Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
QuoteReplyTopic: Comparing Palestinian and Armenian causes Posted: 19-Aug-2005 at 03:59
Ok i started this thread because i wanted to discuss this issue without flooding the other thread. This is what was said:
Originally posted by mortaza
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival
The same forumers supporting Palestinian resistance groups
which kill Israelis, turn around and condemn Armenian fighters for
killing Turkish diplomats. I see no difference, they are both fighting
and doing something inhumane for the cause of their people. Both groups
are doing what they can, with what they have. But one is accepted, and
the other is cursed. Please give me a civil answer to this statement.
You can even PM me about this, lets not flood this thread.
Uh we are not supporting terrorists, we are supporting palestinians, I think this two is much different.
First off i would like to say im not here to start a thread where
people can come in and insult each other. I will keep my posts civil
and only raise civil questions and points. That being said, here are my
questions and thoughts:
Supporting Palestinian resistance means morally agreeing that
Palestinians do not have the means to wage a traditional war, and in
some cases must resort to terrorism to either defend their communities,
and more importantly, to get their cause noticed... and no one noticed
until some of them started blowing themselves up. This does not mean
supporting terrorism, it simply means accepting that the inhumane act of killing
civilians is a result of government oppression. I want to make that
very clear to everyone.
Lets say the Ottomans relocated Armenians, and that all of them
died by chance. The Ottomans gave the property of 'relocated' Armenians
to Turks and Kurds. Some Armenians still have their property rights to
the land, and some Armenians dont. The ones that dont have them is
because they are dead, and their deaths were caused by their relocation due to
insufficient supplies by the government.
The ones that still have their property rights were denied by the
Turkish government. No one supported the Armenian refugees, over 1.5
million in number.
Many of them died either by "genocide" or by "insufficient relocation".
They did not relocate
people
based on anything other than the fact that they were Armenian. That automatically makes the situation based on ethnicity.
So an entire ethnic population suffers by way of government order.
Palestinians are also an entire ethnic population suffering by way of
Israeli government order. They are "relocated" by the Israeli Army, and
their homes are occupied by Israelis, in the same way Armenians were
"relocated" and their homes were occupied by Turkish families. Some
Palestinians have resorted to terrorism as a result, in much the same
way Armenian militants used guerilla tactics against Turks, resulting in civilian death. My question: What
is the difference between
the two
struggles?
If you are supporting Palestinians and not their terrorists, why
dont you support Armenians and not their terrorists? I am pointing to
the economic blockade on Armenia by Turkey as one of these provisions
that is hindering our relationship as neighbors.
The blockade issue is automatically going to bring up the conflict in Karabagh. This raises another question:
If you support Palestinian defense of their lands from the Israeli
Army, why do you condemn Armenian defense of their lands from the Azeri
Army?
I have raised many points and would like to hear responses to all of them if possible.
their deaths were caused by their relocation due to insufficient supplies by the government.
Well, If you think This is a point for genocide, I should remind you 100 000 Turkish soldier died due to insufficient supplies by the government.
If you support Palestinian defense of their lands from the Israeli Army, why do you condemn Armenian defense of their lands from the Azeri Army?
If I am not wrong, before to war, Karabak is belong to azeris, and azeris accept a huge autonomy for armenians, am I wrong?
They did not relocate people based on anything other than the fact that they were Armenian. That automatically makes the situation based on ethnicity.
Again If I am not wrong,300 000-500 000 armenians didnt exiled. I remember Armenians exiled have a different religious sect than bolsohays and non-exiled armenians.
For Me, I dont support exile, and I think you have right, Survivers childs have right to take their land back.
While you may have some reason comparing the two cases, and pure
abstract justice would be done (in pure theory) with the retoration
that was stolen (but lifes can't be restored, sadly). The depressing
truth is that nowadays Palestinians would be content to have 1/3 of
their ancestral land, the so called occupied territories,
because they are the losing side and they have been forced to negotiate
in disadvantageous conditions. Even now Israel bargains with parts of
the West Bank and doesn't want to give back East Jerusalem.
