Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
AyKurt
Shogun
Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Are Armenian dead more important than Turkish dead? Posted: 18-Apr-2005 at 17:35 |
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
Originally posted by AyKurt
Originally posted by Mixcoatl
Originally posted by Seko
You should talk. Russia helped instigate most of the problems in the Caucasus. |
Two things:
1.) Although Dark One is Russian, he is not "Russia". Russia is a country, not a person.
2.) So what? Referring to his ethnicity is little more than an ad hominem.
|
You as a moderator have a specific role to play in this forum. Dont let your prejudices affect your conduct.
|
That has nothing to do with prejudices, I was just pointing to logical
fallacies. Besides, usually I disagree with Dark One, so it would be
strange if I would support him out of prejudice.
|
By selectively pointing out logical fallacies, it can be interpreted as prejudice .
|
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
|
|
ArmenianSurvival
Chieftain
Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 18-Apr-2005 at 18:19 |
Originally posted by AyKurt
No, i think your just confused. The "Turks" have been quite consistent in saying it was a civil war. As for the "immigration", never heard that before, |
Actually many Turkish sources that i have read point out the fact that they tried to "relocate" the Armenian civilians for their own safety. There was no war waged on Armenia by the Ottoman Turks. I have seen Turkish government representatives on t.v. saying the same exact thing.
Your friend TheDiplomat even posted documents stating how the Turks were peacefully relocating the Armenians for their own safety. And you're saying it was civil war? Then you claim that Turks are consistent with their story. I think its clear to everyone that the argument is inconsistent.
|
Mass Murderers Agree: Gun Control Works!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Resistance
Քիչ ենք բայց Հայ ենք։
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 05:49 |
No we are saying there were murders but from both sides and not in a genocide level.
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 06:42 |
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
...What does that has to do with the topic?*
*not that it makes any sense anyway, it's not that the Ottomans never "assimilated" any other peoples... |
ASSIMILATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN WERE NEVER DONE BY ANY FORCE
OTTOMAN POLICY WERE ALWAYS TOLERANT TO EVERY ETHNICITY, RACE, AND RELIGION.
HERE IS THE POINT:
GREEKS, JEWS, ARMENIANS, ARABS... ALL WERE GLAD AND PROUD TO BE OTTOMAN. BUT THE FINNS NEVER ACCEPTED THE SWEDISH DYNASTY, ALSO THEIR UPRISE AGAINST SWEDEN WAS NEVER SUPPORTED/BOOSTED BY FOREIGN FACTIONS...
Edited by YAFES
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 10:45 |
Originally posted by YAFES
Originally posted by Styrbiorn
...What does that has to do with the topic?* *not that it makes any sense anyway, it's not that the Ottomans never "assimilated" any other peoples... |
ASSIMILATIONS IN THE OTTOMAN WERE NEVER DONE BY ANY FORCE
OTTOMAN POLICY WERE ALWAYS TOLERANT TO EVERY ETHNICITY, RACE, ANDRELIGION.
HERE IS THE POINT/P]
GREEKS, JEWS, ARMENIANS,ARABS... ALL WERE GLAD AND PROUD TO BE OTTOMAN. BUT THE FINNS NEVER ACCEPTED THE SWEDISH DYNASTY, ALSO THEIR UPRISE AGAINST SWEDEN WAS NEVER SUPPORTED/BOOSTED BY FOREIGN FACTIONS... |
I suggest you cut the caps before someone bans you.
It's quite clear what the Greeks and other Balkan peoples thought of being under Ottoman yoke, considering that they all rebelled and fought for their freedom.
Now for Finland. This has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic so I really shouldn't be bothered replying, since it's obvious you're not here for any serious discussion but only for nationalist mud-slinging. However I wouldn't want anyone to believe your misinformed rantings, so I'll bother anyway. The area that is now Finnish were integrated into Sweden with a combination of settlements (by the time of the start of the conquest, the coastal area already had a large Swedish population), armies and religion, quite similar to what happened in large parts of "Sweden proper". By the 16th century, the people of the Finnish provinces considered themselves, were considered, and were Swedish citizens (albeit with a funny language ). The most serious uprising in Finland was the Anjala mutiny, which was an attempt by a coalition of Finnish officers to bring down the king in order to save the fatherland - ie Sweden - from what they thought his destructive policies. The peasant rebellions were no different than those in the native Swedish provinces, that is, due to general discontentment with the current policies, and were never a struggle for independence. In fact, during the Swedish reign, there was no Finnish nationalism or independence ideas. This is completely irrelevant to the topic though, so if you want to continue on that line, start a new thread.
