Sassounian: Genocide Is the Right Word, Justice Is the Ultimate Goal
By Harut Sassounian // Posted on February 12, 2013 in Harut Sassounian // 387 Comments // 
Email
// 
Print
President Serge Sarkisian’s comments on Feb. 5 generated much controversy when he reportedly stated at a campaign stop in Yerevan that “tseghasbanoutyoun” (genocide) and “yeghern” (atrocity) are synonymous. He asserted that President Barack Obama, without uttering the word “genocide,” had said “everything.” The Armenian head of state was referring to Obama’s use of the term “Medz Yeghern” (Great Atrocity) rather than “Armenian Genocide” in his annual April 24 commemorative statements.
Raphael Lemkin
The words yeghern and Medz Yeghern were used by Armenians mostly before Raphael Lemkin coined the term “genocide” in 1943 to describe the organized mass killings of Armenians during the 1915-23 period. Before 1943, Armenians used various expressions to refer to those killings, such as chart (massacre), medz vojir (great crime), aghed (disaster), deghahanoutyoun (deportation), and aksor (exile). However, none of these words have the legal connotation of tseghasbanoutyoun or genocide under international law.
Since 1943, Armenians have spent much time and effort convincing the world that they were the victims of genocide, and are now seeking justice from Turkey under international law. This is the fundamental reason why Armenians demand genocide recognition, not massacres, atrocities, or deportations.
The only reason Obama has used the term Medz Yeghern in his annual statements is to avoid the words Armenian Genocide, in acquiescence to Turkish pressure. If Medz Yeghern and genocide have the same meaning, why doesn’t Obama use the term genocide instead of Medz Yeghern? After all, then-presidential candidate Obama did not promise Armenian-American voters that, if elected, he would recognize the Medz Yeghern; he pledged to recognize the Armenian Genocide.
Thus, all who allege that Medz Yeghern and genocide are synonymous are simply giving Obama a free pass and allowing him not to keep his solemn pledge. They are also undermining several decades of extensive lobbying efforts for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide!
Those who claim equivalence between Medz Yeghern and genocide do it not out of ignorance of Armenian terminology. They know full well that the two words don’t have the same meaning. Their real reason is to declare victory by making people believe that the president of the United States did after all acknowledge the validity of the Armenian Genocide.
There are a couple of fallacies in this approach. First, regardless of what Medz Yeghern means to Armenians, it is a meaningless term to all those who do not speak Armenian. Second, equating Medz Yeghern and genocide to claim success on genocide recognition is a futile exercise. It is really unnecessary to twist the meaning of Obama’s words. The United States recognized the Armenian Genocide as far back as 1951, when the government submitted an official document to the International Court of Justice (World Court) acknowledging the Jewish Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide as examples of genocide. Another U.S. president, Ronald Reagan, issued a Presidential Proclamation on April 22, 1981, in which he mentioned the Armenian Genocide. Moreover, the House of Representatives acknowledged the Armenian Genocide by adopting two resolutions in 1975 and 1984.
Consequently, there is no longer a pressing need to pursue further acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide by passing repeated congressional resolutions or demanding that Obama utter the words Armenian Genocide. Nor is there a need to reinterpret Obama’s statements, claiming that by using the term Medz Yeghern he has automatically acknowledged the Armenian Genocide. The only reason Obama should recognize the genocide is to be a man of his word.
It is imperative for Armenians and their supporters to concentrate their efforts on the eve of the centennial of the genocide not on gaining further recognition—an already accomplished fact—but on securing justice for the massive crimes committed against their ancestors a hundred years ago.
Rather than demanding that the U.S. or even Turkey acknowledge the genocide, which would not result in any concrete benefit, Armenians should focus their energies on more meaningful steps, such as filing lawsuits against the Turkish government in national and international courts.
Once Armenians regain their territories and properties from Turkey through legal action or as a result of unexpected geopolitical developments, the Turkish government can go on denying the genocide as long as it wants!
Related Articles:
Sassounian: Mr. President, Armenian Americans Reject Your Offensive Word Games on Genocide
Sassounian: Genocide Recognition and a Quest for Justice
Sassounian: Sarkozy Says ‘Tseghasbanoutyoun,’ a Word Obama Has Yet to Utter
Sassounian: Roadmap to Nowhere or New Delay Tactic: Genocide Recognition in 2015?
Dear Perouz,
yes, you are telling about the terrible fate of your people in 1915. I have no reason to doubt it, and if you ask me to emphatihize, I feel your pain, and remind you that we came to this discussion by way of my story about how strongly I reacted to the way Turks in Erzurum handled the theme “Turkish-Armenian relations”. Maxime was together with me at the time. It was a shame and I reacted very negatively. I also did not remain silent on the issue. But I am not sure whether you are now continuing our earlier theme or doing something else. Our earlier theme was whether Armenians at the time also killed Turkish civilians or not. I believe you said no to this. Another theme was whether I trust the information given by Turks about concrete mass graves. I said I do not automatically trust it, but do not exclude that such mass graves exist. With all due respect I believe we speak about different themes. I am confused about how the Elder photos fit into our discussion. Do you intend to say that when you tell about the terrible plight of your people, this in a way is an argument that Armenians did not kill Turkish civilians, or that the plight of your people demonstrates that alleged Turkish mass graves are fakes? Regarding specific photos, I have no reason to disbelieve you because obviously you know much more than me on this score. But again – with all due respect – are not documentation of specific assertions and appeals for empathy two different realms of thought?
Maxime, I will write you personally about your remaining silent in this discussion. It is hardly becoming of you and I will remember it in further discussions, privately or publicly.
Ever the enigma, Ragnar, I believe much of your message above was meant for VTiger. Are you getting enough sleep?
It is certain that Armenians killed Muslims during the awful Ottoman genocidal campaign of World War I. No one is surprised to learn that Armenians took up arms against their oppressors. But as tragic as it is that innocent people were killed on both sides, there is no doubt that the scope of destruction wrought against the Armenians by official Ottoman policy far outweighs the scope of Armenian aggression against Turks or Kurds.
The fact is that Turkey has denied and distorted so much of the history of this time period and has gone to extreme and unscrupulous lengths to avoid facing responsibility for its destruction of the Armenians of the Ottoman Empire. The idea that a mass grave might be intentionally misattributed to the wrong party doesn’t seem too far-fetched–especially if it helps deflect responsibility away from Turks and denigrates Armenians instead. It would be good to know the truth, but even if mass graves of Muslims exist, it doesn’t diminish Turkey’s responsibility for annihilating the Ottoman Armenians. These alleged mass graves of Muslims, if true, indicate tragic events AND also red herrings.
A footnote on “Maxime” for some of our more dedicated, and now perplexed, contributors: Gauin is a cherry picker and subject changer. When challenged for proof of his statements, he’d rather be somewhere else. You only hear from him when he has another barb to throw or half-truth to twist into unsubstantiated and conveniently unverifiable “fact”–the target always being, directly or indirectly, the “genocide label”. The latter goal is shared by both members of the team. The difference between them is simply this: one offers a flood of crocodile tears and the other doesn’t. Why give them the time of day?
OK Avery, (I answer a post which I found in my inbox but which has not yet appeared here) I see it now. As I understand it this picture is presented by a Turkish agency allegedly showing Turks killed by Armenians. Your point is that the uncovered heads document that these are not Muslims, but non-Muslims, probably Armenians. I Take it that at the exhibition the Turkish original in which this picture is presented will be shown and the fake explained.
Perouz, (I write this after a post I wrote to you yesterday but which has not appeared here on the pages) yes, I believe you have a point when you mention that Maxime, as a specialist and an employee of an agency in Turkey, holds that you can identify whether skeletons belonged to Armenians or Turks by looking for small Korans.I find it hardly credible….
Regarding the story from Palu, this is similar to a great number of descriptions made by Armenians who claim to be eyewitnesses or have heard the stories of eyewitnesses. The main collection of such descriptions are found in Raymond Kevorkian’s 1000 page volume of 2006. You probably know this, I only say it so that you should know that I have read the greater part of this.