Palestinians claim the return of the refugees but that's not something
that will happen most likely. They are in position of force and
therefore in fact
they can do it. A simmilar conclussion can be reached in the Armenian
case: Turkey has the pan by the handle and there are almost no
Armenians left in western Armenia, so they can force to keep the status
quo. Besides, while the Palestinian genocide is still fresh in our
collective psyche (it started in 1948 but some massacres happened in
recent years), the Armenian genocide happened almost a century ago -
it's almost as old as Wounded Knee. Anyhow, in order to effectively
claim something, eventually you must be there, not generation after
generation living in other countries. Yes, I know it was forced
exile... but still. That's also what gives some legitimacy to Israel:
that many of their people has been born and raised there.
I don't mean to justify anything, much less genocide... but reality
imposes its rules - even if they are against all justice. Nowadays to
reinstate Armenians in western Armenia, many Turk and Kurd dwellers,
most born there, would have to be displaced, so simply it's not
realistic (and would be unjust to those that were born there). Unless
you have the force of weapons and money: with that you can achieve
almost anything, like Israelis and Turks.
On Nagorno Karabakh, I think it should be the will of their inhabitants, naturally.
Well, If you think This is a point for genocide, I should remind you
100 000 Turkish soldier died due to insufficient supplies by the government.
Yes, so you know how oppressive the regime was. Again, we are not
blaming Turkish people, we are blaming the government. Republic of
Turkey did not reach out to the relocated Armenians of the Ottoman
Empire. Ataturk actually conquered land that the newly-formed Armenian
Republic had gained from international treaties.
And during relocation, Ottomans knew that they didnt have enough
supplies for Armenians. They didnt wake up one day and realize there were no
supplies, they knew how much they had and what they were using.
Lets try not to discuss the events of 1915 so much, but rather the comparison with the Palestinian struggle.
For the sake of the thread i referred to 1915 as "relocations". Although it was a strictly ethnic relocation.
Originally posted by Mortaza
If you support Palestinian defense of their lands from the
Israeli Army, why do you condemn Armenian defense of their lands from
the Azeri Army?
If I am not wrong, before to war, Karabak is belong to azeris, and
azeris accept a huge autonomy for armenians, am I wrong?
Before the Soviet Union took power, Karabagh was ethnically over 90%
Armenian. Stalin gave the regions of Karabagh and Naxichevan to
Azerbaijan, the same way Western powers gave Palestine to Israel.
Azerbaijan originally wanted to give Karabagh back to Armenia, but
Stalin ruled with an iron fist, and it was not their choice. Azeri
government moved Azeris into Karabagh, and the region became 75%
Armenian when the war broke out. Before the war, the province of
Karabagh voted to be part of the Armenian Republic, and the
overwhelming majority voted for separation from Azerbaijan. But the
Azeri Army responded by occupying the entire province, which sparked
the war. Thus it is very similar to the Palestinian struggle.
Originally posted by Mortaza
Again If I am not wrong,300 000-500 000 armenians didnt exiled. I
remember Armenians exiled have a different religious sect than
bolsohays and non-exiled armenians.
Even by your logic, relocating Armenians based on their religious sect is the same thing .
But even Armenian Catholics from Pontus were relocated. "Bolsahays" is
just a word which means "Armenian from Istanbul", it is not a religious
sect. But you are right, even Bolsahays were relocated.
Even after many years, the Turkish government continues to bury the
past of its Armenian inhabitants. Turkey's Ministry of Culture and
Tourism's official website has an entire article on Saint Gregory the
Illuminator, the man who converted Armenia into the world's first
Christian nation. However, their site does not mention ANYTHING about
Armenia! They have many Armenian churches on their list of historical
buildings, but they are not mentioned as "Armenian", it is usually
replaced with another adjective. It is the same on any official Turkish
Government website.
Armenian monuments throughout Turkey have been neglected and many of
them have collapsed. Ancient cities like Kars and Ani are not referred
to as "Armenian cities", which is what they were. Why has the
government of the Turkish Republic neglected the history
of its entire Eastern region? Is this a response to Armenian
accusations of genocide? Your thoughts.
Even by your logic, relocating Armenians based on their religious sect is the same thing . But even Armenian Catholics from Pontus were relocated. "Bolsahays" is just a word which means "Armenian from Istanbul", it is not a religious sect. But you are right, even Bolsahays were relocated.
I am not refusing exile is ethnic based, It is an ethnic cleansing with much death.
Yes, so you know how oppressive the regime was.