Edited by Styrbiorn
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 13:47 |
Styrbiorn;
I don't understand your aggressive attitude. I didn't insult you or any values about you.
So why was KALEVALA re-published in the begining of the century(great accordance with the uprising...must be coinsidence 
And why do still Finns present themselves as relative of Turks rather than brother of Scandinavians???
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 13:57 |
If I'm aggressive it's not on purpose. And I'm not the one using caps.
Kalevala was created and published about 25 years after Finland was taken by the Russians, or 60 years after the Anjala mutiny. It had absolutely nothing to do with that uprising (which was in 1788). Lnnrot's intention was to gather Finnish folklore and preserve it before it was lost, and create a common Finnish cultural heritage, then in the age of nationalism. It goes hand in hand with the famous quote "Swedes we can be no longer, Russians we are not, so let us be Finns!"
I don't want to speak for our eastern neightbours, but I've never heard any consider them relatives to the Turks, but they are kin to us, of culture, heritage and whatnot (even if some won't admit it, the knife-wielding bastards ).
edit: Wait: "beginning of the century"? What century? You confuse me here.
Edited by Styrbiorn
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 14:21 |
20th i meant
|
|
Styrbiorn
Caliph
Joined: 04-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2810
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 14:48 |
So the uprising you spoke of was the Civil War that followed the independence from Russia in 1917. Then I believe you have just misunderstood the situation a little.
|
|
AyKurt
Shogun
Joined: 24-Mar-2005
Location: Scotland
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 236
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 19:31 |
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival
Originally posted by AyKurt
No, i think your just confused. The "Turks" have been quite consistent in saying it was a civil war. As for the "immigration", never heard that before, |
Actually many Turkish sources that i have read point out the fact
that they tried to "relocate" the Armenian civilians for their own
safety. There was no war waged on Armenia by the Ottoman Turks. I have
seen Turkish government representatives on t.v. saying the same
exact thing.
Your friend TheDiplomat even posted documents stating how the Turks
were peacefully relocating the Armenians for their own safety. And
you're saying it was civil war? Then you claim that Turks are
consistent with their story. I think its clear to everyone that the
argument is inconsistent. |
There would be a number of factors as to why the Ottomans relocated the
Armenians from Eastern Anatolia, for their own safety would be one of
them.
A civil war is a war amongst the civilian population, neighbours
fighting neighbours. And after certain Armenians aided the
Russians in occupying Ottoman provinces as well as encouraging
Armenians to attack their non Armeninan neighbours in their failed
attempt at ethnic cleansing of the Turkish and Kurdish populations, the
feelings of injustice and retribution amongst the Turks and Kurds would
be so strong that it might not be the safetst thing to be an Armenian
there.
The relocation of the Armenians for their own safety is not inconsistant with the fact there was a civil war.
|
Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha
|
|
Artaxiad
Baron
Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 19-Apr-2005 at 20:15 |
Why do Turks always have to take a double standard? Sometimes you take the Kurds on your side, sometimes you don't...
Ethnic cleansing by Ottoman Armenians against Turks and Kurds could not and did not happen. If, as you Turks claim, they numbered less than 1.5 million (which they were not), how could they have killed so many Turks and Kurds as you claim (more than 500 000)? The Ottoman Turkish Empire obviously had better weaponry than Ottoman Armenian peasants. Even if Armenians got some help from outside, thehelp they got could never have been enough to stop the Turkish and Kurdish onslaught. Even though Turks were fighting elsewhere during WWI, Armenians were also busy fighting in the Ottoman Army (1908 onwards), so able Armenian men were busy fighting, or whatever work they had to do (which got harder and unbareable 1915 onwards). Note that the Armenian revolts stopped after the Young Turks came to power -- until the massacres in Adana happened.
In 1908, a new regime was imposed in the Ottoman Empire, the Young-Turk government took power through a revolution that was considered as bloodless.
In 1909, Armenians started manifesting in support to the new governments policies of more rights and freedom, provoking many Abdul Hamid loyalist and residual bureaucrats eager to maintain their jobs. They started organizing massacres, known as the twin massacres forming what is known as the massacres and the Adana holocaust(April 1/14-April 14/27, 1909). The Grand Vizier Hilmi Pasa scorned about those events: the reactionary, criminal scoundrels who were bent on massacring and plundering the Armenians through a surprise attack.
During the event, thousands of Armenians were locked in schools, hospitals and churches and burned en mass.
England, France, Italy, Austria, Russia, Germany and the United States had warships stationed at Adana's port city Marsin. They have witnessed Armenians burned in mass without intervening, leaving thousands and thousands to be consumed by fire.
The Ottoman government did send an Army, that was supposed to bring peace, by many in uniform were still supporter of the old regime, and if not left passive watching the crime perpetrated, even participated indirectly. Adana being one of the only places, where Armenians were not targeted in the 1894-1897 massacres, the new government profited a lot, by reducing the Armenian economical presence from the area.
Ottoman sources for the number of victims are around 15,000, while most Western sources estimates the Armenian losses to be from 20,000 to 30,000.
(from Wikipedia)
After these events, some Armenians lost their trust on the new government and constitution, which supposedly garanteed equalty among the multiethnic Ottoman population.
We can conclude that the only ones who were left to cause a civil war were the few men (the rest were sent to work camps) who were smart enough not to trust the Young Turks after the events in Adana, women, children, and the elderly. So tell me, would these peasants ever be able to even defend themselves in 1915, or even be able to do a good offensive and be capable to even massacre Eastern Anatolian muslims who had the advantage because they were present in good quantities in the Eastern Armenian provinces?
A bit about the Ottoman Armenian population: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_Population
Denialist claims are not even realistic. Nobody supports the Turkish claims by actively denying the genocide, other than Azerbaijan and Turkey itself.
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 09:31 |
You see we are not double crossing.We respect the good kurds that has lived peacefully for many centuries but we do not respect PKK.And many kurds does not also
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
Artaxiad
Baron
Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 10:14 |
Fine then, akinci. This is not the only case of ''double-crossing''. Sometimes, Turks are proud of the Ottoman Empire, and how it conquered ''the unconquerable city'', or how it was able to expand into Europe... But when the subject of Genocide comes, Turks say that the Ottoman Empire and Turkey are not the same, or that Turkey has changed...
That argument does not work either.
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 11:14 |
Aha there you see something is wrong.We are still discussing the genocide and you say that the genocide was commited on a government order.Now,the government that gave the order(on your claims)was diffrent from the history we are proud of.They are ittihak ve terakki and did not have the same goals as he people.And you can clearly see why we do not accept their actions because we are the ones that brought them down
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 11:15 |
so you see,it does work
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 11:17 |
And i don't see what this has to do with my(and many other's) veiw of PKK
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
Artaxiad
Baron
Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 11:22 |
Yes. Turkey is the accomplice of Ittihadist Turkey, because it hides the fact that Armenians once ruled over Eastern Anatolia, or that Armenians lived there in big quantities until 1915. Even the words ''Armenia'' or ''Armenian'' are not mentionned on this panel for touristic information in front of Ani, a ruined Armenian city.
Edited by Artaxiad
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 14:10 |
So???The have been ccupied by anoher nation for centuries!And turkey is not itihadis.Definatly not
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
aknc
Chieftain
Joined: 12-Mar-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1449
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 14:13 |
And i still don't see how this concerns the view of PKK
|
"I am the scourage of god appointed to chastise you,since no one knows the remedy for your iniquity exept me.You are wicked,but I am more wicked than you,so be silent!"
|
|
Artaxiad
Baron
Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 20-Apr-2005 at 14:45 |
So???The have been ccupied by anoher nation for centuries! |
Then why does that touristic information panel mention the ''Hurris'' (Hurians?), a now extinct people, and does not mention the Armenians which were still present in Eastern Anatolia in the beginning of the 20th century?
And i still don't see how this concerns the view of PKK |
Me neither... I only mentionned the Kurds, you were the one who mentionned the PKK.
Edited by Artaxiad
|
|