Are Armenian dead more important than Turkish dead?

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 .

No we are saying there were murders but from both sides and not in a genocide level.

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, AND�RELIGION. 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

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). L�nnrot'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

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.

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.

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.

so you see,it does work

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

And i still don't see how this concerns the view of PKK