I agree with this too, and I remind you, young Turk's coup is supported largely by minorities. in Turkey, they are not loved much, and our feeling for them is still not fine.
Even after many years, the Turkish government continues to bury the past of its Armenian inhabitants. Turkey's Ministry of Culture and Tourism's official website has an entire article on Saint Gregory the Illuminator, the man who converted Armenia into the world's first Christian nation. However, their site does not mention ANYTHING about Armenia! It is the same on any official Turkish Government website. Armenian monuments throughout Turkey have been neglected and many of them have collapsed. Ancient cities like Kars and Ani are not referred to as "Armenian cities", which is what they were. Why has the government of the Turkish Republic neglected the history of its entire Eastern region? Is this a response to Armenian accusations of genocide? Your thoughts.
I think It is not response, It looks like Turkey is trying to turkify anatolia. we suffered for anatolia much, and we are trying to protect it, but I think we should change this politic. do Armenia make any wish related with this? I think Erdogan will not resist this type of wish.
Before the Soviet Union took power, Karabagh was ethnically over 90% Armenian. Stalin gave the regions of Karabagh and Naxichevan to Azerbaijan, the same way Western powers gave Palestine to Israel. Azerbaijan originally wanted to give Karabagh back to Armenia, but Stalin ruled with an iron fist, and it was not their choice. Azeri government moved Azeris into Karabagh, and the region became 75% Armenian when the war broke out. Before the war, the province of Karabagh voted to be part of the Armenian Republic, and the overwhelming majority voted for separation from Azerbaijan. But the Azeri Army responded by occupying the entire province, which sparked the war. Thus it is very similar to the Palestinian struggle.
For this, I dont say this ,We dont support division much.we cannot return past, we have minoritiees at bulgaria and greece, but our wish is not to annex that land but protect their cultural rights.I thing a huge autonomy is fine with karabak, maybe a con-federation, but they should rule their country by themself.But If I am not wrong, Armenia want to annex this land?
I agree with this too, and I remind you, young Turk's coup is supported largely by minorities.
Yes, because Young Turks promised equal rights for all minorities, and
Armenians wanted a new Ottoman government because Abdul-Hamid had
killed many Armenian civilians in 1895-1896, because they were pushing
for an independent Armenian Republic. The Turkish government nowadays
says that Abdul-Hamid did that because of Armenian terrorists, but
Abdul-Hamid killed over 100,000 Armenian civilians, it is written in
many international sources. Only the Turkish government denies the
massacres of 1895-1896, and claims that "whatever happened" was because
of Armenian terrorists. This does not justify civilian death carried
out by the government .
I understand a couple of thousand, but international figures are
usually drawn between 100,000 to 200,000 deaths...i use 100,000 to be
conservative in the argument.
Originally posted by Mortaza
I think It is not response, It looks like Turkey is
trying to turkify anatolia. we suffered for anatolia much, and we are
trying to protect it, but I think we should change this politic. do
Armenia make any wish related with this? I think Erdogan will not
resist this type of wish.
Turkifying Anatolia is one point i was trying to make, and you pointed
it out. Yes, UNESCO has sent many complaints to the Turkish government,
also Armenians in the diaspora have sent complaints as well. Armenian
Cathedrals are not even called Armenian Cathedrals on many official
Turkish websites. All you have to do is look at the neglected ancient
cities of Ani and Kars to see how the Turkish government is trying to
bury the past of Armenians. They have chosen to fight a cultural war,
and that is the worst type of warfare.
Armenians in Karabagh on the other hand, have been telling the Azeri
government that they want to restore an Azeri mosque in Karabagh. The
Azeri government has refused, and i dont know why. I have actually been
to this mosque, and even the Armenian locals said they want to restore
it, so i know that this isnt a fake story. This is completely the
opposite of what the Turkish government is doing.
Originally posted by Mortaza
For this, I dont say this ,We dont support division
much.we cannot return past, we have minoritiees at bulgaria and
greece, but our wish is not to annex that land but protect their
cultural rights.I thing a huge autonomy is fine with karabak, maybe a
con-federation, but they should rule their country by themself.But If I
am not wrong, Armenia want to annex this land?
