systematic and aggressive policy in the U.S. The essence of this policy is to make the idea that ‘1915 was not genocide’ be accepted as normal and as equivalent to the idea that ‘1915 was genocide.’”18 Consequently, if both “it was genocide” and “it was not genocide” are equally acceptable positions, then of course there can be no such thing as “genocide denial.”

This policy is being pursued in at least two related ways. The first is a campaign of legal intimidation. Examples include the failed effort in Massachusetts to sue the Commonwealth’s Board of Education for not including denial-supporting materials in its curriculum on genocide19 and the thus far dead-on-arrival defamation suit against the University of Minnesota and its Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies for identifying the Turkish Coalition of America’s website as one of many “unreliable” sources.20 This tactic seems intended to produce “a chilling effect on the ability of scholars and academic institutions to carry out their work freely.”21

Even when such lawsuits fail, they not only serve to intimidate scholars but also to advance the idea that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is inherently controversial and disputed, thus helping to re-frame the discussion in terms congenial to the agenda of new-style genocide denial. In competitive sports this is known as “working the refs.” If a coach complains constantly about penalties on his team, the beleaguered referee may unconsciously start balancing things out, if only to stop the complaints.

But, of course, the complaints never stop. Another form of this tactic is on display nearly every time a journalist writes anything about the Armenian Genocide and letters, emails, and phone calls follow from Turkish officials or domestic pressure groups, to say nothing of government and business entities seeking to assist a valued ally regarding a “sensitive” matter.22  It is understandable, though not excusable, that press outlets alter their coverage in a more “balanced” way that they think will make these complaints stop or will safeguard them against legal attacks.

Denial of the Armenian Genocide is only to be expected from advocates of Turkish state interests. More pernicious, arguably, is the conscious or unconscious adoption of denialist themes and rhetorical framing by academics and mainstream journalists. These issues of language and framing are familiar to anyone who follows media coverage of the Armenian Genocide. One is accustomed, when reading the arguments of advocates for the official Turkish position, to encounter leading questions, euphemisms, distortions, and false equivalences, all geared towards a certain “spin.” Denialist phrasing includes such old chestnuts as “so-called Armenian genocide,” “alleged massacres,” “Armenian relocation,” “civil war,” and “necessary wartime security measure.” It should be noted that this maximalist form of denial has been, if not replaced, then augmented by an ostensibly humane approach that takes note of Armenian suffering, even acknowledging massacres, but invariably stresses that the First World War was a time of great general suffering and that in no way was there a deliberate effort to eliminate the Armenians.

Sometimes the maximalist approach and the quasi-humane approach rest cheek by jowl within the same article. For example, Turkish Coalition of America “resident scholar” Bruce Fein’s “Lies, Damn Lies, and Armenian Deaths” allows that “Armenians have a genuine tale of woe” but states that they have concocted an exaggerated number of deaths during the non-genocide to make a more convincing case as they seek “a ‘pound of flesh’ from the Republic of Turkey,” an eyebrow-raising comparison of Armenians to Shakespeare’s Shylock.23

One is accustomed, too, to the “he said/she said” treatment of the Armenian Genocide that has become the most frequent fallback position for many mainstream news media, particularly when (and this is almost always the case), the writer has no background in the subject matter. NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen provides a helpful guide to the hallmarks of he said/she said reporting:

—There’s a public dispute.

—The dispute makes news.

—No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the “conflict makes news” test.)

—The means for assessment do exist, so it’s possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.

—The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.24

The effort to get influential mainstream newspapers such as the Boston Globe and New York Times to stop mandating such inane formulations as, “Armenians claim that as many as 1.5 million….” whereas “Turkey states that Armenians and a larger number of Turks and Muslims died as a result of wartime conditions…” met with success despite the deeply entrenched tendency to engage in false equivalences in the belief that this demonstrates a lack of bias and shows journalistic objectivity.25 As Rosen writes, “Journalists associate the middle with truth, when there may be no reason to…Writing the news so that it lands somewhere near the ‘halfway point between the best and the worst that might be said about someone’ is not a truthtelling impulse at all, but a refuge-seeking one, and it’s possible that this ritual will distort a given story.”26

The problems that Rosen identifies as endemic to he said/she said journalism are on display in Grove’s article “Can We Ever Know the Truth About the Armenian ‘Genocide?’” The problems start with the title.

The title is a good example of what is known as a loaded question—a question that is deployed for rhetorical purposes in order to frame the discussion that follows. To choose another example that has more current-day resonance that a journalist might ask innocently: “Which side do you take in the global warming controversy?” Such a question presupposes the existence of a “controversy,” and a controversy presupposes the existence of two or more opinions or sides with a more or less equal claim on truth.

To ask the question “Can We Ever Know the Truth About the Armenian ‘Genocide?’” is to adopt the language of the party that asserts the existence of a controversy in the face of overwhelming evidence—a party that desperately seeks to be recognized as half of a “heated dispute” rather than as a trafficker in fake history.

The quotation marks around “genocide” signal to readers that the word thus enclosed is somehow questionable. We cannot know the writer’s or editor’s motivation for using those scare quotes. If the “controversy” is the news, according to Rosen’s model, perhaps the scare quotes are meant to telegraph journalistic objectivity by positing the existence of a “debate”: i.e., was it a genocide or a “genocide”? They may be read as: “We are not saying it was a genocide, we are not saying it was not a genocide. We are just reporting on a controversy from a neutral position.” Nevertheless, the scare quotes within a loaded rhetorical question support the reading that is most congenial to genocide deniers. Far from staking out an already specious middle position, the scare quotes place Grove and Times Higher Education in apparent alignment with those who, “when not able to silence the question of genocide altogether, [attempt] to sow confusion and doubt among journalists, policy makers, and the general public.”27

The first sentence of the article proper states what appears to be a simple fact: “Few academic subjects are as politically explosive as the dispute over the mass killings in Armenia.” The writer has correctly stated that this is an academic subject with political repercussions. However, instead of proceeding to present an accurate assessment of the academic consensus28 and the reasons for the political controversy, which would clearly require a substantial exploration of the subject, the author follows the path of least resistance and presents “both sides” of the “dispute,” which, misleadingly, becomes located in the academic realm rather than in the political.

The second sentence virtually constitutes a statement of the locus classicus of genocide denial: “Almost 100 years after the alleged atrocities of 1915–16, arguments still rage over whether the deaths of between 600,000 and 1.5 million Armenian civilians constitute genocide.” “Alleged atrocities”: that is to say, even the fact of atrocities, whether as part of the execution of a genocide or not, is called into question. A wide range of estimated deaths reinforces the idea that even after “almost 100 years” we are no nearer to the truth. The already tenuous grip on logic is altogether lost in the sentences that follow. “Most historians agree that Ottoman Turks deported hundreds of thousands of Armenians from eastern Anatolia to the Syrian desert during the First World War, where they were killed or died of starvation and disease.” Actually all historians agree that hundreds of thousands of Armenians were deported from Anatolia to the Syrian desert and that large numbers of them died. Even the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs acknowledges the death of as many as 300,000 Armenians.29 Yet Grove cannot deign to present even this as a firmly established fact.

“But was this a systematic attempt to destroy the Christian Armenian people?” Grove asks, “[o]r was it merely part of the widespread bloodshed—including the deaths of innocent Turkish Muslims—in the collapsing Ottoman empire?”

A false choice is presented here, because the extermination of the Armenians was both a systematic attempt to destroy them—a genocide—as well as part of the overall bloody collapse of the Ottoman Empire during a world war in which many Turks and Muslims also died. Likewise: Was the Holocaust a systematic attempt to destroy the Jewish people? Or was it part of the widespread bloodshed—including the deaths of innocent German civilians—in the war-torn Nazi empire? Clearly it was both. Such false opposition, which masquerades as objectivity in its pretense of emphasizing the tragedy of all loss of life, is a staple of genocide denial—any genocide denial.30

Our suggestion is not that Grove knowingly drew on the rhetorical tools of genocide denial or deliberately trivialized the extermination of the Ottoman Armenians. However, he made no attempt to answer the questions he posed or to provide any factual information that a reader could use to formulate a response. In short, he failed to do his job.

The fog of doubt hovering over the author’s references to the “alleged atrocities” and quote-genocide-unquote obscures other facts as well. Having noted that “Hrant Dink was assassinated by a 17-year-old nationalist in 2007 after criticizing the country’s denialist stance,” he then retreats and states that “[b]efore Dink’s death, such claims had resulted in his being prosecuted for ‘denigrating Turkishness.’ The Nobel laureate Orhan Pamuk was also prosecuted for making similar claims.” Claims? Did they make claims or did they make factual statements that brought them into conflict with Turkey’s “denialist stance”? And what, for that matter, is Turkey’s denialist stance? Who formulates it and how is it disseminated? Surely these are questions whose answers a reader of this article would find relevant, but Grove either doesn’t know or doesn’t think this is important enough to share with readers.

The bulk of the story consists of a collection of quotes from “both sides” of the spurious “debate.” Jeremy Salt of Bilkent University takes up the classic “Yes, Armenians died, but…” position, emphasizing “the scale of the catastrophe that overwhelmed the Ottoman Empire.” All peoples of the dying empire suffered and died from “massacre, malnutrition, disease, and exposure. Armenians were the perpetrators as well as the victims of largescale violence…These are the facts that any historian worth his salt will come across,” declares Salt.

Salt’s statements call to mind part of Roger Smith’s enumeration of the rhetorical tropes of Turkish denial in 1989: “Armenians suffered and died, but this was due to wartime conditions and to elements beyond the control of the government—Kurds, criminals, officials who disobeyed orders” but “the number of Turks who died was far greater.”31 Since Grove makes no effort to explore the reliability of Salt’s account, the questions need to be asked: What is the purpose of the article and what is Grove’s responsibility towards his readers?

The comments of Hakan Yavuz of the University of Utah department of political science32 shift the discussion away from history itself and towards a “debate.” He identifies “the Armenian diaspora” as “the key obstacle to advancing the debate over the causes and consequences of the events of 1915.” The diaspora promotes what he calls “the genocide thesis” and works towards “silencing those who question their version” of history.

That is, these are simply two “narratives” of history and neither can be privileged over the other. Such an approach again calls to mind Akçam’s assessment: “The essence of this policy is to make the idea that ‘1915 was not genocide’ be accepted as normal and as equivalent to the idea that ‘1915 was genocide.’”

Yavuz presents another common talking point: “One may conclude that the Armenian diaspora seeks to use the genocide issue as the ‘societal glue’ to keep the community together.” Such a statement deftly avoids addressing what actually occurred historically, and shifts the discussion away from a discussion of facts and toward the realm of identity politics.33

While Salt along with Yavuz handle the role of “he said,” Akçam is forced into “she said.” His presence in the article appears to result not from his authorship of numerous significant books and articles on the Armenian Genocide but because he “told a conference at Glendale Public Library, Arizona [sic, the event took place in Glendale, Calif.], in June that he had been informed by a source in Istanbul, who wished to remain anonymous, that hefty sums have been given to academics willing to counter Armenian genocide claims.”

“Beyond the legal writs, however, the episode has raised questions of whether free historical investigation of the genocide claims can ever take place amid the frenzied Turkish-Armenian political climate,” writes Grove, making use of the doubt-raising term “claims.” Akçam is quoted making no such statement.

Grove writes that Akçam “believes pressure from Ankara has made it impossible for Turks to look into the subject at home.” That assertion is certainly supportable. But the fact that researchers in Turkey feel real pressure not to address the Armenian Genocide does not mean that there is no “free historical investigation of the genocide,” since Akçam is himself engaged in such work—but not inside Turkey.

Giving the impression that such work is impossible suits the purposes of those promoting denial, however, inasmuch as it questions the validity of the large body of scholarship on the Armenian Genocide. Grove’s readers are given no real opportunity to understand the actual state of “historical investigation” or who actually creates obstacles and how. A great many readers will come away from it knowing only of the existence of a somewhat nebulous “debate” that might be historical, might be political, or might be legal, but the true facts of which are either unknowable or not important. Or, in Jay Rosen’s formulation: “No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story.”

Words written more than 25 years ago by Richard Hovannisian are perhaps even more applicable today:

As the number of persons who lived through World War I and who have direct knowledge of the events diminishes, the rationalizers and debasers of history become all the more audacious . . . At the time of the deportations and massacres, no reputable publication would have described the genocide as ‘alleged.’ The clouding of the past, however, and the years of Turkish denials, diplomatic and political pressures, and programs of image improvement have had their impact on some publishers, correspondents, scholars, and public officials. In an increasingly skeptical world, the survivors and descendants of the victims have been thrust into a defensive position from which they are required to prove time and again that they have indeed been wronged, individually and collectively.34

The Times Higher Education coverage shows how genocide denial has evolved a more effective model that seeks to establish itself as the legitimate “other side of the story.” A journalist who can write without irony of “the alleged atrocities of 1915–16” clearly has fallen for this tactic. The “competing narratives” approach to the Armenian (scare-quotes please) “genocide” is the wolf of denial in the sheep’s clothing of “objective reporting.” Journalists who fail to see beyond the trap of “reporting the controversy” have effectively ceased to engage in journalism and are merely serving as conduits for genocide denial. Which brings us back to Borges. Each time an “objective, neutral” outlet uncritically passes along the Turkish state’s historical fictions, the world is that much closer to becoming Tlön.
ENDNOTES

1. The author would like to thank Dr. Lou Ann Matossian for many helpful suggestions and comments during the writing of this article.

2. The English translation, The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, appeared in 1988 with substantial additions and was widely distributed to libraries. Uras, aka Ahmed Esat, was a former Young Turk official and a participant in the organization of the Armenian Genocide. See Hilmar Kaiser, “From Empire to Republic: The Continuities of Turkish Denial,” in Armenian Review 48.3-4 (Fall-Winter 2003), pp. 1–24.

3. Official Ottoman publications were issued concurrently with the genocide in order to offer justification of the process then unfolding. See, for example, The Armenian Aspirations and Revolutionary Movements (Istanbul, 1916; in English, French, and German) with its copious photographs of menacing-looking Dashnaks and Hnchaks and heaps of “confiscated weapons.” Taner Akçam has observed that Talaat Pasha himself “laid the groundwork for the ‘official Turkish version’ of the deportation and killings” at the Union and Progress Party’s final congress in November 1918 (A Shameful Act [New York: Metropolitan Books, 2006] p. 184). For a succinct account of the importance of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk in “the consolidation of Turkish denial within official Turkish history” see Fatma Ulgen, “Reading Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the Armenian Genocide of 1915,” in Patterns of Prejudice 44.4 (2010).

4. As early as 1924, Edward Hale Bierdstadt would assert, “So far as I have been able to ascertain, the direct propaganda in which Turkey indulges is comparatively small…because Turkey has evolved an even better method of concealing truth and spreading untruth. She makes her friends work for her” (The Great Betrayal: A Survey of the Near East Problem [New York: R. M. McBride & Company, 1924], p. 84).

5. Jennifer Dixon, “Defending the Nation? Maintaining Turkey’s Narrative of the Armenian Genocide,” in South European Society and Politics, 15:3, p. 478. Dixon’s 2011 UC Berkeley dissertation, “Changing the State’s Story: Continuity and Change in Official Narratives of Dark Pasts,” is by far the most informative source to date on the production, dissemination, and evolution of Turkey’s official narrative of genocide denial.

6. ibid., pp. 478-479.

7. Original link (no longer operative): www.armenialive.com/armeniannews/ANKARA—Turkish-Historical-Society-launches-project-on-

Armenian-issue. See www.armeniandiaspora.com/showthread.php?244763-ANKARA-Turkish-Historical-Society-launches-project-on-Armenian-issu#.T2yH89m1Vw4.

8. “Armenian Question and Turkey: What Hasn’t Been Done and What Should Be Done?” See http://www.stradigma.com/english/april2003/articles_02.html.

9. Jennifer Dixon describes the Turkish Historical Society as “quasi-official” and a “nominally an independent foundation” whose “publications frequently reproduce and advance official ideologies on a range of topics, including the Armenian question” (“Changing the State’s Story,” p. 77 and p. 56, note 140). See also Fatma Müge Göçek’s observation that “[i]n an attempt to place the blame for the past as well as present violence squarely on the Armenians, the Turkish state then drew upon its retired diplomats and ‘official scholars’ to reconstruct a mythic version of 1915. Through the selective use of archival documentation, the official Turkish Historical Society in particular started to build a large body of literature around the imagined narrative of past events” (The Transformation of Turkey: Redefining State and Society from the Ottoman Empire to the Modern Era [London: I.B. Tauris, 2010], p. 152).

10. Jorge Luis Borges, Ficciones, edited and with an introduction by Anthony Kerrigan (New York: Grove Press, 1962), pp. 15-16. The translation of “Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius” is by Alastair Reid. Further citations given in the text parenthetically.

11. Borges’ “Orbis Tertius”(Latin: Third World) is undoubtedly intended to suggest the Nazi Third Reich. Connections between Orbis Tertius and Karl Popper’s World 3 are worth exploring.

12. The article appeared on Sept. 22, 2011. See www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=417484.

13. That is to say, one cannot and should not assume that Grove has any nefarious agenda. On the contrary, it is the very assumption that he is coming to the topic from an “unbiased” perspective that makes the article significant.

14. A very partial list of earlier analyses of the evolution of denial of the Armenian Genocide includes: Rouben Adalian, “The Armenian Genocide: Revisionism and Denial,” in Michael N. Dobkowski and Isidor Wallimann. eds., Genocide in Our Time: An Annotated Bibliography with Analytical Introductions (Ann Arbor. Michigan: Pierian Press, 1992); Roger Smith, “Genocide and Denial: The Armenian Case and Its Implications” (Armenian Review, 42.1 1989) and Richard Hovannisian, “The Critic’s View: Beyond Revisionism” (International Journal of Middle East Studies, 9.3, Oct., 1978); “The Armenian Genocide and Patterns of Denial,” in The Armenian Genocide in Perspective, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (New Brunswick and Oxford: Transaction Books, 1986); “Denial of the Armenian Genocide in Comparison with Holocaust Denial,” in Remembrance and Denial: The Case of the Armenian Genocide, ed. Richard G. Hovannisian (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1999).

15. Smith, p. 6.

16. Nonetheless, because deniers frame the issue as an argument about (judgment of, accusation of, attack on) Turks, Turkey, or Turkishness—and, hence, increasingly play the “anti-Turkish” or “anti-Muslim” card—as opposed to a matter of historical truth, the “defenders of Turkey” respond by attacking the ethnic/national identity of their opponents. Hence the tu quoque counterassaults on Armenians, Armenia, or Armenianness; Western “colonialists,” “genocidaires,” “religious bigots,” or “racists,” etc.

17. See Dixon, “Changing the State’s Story,” esp. chapters 3-5.

18. As stated in lecture at the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR), May 2011.

19. See Memorandum and Order, C. A. No. 05-12147-MLW, U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts, June 10, 2009. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/wolf/pdf/griswold%20opinion%20june%2010%202009.pdf.

20. See http://www.mndaily.com/sites/default/files/Cingilli%20v%20U%20of%20MN.pdf for Judge Donovan W. Frank’s 3/30/11 dismissal of the case. The dismissal has been appealed.

21. The quote is from a Jan. 18, 2011 letter from the Middle East Studies Association (MESA) Committee on Academic Freedom to Turkish Coalition of America President G. Lincoln McCurdy. See http://mesa.arizona.edu/committees/academic-freedom/intervention/lettersnorthamerica.html#US20110118.

22. This is not to say, of course, that individual Armenians and Armenian groups do not also attempt to achieve influence; but the fact is that the Republic of Armenia cannot be compared as a global player to Turkey, nor are Armenians able to draw on the considerable influence of international corporations, ex-government officials, and lobbyists that support Turkey. See, for example, Luke Rosiak, “Defense contractors join Turkish lobbying effort in pursuit of arms deals,” http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/

2009/defense-contractors-join-turkish-lobbying-effort-in-pursuit-of-/. In 2008, Turkey was ranked fifth among foreign governments in total money spent on lobbying activity and first in the number of contacts with members of Congress. See http://reporting.sunlightfoundation.com/2009/adding-it-top-players-foreign-agent-lobbying/.

23. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bruce-fein/lies-damn-lies-and-armeni_b_211408.html. Fein is also one of the two attorneys at Turkish American Legal Defense Fund, a project of the Turkish Coalition of America.

24 See http://archive.pressthink.org/2009/04/12/hesaid_shesaid.html.

25. See, for example, Christine Chinlund, “Should We Call It a Massacre or a Genocide?” Boston Globe, May 5, 2003. The Globe would announce its change in policy in July 2003.

26. Rosen, “He Said, She Said Journalism.”

27. Smith, p. 18.

28. The repeated statements of unanimous affirmation by the International Association of Genocide Scholars, for instance, go unmentioned.

29. See “Armenian Claims and Historical Facts,” http://www.mfa.gov.tr/data/DISPOLITIKA/ErmeniIddialari/ArmenianClaimsandHistoricalFacts.pdf. This document is part of the Ministry’s treatment of the “Controversy between Turkey and Armenia about the Events of 1915.”

30. See, for example, Richard J. Evans, Lying About Hitler (New York: Basic Books, 2001), for a discussion of David Irving’s willingness to acknowledge large numbers of Jewish deaths but not a systematic policy of genocide.

31. Smith, p. 19.

32. Yavuz is also the director of the Turkish Coalition of America-funded program “The Origins of Modern Ethnic Cleansing: Collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the Emergence of Nation States in the Balkans and Caucasus” at the University of Utah. For Utah’s announcement of the program, see http://unews.utah.edu/old/p/031009-1.html. The university’s Middle East Center announced in its June 2009 Newsletter (29.2, p. 11) that “TCA has provided a gift of over $900,000.00 to be used towards research and scholarship.” Online at http://www.humis.utah.edu/humis/docs/organization_302_1249062720.pdf.

33. This does not necessarily mean that the quest for justice for the victims of the genocide and their descendants is not an important force in Armenian Diasporan identity, of course. Obviously one can—and many do—examine the prominence of the genocide in diasporan identity without fostering doubts about the historical facts themselves. See, for example, Anny Bakalian, Armenian-Americans: From Being to Feeling Armenian (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1993).

34. “Patterns of Denial,” p. 131.

avatar
Marc A. Mamigonian is the Director of Academic Affairs of the National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (NAASR). He is the editor of the publications Rethinking Armenian Studies (2003) and The Armenians of New England (2004) and is the author or co-author of several scholarly articles on the writings of James Joyce.

320 Comments

  1. Turkey lies about the Genocide, true. What we must not forget, too, is that Turkey lies about everything.
    That is, its policies, domestic and foreign, are all lies too.
    When Turkey says, for example, that if the Artsakh issue is settled it will open its border with Armenia, how do we know this is true?
    What I am pointing to is a particular propensity to lie. Yes, all states lie, but Turkey lies more, and is more inclined to violent, inhumane behavior.
    This is the culture of the Turkish state.

  2. This is by far the best account I have read about the use of loaded words to convey an impression of “fairness” in reporting while in fact casting doubt on historical truth and replacing it with “uncertainties”. Mr. Mamigonian’s analysis is sharp and his logic impeccable. Should be required reading for all especially Mr. Grove.

  3. Armenians are concentrating too much around 1915 . It is time to write about
    our history before christianity ,during the time of Tigrane the great or the time
    of the greatnest of Ani or even the cilician kingdom of Armenia and dispers it to
    the Odars. Armenians have a number of movie produces now.They should start
    making movies about those great days of the armenian empire.This will show to the world that armenians didn t just exist only during the Ottoman Empire.
    It is our fault also because we never talk or have programs to show to the world that Armenia existed and was a greater power even before chistianity.
    It is like we have been stuck in 1915 and Armenians never existed before.
    Lets spread out our history to the time of greater days in the past centuries.

    • Richard,

      Perhaps unwittingly, you serve the Turkish policy of denial by implying that to study the Genocide and demand justice, Armenians are somehow ignoring the culture.

      I am sure that Ankara and its moneyed friends here would be giddy at the prospect of endowing Chairs of Armenian culture worldwide on the proviso that Genocide was never mentioned and the geography of Armenia was left off the sylabus.

      Or perhaps we can go a step further to imagine even the Ergun Kirlikovali Institute, dedicated to establishing that Seljuks and Ottomans established a Golden Age for Armenia, something he and his ilk have said in print. All sounds like something Robert Livingstone, Richard Gephardt and Richard Armitage could all support with help from Chevron, Sikorsky and Boeing. All in the name of Brotherhood.

      Both of these related subjects are worthy of study, by a proud proclamation to the world of one, and the insistent denunciation to the same audience of the other.

      Hitler wanted to build a great museum about the Jews and their culture in Berlin when the last Jew was dead. Let’s not make Armenian culture the enemy of Genocide recognition and justice. Our enemies can misuse our culture to deny their continuing efforts to kill the people who made thatculture.

      Richard, you say Armenians concentate ‘too much” on 1915 [through 1923 and beyond]. Which efforts for recognition and justice do you think are excessive? How do they detract from promoting and preserving traditional or older culture, a subject that all ethnicities and nations seem now to ignore as against the world uni-culture of celebrity, consumerism, and consumption?

  4. if you want turkey to stop calling it “the so-called armenian genocide”,start a campaign
    for a proper trial by icj rather than political campaign for recognition
    can you do it? i do not think so
    why you can not do it?ask hovannisian he knows the answer he he he he he

    • “John” the Turk,

      Let’s take your question and elaborate.

      If some court [again] found the intentional state murder of Armenians to have occurred, or better yet, that it is a an ongoing process which commenced in the 1870’s, what will you do to support enforcement of a decree that it happened, and that historic Armenian lands and wealth be returned with interest?

      Until you are ready to declare with a majority of your countrymen that you will gladly accept the jurisdiction of the court, and the speedy enforcement of its decrees, why should we bother to litigate something everyone except some Turks deny and American defense contractors publically avoid?

  5. I am one of the persons who according to many who comment on these pages substitutes “doubt” for straightforward denial. Boyajian who frequently makes comments on these pages once asked me – if I remember correctly – whether I am not sure that I am delaying justice. As a “doubter” I will be expected to answer “I am not sure” and this of course be an important part of my answer. How could I be sure? – – – I was in Erzurum in the beginning of May at what was called “1. uluslararasi türk-Ermeni iliskileri ve büyük gücler sempozioumu” – “The first international Symposium in Turkish-Armenian relations and th Great Powers” and delivered a paper with the title “Convictions and documentation in the Armenian issue”. I ended by suggesting that Turks and Turkey apologize to Armenians for the role of the CUP in the fate of the Ottoman Armenians in 1915. – – – I like Mamigonian’s paper because it captures an important aspect of what Turkish official policies on the Armenian Genocide has been, and still is. —- To all those who have argued against me in the AW earlier, I will say that I have not changed my views except hopefully regarding more through knowledge. However, I have some comments and will try to ask my old questions in a new and hopefully better way.
    Mamigonian starts in the following way:
    It has long been clear—at least since 1950 and the publication of Esat Uras’ Tarihte Ermeniler ve Ermeni Meselesi,2 though, in fact, probably since 1915 itself3—that the Turkish state, with its allies and hirelings,4has sought to construct an alternative history in which, at various times, the Armenians have either not existed, or existed only as a tool of Western imperialist powers threatening the integrity of Turkey or the Ottoman Empire; a history in which the Armenian Genocide cannot be named independent of the words “alleged” or “so-called.” In this sense, the writing of history has served as a continuation of the genocidal process.Unquote
    comment: First I believe attempts to create alternative histories are not something exceptional. One obvious example is how nationalist discourses, backed by strong interests, produce a world-view which may depart more or less completely from what sober-minded and hard working historians hold. For several hundred years the US lived on a myth of the “land and the people” in which the fact that the lands largely were stolen was suppressed because it was not part of the official history. In Norway it gradually dawned upon us in the 1960-ies that until some 300 years ago roughly 30% of our present territory was peopled by the Sami people, who never expressed any wish to be incorporated in Norway, which at that time was a part of Denmark, by the way.—
    I agree 100 percent on what Mamigonian says about the 1916 publication on the “Armenian aspirations and activities”, published in Istanbul. However, there is something in Mamigonian’s script that reminds me of the distinction between “rational” and “magic” use of words. Mamigonian starts by indirectly referring to the genocide as an established fact. This is his right and the conviction of a great many historians (allthough I counted some 40 university based scholars who doubt or deny), and quite a number of countries have passed resolutions to this effect, but they are still in a minory. So where do we go from here? My answer is that we have to argue, and argue in detail. But I cannot find anything about the need to argue in Mamigonian’s article. In a way he deals with diagnosis of a situation. Now psychologists can make diagnoses if the patient is willing, but Turkey is not willing to accept the diagnosis. And has the power to reject it. So what de we do then? But how? – – I will try to comment on Mamigonian’s – in many ways – excellent article, but first point out that there may be a lot of force in rightly put questions. As part of my presentation in Erzurum I noted that the book of Kemal Cicek, who is now more or less the official voice of Turkish official historiography – it has been published in Turkish and in German, and will soon appear in English – neglects to comment extensively on Kevorkian’s book from 2006, in which according to my counting some 200 different instances of massacre are described, and not only that, in some 80% of these definite place names are given and even names of perpetrators. How can a historiography which does not account for this – or at least discuss it – be taken seriously? This is one of the things I said. Or should I have said something like “The Genocide is a fact, and it is an established truth, and go an read the relevant books and listen to the historians if you doubt it”. A contribution like the latter would have been an example of magical use of words. And I am afraid that Mamigonian – by not suggesting that one of the answers to this predicament of a denialist Turkey is that one should argue – means that Mamigonian used a kind of magical language. A kind of “second Tlön”?