I relate to these things mainly as one asking for documentation. This is because I believe there is an intrinsic connection between scholarly method and humanistic values, for instance values of human rights and democracy. I empathise, but I believe demands for empathy is only a part of the task.
I made a point out of this at the conference in Erzurum, telling the audience that only in the short version of Kevorkian’s work , made by George Semelin, there are some 200 descriptions of massacres, many of them provided with date and place and names of alleged perpetrators. I told the audience that the challenge for those who disagree is to compare these informations from Armenians with ottoman sources. The burden of proof that trhere were few massacres is on them. So I expect there will be a specimen of the book or text of this author who wrote in in 1930, along with an analysis of the trustworthyness of him or her as a witness. A text which plays the role of the “Devil’s Advocate”, right?
boyajian
no, it was meant for Perouz, see her two posts on the exhibition and her reference to the events at Palu. But of course it also adresses the points made by VTiger. I am not sure what you mean by “outweigh..”. In cases of the killing of civilians it is a crime according to the laws of war, both today and 100 years ago.
Ragnar, what I mean is that stories of Armenian aggression against Turks and Kurds are exaggerated for the purpose of deflecting Turkish responsibility and denigrating ‘evil Armenians’ as the ‘instigators’ of their own destruction.
I don’t deny that Armenians killed Turks or Kurds, or that crimes were committed on both sides, but I hold suspect the stories of mass graves of Muslims, even those found with skeletons with ‘large Turkish skulls’ and still grasping their Korans.
Your comment: “I told the audience that the challenge for those who disagree is to compare these informations from Armenians with ottoman sources. The burden of proof that trhere were few massacres is on them. So I expect there will be a specimen of the book or text of this author who wrote in in 1930, along with an analysis of the trustworthyness of him or her as a witness.”
No, naess, there will not be “a specimen.” There will be a large book. It is a 7 year daily diary, including weather, beginning in 1915. It is not a later recollection. It is witnessed daily events as they unfolded in front of him. It was first published in 1930, not first written then. And yes, there is documentation in international archives that he was actually in those places for 7 years. And no, he was not an old man with faltering memory. Go to the sites where he writes that there are fields of butchered Armenian bodies of unarmed men, women and children. Please refrain from scattering “kurans among the skeletons.” And leave your tape measure at home. We know that these are our dead. We know what was done to them. We know the intent of the barbarians. It is, as Harut has once again asserted in this article, called Genocide, the Armenian Genocide.
Your comment: “Regarding the story from Palu, this is similar to a great number of descriptions made by Armenians who claim to be eyewitnesses or have heard the stories of eyewitnesses.”
Would it ever occur to you that the reason there are “a great number of similar descriptions made by Armenians” is that these numerous, independent reports all have common elements, or, as you said, similarity, thereby establishing the likelihood of a high degree of accuracy and veracity? I have Kevorkian’s excellent work in front of me. I suggest you not only read it again, but buy an extra couple of copies; donate one to your public library, and one to a university library.
Your comment: “Our earlier theme was whether Armenians at the time also killed Turkish civilians or not. I believe you said no to this.”
I have never made any comment on the subject. Please refrain from your propensity for fabrication.
Don’t concern yourself with whether I am “now continuing our earlier theme or doing something else,” as you write. To the best of my knowledge, neither the AW, or Harut, or any other poster, has expressed any concern about what, or when, or the order, in which I write. You are under no obligation to either read or comment on anything I choose to post, whether or not the order is clear to you.
Your comment: “…if you ask me to emphatihize, I feel your pain…”
It would not occur to me to ask you to empathize let alone “emphatihize.”
I find it deeply offensive that you, a person who denies the Armenian Genocide, claims to feel my pain. Almost all of my family was brutally butchered by savage barbarians. Innocent children in my family had the sword taken to their small necks. My paternal grandmother was stoned to death. My maternal grandmother was savagely raped. My father witnessed a child being cut out of a living womb and impaled on a sword. Thirty-two women and children, seven of the eight men in my father’s family, and all the men in my mother’s family were butchered.
The two survivors in my father’s family did not grow old within the care and comfort of their families, their familiar ancient culture, their language, the church they helped to build and worshipped in. They never again planted spring flowers in the cemetery their ancestors were buried in. They did not watch their children grow and play in the familiar fields of their home, or again hear the sound of their laughter echoing across the mountains. The pleasure of camaraderie and easy banter in their own language with long time friends was forever lost to them. They did not harvest the crops they had already planted, or again see their apple trees in bloom. Their sheep and oxen were left in fields they never saw again. My mother wept for her pony left tethered in the back garden, worried that it too was butchered. They never again saw the sun rise on a familiar mountain landscape, never again gathered around the warmth of the tonir for a meal together. Laundry was left drying, the kettle was boiling on the tonir, the breakfast lavash was stacked and ready when the barbarians came that day in May, 1915.
When the silence of night fell in the new land, and others slept, they heard again the terrified screams of the children, the pleas for mercy which never came. They yearned again for the soft arms and flashing dark eyes and happy sing-song voices of home. They grieved every single day of their remaining lives for their murdered family and friends, their lost home, their lost way of life.
And you, a denier of the Armenian Genocide, claims to feel my pain? Hold your head under cold running water until you come to your senses.
Well, I think both Turks and Armenians have problems in relating objectively to this history. Regarding the alleged mass graves of Muslims, I got sceptical listening to the arguments forwarded by VTiger, Avery and the others. Thank you! I learn from everybody. About my being enigmatic I dont know what to say. I am the kind of person who agree in some but not in all. I guess I am very average in this. I dont join any party uncriticaly. But I insist on dialogue with people whose fate I lecture on and write about. Most do not care about this, but I think it is necessary. So I am still here
I think you misinterpret definition of genocide! You are leveling very well planned governmental mass killing program of Armenians with episodic killings of Turks. Where is your logic?
1. Armenian Genocide is proved by many scholars (not only Armenians) all over the world MANY years ago, based of facts from archives from USA, Sweden, Germany, France, Russia, Armenia etc.
2. Whatever you are telling about mass killings of Turks is not proved, it is relatively new, and taking into account available technology that could be used both in falsifications as well as in research, can not be taken into account on the same level with ,again, ALREADY PROVED Armenian genocide
Again please be logical, not only philosophical
“I think both Turks and Armenians have problems in relating objectively to this history.” Thank heavens that the good Lord sent a certain Norwegian to save us from ourselves.
Perhaps objectivity is an unrealistic expectation when the impact of the genocide is still ongoing. Armenians don’t view these events as merely historical, but as unpunished crimes that continue to threaten our existence and dignity in the present.
You need to know this if you wish to have empathy with the Armenians.
“both Turks and Armenians have problems in relating objectively to this history”
Please define the problems of Armenians in objectively relating to history?
Perouz,
I never claimed to feel your pain. I empathize to the extent this is possible. When the plane went down to land in Erzurum I looked at the Erzurum plain and recalled Kaiser’s article “A scene from the inferno”, but at the conference I met people who either were indifferent or wholly concerned with their own collective memories of disasters, fake or real. So I was indignant.
But I also said more or less the following: Both Armenians and Turks build their cases, their true or less true founding myths, on assertions that are the most difficult to prove, whereas what everybody must agree on is ignored and would provide a much better starting point for the Turks to admit the vastrness of the crime committed.
Again the sequence of the posts is bewildering because it looks as if my post of myself as an “enigma” comes after your long post.
I would like to say something about your post, but please tell me if you want me to stop answering you.
There is a strange contrast in you message between the almost unbearable description of the crimes and the catastrophy that befell your family and on the other side the recourse to the image of the big book that will prove everything. I want to remind you that to the extent that you relive the catastrophy and the crime you are in one mental landscape – I believe Peroomian writes about this in her work on Armenian literature on the genocide – but as far as you envisage the “book that proves it” you are in a totally different conceptual landscape: the landscape of the need for impartial and objective documentation, judgement of the trustworthyness of witnesses, and the interpretaiton of facts according to alternative hypotheses. You end by saying “And you, a denier of the Armenian Genocide, claims to feel my pain? Hold your head under cold running water until you come to your senses”. No, I dont claim it, buit i claim to know something about “books that prove”, and I might return the advice to keep one’s head under water to you. Probably we both need it.
naess; please read my post again. The words “the book that proves it,” are yours, not mine. I very seldom use the word “proof” in any writing – you have used it, or its derivative, several times in just this one posting. Revisionism is a common tactic of deniers. They distance themselves from their ill-advised comments by ascribing them to others.
You will also notice that, although you deny it, you did indeed write the exact words “I feel your pain.” This is a highly inappropriate and offensive comment. Denial of genocide is an act of perpetuation. No genocide denier feels my pain, or that of any other survivor, or descendant. In making such an inappropriate comment, you trivialize the ongoing pain of genocide. There is now ample scholarly research supporting the claim that the trauma of genocide is perpetuated down through many generations.
I also tell you, again, that I have no concern about your difficulty with the sequence of my posts. Simply don’t read them. I will write them as I choose, and AW will print them, or not, as they please.
Ragnar – the problem is not that Armenians do not understand the essence of the word genocide…quite the opposite. They understand it full well. To hint that they don’t is very similar to suggesting that the Irish don’t really understand the word ‘famine’ or that South Africans don’t really understand the nuances of ‘colonialism’. Why is it that the victims are seemingly the last to be consulted, but most often in this specific case? Why are Armenian thoughts, studies, research, oral histories, political histories, etc. all pushed aside in an effort to make the (false) Turkish/denialist argument appear to be of equal standing? It makes no sense, except that it is yet another case of a deep rooted, anti-Armenianism. Since when are Germans consulted on the finer nuances and personal tragedies of the holocaust? The fact is, they aren’t and they should not be in the Armenian case either.
On top of this, Armenians are subjected, almost on a daily basis these days, of seeing the word genocide tossed around like a ball…and there are plenty of clueless characters who are very willing to catch and play ball. Frankly, this is infuriating to Armenians, particularly when they see the word used so casually and inaccurately, not just by lay individuals, but by government officials and diplomats…people who should know better. A massacre of 20 people, or 200 people is not a genocide….plain and simple. It is horrific, tragic and most likely criminal, but it categorically is not genocide. The obliteration of an entire village and its inhabitants, say a Kurdish village in Anatolia or a Palestinian village in Israel, is not genocide….horrific as it might be. It is a case of ethnic cleansing, for sure, but not genocide. This upsets and offends Armenians on both ends of the spectrum, because we feel deep sympathies for those who are subjected to any such treatment, but we feel sorry for ourselves for seeing our own tragedy treated so shabbily, with conscious maliciousness by those who have a avery clear agenda that does not include Armenians, their thoughts or their feelings.
Bravo Karekin. Very well said. Genocide and massacre are not interchangeable terms or interchangeable tragedies. They are not the same thing. Genocide is the extreme of man’s inhumanity to man, a category unto itself, and a crime that demands a just response; not just for the victims, but for the benefit of humanity as a whole. The idea that a people could be virtually wiped from their homeland and that the guilty not be made to pay for this crime for almost 100 years, should make every human being shudder. Further, in the case of the Turks, the guilty nation is permitted to obfuscate the facts and blame the victims, and garner support of would-be scholars who can’t discern fact from denialist fiction.
“On top of this, Armenians are subjected, almost on a daily basis these days, of seeing the word genocide tossed around like a ball…and there are plenty of clueless characters who are very willing to catch and play ball. ”
Seen almost daily on these very pages…
Ragnar you write: ” About my being enigmatic I dont know what to say. I am the kind of person who agree in some but not in all. I guess I am very average in this. I dont join any party uncriticaly. But I insist on dialogue with people whose fate I lecture on and write about. Most do not care about this, but I think it is necessary. So I am still here”
Your critical eye and desire for dialogue are not what make you enigmatic. Rather, the fact that you are seemingly so well read on the subject of this crime, but so easily fall into the role of the Apologist for Turkey, is quite puzzling. Perhaps infuriating is a better word.
Perfect…
A word to the wise and the wiseacres: William A. Schabas, who is the most cautious and conservative of genocide scholars in applying the word genocide, who rules out a number of atrocities that others readily call genocide, including Cambodia, says on page 235 of his masterwork, “Genocide In International Law”, that the three ‘classic’ cases of genocide were those of the Armenians, the Jews, the Tutsis. Trying to remove the Armenian Genocide from that list makes a mockery of the whole concept of genocide, which is precisely the goal of Halacoglu and “The Turkish Historical Society” and the mediocre western “scholars” who echo their line.
very interesting about Cambodia:
I always thought illogical that Cambodia was called a ‘genocide’.
How is it possible for a given ethnos to commit genocide against itself ?
Never made sense to me.
George,
You write: I think you misinterpret definition of genocide! You are leveling very well planned governmental mass killing program of Armenians with episodic killings of Turks. Where is your logic? Comment: I dont level if I understand you correctly. For instance I wrote on February 19: I believe all parties appeared both in the role of victim and perpetrators in this terrible catastrophy, but of course these killings, if they really took place, came after the considerably bigger mass killings of Armenians in 1915-16.unquote. In this sense I do not level. Possibly you are right, but you would have to be more specific in your criticism for me to understand it. — you write: Armenian Genocide is proved by many scholars. Comment: many scholars disagree. Anyhow I never said “No genocide was committed against Armenians”. You write: Whatever you are telling about mass killings of Turks….”. Comment: I simply related scholarly sources, like Walker and Holquist and contemporary sources like Nogales.. If you look back to my posts you will see that I even started to doubt what I earlier believed because of what VTiger and Avery said. Look to my earlier posts! And you try to teach me to be logical….
Boyajian:
You write: Perhaps objectivity is an unrealistic expectation when the impact of the genocide is still ongoing. Comment: Yes and no. Yes, as Peroomian in her article “Problematic aspects of reading Genocide literature” shows how Armenian writers of the 20-ies and 30-ies search for a way to describe the undescribable, and very often themselves conceded that is was impossible, even that atempting to write “objectively” was a kind of sacrilege. This is very understandable and of course I do not take this as any deficiency in this Armenian literature. But then they still attempted to do it, and there are people who kept diaries, like Perouz tells us. And Yervant Odian in his “Accursed Years” succeeds to my mind in providing a graphic representation of a mad and horrible situation. So I think it still is possible. But the important thing in our debate is that Armenians often have recourse to research, like George here. And Perouz, along with her horrifying descriptions of the scenes of the genocide, still mentions documentation in the form of a diary as part of the Armenian communication to us. So these participants position themselves in the research and “objective” tradition. They write what they saw, heard and experienced. What I have problems with is the recourse to expressions of outrage and trauma when assertions of fact and explanations are med with counterargument. You cant have your cake and eat it.
George, you write:
“both Turks and Armenians have problems in relating objectively to this history”
Please define the problems of Armenians in objectively relating to history? Unquote. Comment: this is a very sweeping statement of mine, of course I do not mean all Armenians. It is also a very big theme. I will only give one example: Karekin who writes here, sometimes reminds other Armenians that the Ottoman period was not only bad for Armenians, but he quite often meet anger, opprobria and rejection even if what he says is obviously true. As Libaridian says the shadow of the Genocide is too encompassing, too much the gcontext and backround for interpretation of all prior events. And some Armenians here in AW see the Turks as genocidal and bad from the time they left Central Asia, which obviouisly is exaggerated. Well, these are some examples.
Finally: The irony of this discussion is that it started when I expressed my outrage at how the University of Erzurum handled the theme of “Armeno-Turkish relations” and at the racist plaque at Cinis.
Ragnar Naess: “Armenian Genocide is proved by many scholars. Comment: many scholars disagree.” Many scholars disagree that Holocaust existed, as well as massacres in Srebrenitca were genocidal acts. So what? Should we discuss it? Many scholars doing research for money. You’ll pay for “research” – they will provide it with the report YOU REQUIRE.
In fact you can take any well known subject, for instance III Law of Thermodynamics, and burn half a billion dollars in one year to prove it and come up with conclusion: more research has to be conducted!
Ragnar what you are doing is just playing with words “i never said Armenian Genocide didn’t exist”, “more research has to be provided”, “I feel your pain”, “mass killings has to be proved… if ever took play” etc. As a scholar you should know that research process could be endless if you want it to be such, but the fact is staying a fact – millions of Armenians were exterminated and swiped off their motherland.
Without playing with numbers you should admit extermination happened! If not there nothing to talk about with you.
Than secondly if 2 million of ARMENIANS were killed, does it falls under category of genocide or not (for the reference specific group of people( hence geno) and was killed( cide)). Without being “politically correct” and playing a peace maker between turks and armenians – what is a definition of such an act?!
Than after that we can categorize episodic killings of Turks by Armenians, if happened at all.
Sorry, I got one sentence put in the wrong place. The sentence “They write what they saw, heard and experienced” of course refers to those Armenians who tried to be the objective chroniclers of the experiences. it does not refer to the participants at AW.
This article should have special page in Armenian weekly …educated person Faiz el-Ghusain from Important Arab family …I read the Arabic version now is translated to many languages…Let who denies read …And pray and pledge for god to forgive him, if he believes in any god …other wise he is godless…!!!
Please don’t remove my letter…
Arab Eyewitness Fâ’iz el-Ghusein of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923.
Descended from the powerful tribe of Sulut in the Hauran district of Syria, Fâ’iz el-Ghusein was a prominent Arab lawyer. He was the Governor of the Harpoot (Kharberd) Province for three and half years. In 1915, on the way to Erzerum, he was arrested by Turkish authorities without any cause, and spent one month in a Diyarbekir prison. As part of his probation, he stayed on in Diyarbekir for approximately 7 more months and was eyewitness to the atrocities committed by Turks against the exiled Armenians from Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, Kharberd and other towns. Later, Fâ’iz el-Ghusein presented his testimonies in a book entitled “Massacres in Armenia”, published first in 1916 in its original Arabic. Later due to popularity and demand, the book was translated to French and English, “Temoignage d’un Arabe musulman sur l’innocene et le massacres des Armeniens”, and “Martyred Armenia”, respectively.
…”After great ordeals, during which I often saw death and slaughter, I reached Basra, and conceived the idea of publishing this book as a service to the cause of truth and of a people oppressed by the Turks, and also, as I have also stated in my conclusion, to defend the faith of Islam against the charge of fanaticism which will undoubtedly be brought against by Europeans, May God guide us in the right way”…
… “In the evening we arrived at Kara Jevren and slept there till morning. At sunrise we went on towards Sivrek, and halfway down the road we saw a terrible sight. Corpses were lying in great numbers on both sides of the road; here we saw a woman outstretched on the ground, her body half veiled by her long hair; there, women lying on their faces, the dried blood blackening their delicate forms; I saw the corpses of men, parched to the semblance of charcoal. As we approached Sivrek, we were deluged by the number corpses, mostly children’s bodies.”…
…”I observed that the crosses had been removed from the lofty steeples of the churches, which were now used as storehouses and markets for the keeping and sale of the effects of the dead”…
…”At Moush, Armenians were killed in straw-barns, but even a greater number by shooting or stabbing with knives. The government hired butchers who received a Turkish pound each day as wages.”…
…”the gendarmes had divided the Armenians into parties of ten, and had sent them up to the butchers one by one. The butcher told an Armenian man to stretch out his neck; he did so, and was slaughtered like a sheep. The doctor was amazed at their steadfastness in the presence of death, not saying a word, or showing any sign of fear.”…
…”The gendarmes used to bind the women and children and throw them down from very lofty heights, so that they reached the ground shattered to pieces. This place was between Diarbekir and Mardin, and the bones of the slain are there in heaps to this day”…
http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/eye_witnesses2.php
Diran
this is what Schabas wrote in 2009. Read his article “Crimes against Humanity as a paradigm for International Atrocity Crimes”. Middle East Critique, 20-3, Autumn 2011, p.255. I quote:
Use of the label ‘genocide’ to describe the suffering visited upon the Armenians in 1915 remains a matter of controversy. unquote.
He phrazes his conclusion of the article in the following way:
“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.
He changed his mind after discussing the matter with Turkish historians, I believe. There is a photo of him with Kemal Cicek.
Boyajian
I am not acting as an apologist for Turkey, to my mind. But as you know, you regard something as true and proved which I judge to be open to reasonable doubt, that is the intent of the central ittihadists. But more research may find the truth about the intent. So I do not agree with Schabas. I am quite surprised about his new stand and the reason he gives.
Diran
Sorry, what I meant to say was that “your citation is what Schabas said in 2009″
Karekin
Well, I discuss with you Armenians and listen to Armenians for the exact reason you mention: the victims should be consulted. And I learn. But this is not the same as agreeing with Armenians – as descendants of victims of crimes – in all aspects. – Regarding the Genocide Convention and the criteria of the phrase “in whole or in part” and the literature on the “in part” clause, I believe you are right.The part has to be a “considerable part”. But read the verdict against Krstic regarding Srebrenica and you see that quite small percentages killed of a group may according to the ICTY qualify as genocide. They also adduce some other reasonings to meet the criteria for genocide in spite of 7.000 being a small fraction of the Bosnian Muslims.
Perouz, we have not spoken together before, so some initial accomodation is needed. If you say that you do not care about what I feel about our communucation situation here, maybe we should not communicate. Needless to say: I never feel your pain realistically speaking, only methaphorically. It means to empathise. If you talk about “a book that proves…” or “ample scholarly works support…”, these kind of expressions boil down to the whether there is general scholarly support for a thesis. About the general scholarly support for the genocide thesis regarding the mass killings of Armenians and uprooting them and destroying their cultural monuments, look at the Schabas citation I provided.
Please learn new things from Arabic news papers…From recent news papers about Ottoman-Turks…Which i never new before now they are releasing every thing…despite Turkish embassies send them warnings not to write…!!!
The famous writer Ahmad Al Saraf wrote in Al Qabas Kuwaiti News paper …Bosnian were all Christian the Turks forced them to change their religion…under scimitars the article was published just few days ago …
You can open the Al Qabas and read…See how many writers are against the Turks
They have never forgotten their “Kazooks”…Even they use to rape Arabian girls as a revenge and leave them pregnant…when they entered Arabia…
After Turks left in 1918…Their parents accepted their children because they said, it was not their mistake…!!!
You just know realized Turks made Bosnians Muslims? And clearly after the big bad Turk left Arabia there has been nothinbut peace, love, coexistence, and tolerance., right? It’s not like they’ve been killing each other or subjugating their own people to living under monarchies much more inhumane than the Ottoman Empire.
Such ignorance! Bosnians are Slavs. They were a Christian sect that was severely discriminated by the Catholic Church. Many such groups in Europe have gone extinct by the way, victims of real genocides. When Ottomans conquered that part of Europe, these people converted en mass and seeked protection from Sultan. There was the added benefit of no taxes! Ottomans are not known to force conversion contrary to common myth. You would all be praying towards Mecca five times a day otherwise.
Mr. Naess: In the article you refer to, there is no sign that William Schabas has retracted his view that the genocide of the Armenians was one of the 3 ‘classic’ genocides of the 20th century. It is furthermore preposterous and frivolous to believe that he would have done so within a mere 4 years of writing his magnum opus on genocide, which is now an international textbook on the subject. And to say that he had changed his view on such a fundamental point of scholarship “after discussing the matter with Turkish historians” and having his picture taken with Cicek is profoundly demeaning to him as well as unduly exaggerating the persuasive powers of certain Turkish representatives.
His purpose, in this narrow academic forum, was diplomatically to suggest a basis for dialogue between Armenians and Turks, given a situation in which Turkey finds it hard to “admit to genocide”. The term “admit to” conveys the presumption of Turkey’s responsibility for the genocide and is totally consistent with what he says on page 235 of “Genocide In International Law”.
Diran,
I agree that Schabas doesnt retract what he earlier has said about the Armenian genocide. What he does is much more ambiguous. He suggests to subordinate the truth about what happened to a strategy of reconciliation based on what is harder to admit versus what is not so hard to admit. What kind if morality is this?
I see you as confused, and clinging to an old truth in a landscape of debate which by now is obviously undergoing an important change. Important players are deciding to subrodinate the quest for truth to a quest for compromise. Note that I disagree with him. But I believe you should make a crearer choice between your commitment to Schabas and your commitment to a truth you believe in.
Correction: In my previous post (Mar. 8th), instead of saying “a mere 4 years since writing his magnum opus” I should have said “within a mere 4 years of publication of the 2nd edition of his magnum opus on genocide”.
Diran, unpleasant as it may be to say so, I think Ragnar Naess is correct in his reading of Schabas’ article: “subordinating the quest for truth to a quest for compromise.” Schabas is playing some sort of “have it both ways” game.
Ragnar – you make an issue of Armenians ‘adopting’ the word genocide in the 1940s, but let’s face it, this is, once again, a false measure. It is not unlike saying that because Galileo or Sir Issac Newton ‘discovered’ gravity in the 16th/17th C., it did not exist prior to that time. Of course it did and in a similar way, genocide existed before Lemkin, he just applied a word and a measurement for describing it succinctly. That’s all. And, most amazingly, just like gravity, it applies retroactively, because if the theory is correct now and into the future, it also must apply to the past. That’s a scientific application, if you want one. So, please spare us the nonsense and endless mumbo jumbo in an effort to defend criminal behavior by the CUP, who by the way, only sought to emulate the essence of the Spanish inquisition, because imitation of success is the sincerest form of flattery.
Yes, speaking of the Spanish Inquisition, when will the Spanish and Church be asked to come clean and pay for their sins in past centuries? What about how they destroyed magnificent civilizations in Americas? Where are the courts? Then I want to bring up the crimes of Romans.
You Muslim Turks start first.
Christianity is 600 years older that Islam.
Christians did not invade the birthplace of Islam in Arabia and attempt to forcibly convert the locals to Christianity.
Muslims left their point of origin and invaded non-Christian and Christian countries, forcibly converting on the way.
Avery, is this Genocide denier on the Turk payroll? Do I have him confused with another denier? I thought he said he taught. Where does he get the time to follow AW posts in such depth? Doesn’t he have mid-terms to mark? Isn’t he preparing finals? Where does he get the time for so much “empathy.”
This example of how the pain of Holocaust is felt by some deniers was in the March 6 Washington Times. I’m not clear if they are all Turks.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/6/muslim-turkish-teens-jews-hitler-should-have-kille/
Sylva; I thank you very much for alerting us to Martyred Armenia.. I have just requested it from my university library and am looking forward to receiving it shortly. I am very grateful to you for bringing this book to my attention.
The link you have sent to the Genocide Museum has regularly changing pages and is so informative and valuable that I have it at the top of my favorites bar. It is worth a trip to Armenia just to spend the day at this museum, and then, knowing that you still did not see everything, to go back again. Thanks for posting this valuable information.
Karekin
I am not sure we disagree so much regarding what you write about in your last mail. you write: Ragnar – you make an issue of Armenians ‘adopting’ the word genocide in the 1940s, but let’s face it, this is, once again, a false measure. It is not unlike saying that because Galileo or Sir Issac Newton ‘discovered’ gravity in the 16th/17th C., it did not exist prior to that time.unquote—comment: I believe these are two different issues. Of course you may use a new name, coined by Lemkin in 1943, to describe a kind of happening we have seen since time immemorial: not only massacring many people belonging to a given ethnicity, but massacring with the intent of destroying the group as such. One might also give a new name to the law of gravity and still say that it denotes the same phenomenon as earlier. No contradiction here. So “to adopt the name” does not presuppose anything about the question of whether the phenomenon existed earlier or not, these are different questions.—- You write: Of course it did and in a similar way, genocide existed before Lemkin, he just applied a word and a measurement for describing it succinctly. comment: I agree and I did not mean anything more than that the Armenians adopted the word coined by lemkin. Of course I agree that the phenomenon existed earlier. But retroactivity in the juridical sense of a law being used to PUNISH an offence committed before the passing of the law is another matter. Some jurists say the Genocide Convention can be used in this way, some that it cannot. And the question of the intentions of the CUP is a third theme, separate, to my mind.
perouz,
I teach only once a year. And it does not take me so much time to write here in AW.
Mr. Naess: As you correctly observe, Schabas has not retracted what he says in his book about the genocide of the Armenians. It remains one of the three classic cases of genocide in the 20th century. He could not retract that without rewriting his whole book.
His suggestion in Middle East Critique is that in order to pursue the issues between Turkey and Armenians as a legal matter it might be more fruitful to establish a narrative based on crimes against humanity. Schabas’s morality has nothing to do with it. To suggest so is, at best, an unwarranted provocation.
Ultimately, Armenians themselves must decide how to proceed, not social scientists. The fact that you have trained an optical telescope on an article in an obscure theoretical journal to make your point only shows how desperate you and your allies are to overthrow the scholarly consensus on the genocide of the Armenians, a prime example of which is expressed on page 235 of Schabas’s book.
Furthermore, you have the nerve to call me confused when it is you who has produced a fog of indecisive,vacillating verbiage sufficient to bury an entire continent and because you know I will reject your thesis of “new players who subordinate the truth”. Among these “new players”, you try to enlist William A. Schabas to join ranks with yourself, Cicek, Halacoglu, Gauin and other skillful and well-intentioned subordinators of truth. But at least you agree now that there is a truth to be subordinated, the genocide of the Armenians, and I consider that a remarkable step forward on your part.
Perouz:
Very interesting link: let us see what the twin denialist Turcophiles say about that. And it is not a fluke: there are very strong anti-Jewish undercurrents in Turkey.
Read this:
[Mein Kampf sales soar in Turkey]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/mar/29/turkey.books
{Mein Kampf, the book Hitler wrote in prison before he rose to power in 1933, has become a bestseller in Turkey, provoking consternation. The dreams of creating a master race are being snapped up by young Turks.}
and this:
[Enjoy your New Young Turk]
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=enjoy-your-new-young-turk-2011-07-26
{ Unsurprisingly, 82 percent have a negative opinion of Christians while only 4 percent have a favorable opinion of Jews.}
Regarding Mr Naess being on Turk payroll: some of my compatriots think he is, but I highly doubt it. (although quite a few denialist Profs and researchers are in fact on Turkish payroll).
I think it is a lot simpler than that, explained below.
A while ago, one of us doing literary battle with him on the pages of AW, gave him the dis-honorary title ‘Prof’, because of his condescending attitude toward the “inbreeding” Armenian posters, and his endless lecturing to us gyavur children. From my recollection of his CV, he has never taught at an educational institution. (he used to post his CV online somewhere).
He has a Mag.Art degree. If I remember correctly, in Philosophy.
Mag.Art degree is considered equivalent to our Ph.D.
[In Denmark and Norway, the Magister's degree was an advanced research degree, corresponding to the PhD in the Anglo-Saxon system and often translated as a PhD in an English language context. The Magister's degree became increasingly rare from the 1970s, and as a result of Denmark and Norway implementing the Bologna Process, it has now been completely abolished and replaced by PhD degrees.] (from Wiki)
He speaks several languages, including Turkish.
So what motivates him to spend long hours writing posts @AW ? No idea, but can guess.
He is on record professing love and infatuation for Turkey: his words ‘love’ and ‘infatuation’. Let that sink in for a while.
He is something like 70 years old: lots of time; not much else to do.
What motivates him is probably what motivates us: in his mind, he is presumably ‘protecting’ his beloved Turkey from us, Armenians.
All the bunk about ‘dialogue’, ‘discussion’, ‘debate’ is nothing more than Lutefisk (a malodorous Nordic fish dish). Emphasis on malodorous.
One of our compatriots, Mr. Palandjian, who I believe is around 80, is a frequent posters @AW and also writes at many other places. He has the time and motivation. I doubt anyone is paying him to do it.
I am not retired, have a lot of others things to do, but try to find the time to engage the Anti-Armenian denialist disinformation info-warriors. Same as our other compatriots. Least we can do.
If one is motivated, one can usually find the time.
Avery,similar to you I’m not retired & always find the time to read,research & engage the anti-Armenian denialist disinformation.
Now Ragnar has gone silent about the former head of Turkish Historical Society the infamous Genocide denialist Halacoglu being an independent expert for investigating Armenian mass graves.I’ve sent him 3 reminders.Probably he’s in the process of thinking of a way out.Let’s see what he’ll come out with.If he wants us to consider him as a ‘neutral’ Norwegian commentator then he has to clarify his comment of “mass graves found should be investigated by independent experts like Halacoglu and David Gaunt”.
If & only if my fate was different & I did not have the burden of claiming justice for Genocide,I would have engaged my time & worked for charities of the world & specially the charities for children.Instead of ‘protecting’ his beloved Turkey he could satisfy his conscience by working for other much better plausible causes.
@Avery In a way I get the impression that you try to protect Naess and the people behind him. Why don´t you ask for his Armenian contacts? Do you fear that important ARF members are in close contact with him? He is not alone.
Dikran:
your irrational post deserves no further comment from me.
(yeah, sure, I am protecting Ragnar Naess)
Silva;
My library has just sent me this site. Martyred Armenia is available free to everyone. Thank you so much for alerting us to it.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19986/19986-h/19986-h.htm
[Armenia Police give flowers to female drivers on women’s day]
http://news.am/eng/news/143605.html
[Women should be beaten slightly]
http://news.am/eng/news/143709.html
{Mehmet Demirer, the head of the Kirikkale Provincial Office of Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP)}
{“You have received women as a gift from God. You have rights toward women, and they, toward you. If they do something without your permission, you may scare them by beating them lightly,” Demirer wrote.}
In the year of our Lord 2013.
Why would’t everyone be infatuated with Turkey ? Beats me.
Avery; thanks for the background info on the denialist. For an Armenian to spend a great deal of time on behalf of the Cause is completely understandable and laudable. We need more people to be willing to help keep the Armenian Genocide in constant discussion. We do it for our butchered families. We want the criminals brought to justice and held accountable. But for a Danish denialist to spend so much time in support of Turks indeed smells very “fishy.”
It would be interesting to know how and why he came about this “love and infatuation.” I wonder if it started in the same way as the Holocaust denying boys in the link I sent who are so filled with hatred toward Jews. What does he love about Turkey? Does he love knowing that hundreds are imprisoned without even being charged with anything? Does he love it that pilgrims who go to their villages simply to mourn are followed mile after mile by Turk police? Does he love the open oppression of minorities? Is he infatuated with article 301? Or maybe his heart beats faster with love and infatuation when he recalls that Turkish scholars were not permitted to hold a conference discussing the big G word – Genocide. Is he overcome with love and joy when he sees Armenian monastery ruins or the deplorable condition of the Sophia Hagyia with its blackened walls and broken columns lying in the courtyard? I wonder if it’s a woman who has dumped him that has led to this love and infatuation with Turkey. But then, it could simply be arrogance. He thinks his judgment is superior to that of the International Association of Genocide Scholars or the more than 20 countries that acknowledge the Genocide of Armenians.
Ragner all this just to avoid the just compensation for the Armenians of the lands and the wealth stolen by Turks that was used to create modern day Turkey.
The whole purpose of the genocide was theft.
Tell us, what history do the 1/2 million Pontiff Greeks and the nearly 1 million Assyrians needs to face? Did they kill Turks too? Where is their money and lands?
Lets be clear: There is no statute of limitations on mass murder..
but Diran,
first: I apologize for calling you confused. but of you look at the style of some of the participants here, it is easy to resort to the same kind of language. You wrote that I shed “Crocodile tears” when II expressed my indignation at how the organisers at Erzurum handled the “Armenian-Turkish” realtions. now, that was not very nice, was it?
to “suggest” that crime against humanity is “better” to use in court than “genocide” because it will be easier for Turks to admit, is a very peculiar reasoning for a former president of the IAGS, I feel. This change removes the “with intent to destroy…”. Why somebody would suggest such a change is of course an important question, påarticularly when it comes from one of the leading experts in international law. Now he says something in the same article which may explain this, and I will cite:
“In discussions about the attempted destruction of the European Jews, ‘deniers’ are nothing more than articulate anti-Semites armed with footnotes. Their stock in trade is a challenge to historical facts that are unquestionable and of common knowledge. 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.”(p.256)
I draw your attention to the last sentence. It seems here that Schabas is commenting on debating style which implies attacking people who in the main agree on facts but is hesitant about using the term “genocide”. I woill stop here, but what Schabas here says – and other points her makes – are to my mind interesting.
can it be article 285 or 288 that keeps a Genocide denialist “infatuated” and in “love” with Turkey?
http://www.pressout.net/turkey-worlds-biggest-prison-for-media/
well Perouz, let’s ask the man.
Mr. Rangar Naess:
why are you infatuated with and in love with Turkey ?
please tell us.
VTiger,
I agree that it is difficult to talk about “independent researchers” in this situation. but I read quite a lot on the attempted collaboration between Halacolgu and Gaunt, and if the investigation had been done as proposed by Gaunt it would have been very valuable. but according to my informations he was prevented from playong any independent role. the skeletons found in the caves were removed by somebody, probably the jandarma at the initiative of some other agency. But needless to say I never agreed with Halacolgu, but i believe he expressed his own convictions. This is a starting point if you want to deal with anybody
Ragnar, you wrote ‘Halacoglu as independent expert’ & not ‘independent researcher’.
” the skeletons found in the caves were removed by somebody,”
Removed by somebody?Who else other then the Turkish government?
Why would anybody be surprised by the Turks removing the skeletons of my massacred ancestors when on a daily basis they are in the process of Genocide denial?
Can you see now what they are doing & what they have done?
Mr. Naess: By “crocodile tears” I was not focusing on your concerns about Erzerum but your entire approach: representing yourself as a quite sensitive and compassionate gentleman, while consistently insinuating that the “genocide label” was unjustified for reasons that only you knew about but never quite spelled out. There were no reasons, none you were willing to state and defend. That was just your way of denying genocide.
But now that has changed! You have finally admitted that 1915 was indeed a genocide but now hold that it is a truth that should be subordinated to some presumably higher purpose as defined by “new players” who have suddenly appeared on the horizon. (One can only guess where they had been hiding all that time.)
On the meaning of Schabas’s last sentence which you claim to understand, maybe the following quotation from the IAGS letter to Erdogan in 2009 offers a hint, especially the LAST SENTENCE:
Outside of your government, there is no doubt about the facts of the Armenian Genocide, therefore our concern is that your demand for a historical commission is political sleight of hand designed to deny those facts. Turkey has, in fact, shown no willingness to accept impartial judgments made by outside
commissions. Five years ago, the Turkish members of the Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission pulled out of the commission after the arbitrator, the International Center for Transitional Justice, rendered an assessment that the events of 1915 were genocide.
avery
about infatuation I believe it was a remark I made in my presentation in Salt Lake City in 2010. I said I WAS infatuated with Turkey but that the infatuation was gone and that one must also criticise one’s friends. This I do, even people who invite me for their conferences.
Diran
I usually refer people to earlier debates in the AW when people ask about this but I will make a short version can enlarge on any of the points.
First, many researchers disagree that the label “genocide”is correct to apply to what happened to the Armenians in 1915-16, so it should not surprise you if you meet one
Second, there are many usages of the word “genocide” so I always want to clarify the usage if I discuss with someone, we must know that we use the word in the same way. For some usages I would say yes, it was genocide, for some no and for some maybe
Third, if “a program for the general extermination of the Armenians” is meant when we speak of an Armenian Genocide, then I am not certain for the following reasons: 1. Some 300.000 Armenians were exempted from deportation. This does not make sense if it was a plan for general etermination.2. Many died because they were deported marching, but in the West they were sent on railroads, this does not make sense if the intent was to kill them. 3. There was an enormous mortality among people the CUP wanted to keep alive, for instance soldiers. Armenian mortality might be caused by the same factors. 4. There are informations that more than 1000 people were punished at the time for atrocities against Armenian deportees . 5. The alleged direct proofs (e.g. the Andonian papers) have been suspected of being frauds, and historians stopped referring to them.6. There are too many telegrams from Talat insisting on protecting and feeding the deportees, and asking for punishment. But it is held that this was just a make-believe. I really found no really convincing research in this. So I am not certain.
Fourth, if one means that it was genocide because Armenia would no doubt win a court case in the ICJ, one has to look at how the ICTY and the ICTR has handled cases of alleged genocide. One has to look at the Bosnia-Serbia trial and the report on Darfur. The wordings of the judges make me doubt whether Turkey(The CUP) would be found guilty.
Fifth. If the criteria of the ICTJ in 2002 were used , I would say Yes it was genocide. The central passage is the following: we believe that the most reasonable conclusion to draw from the various accounts of the Events is that at least some of the perpetrators of the Events knew that the consequence of their actions would be the destruction, in whole or in part, of the Armenians of eastern Anatolia, as such, or acted purposively towards this goal, and, therefore, possessed the requisite genocidal intent.unquote.
I believe it is correct that at least some of the perpetrators knew this, or intended to “kill all Armenians” .I have in mind those who massacred Armenians in certain places, cf. the horrible stories from south of Malatya and Erzincan, and along the Tigris south of Diyarbakir. I have little reason to doubt them.
Turkish leaders deported people and were not able to feed and defend them – if they wanted this, Armenian cultural monuments were destroyed, many of those who had blood on their hands went unpunished into the ranks of Atatürk, Armenian properties were not returned in spite of promises. A whole people more or less disapeared from their ancestral lands. Turkey has good reason to apologize for this
Ragnar:
evasive answer as usual. obfuscating as usual in the guise of ‘dialogue’.
we asked you “why”.
we didn’t ask whether or not you are still infatuated or still in love.
again, why were you infatuated with or in love with Turkey ?
and are you still in love ?
(infatuations don’t last, as you pointed out: but love can last a lifetime)
{“ Ottomans are not known to force conversion contrary to common myth. You would all be praying towards Mecca five times a day otherwise.”}, writes Denialist Murat above.
As I have written before, Denialitis plays tricks on one’s mind.
Denialist Murat states that AG is a myth created by Armenians.
Apparently the Siege of Vienna and Battle of Vienna are also myths.
[The Siege of Vienna in 1529 was the first attempt by the Ottoman Empire, led by Suleiman the Magnificent, to capture the city of Vienna, Austria. The siege signaled the pinnacle of the Ottoman Empire's power, the maximum extent of Ottoman expansion in central Europe, and was the result of a long-lasting rivalry with Europe. Thereafter, 150 years of bitter military tension and reciprocal attacks ensued, culminating in the Battle of Vienna in 1683, which marked the start of the Great Turkish War by European powers to remove the Ottoman presence. The Ottoman failure to capture Vienna in 1529 turned the tide against almost a century of unchecked conquest throughout eastern and central Europe,] (from Wiki)
Got that Murat ? To remove the cancerous Ottoman presence.
Yeah, had Christians not stopped the Ottoman invasion of Europe and stopped the forcible conversion to Islam, Europe would be mired in poverty like the rest of Islamic counties.
(yeah, Arab sheikdoms too: it is the Christian, technologically advanced West that created a need for oil, and buys the oil)
Go check the list of world’s top 10 or 15 economies: see how many Muslim countries you can find.
If it weren’t for Christian Europe and the Christian West, Turkey would be as advanced as Afghanistan.
If it weren’t for all the wealth that Christian subjects of Ottoman invaders created, and which Turks subsequently looted, most of Turkey would be mired in poverty and arrested development as its Eastern provinces are today.
Is it an accident that Turkey is most advanced and prosperous where it is geographically nearest to Christian Europe ?
Why is it that 50% of Turkey’s exports go to Christian EU, and not to the Organization of Islamic States countries ?
Why is it that Turkey has been practically begging for years to be allowed into a Christian club.
Christians are telling Muslim Turks to please go away, but they won’t take ‘No” for an answer.
How many Christian counties do you know that are begging to join a Muslim club ?
Why is it that several million Muslim Turks live in Christian Europe today ?
How many millions of Christians live in Muslim Turkey today ?
So pray towards Mecca five times a day that Christians do no disappear from this world, Muslim Murat.
Got a little racist there…
Well RVDV: you may be right.
But have told you about Murat before: he is a vile Denialist, who writes things like this: “….the so called Genocide is a myth created by defeated Armenians”. (yeah, murdered Armenian women, children and babies were defeated enemies).
and this: {“There was no denial of Dersim. Facts and figures are there. Maybe it was not highlighted and talked about, but it was hardly denied. In fact, the real stroy and facts can never be erased. Unlike the Armenian genocide myth, where the facts and figures are mostly manufactured. You see the difference?”} (@HDN, including the spelling error)
When someone hits me below the belt, I start kicking them in the n____s, and will continue hitting until they cry “Uncle”: I know no other way.
I hate to hurt the feelings of our reasonable, fair-minded Turkish guests such as you. But, you tell me how to respond to people like Murat who visit ArmenianWeekly and write this: {“One can not credibly argue against “fake” shamful acts, or manufactured history such as favored here on this site, as I have done without respecting all facts. “} (referring to AG).
And you have shown anger before towards some Turks who have denigrated or belittled Kurds and/or Alevis, haven’t you ?
I never claimed to be Mr Data.
I try not to respond to them anymore, but I give in every now and then. End of the day, all that happens is that you get ticked off while they continue to live in a fantasy land of no AG, mountain Turks, and unicorns. He is right about one point. The facts will remain the facts, and the myths and lies will remain myths and lies. It’s why I don’t comment on Turkish websites. No point. You can’t use facts against these people, because it’s all an anti-Turkish western conspiracy… and incidentally most of these people left Turkey and sought some sort of refuge- mainly economic- in the west that apparently hates their guts.
There is of course a need to clarify what I mean. Needless to say the crimes committed against the Armenians were colossal and the consequences catastrophic even if we say that the reasons for using the term “genocide” according to the meaning of the convention, are doubtful. I’d like to clarify, if what is asked for is clarification. But if you want to reject my ideas without discussion, I am less tempted to clarify.
Only one point regardging 3.3.: To march people on foot without providing enough food and security appears as an effective way of indirectly killing large number of people and at the same time disguising this killing as deaths resulting from the general conditions. The railway also was needed for military purposes. So for me it is really a paradox that CUP used the railways in Western Anatolia.
Avery
good that you dont leave your energetic approach…. I first met Turks in Norway where the great majority were honest, hardworking and hospitable, nice people. In Turkey, it was a fascination to get to know these people and the land. Hence infatuation. My acquaintances in the villages were nice people. My moral condemnation because of the knowledge of the Armenian Genocide was at first – what should I say? – weakened because I was shocked to learn that so much similar happened to the Turks through the shrinking of the Empire 1821-1922. Ordinary civilians killed and expelled in millions. And the Powers didnt care then and in the West nobody knows now. this is not just. But the bottom line is that the Turks choose to forget and repress these memories, and the Armenians demanded recognition and reparations and border revisions for decades. Today I emphasize the bottom line, not the full context.The Turks must deliver. But I have little patience with ideas that “the life in the Ottoman empire was always a catastrophy for the Armenians” or “the Turks were bad from the moment they left the Upper Yenisei”
I’d like to add: my understanding of the issue of 1915 was deepened by my dialogues in the AW. I realized how the trauma is perpetuated and Turkish attiudes are in the main recalcitrant and denying.
I very much appreciate this clear statement, Ragnar. Turkey unwisely perpetuates this trauma through its recalcitrance and denial. The way forward is really very simple. Turkey should deal courageously with its past and start on the path toward closing this tragic chapter of history.
The resolution to this tragedy is not in the dissection and reanalysis of details, but in an acknowledgment of the end result: The Armenians of the Ottoman Empire were unlawfully dispossessed of their homeland and over a million lost their lives through massacre and starvation, while the government that should have protected them expropriated their property and redistributed it to Turks and Kurds. Turkey directly benefited from the confiscated wealth of the Armenians and thus inherited the responsibility for the crimes of the Ottoman government—-whether or not you agree it was genocide.
Mr. Naess: You say, “A whole people more or less disappeared from their ancestral lands” [or "left" as Halacoglu put it in his book]. With that typically noncommittal statement you come as close to the truth as you are ever likely to get. Genocide is the only real explanation, but you still hem and haw. More fog, endless and cold. . . .
Avery; I have never heard of anyone teaching just once a year as he claims to, unless they are invited as a guest lecturer. Few universities will invite the same professor every year. They want different points of view, the presentation of the most current research. I have heard of a professor who has given a lecture in Turkey. They treated him like royalty because they liked his pro Turk position – not on Armenian Genocide. Free hotel, tours, meals, etc. I’ll have to see if he became “infatuated” and fell in “love” with Turkey. I remember that there was a denier on these pages who was offered free melon and shish kebab the next time he was in Istanbul. Do you remember if it was this one?
don’t remember Perouz. Sorry.
Ragnar:
{“…. I first met Turks in Norway where the great majority were honest, hardworking and hospitable, nice people. In Turkey, it was a fascination to get to know these people and the land.”}.
Thanks for some background on why you feel such affinity to Turks. Some.
Question: what exactly fascinated you about these people and the land ? their songs and dances ? their cuisine ? what exactly made Turks stand out in Norway in your eyes ?
Did it occur to you that the many things being presented to Europeans such as yourself as “Turkish” are not of Turkish origin at all, but were, shall we say in the spirit of ‘dialogue’ – “borrowed” from Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and other indigenous peoples, whom Turks’ predecessors forcibly subjugated and erased from Asia Minor, after “borrowing” their creations ?
Your explanation is somewhat strange and not convincing at all.
I will show you why it is strange that you formed your affinity to Turks, and only Turks, after encountering them in Norway.
Here is why (Immigration to Norway, origins, as of 2012):
1. Poland: 72,103
2. Sweden: 36,578
3. Pakistan: 32,737
4. Somalia: 29,395
5. Iraq: 28,935
6. Germany: 25,683
7. Lithuania: 23,941
8. Vietnam: 20,871
9. Denmark : 19,823
10. Iran: 17,913
11. Russia: 16,833
12. Turkey: 16,742
13. Philippines 16,431
14. Bosnia-Herzegovina 16,338
15. Thailand 14,398
Turks are way down there percentage wise. Why is it that you did not encounter Pakistanis or Somalis, for example ?
The probability is at least twice that of encountering Turks.
There is no doubt in my mind that Pakistanis and Somalis in Norway are honest, hardworking, hospitable, nice people.
I have never been to Norway, but immigrants I encounter in US from all over the world are by and large honest, hardworking, hospitable, nice people.
So again, what is it about Turks that so fascinates you ?
Why not Iranians ? There are just as many Iranians in Norway as Turks: Iran is a beautiful country with a rich, ancient civilization.
Why is it that you show so much empathy to Turks in the Balkans, but doggedly continue your counter-empathetic efforts on Turks’ behalf to deny the Armenian Genocide ?
Would you be so generous if Turks had invaded and devastated Norway ?
And it is also good you do not leave your energetically devious, denialist approach.
To wit:
{“ I was shocked to learn that so much similar happened to the Turks through the shrinking of the Empire 1821-1922. Ordinary civilians killed and expelled in millions. And the Powers didnt care then and in the West nobody knows now.”}
We have discussed the Turks in the Balkans, and how they ended up there from their origins in East and Central Asia.
We have discussed it ad nauseam.
Again: invaders exterminating the indigenous populations as a State policy of organized Genocide vs subjugated indigenous populations throwing off the yoke of foreign invaders.
Did Norwegians resist Nazi invaders: Yes or No.
Are members of Norwegian Resistance national heroes or is it the scum collaborator Vidkun Quisling: Yes or No.
Ragnar – considering that the devastating consequences and ultimate outcome of the CUP’s decision, and the refusal of subsequent Turkish governments to either condemn or refute their policies and actions, how is it that the word genocide would not apply? And, we haven’t even stepped into the realm of cultural genocide and the destruction of historic Armenian monuments all across Turkey – either by order or consent of successive governments. I still do not see any reason NOT to use the word, since it is the most accurate one that can be applied. As we’ve noted here before, the word is bandied about quite often today for crimes that do not approach anything close to what was perpetrated on the Armenians of Anatolia. Does this make sense? Not in the least. Let’s also be clear, this exclusivity and exceptionalist attitude regarding the holocaust must stop. It is used over and over again to denigrate and discount what happened to the Armenians, yet what took place in Anatolia – the destruction of an indigenous population – was much, much worse, not in terms of numbers, of course, but in terms of the level of cultural and ethnic destruction – it far exceeded the holocaust and provided a clear blueprint for the Germans.
…..And the Germans have provided the blueprint for how to apologize and redeem a nation after it has committed such heinous crimes
avery
excuse me but your long mail is a very strange one. I was one of the Norwegian sutdents who together with foreign workers started the Foreign Workers Association in 1971. I wolked then with all groups.I came to the Turks by accident in 1979 because their association was working very effectively at the time. And this is anyhow bullshit! Why should I necessarily start to work with the most populous group of immigrants? You have done better than this before, Avery. – Regarding the turkish experience of massacre and ethnic cleansing it also fulfills many of the criteria of genocide, and certainly those of the ICTJ The Greeks murdered 30.000 civilian turks in spring 1821, men women and children, and one of their popular songs sounded like this: Not a Turk shall remain in the Morea and not in the whole world.unquote. What is this called?
{“…. I first met Turks in Norway where the great majority were honest, hardworking and hospitable, nice people. In Turkey, it was a fascination to get to know these people and the land. Hence infatuation.”}
we asked you why you developed your love and infatuation for Turks.
the above quote is what you answered.
it is clearly an evasive answer, because statistically you should have encountered some other nationalities in Norway with 100% more probability than Turks. So you are hiding and obfuscating the real reasons for your professed love for Turks.
we have a saying out here in the West, USA: “If you cannot dazzle them with your brilliance, blind them with your b___s___.”
Your b____s___ will not blind me, because I always wear my b__s___ proof goggles when working with denialists. OSHA Regulations.
And your slip is showing, Sir: why don’t you also quote what Turks have said about and done to Greeks. Or your heart only bleeds for your beloved Turks ?
How about commenting on what Perouz wrote below about the pregnant Armenian woman ?
Do you accept what she wrote as true or you want to ‘debate’ and ‘discuss’ it ?
karekin,
look to my earlier post. What happened to the Armenians certainly was genocide according to the ICTJ criteria and possibly Armenia would also win a court case at the ICJ. but I am not sure, and this is my point.