Before the war, they wanted to be part of the Armenian Republic, as
they originally were, until the Soviets came and took over. Now,
Karabagh is an independent republic, officially known as The Republic
of Mountainous Karabagh. It is not internationally recognized. If they
cannot combine with Armenia, they would love to be an independent
nation. But no one will recognize them. Armenia's argument is that it
makes no sense to make them a separate republic, they are all Armenian,
and they border Armenia. It would be like splitting Turkey between
Turks and Kurds, but even more illogical because both sides are
Armenian.
es, because Young Turks promised equal rights for all minorities, and Armenians wanted a new Ottoman government because Abdul-Hamid had killed many Armenian civilians in 1895-1896, because they were pushing for an independent Armenian Republic. The Turkish government nowadays says that Abdul-Hamid did that because of Armenian terrorists, but Abdul-Hamid killed over 100,000 Armenian civilians, it is written in many international sources. Only the Turkish government denies the massacres of 1895-1896, and claims that "whatever happened" was because of Armenian terrorists. This does not justify civilian death carried out by the government . I understand a couple of thousand, but international figures are usually drawn between 100,000 to 200,000 deaths...i use 100,000 to be conservative in the argument.
have not much knowledge about this, I know, Armenians tried to kill patisah himself, and there are some armenians killed both at Istanbul and eastern, but 100.000 is a big number, anyway number is not important., but you cannot say Sultan himself is racist against armenians. Ottomans were harsh rulers but they were never racist.
Turkifying Anatolia is one point i was trying to make, and you pointed it out. Yes, UNESCO has sent many complaints to the Turkish government, also Armenians in the diaspora have sent complaints as well. Armenian Cathedrals are not even called Armenian Cathedrals on many official Turkish websites. All you have to do is look at the neglected ancient cities of Ani and Kars to see how the Turkish government is trying to bury the past of Armenians. They have chosen to fight a cultural war, and that is the worst type of warfare.
Infact this cultural wars also openned by armenians, try to show us as murderer and brutal people too. It is not one-sided. Even all armenians say they dont hate Turkish people but Turkish goverment, This dont looks like real, how can you dont hate some people brutal murderers of your people, and I think there are not much people like you,most of your people becomes rude and agresive.Demonising Turks is also another cultural war.
But I dont support my goverment at this cultural war, We should care for armenian historical buildings. But I dont wait that our goverment will waste our limited source for an enemy nation history, but I think they should.
For karabag, do you think we should take west trakia from greece and bulgarians? as I said before, I think armenian rights should be guarantied, they should take a huge autonomy, Their cultural and economical links with armenians should be protected but dividing a country was made by agreement with others.If a peaciful division happen, I support It too.
but you cannot say Sultan himself is racist against
armenians. Ottomans were harsh rulers but they were never
racist.
Even Talaat Pashas close friend was an Armenian, and he is the person Armenians blame for the events of 1915 . Killing Armenian
citizens doesnt mean that the Sultan was racist, but it was political.
Turkifying Anatolia is political as well, and i think Abdul-Hamid would
do the same to anyone living on those lands. He didnt do it because
they were Armenian, he did it to show them his power, and to prevent
them from forming their own republic on what he called "Turkish land".
Originally posted by Mortaza
Infact this cultural wars also openned by armenians, try to show us as
murderer and brutal people too. It is not one-sided. Even all armenians
say they dont hate Turkish people but Turkish goverment, This dont
looks like real, how can you dont hate some people brutal murderers of
your people, and I think there are not much people like you,most of
your people becomes rude and agresive.Demonising Turks is also another
cultural war.
There are Armenians who try to make Turks seem like butchers and
uncivilized people. Some Turks try to do the same to Armenians. It is
the same for both people. When it comes to the two governments,
however, they are radically different.
The
Armenian government does not accuse Turkish people of anything... they
accuse the government of genocide, but you can understand why. The
Armenian government does not neglect historical buildings by
non-Armenians. Turkey, ever since independence has done nothing to
restore ancient Armenian buildings. One of Turkey's main economic
strengths is tourism, and even then they do not restore Armenian
buildings. And they dont mention Armenians in many of their tours and
historical sources. Armenian history books have recorded and given
credit to Turks for whatever they have done. The current government in
Turkey does not do the same. Kars and Ani are now known as Turkish cities,
when in fact, they were built by Armenian kingdoms before the middle
ages. No official Turkish source calls it "Armenian", at any point in history.