    • Is there a Norwegian word for brevity?

      On second thought, there’s not much reason to believe you would know.

      Never mind.

    • Your point, Mr. Naess? Any clarity you hoped to impart has been lost on me.

      Where are the Armenians, Greeks and Assyrians of Asia Minor? What magical language explains their absence?

  6. If the world’s leading scholar on genocide, William Shabas (who was also the past president of IAGS), has questioned the appropriateness of labeling the events of 1915 as genocide, then my ‘truth telling impulse’ tells me that the term ‘genocide’ must, indeed, be accompanied by quotations.

    • Alice,

      I am afraid, you are either deliberately falsifying what Schabas (not Shabas) has said about the Armenian Genocide or have been unable to comprehend what he has actually said.

      According to Schabas, the term “genocide” is very loaded and should not be applied to every atrocity. The only events in recent history that qualify for the term “genocide” in strict legal sense, he argues, are the Armenian Genocide, the Jewish and Gypsy Holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide.

      He stated it as clearly as one possibly could. I am not sure what it is that confuses you so. Or should I say, Alice, don’t twist Schabas’ words?

    • “Alice,”

      Your fastidious refusal to go further than Dr. Schabas is admirable as a general matter, but I think we can relieve you of doubt because the statement you attribute to him was made by someone else, such as maybe Chevron or Richard Gephardt.

      I find Dr. Schabas expressed no doubt as to whether the “events of 1915” [the official Turkish euphemism for murder, rape, theft, bayoneting children, destruction, burning civilians alive in Churches and barns – you getthe idea] were Genocide, see also from Wikipedia:

      “Schabas argues that the legal term “genocide” is a loaded one that should not be used to describe every atrocity involving mass killings. In the strict legal sense, the only true “genocides” in recent history, he argues, were the Armenian Genocide, the Jewish and Gypsy Holocaust, and the Rwandan Genocide. Thus his book, Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes (Cambridge University Press, 2d ed., 2009), supports the view that Stalin’s atrocities in the Ukraine, the killings of Slav and Soviet citizens under the Nazi occupation, and the Holodomor were not, legally, genocide.[4] The same book treats the Bosnian atrocities as ethnic cleansing and not as genocide, in contrast to the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which ruled the crimes committed in Srebrenica to constitute genocide.[5] However, it criticizes the United Nations General Assembly for recognizing ethnic cleansing as genocide.”

      Can you cite us a reference?

      If not, are you ready to declare the Genocide a Genocide, rather than some vague, passive voice and obscene formulation Ankara and its PR specialists so love in the place of truth?

      By the way, nice name-selection. Very American-sounding. A few decades late, though.I suggest “Caitlin” for your future efforts.

    • Wow Alice, this is unbelievable. You are either misinformed or intentionally misleading others. Schabas clearly affirmed the Armenian Genocide as an atrocity which qualifies to be labeled as such. A simple wikipedia check will help you correct your ‘error.’

  7. PROOF OF A SYSTEMATIC ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE ARMENIANS:
    Let us turn to AKCAM whom the author extensively refers to.

    The “clearest expression” that the Armenians were subjected to genocide is the following quote- according to AKCAM: “The Armenian issue pertaining to the Eastern provinces has been solved. Therefore, there is no need to harm the reputation of our nation and government by conducting unnecessary cruelties”.

    The quote continues with the Minister of Interior, Talaat Pasha, expressing the following: “at places where the protection of Armenians could not be provided for, their transfer should be postponed.”

    How can this be deemed as clear evidence of the existence of a genocidal intention? Does this not show that what is presented as ‘evidence’ to substantiate the claim of genocide is highly questionable- to say the least?

  8. This is a great piece. Thank you, Mr. Mamigonian. Of course, we have all noticed that those who continually question the veracity of the Armenian genocide, or use code language to avoid it or otherwise discount it are always connected to the Turkish PR apparatus in some way. Whether it’s individuals or states, it’s clear they have been co-opted, their judgements based on dishonest scholarship and their loudest cheerleaders are always sitting in Ankara. They are puppets and the puppet masters are linked to the Turkish government.

    While many of us have noticed this, it’s gratifying to see these lies exposed so clearly in black and white. The question remains…why would any intelligent person, Turkish or otherwise, still support such an anti-intellectual and dishonest campaign? It is something of a mystery. The world has effectively neutralized Germans for Hitler or Italians for Mussolini, but when will Turks finally abandon their love of fascism and Ataturk, along with all the lies he espoused?

    Worse, those who buy into the lies always overlook the fact that 4000+ years of Armenian presence in Asia Minor was effectively brought to an end by the Young Turks and their successors. The proof is in the pudding, and this pudding has no Armenians left in it.

    The evidence that reveals the genocide most clearly – the almost complete disappearance of the Armenians from their own historic lands – could not be more obvious…but when will the liars notice this salient fact, or are they also blind? Of course, they either pretend to be blind or choose to be blind, but we cannot excuse this kind of self-imposed handicap or sympathize with it, because it too is a lie….it is a chosen condition, not an accident of birth or trauma, that allows these characters to reap great benefits from the Turkish state. We, who have been written out of history books by dishonest ‘historians’, cannot be so blind about something so obvious…even a blind person can see it.

  9. Jda

    First of all, If you do not need a Turkish recognition, why you Armenians complain and moan about the Turkish denial everyday?

    If the court delivers a verdict in your favour then the Turkish denial will stop. I do not think that the court is in a position to talk about financial compensation let alone mention about returning a historic Armenian land.But I will definitely support a financial compensation, If the verdict finds an intention of the extermination policy as we are honorable people to honor the findings

  10. The court already delivered a guilty verdict, and it was an Ottoman court, in 1919. On top of that, the key leaders of the CUP – the architects of the genocide – fled Turkey like rats jumping ship, and got their just desserts shortly after. Morever, the International Association of Genocide Scholars..the most celebrated academic organizatioin on the subject, has also issued a decision. Why are these facts routinely ignored? The fact is, outside of the Turkish bubble….truth and honesty prevail, but inside that bubble….there’s alot of hot air and lies, but not much more. Turkey has not learned that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but not all of the people all of the time…especially outside of Turkey.

    • It’s a deep and very complex piece of writing. Well done Mr Mamigonian.
      Karekin, you forgot to mention that after the criminal CUP “fled Turkey like rats jumping ship”, they were condemned to death by the Turks themselves. This is the part that’s difficult to understand. The Turks could have easily denounced these “leaders”, like Italy and Germany did after WWII. That was their “ticket” back to civilization and respect. Instead, they slowly allowed individuals who shared the same bankrupt and immoral ideology to re-instate themselves in their Govt. to re-perpetuate its lies, retarding its democratic development and prestige in the World, reducing its citizens to hostages of their own lies.
      They even went as far as exhuming these condemned traitors in Europe and mockingly entombing them with honor in a place called “liberty Hill”. In a sense, the young Turks simply became very old ones.
      Imagine the Germans erecting a monument to Goebbels,Himmler and Eichmann.

      “Alice and John”, if you’re uncomfortable with using the word genocide, as far as I’m concerned, “mass-murder” will suffice. There are no statute of limitations to either heinous crime.

  11. Alice
    Could you please calarify where you got your totally misleading information from?
    Already back in 2005 The International Association of Genocide Scholars has sent a unanimously approved letter at its Sixth biennal meeting to Mr. Recep Tayyip Erdogan in response his call for “an impartial study by historians’ concerning the fate of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I”.
    This is the text of the letter:
    INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS
    President: Robert Melson (USA)
    Vice-President: Israel Charny (Israel)
    Secretary-Treasurer: Steven Jacobs (USA)

    Respond to: Robert Melson, Professor of Political Science Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907 USA

    April 6, 2005
    Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan
    TC Easbakanlik
    Bakanlikir
    Ankara, Turkey
    FAX: 90 312 417 0476

    Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

    We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an
    `impartial study by historians’ concerning the fate ofthe Armenian
    people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

    We represent the major body of scholars who study genocide in North
    America and Europe. We are concerned that in calling for an impartial
    study of the Armenian Genocide you may not be fully aware of the
    extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian
    Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United
    Nations Genocide Convention. We want to underscore that it is not
    just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the
    overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of
    independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and
    whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of
    decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

    On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk
    government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its
    Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. Morethan
    a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing,
    starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the
    Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient
    civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

    The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of
    its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United
    States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by
    thousands of official records of the United States and nations around
    the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and
    Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of
    missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by
    decades of historical scholarship.

    The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly,
    legal, and human rights community:
    1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term
    genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and
    the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he
    meant by genocide.
    2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948
    United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
    Crime of Genocide.
    3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an
    organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously
    passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
    4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and
    Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000
    declaring the `incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide’ and urging
    western democracies to acknowledge it.
    5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the
    Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical
    fact of the Armenian Genocide. 6) Leading texts in the international
    law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in
    International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian
    Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the
    law on crimes against humanity.

    We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide-how
    and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and
    moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in
    propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims,
    and erase the ethical meaning of this history.

    We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who
    are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions
    are not impartial. Such so-called `scholars’work to serve the agenda
    of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the
    Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing
    a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi
    University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its
    aversion to academic and intellectual freedom-a fundamental condition
    of democratic society.

    We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people
    and their future as a proud and equal participants in international,
    democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous
    government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German
    government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

    Sincerely,

    [signed]
    Robert Melson
    Professor of Political Science
    President, International Association of Genocide Scholars

    [signed]
    Israel Charny
    Vice President, International Association of Genocide Scholars
    Editor in Chief, Encyclopedia of Genocide

    [signed]
    Peter Balakian
    Donald M. and Constance H. Rebar Professor of the Humanities
    Colgate University
    http://www.anca.org/press_releases/press_releases.php?prid=747

  12. Forget about the genocide
    and let us concentrate on new Armenian generation
    who live in Turkey and they are turkified
    There are two million Armenians
    Turkified
    Turkified
    Tirkified
    Let them open their mouth and speak
    They are scared that they will ruin their children’s future…
    Only some can tell to their Armenian friends, “we are Armenian in origin…”
    This is freedom civilized state called Turkey…
    In Arabic they called Tattarruk= Turkification …
    the word should enter Oxford Dictionary soon…
    Let us concentrate on those people to return to their identity…!
    Is the massage clear…
    or you need as well historian…!

    • I think you should be more concerned about the American influence to the Armenians in Turkey (as well as the Turks). All new shops have English names, the English words in their vocabulary increase drastically, and people even put some English words to their speech because it is “cool”.

      If you protest 1 unit against Turkish influence then you should protest 10 unit for the American one.

  13. A relevant article by Schabas is found in Middle East Critique, 2011, 20:3, pages 243-269. Title :”Crimes against humanity as a paradigm for International Atrocity crimes”.
    He confirmes that the view that the fate of Armenians in 1915 qualifies as genocide is controvercial. I cite: Use of the label ‘genocide’ to describe the suffering visited upon the Armenians in 1915 remains a matter of controversy.Unquote.—A central part of his texst is the following:
    This article starts from the premise that it may be helpful and constructive to examine the relevant historical events through the lens of crimes against humanity. For reasons that are difficult to comprehend fully, the concept of crimes against humanity seems to lack the unmatched rhetorical power of genocide. In discussions about whether to qualify certain acts as crimes against humanity or genocide, one frequently hears reference to ‘mere
    crimes against humanity’ or ‘only crimes against humanity.’ When former United States President Jimmy Carter described atrocities in Darfur as crimes against humanity rather than genocide, following an October 2007 visit to the region, he was excoriated by American bloggers and conservative websites.Yet crimes against humanity belong squarely within the catalogue of international atrocity crimes where, indeed, their place is probably more central to the entire exercise than that of genocide. The Nazis were prosecuted for crimes against humanity rather than genocide, a fact that suggests there is nothing trivializing about using the former term rather than the latter. Unquote. —– He also says the following:
    But in the context of the Armenian atrocities, and many other situations where the term genocide is at issue, the epithet of ‘denier’ often is employed not with respect to what actually happened but rather about the legal qualification of the events. Accordingly, commentators may be branded as deniers when they disagree about whether or not the term genocide correctly applies to
    facts about which there is broad consensus. Of course, it is impossible to untangle entirely issues of fact and of law. However, the increasing readiness to dismiss any discussion about the appropriateness of the term genocide makes serious scholarly discourse more difficult Unquote.—–The article concludes in the following way:
    The real argument is about reaching some common understanding of historical events. Much of the debate centers upon a description of the events. However, matters of law also are involved, to the extent that they characterize not only the extent of the atrocities but also the intent or policy that lay behind them. The modest suggestion in this article is that it may be easier to agree upon the term crimes against humanity than to admit to genocide, and that this may open a pathway to a shared narrative.unquote.—– I have the greatest respect for William Schabas, but I have difficultiers in following his reasoning. The “need for common understanding” is no argument not to pursue the question of whether genocide was committed in 1915 or not, according to the definition and the precedents given by the verdicts and legal opinions emerging since the late 1990-ies. To argue from the premise of a “need for common understanding” further sounds like proposing a hollow compromise. This of course is unacceptable.
    It is also to my mind next to ridiculous to hold that “the increasing readyness to dismiss any discussion about the appropriateness of the term genocide makes serious scholarly discourse more difficult”. Scholars should to do their work according to their skills and moral conscience, whether this is “difficult” or not. Period

  14. Ragnar, surely you realize that when Schabas states: “Use of the label ‘genocide’ to describe the suffering visited upon the Armenians in 1915 remains a matter of controversy” he is simply stating the obvious; that controversy exists over the use of the term, NOT that Schabas himself thinks that the use of the term should be in doubt. Schabas has the commendable (however misguided) motivation of trying to find terminology that leads to a shared narrative and eventually to a resolution of the Armenian-Turkish conflict.

    While this may sound reasonable, Marc Mamigonian has an astute response to Schabas’ suggestion:

    From the ISG newsletter #47 Spring 2012 Issue: “Mislabeling and Demeaning the Armenian Genocide” by Marc Mamigonian, Page 8:

    “In the Middle East Critique article, however, Schabas concludes with the “modest suggestion … that it may be easier to agree upon the term crimes against humanity than to admit to genocide, and that this may open a pathway to a shared narrative.”
    Reading [Scheffer] and Schabas, one might get the idea that the goal of scholarship is a “shared narrative” that is agreeable to perpetrator and victim, denier and denied. After all, what doth it profit a man if he stand for truth and truth stand in the way of creating a shared narrative?”

    It appears that you agree with Mamigonian and against a ‘hollow compromise’ that basically compromises the truth. But the act of ignoring already established history and pursuing ‘the truth’ as if it hasn’t already been established multiple times, is tantamount to compromising the truth 2.

    Can you be sure you have not been duped by the denial camp into thinking there is real doubt about history just because they use ‘magical’ doubt language?

  15. Only 21 of 193 United Nations states have stood up to recognize the Armenian Genocide. The latest country to step forward did so more that 5 years ago. Countries of particular note in absention include the democracies of the United States, United Kingdom and Israel.

  16. Karekin
    You are wrong .1919 trials were held under the Allies occupation and the CUP Leaders caused hundred of thousand of death of the Allies soldiers only a few years ago in Gallipoli before they finally occupied Istanbul.

  17. The essence of the problem is that the CUP, like the Nazi party later on in Germany, was made up of greedy, murderous racists and thieves who thought that murdering one select group of productive people and stealing everything they created for Turkey, would somehow be a good thing. They were wrong! But, unlike the Germans who finally saw the error of their ways, Turks today have a very tough time criticizing the nutcases who drank blood for breakfast. There is no introspection in Turkey and no self-criticism at all, and that’s the major sign that Turkey and Turks have not joined the modern world. Look in the mirror in an honest way, instead of repeating lies like parrots. That’s the only way to get past this and to move forward.

  18. It is peculiar for an academician such as Mamigonian to decry that something is called controversial. Of course the genocide question is controversial — Armenian terrorists have assassinated diplomats around the world, including on US soil, to prove their point. If the whole story of this historical episode is to be known, then researchers should not be derided for starting from the standpoint that the history of the Armenian question, insofar as the allegation of genocide is concerned, is equivocal. If one looks at the Holocaust from this standpoint, each and every time the evidence will point to the genocide of the Jews of Europe by the Nazi regime. One will not find the same on the Armenian question, I would wager.

  19. Karekin

    I have yet to meet a Turk who thinks that the CUP was a party like the Nazi Party. It was a long time ago that Turks were accepted into the modern world. I live in Europe and Turks in general are well respected people in this country. I can only hope that you revisit your resources of your belief. Just to remind you that Talat Pasha was considered the best man in the government by Armenians in 1913 and they feared that he may leave his post. An Armenian occupied the foreign ministry post in 1913 when the CUP was in power. can you imagine that a Jew could have occupied the FM post during the Hitler era? I can understand the Armenians frustration because they were uprooted from their homeland But it is not black and white and the CUP party wasn’t a Nazi like party

  20. karekin
    there is some introspection in Turkey, in the emerging civil society, and even in the governments who have made some moves in the right direction in the last 20 years or so.
    Boyajian
    I am not sure how to interpret Schabas’ intention in this article. But when he advocates the use of the term “crime against humanity” regarding the Armenian fate, and warns against the present use of the term “genocide”, must one not conclude that “Schabas himself thinks that the use of the term should be in doubt”? Or is it your point that he thinks that a more proper use of the term “genocide” might be warranted, but not the use we see today? — As I said I believe I disagree with him because it is not obviously right to change terms in order to create some compromise. This is how he sounds. More expanations are needed if his proposal to skip the term genocide evnentually is to be accepted. However, I am of course also critical of the way the term is used by genocide scholars and those who campaign for the rights of Armenians,as I have said many times before.— It is clear that Schabas has changed his mind. In the book “Genocide in international law” he obviously thought that the fate of the Ottoman Armenians qualified as genocide according to international law.

    • It is NOT clear that Schabas has changed his mind about the appropriateness of the term genocide when applied to Armenian suffering in 1915. It is only clear that he acknowledges the controversy that the use of the term generates and that he proposes using the term crimes against humanity in order to promote a more neutral base from which to create a “shared narrative”.

  21. ” Each time an “objective, neutral” outlet uncritically passes along the Turkish state’s historical fictions, the world is that much closer to becoming Tlön.”

    Or is it the other way around? “Why” are “objective, neutral” sources stooping to the level of intellectual inferiority you so incisively demonstrate? Are they (are we) already in a larger Tlon?

  22. @Boyajian

    Schabas quite clearly changed sides! Check this foto on Prof. Cicek´s Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150717582343522&set=a.125936918521.104615.637473521&type=1

    We all know that Ragnar, Schabas etc. are working for the Turks. But I really can´t understand why they support Ragnar? He only tries to confuse us and to spread doubt. Turks are too intelligent and I think that they still have a black horse. Ragnar is a sort of cover for their masterplan.

    Shahan

  23. If there is any honest introspection in Turkish society about their own history, it is quite limited to a very narrow strata and doesn’t reach the level of those in government. Let’s not forget, that very government still has a law on the books that allows them to prosecute those who cross the line. Yes, it’s being applied selectively, but the law remains in force. If Turkey truly aspires to be part of the 21st century, to be European and democratic, they need to start by cleansing themselves of such Kafkaesque features as 301. Such laws have no place except in a fascist environment that wants to exercise mind control of its citizens and prevent them from discussing things openly and honestly. Correcting such things is all within Turkey’s control, yet they don’t act. So, let’s not pretend that Turkey is ready for anything on the genocide front, other than reforming itself.

  24. In the article is written, “But was this a systematic attempt to destroy the Christian Armenian people?”

    Genocide is proven by correspondence from Talaat to Jemal Bey dated February 28, 1915, conveys in the following.

    Jemiyet (Committee of Union and Progress, the Young Turks Movement) has decided to free the fatherland (Turkey) from the covetousness of the accursed race (Armenians) and to bear upon its shoulders the stigma that might malign Ottoman history.

    Unable to forget the disgrace and bitterness of the past (Young Turks earlier attempt to overthrow the Sultan), Jemiyet, hopeful about its future, has decided to exterminate all Armenians living in Turkey, without allowing a single one to remain alive.

    The Government shall give all necessary instruction to the governors and the commanders of the Army for the arrangements concerning massacres.

    Minister of the Interior, Talaat,

    (MEMOIRS OF NAIM BEY, pp26ff, 1919)

  25. boyajian
    your write: It is NOT clear that Schabas has changed his mind about the appropriateness of the term genocide when applied to Armenian suffering in 1915. It is only clear that he acknowledges the controversy that the use of the term generates and that he proposes using the term crimes against humanity in order to promote a more neutral base from which to create a “shared narrative”.—
    comment: I dont know what you have in mind when you use the word “appropriate”. I for myself hold that the term is appropriate – in the sense that it can be applied with reasonable justification – because a community was destroyed and there were killers who were not punished. But I doubt about the role of the CUP, which doesnt make me avoid the genocide label. – In the verdicts regarding Srebrenitsa some were charged and convicted on genocide, some on crimes against humanity. These are different charges. Schabas is not clear to my mind. And if he holds what you think is his opinion: that changing an eventual charge in order to produce a shared narrative is OK, that just doesnt make sense juridically. You cannot – juridically speaking – change a case of murder to a case of armed robbery simply because it is “more netural” and provides a better starting point for a “shared narrative”.— I talked with Hakan Yavuz in Salt Lake city in 2010, and he mentioned – if I understood him right – that they had been talking with Schabas, and he added that the term “crimes aganst humanity” was more appropriate than “genocide”. Which is a procedure I disagree with. I see Schabas as 1)unclear, 2) evidently impressed by the facts promoted by the Turkish side which make Armenian claims appear “exaggerated” or “onsided”. but this is just my private guess, i.e.that Schabas has another view of the historical facts today than those he had when he published the book “Genocide in international law”. Why do you want to “save” Schabas for the Armenian cause? Isnt it better to say that you disagree with him?

    • I am no expert on Schabas. My comments relate to only the information attributed to him by you. Based on what you shared, I don’t agree with your conclusions. I am not ‘saving’ Schabas.

  26. Karekin
    I would put it the other way around. The real development in Turkey is among the liberal elements of the population, and the politicians follow their society – and the pressure from the outside.
    Shahan Natalie
    I dont think Schabas has “changed sides”. But he has become more critical of aspects of the genocide narrative which has not been argued effectively against until recently— and for me to be clear: the bottom line is that a great crime was committed against the Ottoman Armenians and Turkey must apologize and make repairs.

    • “the bottom line is that a great crime was committed against the Ottoman Armenians and Turkey must apologize and make repairs.”

      Mr. Ragnar Naess,

      1. Should the case not be taken to The International Court (ICC) to decide before apologize ?

      2. Why do you think Armenians have not taken it to the ICC which is the only authority to make decision instead of spending time with some local courts since 1915?

    • Ragnar, I really have a problem to follow your protective mode for Schabas. Why don´t you comment on his new book (Unimaginable Crimes, 2012)? Why don´t you comment the picture which proves that Schabas has no problem to be on a foto with a genocide denier (Kemal Cicek)? You even ignore that Schabas attacked Vahakn Dadrian at a conference and tried to slam his arguments. We all can see that the Turkish side is operating with new methods and I can feel that your are a part of it. Turkish strategy no longer refutes the Armenian Genocide in a direct way. Your mission is to show that some parts of the genocide narrative is wrong. And if you get enough persons to doubt than Turkey will insist on that Historical Commission stuff. And what do you really mean when you want Turks to apologize and to make repairs? I´m especially interested because you said that you doubt the role of the CUP?! How can we aspect that TUrks will apologize when you argue that their was no intent and no plan by the CUP? And why don´t you say which new publications, from your point of view, are “effectively “arguing against your so called “critical aspects”? And where the hell is your book? I bought a lot of red pencils for my comments!

      Shahan

  27. Necati genis,
    there are cases of governments that have had the good sense to apologise even if they have not been brought to court.
    Shahan
    the greater part of the book exists in draft. If I get your emailadress I can send it to you for your red pencils. Several people are already commenting on the draft.— I didnt know about the last book of Shabas. I am not affiliated to any instance that updates me regularly. Thank you.—to be on a photo is one thing, to agree is another.What Cicek and Schabas did is called dialogue, but simple souls have difficulties in understanding this –Turkey can apologize for several reasons, mainly because the CUP did not punish perpetrators and because the so.called area of resettlement was inadequate. Whether they also had genocidal intent according to international law today is a tricky question. But that is no reason to postpone apology —If Schabas criticised Dadrian, he is not the first one. —-Finally: I dont understand your question about “critical aspects” and —- if you are confused by me I suggest you read a book on basic methodology in the behavioral sciences, particular.about the testing of alternative hypotheses in the face of evidence. Try also to find something on definitions and general semantics as opposed to political rhetorics.

    • “there are cases of governments that have had the good sense to apologise even if they have not been brought to court”

      Mr. Ragnar Naess,

      What Armenians want , as you know well, is not only an “apologize”. They want money, even sometimes soil.

      Accepting a crime which is never commited does not mean self-execution without any reason ?

      Every one knows if they had legal proofs, they would not wait for a second to go to the ICC.

    • Necati, it is only proper that Turkey not only apologize for the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians and the crime of the forced elimination of the Armenian nation from their homeland; but it is also proper that they should pay monetarily for what was stolen from the Armenian people. Turkey is living a lie.

      Why do you take issue with a customary and usual response to wrongdoing that is found in virtually every culture around the world: that the guilty should apologize and the victim(s) should be made whole to the extent possible. Why shouldn’t this apply to Turkey?

    • Ragnar,

      If you really want you can send that draft to shahan_natalie@yahoo.com I insist on the Schabas- Cicek case because Cicek proudly reported on a TV channel that Schabas is Turkey´s new friend and that Armenians attack him because he reduces the Armenian Genocide to a crime against humanity. Cicek also said that he showed Schabas Ottoman documents which would prove that crimes against Armenians were punished by the CUP government and Talat Pasha. From my point of view this is enough prove to show that they didn´t only meet for a dialogue! And why should such a lazy person like Cicek, who even denies Kevorkian´s book – you reported about it- go to America only to have a chat? You are right to state that Schabas was not the first one to criticise Dadrian but you know exactly that only persons on Turkey´s payroll attack him. Of course, Donald Bloxham and Hilmar Kaiser seem to be exceptions but we all know that Kaiser is a german nationalist who tries to downplay Germany´s role in the Armenian Genocide and Bloxham is a provocateur. My other question was about the publications from the Turkish side? Can you mention only one book which is sufficient? I think that you should read Marc Nichanian and his introduction to his book „The Historiographic Perversion“ were he stated: „Genocide is not a fact. Genocide is not a fact because it is the very destruction of the facts, of the notion of fact, of the factuality of fact.“!!!

      Shahan

  28. corrections: the CUP did not punish perpetrators TO ANY CONSIDERABLE EXTENT. Correction2: I did not intimate in my presened tation in Erzurum that a Turkish historiography with the omissions I mention cannot be taken seriously. but that was more or less implied by my words. Politeness pays in the end

  29. genis
    read the book “The guilt of nations” by Barkan. More or less all countries have apologized or should apologize for historical injustices and atrocities at some time.It certainly applies to Norway. This is a global trend, and to my mind a positive trend. Whether there will be reparations, to what extent, and even changes of boundaries is another matter. But economic indemnification is not unusual. Certainly the Armenians want this. It is no secret. But is this an argument against apologizing? To my mind, Turks are only making it worse for themselves by not apologizing to Armenians for obvious injustices, even crimes.

  30. I found Mr. Mamigonians article very engaging. It read like a deconstructional analysis of Mr. Grove’s and others’ attempt to occupy an “unbiased” middle ground which amounted to being essentially not sufficiently informed to be on one side or another. Consequently the view that there are two sides to the debate became the net result of the article.Grove’s article serving as an example of what it proposed i.e. the issue of Armenian Genocide is debatable.The commentary that followed diverged from the liguistic issue raised by Mr. Mamigonian and evolved into a debate about whether or not the Armenian Genocide occurred or not. Thus ironically, by debating the issue it made the ‘debatability’ of the Armenian Genocide a practicality. Of course, that is the only way to persuade people. But when passions are running high persuasion does not work.
    Let me propose a different approach. What if the concept of ‘Genocide’ itself is flawed. Whether I say ‘murder’ or ‘homicide’ what these words signify that there is a ‘dead’ person present and the act is final and well defined. If we say ‘Genocide’ then we should expect an entire race or ethnic group totally killed. This is not the case either with the Jewish, Armenian, Rwandan etc. cases. These people have not disappeared from the face of the Earth. It may be that the term ‘Genocide’ with all its diverse definitions is incorrect and should be eliminated from the lexicon. It may serve as a shorthand description of a huge massacre as in the Jewish and Armenian case, but as it is creating an ambiguity maybe it should be discarded.

  31. “If we say ‘Genocide’ then we should expect an entire race or ethnic group totally killed.” -–This is an utterly flawed statement. Article II of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide defines genocide as follows:

    “[…] genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

    • I am fully aware of what Lemkin drafted. What I am saying is linguistically correct. I will go so far as to say that if there are only a few of a genus of any kind is left alive and they are killed that would be a genocide by the true definition of the word, but not by a juridically concocted word that is utterly flawed. The proof of the flaw is the endless debate that is going on. Just saying 1 to 1.5 million Armenians were slaughtered is enough in itself to describe the horrible event. The use of a neologism does not make it any worse.

  32. john the turk
    well, I believed I answered Necati. Maybe not the following: Accepting a crime which is never commited does not mean self-execution without any reason ?
    no, never apologize for something that did not happen! Evidently! But I gave some reasons why I believe the CUP had a responsibility, even a criminal responsibility, for the catastrophe that befell the Armenians.
    Alan Cartwright
    yes, deconstruction can be a powerful tool in dealing with the Turko-Armenian conflict. However, I indicated that this does not ony apply to Turkish narratives. It is fairly common in narratives that express national identities. All countries have their taboos. But I believe the case of William Schabas made us focus on the applicability of the term “genocide” to the Armenian fate in 1915. Note also that I am ciritcal of using the term without explanations. I say that what happened in 1915 to the Armenians qualify as “genocide” in some respects (there were many “srebrenica’s” in which Armenians perished, but then this also applies to the fate of e.g. the Bulgarian Turks in 1977-78), and in other respects it does not qualify (all Armenians were not targeted like in the Holocaust), and in some aspects it is doubtful (the exact role and intent of the CUP in the events is to my mind not evident)

    • There is no such a thing as “Turko-Armenian conflict”, if by “conflict” a “serious disagreement or argument” is implied. There is a crime in which one side is a victim and the other is a murderer/denier. We don’t evaluate burglary with physical damage as a “conflict” between the burglar and the home-owner.

  33. Why zero in on 1915? Look what the Turks are doing today! Three more Armenian soldiers have been killed protecting their homeland. I blame the civilized world for not putting their money where their mouth. Oh! I forget. Money has a certain viscosity.

    • Regardless of what they say, Turks and Azeris are not the same. We in Turkey have enough problems as it is, don’t blame what Azerbaijan does on us.

    • RVDV,

      Opposite to what you want to believe,

      People in Azerbaijan have the same blood as the blood in my wessels.They are Oğuz Turks.

    • RVDV,

      When Azeris and Turks claim that Azeris are Turks both at official and unofficial level, why should not we consider them Turks? My mother used to say Turks from the West and Turks from the East, when we had war with Azerbaijan and Turkey was about to attack Armenia. When I was a child I always asked her why she called Azerbaijanis Turks and she always said that they were Turks. Now, I understand what she means.

      FYI, Azeris in Karbakh considered themselves as Turks and called themselves Turks.

    • I beg to differ:

      In many references, Azerbaijanis are designated as a Turkic people, due to their Turkic language. However, modern-day Azerbaijanis are believed to be primarily the descendants of the Caucasian Albanian and Iranic peoples who lived in the areas of the Caucasus and northern Iran, respectively, prior to Turkification.

      Historian Vladimir Minorsky writes that largely Iranian and Caucasian populations became Turkish-speaking:

      In the beginning of the 5th/11th century the Ghuzz hordes, first in smaller parties, and then in considerable numbers, under the Seljuqids occupied Azerbaijan. In consequence, the Iranian population of Azerbaijan and the adjacent parts of Transcaucasia became Turkophone while the characteristic features of Ādharbāyjānī Turkish, such as Persian intonations and disregard of the vocalic harmony, reflect the non-Turkish origin of the Turkicised population.

      Thus, centuries of Turkic migration and turkification of the region helped to formulate the contemporary Azerbaijani ethnic identity.

    • RVDV: Hardly can modern-day Azerbaijanis be the descendants of the Caucasian Albanians, because Caucasian Albanians were Christians. Some of the Azerbaijanis may be the descendants of a Persian province of Atropatene or Atrpatakan, in Armenian (modern Iranian Azerbaijan). However, the bulk of the modern-day Azerbaijanis are Oghuz Turkic tribes (Seljuk and Turkmen) that invaded the Iranian plateau and moved across it into the Caucasus and Asia Minor from the Central Asian steppes in the 11th century. The influx of the Oghuz and Turkmen tribes was further accentuated by the Mongol invasion. From the 13th century onwards they gradually Turkified the Iranian-speaking populations of Persian Azerbaijan, and created a new identity based on Shia and the use of Oghuz Turkic language. Only in 1918, by means of stealing the name “Azerbaijan” from the original Persian province have these Caucasian Tatars (as they were known before) become Azerbaijanis. They are your ilk. Rarely do Armenians call these Turks Azerbaijanis. We call them Turks. No difference for us.

    • RVDV,

      You, more than anyone should know that ancsestry and blood does not mean anything when it comes to one’s national identity. So what that Azeri people have Albanian and Persian roots? They have been Turkified and brainwashed heavily to the degree that they forgot about their past completely and claim that they are Turks. If they claim that they are Turks I consider them Turks; just like when you say you are Turk I consider you Turk regardless of your origin.

      Turkish people in Turkey geneticaly 80-90% are Armenian and Greek. Do I have any feelings about them because they have the same blood as Armenians? Absolutly no. When I meet Greek, Russian, Ukrainian or Iranian people I feel very close to them but I do not feel close to Turks in any way.

  34. Shahan Natalie
    I commend you for giving your real name and your e-mail. If it is… Most of the people who participate here and deliver eloquent imputs to justice and scholarship for some strange reason prefer to be anonymous…
    In brief:
    Yes, I will send the draft.—
    I think Cicek is probably right if he says that Armenians now will attack Schabas.
    —Sarinay has an article on the trials against perpetrators in Middle East Critique 2-3 Autumn 2011 Yes, I believe it is documented that some perpetrators were prosecuted, but the analysis is incomplete. — I find many valuable things in Dadrian, Bloxham and Kaiser. I disagree with your negative appraisal of the two latter, particularly about Kaiser. But I criticize most works for being deficient regarding methodology for securing sound conclusions, not only Turkish contributions.— Thank you for your reference to Marc Nichanian!! I will order it.

  35. Dear Mr. Ragnar Naess,

    I know my english is not perfect but “broken” .So it is my fault not to be understood correctly. Let me try to be more simple so that i can express myself good enough.

    A >> Says : There was a genocide. We want money.
    B >>Says : There was NOT a genocide.
    C >>Says : As an authorised court, I am the only one to solve the conflict between A and B and make decision. (ICC)

    Who is correct, A, B or C ?

    • Mr. Alan Kartwright,

      Whoever claims to be aggrieved party goes to court.
      No money for attorney?

    • Genis,

      you should have written

      A >> Says : There was genocide. 1.5 million Armenians were murdered by Ottoman Turks and their properties and wealth were confiscated by Turkish state. We want back what was stolen from us.

      B >>Says : There was NO genocide. Even though 1.5 million Armenians died so did millions of Turks. We, Turks, like living in Armenian houses and use the land and everything that was stolen from Armenians.

      C >>Says : As an authorised court, I am the only one to solve the conflict between A and B and make decision. (ICC)

      Who is correct, A, B or C ? Of course A is right. Whether you call it genocide or not you have to accept that Ottoman Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians and all their wealth was stolen by Turks. Why do you want to keep something that does not belong to you, and you stole from Armenians? Are you thieves? If so, say so.

    • Sella, you will say A is right because you are A. But the justice system doesn’t work like that. If you have a conflict you simply go to a court.

    • Tokado,

      I do not say A because I am the A. I say A because in my mind any time someone kills someone and steals his/her belongings is the guilty part.

      Do not forget that your ancestors murdered 1.5 million Armenians and stole everything that belonged to them. Your ancestors distroyed the Armenian culture completely. Number of Armenian women that have been raped and kidnapped by Turkish man is uncountable so is the number of children that have been born out of rape in Turkish families less than 100 years ago.

      If you Turkish people want to learn more about your great history, you better go and knock on the doors of the houses that belonged to Armenians, and now are occuped by Turkish citizens and ask them how did they happen to own the houses and huge lands without paying a penny? You may also want to have a closer look at some of your mosques. You may discover that they have been Armenian churches but have been converted to Mosques by your ancestors.

    • “I do not say A because I am the A. I say A because in my mind any time someone kills someone and steals his/her belongings is the guilty part.”

      Yes I understand, but still we are not instruments of justice. The courts are.

      “Do not forget that your ancestors ….. converted to Mosques by your ancestors.”

      I respect your emotional response but this is nothing to do with the justice system. You may think that someone is guilty, you may be right or wrong, in the end it’s up to the court to decide.

    • It was not an emotional reply it was a little reminder about your ancestors’ “great history” that so many Turks are so proud of.

      The thing with Turkey is that even the court decides that Turks committed genocide they will run around screaming that the court was wrong. Believe me, you may not know ,but we, Armenians, have seen enough of Turks to understand whom we are dealing with.

  36. Mr. Genis,
    Turkey is also an aggrieved party for being calumniated, and Turkey in fact did consider to go to ICJ in 2008 but changed its mind. Why? It is certainly not because of money, Surely you are not saying Turkey is too poor to afford legal representation. READ THE ARTICLE !
    http://www.globalpolitician.com/24185-armenia-genocide
    and you may find the reason why ICJ is a dead end. Also read the ICJ Charter to find out about what cases are normally under its purview.
    I have nothing further to say until you do your homework.

  37. The author writes that Turkey tries to create doubt and reframes “well-documented history as a ‘controversy’ “. What is ironic is that Turkey very much realizes and acknowledges that this issue can be proven with “well-documented history”, and wants to end the controversy on this topic. Despite Turkey’s offer to open up all Ottoman archives, despite its many attempts at delving deeper into the issue by working with Armenia in forming a neutral committee composed of historians and scientists, and despite its confident declaration that it will accept the decision that this committee reaches, Armenia does not seem interested in ending this issue. So.. the author might want to reconsider how “well documented” his claims really are.. This issue is not, but unfortunately is made into, an ideological battle that is fought by genocide-supporters with the weapon of semantics. If everything was so clear and bright, we are to assume that those non-Turkish historians like Justin McCarthy who were initially part of the large group of people who preemptively believed in the ‘genocide’, who have then argued against the idea of a genocide after further research, and consequently had attacks on the homes and families, and in some cases got fired, simply chose to ignore this “well documented” evidence, for no reason.

    And what is again interesting is that the article claims that Turkey is systematically trying to promulgate the idea that this is a “controversy”. This argument, however, can be made to a much larger extent, for the genocide-supporting group. It is patently obvious that emotional exploitation by means of showing pictures (which, incidentally, have been either proven to be photoshoped or belong to completely different historical incidents), the public is much easily influenced into preemptively assuming that such an atrocity actually occurred. Thus, genocide-supporters systematically promulgate the idea of a genocide by exploiting people’s sensitivities toward injustice, rather than using actual evidence..

    But perhaps most importantly, by dismissing any attempt to open this topic up to debate, and influencing the readers that debating this issue and even slightly questioning the idea of a ‘genocide’ is tantamount to an unrighteous act of changing history, the author is essentially trying to shut down the process of inquisition and truth seeking. This, by far, is the most dangerous form of propaganda and brainwashing… As Ray Bradbury, RIP, said.. “you don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture, just get people to stop reading them.” I’m sure it’s unnecessary to clarify, but in this case, books are the other side of the argument, and culture is the truth..

    • Frank,
      Thank you for the Bradbury quote:As Ray Bradbury, RIP, said.. “you don’t have to burn books to destroy a culture, just get people to stop reading them.” I’m sure it’s unnecessary to clarify, but in this case, books are the other side of the argument, and culture is the truth..

      However, your portrayal of the Turkish State as a champion of open discussion is ill placed. You might remember that one of the first acts of the Republican Government was to sell 50 tons of documents from its archives to a Swiss businessman in Bulgaria to be converted to pulp. Granted it is not burning a la Fahrenheit 451 but achieves the same end. Can you really trust a government like that not to fiddle with its existing archives? You may have another explanation, but to me most of the so called reforms of the Republican Government was an attempt to erase history and cover up its guilt. After all CUP was still running the government at the time.
      As far as open debate is concerned, Mamigonian’s article has not stopped it. In fact it has opened it judging from the volume of commentary on hand. If he has ‘sinned’ by taking sides so be it. He has apparently studied the issue enough to convince himself where the truth lies. If you believe Turks are innocent, then ( as one commentator put it) how do you explain the emptying out of an entire million plus population from their historic homeland in Anatolia? Please do not say it was Wanderlust.

  38. Alan Cartwright, thank you for the link to the Global Politician article. You ask a great question. Why, indeed, doesn’t Turkey bring the case to court to settle the case once and for all?

  39. Slandering the Turks? Are you for real? After the decimation they brought to the Armenians, and then to others during the 20th C, and then their destruction of 3000+ Kurdish villages (resulting in a large Kurdish diaspora in Europe)…you must be joking. To think that anyone should worry about ‘slandering the Turks’, you obviously need a reality check. Their republic was established on murder, theft, genocide, ethnic cleansing and more. In the face of these historic realities, why should anyone worry about slander? Get real. Turks need to take an honest look in the mirror and stop pretending to be God’s gift to humanity. They are far from it, but just won’t admit it.

  40. Sella
    It is true that the people of Azerbaijan are Turkish descent.The Turkish people in Turkey have probably half a dozen branches . One of them is Azeri Turks. They speak Turkish but a different accent and some customs are similar to the the customs that Turks have in Turkey. The Azerbaijan army officers have been trained in turkey for a long time. They have the money and weapons but they are sitting back and waiting for some miracle to happen and get back Karabakh just like Armenians sit back and try to liberate Western Armenia which is laughable. I even saw that some Azeri people think that they will actually get back Karabakh after negotiation.If you enjoy waiting for a miracle why spent so much money on toys and training . Let’s not wake them up. they should sleep 20 years more. After all, I have decided to call it Azerfakejan if that’s all right with you

    • Just be human
      For few seconds and feel…!
      Read your origin …
      Study your genes …
      We are born without religion
      Without ethnicity
      With out skin
      Our humanity should speak
      and nothing else
      At the end
      all of us will sigh
      You and Me…!

      Sylva

  41. Alan
    Your logic is flawed i will check your link and come back and chase you because it will not make sense I know your universe is different than ours

  42. Mr. Frank,
    You know why you cannot dispute the fact of Holocaust but can put the AG so fervently in doubt and diminish it into a controversy? I will tell you. It’s not because there are fewer convincing evidence and documents, nor is it because Jews have more power and clout than Armenians. It’s because Germany lost the war to the allied powers, whose populations had incurred heavy losses at that hand of the Nazi Germany. Their combined interests ensured that the Nazi perpetrators could be brought to justice. But, those same powers didn’t even care to allow the Jewish people, the main victims of the war, to be represented in Nuremberg trials. In comparison, in the World War I allied powers suffered almost no civilian casualties at the hand of Turkey and their economic, political interests viz a viz that country weighed much heavier than going after justice for Armenians.
    Had Nazi Germany not lost the war, who would have dared to accuse them of Holocaust. Holocaust? What Holocaust? they would have asked. Just like the AG it would have been ‘open to debate’ according to open and covert denialsits.

  43. Boyajian&Alan

    “You ask a great question. Why, indeed, doesn’t Turkey bring the case to court to settle the case once and for all?”

    Once again, You have come up with the idea that actually, the Sun should go around the earth not the other way around. I think that law makers should now change their approach and the accused will need to take a court action in order to be free from the accusation so the accuser can sit back and parrot for justice to be delivered.I wouldn’t be surprised if all Armenians have the same view he he he he. Are you real?

    • John (The Real),

      The Charter of ICJ is:
      “The Court has two functions: to render judgments on disputes submitted to it by States and to furnish advisory opinions on questions referred to it by authorized bodies”.
      The Armenian diaspora, which is most active on this issue is not an authorized body. The Republic of Armenia is fighting for its survival surrounded by Turks and “Turks”, and can not afford to irritate its adversaries. It remains in the sidelines hoping that the Turks will come to their senses, cast away their nationalism and admit the crime of their ancestors. If you are an example of an enlightened Turk, it will be a very long wait.
      Finally, Turkey could sue the Republic of Armenia but chose not to. Could it be it feared that it would lose the case?

  44. The first official census in Turkey was in 1927. The Turkish Statistical Institute listed 13,648,000 citizens. If we take the estimates that there were at least 1.5 million Armenians in Turkey in 1915, precluding the Hamid massacres and the Adana massacres, there should be at least 8 million Armenians in Turkey today based on growth assumptions that show Turkey having a population of 74,724,269 as of !2/31/2011.

    So to my Turkish friends, I ask “where did the Armenians go”?

  45. Alan Cartwright
    thank you for your interesting link.
    Necati
    It is difficult to say who is right in your example. But of course both parties could go to the ICJ. But I also do not really believe that a court verdict would solve the issue. The ICJ was fiercely criticized for acquitting Serbia-Montenegro in the case raised by Bosnia. They demanded proofs of a type that certainly can not be shown in the case of 1915. The debate will go on.

    • Ragnar
      You need to realise that this unfortunately became a political battle rather than a genuine debate about a historical event so whether this court satisfy one party or not , ultimately, it is the only authority to make a decision otherwise you will hear people being on Turkish government’s payroll or Armenian agent or changing his mind etc.

  46. Alan
    let’s take your suggestion and see what is going to happen. Imagine that Turkey has lodge a case at this court hen the Court also invited Armenia. If Armenia says for some reason i didn’t blame Turkey for anything it may be someone else. What will turkey do? Withdraw its application and look silly ? These are the basic procedures , As you will see here if you reverse it upside down it wont work . If Armenia can afford to invade another a neighbouring country I am sure It can afford to submit a petition to the court. So your reasoning is not valid.

    “”Could it be it feared that it would lose the case?”” This sentence shows typical Armenian logic. This question is also not valid. The correct question is Why Armenia is afraid of going to court and employing propaganda tactics ?

  47. { If Armenia can afford to invade another a neighbouring country}

    You are a little confused son: your country, Turkey, invaded a neighboring country, sovereign Republic of Cyprus. Your invading military still occupies about 40% of Cyprus.

    Armenia has invaded no country.

    NKR declared Independence, as per USSR law, Azerbaijan invaded NKR.
    NKR threw out the invaders and liberated historic Armenian lands.

    And talking about invading: look up what your FM Davutoglu said in 2010 when he was visiting Uygurs of China. (Hint: he did NOT say “we are visiting the homeland of Armenians’ ancestors”).

    Your ancestors, Seljuk Turks, invaded the Armenian Highlands.
    Turkic Tatar tibes invaded South Caucasus, including historic Armenian lands East of present day Artsakh (Lowlands Karabagh).

    Armenians indigenous; Turkic tribes invaders.
    Armenians indigenous; Turkic tribes invaders.
    Armenians indigenous; Turkic tribes invaders.

    Keep repeating: it will eventually register in your Denialist Turk mind, John the Turk.

  48. RVDV
    I think that it not that important whether people in Azerbaijan are Turkish descent or not . What is important is they think that they are Turkish. Armenians for some reason try to prove that they are not Turkish. this looks silly same as some people in Turkey say that you Kurds are actually Turkish but you do not know this reality. I think you are studying history. Once upon a time all Turkish people in Turkey had alawi belief but the Sunni belief dominates Turkey now. There is no research to understand how this happened . If you know anything about it please provide reference.this may be something you may be interested in

    • Until about the 1453, there were other Turkish/Turkic Muslim groups opposed to the Ottoman sunni Islam. One group, the Bektasi, stayed in Anatolia after the Ottomans clearly had control, the other, the Safaviyya (founded by Kurds) left Turkey and later conquered Iran- Safavid dynasty. All Alevism is, is a mix of Shia Islam and shamanistic/spiritual beliefs, of course many in Turkey are too stupid and brainwashed to see this (seeing and many of the Sunni Muslims in Turkey are poor Muslims themselves).

      Regarding the first part of your post I agree. Many here say there are many hidden Armenians in Turkey and that many nationalist Turks probably have Armenian ancestors. Well I’m guessing this works both ways, and that some Armenian nationalists likewise have Turkish ancestors. At least make sure you’re not related to the people you hate :).

      “I think that it not that important whether people in Azerbaijan are Turkish descent or not . What is important is they think that they are Turkish.”

      Yeah, I agree. I’m not Turkish but I feel like a Turk and say I am one, so yeah, I guess you’re right there.

    • “Armenians for some reason try to prove that they are not Turkish. this looks silly…”

      john the turk,

      I wonder where you got that ridiculous information. Pretty much every Armenian I have ever known, including myself, has referred to Azeris as Turks. I remember since my childhood that we simply called them Turks. In fact, “Azeri” is quite a new term for me. What is an Azeri? Just a made-up name, since there was was no such country on the world’s maps throughout history. About twenty years ago very few Azeris spoke English, and very few in the world had heard of them. There was no such nation known to the mankind until very recently. I am not even sure there was a word “Azeri” in English back then. Since the breakup of the USSR, they started identifying themselves as Azeris.

      In fact, there was an Azeri on these pages by name Rashid, I believe, who not too long ago was trying to prove that “Azeris” are not original Turks but Turkified locals. Maybe you are mistaking him for an Armenian. At least one Armenian argued in response that he was a Turk and did not originate in the region.

      I consider them Turks, you can have them, they are all yours.

    • “Many here say there are many hidden Armenians in Turkey and that many nationalist Turks probably have Armenian ancestors. Well I’m guessing this works both ways, and that some Armenian nationalists likewise have Turkish ancestors.”

      RVDV,

      While I do not exclude that some Armenians may have a fraction of Turkish ancestry, it does not at all work both ways, as you are trying to describe it. Armenians and any other ethnicity living under the Turkish yolk never wanted to be mixed with Turks. It occured through rape, kidnapping, and forced Turkification of representatives of other ethnic groups by Turks. This kind of barbaric and violent behavior was not practiced by other ethnic groups towards Turks. There was no systematic process of “turning” Turks into Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Assyrians or others.

      As for hidden Armenians, yes, there are many hidden Armenians in Turkey who do not identify themselves as Armenians out of fear, even though they know the truth. There are no hidden Turks in Armenia or anywhere else.

    • I just noticed that I have misspelled “yoke” as “yolk.” Sorry. I guess, it was clear what I meant.

    • Gina: I think you forget that in 1918 Azerbaijan became the first democratic secular Muslim country in the world. After that, they became the Azerbaijan SSR until 1991. I’m pretty sure the English language had a word for them before the break up of the USSR.

      If you’d like to know what an Azeri is, there, of course, is a Wikipedia page devoted to the exact subject. Approach it with an open mind, I was very surprised at some of the facts presented.

      Also, it is irrelevant if the Armenian people didn’t want to mix with Turks. It happened, many times through the ways you have said, sometimes in other ways. So just as many Turks have Armenian blood, to a lesser extent, it is reasonable to conclude the opposite as well.

      Re: “hidden” Armenians in Turkey, I don’t know what you’ve been told about 2012 Turkey, but Armenians are no longer undesirable no.1. There are Armenian celebrities- like Hayko Cepkin, there isn’t a Hrant Dink case every other Tuesday. The attention has been shifted to Kurds and Alevis- you’re good, no worries.

    • John the turk,

      “Armenians for some reason try to prove that they are not Turkish. this looks silly…”

      There is nothing to prove. Armenians are not related to central Asian people in any way. You Turks are Central Asian people.

    • RVDV,

      I did say that I do not exclude that some Armenians may have a fraction if Turkish ancestry. However, it is by far smaller than what Turks “have taken” from many ethnic groups, including Armenians, forcibly and violently. After all, Turks are the ones who look dramatically different than what they used to, not others.

      Claiming that it works both ways is not only illegitimate but very offensive to peoples who had to endure the barbaric methods of involuntary assimilation imposed on them by the loathed conquerers.

      So no, it does not work both ways.

    • “…in 1918 Azerbaijan became the first democratic secular Muslim country in the world.”

      Let me enlighten you, although, I believe, you know it better than I do. Azerbaijan existed long before that as province in Iran. That’s what the term in English was for. It was stolen by this new country that you are talking about. What was the contents of it? Turks that started calling themselves Azerbaijanis.

  49. To go back to my original point, and in order to hopefully make it clearer. Mamigonian writes:

    NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen provides a helpful guide to the hallmarks of he said/she said reporting:

    —There’s a public dispute.

    —The dispute makes news.

    —No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims in the story, even though they are in some sense the reason for the story. (Under the “conflict makes news” test.)

    —The means for assessment do exist, so it’s possible to exert a factual check on some of the claims, but for whatever reason the report declines to make use of them.

    —The symmetry of two sides making opposite claims puts the reporter in the middle between polarized extremes.24

    unquote.

    Of course Mamigonian is absolutely right in pointing to this predicament. One might enlarge on it and ask why certain controversies are described in this way and others not. Because i believe that not all are.

    two points:

    – when I say that Mamigonian engages in “tlønism” it is because he does not put the actual need to argue at the center of his description. In this way he ends up like those who simply claim that the AG has been proven once and for all, and want no “further discussion”-nonsense.

    -at least in norway, the so called “Neutral Reporting” started because the public heard – mainly from me – objections to the standard received version, replete with the Andonian papers and the strange mixture of historical, general moral, and legal arguments presented – along with the refusal to discuss with “deniers” – in the “genocide” narrative. The “Armenian cause” was actually very vulnerable to objections. I was frightened by the ease by which I made the Norwegian genocide scholars look amateurish.

    • Ragnar, you say:

      ” ….when I say that Mamigonian engages in “tlønism” it is because he does not put the actual need to argue at the center of his description.”…

      The opposite of “Tlonism” is not necessarily the centrality of any ‘need’ to argue, although one can use arguing, as just one *tool*, to expose Tlonism, as Mamigonian does here.

      Tlonism is the ‘inventing’ of something and promoting it until it seems as if it actually took place. It is not the “negation of arguing.” On the contrary, it can engage in a lot of seemingly rational arguing, such as the official Turkish narrative or, for that matter, the examples from Grove’s article cited above..

      So, no, one can not conclude from this article that Mamigonian engages in Tlonism – nor, for that matter, that he does not respect the value of intelligent arguing.

  50. Tanya,
    in a way I agree with you because my point was inaccurately formulated. Let me try again. Mamigonian notes that in the “he says/she says” journalism “No real attempt is made to assess clashing truth claims”. Unquote. So of course he acknowledges the value of intelligent arguing. The question is rather where we get by reading his article, whether it helps us to go on. One possible way to end his article would have been to speak about the possible antidotes to this predicament. To my mind the antidote has to do with intelligent arguing. I TRY to do intelligent arguing by repeatedly pointing to the clusters of facts that support the genocide thesis, and on the other hand those who go against it. Both exist to my mind. – But at this point in many people and very much so in many Armenians a kind if conviction enters the scene and blocks the impulse to argue. The conviction that “all importan points have been proved” – enters on the scene, and one leaves the strategy of arguments and goes on to “diagnosis of the Other” and rhetorical assertions that “what I say is proved by research long ago”. Continued requests for arguments are seen as “inducing doubt”. The failure of Mamigonian not to stress that one must go on arguing in detail puts his very perceptive article in the “Diagnosis Category”, unfortunately. It is a piece of diagnostics, and we have enought of that. It does not bring us forward. — This is a matter of what one EMPHASIZES as the bottom line in one’s message. Only heightened scholarly quality of the debate can solve the question. So in this sense I feel that you do not appreciate my main intended point in the above, but I agree it was not clearly put by me . I hope this was clearer.

    • Mr. Naess,
      You must worship argumentation in believing that truth will come out and people will be persuaded and made to see the light. It must be obvious to you if you read the papers that arguments seldom if ever change minds already fixed. Each additional new piece of evidence is countered with fresh or stale arguments showing doubt and arguing the opposite. When, even current events remain subject to argument when pictures and eye witness accounts are presented, what chance has a horrendous massacre of almost a century ago? Do arguments persuade anyone to change one’s mind? People are ruled by their passions not their brains. Look at the present comments. Do you see anything other than knee jerk reactions and elaborations of preconceived opinions fired by the categorical imperative that my country does no wrong, despite all too clear crimes committed against minorities by the Turkish State continuing even today? Is it some form of infatuation, a wish to appear in print that moves us?
      Mr. Mamigonian’s article has drawn close to 100 comments, all leading to nowhere, including mine. Not one mind has been changed. Don’t for a moment believe that when two people argue there positions are brought closer together because of it. On the contrary it further reinforces their opposition
      In my opinion the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the Turks will take place by the decree of the Turkish State and only when the recognition costs nothing. Then it can be delegated to the footnotes of the official history texts to further burden the poor pupils’ memories along with other cruelties of the ancient past.

    • Ragnar,

      Thank you for your reply.

      If you do not find the article in question intellectually up to par with a particular set of standards, or that “It does not bring us forward” for whatever reason, that is certainly your prerogative. (Personally, I think Mamigonian’s ‘diagnostic’ piece can be very helpful in enlightening some audiences not closely familiar with the issue — but of course you don’t have to agree with my assessment.)

      Your criticism originally, however, was not that the piece is not intellectually satisfying. Rather, it was that the author was engaging in “Tlonism”. THat is the accusation for which there is no evidence whatsoever.

      It is clear that you do not approve of “some”! Armenians who don’t want to argue “at all” about any genocide. That, too, is your prerogative. However, it is not “objective” to then “assume” that Mamigonian is one of those Armenians simply because his essay omits to include an emphasis on what YOu happen to value most.

      Just because some Armenians don’t want to argue (for whatever reason) does not mean that every “Armenian” whose essays are worth reading has to include in each essay an emphasis on “the need to argue” — just to prove that s/he is not like “those other” Armenians. Nor is there a requirement that every essay on the subject worth reading ‘has to take the matter forward’ — and forward according to whose judgment, in the first place?

      I think you are jumping to conclusions based on a generalized view of “Armenians” as you see them. I also find that claiming the author is engaging in “Tlonism” – your original accusation – is an unfair assessment.

      regards,
      tanya

  51. Ragnar, I’m with Tanya on this.

    Erecting altars to argument is one form of ‘Tlonism’.

    We can argue over the location of the tailor shop in Tlon, but the emperor of Tlon will still have on no clothes.

  52. boyajian
    you answer is entertaining, but I am not sure I follow you. If I try to give your post a charitable interpretation you want to say that we move forward also by other types of efforts than mere argumentation. If that is what you mean I agree. but on the other hand that is no answer to my charge that the tendency to produce diagnosis of the Other is exaggerated here in AW

  53. Alan Cartwright
    your answer is interesting, and it is the most paradoxical aspect I have seen when adressing this issue. Also at the WATS-listserve I met professors who uttered this kind of pessimistic views regarding the possibility of reaching conclusions and results by rational means. the paradox is 1) that people who themselves argue a lot formulate this pessimistic view – your post above is replete with implicit arguments, 2) how will you relate to the fact that George Bush invaded Iraq allegedly based on solid knowledge that weapons of mass production were being produced, but that later almost everybody believes that they did not produce such weapons. Is that change in attitude an effect of changes in solar spots, or psychological whims, or is it a result of arguments based on documentational work? Has argumentation based on fact no effect at all according to your view? — No. I believe I have very good reason to emphasize lack of rational dialogue and rational argumentation as an important factor in most controversies where an important part is a disagreement on factual circumstances (what happened?)

  54. Tanya,
    I never said anything about “all Armenians”. And of course the same criticism applied to the majority of the Turkish inputs to the issue. I speak about a troublesome aspect of the debates here in the AW. And I disagree with you regarding Mamigonian’s article. To me it is a familiar case of the diagnosis of people who hold the opposite view, only clad in more sophistiicated clothes than the usual “he is on the Turkish payroll”. But it has the merit that Mamigonian emphasizes that absence of “assessment of truth value” is a problem. And the need to assess truth values, which opens for standard scholarly argumentation, is EXACTLY my point! It is there in Mamigonian’s article, fairly hidden, but should be emphasized more. I think this is obvious to many onlookers, but difficult if one is intoxicated with the need to be “on this side, and not on the Other side” in a disagreement.

  55. Mr. Naess,
    We have reached a meta-argument position (i.e arguing about argumentation). Which is a valid philosophical issue. I wish to emphasize that I do not fault the search for facts. Albeit I am suspicious that the Ottoman archives may be corrupted based on the selling of 50 tons of archival material to the Bulgarians.
    I also do not fault scholarly articles like that of Mr. Mamigonian arguing facts and linguistic issues. Yes, he may have sinned in his article like Grove has by casting doubt on the denialist position. But he has apparently studied the issue at some length and is making an important point, which is linguistic in nature. As you say we are in a paradox, we are immersed in the arguments we make. After all at the end we can only use words as signs to express meaning and they are always colored. This will always be so, deconstructionism notwithstanding.
    My dismay is with the commentaries at this site, not with scholarly research. The comments with few exceptions they seem to be nationalistic pride masquerading as “arguments”. Turks may never be persuaded by historic documents. Only if a time machine could take them to the Syrian desert they might reluctantly admit what was done to the Armenians, and then maybe argue that they deserved it.
    It is noteworthy that a large number of Turkish writers in Turkey are convinced of the occurrence of the Armenian Genocide, and I know of no Armenian author that denies it. Of course, this is not proof of it , but it may indicate a softening of the Turkish position and relaxation of the implementation of Article 301 of the penal code.

    • Alan:

      You may not be familiar with the Denialist from Norway.
      He has been visiting us @AW for a very long time.
      His technique is to engage in endless, vacuous exchanges that have no end point and decide nothing: it is one of the more advanced methods of AG Denial that has come to fore recently – after blanket denials got ridiculed and were shot down in disgrace.

      The idea is not to Deny the AG outright, but engage in endless obfuscations and word plays. Muddy the waters. Go on tangents. Run out the clock.
      “everybody suffered, including Turks”; “there is no agreement it was Genocide; maybe it was, maybe not”; “let us debate and discuss a few more decades; (hopefully Armenians will either get tired or disappear by then: problem solved)”.

      He is an Anti Armenian AG Denialist bigot.
      He has called us Armenians “inbreds” right here @AW.
      He has used an expression in reference to our murdered ancestors normally reserved for garbage: “disposed of”.
      He appears frequently side-by-side with notorious AG Denialist Justin McCarthy.

      And here is a post which shows his technique in compact form:

      [ {I agree that the word “genocide” should not figure as prominently in the Armenian accusations against Turkey as it does. However, to simply scrap the word does not make sense. There is a real debate on whether a genocide occurred.} (Rangar Naess @Hurriyet 2011-9-12)]

    • Avery,

      Well, I guess he has been paid well, and is simply doing his job. The rest of us are wasting our precious time on his lengthy posts. I stopped reading them long time ago.

      Mr. Naess,

      You can write lengthy comments or books if you wish, but the only truth is that Turks eliminated an entire race. 1.5 million people are gone with their genes, wealth, history and culture. Turks stole everything that those people ever possessed.

      Instead of arguing with us whether it was genocide or not you better argue, or debate as you call it, with Mr. Lemkin’s thoughts. I am sure if he was alive he would not have any considerations for your theories.

  56. Ragnar,

    My response will be a lenghty one. Please bear with me. I also hope to be able to make it my last comment on this thread. (btw, you make mistaken assumptions about me, which I will clarify later.)

    I did not say that you said anything about “all Armenians”, and I do not doubt that you have similar criticisms of “Turkish inputs”. (I am sure you are far too intelligent for that, and, on my part, I am not as unobservant as you seem to think.) I also never disagreed that Mamigonian’s work is ‘diagnostic’.

    I DID, in fact, see, the first time around, what you claim is your main point in your initial post : that further high quality scholarship is needed. It is one I both agree and disagree with depending on context. I agree because further scholarship never hurts in ANY field – as long as one is aware that ‘no scholarship’ is ‘final’. I disagree that further scholarship is ‘needed’ at this point for an ‘acknowledgment’ that a genocide took place – at least if one is going to stick by the UN definition. That definition may or may not be flawed, which is yet a separate discussion.

    However, I am not interested in pushing that disagreement. There are others who will argue that better than I. Instead, I decided to take your point about further scholarship ‘at face value’ – because, again, I agree that further scholarship never hurts anything – as long as one understands that it is never ‘final’. (In that sense, I agree both with you, that arguments can be valuable, AND with the comments about ‘arguments’ not resolving much ‘in and of themselves’.)

    So, why did I reply?

    Because I disapproved of your approach of how you were trying to get your point across. And I still do.

    You were free to make a statement about your views in a straight forward way at any point. You could have said “I think the AW emphasizes diagnosis of the other writings too much and this is just another example of that”. You could have said “too many Armenians do not want to argue about the genocide, and I don’t think that is good for scholarship or to take matters forward”. You could have even said “Mamigonian’s piece makes the mistake , in my opinion, of not stressing that more scholarly argument is nevertheless needed in the field”

    Had you made these statements, I probably would not have replied. I don’t feel the need to argue with these personal opinions of yours.

    Instead, you claimed that there was ‘tlonism’ in Mamigonian’s work, and went on to describe your experience in Norway about “neutral reporting”, your contributions in that area, the resistance of many armenians to debate about the genocide, and the vulnerability of what you labeled the “armenian cause” (btw, what IS the “armenian cause”? )

    I will set aside the obvious self praise in there. It is a vulnerability many share to want credit for what one believes one has contributed. If you say so, so be it.

    What was very disturbing in what you wrote was that you were ‘projecting’ from your experience with ‘many armenians’ to Mamigonian’s *individual* “stance” *just because he did not emphasize in that essay what you think he should have emphasized*. PLUS, you called it “tlonism”, in effect, accusing not only him, but “armenians who don’t want to argue” of ‘tlonism’ – of *intentional deception* to push an ‘invented’ story as real. (might it be that some armenians who think the genocide has been proved – whether right or wrong – are just too fed up with arguing?)

    Despite that, if you had just said “the AW – or many armenians- engage in tlonism”, I would have likely left that also for others to dispute.

    BUT it really bothered me that you were using an individual and well written essay (with which I happen to have my own disagreements – see my first comment from June 5) and an individual person, Mamigonian, as a ‘vehicle’, with unfair accusations (not of being ‘diagnostic’ – but of being tlonist), to air your views about “the importance of further scholarship” . — surely an obvious “daaa” when taken in general.

    [And yet,, you, on your part, do not indicate how this obvious “daaa” applies to the armenian genocide issue. You do not explain ‘what’ you think needs to be researched more. You just accuse people of how they are not as scholarly as they should be.]

    Your accusation, your ‘approach’ to this thread, not only projected something on the author, not only implied tlonism on the part of ‘armenians’ , but also reduced the well written article to “just another piece of tlonism of the kind that many armenians engage in”!!!

    It is interesting that when I first objected to your diagnosis of “tlonism” in Mamigonian, you immediately ‘switched’ the discussion to “your main point” which you *assumed* I hadn’t “appreciated” — instead of first acknowledging that your tlonism accusation to Mamigonian was *a mistake*. (and not just that you didn’t state your point ‘accurately’)

    Then to Boyajian, you said (paraphrased) “I am being charitable about your comments about arguments, but it still doesn’t change my point that the AW exaggerates diagnostics of the other”.. First time you mentioned the “AW”.
    Again, evading responsibility for your first accusation vis a vis the author.

    I was being “charitable” too, Ragnar, by not writing things out this way so far. I chose to simply concentrate on your mistaken accusation to Mamigonian in order to cut to the chase of your catch 22 approach of ‘start with this essay and mention how it is ‘just another’ example of ‘refusing to argue” and, thus, of ‘tlonism’. Never mind that “tlonism”, for one thing, implies “intent to deceive”.

    So, after first assuming that I didn’t appreciate your initial main point, what did you do? You ‘assumed” – or implied- I was “intoxicated” with “the need” to be on one side of an argument, and not the “O”ther!!! Do you even know me?

    I do not disagree that Mamigonian’s piece is diagnostic.

    I am not at this time personally interested to debate, pro or con, your personal scholarly preferences.

    I simply object to your methods of argument in this thread, as I have tried to explain. You accused Mamigonian of ‘tlonism’. Let’s clear that first. Then you can go on and on, as you like, without much bother of an argument from me, about whether his piece is ‘diagnostic’, whether more scholarship is needed, whether Mamigonian should emphasize this or that, whether the AW should be this way or that way, whether ‘armenians’ or ‘turks’ or “whoever” are stupid or intoxicated, – with a need for seeing one side of an argument, or with a need for recognition… whatever you will.

    I do understand everything you are saying. It just is not news to me. “How” you are carrying this discussion here , though, is something I need to object to.

    Thanks for everyone’s patience.

    Tanya

    ps — Unlike what you imply, I am not at all ‘intoxicated with the need to be ‘on this side, and not ‘the Other side ” in a disagreement. I happen to be personally familiar with both the Turkish and Armenian experience and ‘indoctrination’, if you will. Plus, if you are going to capitalize “Other” – as if I or others see only one ‘other’ view, it is actually views similar to yours that are creating a polarity by treating the issue as one between “Armenians and Turks” — when ANY genocide research, as you must surely know, is a human/universal issue to explore! (just see the diagnostic articles written by “turks” in the AW – Gursel, Gunaysu, others)

  57. Tania,
    as I read your post I realized that your are right in much of what you say. My diagnosis of Mamigonian’s as another piece of “Tlönism” was facile. I am also not happy about my self-praise.– In other respects we still may disagree, but we dont have to go on arguing. The only point I wish to make is that I am not primarily asking for high quality scholarship. What I ask for is what I think all people who discuss seriously do, scholars or not, like arguing instead of characterising the other, answer arguments with arguments, and so on

    • Thank you for your clarification, Ragnar.

      One thought I would like to share for its own sake, which occurred to me during this thread: Argument vs argument discussions also often involve diagnosing the ‘other’ argument, usually to show its non-validity. So diagnosis is also a kind of argument.

  58. Avery,
    I don’t like to be a party to ad hominem attacks. If Mr. Ragner Nees is a nit picker than that problem can be dealt with in a different manner, as Tanya has shown.
    If equivocation is his habit then he needs to hear a story from the Turkish literature,

    Nasreddin Hodja is hearing a case in the court.
    The litigant argues his case. When he is finished Nasreddin says “You are absolutely right”. The defendant takes the stand and argues the exact opposite. The Hodja says to him also “You are absolutely right”. Someone listening to the exchange says to the Hodja: “Nasreddin, this is impossible. To both of them you said he was right. Both can’t be right” .The Hodja answers: “You are right too”.
    On this note I am withdrawing from this thread. I think it is going nowhere.

  59. Not all Turkophiles here are Turks. Take a closer look at whose interests are being defended if The Armenian Genocide finally gets formal recognition. Armenians had better recognize the outside forces that are at work here. Armenia is in a vise. Who benefits should Armenia fail and who would suffer the most?

  60. Tanya,
    thank you for your answer. I tend to disagree with you. Relevant arguments are about the merit of certain proposition(s). Answers that comment on the interlocutor as a person or say things like “What you say is exactly the same as what X says, and that is….Y(something bad or mistaken)” are generally held to be inapropriate. While the dividing line probably cannot be determinated with 100% certainty, the general point should be clear.
    Alan
    Nasreddin Hoca once went to the sea and started churning with a spoon in the water.People asked him “What are you doing”. He answered: “I am making yoghurt” – “but it is impossible to make yoghurt from water!”- ” But MAYBE it will become yoghurt (“ya tutarsa..). — Anyhow, if you leave, thank you for your input

  61. Ragnar, you make an interesting point about diagnosis of the other. But you tell others that they argue incorrectly while arguing for the need for argument, thus arguing about how to argue, rather than bringing truth to light. Diagnosis of the other can be valid or invalid, but it doesn’t have to hold you hostage. You can allow it to be a passing moment and then move on. Refocus back to your point. Spell it out more clearly. Ask a direct question. Make a clear and concise comment. You choose your own path. If an obstacle or roadblock presents itself, you can go around it, over it, bulldoze it, or sit on it. You can choose to be the anti-obfuscation. Or not.

    To argue over the color of the emperor’s non-existent new robe, or who made it, is absurd.

    To take a known crime — the deportations, starvation, massacres, and a myriad of concomitant crimes which led to the destruction of the indigenous Armenian population of Asia Minor while under the control of the CUP government— and to elevate ‘analysis’ of the crime to a position of greater importance than the pursuit of justice for the crime is also absurd.

  62. Boyajian
    Now the starting point in this thread was the article of Mamigonian which really is about texts, about the “neutral referring” of journalists and so on – and in this way about argumentation as a theme. Isnt it? When I reread the exchanges in this thread isnt this the case. My own first post of june 4, to take an example, dealt with this.( For one thing I made the point that “Tlønism” is a widespread phenomenon) — yes, I think many here argue “incorrectly”, (or rather coarsely), for instance Avery, Darwin J (“all Turkophiles are not Turks”) and Sella (“I guess he has been paid well”). What kind of debate technique is this, and should one not comment on it? In an earlier thread I commented that this style would be unheard of in a normal discussion forum. — You personally dont have this style and Tanya did not, and Alan – who apparently has not been in these discussions before and has not desensitivized himself regarding this negative style – reacted megatively aganst the “ad hominem” comments of Avery regarding me. we may disagree about this, but the constant “ad hominem” attacks in the AW will certainly be one of my main conclusions when analysing the discussions I have participated in since 2009. — Of course I can argue about what actually happened in 1915 and onwards, as you maybe have realized I actually prefer this, we have also had some good discussions about the facts of 1915, but this was not what was brought to the table this time, or what?

  63. boyajian
    I believe you are having a bad day. You write: ….and to elevate ‘analysis’ of the crime to a position of greater importance than the pursuit of justice for the crime is also absurd”.unquote. When on earth did I elevate analysis in this way?

  64. John the turk
    sorry for answering so late. I did not find back to the thread for some reason. Well, I hope you are right. A comprehensive court procedure might, if not solve the question, at least sharpen the debate. However, the earlier legal advice of the ICTJ in 2002, I believe, was too broad and did not specifically adress the question of the role of the ittihadist leadership. It only says that SOME actors probably had genocidal intent and that therefore the name “genocide” is warranted. Needless to say, the trole of the ittihadists is the crux of the matter

  65. Ragnar Naess,

    “What kind of debate technique is this, and should one not comment on it? In an earlier thread I commented that this style would be unheard of in a normal discussion forum. — You personally dont have this style and Tanya did not, and Alan – who apparently has not been in these discussions before and has not desensitivized himself regarding this negative style – reacted megatively aganst the “ad hominem” comments of Avery regarding me.”

    I am sorry if I have offended you in anyway but reading your posts made me think that you were working for Turks. I do not know why when you discuss Armenian genocide, the sufferings of Turks in Balkans is discussed as well, something that many denialist Turks do. Their message is-Armenians suffered but Turks suffered as well-let’s get over it. Armenians have no relations to sufferings of Turks in Balkans and, it should never be brought to the Armenian genocide discussions. Turks suffered in Balkans because they invaded to other native people’s land and oppressed people. When those native people got the chance they cleansed their country from foreign invaders that caused too many sufferings to them.

    But I do want to ask you if you, indeed, called Armenians inbred? If so, would you be so kind to elaborate? Please, also provide some evidence, mainly genetic studies, that would prove that Armenians are inbred. Armenians are Christians, and unlike some Muslims, marriages to their cousins or to their relatives, are strictly prohibited.

    Sincerely,
    Sella

  66. Sella,
    thank you for your post. No, I never said that “Armenians are inbred”. but once I said to jda or Avery, I dont remember who, that the discussion in AW gets “inbred”. This is because some Armenians, I repeat SOME, not all Armenians in these threads in AW, have a very coarse and insulting way of discussing by attacking people who have views that diverge from certain norms they adhere to. If you deviate from this, you are attacked, sometimes in a very uncouth way. So it has nothing to do with marriage customs. I used the word “inbred” because I felt that the natural loyalty that Armenians have to each others , together with the fierce attacks on people who disagree, creates an athmosphere that works against the possibility of having discussions in which only arguments count, and not only loyalty. To take one of the latesat examples, I mentioned that I just celebrated my 70th birthday, and one Armenian participant more or less commented on the fact that I had little time left to live, as if he was happy for this. This is a kind of commentary that should never be made in a serious discussion. But I repeat that certainly not all Armenians with whom I have dioscussed in the AW make this kind of comments. But the ones who do are seldom or never checked pr criticised by other Armenians, and there is no moderator that secures a more civilized discussion. Actually the same kind of discourtesies were also rampant in the WATS listserve affiliated to the University of Michigan. Some people were consistently offensive, and nobody corrected them.

    About the massacres of Turks and other Ottoman Muslims, it has a place in the complete marrative of the last Ottoman Century, but not in the sense that e.g. Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu does it when he introduced the notion of “just memory”, by saying that something like “you suffered the relocations, but we experienced Gallipoli”. Needless to say, the Armenians have for decennia asked both the Turks and the world at large to recognise that what happened was genocide, and Armenians deserve a better answer from Turkey. So I reject this way of trying to make what happened to the Turks, gruesome as it was, relevant as an answer to Armenians when they say that the CUP orchestrated mass murder of Armenians. These are two different matters, and Turkish answers dealing with the massacred and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans is a way of evading the question that is being put to them. Turkish society must work on this and come up with a better answer, even if it true that what happened to the Turks also was terrible and to my mind even genocidal according to certain criteria. But to say this is not a counterargument against the claims that CUP committed genocide against Armenians. So Turks must stop pointing to Turkish suffering when confronted with the allegations from Armenians and from many other quarters.

    I hope this clarified the matter.

    • Ragnar Naess,

      Thank you for your clarification. I am sorry that an Armenian poster told something unpleasant at your 70th birthday but I wish you a very happy and healthy life.

      ”About the massacres of Turks and other Ottoman Muslims, it has a place in the complete marrative of the last Ottoman Century, but not in the sense that e.g. Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu does it when he introduced the notion of “just memory”, by saying that something like “you suffered the relocations, but we experienced Gallipoli”.”

      When Turks were deporting, butchering and raping the entire Armenian nation, it is only natural to expect some massacres of Ottoman Muslims by Armenians.

      I have read a few times that you have referred to Turkish architraves. It has been mentioned that Turkish archives have been cleansed at least twice. Do you have any information on this? If this is true, how valid it would be to study Turkish archives with regard to Armenian genocide?

  67. {ragnar naess
    September 12, 2011
    gor
    I am sorry if you felt offended by my words “inbred” and “disposed of”. I will be more careful with my language in the future} posted @AW.

    (Apparently it is our fault for ‘feeling offended’.
    And apparently the Denialist gentleman offers a non-apology for something he apparently did not say)

    And I will repeat my “ad hominem” comments:

    {He is an Anti Armenian AG Denialist bigot.
    He has called us Armenians “inbreds” right here @AW.
    He has used an expression in reference to our murdered ancestors normally reserved for garbage: “disposed of”.
    He appears frequently side-by-side with notorious AG Denialist Justin McCarthy.}

  68. Avery
    you have to produce the text when I allegedly say that “Armenians are inbred”. I never said such a thing. I was referring to the discussion as being inbred, not Armenians as such. Sella got a completely distorted picture of what I said from your words.—-Regarding the expression “disposed of” it is actually used by some people, for instance Henry Riggs, who by this expression intends to say something about the people who killed Armenians. The expression refers to how, these people treated Armenians, possibly like garbage, but not to the Armenians that were killed. But of course – if you were offended by the expression, I said I was sorry if you felt offended by the choice of words. This is plain courtesy to my mind. —But permit me to say, with all due respect, that I find your way of commenting on this episode, again and again, and distorting it, questionable. I believe I explained these things earlier. Also it is to my mind very questionable to simply say as a kind of branding of somebody that I am “seen side by side” with somebody, in this case McCarthy. It says very little about my views. This way of arguing, and leaving out my saying that I was sorry if the expression hurt you, is a good example of what I find problematic in the way some people here in the AW argue. You could never do it in another fora, and the majority of the Armenians here in the AW dont, but they also do not interfere. The Armenian case is strong but is it well served by your verbal attacks?

    • no you do: produce the entire post – then try to justify it in context.
      also produce the entire post where you used the phrase “disposed of” – then try to justify it context.

      Only one way to stop me from confronting you with these every time:

      [1] Apologize to all Armenians, particularly readers of AW, for the use of the phrase “inbred”.
      [2] Apologize to all Armenians, particularly readers of AW, for the use of the phrase “disposed of”.
      [3] Stop Denying the Armenian Genocide in any shape or form.
      These include denialist weasel phrases such as used in your post below:
      {I agree that the word “genocide” should not figure as prominently in the Armenian accusations against Turkey as it does. However, to simply scrap the word does not make sense. There is a real debate on whether a genocide occurred.} (Rangar Naess @Hurriyet 2011-9-12)

      Note: there is no debate; only in the make believe Universe of Denial there is.

      And if you apologize, it must be genuine: no weasel words like “if anyone ‘felt’ offended”.

  69. Avery
    The phraze concerned was “I am always surprised when the Turkish side in the discussions of the allegations of genocide against Armenians tell about the Armenian guerilla attacks from august 1914 and onwards, and the Armenian side wants to belittle the importance of the attacks. If these attacks were a real threat, it gives the ittihadists a very real motive to dispose of the Armenian population. In any investigation of a crime motive is important” . Unquote.
    The context deals with the itthadists’ possible motivation for murder. It is thus not part of any “denialist” discourse, on the contrary. Firstly, the expression is not so uncommon in the literature, it means “kill” or “get out of the way”. Henry Riggs uses the expression from time to time in his book from his time in Harput in 1915. What I say about the motive must be understood to deal with what possibly went on into the ittihadists heads. The word “dispose” refers to the content of their possibly criminal ideas. It does not mean that I would consider the Armenians as something akin to garbage. If you infer from my words that I see the Armenian victims as garbage, your idea is preposterous, it defies any ordinary way of interpreting texts and statements, to my mind . It is a twisting of my words into a meaning which was not there.
    But I understand – or believe I understand – your feelings about it. So of course I said that I am sorry I chose these words, given your reaction.
    Regarding “inbreeding”. On june 6,2011 I wrote the following on the debates in the AW: I see serious symptoms of intellectual inbreeding in an otherwise very important forum.This is sad, and maybe I should leave you alone to your inbreeding activities.Unquote.
    Comment: I agree that my expression is harsh, but when I used the word “inbreeding” I talk about “intellectual inbreeding”, not genetical inbreeding. I talk about the substitution of repetition and insult for argument, and of the majority of Armenian participants acquiescing in the insults promoted by other Armenians, like when recently an Armenian participant here commented on my being 70 years old that I hopefully will soon die. It took a Turkish participant to protest, somewhat indignantly, against this. The repetitiousness and insulting language of some participants and the silence from other Armenian participants who write in a more civilized manner, and their tacit permission to let one’s fellow Armenians utter all kinds if insults without any protests, this is what I call intellectual inbreeding. I might also call it misplaced loyalty.
    These words of mine on “intellectual inbreeding” were uttered in the june 2011 thread where we debated Thierault’s article on Steiner, morgenthau’s grand child, if I remember correctly. Together with the majority of those who posted mails I was critical of Steiner’s approach. She was advocating some kind of conflict resolution strategy for Armenians and Turks. But the conflict is also about what actually happened. This calls for analysis, not conflict solution strategies. This is not a denialist discourse. —- But you and I disagree about the question of analysis, because you believe it has been done. No need for more analysis of what actually happened. Then we disagree. You may of course hold that I am mistaken and misinformed, but don’t twist my words.

    • Mr. Ragnar,

      If i were you, i would not spend my time with a tashnac such as Avery. He is an ex-commy, graduated from KGB in Ermenistan.

    • {“ This is sad, and maybe I should leave you alone to your inbreeding activities”} addressing Armenian posters @AW.

      Try as you might to explain it away, your words are right there: no twisting necessary; no explaining away will erase the insult.
      (Q: what happens when Armenians continue with their “inbreeding activities” ? A: they become “inbred”)

      And some Joe Schmo using the phrase “disposed of” somewhere is no excuse for you to come to ArmenianWeekly and insult our Armenian ancestors and us.
      Go to a mainstream American website and use the N-word or say something derogatory about murdered slaves and try to explain that some Joe Blow has used it somewhere: see how far you’ll get.
      Go to a Jewish site and make some derogatory comment about murdered Jews, because so-and-so also wrote it somewhere: see how far you’ll get.
      Or try to start a “debate” about the Holocaust: see how long before you start getting threats, assuming you are even allowed to post.

      Ordinarily one would be given the benefit of the doubt: but not you. Your number one sin is your long track record of AG Denial activities.
      Everything flows downhill from there. Every little transgression will be noted. “Inbreeding” directed at Armenian posters @AW; “disposed of” directed at the sacred remains of Armenian victims of the Genocide; explaining to some ‘Zeki’ the behaviour of this newly discovered inbreeding group: “…for instance in their constant praise of each others’ posts.” , as if we are some kind of anthropological curiosity that needs to be explained, so Turkish guests don’t get shocked (…and yeah, I know what you wrote later in the paragraph also: pretty smart; plausible deniability) . Taken in isolation, each can be plausibly explained away. When stitched together over time, against the background of a sophisticated AG Denial campaign, the tapestry of Anti Armenian bigotry of an AG Denialist becomes crystal clear.

      And since you refuse to retract and apologize for the use of the word “inbreeding” in reference to Armenians @AW, and refuse to retract and apologize for the use of the phrase “disposed of” in reference to our murdered ancestors – and continue your efforts to explain them away – I will continue to remind readers of AW of who and what you are.

    • “I will admit I started relating to Turkey as kind love story for me. An infatuation. Never spoke to Justin about it..”

      Anti Armenian AG Denialist Naess admitting his pro-Turkish bias at
      a denialfest organized by his buddy, notorious AG Denialist Justin McCarthy, at the University of Utah.

      (partial transcript by Avery from video recording)

    • oh look.. another crawler that we know very well.. Necati.. well well.. guess i missed a great party….

      Necati.. instead of giving Ragnar advice.. why don’t you do a soul searching for yourself first… God knows you need it even more..the notorious denialist with dirty mouth……

      Avery is right.. Ragnar owes a genuine apology to ALL of us here….he may be very intelligent and polite but the underlying layer is for one purpose only .. to muddy up the waters and create confusion.. he is an enigma and he will always remain as such.. i always said.. he has an agenda and no matter how good he is with words, to me he is a denialist…period..

      Gayane

  70. ragnar naess : “I am always surprised when the Turkish side in the discussions of the allegations of genocide against Armenians tell about the Armenian guerilla attacks from august 1914 and onwards, and the Armenian side wants to belittle the importance of the attacks”

    What August 1914 “attacks”, ragnar ?

    These things also happened in August, from http://www.armenian-genocide.org/1914.html

    August 1
    Germany declares war on Russia. Beginning of World War I.

    August 2
    A secret treaty of alliance is signed between Turkey and Germany virtually placing the Turkish armed forces under German command.

    August 3
    The Turkish government sends sealed envelopes containing a general mobilization order to district and village councils, with the strict instructions that they were not to be opened until further notice. A fortnight later, with the approval of the Ittihad Committee, instructions are issued to open the envelopes.

    August 8
    Censorship of all telegraphic communication is announced by the government.

    August 18
    Looting is reported in Sivas, Diyarbekir, and other provinces, under the guise of collecting war contributions. Stores owned by Armenian and Greek merchants are vandalized.

    August 18
    1,080 shops owned by Armenians are burned in the city of Diyarbekir.

    August 22
    The male population between the ages of 20 and 45 is conscripted by the Turkish armed forces.

    August 28
    Turkish troops are garrisoned in Armenian schools and churches in Sivas Province. In the city of Sivas, 56,000 soldiers of the 10th Army Corps are quartered in and around the Christian districts.

    But there’s more ragnar, that didn’t make it into that list.

    “Later in August, moderate civil bureaucrats and military men were removed from office in Anatolia.”

    and

    “The Special Organization bands began extortion and murder campaigns against Armenians in late August and September, apparently trying to provoke armed resistance that would provide an alibi for government retaliation.”

    From Absolute Destruction: Military Culture And The Practices Of War In Imperial Germany By Isabel V. Hull.

    So ragnar, how do you know these “attacks” you speak of have not been deliberately provoked by the Ottoman government ?

  71. ragnar, next time you have contact with demographer Justin McCarthy ask him to give you a full accounting of the fate of the Armenian men drafted into the labor battalions. Ask him how many men were drafted during the war and how many were discharged (ALIVE!!) when the war ended. Ask him to account for the discrepancies between the 2 numbers.

  72. But you must see the difference between “inbreeding” and “intellectual inbreeding”? Dont you see the difference? What you do now in your last post is exactly what I am talking about. Multiply your way of arguing by a hundred and send comments like this to people you disagree with to the main newspapers of the world! Outside a forum like AW. Note the reaction you get to this kind of discussion if you go outside the circles that you know in advance both support the genocide thesis and moreover believe this is a moral case with the peculiarity that any kind of abuse against those who disagree is legitimate! This is not a rhetorical question! Find somebody you disagree with and formulate yourself in this way! There are no doubt US congressmen and other politicians and academics who argue against your opinions. And come back and give us the references and we will see…. How will people react? Will they say “This Avery surely has an elegant pen, and a convincing one ,too!!”.

    • what others say about Avery is utterly irrelevant.
      I have been called everything in the book: ask me if I care.

      Armenia; Artsakh; Armenian Genocide; Denial; Armenian people; Armenian Highlands, etc, etc, – now you got my attention.

      My goal is to counter the Denialist Disinformation agents, such a the one named Ragnar Naess. A self-admitted Turcophile who publicly admits to being in love with and infatuated with Genocidal Turkey.

      Who visits ArmenianWeekly with the express purpose of plying his sophisticated AG Denialism theories.
      Who insults the innocent victims of the Armenian Genocide.
      Who insults the posters @AW by labeling them as “inbreeding”.

      See you at the next thread, infatuated-with-Turkey Anti Armenian Denialist Bigot Ragnar Naess.

    • Ok here’s the Turkish position on the Armenian Genocide:

      “The Turkish government acknowledges that during World War I many Armenians died, but counters that Muslim Turks died as well, and claims that the number of Armenian victims has been inflated, and that massacres were committed by both sides as a result of inter-ethnic violence and the wider conflict of World War I”

      Read the last sentence. You could, per this logic, also say that the Holocaust is also not a genocide because the murder of the Jewish people were a result of inter-ethnic conflict and the wider conflict of WWII. This of course is stupid. 5.3 million German soldiers died during WWII and 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust. Looking at just numbers, yes, you could argue inter-ethnic conflict and say the Holocaust was not a genocide. But, again, this is stupid and not true. “inter-ethnic conflict” of course cannot be a genocide- it basically means war. But war does not equal genocide. Genocides take place DURING wars when one side goes too far. You cannot equate Turkish soldiers being killed at Sarikamis (like my paternal great-grandfather) by enemy forces to the premeditated murder of children, women, and the elderly. I say premeditated, you read correctly. Because it was you blind fool. It takes the lowest of the low to intentionally murder children and rape young girls. And it takes the truly, absolute lowest the human race has to offer to defend them. This coming from someones whose feelings towards Turkey is love not an “infatuation”. The Young Turks disgraced the names of all Turks- the Turks who once presented the persecuted Jews of Europe with a new home, and the Turkish leaders who passed laws that effectively gave Christian serfs better rights in a Muslim nation then other Christian nations. Almost too hard to believe now isn’t it?

    • RVDV,

      What is the Turkish position of murdering 250-500 thousands Assyrians by Ottoman Turks? I am curious what an average Turk’s position is.

      Thanks in advance,

      Sella

    • Sella: I’m not really sure. I’d guess more of the same as with the Armenian story but not sure.

  73. Hellene
    There seems to be a broad agreement that Armenian irrgular units assisted Russian invasions of Eastern Anatolia in all the wars in the 1800-eds. See Allen and Muratoff: Caucasian Battlefields. And Taner Akcam who supports the genocode thesis writes that Armenian irrgular units made attacks on Muslim villages after the mobilization in August. “…attacks on Muslim villages had become common even before the Van uprising…”(Akcam: A shameful act, p. 216). And the Russians organised units of Armenians in the autumn of 1914, partly composed of Ottoman Armenians who fled to join the Russians. But I agree that McCarthy and his associates fail to consider the possibility that what is reported as “rebellions” or “attacks” by local Ottoman gendarme or military units were in fact instances of resistance against abuses in the requisitioning of goods for the war effort, retaliation against provocations, and similar reactive events. What you refer about the burning of the Bazaar in Diyarbakir is well documented, as far as I know. – But note that Akcam holds that there were indeed Armenian attacks on Muslim villages.

  74. RDVD
    Yes, I agree with you! I disagree with the Official Turkish position, and have been disagreeing for many years. However, I also disagree with the way the crimes and catastrophies that befell the Ottoman Armenians in WW1 is being described and named in many accounts provided by genocide scholars and Armenian historians.

    • Ragnar… let me say this again… what befell on ARMENIANS was not a CRIME or a CATASTROPHY.. it was PURE GENOCIDE.. no ifs, buts, ors, or maybes…

      I know it is hard for you to utter Genocide without cringing as it is not a standard word in your vocabulary without your own qualifications but try to get acquainted with it…

      Wow.. some people are just too stubborn.. the money must be great to stick to your guns this way… who knows??

  75. On exactly what do you agree with RVDV, Ragnar?

    RVDV, a loyal Turkish citizen, believes the CUP carried out a premeditated genocide against the Armenian citizens of the Ottoman empire and that Turkey should admit to this and compensate Armenians, though he stops short on land reparations. Am I right RVDV?

    Is this what you agree with, Ragnar?

    • Yes, you are right. Undoubtedly and undeniably the lands in question are historical Armenian lands. However, these lands had been under Ottoman control long before the genocide occurred, centuries before. The properties ON those lands need to be returned, but the land itself, in my opinion, a different story. If the issue goes to court and eastern Turkey or part of it are demanded- deservedly- by Armenians, the question of “weren’t all lands (or most) conquered or taken at some point” would be raised.

  76. Boyajian
    regarding the use of the term “genocide”, how can one avoid it in this case? Turks are too much afraid of this term to my mind. But its like “racism”. “Was this “racism” or wasnt it?” people asked in the 1960-ies. The discussion resting on one undefined word was one without any possible definite answer. One has to qualify, Gayane, in one’s treatment of terms like this, otherwise your support rests on a slogan, but not a concept, juridical or otherwise. Slogans functions in some situations but not in this. IF one wants to argue.(Nice to hear from you again, by the way!)
    Premeditation? That is a plan in advance? – I believe not, the data dont support it and people like Bloxham and Kaiser argue against it .
    Genocidal intent? – yes, by some, but the role of the central ittihadists is too complex to conclude this. I just read Yervant Odian’s book. How on earth did he survive if there was a general genocidal intent in the CUP towards Armenians?
    Turkey’s moral responsibility – YES, Turkey must apologize and make repairs. (And after Turkey has done this, I believe Armenians also have some things to apologize about)
    Land reparations? – I dont know if RVDV speaks as a politician or as an analyst in moral questions. I dont regard borders as sacred. But for Armenia to claim territories with a number of Muslim inhabitants exceeding the population of all Armenians today, does this give any sense?

  77. Ragnar.. do you mind explanding on the following statement you made on July 3rd…

    “YES, Turkey must apologize and make repairs. (And after Turkey has done this, I believe Armenians also have some things to apologize about)”

    In my opinion.. Armenians do have some things to apologize about.. we need to apologize for not taking up arms sooner before we got slaughtered by the Ottomans, we need to apologize for being too trustworthy and believe that the Ottoman Empire was our home and we were going to be treated equal instead of dogs, we need to apologize for putting our faith in the same govt that shold have protected its own citizens but yet destroyed our homes, wealth and everything sacred..

    But I want to hear your side of it…please do enlighten us…

    Oh this is going to be good..

    Thank you

    Gayane

  78. Gayane, I believe it is established that Armenian groups killed many civilian Muslim villagers in the area occupied by the Russians in the period april/may 1915 and later in the larger area occupied february Also that civilian Muslims were killed in the Russian Yerevan guberniya by Armenian groups as part of an ethnic cleansing. Read Walker: “Armenia. The survival of a nation” on the situation from early 1918 to spring 1920. According to the central book on this kind of apologies, Elazar Barkan: The guilt of Nations, these would be typical events that warrant apologies. The idea that “these things happens” espoused earlier by gor in our discussion on the fate of the Bulgarian Muslims is hardly in line with the philosophy of justice and human rights that also Armenians appeal to. —-
    But the Armenians have been appealing both to Turkey and to the world at large for a long time, so I believe – by common morality – that Turkey should apologize first, and their apology must be judged by Armenians. Armenians who feel that an eventual apology is far from satisfactory should of course not apologize. But others might.
    —Further, about Armenians being “treated like dogs”, see the previous debates with Karekin who has a more balanced view to my mind.

  79. pardon, I am always too impatient sending my posts. It shpuld be “the period february 1916 until the end of the war and afterwards”

  80. Sella and RVDV
    David Gaunt has written on the persecution of Assyrians in the 2011 book “A Question of Genocide”. He provides these numbers, but there are no references to demographical research and no discussion of the numbers, in the way we see it in many works regarding Armenian mortality

  81. Ragnar Naess

    ”Land reparations? – I dont know if RVDV speaks as a politician or as an analyst in moral questions. I dont regard borders as sacred. But for Armenia to claim territories with a number of Muslim inhabitants exceeding the population of all Armenians today, does this give any sense?”

    You are forgetting that millions of Armenians live in diaspora while Turkish citizens comfortably live in our ancestors houses and use our ancestors lands for free for almost 100 years. Are they going to pay rent to Armenians? As we speak, revenues generated from our lands, and not only lands, flows to Turkish budget, and every Turkish citizen gets some money from there.

    • Well said Sella:

      In the Denialist Turkish and infatuated-with-Turkey Nordic Turcophile universe, all losses and all suffering start with that of the Turks/Muslims: nothing happened prior to that. Only Muslim inhabitants cannot be inconvenienced.

      Millions of Christians were exterminated so that there would be no competition for the land where those millions of Muslims now live, and where once Christians lived. Apparently the fact that the millions of Muslims living there today is a direct consequence of wiping out millions of indigenous Christians living there before is of no concern.

      If not for the criminal mass murder, the approximately 4 million Christians – Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians – would have naturally increased to about 16-40 million (depending on various growth rate of 1.2% to 2%: from 1895 to 2011). [Note: growth rate in Turkey as of 2011 is 1.2%. Kurds claim their growth rate inside Turkey is about 3%.] The approximately 2 million exterminated Armenians alone would have naturally grown to: 8 million (at 1.2%) to 20 million (at 2%) in Western Armenia.

  82. Necati
    you wrote:

    If i were you, i would not spend my time with a tashnac such as Avery. He is an ex-commy, graduated from KGB in Ermenistan

    comment: I disagree. we are here to do dialogue – at least I am – and I will not exclude anybody. I take it that Avery writes what he does according to his conviction and loyalty. If he supports his cause in a wise way is something else.

  83. Sella
    I am not forgetting, I am talking about revision of borders and the situations that arise if 1) one nation or group want to reclaim territories they earlier inhabited, and were driven out from, where 2) there are today other groups who live, and have been living for many years. They are descendants of the ones who expelled the other ones. What about justice in this situation? One solution is that these people must leave, another that they are incorporated into the other State. One might argue that the people who owned the area before has a right to expel the descendants of those who came later. But generally icitizenship laws say that you have a right to stay in the area you were born. So this is a dilemma, both regarding the Norwegian Sami people, the indigenous people of the US, and the Armenians. Or the Muslims that were driven out of the old Russian Gubernia of Yerevan. To take the Armenian claims, he population of the “six vilayets” today is much bigger than the combined Armenian diasporas and the population of the republic of Armenia altogether. To my mind this is a dilemma, not only regarding political realism, but also in terms of justice

    • Ragnar Naess,

      I am glad that you have not forgotten about millions of Armenians who live in Diaspora. Anytime there is a discussion about territory/population ratio, Armenian diaspora and Armenians in Armenia have to be taken into account.

      As to citizenship law, are we going to punish Turkey as a successor of Ottoman empire, for grossly violating the citizenship law and deporting and killing over 1 million Armenians from their birthplace? If so, how are we going to do this?

      As to land return, Turks easily take things but they are not good at returning what they took. Turks on their own are not going to return anything like they been doing for the past 97 years. There should be some kind of court decision to force Turks to return what they stole. When we talk about land return, treaty of Sevres has to be discussed automatically. Since the Turkish/Kurdish population has expanded enormously in the last 97 years, it is hard to believe that those people will leave and the land will be returned to Armenians. However, Turkey can return some of the land mentioned in the treaty of Sevres. For example, ancient Armenian city Ani, mount Ararat and some adjacent territory.
      What, we Armenians, have to do is
      Calculate the money that Turks stole from Armenian nation
      This should include
      1. The property destroyed or confiscated from Armenians after killing, raping and deporting them
      2. The large land starches confiscated from Armenians, this should include the money for using them in the last 97 years
      3. Money left in the banks
      4. Money for causing huge physical, moral and cultural damage to Armenian nation

      After Turkey will do all this and will appologize for subjecting Armenian nation
      to genocide we have no problem to appologize Turkish nation for revolting against Turkish oppression and killing some Muslims. I will be the first to do so.

  84. It is quite amusing for two people, one an Anti Armenian hatemonger who openly admits he hates “gaymenians” @AW, and even whose fellow Turks @Turkish TZ think he is unhinged, and another Anti Armenian from Norway, who with absolutely no sense of shame or propriety comes to AW as a foreign guest and calls Armenian posters @AW “inbreeding”, and who insults the sacred remains of our exterminated ancestors on the pages of AW, and who insults Armenians by denying the AG everywhere he goes – to give advice to an Armenian poster @AW.

    Can’t wait to read the highly educational and entertaining “dialogue” between the two intellectual giants.

    • Same here Avery jan.. I am tickled to death with excitement to read this most anticipated “dialogue”….

  85. Ragnar, I have always admired your commitment to dialogue although at times you infuriate me with your over-sensitivity to the Turkish side of the conflict and what appears to be ‘dialogue for the purpose of obfuscation’. (Sorry, that’s how I see it.) Why defend the rights of Turks when they clearly are benefiting from the fruits of genocide? What is the just resolution to the crimes perpetrated by the CUP and their cohorts?

  86. boyajian
    and I admit I have always admired you for your ability not to fall into stereotypes and ability always to retain a genuine human perspective. But I believe you must clarify your comment to me better. I do not quite understand what over-sensitivity you are talking about.Can you enlarge a little on it?

    • Ragnar.. over sensitivity means that you are clearly kissing Turkish behind as hard as possible by bringing isssues, events, stories about how Turks suffered by Armenians (absolutely ridiculeous) or issues, events or stories which in fact HAVE NO DIRECT relations as to what we are discussing here… and that is PURE and SIMPLE GENOCIDE.. Ottoman Turks Genocide of the Easter and Western Armenians… now is that clear enough??? I know I am not as polite and patient as our lovely Boyajian and I hope she does not mind me jumping in… but hope I made it clear for you..

    • I missed you and your clarity, Gayane!

      Ragnar, clarify you say? By over-sensitivity I mean you have greater concern for the rights of the descendants of ‘genociders’ than you have for the rights of the descendants of those who were murdered and robbed of their inheritance.

      My problem with you is your lack of balance. Armenians lived on those lands for thousands of years developing a unique culture, language, religion, but in a few short years they were wiped from their homeland. They didn’t disappear due to natural attrition or as a foreseeable by-product of war or because they were conquered. In fact, despite being conquered and despite being relegated to second class status, they contributed intellectually, economically and artistically to the Ottoman empire and maintained their unique identity throughout their subjugation. They disappeared from their homeland because they were deliberately targeted in the most immoral, illegal and inhuman manner. Had they not been forced from their homes by deportation, massacre and starvation, they most likely would have increased in number, as shown above by Avery, and continued to produce and create and grow, becoming vibrant communities today.

      You advocate for the rights of those who have lived for the last one hundred years in the homes and on property illegally acquired from Armenians, suggesting that they have earned something akin to squatters rights. How much more wrong is it to take the homes of people who existed on the land and in the villages for hundreds to thousands of years? How much more wrong is it to massacre and starve a nation?

      The CUP dealt a near fatal blow to the Armenian nation. Should Turkey not be held accountable for this crime AND for having avoided paying for it for all these years? Should Armenians not be compensated for their loss and for having to suffer the indignity of denial for all these years?

      Everyday the threat of extinction looms over the Armenian people as a direct result of what the CUP unleashed and the immoral denial of it and machinations to avoid being held accountable by modern Turkey. Think triage, Ragnar. Armenia is left bleeding like an accident victim at the side of the road and your response is far from that of the ‘good Samaritan’ you purport to be. Look at the two ‘patients’ before you and decide which one needs help first: the one with a ‘scrape to its ego’ or the one who was all but decapitated.

    • My dear dear Boyajian jan.. there is no other like you with you beautiful and sooo eloquently written posts…

      You summed it up brilliantly as to what ragnar is sooooooooooooooooo blind or INTENTIONALLY refuses to accept… last stage of Genocide is denial and he is one of the particles of that denial.. a different avenu of denial.. Turkey has tried in all every way to deny it but to their dismay Armenians are not stupid and we catch these things no matter how well it is packaged and beautifully wrapped like the ragnars of this world… so as much you clearly state what ragnar is missing from all this may go into deaf ears my dear…

      the questions you ask him will produce even more confusing and engima answers from him.. it is the non stop whirlpool of posts by ragnar and internal pain of trying to dismantle this mental stage that ragnar is living…

      but i will give the benefit of the doubt that one day that mental hybrint will break down .. still waiting…

      always respectful

      Gayane

    • riiiiigghhhhhhhhttttt ragnar…

      not that i solicited a response from you but if you feel the urge to blurb something out then be my guest.. my Turkophile friend….because what you say on our forums is deem to be over-sensitivity toward your beloved Turks and that my denialist friend is an automatic X in my book……

      but thanks for the compliment….

      G

  87. Didn’t The United Nations mandate a Jewish State in 1947? The Jews had to wait 2,000 years. How many nations have come and gone in the last 2000 years?

    We Armenians have been waiting only a fraction of that time. Already Armenia’s adversaries are desolving. Could Turkey be next? Our patience is unflinching.

    • Darwin, I think this fact helps motivate Armenians to keep struggling. We are an ancient people with a long memory and know that our cause is just and the battle may be lengthy. But we have faith.

  88. boyajian,
    of course Armenians are entitled to reparations, but with change of borders the question is more tangled to my mind. It is also difficult for me to argue against you because I dont know what your desired policies would be. To deport all those people who live there today? To incorporate them into a state with the combined popuation of the Armenian republic and the Armenian diaspora (who would certainly not move in great quantities…..or?). There is something unreal about the whole idea. Unfortunately for the Armenians. What standards are you appealing to?

    But of course I will think about your accusations abpout me being soft on the traditionalist Turks. I engage in debate with Turkish friends and colleagues more or less in the same way as I do with you. I try to follow the same ideas of how to do dialogue and how to disagree. I expressed a lot of disagreement while I was at Erzurum in the beginning of May. But then there are things about which I agree with the mainstream Turks.I dont think I have a soft spot for Turks,

  89. Yes Ragnar, the question is quite tangled, but the need for an apology and compensation is not. Let’s take one step at a time, please. The specific ‘policies’ will be developed once Turkey is compelled to face justice.

    Deport people? No I would never advocate that. Remove some people from homes that clearly don’t belong to them? Perhaps that may become necessary. Hardships may occur if this is pursued, but what is the alternative? Allow people to stay in homes that don’t belong to them in exchange for monetary compensation to the rightful owners? Perhaps. Redraw borders? That is not unheard of. Monetary compensations to both individual Armenians and to the Armenian nation? Of course this is appropriate. This is all part of the conflict resolution discussion that will follow once Turkey is brave enough to face its history and the consequences of it.

    All I want is for that discussion to take place sooner rather than later and for people like you to get out of the way. Don’t use this conflict as an intellectually stimulating endeavour. The Armenian Question is not a donkey for you to ride to the market place. My nation’s survival is in jeopardy; real lives are on the line and there is an ongoing crime happening here.

    I find this a strange statement: “It is also difficult for me to argue against you because I dont know what your desired policies would be.” Perhaps it is a language translation problem, but why do you presume you would argue against me if you knew what policies I had in mind? Are you here merely to argue against Armenian ideas?

    And yes, you are still too soft on Turkey.

    • {“…for people like you to get out of the way”}

      well said Boyajian.

      {“Don’t use this conflict as an intellectually stimulating endeavour. The Armenian Question is not a donkey for you to ride to the market place. My nation’s survival is in jeopardy; real lives are on the line and there is an ongoing crime happening here.”}

      Sums up very well what’s it about.

    • Bravo Boyajian jan. Strong response to ragnar. Ay es qo responsits qefs ekav. Eresin shprtsretsir.

  90. Boyajian
    I have been thinking more about this. Of course my relationship to Turks is very different from my relationship to Armenians, even if I now know some personally. But I still think you must describe your own position better. In many ways I feel you are just crying out against a boundless catastrophy that you carry with you from your family and friends and nation. A catastrophy that cannot be undone in any way. What can I say to this except that I try to share your pain (which I am obviously not able to do in a deep and full sense of the words)? — But once we discuss reparations and apologies we are in another field, you see that Sella has concrete proposals. Then the question of justice in the form of general moral rules, and the questions of an international court, or some miraculous transformation of the Turkish attitude are brought to the table.

  91. Well, I might have said “answer” instead of “arguing against”. And if you ever will see this international court of yours, you will have to do a hell of a lot of arguing. Not in the least by convincing people who are not yet convinced. You will need a lot of stamina facing people who will support you in this, but not in that. You will need to anticipate counter arguments, capacities it is next to impossible to improvise unless you actually have gotten acquainted with the field of arguments. The only way I know of to develop this is by doing actual dialogue. There was a time when the Turks did not answer and it was easy for the rest of the world to stick to simple formulas, like Avery does. But today people are asking questions of all kinds about both positions. When more outsider people start considering to support you there will probably be rather more than less “Ragnar”s around. They will like to listen, to understand, to ask questions. You will need your patience, which it seems you now for a moment have lost!! But of course, I see that in this field, very few actually believe in the force of dialogue. This is what I believe in. Dialogue with all the relevant positions, which does not exclude my own position, which one must be blind not to see is very much closer to the Armenian position than to the Turkish ideas that are the main obstacle to justice.

    • LOL.. oh my oh my.. look who is preaching about dialogue.. someone who does not know the TRUE meaning of a dialogue.. those who kiss TUrkish behind will never be able to carry on a dialogue… for example YOU.. so pleaseeee ragnar spare me your “phd” speech… you should not talk..

      The reason people are asking questions is not because they suddently decided to learn about their past.. the reason people asking questions is because Armenians decides to speak up and be silent no more.. it is because they realized that TUrkey is hiding a HUGEEEEEEEEE skeleton in the closet and want to know more and more so .. THE TRUTH…. and guess what my “denialist friend who pretends to have patience but yet loses it from time to time and shows his true colors” …i would suggest you don’t speak to Boyajian the way you do.. with hint of sarcasm, cockiness and most of all “know it all”.. because Boyajian’s one strand of hair has more intelligence than entire you and then some…

      Her losing patience with types of you is not unheard of.. actually that patience that she has toward you is immensly commandable because if it was not for her willingness to dialogue with the likes of you, you would not be having this back and forth conversations.. just because we are giving you a stage to sing, it does not mean you are a good singer my Turkophile friend.. so get off your high horse…

  92. Ragnar, this is patronizing: “In many ways I feel you are just crying out against a boundless catastrophy that you carry with you from your family and friends and nation. A catastrophy that cannot be undone in any way. What can I say to this except that I try to share your pain (which I am obviously not able to do in a deep and full sense of the words)?”

    Boundless pain? No. Unmet desire for justice for a still unpunished crime! The dead cannot be brought back, but the crime must not continue to go unpunished. Is this that hard to comprehend? If you can feel for those who occupy Armenian lands and worry about their displacement, how much more you must feel for the displaced Armenians around the world, no? How much more your heart must be moved by the threat of annihilation that still hangs over Armenia and Assyria. Or have you spent too much time in the permafrost?

    • why don’t YOU tell us why you are here ragnar.. you stated it is not for purely intellectual reasons.. we already knew that… but expand on that.. do share.. don’t be shy…

  93. Boyajian,
    I dont understand why you believe that I go to Turkey just for intellectual reasons, to disagree with them and propose that Turks apologize? What you say doesnt make sense. Isnt it rather that you do not like to be challenged in your preconceptions?

  94. boyajian
    now you are back again reducing the question of what is to become of the Turks and Kurds who live in the six vilayets to a question if feeling something for them. As I say this is a question of justice, exactly the kind of thing you are asking for. It cannot be reduced to a question of feelings. You attacked me when I raised this issue and told about my seeing a dilemma, but when I asked you pointblank what was to become of these people, you seemed to backpedal and said they were not to be deported. The upshot of what you and Sella are saying about reparations and small border changes is not so far from ideas I have been toying with myself. Obviously you are also thinking of the rights of these people when you do not want to deport them. Or what? We do not disagree that strongly on this question. I prefer not to discuss it any more.

  95. boyajian
    I am sorry if you felt I was patronising. but I feel you are mixing things: you write:
    If you can feel for those who occupy Armenian lands and worry about their displacement, how much more you must feel for the displaced Armenians around the world, no? How much more your heart must be moved by the threat of annihilation that still hangs over Armenia and Assyria. comment: You say this is not a question of pain for you but a question of justice. But then you ask me about “feeling” for Armenians, not only for Turks. This whole idea comes from the idea of my feeling for the Turks. But I am not concerned with feelings, no more than you are. I am concerned with justice, just as you are. Both you and Sella say things about land reparations that are not so far from ideas I have been toying with. We are not that far apart. So please dont make cheap allegations about ,me being in this just for intellectual stimulation, it is not fair. And I dont think you really believe it. I prefer not to disciuss it any more. Good luck to you!! (PS my written message suddenly disappeared and I wrote it again. this is the reason why two of them appears…)

  96. Ragnar:

    You say:…….”Both you and Sella say things about land reparations that are not so far from ideas I have been toying with.”

    Others here call you a denialist, if this is true and you regard it as a catastrophe and rather then a genocide, what ideas have you been toying with? Genocide is a crime- a massive organized hate crime. As a result of this- the party subjected to genocide is entitled to accept reparations if they so choose to accept them (I’m sure you’re familiar with the reparations debate in Israel and whether they, Israel should accept reparations from Germany). If you do not believe a genocide took place, and align yourself more with the “inter-ethnic conflict” as the Turkish government claims, then there would be no reparations to speak of. To me, “inter-ethnic conflict” basically just means “war”, and the losing side in a war doesn’t get reparations. They lose what they lose- and the other side takes what they take.

    I believe Armenia deserves to be compensated because what happened was a genocide- a crime, and crimes need to punished in civilized societies, not because of justice and it being the right thing to do. I mean, if people did things just because it was the right, humane thing to do, there would be no genocide. Just as many Turks are intolerant and hostile towards anyone saying what happened was a genocide, many Armenians are equally hostile towards anyone who questions the genocide or wants to discuss and debate it (the only difference being the Armenians happen to be right).

    SO, if you want to have a discussion, fine, I’m more then open to discussion, but I have to know one thing: do you believe what started in 1915 was a genocide? Because if you don’t believe it was, then you should not speak of reparations.

    • let me spare you another 50 posts by ragnar about nothing… no he does not… and that is the reason we are going in endless circles with him…

  97. Not so. Challenge away, Ragnar…

    What do you challenge? Premeditation? Court Martial documents following the genocide attest to this and both Germany and Austria have archival material from before and during WWI which attest to it. ‘Flotsam and Jetsam’ may disagree but many more historians uphold this. How on earth is an ancient nation so thoroughly wiped from its homeland without intent and premeditation? It is far less believable to think that spontaneous widespread massacres accomplished this. Or that deportations simply got out of hand. If it was merely local skirmishes between Muslim and Christian villagers during war time that drove people to flee the region, why didn’t the Christians return during peace time? Let’s not be stupid.

    And why does it matter so much that we ‘argue’ over every detail? As we both agreed in the past, the end result—the destruction of the Western Armenian population of Asia minor —is evidence itself of the crime which awaits justice. I object to those who are making an industry out of debating the details of the Armenian Genocide. Instead of clarity, they create confusion asking questions which give reason to publish books which question what was once clear.
    I don’t object to dialogue, but so much of the dialogue I find to be about artificially created questions and the arrogant belief that new ‘research’ is superior to the long established conventional wisdom and historical record. ‘Patience’ is not a virtue when lives are at stake. You still fail to recognize the sense of urgency that Armenians feel after almost 100 years.

    • and yet ragnar believes you lost your patience Boyajian jan.. guess he has no nervous system .. his nerves were sedated by the Turkish govt and he goes with the flow.. the Turkish flow that is.. and he can go on forever because hehas an agenda. and until he gets it or successfully executes it, nothing will stop him…

      People are not stupid and the readers know who is here to create a mockary of the situation and who is here to create confusion.. it is unfortunate ragnar himself can’t see the fact that he is not getting what he wants..he believes his attempts are going somewhere….. just sad..

  98. Ragnar, the struggle for justice originates from feelings and thoughts, in my opinion.

    Have you never experienced the ‘sense’ of fairness. Has your heart never ‘ached’ for someone else’s loss?

    If this is more than an intellectual endeavour, it must be driven by some emotion or sense of purpose. If it is a clever way to generate fodder for your book, let me be clear…I do not give permission for you to quote me in it.

  99. I see many posts, yet they say nothing nor have ANY meaning UNTIL you people agree to a open public forum-style debate, with FULL media coverage! Winner take all!!! Until then, there’s no point in truing to discuss anything with any of you.

    • Robert the Turk:

      you are back with your ridiculous “public forum-style debate” nonsense.

      Do you want me to find the post where ‘JDA’ took your challenge, offered to meet you and your representatives to debate anywhere and anytime, and to which you never responded ?

      Or you want to apologize for wasting our time and just go away.

      Let us know.

    • Oh Avery jan.. Robert the Turk may have an episode of memory loss just like his denialists friends that is why he keeps poping up on our pages and says the same thing.. if i did not know his type better, i say he has dementia…

      I also remember when JDA took his challenge but yet Robert the Turk was no where to be found… he only has strength to go after females and demand a debate from them especially myself… as we all know very well..sad really…

    • Wee little Turkish Tyro Robbie,

      I challenged you thrice ( that means there times) here to a Debate with a 50k purse plus loser pays fees and costs for a retired justice of the Cal court of appeals. Funds to be escrowed.

      I also challenged your God, the porcine Nazi Mr Kirlikovali to the same.

      I’m waiting. In the meantime, make my kebab spicy, not too much tahini sauce on the really good Greek bread you call Turkish.

      Why don’t you regale us all with the threats you made on Turkish Forum to have all your “special ops” friends hunt me down. Only problem is that they are all named GI Joe.

    • Vayyy meraaaaa jda..lol xndaluts mera… yes chei tesel qo es post@ until today.. vonts a eghel I missed it… THANK YOU for the laugh..lol

  100. Ragnar,

    “Of course my relationship to Turks is very different from my relationship to Armenians, even if I now know some personally.”

    Why is very your relationship to Turks different from your relationship to Armenians? I am very curious. I would be grateful if you could explain it in a few words.

    Thanks,
    Sella

  101. Sella
    for some reason I did not see your post. Regarding the archives I dont have any full knowledge of it. (Who has?) But there seems to be som 95 million documents and only 15 millions are so far classified and are ready for the public. I saw researchers sitting with documents when I visited the Basbakanlik arshivleri in august last year. Ara Sarafian says that people are met in a professional way there. Akcam holds that the documents available are sufficient to demonstrate that a genocide took place. But then other contacts say that some documents are hidden and others more favourable to the official Turkish view, and that some archives, for instance the war archives are very difficult to get at. So I cannot answer you. But these are my impressions

  102. Boyajian
    I am sorry, if you dont take the disagreements seriously I dont know what to say. At least dont answer me. But I will give you one hint: you sometimes retreat to the idea of the “enormity of the crime”. This is a valid point. It is ethics. But when you call the crime genocide, you are possibly in another debate. Then the natural question to ask is: according to the Convention? If yes, Then you are in another debate, and then you have to answer by what an imaginary court would say. Anyhow, the more scholarly trained will ask you to define. The less scholarly trained will just go on arguing with the name “genocide” as a central word. And then you get this kind of shadow boxing. I had to use a lot of time explaining to people in norway, even people with credentials as researchers, that normal scholarly debate requires that you define central terms. Otherwise you are in a quagmire. This is the difference between the language of the heart and the language of intellect. Sometimes they unite, sometimes it is vital to keep these language contexts apart.

    • Let me guess Ragnar .. you take yourself as a scholar with a language of intellect…

      you have not answered my question sir..

      If you are not here for purely intellectual reasons, WHY are you here???

      If I remember correctly, were not you the one who said you don’t leave out any question without answering them, then please be so kind as to answer my questions as well as Sella’s question…??

      Thank you

    • And I will give you a hint, Ragnar. If you feel that someone is not addressing a question you posed, ask it again. If you feel that someone doesn’t understand your point, make it again. If you don’t understand what someone is saying ask them to clarify. Don’t analyze them or their style of argumentation. Keep the dialogue, that you are so dedicated to’ moving with well placed questions and clarifications. You are not here to instruct others, but to discuss with others. In my opinion, you discourage dialogue with your criticism and tendency to analyze others.

      You didn’t ask, but you opened the door…

  103. I challenge YOU, Boyajian. This is the central point and what I believe you react to. And you retreat into lack of clarity, conciseneness – for some reason. The specific points are secondary. Read the old study “The Authoritarian Personality” from the 1950-ies. A central point here is the ability to tolerate ambiguity. To you I am an ambiguous supporter of the Armenian cause, because I agree with something and not with other things that are part of the usual formulations of the genocide thesis. You interpret ambiguity as falseness. It is the safest to any fundamentalist. Central formulations – words, not thoughts – define the “camps”, clusters of assertions that they demans you to say “yes” or “no” to. This is fundamentalism. The first thing any higher education should provide is an inderstanding that this is intellectually insufficient. — It is like when people come and ask: “Do you believe in God?”. Maybe you answer: “Yes, but not in the sense that….” They interrupt you and say: “We asked you if you believe in God”. You choose to say: “Yes, I do”. And you explain a little about your idea of God. Then they say: “It doesnt sound like you believe in God. DO YOU BELIEVE IN GOD??”. Because you havent answered exactly in the way they want. This is fundamentalism. This is the kind of debate SOME Armenians invite others to, too, and it it is the language – the speech acts – that define Armenian loyalty for SOME Armenians. Even you and me resort to this kind of fundamentalism sometimes – on a bad day.
    RVDV.
    Thank ypu for your question. I think we would have to start with the facts, not the name. Take a look at some of the earlier debates in the AW, particulrly “What Davutoglu fails to understand”. You will find my views there. Frankly speaking I need a pause from these debates now.

    • Ohhhhhhhhhhh well well well.. Ragnar defeated again retrieves himself from a debate.. DEBATE ladies and gentlemen… HA now this is not only hillarious and wayyyyy too familiar… what happened Ragnar .??? did you accomplish your goal or stirring up confusion and get what satisfies your thirsty intellect??? is that why you are leaving?? because as I see it, you always run when things don’t go your way… but i am not surprised…

      Everytime you dissapear like this.. i know my friends did a good job of proving you are a fake.. and a denialist…

      and like Boyajian said.. anything we say here you have no permission and CAN NOT use for your conveluted book or paper or novel or whatever you do on your spare time ..when you are not creating nonstop nonsense on the ARmenian pages..

    • We can get to the facts and discuss them to death at a later time. I asked a fairly simple yes or no question- if you cannot give a direct answer, don’t get frustrated at other posters for calling you out. SO, everything considered, in a one word answer, was it genocide? I know the issue has it’s grey areas but I assure you it is not that difficult of an answer.

  104. Boyajian
    “”You still fail to recognize the sense of urgency that Armenians feel after almost 100 years.””

    I am sure that Armenians have no urgency otherwise they would have done what they should have done

    • Yaya the Turk… the urgency you are talking about AND your sorry country and denialists are lucky about was not the focal point back when YOU think Armenians should have done because you know why you ignorant individual…??? is because when a nation is at near end because your ancestors mercilessly murdered my ancestors in cold blood, all those who survived and their descendents were trying to get their lives together.. Are you that ignorant of such things or you deliberately act unintelligent….?? either way.. your question alone is a pure indicator or a poor education and ignorance…

  105. If you are still here, Ragnar: I never ‘attacked’ you and I am not ‘back-pedaling’. I have never suggested that the justice we seek can be found in a simple, black and white solution: Kurds and Turks out–Armenians in. As an Armenian who knows the injustice that was done to my nation, I would never wish it on another. When have I intimated otherwise?

    I don’t pretend to have the solution, but I believe that the solution will not be painless for either side. The process must begin with an admission of guilt and an apology by the Turkey. Turks must be compelled to see the truth of what their ancestors committed and what their governments have distorted: All Armenians were targeted by the CUP because of the rebellion of a few. Armenians were punished for struggling to achieve their basic rights and to defend themselves and their families. Incidences of Armenian aggression happened, but nothing worthy of the full-scale elimination of all Armenians that was carried out.

    Thank you for telling Turks that they must apologize. I wish you success in this endeavor. I’m never sure about you…but I wish you would make sure that you are not hindering the peaceful resolution of this conflict. That’s all…

  106. Ragnar is at best a dilettante and at worst a real old fashioned 19th Century Orientalist [racist] who will nudge backwards Turks and Armenians on to his path.

    Ragnar visits Armenian sites and drops mysterious citations, which when read prove nothing close to the confused point he seeks to make. He drops the references to imply he is an academic. He couldn’t qualify to teach history even in a Turkish junior college.

    Here’s his resume.

    http://www.developmentsupport.no/CV/cvragnar.RTF

    It shows that he is not an academic, has no training in the AG or anything close, has published nothing on the issues, and doesn’t stay employed long.

    If you want a Norwegian text on HIV translated into Russian or Turkish, he’s your man. I think.

    • and I was soooooooooooooo looking forward to what ragnar DID not have on his resume JDA jan..

      Ragnar.. now why did you have to go and do that??

  107. Despite the enormous arrogance of your last comment, Ragnar, I assure you, ambiguity is not the problem. Confusion of facts and distortion is a problem. Creating doubt over a well-established historical record is a problem.

    From the letter of the International Association of Genocide Scholars to Mr. Erdogan:

    “The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of
    its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United
    States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by
    thousands of official records of the United States and nations around
    the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and
    Hungary, by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of
    missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by
    decades of historical scholarship.
    The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly,
    legal, and human rights community:
    1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term
    genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and
    the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he
    meant by genocide.
    2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948
    United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the
    Crime of Genocide.
    3) In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars, an
    organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously
    passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.
    4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel and
    Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000
    declaring the `incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide’ and urging
    western democracies to acknowledge it.
    5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the
    Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have affirmed the historical
    fact of the Armenian Genocide. 6) Leading texts in the international
    law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in
    International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian
    Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the
    law on crimes against humanity.
    We note that there may be differing interpretations of genocide-how
    and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and
    moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in
    propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims,
    and erase the ethical meaning of this history.”

  108. boyajian
    yes, you can call it arrogance. I tried to be clear in my message to you. You may assure that ambiguity is not the problem, but citing those who agree with you is hardly an argument. Assurances wont suffice. Anyhow, good luck to you

  109. Gayane
    I am here because I have for many years worked to support the development of human rights in Turkey, and supporting Armenians in their just claims is part of this, and getting acquainted with Armenian voices is to my mind indispensable. I learned a lot here. —- But what you and I disagree on is based on the fact that I many years ago discovered that I had to use a lot of time dispelling false notions about Turkish policies. To take one example: I just did a survey of the German newspaper’s archive amd the New York Time’s archive on the word “Armenian Genocide” for the last 15 years, and I discover that in the last years there are still news articles published that say that in Turkey it is forbidden to deny the Armenian genocide and publish on it. The fact is that Taner Akcams main books, published in Turkish ( for the first time published in 1992 and the equivalent of “A Shameful act published in 1999) were never prohibited. On april 24, there were TV debates in Turkey where those who agree with you freely said their opinions. there are difficulties for these people in Turkey, but the situation is vastly changed. The West should not tell lies about Turkey, but make criticism based on accurate information. Telling lies is bad in itself and will moreover destroy any campaign for the bettering of human rights in Turkey. And I repeat, my dear Gayane, that the liberal section of the Turkish people, those who potentially will support you, NOT IN EVERYTHING, but in the essentials, they will turn away from the Armenians if they are constantly called barbarians. If the Avery’s and jda’s with their phd’s in parroting and slander will lead the Armenians, you will not have a chance to move the Turks. Well, good luck to you and to the Turks in the AW, to Karekin, Sella, Anahit and our beloved Boyajian, Random Armenian, to all those that ANSWER questions and provide ARGUMENTS. Dont give up doing dialogue. Good luck to you all.

    • Ragnar,

      So you “fight for human rights in Turkey” by sniffing around and trying to ingratiate yourself with nouveau deniers like Hakan Yavuz at the University of Utah [the Cornell of the Great Basin]?

      What, specifically, have you done for human rights in Turkey?

      We look to real heroes like Ayse Gunaysu and her compatriots. I know I will not in a lifetime expose myself to as much danger as she does at any random minute.

      What exactly have you done? Kiss some immense Turkish behinds at the risk of your already slim dignity?

  110. {“If the Avery’s and jda’s with their phd’s in parroting and slander will lead the Armenians, you will not have a chance to move the Turks.”}

    Since you used my name in vain…….you opened the door to this next line of questioning, as a trial Judge would say.

    “Slander” you say ?

    You advise us Armenian posters @AW to “continue (our) inbreeding activities” – and you have the gall to bring up “slander” ?
    You used the phrase “disposed of” referring to the sacred remains of our murdered children – and you have the gall to bring up “slander” ?
    Never apologized to Armenians @AW for those encompassing slanders – and you have the gall to complain ?

    You have been visiting a site called ArmenianWeekly as a foreign guest for something like 2 years, constantly insulting us and our people by denying the Armenian Genocide.
    Who are you to talk about “slander” ?

    Your creepy attempts to collect personal contact information from several Armenian women-posters @AW under the guise of “debate”: and you think by mentioning “slander” you are going to put one on me ? You are not even in the same league, son.

    The arrogance, the condescending attitude towards Armenian posters here @AW, the well concealed, deeply ingrained hatred towards Armenians – exhibited by the occasional unintentional slips (e.g. “inbreeding activities”) – is too much.

    It is a testament to the great humanity and tolerance of Armenian readers and posters @AW to cut an Anti Armenian bigot like you so much slack. How many Jewish or Jewish American mainstream websites would allow a denialist to visit regularly and “debate” the Holocaust ?
    How long before Jewish American posters jumped you from all sides and threatened you, if you dared “debate” the Holocaust ?

    You now have come to realize that your years-long efforts to turn anyone here @AW have failed. Even Boyajian, without question the most accommodating and tolerant towards an Anti Armenian denialist bigot – is not buying your highly polished denialist drivel.
    Anahit, Gina, Gor, Paul, Gayane, and many, many other inbreeding Armenian posters – laughed you off the stage. Yet you persisted in coming to @AW and persisted in disseminating manufactured lies cloaked in layers of deceit.

    Even in your, presumably, last post you cannot stop yourself from lying about Armenians: {“… and supporting Armenians in their just claims is part of this, “}. Really ?

    And now you are leaving us: must be devastating for you. You had made so many Armenian friends here @AW. I know you are particularly fond of me.
    It will hurt me more than you’ll ever know to lose a friend like you. How will we continue our inbreeding activities without the benevolent guidance and stern admonitions of our beloved ‘Prof’ ?
    Don’t worry though: everywhere you pop your head in the blogosphere, there will be an Armenian or a righteous Turkish person to meet you and “debate” you.
    You will make new friends in no time.
    You are a young man. You have years of Denial ahead of you.

  111. I was reading articles @TZ about Bosnians currently properly burying the remains of victims of the Bosnian Genocide of 1995 and with due respect. One particular passage in one article caught my eye

    {Serb troops led by Gen. Ratko Mladic overran the enclave in July 1995, separated men from women and executed 8,372 men and boys within just a few days.} (TZ July 11, 2012)

    Read that passage again: the savage Serb murderers led by psychopath Mladic had some shred of humanity left in them, if we can call it that, to separate the mostly fighting age men and boys from the women and girls.

    Murdering less than 10,000 men and boys from a population base of 2 million Bosnian Muslims is Genocide. But exterminating 2 million Armenians (1895-1923), about 70% of the population base, has to be endlessly “debated” by some, before it can be classified as Genocide.

    Ottoman and CUP Turks massacred every Armenian without distinction: men, women, children, and babies (born and unborn).

    Yet the infatuated Turcophile Nordic Denialist has no shred of humanity or decency left in him to come to ArmenianWeekly and write a post describing the “disposal” of the sacred remains of murdered Armenians as if speaking about garbage.

    What do you call people who murdered every Armenian without distinction ?
    What do you call someone who defends those people and insults their victims ?

    • I say.. we should call it “self proclaimed sad, alone and puch scholar with minimal academic experience in human rights/genocide/equality but with lots of promised cash by nasty and ugly turkish govt”

      how about that??? i have better names for him but I just can’t translate it into English that will have the same ‘ummphhhh” as in Armenian…

      So I will stick to the above name for now..

      Thank you Avery jan for the information above..clears matters a great deal for those losers aka Turkophiles and notorious denialists who don’t see the light at the end of the tunnel..

  112. A Ph.D in parroting? Where do I apply?

    Ragnar, I haven’t parroted anyone in denouncing your racism and denialism. Blame me for my remarks, not High Armenian Central Command, where each day we, as you would have it, are in a haze of lahmajune-induced lethargy, awaiting clarification from Boris Badanov, who by the way was thought to be a caricature of Akim Tamiroff. Maybee that’s what you have in mind. They had Rocky and Bullwinkle in Norway, I presume.

    The Armenians are in no danger of being led off a cliff by yours truly. I can’t even lead my dog down stairs.

    In slander?

    Slander is an untrue spoken remark, of fact, which tends deeply to discredit the target. Truth is a defense. I have pointed out that your remarks are denialist and racist. The stance in your writing is that you will instruct Armenians how to better themselves and sharpen their arguments.

    Ridicule and satire are not defamatory as a general rule, because the audience understands that they are not false statements of fact.

    The truth of this exchange is that patient and humane Armenian posters have dissected your obscurantism and denialism. A small bit of cake-icing was added by referencing the cv you have taken down proving that you are no academic in this arena, you just play one on AW.

    Now that you are discredited for the umpteenth time, you flee.

    Don’t forget to write. Let us know if you get the junior college job in Yozgat. In a school built on my friend’s grandmother’s broken bones.

  113. RVDV,

    “We can get to the facts and discuss them to death at a later time. I asked a fairly simple yes or no question- if you cannot give a direct answer, don’t get frustrated at other posters for calling you out. SO, everything considered, in a one word answer, was it genocide? I know the issue has it’s grey areas but I assure you it is not that difficult of an answer.”

    When it comes to Armenian/Christian genocide, you are the most fair Turk I have ever met online or offline. But, I wonder whether you would be the same if you were not of Alevi Kurdish descent, and if you have not left Turkey for the US?
    Anyway, many thanks for your support.

  114. Armenians might win in California’s courts, but the U.S. Supreme Court has a habit of bowing to a higher authority. California may give you solace, but The U.S. Supreme Court will give you dyspepsia.

  115. To whom it may concern:
    The foreign minister(Turkish) continued: “Second, we are searching for a new language of communication. We are establishing new, different relations with the diaspora. We have to sit down and talk. Our aim is to break the ice. Now there is and will be somebody who sits down before the Armenians and listens to them. I am not a foreign minister who keeps telling them that ‘no, nothing happened in 1915.’ Third, we are preparing for new messages regarding 2015. We are searching for a new language around the term ‘fair memory.’ I am also working on a new book on Ottoman history. I do not call it genocide, but say nothing when somebody else says it is.”
    2015, Turkey, France by YAVUZ BAYDAR, TDZ July 11,2012
    http://www.todayszaman.com/columnist-286138-2015-turkey-france.html

    • {“We are searching for a new language around the term ‘fair memory.”} of course you are Mr. Davutoğlu. Keep searching for new ways to avoid calling it Genocide, and commingling everything under the Sun with the AG. Good luck.

      ‘fair memory’ translation: “yes, we know (our) Armenians suffered from the ‘tragic events’ of 1915. but Turks also suffered, maybe even more…..everybody suffered”

      more obfuscation and condescending attitude from the Turkish FM.

  116. Boyajian
    you wrote on july 10:
    If you are still here, Ragnar: I never ‘attacked’ you and I am not ‘back-pedaling’. I have never suggested that the justice we seek can be found in a simple, black and white solution: Kurds and Turks out–Armenians in. As an Armenian who knows the injustice that was done to my nation, I would never wish it on another. When have I intimated otherwise?

    I don’t pretend to have the solution, but I believe that the solution will not be painless for either side. The process must begin with an admission of guilt and an apology by the Turkey. Turks must be compelled to see the truth of what their ancestors committed and what their governments have distorted: All Armenians were targeted by the CUP because of the rebellion of a few. Armenians were punished for struggling to achieve their basic rights and to defend themselves and their families. Incidences of Armenian aggression happened, but nothing worthy of the full-scale elimination of all Armenians that was carried out.

    Thank you for telling Turks that they must apologize. I wish you success in this endeavor. I’m never sure about you…but I wish you would make sure that you are not hindering the peaceful resolution of this conflict. That’s all…
    comment:
    I agree on all of this except the sentence: Armenians were punished for struggling to achieve their basic rights and to defend themselves and their families.comment: No, I believe it is documented that some Armenians sided with the russian in an unconsiderate oarticipation in a war.
    But apart from this I agree.

    • “No I believe it is documented that some Armenians sided with russian in an unconsiderate oarticipation in a war”…

      No I believe you are completely off the horse cart ragnar because we said this over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over….that SOME ARmenians siding with russians should not and CAN NOT be associated to what Ottomans systematic elimination of the Armenian nation.. NO NO NO NO..oh never mind.. du qo ESH@ qshelu es anyway.. you can attempt to translate if you wish. …

      Thank you

      Gayane

    • Ragnar, you write:

      “No, I believe it is documented that some Armenians sided with the Russians in an unconsiderate participation in a war.” (Please define ‘unconsiderate participation.’)

      If you mean what I think you mean, than I don’t deny this. But what was the motivation for this ‘unconsiderate participation?’
      It was the struggle to achieve basic rights and to defend themselves from the de-humanizing ‘inconsiderate’ subjugation placed upon them by the Ottoman empire. And certainly, this ‘unconsiderate participation’ could never be a justification for the wholesale slaughter of the Armenians of Anatolia.

    • Ragner,
      What happened to the Christan Assyrians and the Pontiff Greeks? Did they side with the Russians? Why were they murdered in mass? No Turk ever seems to answer that question..Your narrative just keeps the hatred towards the Armenians alive.It makes the planned mass murder somehow justifiable in your head…Its false.Come to term. It will set you free…

      Last your people are not that special or some sort of master race.. get those thoughts out of your head..Your people have a esteem issue . What makes any speech insulting to Turkishness? That s childish at best. In reality Turks lost there rule and empire and needed a scape goat and of course the wealth and property of the Armenians for those losses.

    • One of the tells you display is framing the AG merely as a dispute between two sides, one Armenian and one Turkish. It is actually a universal fight by humanity, in the interest of truth, against a Turkish state and culture built on blood, destruction, rape, murder, forced conversion, stolen wealth and today, lies.

      Your Turkish Nazi pals, and their academic paladins, whom you aspire to befriend, want, like you, to make this a provincial dispute between two ethnicities, one rich, populous, powerful and well-placed, one a former Soviet backwater.

      The resulting confusion is predictable when the issue is framed as just another tiresome row from the mysterious East. This is exactly what the Turkish government and its Talat Pasa societies have embarked to accomplish, and they have caught your meager intelligence in their defective nets, along with America’s least capable and most avaricious members of Congress, aka the Turkish Caucus.

      But the fight for justice is not just an ethnic clash. I believe that even in 1914 the British aptly labelled the Turkish Genocide of Armenians a “crime against humanity,” not just a crime against Armenians. This is not a civil dispute between a Plaintiff and a Defendant in which backwards and pushy amateurs such as yourself may insert themselves as moral or legal arbiters. This is and continues to be a crime against humanity.

      Please don’t bother responding. You insult us by your presumptuousness.

  117. Sella, you asked me on july 9 the following:
    you (ragnar) saidL
    “Of course my relationship to Turks is very different from my relationship to Armenians, even if I now know some personally.”

    Why is very your relationship to Turks different from your relationship to Armenians? I am very curious. I would be grateful if you could explain it in a few words.

    Sella, sorry for not answering you befiore. I have known Turks for 30 years and have Turkish friends, I have been to Turkey many times and speak Turkish.

    I dont speak Armenian, have never been to Armenia, and have discussed with Armenians for only since 2007, almost never face to face but only in the internet.

    In the WATS listserve people at least used their real names. Here in the AW they dont.

    Sou you might say that Turkey and Turks represent friiends whom I like but critizice, sometimes quite heavily. Armenians are in the main strangers and I try to keep a contact with the people I feel I can discuss with here in the AW.

    Altogether this makes for two very different settings.

    I hoped this ansewrede your question

    • Ragnar you say:

      “Sella, sorry for not answering you befiore. I have known Turks for 30 years and have Turkish friends, I have been to Turkey many times and speak Turkish.

      I dont speak Armenian, have never been to Armenia, and have discussed with Armenians for only since 2007, almost never face to face but only in the internet”

      and yet you acted sooo outraged when Boyajian when she told you about how over-sensitive you are toward Turks and very calculated and detached from Armenians..Can your statement above prove US RIGHT any more?? Nope.. you yourself just threw off the clip and showed everyone how you have scewed view on the Genocide.. so continue eating loghum and drinking turkish coffee with your turkish friends because i know you won’t get anywhere with Armenians with that relationship under your belt…

      ALSO…

      “In the WATS listserve people at least used their real names. Here in the AW they dont.”

      HUH????

      and by the way.. your explanation pretty much made no sense…

    • Ragnar:

      “I have known Turks for 30 years..” I’m not 30 but I have known Turks all my life naturally.
      “…and have Turkish friends…” I AM a Turk
      “I have been to Turkey many times” I was born in Turkey
      “and speak Turkish.” Turkish is my mother toungue

      “I dont speak Armenian” Nor do I
      “I have never been to Armenia” Nor have I
      “and have discussed with Armenians for only since 2007” Replace 2007 with 2011 and same.
      “almost never face to face but only in the internet.” Same here.

      Why is it you keep making excuses?

      You say ” No, I believe it is documented that some Armenians sided with the russians…”

      I believe it is also documented that some Armenians also sided with the Ottoman Empire, what is your point?… Oh right, you have none.

      The following quotes are about things that took place during the Siege of Van, which most credible- key word credible (think of anti-you)- sources say was instigated by the CUP so they could get the Armenians up in arms and there by justify their genocide which at that point was already well planned out. Here are the quotes….

      “Rafael De Nogales, a Venezuelan officer fighting for the Turks, mentions in his memoirs that Ottoman officials had received orders to exterminate all Armenian males of twelve years of age and older.”

      De Nogales was sent by Kaiser Wilhelm to observe the Ottoman military. Pre-Armenian genocide, when the CUP was convinced the Armenians were working for the Russians, the CUP made “findings” of weapons in Armenian homes.

      “On the other hand, Nogales witnessed Ottoman army units photographing their own weapons, claiming they had been found in Armenian houses and churches.”

      “On 19 April, Djevdet ( issued an order throughout the Van province, which read: “The Armenians must be EXTERMINATED. If any Muslim protects a Christian, first, his house shall be burnt; then the Christian killed before his eyes, then his [the Muslim’s] family and then himself.”

      How dare you say that “No, I believe it is documented that some Armenians sided with the russians.” How dare you insinuate the Ottoman actions were in response to treason by the Armenians? You say you only speak to Armenians via the internet. For your personal safety I hope it stays that way.

    • Does making a living come into play?Lectures?Books?Articles?Commenting?Conferences? Or rubbing shoulders with so called ‘hierarchy’,ego pampering…
      The questioning is without being sarcastic.That’s the impression I have after following your comments for a while.

    • Ragnar,

      You have one visible talent. A few words from you arouse many of us to respond. One infers this is your social life.

      You seem to “understand” with sympathy the Turkish murder of innocent Armenians because a few able bodied men found guns to defend themselves in 1914-1915.

      Tell us, Herr Professor, going back over the 50 years preceding 1914-1915, what cause did Armenians who wanted to defend themselves have for self-defense? What cause did they have for self-determination, much as Americans and Norwegians once yearned for and even fought for the same thing.

      Armenians, when they did, and when they could, defended themselves, much as heroic Norwegians did against Swedes and Nazis. But, your sympathies appear to be with the bruised feelings of the murderers and their grandchildren instead of the slaughtered women and children.

      Why don’t you explain to us what the WATS listserve was, and what occurred on it to you.

    • and that proves what ragnar???

      might as well say ALL Armenians because as we hear, see and experience,Turkey to this day with its denialism, with its actual modern day killings, and with a help of your likes are trying to eliminate as many ARmenians as possible.. and i am not referring to only physical but also mental and emotional…

      but as your beloved friends failed 1894-1909- through 1924, they will fail again.. no bastard country will eliminate centuries old history, culture and people…

  118. Hi folks,
    what I wrote in these two last posts had to do with answering Sella, and second I wanted to emphasize in what I agree with Boyajian – by the words she uses there. With two exceptions which I specify.I hope you got an answer, Sella!
    RVDV
    I was answering Sella. Look at her question! Isnt what you write disconnected from her question? Apart from this I suggest you read the discussion after the AW article “What Davutoglu fails to understand” and also the discussion after the article by Bedrosian on lost churches, the latter is regularly displayed in AWs front page, possibly because it led to a very long discussion. Here you find my views.
    I said I needed a pause from the discussions. However I will answer questions which I have not answered before and which I feel belong to the core questions of genocidal intent in the ittihadists and similar. but I am sorry, I am tired of being treated like shit.
    Vtiger
    No, I do this out of interest, political, thical and ecientific. I earned something when I organised a seminar in Oslo in 2008, and I get a little for my annual lecture. Nothing else except covering travel expences.

    I said I need a pause in the doiscussions on my views here, mainly because I have repeated it so many

    • Ragnar… it is very unfortunate that you feel you had to leave the discussion because you have repeated your lies over and over again.. but I believe you are leaving the discussion (if you can call it as one) because you have been shut down over and over again from spreading ambiguity and confusion, and FALSE perception and scientific whatever mumbo jumbo you have produced… my truest apologies for coming off harsh but be happy that we are not the type that will eliminate you from the pages like Jews or Turks would have done if you insulted them even 1/10 of what you have done to us…

      SO please don’t forget to mention this in your book… no matter how much I insult, or create confusion with my conveluted data and put down the ARmenians, the people of the nation Armenia always treated me with the outmost patience and respect without threatening to take my life or eliminate me from posting on their pages forever….

      THe end…

    • Ragnar,

      Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it. I am sure if 70% of your family was killed by Turks less than 100 years ago, and your grandparents’ house, land and wealth was confiscated by Turks you wouldn’t have a fond relationship with Turks. There are good and honorable Turks but overall Turkey is nothing more nothing less a fascistic country to me. Let’s leave the Armenian question, and see what they have been doing to Kurds. I do not know any country other country in the world that did so many atrocities in the recent years and got away with it. Their diplomacy is very good.

  119. Hamidian massacres 1895 -between 80,000 and 300,000 Arnenians massacred. Adana massacres 1909 – between 15,000 and 30,000 Armenians massacred.

    1915 – Turks, aka Ottomans, decide to go for the whole enchilada.

  120. {“I am tired of being treated like shit.”}

    you have been coming to ArmenianWeekly for more than 2 years and insulting Armenians in almost every post: count your lucky stars foul-mouthed Denialist that the people you have been insulting are cultured, tolerant people like Armenians.

    If you had been insulting your beloved Turkish friends 1/10th as much, you’d be getting death threats. (no joke: MP Valerie Boyer of France was threatened with rape and death by Turkish posters for drafting the Armenian Genocide bill – no wonder you are infatuated with Turks)

    And didn’t you say you are leaving AW ?

    If one claims he is treated “like s_____”, and keeps coming back to the same site, presumably for additional treatment, what does it say about the recipient of same ?

    • Avery, just to back up what you say about the fascist Turks & their behavior,please listen to this interview with Mr. Cengiz Aktar.
      Also in this interview Mr. Aktar mentions about 300,000 Armenians still living in Western Armenia after the Genocide of 1915(Boyajian has mentioned this point).Where are they now?
      http://www.keghart.com/Aktar-Apology

    • That’s like going to jpost, saying we should “discuss” the Holocaust and then complaining when people treat you badly. Curious how the more people confront him, the less tolerant mr. dialogue becomes.

    • Thanks for the link VTiger: highly recommended.

      Funny when Mr. Cengiz Aktar says “….after the 6th sentence they start to swear…” (the denialists – unable to logically substantiate their AG denial, they go nuts).

    • i too watched the video clip and really really liked the part where Cengiz Aktar stated about the denialists not able to move past the 6th sentence.. it is absolutely true… we also have those who reach their 6th sentence but they do a 360 degree turn.. meaning they start saying the same thing over and over and over and over … maybe using different words or sentences but basically about the same topic.. BECAUSE they are intelligently inadequate…

  121. boyajian
    you wrote:
    If you mean what I think you mean, than I don’t deny this. But what was the motivation for this ‘unconsiderate participation?’
    comment: if you read the description of events in Zeytoun from aug 1914 to march 1915 in “the Blue Book”, told by the clergyman Adreasian, who told the story in Cairo after escaping with the people from Musa Dagh, you get the picture of the “young hotheads” among the Armenians on the one hand, and the older people who wisely suggested restraint on the other. See also kachaznouni’s 1923 adress where he says that Russian Dashnaks, against the decision of the Dashnak congress just at the start of the war, went to Western Armenia and mobilized the people to rebel. here you see how Armenians themselves argued that the actions in alliance with the Russians and the allies was inconsiderate.
    you write:
    It was the struggle to achieve basic rights and to defend themselves from the de-humanizing ‘inconsiderate’ subjugation placed upon them by the Ottoman empire.
    comment: I partly agree, but we’d have to discus it more in
    you write:
    And certainly, this ‘unconsiderate participation’ could never be a justification for the wholesale slaughter of the Armenians of Anatolia.
    Comment: I agree, even though the term “wholesale slaughter” to my mind is incorrect. But the reaction to Armenian actions was wholly disproportionate.
    Avery
    I said I needed a pause. And, to be honest, I have given up discussing with you. But there are some questions like the ones from Sella and Boyajian I’d like to answer.
    jda
    yes, i am surprised that I am not simply ignored. The Workshop for Armenian-Turkish Scholarship (WATS) has an internet based discussion group. This is what I referred to.

    • i wonder why ragnar stopped discussing with Avery.. hmmmm Avery I am sorry… He does not pay attention to you anymore.. hope you don’t lose sleep over this..

      But don’t worry.. apparently Ragnar does not “discuss” with me either..he does not answer the questions directed to him by me…

      who knows… is it because we don’t take up his load of you know what and say it as it is??? maybe we are being too harsh on him with the truth about him… i am sorry ragnar for hurting your feelings because we are brutally honest about who you are and why you are here… but unfortunately someone has to do it…

  122. {ragnar naess
    July 11, 2012
    boyajian……blah…blah…blah…[Anyhow, good luck to you]}

    {ragnar naess
    July 11, 2012
    Gayane……blah….blah….blah…Dont give up doing dialogue. [Good luck to you all].}

    Sure reads like a “Good By, Adios, Sayonara,…”
    And those posts were 1 day after the {“Frankly speaking I need a pause from these debates now.”} post

    Be a man: admit it; you did say “good by”, but came back, because you couldn’t help it: can’t stay away from ArmenianWeekly.

    And regarding the “dialogue” with me: you are joking, right ?
    Whatever gave you the idea I’d “dialogue” with a Denialist like you ?

    • LOL… Avery jan.. ragnar apparently does joke alot.. and then says Oh did not mean to say it that way i guess..lets blame it on language barrier….as if English is not his prominent language…

  123. Ragnar,

    I know what WATS was.

    I asked you to disclose why you are not on it. My recollection is that you were met there repeatedly by the academic audience with exactly the same questions about your reasoning, intentions, evasions and qualifications as you face here, and you could not fool that academic audience with your snippets and rivulets of seeming authority. So you decided to camp here.

    I see you cite Khatchnazouni, the new favorite [mis-quoted] source of Turkish Nazis.

    If you are trying now to build a mutual combat thesis, then please remember that even Turk Nazi paladin #2 [Lewy] calls that a travesty of history which no historian with a conscience can accept, a quote from Selim Deringel. You also ignore 50 years of slaughter preceding 1914. I would have asked the Russians for help too. I would have asked anyone to help.

    I suppose Germans had their own version of the lines of argument you advance here. You know – and we can verify it online – Jews were Bolsheviks, Jews, Bolsheviks and German communists were a threat to German this and that, therefore let’s kill them to protect ourselves. In Rwanda they played this bloody siren, as did Pol Pot, as did every vicious Genocidal regime. There is always a reason – better still if you can provoke the action against which Genocide protects the defenseless Volk. Turks perfected it, Germans used it.

    You are morally more objectionable than the worst Turks, who at least can be shown to have been mis-schooled and indoctrinated in hate by the state and their loving culture. They at least spew obvious venom with glee. You have no such excuse.

    You play instead a game of self-promotion in a bogus, risible quest to pass yourself off as some kind of mediator or expert. Show us your old resume, which disproves your expertise; for that matter point us to some scholarship you produced which was peer reviewed. Human rights activist my ass.

    You’re just trying to get something off that big Turkish gravy train.

  124. Avery,
    what I am suposed to answer to your last post? Of course nothing. You say you do not want to discuss with me. Its OK in a way. I went through a large number of debates in the AW with “Avery” as the search word, and I tried to form a general picture of how you think and how you act. There is nothing moralistic about this. You follow your convictions and I follow mine. – You say you graduated with honours from the KGB school in psychological warfare (see the debate following Bedrosyan: looking for lost churches, in the autumn of 2011). Some Turkish people her in the AW said that I should not answer you because of your KGB background. Needless to say, I dont listen to this. I worked with a formed KGB man in our developmental work with the St.Petersburg “Astrobank” in the early 1990-ies. he spoke English, he was schooled and intelligent, and had in many ways a better grasp of the situation than the other ones who were bewildered by the fall of the Soviet Union and the chaos of the privatization process. Regarding you I of course say: Lets hear what the man has to say! Rather than making the kind of “verdicts” and “diagnoses” of others that so many of you love to pronounce, Turk or Armenian, I will just ask you to consider if your style brings results, or not. I believe you are a result-oriented person, as most KGB people were.

  125. “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” —- Thomas Paine.

    This quotes applies perfectly to you Ragnar (and well just about everyone at Fox News- but any who..)

    Dialogue: “an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.”

    Essentially, you have an idea or opinion, and I have an idea or opinion and we talk/argue/debate the topic until we have a amicable resolution. Here’s the two sides you can take: It was genocide, or, it was not genocide. So let me ask this is clearer terms.

    1. Are you capable of answering a question? If your answer is “yes”, proceed. If you answer is “no”- have a good day sir.

    2. Do you know what genocide means? If your answer is “yes” proceed. If your answer is “no”– here it is and I will break it down for you..

    “…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

    (a) Killing members of the group;
    (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
    (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
    (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
    (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
    — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article I”

    Part A: Check
    Part B: Check
    Part C: Double Check
    Part D: I’d say killing women and pregnant women is a way of preventing births in the immediate and longer term future. CHECK.
    Part E: N/A, we were to busy killing the kids to transfer them to another group. CHECK.

    5 for 5, and you don’t even need all five to be found guilty of genocide. But not us Turks, no sir, we take our genocide pretty seriously, anything less then 5 out of five is not good enough.

    3. Were you able to read and comprehend the above statements? If yes, proceed.

    4. Have I managed to make you feel stupid yet? I don’t care about your answer to this one, just read on the last question is coming up.

    5. In a one word, three or two letter answer, was it genocide?

    BEFORE YOU ANSWER, let me make this as clear as possible: I, RVDV- do not care in the SLIGHTEST of your lengthy, pointless views of other threads. I do not care in the SLIGHTEST of any grey areas you think you can argue about. I do not care in the SLIGHTEST about your so called “dialogue”- you don’t know what that word means. Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about because I assure you, you don’t have a damn clue. You know what the worst part is? There’s a part of me that wants to agree with you, use your claims to dilute the reality of the situation. The worst part is wanting to say, “you know what, my ancestors overreacted to an inflated threat due to wartime fear-mongering and chaos, and given another chance with the benefit of hindsight, they would not have it again.” But the absolute worst part, the worst of the worst, is knowing that if my ancestors were given a second chance, they would only try to do it more efficiently. You know nothing.

    • RVDV,very interesting comment.
      Re part (e),it is a very well known fact that abandoned Armenian children in their thousands were ‘transferred’ to Turkish,Kurdish & Arab groups,who were used as servants,shepherds,etc…Many charitable organizations years later were able to collect some of these orphans.
      Girls were forcibly married at their delicate young age of 12…
      Istanbul Agos newspaper (Hrant Dink’s paper), publishes a lot of stories about these ‘hidden’ Armenians…
      Very painful section of the Genocide.

    • RVDV,

      Your post is beautifully constructed and forcefully presented.

      No Norwegian butter cookies for you!

      Unfortunately, Mr. Ambiguous will return eventually. We should just copy and paste your post each time he does in Reply.

    • Correct VTiger… many children were transported to different groups as pretty much slaves or young brides…

      Many of those children are now considered the “Hidden Armenians” in Turkey…

      My great grandfather who was an orphan himself out of goodness of his heart and love for his nation dedicated most of his life to reunite the orphans in Turkey with their families by searching/contacting/organizing meetings between the living relatives from Russia, US, France, and other countries with the found orphans.. he is my role model and his legacy will live forever because he did all this without any financial help from anyone.. he did this because he was a great humanitarian… and I honor his memory and those who were brutally murdered by the Ottomans hands by being the best daughter of the Armenian nation…to fight for them as they did not have a chance to do so themselves…

      and from all this, it is the children who had the major impact because not only they had to witness such autrocities and lose their family in front of their eyes, they had to convert and become somone else .. this is getting traumatized to the max…they could have had a beautiful childhood growing up as Armenians…my heart bleeds as I speak, think and write about this..

    • Gayane,I share your pain & I’m very well acquainted with the charitable works of the honorable people such as your great grandfather’s & of the charitable organizations whether Armenian or foreign.
      For me the most intriguing part was & still is the indescribable effort of re-uniting these children with their closest surviving relatives,at that period of time.At present Agos sort of does that work with the hidden Armenians…
      God bless the soul of your great grandfather & of his likes.

  126. Avery,
    on second thought, I have of course to admit that I considered leaving. I still consider it. But it is true that I wanted to answer some questions.
    RVDV
    If you dont care about what I say, why do you ask me at all?

    • ragnar.. you will return.. there is no question about it… you simply can’t stay away.. your mission of getting data for your denialists book/story/whatever you are putting together for Turkey is not done yet.. …..

      you like to leave your mark on our pages don’t you.. too bad it won’t win you the academy award for it… soorrrryyyy…

    • “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.” —- Thomas Paine.

      This quotes applies perfectly to you Ragnar (and well just about everyone at Fox News- but any who..)

      Dialogue: “an exchange of ideas or opinions on a particular issue, especially a political or religious issue, with a view to reaching an amicable agreement or settlement.”

      Essentially, you have an idea or opinion, and I have an idea or opinion and we talk/argue/debate the topic until we have a amicable resolution. Here’s the two sides you can take: It was genocide, or, it was not genocide. So let me ask this is clearer terms.

      1. Are you capable of answering a question? If your answer is “yes”, proceed. If you answer is “no”- have a good day sir.

      2. Do you know what genocide means? If your answer is “yes” proceed. If your answer is “no”– here it is and I will break it down for you..

      “…any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole OR IN PART, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

      (a) Killing members of the group;
      (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
      (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
      — Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article I”

      Part A: Check
      Part B: Check
      Part C: Double Check
      Part D: I’d say killing women and pregnant women is a way of preventing births in the immediate and longer term future. CHECK.
      Part E: N/A, we were to busy killing the kids to transfer them to another group. CHECK.

      5 for 5, and you don’t even need all five to be found guilty of genocide. But not us Turks, no sir, we take our genocide pretty seriously, anything less then 5 out of five is not good enough.

      3. Were you able to read and comprehend the above statements? If yes, proceed.

      4. Have I managed to make you feel stupid yet? I don’t care about your answer to this one, just read on the last question is coming up.

      5. In a one word, three or two letter answer, was it genocide?

      BEFORE YOU ANSWER, let me make this as clear as possible: I, RVDV- do not care in the SLIGHTEST of your lengthy, pointless views of other threads. I do not care in the SLIGHTEST of any grey areas you think you can argue about. I do not care in the SLIGHTEST about your so called “dialogue”- you don’t know what that word means. Stop pretending you know what you’re talking about because I assure you, you don’t have a damn clue. You know what the worst part is? There’s a part of me that wants to agree with you, use your claims to dilute the reality of the situation. The worst part is wanting to say, “you know what, my ancestors overreacted to an inflated threat due to wartime fear-mongering and chaos, and given another chance with the benefit of hindsight, they would not have it again.” But the absolute worst part, the worst of the worst, is knowing that if my ancestors were given a second chance, they would only try to do it more efficiently. You know nothing.

  127. {“5. In a one word, three or two letter answer, was it genocide?”}

    RVDV: If you manage to get a one word answer from this gentleman, it will be a minor miracle.

    A while back, you got a one sentence non-answer from poster ‘Tokado’ when you similarly challenged him about his position re the AG: at least he had the decency to fade away after the exchange with you.

    The gentleman in question cannot even bring himself to unambiguously admit he said he was leaving AW: everything is equivocated “…I was ‘thinking’ of leaving”. (Nope: you weren’t thinking; the phrases [Anyhow, good luck to you] and [Dont give up doing dialogue. Good luck to you all] are clearly parting words: nobody would write that if they were only ‘thinking’ about it; particularly someone who claims ‘Excellent’ command of the English language as the gentleman does in his CV)

    Thanks for trying just the same RVDV: you make your righteous Turkish compatriots proud. (PrivateSherman sends regards, in 10 parts)

    • His lack of an answer was more than enough. Imagine an alternate universe where Jews were thanking the average German for supporting the fact that the Holocaust was a genocide. Sad world we live in Avery, sad, sad world. No need to thank me for anything.

      I agree with jda about ragnar, at least Turks were brought up in an educational system based on lies and distortions. He’s worse then they are. What’s his excuse?

      Regarding Sherman: It was 9 parts. He went from 4 to 6. The man can’t count to 10, yet TZ posts more of his comments than mine. Like I said, sad sad world.

  128. RVDV
    I am not impressed. you cannot do it in this way of you pretend to apply the Convention to the Armenian Genocide. There have been a number of court cases regarding the crime of genocide, and they proceed in a certain way. They do not follow the stages of your questions. You start in the wrong end, by asking “was it or wasnt it” in the start and then present the definition later. What is “IT”? What you do in the start is histrionics. In these trials there is always somebody who is prosecuted. So please define one or several defendants. That is if you want these questions of yours to resemble a juridical reasoning on the application of the Convention to the direct and indirect killing of Armenians in 1915-16. I mean the kind of reasoning we find in the juridical literature. But if we do it in a thorough way, it may be interesting for me and I have not seen it done here in AW before. People have been too busy answering yes or no to the G-question – and then adding accusations and opprobria, rather than doing any thinking……but so far I like your apparent ideal of doing this systematically. But we must have defendants in this imagined court case in order to start answering your five points, which of course have to be answered. if we are able to do this in a systematical way I will certainly not withdraw from the AW.

    • {” if we are able to do this in a systematical way I will certainly not withdraw from the AW.”}

      sounds like the Denialist gentleman is now threatening to stay. God help us.
      I say, keep your promise, Sir: withdraw, Sir; at long last – Withdraw.

      [“Senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?”] (Mr. Mr. WELCH addressing Senator MCCARTHY.)

  129. Ragnar, I request you reread my post from October 25, 2010 in Sassounian: Why Would Armenians Go to Akhtamar, and Become Tools of Turkish Propaganda? (737). I could repost it here but I don’t want to flood this thread. In it I explain why you are met with such a negative response from many Armenians here. Try to read it with an open mind and consider how and why your comments are offensive to so many.

    The truth of a massive ‘crime against humanity’ and ‘slaughter of a nation’ was widely known throughout the world at the time of the events that would later be labeled the ‘Armenian Genocide’ by Rafael Lemkin. The world’s collusion in allowing this crime to go unpunished is no reason we should now accept a revision of long established facts. In my opinion, you refuse to consider that you are doing a disservice to history and justice, and that is why you generate such animosity among those interested in justice; whether Armenians, righteous Turks or others.

    • Dear Boyajian…
      As marte erensme vejarvag a
      pan me bede kra…
      Zhamanaget me gorsenzener
      Write your Book
      “Ungodly Denial…”

      Sylva

  130. boyajian
    yes, I read it. I tried to read it with an open mind. There are of course a lot to say, and most of it I feel I have repated several times. We dont seem to get any further. I of course admit that have my blind spots, and so I believe do you.

    However, at the moment I am also confused because the posts seem not to come in the order they are delivered. Yesterday your post was not there, only Sylvia’s, and today your post is there before Sylvia’s. what is this?

    I had a fairly long and detailed commentary to this post of 2010 which you mention. It should answer some of your points. Can you read it, with an open mind, and then we come back to it? OK?

    But apart from this I am intrigued by the fact that even if I 1) hold that Turkey should apologize, 2) make reparations, 3)that the term “genocide” certainly applies in its consequences and 4) that possibly the CUP had genocidal intent, and 5), that a great crime was committed against the Armenians, 6) that I put energy into arguing against Turks here in the AW, like Monastras, Murat and Necati, STILL I ALWAYS end up defending myself against Armenians who see me as worse than the worst of the Turkish participants who have clearly anti-Armenian and outright denialist views. Further that the decent Armenians here not once interceded against these opprobria from their countrymen. Yes, it intrigues me…I’d like to understand it.

    • Ragnar.. how DARE YOU to tell Boyajian to go read your posts with open mind ??? are you out of your “self given PHD’ mind? then have the audocity to tell her then she can come and continue the talk with you… Who gave you the authority, the permission, and priviledge to give her orders and use her line to turn the tables around.. YOU are the one being questioned here not Boyajian.. we know where she stands and what she represents.. it is YOU who is confused and very much so blinded by the ugly faces of the puzati Turkish govt and the denialists propaganda.. so instead of throwing propositions to US, why don’t you read RVDV’s post written on July 19th over and over and over.. when you have the urge to question anything we say here… OK?????

      Thank you

      Have a nice day

    • Yes, it is true that posts sometimes are out of sync with each other.

      Turks are defending against believing that their ancestors committed such acts and that their successive governments have lied and misled them. Some Turks do this in very dishonorable ways, but still one can understand why they are defensive. It is after all very hard to challenge the status quo, social pressure and one’s education and admit that Turkey is guilty of genocide and must make costly reparations. But it is hard to understand why a Norwegian who has dedicated much of his career to promoting social justice would find himself so beguiled by the Turkish propaganda designed to avoid circumvent responsibility. The evidence, the truth, is readily available to anyone who wants to see it, yet you prefer to question and raise doubts. Why?

      It is funny/strange that the way you describe yourself in your last paragraph is not the way most people see you here. Why is this?

      Also, before reading your comment, I posted a statement at Sassounian: Turkey Shows Interest in Armenian Demand for Access to Trabzon Port reminding us to focus on promoting truth and justice and not on tearing down people.

    • {“Further that the decent Armenians here not once interceded against these opprobria from their countrymen. “}

      what is your definition of “decent Armenian” ?
      the ones who are not ‘inbreeding’ ?

      what about your own opprobria against Armenians ?

      maybe I missed it, but when did you apologize to Armenians @AW for calling them ‘inbreeding’ ?
      when did you apologize to Armenians for the opprobrium of the phrase “disposed of” (…the remains of our murdered ancestors).
      when did you apologize to Armenians for Denying the AG on the pages of AW ?
      when did you apologize for using filthy language here @AW ?

      It is really rich for an AG Denialist who visits AW for the express purpose of spreading denialist disinformation to now demand that the victims of his opprobria come to his defense.

    • “3)that the term “genocide” certainly applies in its consequences and 4) that possibly the CUP had genocidal intent,”

      What? If you assume point number 3, then the wording of part 4 should be “that the CUP committed genocide.” Here’s why you are worse then the denialist Turkish posters: I can make excuses for them- being a part of the miseducation system, being fed propaganda, etc. Not only are you not Turkish, you pretend to be knowledgeable about the Armenian genocide. No one defends you because no one knows what you’re saying. Your last post to me, I didn’t reply, because I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to say? What’s your point? You can’t even answer a simple yes or no question- but I’ll keep asking even though I know the answer. Was it or was it not genocide? Simple enough question, man up and answer.

    • @ragnar.. you have had SOME conversations with those low lives such as monastras, murat, necati, etc etc.. but you never ever went as far as you did with us to point out and condemn their lies, their closed minded existance and overall their fashist personalities.. you DID NOT insult them as you do us… you DID NOT twist their stories to make it true to yourself and only those who benefit from that.. NO YOU DID NOT treat them as you did us.. so please stop crying the river.. it won’t fly…you sure are full of yourself…

      @RVDV: if he has not manned up for the last two years.. he won’t now…

    • Ragnar, I re-read your lengthy response in Sassounian: Why Would Armenians Go to Akhtamar, and Become Tools of Turkish Propaganda? I agree we are both repeating ourselves. You keep raising questions, insinuating false doubt into the Armenian Genocide narrative and I keep pointing at the truth that was known throughout the world from the beginning:
      The CUP/Ottomans decimated the Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks of Asia Minor, and Turks have been trying to cover it up or lie about it for almost 100 years. It is time to stop politely, naively or willingly colluding in the cover-up and to demand justice.

    • Boyajian,

      I admire your limitless decency and clear writing. We are all, I am sure, proud of you.

  131. RVDV
    “consequences” – the outcome of an action. It is generally easier to dociment an outcome than the intentions of an action. This is reflected in much of the juridical literature. Much of the debate on genocides have dealt with outcome versus intents. Look at Antonio Casseses report on Darfur. Have you read Schabas: Genocide in international law? You should read this literature. It is generally accepted that intents are more difficult to document than results of actions. Already Gwynne Dyer in the 70-ies pointed to the outcome: the destruction of the Armenian communities and the death of a large part of the Ottoman Armenians. And he said “the outcome was certainly genocidal”. But he did not believe in premeditation. The result MAY have come about through 1) a premade plan of the CUP that this was the effect wished for, OR 2) no plan for extermination but a criminal negligence because people who killed Armenians were generally not brought to justice, OR 3) brigands killing Armenians and taking the few belongings they brought along with them, OR 4) local powerholders appropriating the funds allotted to provide feeding and security to the relocated Armenians.

    “Yes or no”: words can be understood in different ways. “Was it racism?” “Was it democratic?” “Was it genocide?”. See also the list of definitions provided by Charny, which illustrates the point that words may be used and and understood in different ways.Words and facts are on different logical levels. The first step must be to clarify what you mean by words.Just answerring “yes” or “no” creates misunderstandings. Or rather – it is like in politics when people rally around a slogan which often is understood in different ways. Your demand for a yes or no answer belongs to politics not to analysis, to my mind (excuse me for being so short, if you had read some of the earlier debates you would have been better equipped to understand what I try to say. —Regarding the question of the genocide of Ottoman Armenians, it was certainly genocide in its effects, there were also certainly many genocidal acts, that is acts of the same kind as in Srebrenica, you know the massacres of Bosniaks. So there are good reasons for calling what happened to the Armenians genocide. But if I just say that, I will be misunderstood, because generally people think of a premade plan to exterminate the Armenians as such.– I commend your will to rectify what yiur ancestors did. Maybe you have important information from your family about this. I look forward to reading your posts in Turkish newspapers about this. But ARGUE, dont just repeat slogans which – affedersiniz, excuse me – you are doing now, to my mind.

    do you see it now?

    you write:
    “3)that the term “genocide” certainly applies in its consequences and 4) that possibly the CUP had genocidal intent,”

    What? If you assume point number 3, then the wording of part 4 should be “that the CUP committed genocide.”

    Arent consequences different from intentions? And – in order to answer such a question must we not use various examples to illustrate the notion of “intent” and “consequence”? This is how questions like these are treated in juridical, sociological and historical works.Conclusion: when you ask for a yes or no question and demand only to get a short sentence as an answer. But after a clarification you may give a short answer. I may say: “Yes, it was genocide”, but now you know in what sense and with what qualifications I say it.

    • Ragnar,

      There you go again, trying to create the illusion you are a professional in law, history, military history or Ottoman history by citing sources you don’t understand [by the way, even Ottomanist Donald Quataert concluded 13 years ago it was Genocide based upon the pattern of uniformity in the killing of Armenians throughout Anatolia and European Turkey].

      Why don’t you take up your sham legal arguments with Geoffrey Robertson, QC, who concluded three years ago this was Genocide. He’s a real international lawyer who tries these cases. http://groong.usc.edu/Geoffrey-Robertson-QC-Genocide.pdf

      But, more fundamentally, historians and nations are not required to assess historical events by how they might play out in a hypothetical courtroom.

      Putting aside your pathetic efforts to curry favor with your Turk overlords, adopt some common sense. The law presumes that people intend the harm their actions cause. We have their admissions, and the contemporaneous descriptions of their perpetrators, their German allies, their resistors in the Ottoman government, and their Generals.

      As has been pointed out quite a few times, like your cousin Quisling, you are in the lowest rank of immoral men. Turks have the excuse of propaganda and culture. You just want a job the grandchildren of murderers might give you and a chance to see the Sun in winter.

  132. Boyajian
    ok, I understand that people get angry because they believe the case is so obvious and it is not understandable that a Norwegian does this. So they attack This is to my mind the consequences of two misunderstandings. First, that it is easy to argue the case, which it is not. It appeared easy 40 years ago when Turks hardly answered and even historians believed in the veracity of the Andonian papers. Today many just CLAIM that the case is obvious. Second, that “he certainly is paid by the Turks”. I am really sorry for active Armenians having such a simplified view of disagreement. — I just argue this case as I always argue in disagreements, and I learned a lot.– Thank you for posting a message not to tear people down but to argue. There should have been an active and knowledgeable moderator in these debates if the aim is to have Armenians prepare themselves for debates with those who doubt. But to vent one’s fury and trauma by opprobria will not help the Armenian cause

    • ummmm.. apparently this man whose sole purpose is to collect data for his ill wriiten book thinks we are attorneys and we are in court…..

      just a tid bid for you sir…. we have very intelligent attorneys that are 10000 times more capable of doing what they are suppose to do .. and we will leave that for them to handle..

      BUT reality check…This is not a court.. this is a public form…we don’t need a moderator and we are not here to win a case…it has been already proven that it was a Genocide by many .. we don’ need ragnar to pretend he is here to help us with the case.. on the contrary, i know you are here to deliberately create confusion with your unrealated stories… please.. stop…you are a grown man so start acting like one…

    • Ragnar,

      Your endless posts, a few of which are different, remind me of the last scene in Fatal Attraction in which Glenn Close, thought drowned, rises from the bathtub one final time, knife in hand, to kill Michael Douglas, a gesture I wholeheartedly supported by the way.

      Or in the Lethal Weapon movie when Gary Busey rises from unconsciousness to menace the cops one final time.

      Your zombie persistence [and ongoing Orientalist pedantry] is almost admirable – but why don’t you antagonize the Nazi Turks and Jihadists for a while? I think we here are saturated with visits from our kindly all knowing Nordic Uncle on the make.

      I am willing to send you a new Motoon you can post online with your address. Maybe you can set yourself alight at Talaat’s mauseleum. We know you crave attention.

      What does Svetlana think of your strange hobby?

  133. Dear all,

    It is an absolute waste of time discussing anything with Ragnar. He has an agenda which dictates his position. Thus any discussion is endless and without value. His last two posts should be proof enough of that. Anyone who argues against genocidal intent must suspend all reality and believe that the leadership had no idea what was transpiring or what the conditions of the land were, even though they were getting a steady stream of telegrams telling them exactly what was happening and what the conditions were. If you continue to send place people in conditions that will lead to their death, that is genocidal intent.

    I suggest that Ragnar travel by foot from Erzurum to Deyr Zor beginning August 1 as that may help him understand the genocidal intent. The path traveled is well documented … no need to bring water as we would not want to cheat. Of course, the conditions are not exactly the same, since as a man he would have been killed on day 1.

    George Aghjayan

    • Thanks Aghjanyan for your e-mail…
      These people wants us to die
      Is not enough they killed, confiscated…genocide from pen till ink
      Still they like to continue …
      Their genes are full of hate …
      They want us to vanish from the earth face
      They are bursting our Heart-Valves
      They are here to destroy our ego
      Can they do through their way…”
      I can’t believe still such people exist in our universe…
      I am sorry to say,
      I think we are stupid to answer them…!
      Just ignore…let them feel…What they want to feel…!
      I stoped reading their massages …
      A very clever Arab Writer wrote to me
      “Don’t read their message so you will be unable to answer them”

      Sylva

    • Well said George…

      but i doubt ragnar has the balls to take up on your offer to walk by foot without shoes from Ersurum to Deyr Zor with only scarps of food and clothes on his back…. yes he won’t get killed on the first day because the situations are not the same.. LUCKY HIM.. but at least that will give him a reason for not chewing and feeding Turkish lies to everyone else around him.. under the pretense of “working on bettering the situation and doing a humanitarian work…..

      @ragnar- get a life and stop pretending….thank you and have a nice day sir..

    • ragnar..

      George is not arguing.. his post was very matter of fact to express what he believes…. why do you always have to turn everything around and make it what it is not… are you trying to use such verbage at later times to put down Armenians because you believe everyone here is arguing… that we are people who just simply love to argue?? you are sooo off it is not even funny.

      Show me ONE sentence that shows George is arguing with you? go ahead…

      thanks

    • {“ragnar naess July 16, 2012……. I am tired of being treated like shit.”}

      If you are, why are you still here then ?
      Somebody forcing you to post @AW ?
      Somebody paying you to post @AW ?

    • George argues? I don’t think he argues. He is not even addressing YOU. He is addressing US and is making a really good suggestion. I agree with George.

      You say you are treated like “s***” ? Why use such words? They are not acceptable in this forum. If you pay attention, none of us uses such language. If you need to use it, take it elsewhere. You must be more careful with your language when you are talking to us.

      Secondly, contrary to what you think, you have been treated with more respect than you would ever be treated with in any other forum. Some people have even been too respectful and generous with you. Too bad that you are unable to appreciate it.

      We simply do not agree with your “arguments” and do not share your point of you. Do we have to? Does it give you the right to call us “inbred”?

      You accuse people for not wanting to argue with you about something that they think is already settled and obvious or you accuse them for not arguing the way YOU think they should argue. You are not interested in the truth. You are more interested in pushing on us your view that the Armenian Genocide is something debatable. We do NOT agree. I understand that you get very frustrated by that but we do NOT agree.

      Thirdly, you want to leave–leave. You want to stay–stay. Do you have to inform us about your plans? By the way, life will go on just fine, either way.

  134. Of course George makes sense. We cannot persuade some people to let go of personal agendas that fall short of basic justice and that cause ‘blurring’ of the truth. But many here will still take every opportunity to counter distortion and lies, and promote a truthful narrative instead. Its hard not to.

  135. Why do we always ignore & neglect the points of forced Islamisation/Turkification & the Turkification of the Armenian toponyms during both the late Ottoman period & during the Turkish republic?
    Aren’t these part of the Genocide?
    How could some people deny the Genocide?It’s mind boggling.

    • I am trying to enter Word “Turkification” in the Oxford Dictionary…
      If it enters there all the dictionaries will follow…
      Arab calls it Tattarruk …They wanted to Turkify Arabs as well…
      they took their language and religion…but was not enough …
      they wanted them to be Turks… and later changed their language to Latin.
      Also they are trying to Turkify Kurds…the same way did for others…
      The Internet changed the world…they can no longer do…

      There are 2 million Armenians Turkified in Turkey…
      according to recent hidden statistics…!

  136. gina
    maybe we have completely different ideas about a good and a bad dialogue. To me it is not so bad to say “Ihave been treated like “sh—-!”. (Now you see I cover up like I saw somebody else doing here, not repeating my words. I have no problems following these rules, if they are spelled out). The serious thing is when somebody says to another – to take one of innumerable examples of the same kind – I quote “XXXX(name)- and i have no problem if you get what people with your brain deficiency and genocidal self deserves..”. This was not said to me, but the main question is: Is it polite? Is it in line with the policies of good dialogue as it even is spelled out in the AW? It is both an accusation of a genocidal self, a brain deficiency, and some kind of message that the author does not care if you are killed. you can google the sentence in the Bedrosian lost churches article — I can provide hundreds of examples like this from the AW but harldy from any other publication I know of, in Norway or elsewhere. —Well, Gina, if we disagree and you think this remark is in line with a good debate culture, we should bring it to somebody who does this kind of moderating, for instance some teacher in a high school, trying to teach the children some things about how you run a decent debate. I await the answer, but honestly speaking I think you know it already—Another example I will cite has to with me. The expression “inbred”. Avery has been repeating and repeating this thing over and over again after I said I was sorry if the expressions hurt him, and after pointing out that I didnt say HE was – or ARMENIANS were- “inbred”, I said that the DEBATE was inbred (and God help me I still think it is…). Try to do the same thing in a serious open forum with a moderator following ordinary rules. They will say “Please mr.Avery, you have made your point, and Mr. Naess has said he is sorry and explained his view. Now. let’s go on..”. This is debate culture. —as for George, he wrote the following:Anyone who argues against genocidal intent must suspend all reality and believe that the leadership had no idea what was transpiring or what the conditions of the land were, even though they were getting a steady stream of telegrams telling them exactly what was happening and what the conditions were. If you continue to send place people in conditions that will lead to their death, that is genocidal intent. unquote. This is one of the standard ARGUMENTS for genocidal intent. Mainstream Turkish authors point to obvious facts that may be counted as counter arguments to this description. I will not repeat them. It is strange if George wanted to argue against me, at the same time saying that he will not argue against me, and it is even stranger if he said this to you, as if you needed this reminder. (That is if you really are so sure that the mainstream genocide research version is immune to counter arguments, then you dont need this reminder and you you would not have felt the need to answer me in the years since 2009 when I started to write here.) This kind of reasoning (“Genocide has been definitely proved”) functioned 40 years ago, but not today, when New York Times in all their articles on the Armenian Genocide supply a link to the Turkish counterarguments (providing “the other side of the coin”). So my advice to you – sorry if this sounds condescending, Boyajian – is to be more meticulous about arguments and how you will answer arguments from the clever Turks. To be polite also has never hurt anybody, or what? (Otherwise I am afraid that your just cause will silently erode, and I’d hate to see that)— I understand that some of you feel I am confusing, as Gayane sometimes says (“he is only out to confuse us”) because I also argue against the Turks here in the AW. I will try to explain: I believe in PROLONGUED dialogue, in which the main results are not immediately visible, but it time. I am not so concerned with who is right except for the fact that a great crime was committed against the Armenians and Turkey should apologize and make reparations.(After that Armenians may also admit a thing or two). I am concerned with dialogue and arguments as such because this is a force in itself. A force for ultimate unity of views. Apart from this I agree that it is stupid of me to announce that I will leave the AW, and then not do it. I will stop here for now.

    • ragnar.. you sure don’t give up do you? must be a requirement to be initiated and taken in by the Turkish propagandist.. You probably past with flying colors because you simply don’t give up and continue with you mumbo jumbo.. you hang on at every little minute things to prove your case but guess what ragnar.. not working sir.. NOT WORKING.. if anyone read your posts and ours, they can clearly distinguish how you are playing the game here.. we are not cheaters.. you are..

      and if you are complaining about some words used by our commentators that don’t even constitute to be rude compared to WHAT YOU WILL GET if you did the same on TUrkish and Jewish sites then you need to just simply dissapear from here because it seems like you are not capable of comprhending what you have here.. you WON”T GET THIS KIND OF Heavenly treatment anywhere else… you would be booted out and it won’t be pretty…

      oh and… George was not arguing with you.. he was stating the facts….

      oh and….”I understand that some of you feel I am confusing, as Gayane sometimes says (“he is only out to confuse us”) because I also argue against the Turks here in the AW”

      YES YOU ARE and I tell you ALL THE TIME that you are here to confuse NOT us but everyone else that may not be Armenian but reading our posts….you try to create confusion…..

      NO NO NO- you do not and will never argue with Turks on AW or any where else in that matter.. I am sorry to say.. you sugar coat and put a soft blanket around your comments to Turkish denialists.. so don’t even go there…

      oh and…..”I believe in PROLONGUED dialogue, in which the main results are not immediately visible, but it time..””

      GENOCIDE is not going to be a PROLONGUED dialogue because GENOCIDE is proven and the MAIN RESULTS WERE DEFINITELY IMMEDIATELY VISIBLE… no need to wait for the results to be visible in time..

      oh and… have a nice a day…

    • Rag,

      Like a wheezy pufferfish, you once more inflate your unreadable prose with caroming tangents alluding to this expert and that, none of whom agree with you or will ever hear of you. You are in fact just an unpublished, unknown and unaccomplished minnow out of water.

      You are what, a PhD in Russian with work experience translating HIV technical material, am I right? But I guess social security in gloomy Norway isn’t enough, so you try to fill your ample free time with posts that are barely intelligible, but whose offensiveness is more than apparent. You dream of sunny Turkey, and that job at Yozgat junior sub-college [built no doubt over a bulldozed Armenian cemetery].

      The posters here, inbred as we might be, have had no difficulty demanding you defend your positions, and you can’t. Instead you parse language and cite snippets. In fact, your slippery position depends on which group you are antagonizing at the moment.

      So now you want not to discuss the Genocide, and instead want to discuss some mysterious thing you call ‘the rules of debate.” Unable to dispute the facts, you want to pretend that we violate some norm that you and you alone guard from our barbarous speech.

      Here is some news for you: there are no rules of debate, and there have not been since 4th Century BC Athens.

      Debate is won when the audience is persuaded. You may not like the technique of using the ad hominem attack, but you deserve it. For that matter the argument from [pseudo] authority is considered a poor method, and you use it constantly, if ineptly.

      On the WATS list serve, and here, you have failed even once to be gracious, informative, persuasive or – this is the worst sin of all in debate – intelligible. Instead you keep telling us lesser peoples – Turks and Armenians – how far we fall from your Olympic heights.

      Whom do you think you are kidding?

    • Signed, sealed and DELIVERED.. to ragnar at 666 Denialist Lane, Hell, Turkey 00000……

      apres jda jan… apres…

  137. I like Gina’s comments to Ragnar. I am also frustrated with Ragnar’s insistence on teaching us how to debate properly…according to his standards.
    He’d make a heck of a house guest, ‘generously’ instructing his hosts on housekeeping and food preparation. He is not above criticism for his wordy and hard to decipher comments.

    Ragnar, you also make a valid point. I accept that your infamous ‘inbred’ comment was a characterization of the style of conversation and not as a characterization of Armenians here. However I don’t agree with the characterization. And why do you never characterize the Turkish side of the debate as ‘inbred’, even though it is based on a deeply-ingrained, predetermined or over-determined agenda to uphold the ‘honor’ of Turks?

    You say you argue against Turks here. My impression is that this occurs too seldom.

    Further your advice that we be more meticulous in our arguments with ‘clever Turks’…is correct. What about over-confident Norwegians?

    Turks are highly motivated to deny us justice because it will cost them dearly in terms of reputation and actual money and land. They have something to lose (Turkish honor!) and thus use any and all methods, whether sincere or devious, to out maneuver us. We, on the other hand have already lost so many and so much and are, metaphorically speaking, trying to push a boulder up a steep hill. It is at times a depleting and overwhelming task that leaves many discouraged and willing to count their losses and concede defeat. But we have no choice but to tighten up our arguments with solid facts and be prepared for counter-arguments. I am not always up to the task but am grateful for others who are.

    Ragnar, this is forum for discussion between individuals from a wide range of backgrounds. You are misguided to expect a debate that meets your unspoken, non-mutually agreed upon debate standards. You should instead be grateful for those times that high caliber debate takes place. These are the diamonds in the rough that we all admire and learn from.

    And yes, you still appear condescending to me.

  138. { The expression “inbred”. Avery has been repeating and repeating this thing over and over again after I said I was sorry if the expressions hurt him, and after pointing out that I didnt say HE was – or ARMENIANS were- “inbred”, I said that the DEBATE was inbred (and God help me I still think it is…).}

    You never said sorry to me: not that I care either way; see below.
    You pretended to say sorry to Gor:
    {ragnar naess September 12, 2011 gor….I am sorry if you felt offended by my words “inbred” and “disposed of”. I will be more careful with my language in the future}

    Please carefully note the clever phrasing: “….you felt offended”, implying that the writer is not at fault, but the reader is – for being too easily offended.
    And again, ladies and gentlemen, please note the clever switcheroo in this latest post of Naess – “if the expression hurt him (Avery)” – to again put the blame of the act on the victim (…where have we seen that before ?).

    Now to “inbreeding”:

    This is what you actually wrote:
    { ragnar naess June 6, 2011 Avery… I see serious symptoms of intellectual inbreeding in an otherwise very important forum.
    This is sad, and maybe I should leave you alone to your inbreeding activities.}

    And later this post to one ‘Zeki’:
    {ragnar naess June 13, 2011 Zeki…..The majority of the participants are Armenian, and the Armenian collective loyalty is also present, for instance in their constant praise of each others’ posts..}

    Clearly you knew majority of participants @AW are Armenian.
    Clearly, you were calling one group of Armenian posters, the majority of the ‘regulars’ who strongly oppose you, “intellectually inbreeding”: your words, not mine. (based on the long chain of posts/replies that led to the infamous “inbreeding activities” phrase)

    What does “intellectually inbreeding” imply ?
    What does “inbreeding activities” imply ?

    And I never said you posted “genetic inbreeding”: although given your long history of Anti Armenian posts, I suspect that’s what you meant, at least in part. (based on your previous posts where you lecture Armenian posters from a position of superiority, and the barely concealed condescending attitude towards us).

    Mr. Naess:

    I don’t need you to say sorry personally to me.
    I am personally not easily offended. I have been called “gayvery”, crypto Jew, crypto Turk, Turkish agent, crypto Zionist, Stooge, and a whole lot of other things (some @AW, some at other Armenian sites): ask me if I care.

    If you haven’t figured it out by now, it is about our people, Armenians; about AG Denialists like you; about the safety and security of the tiny remaining homeland of Armenians, RoA & NKR, which Denialists like you undermine and endanger by the very fact of actively promoting the Denial of the AG, and being a disinformation and propaganda agent of the Turkish Denialist Apparatus.

    AG Denial emboldens and enables today’s Turkish Anti-Armenian Pan-Turanic fascists to attempt to again exterminate and ethnically cleanse Armenians from South Caucasus. Numerous examples were given previously, starting with the massing of a Turkish invasion force on the border of Armenian SSR during the WW2 Battle of Stalingrad, and ending with Turkish MFA’s self-injection into the internal affairs of NKR a week ago, when they officially declared NKR Presidential elections, quote, “Unacceptable”.

    If you expect me stop bringing up the “inbreeding” and “disposed of”, you must publicly and unambiguously retract those words and clearly apologize to ALL Armenians, in particular to Armenian readers and posters @AW. No weasel words will be accepted. No qualifiers. No equivocation or blaming the victim.
    Apologize clearly, and solemnly swear never to use such language @AW, and I will pledge not to bring up “inbreeding” and “disposed” of.

    (your general AG denialism will be vigorously countered as usual: just those two instances will be put on shelf, provided you honor your side of the agreement).

    • Avery jan.. if i may say this to you.. actually what my grandma would have said… “yes mernem qo xelatsi janin..”” :)

  139. boyajian
    regarding style of debate, look at the example I provided. And again: send this example to someone who tried to teach people how to discuss in a civilized manner. Maybe I am mistaken and the åhraze: it is ok to say things like this…arguong with Turks: I have argued a lot with turks and I never met the kind of reactions I get here from Armenians. this is not a party, it is a discussion forum. It is open to all. — I still argue with Turks, will travel to Ankara and discuss their treatment of the Armenian guerilla which I think is grossly exaggerated by Turkish writers.
    Gayane
    you consistenly misinterpret me. I will take a pause now – that means I will be back, preferably to discuss with people like Necati and monastras – if you give me a chance.
    Avery
    sorry again if what I said hurt you.

    • Ragnar,

      Since you like to have a dialog, let’s have one. You must have done some studies on Turkish losses caused by Armenians.
      Let’s talk with numbers.

      1.How many Muslim Turks have been killed by Armenians from late 1890s to 1915?
      2. How many Christian Armenians have been killed by Turks from 1890s to 1915?

      3. How many Armenian women have been raped by Turks from late 1890s to 1915?
      4. How many Turkish women have been raped by Armenians from late 1890s to 1915?

      5. How many Armenian children and women have been kidnapped by Turks 1890s to 1915?
      6. How many Turkish children and women have been kidnapped by Armenians 1890s to 1915?

      7.How many Muslim Turkish cultural monuments have been destroyed or converted by Armenians from 1890s to 1915?
      8.How many Christian Armenian cultural monuments have been destroyed or converted by Turks from 1890s to 1915?

      9. How much money (property, land, money, gold etc) Armenians stole from Turks?
      10. How much money (property, land, money, gold etc) Turks stole from Armenians?

      11. How many reputable, independent (non-Armenian) scholars agree that Turks committed genocide against Armenians (Christians)?

      12. 11. How many reputable, independent (non-Turkish) scholars agree that Armenians committed or attempted to commit genocide against Turks (Muslims)?

      I did not bring up Kurds because I consider that Kurds have been “hired” by Turks therefore I do not hold anything against Kurds. I know that a lot of Armenians would not agree with me.

      Anyone is welcome to provide numbers.

    • civlized manner ?

      using filthy language is ‘civilized’ in your Denialist Turkophile universe ?
      insulting Armenian posters @AW is ‘civilized’ in your Denialist Turkophile universe ?
      has the disease of Denialitis affected everything else ?

      And since you refuse to retract and apologize, you give me license to bring up everything you wrote: again, and again, and again,……

    • “Avery
      sorry again if what I said hurt you.”

      Are you doing this on purpose, Ragnar? I think what Avery said about your lame “apology” should be clear to anyone with basic command of English. What you offer now is no different from what you have offered before: it is not an apology for your tactless comment. You represent it as a problem with Avery’s reaction to what you said. In fact, the problem is with what YOU said. Are you really unable to tell the difference? You need to apologize for the expression you used, not for the possibility that Avery or someone else might have felt hurt. I am sure, you are smart enough to see the difference. Unfortunately, you have an annoying habit of twisting things and misrepresenting them, beating around the bush, and you are doing it very persistently, no matter how many times the problem is explained to you.

      “I have argued a lot with turks and I never met the kind of reactions I get here from Armenians.”

      Somehow, I find it hard to believe. I have visited Turkish forums many times as a reader and I have seen a lot of vulgar, rude, intolerant commentary by Turkish posters, things that you will never see here. But, of course, you haven’t tasted any of that because, you are much more considerate and subservient when you “argue” with Turks. Try to use the same tactics that you are using here, call them or their discussion “inbred,” and you will get a taste of it.

      “I still argue with Turks, will travel to Ankara and discuss their treatment of the Armenian guerilla which I think is grossly exaggerated by Turkish writers.”

      Surely, you do. It’s just a question of what exactly you tell them. To the best of my memory, you were caught telling Turks that Armenian demands were exaggerated and we [this included you] should confront them [the Armenians]. This is quite a brave way to “challenge” Turks by you. Meanwhile, you were presenting yourself on this forum as a friend. You have lost your credibility, Ragnar.

    • Oh, Ragnar,I just realized that we don’t have to go far to find some Turks whom you admire for their ways to argue and discuss: Necati, John the Turk, Robert, Monastras and others alike. I have seen them on Turkish forums all the time. Don’t tell me theirs is the style you approve if you want people to take you seriously.

      Also, AW is full with your comments. If you argue with Turks as much and as zealously as you say you do, I am sure there will be a few comments of yours that you could present to us. Why don’t you give us a link to a single comment of your choice that you made on a Turkish forum of your choice. We can see ourselves how you challenge them and how they react.

      You say you post in Turkish forums all the time, right? That means you should have no problem finding what I am asking for. Thanks in advance.

    • If an apology was ever wasted, then yours would be a fine example Ragnar. As the intended recipient of some your earlier comments than it was and still is abundantly clear to me what you meant by those comments. Incessant parroting and excessive hubris of all things Armenian (which to be fair, is applicable to many Turks who come here to post ). Far from being inappropriate, you have actually hit the nail on the head.

    • Ragnar, this conversation has really degenerated. I don’t understand your last comment to me and I am not even sure that you are responding to what I last wrote. I have always tried to remain civil and intend to continue this way.

      You write:
      “regarding style of debate, look at the example I provided. And again: send this example to someone who tried to teach people how to discuss in a civilized manner.”

      Comment: What example are you referring to? Are you referring to something in your comment to Gina? Please clarify?

      You write: “I still argue with Turks, will travel to Ankara and discuss their treatment of the Armenian guerilla which I think is grossly exaggerated by Turkish writers.”

      Comment: I am grateful if you challenge Turks to stick to a non-distorted, non-exaggerated, truthful narrative. We can use all the help we can get. What is so frustrating about you is that you often appear to help the wrong guys in this situation—and to me the Turks are the wrong guys. Not every Turk. Not individual Turks. But Turkey as a nation. They are the definite guilty party here.

      The Turkish losses in the Balkans don’t diminish the crime against Armenians. The CUP desperation to preserve a country for Turks doesn’t diminish the crime against Armenians. The fact that some Armenians took up arms and joined with Russia against Turks doesn’t diminish their crime against Armenians. Or Pontic Greeks. Or Assyrians. The crime is still genocide.

      How can a nation be permitted to get away with the murder of another nation for so many years? What is the defense for erecting shrines to CUP murderers or naming schools and streets after them? What is the defense for distorting history and paying historians to produce distorted and exaggerated claims that blame the victims? The consequences of the events of 1915 clearly amount to genocide. Why should we not be exasperated with you or anyone else who makes it easier for Turkey to promote their false narrative to the world. You know, the one that turns the world upside down and expects the victim to worry about being fair to the unrepentant genocidal party. The one where Tlon is found.

      Just because the New York Times includes a link to the ‘Turkish side’ of the debate whenever an article refers to the Armenian Genocide does not mean that we need to accept this as a proper new standard of truth. It only illustrates that they have also taken the train to Tlon. It is up to those who see the truth to hold such media outlets or misguided historians accountable for colluding in the corrupting of truth.

      I am sorry that you feel so abused by Armenians here. I am also sorry that you don’t recognize the abuse you do by insisting that we treat phony and distorted arguments as worthy of discussion. Holocaust survivors would never be expected to tolerate such insults. Why should Armenians?

    • Sella,great comment.I would like to add some numbers:
      13.How many Armenian toponyms have been Turkified similar to Armenian Highland into Eastern Anatolia,Ararat into Agri & so on?
      14.How many Turkish toponyms have been Armenified?

      15.How many Armenians were forced to be Islam/ized?
      16.How many Turks were forced to convert to Christianity?

      As Boyajian says:
      “Holocaust survivors would never be expected to tolerate such insults. Why should Armenians?”
      Now probably people will understand the French Genocide denial law.

    • Sella, to continue:
      17.Which country/ies block & embargo the landlocked Armenia for the last 20 years?Isn’t this the continuation of Genocide?
      18.Which country sent its flotilla to Gaza to break the Israeli embargo?

      19.Which country denies the well monitored democratic elections in Artsakh?
      20.Which country approves of the elections in the northern Turkish Cyprus?

      To be continued…

  140. I see I can be misunderstood: I have in mind the role of the Armenian guerilla in terms of how big it was and how coordinated it was – within itself and with the Russian forces – in the autumn of 1914 and up to march-april 1915. This seems grossly exaggerated by some authors, Turkish and others. But I will discuss it. – And I will discuss with people like Necati and Monastras because I beieve it is important to discuss with Turks who hold the traditional point of view. I do ti all the time. I disagree with them, and this is why I want to discuss with them.

    • Ragnar, this is an important challenge to one of the typical lines of defense that Turks use to avoid responsibility. If you are so inclined, please share the information that shows that Turks tend to exaggerate the impact of what you call ‘Armenian guerillas’ on the CUP decision to eliminate the ‘Armenian threat.’ This way we can all be better prepared to ‘argue’ this point with denialists/nationalist/racists who are reluctant to acknowledge Turkish culpability for the Genocide. Better yet, write and publish a paper complete with supporting citations to show that this exaggeration is being used to avoid responsibility. I will be among the first to laud you for this.

      A bit of advice: There is no honor in playing both sides of this fence. Choose a side.

      In my opinion, genocide is not a defensible act, regardless of the perceived provocations. Nor should the punishment of genocidal acts be used as a geopolitical pawn. Even more despicable is intellectual detachment and /or callous self-satisfactory regurgitation of the facts that fails to recognize the importance of quick justice in this case. Many of the economic and social woes of the small remnant nation of Armenia can be tied to the impact of the losses of the genocide and Turkey’s unrelenting policies and actions to avoid responsibility into the present time. I have said it before: Armenians are fighting a real battle for the survival of their nation. Real lives are on the line here. Turkey has a responsibility to help Armenia, precisely because of the impact of the genocide carried out by Turks; and timeliness is a critical factor in providing a just compensation.

      After 100 years of denial and distortion and avoidance of punishment for this crime against humanity (i.e., the dessimation of the indigenous Ottoman Christian communities of Asia Minor), Turkey has a long way to go to rehabilitate itself as nation. An apology is the first step, but it is not sufficient to show repentance. Only reparations can do this. Turkey can and must be made to pay financially and territorally for having benefited financially and territorally from the illegal destruction of the Ottoman Christian communities and the illegal confiscation and redistribution of their wealth and property.

      Countering each and every false attempt at justifying these crimes by blaming the victim is a necessary step toward the goal of Turkish accountability. I wish you success in this.

    • Just to be clear: I don’t believe that Turkey, on her own, will be motivated to compensate Armenia for the genocide. This will only happen when world pressure demands it. We have to keep building the pressure.

  141. Some great comments above by Sella, VTiger and Gina, etc., Despite and in spite of certain criticisms, I think important issues are being brought forth in this discussion. Keep it coming all…

  142. boyajian
    you have always behaved nice towards me. I had in mind the example I mentioned in my post to Gina. I always challenge the mainstream Turkish version, and would like also to do it here on the pages of AW. I said that I believe in sustained dialogue, but I realize that what I now am doing with Armenian participants here in the AW is something else. It is not fruitful. So I withdraw from this kind of debate.

    • {“So I withdraw from this kind of debate.”}

      [“Free at last, Free at last, Thank God almighty we are free at last.”]
      ― Martin Luther King Jr.

      Congratulations to all my compatriots: when we work together as a cohesive team for a common goal, we can achieve tangible results.
      Even though not everyone on our side was on board, enough of us clearly understood the danger this man represents to confront him as a unified group.
      Another AG Denialist bites the dust.
      Tough case, but persistence finally paid off.

      Hallelujah.

      One Armenian Nation, Under God, Indivisible.

    • even though RVDV, a Turkish guest, neither asks for nor expects ‘thanks’ from us, his contributions in strongly confronting this Denialist on several occasions are nevertheless noted and appreciated.

    • You never were and you will never be in a debate because you are not worth debating with.. you are one sided, a Turkish propangda kiss up ragnar… you are a denialist and we have said this numerous times..

      YOU BS about discussing, debating or whatever you call it with Turks and I SAY THIS AGAIN AGAIN AGAIN AND AGAIN.. you NEVER WERE AND YOU WILL NEVER do such a thing to your brothers who you love to death and can’t never be apart. because they are the only ones who will take your crazy self under their wings… so get over yourself and get off your high horse.. no one cares…

      good day Mr. ragnar.. aka denialist…

    • AMEN TO THATTTTTTTT …

      Unity is the only way my friends.. only way to crush these demons…

      Love you all..

      On a side note: GOOD LUCK OUR ARMENIANS AT THE OLYMPICS.. WE ARE BEHIND YOU ALL THE WAY.. REPRESENT ARMENIA WITH HONOR.. DO YOUR BEST.. if you don’t receive any medals.. YOU ARE ALREADY WINNERS..

  143. not only we (collectively, as Armenians) tolerate such insults in our own back yard, but we practically invite the Denialists to do so.

    they spit on our face, we say – “Thank you sir, give me another”.

    • Which is why we need to snip it and snip it fast to anyone that peeks ugly denialists face on our pages…

  144. boyajan,
    I will not comment on the question of “sides”. Regarding the guerilla, I spoke about it in Erzurum, it is written and it should soon be published.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*