Also, this past April 24th, which is the commemeration day for the Armenian
genocide in 1915 (as it is called by Armenians), Turkey had an official televised commemoration of
Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Out of all the days they do it on the 24th of
April? Ataturk conquered lands that were given to the Armenian
Republic by international treaties. This is one of the land issues that
i used to relate the Palestinian and Armenian causes. It is still
unresolved in my mind, because Ataturk had no reason to take those
lands, other than making Turkey more powerful. That is not justifiable.
Turkey says the Republic of Armenia attacked Turkey during Ataturk's
reign (1918). The Republic of Armenia was formed in 1918, and during that time they were still recovering,
as half of
the worldwide Armenian population at that time were refugees, most
of this half were already dead. They were living in poverty and
disease, i have seen pictures and video from the Armenian Republic in
1918, they lived in horrible and disgusting conditions, and dont forget
it was a newly established republic . The capital
city of Yerevan only had tens of thousands of people living there. That
was their biggest city. And
the Turkish government claims that this tiny country of hungry farmers
attacked the Turkish Republic. That is their justification for taking
land gauranteed to Armenia by international treaties. I would like to
hear your thoughts on that. It is one of the things the Turkish
government never talks about.
Even Talaat Pashas close friend was an Armenian, and he is the person Armenians blame for the events of 1915 . Killing Armenian citizens doesnt mean that the Sultan was racist, but it was political. Turkifying Anatolia is political as well, and i think Abdul-Hamid would do the same to anyone living on those lands. He didnt do it because they were Armenian, he did it to show them his power, and to prevent them from forming their own republic on what he called "Turkish land".
Infact for him, there is only ottomans land, Abdulhamit is not a Turkish nationalist(He wont liked much in Turkey too) unlike Talat.He have not pan-Turkism dreams, he is a realist., If he was still at power, Most probably this stupid exiles would never happen.
There are Armenians who try to make Turks seem like butchers and uncivilized people. Some Turks try to do the same to Armenians. It is the same for both people. When it comes to the two governments, however, they are radically different.
Not excatly,There are turks who try to show armenians bad, and they are diaspora, who try to show Turks bad. It is not only personal issues,
For ex: Hitlers famous word " who remembers armenians" are a false words, this words didnt become famouse because one or two armenian supported It, but because diaspora supported it.
For goverments, It is complatly different. Armenian goverment was more nice because She need us, and because she want to prevent our help to azeris. Lets say All goverments are evil. If You think armenian goverment is different, look who created that goverments.
The borders of Turkey was accepted before the war. It named as misaki milli means border of Turkey.I think It is related with war time. when war finished, ottomans have some places,and It is accepted as misaki milli. I think kars and ardahan was inside of that borders.
That is their justification for taking land gauranteed to Armenia by international treaties.
For that international treaty, most probably you means Serv treaty, It was unaccepted by TBMM(Turkey parliment at independance war). I think you will not accuse Ataturk, because a treaty he should refuse.
If you look for justification, There are not much justification for wars, but we cannot change past.I think people lands should be given them back, but giving land to another country is not a choice. do you know any country who give her lands with peacifully? Or do you think Germany will accept jewish genocide, If she won the war?
Turkey, ever since independence has done nothing to restore ancient Armenian buildings. One of Turkey's main economic strengths is tourism, and even then they do not restore Armenian buildings.
I accept this, In fact his is not much different for greek or Turkish buildings too. I can say mostly Turkey dont respect history enough.I think turkey should restore armenian buildings, It looks like armenians suffer this from much.
Also, this past April 24th, which is the commemeration day for the Armenian genocide in 1915 (as it is called by Armenians), Turkey had an official televised commemoration of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. Out of all the days they do it on the 24th of April? Ataturk conquered lands that were given to the Armenian Republic by international treaties. This is one of the land issues that i used to relate the Palestinian and Armenian causes. It is still unresolved in my mind, because Ataturk had no reason to take those lands, other than making Turkey more powerful. That is not justifiable.
On April 23rd 1920 Turkinsh Great National Assebly was opened. That program might be related with that. On the other hand, you should remember that the Treaty of Sevres was one of the most merciless treaties on the world. It just gave 1/20 of the Ottoman lands to Turks but no independence. I accept that many Armenians lived in Eastern Anatolia, but it was the land of the Ottoman Empire for half a millenium. So, when Ataturk tried to preserve that land, it was very natural.
My family is from Erzurum and my grandfather told a lot about the fights between Turkish army and the Armenian militants, how a lot of our relatives were killed by Armenian gangs and how they had to be refugees and immigrated to inner parts of Anatolia, but I have no hate against Armenians. All happened was a great tragedy. Armenians have a history there and so do the Turks and Kurds. I wish none of those bad things happened...
On the other hand, you should remember that the Treaty of Sevres was
one of the most merciless treaties on the world. It just gave 1/20 of
the Ottoman lands to Turks but no independence. I accept that many
Armenians lived in Eastern Anatolia, but it was the land of the Ottoman
Empire for half a millenium. So, when Ataturk tried to preserve that
land, it was very natural.
Yes, but it was still an international treaty. After all the Armenians
had been through, one of Ataturk's first actions as leader of a new
Turkish state is to attack his neighbors. I only say this because many
people call him a 'humanitarian'. His first action was to attack a
country of refugees and poor farmers. Is that being a humanitarian?
Also Turkey has the economic blockade on Armenia (for the past 10
years), and they disregard ancient Armenian buildings and artifacts,
most of them have been destroyed. In Turkish history books, Armenians basically dont exist. It is not just one incident, its
continuing today.
There were Armenian gangs that killed Turks, the same way some
Palestinians kill Israelis. Its not right, but its for the same reason.
I say this because most Turks morally support Palestinians. My question
is, what is the difference?
For karabag, do you think we should take west trakia from greece and bulgarians? as I said before, I think armenian rights should be guarantied, they should take a huge autonomy, Their cultural and economical links with armenians should be protected but dividing a country was made by agreement with others.If a peaciful division happen, I support It too.
Armenians had their rights in Karabagh, both historically and because they always formed a majority there.
On the other hand, Turkish minorities of Greece and Bulgaria have limited historical rights because those regions were once part of the Ottoman Empire (which was a fairly new region compared to Armenia, Greece, and Bulgaria). Those lands were Greek and Bulgarian before the Turks reached Thrace. Turkey can't just annex Western Thrace because Thrace itself was Greek and Bulgarian.
If you think that Turkey has historical rights in Bulgaria and Greece just because the Ottoman Empire once ruled over those lands, Turkey has to inherit the bad things too, such as the responsability for the genocide.
The only Armenians who killed unarmed Turks were the ones from the Russian Empire, or the ones who were acting independantly for revenge. Major milita groups such as the dashnaks were barely able to defend Armenian regions.
Yes, but it was still an international treaty. After all the Armenians had been through, one of Ataturk's first actions as leader of a new Turkish state is to attack his neighbors. I only say this because many people call him a 'humanitarian'. His first action was to attack a country of refugees and poor farmers. Is that being a humanitarian?
After the first world war Armenian bandits were in Erzurum, Kars, etc. and they attacked Muslim cities and villages and today still their torments and brutality are told by fear. In all of those cities everybody has a relative who experienced these. I mean there wasn't a peaceful neighbourship. Meanwhile the Ottoman Empire was occupied by Allies and it was a huge trauma. A nation was dieing. The Treaty of Sevres was signed by the Istanbul government and Istanbul was occupied at that time. The Ottoman Empire was dead. Mustafa Kemal was in Ankara and the government in Ankara never accepted that Treaty and declared that accepting that was treason. I demand from you some empathy. Ottoman Empire was in continuous war since 1911 and lost millions of its citizens. Only at the Sarkam mountains 90000 soldiers froze in one night because of the lack of equipment. My grandmother tells that her grandfather went to military in Yemen and came after ten years but when he came he was killed by Russians. There are many tragic strories like this. A nation in such conditions has to fight in order to exist. So feelings are very different. For Turks, accepting the Treaty of Sevres is equal to what denying genocide means for Armenians.
Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival
Also Turkey has the economic blockade on Armenia (for the past 10 years), and they disregard ancient Armenian buildings and artifacts, most of them have been destroyed. In Turkish history books, Armenians basically dont exist. It is not just one incident, its continuing today.
I don't support such things, too. Sure Armenias lived here and we shared a lot with them. My elder relatives lived together with Armenians in the same village and they also saved many of them from deportation. We have many things in common. For example you will have the same feelings when you listen to the following sound of kaval:
There were Armenian gangs that killed Turks, the same way some Palestinians kill Israelis. Its not right, but its for the same reason. I say this because most Turks morally support Palestinians. My question is, what is the difference?
I think if the Armenians could return to their homes after the war, it would be good. However there was much hatred between the two peoples at that time because of the mutual assaults and this couldn't be possible. After one century this is impossible, because many people were born on these lands and new population movements will be very tragic, too. For example nowadays the Jews has to leave their houses and this is also very tragic. Many of them were born there. Another similar issue is that, after the loss of lands in the Balcans, millions of Muslims and Turkish refugees came to Turkey, but if we demand relocating to their previous homes, this will create another tragedy. I think these problems should be solved as soon as possible after the events. Otherwise new tragedies will occur.
turks do not support armenian "terrorists" because it is against There
country, not as the palestinians against the infidel jews.
Finally someone came out and said it.
Thats my hypothesis on the subject, I started the thread to try to get
new ideas. Because honestly, supporting Palestinians and denouncing
Armenians is a defiance of logic. Either support both or denounce
both...it is illogical to pick and choose. Yes, one issue is older than
the other. But ideologically, they are essentially the same, for the
reasons i have already given.
but if we demand relocating to their previous homes, this will create another tragedy.
But you support giving Palestinians their lands back? What about those
poor Jews? Why should Jews leave and not Turks? Please explain.
Originally posted by kotumeyil
I think these problems should be solved as soon as possible after the events.
They should have. Turkish Republic has waited 90 years so far, and no
reconciliation has been reached, even though Armenians have been
stating their case from day 1. It is the fault of the Turkish
government that so much time has passed. If it wasnt for Armenian
"terrorists", no one in the world would know about 1915, whether you
call it "genocide" or "deportation", no one would know about it. If we
left it up to the Turkish government 1915 would not exist. If it
wasnt for Palestinian "terrorists", no one would know about
Palestinians either. So why do you support Palestinians and not
Armenians? Is it only because the Armenian cause is aimed toward Turkey? Someone please explain.
I can speak for myself. I admit that both Palestinians and Armenians suffered from those events. I also don't support any kind of terrorism. But also there are differences. For example, Armenians were former citizens of the Ottoman Empire and they tried to be independent from their own state but unfortunately they couldn't be successful and faced a severe retaliation. So many of Turkish nationalists see this as a betrayal, though I don't think in this way. On the other hand, in the case of Palestine, a totally alien people came and took the land depending on the idea that it was the promised land since some thousand years ago. These are not the same things. Also I admit that many Turks symphatize to Palestinians because of they have common religion, though I don't, because I'm an atheist. But this prejudice is all over the world. I think if it were the Bosnians who killed Serbs, the western world would intervene on the very first day.
On the other hand, in the case of Palestine, a totally alien people came and took the land depending on the idea that it was the promised land since some thousand years ago. .
there not totally alien, because there was still a substantial amount of jews in the area before it became a full jewish state of Israel.
I also don't support any kind of terrorism. But also there are differences. For example, Armenians were former citizens of the Ottoman Empire and they tried to be independent from their own state but unfortunately they couldn't be successful and faced a severe retaliation.
By saying ''it happened because they tried to create their own state'', you're justifying the order of the Young Turks. In that case the ''terrorism'' Armenian groups did in the 70s-80s, and especially in the 20s (when a group called Nemesis killed those who were responsable for the genocide) are easily justifiable.
Don't forget that the Young Turks had the support of minorities, including most of the Armenians. Even the Dashnaktsutyun supported the Young Turks and participated in anti-ottoman congresses in Europe, with the Young Turk revolutionnaries. Between the Young Turk Revolution (1908) and the self-defense of Van (1915), Armenians in general supported them, because they overthrew Sultan Abdul Hamid ''the Red Sultan'' - the one who ordered the massacre of around 200 000 Armenian civilians. Armenians hoped that they would live better and that the rights offered to them by the new Turkish Constitution would be respected. Armenians were even sent to the Ottoman army... Even during the massacre of Adana (1909) Armenians believed the claims of the Young Turk government - that the ones who massacred were supporters of Abdul Hamid.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum