Tuesday, May 30, 2006

"Azeri" "History" From Wiki

History of "Azerbaijan"

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

This is a controversial topic, which may be disputed. Please read talk page discussion before making substantial changes.
The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

The nation of Azerbaijan (also spelled Azerbeijan and (Azerbaijani: Azərbaycan, Azərbeycan) has been the home of culture and civilization since antiquity (a nation is not a home. H.). Its heritage is amongst the richest and most ancient, and the history of its land and people may be tens of thousands of years old. (Its current occupiers have nothing to do with its history as will be admitted by the "author" of this "article". H.)

Azerbaijan is located at the crossroads of different cultures and is the ancestral home of the Azerbaijanis (Azerbaijani Turks) (Azerbaijani Turks, not the indigenous peoples of the area, i.e. the Tats, the Talishes, the Udins, the Laz, the Armenians, etc. Based on what proof? H.) who, according to CIA (What's this obsession with the CIA? Doesn't this show their inability to cite a valid historical source? H.) and Ethnologue statistics, number more than 8 million in the Republic of Azerbaijan (none of them are non-Turkish ethnic groups, forcefully turkified by the self declared owners of the land. H.) and more than 20 million in the northwestern region of Iran (These are turkified Iranians. H.), reffered to by the United Nations as South Azerbaijan (No Kidding! H.). The independent Republic of Azerbaijan is the northern half of historic Azerbaijan (blatant lie based on no proof. There is only one historic Azarbaijan (Aturpatekan) and it's always been south of the Arax River. H.) while the southern portion is under the administration of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Scholars (i.e. of the kind of the revisionist "historian" Ziya Bunyatov. H.) consider the historical territory of Azerbaijan to include “the land populated today (yes, today, H.) by the Azerbaijani Turks" who inhabit the region stretching from the northern slopes of the Caucus mountains along the Caspian Sea to the central parts of what is (and has been since the dawn of history, you moron. H.) present-day Iran. According to the 10th century Balami History (you mean baloney History? BTW, didn't Balami write in Persian? If the "Azeri" translation of the work is done by Bunyatovs of this world then this pan-turkist may be right. H.), it is stated that the borders of Azerbaijan start at Derbent (present-day southern Russia) and end in Hamedan (present-day western Iran).

It was stated in the 10th century (by who? H.) that: "All these lands (between Derbent and Hamedan) are called Azerbaijan and all these lands belong to Turks ("ALL THESE LANDS BELONG TO TURKS", sounds like a five year old whining bully... H.)." Azerbaijan was divided in 1828 along the Araz river, (a country north of the Arax River called Azerbaijan NEVER existed before 1918. H.) which is a physical barrier that has divided the land politically up until now.

The people of Azerbaijan are the inheritors (read usurpers and destroyers H.) of ancient civilizations (you got to be kidding, then how on earth were they tent-dwelling nomads up until late 19th century? H.) such as Sumer (I'll be damned! H.), Elam, Aratta ( *!@#?# are you awake? H.), Urartu ( Over my dead body. H.), Mannai, Media and Caucasian Albania (and the Greeks and the Romans and the Persians and the Assyrians and the Babylonians and... It costs nothing to lie why not add a dozen others? H.) and are the descendants of various bodies of Turkic peoples (you got that one right. Now you only have to "prove" that Sumer, Elam, Aratta, Urartu, Manni, Medes and Aghvank are all Turks and everything will be self explanatory...H.), especially (especially H.) the Oghuz Turks who in the 10th century set the national foundation (with their tents, what a foundation... H.) of modern Azerbaijan.


Ancient History

The cave of Azykh in the territory of the Fizuli district in the Republic of Azerbaijan is considered to be the most ancient human habitation. Based on discoveries and recent exploration of the Azykh cave and a number of stone age sites, Azerbaijan's history can be dated back to 1.5 million years ago (Azerbaijan's history can in fact be dated back to the time of the dinosaurs. Scientists experimenting with fossils have managed to simulate the sounds a native Azerbaijani dinosaur would produce and guess what? It goes "Az - Ar - Bai - Jan" H.).

Remnants of the pre-ashel culture were found in the lowest layers of the Azykh cave. This culture is one of the oldest and in many ways similar to the Olduway culture in South Africa and Walloon culture in the southeast of France (and of course, they are Turks as well. H.).

The fragment of the lower jaw of a woman (you see, I wasn't kidding when I mentioned the fossils! H.) who lived about 350,000-400,000 years ago was unearthed from the 5th layer of the Azykh cave . This woman was very close to people of the ashel culture (and she spoke perfect Turkish employing solely a fragment of her lower jaw. H.), whose remnants were discovered in the Arago cave in France.

The Paleolithic (Homo Sapiens) period in Azerbaijan (as if it was called Azerbaijan in those days! H.) is represented in Taglar, Damjily, Yatagery and some other sites. It lasted for about 20,000 years and vanquished in the 13th millennium BC (probably by some nomadic Turkish invaders, although I guess the "author" of this "article" means vanished, just a slip of the "vanquishing" Turkish tongue. H.).

During the Mesolithic period, evidence of carved drawings in Gobustan demonstrate scenes of hunting, fishing, labor and dancing which can be seen on the rocks (I don't know about labor and dancing since the former is derogatory for the Turks (during the Ottoman rule they only aspired to become soldiers therefore frowned upon work), the latter is haram in their faith. I am OK with hunting (fishing? probably) since they have not evolved from their hunter-gatherer stage, otherwise they would have come in terms with their own past by now. H.).

The Neolithic period (6th - 4th millenniums BC) was the period of transition from the Stone Age to the Bronze Age (apparently missed by the Turks. H.). Many Neolithic settlements have been discovered in Azerbaijan, and artifacts show that during this period people built homes (then how on earth were they still living in tents not so long ago? "Retrovolution" instead of evolution H.), made copper weapons and were familiar with irrigated agriculture.

Tradition (which tradition? H.) places the Garden of Eden, considered by theologians as the birthplace of mankind, west of Urmiya (The Garden of Eden (fact or fiction) is situated in Armenia, check your sources. H.) in southern Azerbaijan .

Ancient peoples and civilizations such as the Sumerians and Elamites had interaction in the territory of Azerbaijan (what's that got to do with you? H.), and their ancient and distinct cultures still symbolize parts of Azerbaijan's modern character (do you really believe this crap yourself? H.).

Earliest written evidence of tribes that inhabited Azerbaijan (mostly in South Azerbaijan (nothing to do with you whatsoever. H.)) are dated to 2,300 BC. The manuscripts describe the tribes of Gutis, Lulubis, Kasis and Hurris (nothing to do with you whatsoever, either. H.). The Hurri (Hurra) tribal union played an extremely important role in the history of the ancient east and formed one of the great eastern civilizations.

Different political entities and states such as Mannai and Urartu as well as Media and Albania (Agvania) flourished on Azerbaijan's soil ("Azerbaijanis" must have been really generous and millions of times more tolerant than today to have allowed these non-Turkish cultures flourish on their soil. H.).

Chols, Cimmerians as well as Scythians and Massagets (both refered to as Ishkuz) lived in Azerbaijan before the Christian era (see the above comment. H.).

In the ninth century B.C., the seminomadic Scythians settled in areas of what is now Azerbaijan (so this makes them semi-Turkish I guess! H.)

The Assyrians (didn't I tell you? H.) also had a civilization (each and every one of them had a civilization except you Turks, stop lying and accept what you are maybe this will trigger an evolutionary mutation for you. H.) which flourished in the western part of Lake Urmiya in the years prior to Media and Albania (So this proves that (Lesser) Media (Aturpatekan) and Albania (Aghvank) are two distinct entities. H.). Most of the ancient documents and inscriptions that are used for historical analyzation of the area comes from the Assyrians.

In dealing with the history of Azerbaijan, most western scholars reffer to Greek, Arab, Roman, and Persian sources. It must be noted that many falsified (look who's talking! Have you ever uttered a true sentence in your pathetic existence? H.) versions of Azerbaijan's history were written by Iranian nationalists in the 20th century (So, all the historians since antiquity (Greek, Armenian, Arab, etc.), who have never mentioned an "Azerbaijan" north of the Arax were Iranian nationalists. Projection, is the dominant disease of the revisionist Turks. The falsified history of the region was written in 1960's. H.), and are disregarded in obtaining information regarding Pre-Islamic and Post-Islamic Azerbaijan (you disregard everything and believe your own excretion, maybe some ignorant fool will also swallow the liquid, unfounded crap you produce with your jelly brain. H.).

Media & Albania

Throughout much of its ancient history, Azerbaijan's northern portion was what became known as the state of Caucasian Albania, and its southern portion was what became known as the state of Media (Throughout...was what became... what a coherent sentence. So, this means that these two regions were unrelated throughout much of ancient history (until 1918 that is). H.). Azerbaijani scholars (means that no other scholars regard this crap to be serious. H.) regard both Media and Albania as predecessors of modern Azerbaijan (Isn't this a confession that "Azerbaijan" is just a "modern" fabrication? H.). Media and Albania (Mata and Agvan) shared similar characteristics (proof, please! H.) and the majority population in these areas before the 3rd century A.D. were composed mostly by central Asian (based on what, "scholar"? H.) tribes such as the Scythians (non-Turkish H.)who had migrated to the region in the 7th century B.C. (Strabbo has referred to 26 different tribes in Aghvank "who spoke different languages and had their own ruler". So how can the majority be composed of Turks? H.)

The state and civilization of the Medes is believed to have been highly influenced by the Urartu (paws off Armenian history. H.) and Mannai civilization and population which had previously been established in the land (yes, previously established, not invading nomadic cattle-herders. H.).

From around 550 B.C. until the 6th century A.D., the state religion of Azerbaijan was Zoroastianism (what state? Are you mad? Because of the diversity of tribes in Aghvank, the religious beliefs were also numerous. Speaking of a state religion in Aghvank, in times of Zoroastrianism is as absurd as it can get. H.) . Zoroaster, the prophet of Zoroastianism was born in Urmiya (Beside the fact that until now the exact date (anything from 2500 to 3000 years ago) and place of birth of Zoroaster have not been confirmed by all historians, one thing is sure: he was an IRANIAN. Avesta is written in old Persian. H.). Christianity, Shamanism and Buddhism were also practiced in Azerbaijan prior to the 6th century (So, this flushes the crap that the state religion of "Azerbaijan" was Zoroastrianism. H.). Churches in Tabriz (leave our churches alone, you have already distroyed thousands of Armenian churches and now you claim the ones still standing. H.), Urmiya, Qarabaq as well as Zoroastrian fire temples are some of Azerbaijan's pre-Islamic religious monuments.

Prior to the Islamic age, Persians, Greeks and Romans had invaded Azerbaijan (who's talking of invaders? This world must be upside-down. H.) and had incorporated it into their empires. The area was invaded by Persian king Cyrus in the 6th century B.C.E., by Alexander two centuries later and by Roman legions under Pompey three centuries after that. A boulder bearing what is believed to be the eastern-most Roman inscription survives just southwest of Baku.

Turks in Media & Albania

Throughout the history of pre-Islamic Azerbaijan, Turkic peoples had lived in the land for centuries (proof, please! Oh yes, Elchibey says they lived in the land for hundreds of thousands of years, not centuries. H.), although they were not fully unified. The Huns, Khazars, Bulgars, Barsils, Sabirs, Gokturks, Kutugurs, Kipchaks and others had been some of the Turkic people who had dwelled in Azerbaijan and participated in pre-Islamic Azerbaijan's state formations (what state? Have a grain of decency. H.).

The historian Ashurbeyli in "History of Azerbaijan" writes that in Azerbaijan "there were incurrsions (that's more like it. H.) of Turkic groups from the beginning of our era which increased in the 5th to the 7th and the 9th to the 11th centuries" and also states that "since antiquity" Turks have lived in Azerbaijan (then he is in contradiction with himself since he just said there were incursions. H.).

According to the 1911 encyclopedia (which one? H.) "the people of the Mada (Mata), the Medes, appear in history first in 836 B.C., when the Assyrian conqueror Shalmaneser II in his wars against the tribes of the Zagros received the tribute of the Amadai ....Herodotus gives a list of six Median tribes among them the Paraetaceni....names in the Assyrian inscriptions prove that the tribes in the Zagros and the northern parts of Media (Azerbaijan) were not Iranians nor Indo-Europeans (therefore Turks, scholarly conclusion one might say...That the Medes are Iranians is out of the question and no scholar will dispute this. The Iranian "name" Aturpat "proves that". H.), but an aboriginal population.....perhaps (and perhaps not. H.) connected with the numerous tribes of the Caucasus (northern Azerbaijan, Albania)....Gelae, Tapuri, Cadusii, Amardi, Utii and other tribes in northern Media (Azerbaijan) (No southern, the confession or a slip of the rectum! Besides, since when "Albania" became northern Media? You were just BS-ing about "the Caucasus (northern Azerbaijan, Albania)" .H.) and on the shores of the Caspian (you must be referring to the eastern shores. H.) were not Iranians. With them Polybius, Strabo and Pliny mention the Anariaci, whom they consider as a particular tribe; but in reality their name, the Non-Aryans, is the comprehensive designation of all these small tribes.....(therefore they are all Turks. The "Anariaci" thing reflects the apellation of peoples outside of Iran by the Iranians: (Iran, inside the Iranian territory; Aniran, outside) and has little to do with race. H.)

Richard N. Frye states the following regarding the ethnic composition of Media: "in Azerbaijan (Media) (So, Media is the real Azarbaijan. Yet another confession. H.) the Medes were in contact with a settled majority of non-Indo European (non-Iranian) speakers represented by the Urartians (leave us the fuck alone. I Urartu, you UralTurk, capice! H.), Mannaeans, Hurrians etc..possibly related to the peoples speaking "Japhetic" languages" also spoken in the Caucasus (northern Azerbaijan, Albania (what proof you have that they spoke Turkish? H.)).

According to historian Kalankatly (Movses Kaghankatouatsi, by the way, would you care to mention that he was Armenian? H.), in the period between 191-200 A.D., hordes (hordes indeed, like locusts... H.) of Barsil and Khazar Turks crossed the Kura river in Azerbaijan (he does definitely not say Azerbaijan since this side of Kura was Armenia and Azerbaijan north of Arax river still had to be artificially created in 1918 by the bolsheviks, the Georgian Stalin and the Tatar Lenin, to please the Ottomans who had invaded the Caucasus...).

According to the historian Tabari, descriptions of incursions (indeed! H.) into Azerbaijan (you mean the real one? H.) by Turks (Huns and Khazars) (non of which have been proved to be Turks, despite their relations, especially between the Khazars and the Turks. Tabari often mistakenly calls the Khazars Turks. This is used by this gray wolf to mislead the uninformed reader. H.) occurred in the 4th and 5th centuries. Tabari also states that by the mid-6th century, there was a significant Turkish presence in Azerbaijan (you mean the real one? H.).

Kalankatly also states that in the year 629, the army of the Gokturks as well as a series Khazar Turkic tribes entered Azerbaijan and declared the land to be "eternal possesion" of Turks (no sooner had they invaded, looted, raped, pillaged, pludered and razed everything to the ground, "they declared the land to be "eternal possession" of Turks". How pathetic and self-righteous they were and still are... H.).

From Movses Kaghankatouatsi's History of Aghvank, the work of the Armenian historian cited by the "Azeri" to support their fabrications, I wonder why they never quote this passage:

"In the 38th year of the rule of Khossrow (Khossrow Parviz, the Sassanid king of the time. H.) the Turkish Jabghu Khan arrived with his son. No one could count their army. When this horrific news came to Aghvank, Hayshak, the ruler of Aghvank who had been appointed to his post by Khossrow, decided to protect the people from the Turkish invaders and send them to the Partaw fortress... He thought he could resist with the aid of the notables. While he was worryingly anticipating the events, he heard news of the calamity visited upon the fortress of Chor (Darband. H.) and its defenders...

Indeed, in the time of the misfortune which we were all expecting... Hayshak saw the malevolent danger from evil and cruel people who had wide faces and looked like women. Their long hair was scattered over their faces and bodies... Not a grain of shame and decency could be discerned from their faces. They attacked the people of the city and chopped them into pieces in the streets and city squares. There was no sign of any mercy in the eyes of these butchers regarding the beautiful women either. They slaughtered the boys and girls as well. They did not even pity the harmless beings and the elderly who were unable to fight. Neither they spared the children nor the young and their hearts would not soften regarding suckling and babies. These innocent babies were lying on the torn apart cadavers of their mothers and were sucking blood from their teats instead of milk. The moment they entered a house, like fire in a haystack, they would burn every place to cinders and they would reduce everything to rubble. The moment they would leave a house they had broken into, they paved the way for the beasts of prey and scavengers..."

Nothing has changed. H.

Byzantine sources of the mid 6th century refer to the "settlement of Khazar Turks" in the left bank of the Kura river, and Moisey Khaghankatli (it's the same Armenian historian, Movses Kaghankatouatsi spelled earlier differently. H.), a historian from pre-Islamic Azerbaijan (piss off. H.) reffered to a "Hun state" on the left bank of the Kura River in the 7th century.

According to Professor Peter B. Golden, "In the course of the seventh century, the two major tribal unions emerged in Azerbaijan under the Turk banner: the Khazars and the Bulgars...the Khazars formed the bulk of the Turk forces used by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius (610-640) in his counter-offensive against the Sasanids (rulers) in Azerbaijan" (Which one? If they mean the real one, then the counter-offensive must be from the Iranians, since it was part of Iran not Rome. By the way, what has the invasion of Khazars and Bulgars (which Turk banner?) to do with the indigenous people of Aghvank. That the Romans used the Khazars in their army against Iran is also irrelevant if not indicting. H.)

Pre-Islamic Turkic presence in Azerbaijan is evident in literature after the Islamic conquest of the region, in an era that was famous for its historical, geographical and scientific analyzations of the world by Muslim scholars and Islamic states. According to the 7th century work of Ubeid ibn Shariyya al-Jurhumi, the Muslim Caliph Mueviyyen (661-680) was told that Azerbiajan (notice that Azebaijan is outside the quotaion marks. H.) "has long been a land of Turks. Having gathered over there, they have mixed with one another (read raped, stolen the women and children of the natives and had them forcefully turkified. H.) and become integrated."

It must also be noted that the famous "Book of Dede Korkut" which is the epic of the Oghuz Turks (considered the main (and the only. H.) ancestors of Azerbaijanis) was written in Azerbaijan in the 6th and 7th centuries, indicating that the Oghuz Turks, who were a majority (according to which census? H.) in Azerbaijan in the 10th and 11th centuries and henceforth, were also present in the land prior to Islam.

Seeing the tendency of the Turks to rewrite history and the claim that "Dede Korkut" was written in "Azerbaijan", a funny remark by Enayatollah Reza, a contemporary Iranian historian, is not misplaced here:

"I remember when I was living in the Soviet Union, one of the disputed matters among the Turkish speaking peoples of that country was the famous story of "Dede GhorGhud" ("Dede Korkut") that apparently belongs to the Oghuz. Not only the inhabitants of Central Asia, but the Turkish speaking peoples of Caucasus and European parts of the Soviet Union considered it as theirs and would quarrel with each other over it.

This went on until 1948 when the story was declared a "reactionary phenomenon" by the Soviet statesmen of the time. No sooner this view was announced, the local polititians started to throw the innocent "Dede Ghorghud" at each other. From then on, politically motivated historians were determined to wash their hands of this "shameful stain". At first they accused other republics of this "crime", but since this was not approved by the central government, they thought of another wayout of this "shame" and by throwing this story to the Turkish speaking people of Turkey, they rid themselves of this "reactionary tale".

After the changes in the USSR that brought criticism of past policies, poor "Dede Ghorghud" also got the not guilty verdict. From then on, once again the fight over the tale started and everyone claimed it as theirs." H.

Islamic Azerbaijan

Throughout its pre-Islamic history, Azerbaijan wast subject to myriad invasions (mostly Turkish. H.), migrations, and cultural and political influences. The land became Islamic territory during the Arab conquest under Omar's caliphate sometime between 639 and 643. The implementation of Islam in Azerbaijan was not easy for the Arabs.

In the 8th century (9th century, you idiot, 800s don't mean the 8th century), rebels under the leadership of Babek (have some integrity, Babak e Khorramdin, as his name clearly shows was an IRANIAN, he spoke Persian, in fact it's hardly possible that he had ever heard or uttered a single Turkish word in his entire life. How come you don't bring up the non-Indo-European non-Aryan crap here, Mr.Kipchak Kutugur-Gokturk. H.) resisted Arab rule and started a revolt which lasted for close to 20 years. Babek's revolt became known as the "Khuremit Movement." Although Arab garrisons were placed in several strategic towns (Ardebil, Barda, Nakhchivan, Derbent, Maragha) the followers of the Khuremit movement resisted their control. The Arabs eventually defeated Babek and his followers, yet the legend of Babek still lives on in contemporary Azerbaijan , in both the northern (none of their goddamn business. Z.A) and southern spheres.

Prior to Babek, The Khazar Turkic tribes in a series of conflicts which became known as the "Arab-Khazar wars" also sought to efface Azerbaijan of Arab presence. (Wrong! They were trying to "conquer" Aghvank the same way as in the time of Khossrow Parviz, described by Movses Kaghankatouatsi some paragraphs above. H.) One of the major battles fought between the Turks and Arabs in Azerbaijan was near the historic city of Ardebil (in IRAN if you please, Z.A), which is one of the largest cities of present-day South Azerbaijan (Oh come on, get a life. H.).

The settlement of Arabs in Azerbaijan and the fact that non-Muslims paid higher taxes (here he is "inspired" by the fact that under Ottoman rule the non-Muslims were robbed of their entire possessions under the pretext of taxes of different designations: jizya, kharaj, etc. H.) led eventually to the Islamization of most of the Azerbaijani population (the brave Kipchak Gokturks gave in merely under the pressure of taxes. H.).

After the full establishment of Islam, centuries of prosperity as a province of the Islamic caliphate followed. Much of the Islamic architecture in Azerbaijan was built from the 7th until the 10th century (would you care to tell us by who? H.). During this period, many Azerbaijanis would travel to different Arab cities such as Baghdad, Damascus and Cairo for Islamic education (good for them. H.).

Oghuz Turks

After the decline of the Arab caliphate, the Oghuz Turks in a series of mass migrations (read incursions. H.) from Central Asia created a majority in Azerbaijan in the 10th and 11th century (now you're talking, these are your earliest ancestors. H.) , during Seljuk rule (read tyranny, death and destruction. H.). The Oghuz Turks were the founders of the Seljuk state, and had recently began their domination (recently began their domination... H.) of the area under Seljuk leadership.

If the Oghuz "created" a majority, it follows that: I. To hell with the indigenous non-Turkish peoples who lived in the region for thousands of years. II. The majority of present day "Azeris" are direct descendants of the Oghuz, therefore they neither have the right to claim the heritage of the Aghvank (or all the others), nor they are entitled to use the Indo-European name Azarbaijan (Aturpatekan) and its bogus derivation "Azeri". H.)

(The following paragraph bares it all. H.)

The modern statehood (modern and statehood must have different definitions for Turks. H.) , blood, language, literature, culture (??? H.) , garments, dances, folklore and national character of the Azerbaijanis comes from the 'Oghuz Turks.' (note the emphasis. What about Medes, Manni, Sumerians, Arrata, Urartu, Aghvank... Is this your level of affinity with "your" ancestors? Wait a minute, did you say literature, culture, dances? Are you joking? What culture? Unless you consider rape, plunder, mass murder, banditry, savage pleasure in mutilating innocent people, forced turkification, etc. as culture. H.) However, the disunified ancient Turks (prove that they were Turks! H.) of the land and their cultural traits were strengthened and revived (read: they became more savage. H.) by the newly arrived Oghuz (wish they had never arrived, the uninvited plunderers... H.).

During the Oghuz migration in Azerbaijan, there was also Oghuz migration (read cancerous infection. H.) into Anatolia (Turkey) (wrong retard! even if you call the Ottoman tyranny Turkey, you are still five hundred years too early. H.) and into parts of eastern Europe, The name "Seljuk" belonged to a Turkish sultan (bandit. H.) in central Asia ("the name" should have stayed in Central Asia where it "belonged". H.)

Seljuks & Modern Azerbaijan

The Seljuk period on Azerbaijan's history set the foundation of its ancient and modern culture and established the modern Azerbaijani-Turk nation (this is the most, if not the only, truthful sentence uttered by this delirious liar thus far. By "set the foundation of its ancient and modern culture" you clearly indicate that your most "ancient" Oghuz "culture" is as old as the Seljuk period of pillage and plunder. By the way, note that the hypocricy of vehement objections to calling a Turk a Turk is laid bare by the author's emphesized and hyphenized confession: "Azerbaijani-Turk nation" H.).

The Seljuk Atabeks were the governing elite from the 10th-12th centuries. Under their rule, Azerbaijan was characterized by a cultural growth and considered a period of renaissance (serve yourself, it costs nothing, Turkish "renaissance"... The situation of Aghvank was so mixed up, due to the number of rulers and the division in the region, that it was in no way favorable for a "period of renaissance". H.) in Azerbaijan. Palaces of the Ildeniz and the Shirvanshahs (Shirvanshahs were mainly Arabs and Shirvan in its north east, once used to be part of Aghvank. H.) hosted distinguished people of the time, many of whom became outstanding Muslim artists and scientists.

Great progress was achieved in mathematics, medicine, chemistry, philosophy, natural science, logic, law, and astronomy (and nuclear technology, rocket science, IT, genetic engineering, molecular science, robotics, space travel... add as many as you like, it's free. H.). Bakhmanyar, Khatib Tabrizi, Shikhabaddin Sukhravardi and many others (all IRANIANS, lying weasel. And get your eiches right: Bahmanyar, Shahabeddin Sohrevardi... H not KH. H.) were among those scientists.

New characteristic styles and trends arose in literature and arts in the 11th-12th centuries. Shirvan, Nakhchivan, and Arran (what happened to "Southern Azerbaijan"? H.) architectural schools that established principal features of Azerbaijani medieval architectural style shaped at that time .

Fortress walls of Baku, Ganja, Tabriz, Shamakhi, Beylagan, Maragha, and Absheron (and Athens, Rome, Alexandria, Constantinople, etc. H.) were built during this time, and towers, mosques, schools, mausoleums, and bridges with their distinct and original style are the most remarkable memorials of the contemporary architecture of that era (keep on stealing other peoples achievements Seljuk Doghuz-Oghuz. H.).

In 1225 the Shakh of Khorezm Djalaladdin occupied Azerbaijan, which put an end to the Atabek State.

The most famous of the Atabek kings was Shems al-din Ildeniz (Ildeniz the ill menace! H.) .

Mongol invasion

After Atabek rule came the Mongols who attacked parts of Azerbaijan but also built architectural sites (what can one make of this sentenence? Let's try. "came the Mongols who attacked" rather mild description of otherwise a barbarous invasion by their cousins. "also built architectural sites" maybe built in Mongolo-Turkish means desroyed... H.) (especially in the south (i.e. the IRANIANS built. H.)) and resided in Tabriz and other cities across the nation as rulers.

In 1231, the Mongols occupied most of Azerbaijan and killed Khan Djalaladdin (killing being their ancestral pastime. H.), who had overthrown the Atabek dynasty. In 1235 the Mongols destroyed (I don't get it, what happened to Mongols "built"? H.) Ganja, Shamkir, Tovuz, and other cities and fortresses in Azerbaijan.

Mongol through the Derbend passage at north stroke a severe blow on the national economy (the only economy Turks had and still have was and still is based on banditry. H.) and Azerbaijanis constantly rebelled against them. Being unable to resist the Mongol enemies, the Azerbaijani rebels who fought the Mongols were defeated (wolves killing wolves. H.), yet the long resistance eventually put an end to the Mongol supremacy in the region

Under Mongol rule, more Turks migrated to Azerbaijan from to escape invasion in central Asia (what the hell are you talking about? Whose invasion the Turks of Central Asia escaped from? H.). The Turks that arrived in the 13th and 14th centuries mostly belonged to the Kipchak Turkic tribes, which includes the Tatar and Kazak Turkic groups (no end in sight to the variety and number of this blood-thirsty species. H.).

Azerbaijani Dynasties

The five Azerbaijani dynasties that came in the following centuries (Qara-Qoyonlu, Aq-Qoyonlu, Safavi, Afshar, Qajar (if any of these dynasties called themselves Azerbaijanis, I'll eat my head . H.)) as well as the existing Shirvanshahs in the northern part of Azerbaijan further developed the country and its national culture (what nation, let alone "national culture" are you talking about? The bogus Azerbaijani nationhood had yet to be artificially created by the bolsheviks in 1918. H.). These dynasties ruled over much of western Asia and Iran.

The Safavis, natives of Ardebil (in IRAN if you please H.), established their regime in Tabriz in 1501 and based their power under the ideology of Shia Islam. Thus, Shia Islam was imposed on the former Sunni population in Azerbaijan as well as other peoples who lived under their empire. The subsequent Shiaism which was bestowed on the Azerbaijanis seperated them from other Turkic peoples in that era such as the Ottomans (that was the point, Ottomans were Iran's fierce enemies. H.) and Uzbeks, who were mostly Sunni Muslim.

King Ismayil, the founder of the Safavi dynasty and a Turkic poet who wrote many poems in the Azerbaijani language under the pen name "Khatai" was forced to move his capital from Tabriz into the present-day Persian city of Isfahan after attacks by the Ottomans which became a series of wars between the Ottoman and Safavi Turks (The ruling class may have been of Turkish origin, but the people of Iran were Iranians. Therefore "Safavi Turks" is intentionally misleading. H.) which were based on religious reasons. (And guess who had to pay most dearly for the greed of these blood-thirsty rivals? Does the policy of scorched lands ring a bell? H.)

The territory of Azerbaijan was divided by the Safavis into four areas of Beklerbekliks, or administrations: Tabriz, Shukhursada (Nakhchivan) Shirvan and Qarabaq ("Qarabaq", this is the point of the whole falsification and rape of history. H.) .

After the collapse of the Safavi empire, Nadir Shah Afshar (Nadir Guli Bey) was crowned as king of Azerbaijan and Iran in 1737 (king of Iran, not Azerbaijan and Iran. H.). The coronation of Nadir Shah took place in Mugan, in the area of South Azerbaijan (get real. H.). Nadir Shah had formerly been a commander in the Safavid state, and was from the Afshar tribe of the Azerbaijani Turks (get real. H.) who lived in Khurasan (is there a territory on this planet or in the universe which is not a part of Azerbaijan?).

After his assassination 10 years later, Azerbaijan (you mean The Universe H.) was divided into several principalities known as "Khanates."

Division of Azerbaijan

Thus, the kingdom of Azerbaijan (no such kingdom ever existed in this universe. H.) was divided into a federal system with the Khanates of: Tabriz, Baku, Quba, Urmiya, Ardebil, Khoy, Sheki, Shamakhi, Qarabaq, Qaradaq, Maku, Maraga and Nakhchivan (and Mercury, Mars, Venus, Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto and all that is known or unknown...H.). The land of Azerbaijan was divided in 1828 between Russia and the Qajars who had lost in battle to the Russians. Azerbaijan is divided to this day. Due to its location astride the trade routes (Turkish banditry leading to the eventual decline of these routes H.) connecting Europe to Central Asia and the Near East and on the shore of the Caspian Sea, Azerbaijan was fought over by Russia, Persia, and the Ottomans for several centuries. Finally the Russians split Azerbaijan's territory with Persia in 1828 by the Treaty of Turkmenchay, establishing the present frontiers and extinguishing the last native (native? What happened to the incursions? H.) dynasties of local Azerbaijani khans (and what a relief it was for the Armenians suffering for cenuries under their tyranny H.).

The beginning of modern exploitation of the oil fields in the 1870s led to a period of unprecedented prosperity and growth in the years before World War I.(Talking about the devil's luck! Without the oil-fields the Frankenstein monster named after the northwest Iranian region would never have to be created and the ficticious "nation" called "Azeri" would never have existed and a pathological liar like the "author" would not have made me waste my valuable time exposing his baloney history to the unsuspecting reader. If the psycopathic mass-murderer Stalin knew his creation would come to this, he would have thought twice approving of a name for this abomination of a "country". H.)

At the collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917, an independent republic was proclaimed in 1918 following an abortive attempt to establish a Transcaucasian Republic with Armenia and Georgia. Azerbaijan received de facto recognition by the Allies (read: by the United Kingdom of the Greatest Turkish Phallus Suckers. H.) as an independent nation in January 1920 (the wanton, whining bully got the lollypop at last. H.), an independence terminated by the arrival of the Red Army in April. Incorporated into the Transcaucasian Federative Soviet Socialist Republic in 1922, Azerbaijan (which one? Alas... they also did not change the name. H.) became a union republic of the USSR in 1936 (and the only one in the USSR to have implemented systematic ethnic cleansing, genocide and ethnocide in the Armenian province of Nachijevan, unfairly annexed to Azerbaijan along with Artsakh (aka Karabagh or Qarabaq) even though it doesn't share any borders with it H.). The late 1980s were characterized by increasing unrest, eventually leading to a violent confrontation when Soviet troops killed 190 nationalist demonstrators in Baky in January 1990. Azerbaijan declared its independence from the USSR on August 30, 1991.

What should one call someone who can produce such a huge pile of turkdung with such shamelessness? Wouldn't "Turk" best describe such a "person"? Does the "author" of the "article" believe in all the rubbish he puts out? It's ironic that the origin of the word Azerbaijan is traced back to the language family the Turks always refer to as a proof of the "non"-ethnicity of the people of the real Azarbaijan. After Alexander's victory over Darius III and the fall of the Achaemenid Empire, Iran came under the Seleucid rule soon after Alexander's death. However, a satrap named Aturpat (Atrpat, Atropat, Atropates) established an independent state in the northwest region of Iran (known as the Lesser Medes) which from then on was called Aturpatekan (Aturpayegan in Old Persian or Parthian) after him. After some 23 centuries, the region is still called Atrpatakan in Armenian as opposed to Adrbeijan (the approximate Arabic pronunciation) which is used to designate the bogus state north of the region. It should be noted that the Persian language underwent substantial changes after the Arab invasion. The Iranians, unlike almost all the other conquered nations managed to keep their language at the cost of thousands of original words being replaced by their Arabic equivalents and countless others adapting their pronunciation to some kind of Perso-Arabic, cf. "paradisa" = paradise became "ferdows", "Pars" became "Fars", etc. Rejecting the customs and laws of the Arabs, the Armenians held on to their culture at the cost of centuries long suffering and oppression under the Arab tyranny. As a result a considerable number of words can still be found in Armenian that share their roots with Pahlavi and other old Persian languages. The word Azarbaijan is the Persianized form of the Arabized word for Aturpatekan, the "z" sound replacing the Arabic "dhal" which is similar to the voiced "th" in "this", not existing in Persian. As stated earlier the Arabized word "Adrbeijan" is used in Armenian for the artificially created state, "d" being considered closer to the "dhal" than "z" in Armenian which also does not have any form of the "th" sound.

--------------------------The following is just an attempt and I have no Turkish style pretention to its absolute scientific veracity-----------------------

The Old Persian term aturpat is defined as "protector of fire". Although not of primordial importance, it may be possible to define this word by looking at its components in Armenian. Keep in mind that the "p", "k" and "t" in what follows are the non-aspirated variants of these consonants not found in English, they sound approximately like their corresponding consonants in Russian. The "a" is like the "a" in "far". The word "atr" is not used independently in modern Armenian, nevertheless, it has survived as a prefix meaning fire in words such as "atroushan" = a flame-holder in pagan or Zoroastrian temples, "atragouyn" = having the color of fire, "atr'tchanak" = revolver, etc. "pat" as a noun, meaning wall in Armenian, may have the same meaning as the "pat" in atropat. "pat" is also used as a suffix meaning surrounded with or covered with: "shrjapat" is Armenian for surrounding, "zrahapat" = armoured (covered in armour), etc. This way atropat could mean: surrounded with fire, protected by fire (pay in Aturpayegan is also considered as to watch, to protect. Therefore atropat is also defined as protector, keeper of fire. The Armenian infinitive "pahel" = to keep might also be considered), . We will leave it there. Finally, "kan" or "akan" is a suffix in Armenian meaning pertaining to or belonging to, for instance: "hndkakan" = Indian (like in Indian music), "fransakan" = French (like in french wine), "parskakan" = Persian (like in Persian food). "Atrpatakan", pertaining to Atropat or Atropat's land, the name used in Armenian for the northwest region in Iran is irrefutably of Indo-European origin. Not that I like the whole concept of the Indo-European / Aryan thing, but if we stick to the argument of the Turks that everything "Non-Aryan" is automatically Turkish and vice versa, the above explanation is worth the mention.

-------------------------------------------------------------end attempt----------------------------------------------------------

It works against the Turks both ways: whether we hypothetically consider the area north of the Arax river as Azerbaijan, it can not include the migratory, nomadic Turkic tribes, artificially "unified" and brought under the denomination, as native Azerbaijanis. Ironically the indigenous peoples of the area, Udins, Tats, Talishes, kurds, Lezgins and also Armenians should be considered the real Azerbaijanis! If we stay out of the realm of fiction, the indigenous peoples of the only Azarbaijan (Aturpatekan / Atrpatakan), various Iranian peoples and also Armenians, who have been a presence since antiquity -the westernmost part of the region having been part of the Urartu kingdom, should be considered as true Azarbaijanis again. The point is that the Turkic occupiers of the "country" known as the Republic of Azerbaijan do not have any rights -racial, ethnic, linguistic or otherwise, regarding the name they use to describe their "nation". By hijacking the name of a region in another country and by using and abusing it to the limits of sanity (read the "article" above without the comments and see if you can make out what the "author" means by the word Azerbaijan), the Turks can by no means conceal their origins, worse, they cannot become a part of the civilized world as long as they do not want to open their eyes and hearts and accept who they really are and where they really come from.

Turkish History For Dummies

To illustrate the absurdity of the Turkish reasoning when dealing with history and to somehow make the not acquainted perceive this absurdity, let's imagine you are a member of a family living in a house in a ranch established many years ago by your great, great, great, great grandparents. Let's for the fun call your family the Waltons. Your family, the Waltons, has had its share of good and bad days and over the years you have managed to keep the ranch going: you cultivate the land, graze your cattle, you build irrigation systems, your ranch house, the barn, decorative structures and everything you might have thought necessary for your ranch. One day some wild and uncouth horsemen attack your ranch, let's call these guys the Daltons, they raze everything you built to the ground and burn whatever is standing to cinders. They break into the house and rape every member of the family between ten and fifty, then they brutally slaughter most of them in front of your eyes with unimaginable savagery while taking endless pleasure in what they do. It so happens that you manage to escape this carnage. Now years have passed and you have been desperately trying to explain to the heartless world, whom economical circumstances have brought close to the Daltons, what happened to you but not many seem to be interested in your story. Rather they fight with one another over the courtship of the Daltons. And the Daltons? What do they say when they are asked for a reaction to your just claims? Well, generally speaking they replace the names "Waltons" by "Daltons" and vice versa and regurgitate your story. Specifically they say that "these lands have always belonged to Daltons" or "these lands are the eternal possession of Daltons". "The Olsens and the Engelses were living in nearby ranches countless generations ago. Although they moved out of the area many years ago and we will never be able to ask them, they are by no means related to the Waltons therefore they are in fact Daltons. Since they are Daltons and they settled in the nearby areas generations ago it definitely means that their lands also belong to the Daltons the same way the lands claimded by the Waltons belongs to the Daltons and has always belonged to the Daltons. It was in fact the Waltons who quite recently moved in Dalton land and massacred innocent indigenous Daltons"... You are not in an enviable situation, yet you will never give up hope and while you did manage to win back a tiny bit of your land in an unequal battle with the armed up to their teeth Daltons, you are surrounded by the killers of your entire family and the occupiers of your land. They neither feel any remorse for the horrendous crimes they committed (and still commit in form of destroying every bit of evidence: your graveyard and all else you built which would prove your just claims), nor will they feel any shame twisting the truth whatever way the moment dictates, fabricating stories that defy logic. All you have is faith, your rich family traditions and above all dignity. The future will show whether these will be sufficient to finally win back your lands from the Daltons and let justice prevail. Until then you have to hold on and you cannot afford to despair.


Thursday, May 25, 2006

Rebutting Justin McCarthy

Time to put on hygienic gloves and a mask and delve into the Mcfarty trash can

Turks have begun a hysterical campaign of denial of the Armenian Genocide and the Internet has not been spared from the invasion of barbaric hordes of virtual Ottoman "conquerors" ravaging each and every forum pertaining to any ethnicity remotely or otherwise related to their dark tyrannical rule. The sheer number of websites spreading their revisionist spam faster than a bubonic plague testifies to this hysteria: just Google something about Armenia or the Armenians, especially the name of an Armenian hero, and wonder over the uncontrollable hate and smear campaign the Mongolo-Tatar Information Super Silk Route bandits have organized to mislead the uninformed.

Their "proofs" can be summarized into an "essay" spewed out of the rectum of an Armenian Hating American(?) con "scholar" called Justin McCarthy (here referred to as Injust McFarty). Armenian History starts somewhere near the end of the 18th century for this sham scholar.

I am no scholar and no historian but my knowledge of my people's past is unfathomably deeper than that of this hysterian and if I can expose this charlatan then a historian shall not even dignify his lies with a middle finger. The reason I thought I should say something about this "essay" is the amount of trust Turks put in it and the countless quotes they regurgitate from it to deny the Genocide.

Before I start I state an irrefutable truth among millions that render denying the Armenian Genocide absurd.

Armenians lived in their homeland for thousands of years, then the Turks invaded and after centuries of abuse they decided to empty Armenia from its indigenous inhabitants to realize the sick Pan-Turkist dream of uniting the Turks in occupied Asia Minor and the Caucasus with their tent-dwelling kin in the steppes of Central Asia (another region “conquered” through invasion by the Tou Kiu (the Turks) earlier… but that’s another story) where they originally came from in the 11th century. As a result no Armenians live in their ancestral home anymore. This is by definition genocide. End of story.

By Justin McCarthy (11 April 2001, Copyright © Turkish Daily News)

Part I: Nationalists who use history have different goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their nations' battles. They have a purpose -- to triumph for their cause, and they will use anything to succeed in this goal Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his error when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools a logical and consistent account results.

"to triumph for their cause", the poor English coming from this professssssor is yet another proof of this charlatan's "deep" knowledge of his own mother tongue let alone history. Oh, although I'm not a native speaker of English, the extra esses in prof were just a digital encoding of a soft fart I directed at this scumbag's face and not a typo. It would be better for this rascal to "acknowledge his error" and spare me the waste of time for revealing his illogical and inconsistent rubbish.

Throughout the recent debate on the Armenian genocide question, one statement has characterized those who object to politicians' attempts to write history, "Let the Historians decide." Few of us have specified who we are referring to in that statement. It is now time to do so.

"the Historians" (why capitalize?) have decided long time ago, it is now time for you to specify who you really are and why you are attempting to rewrite history if you don't have a political agenda.

There is a vast difference between history written to defend one-sided nationalist convictions and real accounts of history. History intends to find that the truth is illusive. Historians know they have prejudices that can affect their judgment. They know they never have all the facts. Yet they always try to find the truth, whatever that may be.

"History intends to find"??? Is this "scholar" sober or what? For a real account of history, among other things, read all the history books written by true historians throughout the dark Ottoman period and before, learn about the cultural heritage of the Armenians being systematically destroyed up to this very day, consult historic maps, go to Western Armenia and find the turkified Armenians still living and talk to them about their fate. "History intends to find that the truth is illusive"??? Do you speak English? What the hell are you talking about? If TRUTH is ILLUSIVE then black is white. So go on and find this illusive truth whatever you THINK it is and hope no one sees that prejudices have numbed your "judgment".

Nationalists who use history have a different set of goals. They use events from the past as weapons in their own nation's battles. They have a purpose -- the triumph of their cause -- and they will use anything to succeed in this goal. While a historian tries to collect all the relevant facts and put them together as a coherent picture, the nationalist selects those pieces of history that fit his purpose' ignoring the others.

What relevant facts has the garbage collecting "professor" ever collected? Is he aware of the centuries long tyranny and oppression Armenians and other subjects of the Empire of Rape and Plunder had to endure? Doesn't he know that the Ottomans, and indeed the whole fauna of the different Central Asian predatory nomadic species, have halted the natural progress and prosperity of the industrious and cultural people of Armenia for a thousand years? Apparently the "scholar "ignores "those pieces of history" that don't "fit his purpose".

Like other men and women, historians have political goals and ideologies, but a true historian acknowledges his errors when the facts do not support his belief. The nationalist apologist never does so. If the facts do not fit his theories the nationalist ignores those facts and looks for other ways to make his case. True historians can make intellectual mistakes. Nationalist apologists commit intellectual crimes.

What facts do support his beliefs? Does the scumbag acknowledge his "errors"? The crime this lying, illiterate weasel commits cannot even be considered intellectual!

The Armenian issue has long been plagued with nationalist studies. This has led to an inconsistent history that ignores the time-tested principles of historical research. Yet when the histories of Turks and Armenians are approached with the normal tools of history a logical and consistent account results. "Let the historians decide" is a call for historical study like any other historical study, one that looks at all the facts, studies all the opinions, applies historical principles and comes to logical conclusions.

Right now the only plague gnawing hopelessly at the Armenian issue is the revisionist "studies" of the likes of this "historian" with no "historical principles" or any principles for that matter.

Historians first ask the most basic question. "Was there an Armenia?" Was there a region within the Ottoman Empire where Armenians were a compact majority that might rightfully demand their own state?

Of course, the garbage collector looks at all facts but somehow misses the fact that according to Jean Baptiste Tavernier, who traveled six times in the East in the period of 1632-1668 wrote in his notes that "the land stretching from Tokat to Tabriz is almost exclusively inhabited by Christians and this region used to be part of the Armenian Kingdom...That's why it's not surprising to come across fifty Armenians for every single Muslim". Where did they all go? I wonder...
Of course, the "truth seeking" "hysterian" has "accidentally" missed the "Reis Efendi Risalesi", the official report for the Ottoman Ministry of Interior, prepared in 1778-1780, which affirms that "the Armenians were the most numerous reaya-population in the Ottoman State". In numbers it should lie somewhere between 2.5 to 3 million, since the Greek population at the time must have been over 2 million.
The ignoramus, cow dung for brains cowboy smears a nation and their homeland shamelessly and calls himself a logical and consistent historian who applies historical principles. Armenia figures on all the historic maps of the region including the maps done for the Ottoman Tyranny. The oldest known world map, a Babylonian Clay Tablet from 600 B.C. testifies to the fact that Armenia has always existed and the ONLY country represented on the tablet still existing, is Armenia.

We are not even talking about the Sumerian inscriptions of the existence of an Armenian state, Aratta, in 2800 B.C.; the Ebla inscriptions; the accounts of king Naram-Suen (23rd century B.C.); the Accadian, Hitite, Babylonian inscriptions mentioning Armanum/Armani/ Ar(a)m(e) and different country names with ARM as their root and their irrefutable geographical situation matching the Armenian Highlands, which leave no place for any doubt that Armenia has existed at least since 4800 years.

(back, if you came here from further)

To find the answer, historians look to government statistics for population figures, especially to archival statistics, because governments seldom deliberately lie to themselves. They want to know their populations so they can understand them, watch them, conscript them, and, most importantly to a government, tax them. The Ottomans were no different than any other government in this situation. Like other governments they made mistakes, particularly in under-counting women and children. However, this can be corrected using statistical methods. What results is the most accurate possible picture of the number of Ottoman Armenians. By the beginning of World War I Armenians made up only 17 percent of the area they claimed as " Ottoman Armenia," the so called "Six Vilayets." Judging by population figures, there was no Ottoman Armenia. In fact if all the Armenians in the world had come to Eastern Anatolia, they still would not have been a majority there.

Voilà, the favorite Turkish numbers game again! How they don't get tired of regurgitating this nauseating, pseudo-scientific approach is stupefying to say the least. In the previous paragraph I have given examples of the estimations of the indigenous Armenian population that have "skipped" the "professor's" attention. Once and for all: There were no official census in the Ottoman Tyranny in today's sense of the word and the whole thing was based on estimations. The fact that the ruling class, out of fear most probably, wanted to present itself the majority, is reason enough to deflate the number of the minorities. The conman even admits that they were "under-counting women and children" especially those they stole for their evil purposes.
"To find the answer," why doesn't the "historian look to government statistics" regarding the sheer number of Armenian churches for instance?
Over 95% out of at least 2200 working Armenian churches accounted for in 1912 are now destroyed. According to a 1974 UNESCO account, from the 913 monuments still standing after the genocide 464 were totally destroyed, 252 were turned in ruins and 197 needed serious restoration. Beside the fact that they are trying to erase every trace of Armenians, yet another irrefutable proof of the Armenian Genocide, one must ask 2200 churches for how many people? If you think about it, there must have been well over 3 million Armenians living under Ottoman Tyranny before the Genocide and not less. If we were to estimate the real number of Armenians, we have to bear in mind that:
I. The Turks had been stealing and raping women in their filthy harems and usurping healthy boys for janissary for centuries.
II. There was a policy of forced turkification to increase the number of the Turks and to eliminate the non-Turkish majority who lived between them and their Central Asian kin, hence the birth of Pan-Turkism.
Also the fact that babies were "ravished from the embraces of their mothers and mercilessly hurled against rocks" ever since they set hoof this side of the Caspian, we have to conclude from the 70 million population of today's Asia Minor at least 30 million should have been Armenians.

Two inferences can be drawn from the relatively small number of Armenians in the Ottoman East: The first is that by themselves, the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire. Armenian rebels might have disputed civil order but there were too few of them to endanger Ottoman authority. Armenian rebels needed help from outside forces, help that could only be provided by Russia. The second inference is that Armenian nationalists could have created a state that was truly theirs only if they first evicted the Muslims who lived there.

The "all" knowing sage draws two inferences with his fat butt and he expects people who have actually read real history books, would buy that excrement. And he's totally right that "the Armenians of Anatolia would have been no great threat to the Ottoman Empire" and they never were. In fact the ignorant jester wouldn't want to know that the Armenians built the Ottoman "Empire". The slime ball rolling over an ancient nation's untarnished reputation, trying to rub off the slime that doesn't stick and makes him an uglier liar, wants the uninformed reader to believe the Armenians received Russian help, but my copy of the "Story of Dashnaktsoutiun", in Armenian if you please, tells me that the party was loathed and feared by the Czarist Russia, because of its revolutionary ideology and they smuggled the weapons they needed themselves, putting their lives on the line. Now it's the turn of the uneducated "wise man" to show a document that proves any Russian help to the independence seeking Armenian revolutionaries. The second wily inference is even more stinking, because firstly, the Muslim population was artificially settled in Armenian land to harass and chase the Armenians out of their thousands year homeland, secondly it was the Armenians who were "evicted" from their motherland which is populated with as many Muslims as the Turk loving "professor" can wish.

To understand the history of the development of Muslim-Armenian antagonism one must apply historical principles. In applying those principles one can see that the history of Armenians was a history like other histories. Some of that history was naturally unique because of its environment but much of it was strikingly similar to what was seen in other places and times.

The unprincipled scoundrel has never seen the cover of a history book. He has never bothered to study the Arab invasion of Armenia and over 250 years of resistance to these tyrants, he doesn't want to know what the Armenians had to take under Persian Khans, worst than all the ignoble, ignominious ignoramus doesn't care a hang for the thousand year humiliation and extortion of the Armenians under his beloved species, hell no... By cunningly describing the Turco-Armenian problem as "Muslim-Armenian antagonism", the thug intends to steer up anti-Armenian feeling among Muslims for obvious reasons.
Of course it has escaped his sick mind that despite historic tragedies, the Armenians have never underlined the Muslim-Armenian side of the problem. In fact the Armenians have always emphasized that they are grateful to the Arabs for sheltering the survivors of the Genocide and they have always maintained good relations with Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Iran and other Muslim nations. Most of all Armenians haven't spared anything in helping their host nations' progress in all fields.

1. Most ethnic conflicts develop over a long period. Germans and Poles, Finns and Russians, Hindus and Muslims in the Indian subcontinent, Irish and English, Europeans and Native Americans in North America -- all of these ethnic conflicts unfolded over generations, often over centuries.

How scholarly...

2. Until very modern times most mass mortality of ethnic groups was the result of warfare in which there were at least two warring sides.

"most mass mortality"... does this idiot speak English or what? So, we have to conclude diseases took less mass mortality. The guy's some expert.

3. When conflict erupted between nationalist revolutionaries and states it was the revolutionaries who began confrontations. Internal peace was in the interest of settled states. Looked at charitably, states often wished for tranquility for the benefits it gave their citizens. With less charity it can be seen that peace made it easier to collect taxes and use armies to fight foreign enemies, not internal foes. World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions to be needed here. In the Ottoman Empire, the examples of the rebellions in Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria demonstrate the truth of this.

Yeah, lazy smart ass, "World history demonstrates this too well for examples from other regions " so why care cite examples from the region in question?
Why do we want to know that:
To humiliate the non-Muslims, as early as 1588 Armenian men among other minorities, had to wear black head coverings. According to Ricaut this gave the Muslims the assurance who they could treat cruelly without the fear of being prosecuted by the law. Because a Christian attacked by a Turk didn’t have the right to defend themselves, the only way out was escape. Otherwise they had to let themselves be abused and humiliated without being allowed to hit back (M. Febvre, L’état présent de la Turquie où il est traité des vies mœurs et coutumes des Ottomans et autres peuples de leur Empire, p.152, Paris 1675).

What difference would it make if we mentioned en passant that:
To avoid this danger that was permanently hanging above their heads, some reaya would clothe themselves differently but even in 1757 this didn’t escape the attention of the rulers. According to Vasif, “The Greek, Armenian and Jewish subjects had trespassed the Sharia with their clothing. Therefore, the Greek and Armenian patriarchs and the Jewish religious leaders were summoned to the head officer (Aga) in Istanbul to be reminded of the dress code commanded by the padishah, they were also warned if these obligations weren’t observed immediately the offenders would be severely punished (Tarihi Vasif, 1827)

Or who cares when the hard working Armenian reaya had to give everything they produced and some to the greedy Ottoman bandits without any protest, as recorded In Koçi Bey's "Risale" (report) presented to sultan Murad IV in 1631-1632:
"In the beginning 40 to 50 akce was imposed on each household as "avaris". Today 240 akce per capita as "cizye", another 300 per household as "avaris" and an akce for every sheep as sheep tax is being imposed. The Sipahi officers of six regiments have taken the collecting of the sultan's tax in their hands. They have violently seized the accounting books from the tax-collectors. These are for sale in broad daylight, in front of everyone's eyes at the entrance of sultan Muhammed mosque, for the price of one and a half akce gulamiye. The buyers that wouldn't be satisfied with one kurus have started to take 700 to 800 akce for "cizye" and 30 to 40 akce for every sheep in the land of Islam. How can the "raya" tolerate such oppression..."

Certainly it is of no significance, and it shouldn't stir the loyal subjects to protest that:
"Devsirme", the collecting and conversion of Christians, mainly for janissary purposes, that was the order of the day from 14th to 19th centuries, expressed itself as legitimized oppression. According to Selaniki the Turkish annals writer: "The rulers of the time were ruthless in recruiting children... Like wolves attacking sheep, they mercilessly assaulted the reaya in the land. As a result they have robbed the rich reaya, while they have ravished the children of the poor and ruined their families"

On these principles, the histories of Turks and Armenians are no different from other histories. Historical principles applied.

Read the above and get a life, you shame of all historians.

The conflict between Turks and Armenians did indeed develop over a long time. The primary impetus for what was to become the Armenian-Muslim conflict lay in Russian imperial expansion. At the time of Ivan the Terrible, circa the sixteenth century, Russians began a policy of expelling Muslims from lands they had conquered. Over the next three hundred years, Muslims, many of them Turks, were killed or driven out of what today is Ukraine, Crimea and the Caucasus. From the 1770s to the 1850s Russian attacks and Russian laws forced more than 400,000 Crimean Tatars to flee their land. In the Caucasus region, 1.2 million Circassians and Abazians were either expelled or killed by Russians. Of that number, one third died as victims of the mass murder of Muslims that has been mostly ignored. The Tatars, Circassians and Abazians came to the Ottoman Empire. Their presence taught Ottoman Muslims what they could expect from a Russian conquest.

Besides the fact that the "Muslims" i.e. Turks were not the indigenous people of the region and their presence was the result of countless barbaric invasions that brought nothing but death and destruction and stopped the normal progress of the people who lived in the area for thousands of years, one cannot help asking what the hell this so called Russian atrocities have to do with the Armenians. The "scholar" has suffered brain short-circuit. His hatred for the Russians as a result of his Cold War upbringing has damaged his brain so severely that he cannot distinguish between two totally distinct ethnicities.

Members of the Armenian minority in the Caucasus began to rebel against Muslim rule and to ally themselves with Russian invaders in the 1790s: Armenian armed units joined the Russians, Armenian spies delivered plans to the Russians. In these wars, Muslims were massacred and forced into exile. Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh. This was the beginning of the division of the peoples of the southern Caucasus and eastern Anatolia into two conflicting sides -- the Russian Empire and Armenians on one side, the Muslim Ottoman Empire on the other. Most Armenians and Muslims undoubtedly wanted nothing to do with this conflict, but the events were to force them to take sides.

"Armenian armed units"??!! "Armenian spies"!!?? Where does this charlatan get these ideas from? Russian invaders? The Ottomans were the indigenous people of Armenia and Asia Minor since the days of the dinosaurs.
Artsakh (Karabagh) has been the last bastion of Armenian independence. The Melikdoms of Karabagh are the unshakable evidence. Yes, Eastern Armenia was under Persian rule. Yes, Armenians were relieved when Russia "liberated" this part of their land from the tyranny of the khans. What do you want? Aren't Armenians entitled to 10% of their historic land? What does he know of the reason the area was emptied of Armenians and Muslims were settled in their place?
What does the con historian know of my own ancestors who were forcefully migrated to Iran by Shah Abbas (himself of Turkish origin) in 1604, who was engaged in a war against the Ottomans. He burned the entire region to cut the supply routes thus, the advance of the Ottoman army.
It's believed that out of two to three hundred thousand Armenians forcefully relocated, about half died, mostly drowning in the Arax River. However, the Iranian Armenians have forgotten the dark days and since Shah Abbas settled them in an area near Isfahan and let them build a new city that the Armenians called Nor Jugha (New Julfa) in memory of their home, they flourished and became a respected and influential minority and unlike in the Ottoman Tyranny they were never subject to genocidal madness.
Here I demand the scamp to produce ONE map or document from before the Armenian Genocide that calls Armenia "Eastern Anatolia". Otherwise he has to put a cork in his rectum to prevent this sort of excretion. Finally the fabricated claim that "Armenians in turn migrated into areas previously held by Muslims, such as Karabakh" is answered in the excerpt below, from George Bournoutian's exposing of Armenian hating pseudo-scholars who out of desperate need for non-existing "proofs", maliciously distort his views and misquote him to defend their lame and bogus arguments:

"Prior to Soviet rule, the Russians conducted a number of surveys in the different regions of Transcaucasia.(2) Although not as accurate as a present-day census might be, the surveys were the first of their kind in Western Asia. In 1822, the Russian administration decided to determine the Armenian population in Transcaucasia. The survey was primarily to determine how many "non-Orthodox" Christians there were in the region.(3) The survey managed to record the number of Armenians in Georgia, Ganje (Elisavetpol), and Baku.(4) Erevan and Nakhichevan were under Persian rule and were not included. The Khan of Karabakh, Mahdi-qoli, fearing that the Armenian-populated districts might be removed from his control, did not permit the survey in Karabakh. Later that year, he fled to Persia, and the Russians were able to commence their first survey of Karabakh. The survey began in early 1823 and was completed on 17 April of that same year.(5) Its more than 300 pages recorded both the Armenian and Muslim population, not by numbers, but by villages and tax assessments. It noted that the district of Khachen had twelve Armenian villages and no Tatar (Russian term for the Turkish population) villages; Jalapert had eight Armenian villages and no Tatar villages; Dizak had fourteen Armenian villages and one Tatar village; Gulistan had two Armenian and five Tatar villages; and Varanda had twenty-three Armenian villages and one Tatar village. Thus the five mountainous districts (generally known as Nagorno-Karabakh today) which, according to Persian and Turkish sources, constituted the five (khamse) Armenian melikdoms,(6) had an overwhelming Armenian population before 1828.(7)
The mahal of Tat'ew had twelve Armenian and one Tatar village; that of Kiopar, six Armenian villages; and Bargushat, two Armenian and three Tatar villages. Thus these mahals, which form part of present-day Zangezur and were a part of the larger region called Karabakh, were also overwhelmingly Armenian. Armenians were also represented, in small numbers, in all the other non-nomadic districts of Karabakh."

2. The first survey was conducted in Georgia at the start of the nineteenth century, and the last was the complete survey of Transcaucasia in 1897.

3. The Georgian Church was in communion with the Russian Orthodox Church.

4. Akty sobrannye Kavkzskoiu Arkheograficheskoiu Kommissieiu (Documents Pertaining to the Russian Administration of the Caucasus), VI/1 (Tiflis, 1866), doc. 601.

5. The survey, conducted by State Counselor Mogilevskii and Colonel Ermolov II (a relative of General Ermolov, commander-in-chief of the Caucasus), was printed in Tiflis in 1866 (no pagination).

6. For example see Tarikh-e Qarabagh, written by Mirza Jamal Javanshir, the vizier of Ebrahim Khan of Karabagh, manuscript no. B-712/11603, Academy of Sciences of Azerbaijan, Baku (my English translation and the facsimile in A History of Qarabagh [Costa Mesa, CA: Mazda Publishers, 1993]).

7. The survey lists Goris and Khan-Kend (present-day Step'anakert, capital of Nagorno-Karabakh) as Armenian settlements.

The 1827 to 1829 wars between Russians, Persians and Ottomans saw the beginning of a great population exchange in the East that was to last until 1920. When the Russians conquered the Erivan Khanete, today the Armenian Republic, the majority of its population was Muslim. Approximately two thirds, 60,000 of these Muslims were forced out of Erivan by Russians. The Russians went on to invade Anatolia, where large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause. At the war's end, when the Russians left eastern Anatolia 50 to 90,000 Armenians joined them. They took the place of the exiled Muslims in Erivan and else where, joined by 40,000 Armenians from Iran.

A thorn in your Mongol eye and a trunk in your slandering butt, this tiny, little, rocky, craggy resource-less land should also be the Devil given property of the Turks so that the diabolical Pan-Turkist sick dream would come true. The despicable rascal has a way of showing his dull and faded genocidal colors. "...large numbers of Armenians took up the Russian cause", we have to believe the "learned" liar. And what were 40,000 Armenians doing in Iran? They just grew on trees in Iran...
One more thing: The city is called Yerevan you insolent, castrated, whining, whimpering swine.

The great population exchange had begun, and mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians was the result. The Russians were to invade Anatolia twice more in the nineteenth century, during the Crimean War and the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War. In both wars significant numbers of Armenians joined the Russians acting as spies and even occupation police.

"mutual distrust between Anatolia's Muslims and the Armenians...", "spies and even occupation police.", give us a break! From Mikael Varandian's "History of Dashnaktsoutioun":
"After the (Russo-Turkish H.) war the situation got even worse...a landscape of destruction and horrors unfolded before the eyes of the Armenians, the like of which Ottoman Armenia had not seen in centuries.
Ottoman Armenians had performed their duty to the Ottoman State with utmost loyalty. 20-30,000 Armenians had toiled like actual beasts of burden, carrying cannons and ammunition to remote places and generally doing the heaviest labor. The state had plundered the Armenian people, they had taken everything to cover the costs of the war... Not a single protest, not one Ottoman Armenian volunteer in the Russian army, not a single uprising among the Armenians of the Caucasus, and despite all of this the Ottoman Armenia was subjected to immeasurable destruction, carnage, pillage, atrocities by the irregular Turkish forces and Kurds, hundreds of villages burned to cinders, desecrated churches and monasteries, lawlessness, fear and terror, disorder and migration... Inhabitants of entire provinces evacuated and moved towards the Russian border, where the inevitable calamities, hunger and disease were awaiting tens of thousands of refugees."

In Erzurum, for example, British consular officials reported that the Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force "molested, illtreated, and insulted the Mohammadan population," and that 6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city. When the Russians left part of their conquest at least 25,000 Armenians joined them, fearing the vengeance of the Muslims. The largest migration though was the forced flight of 70,000 Muslims, mainly Turks, from the lands conquered by the Russians and the exodus of Laz in 1882.

An account of monthly atrocities in Van from the September 30th, 1871 issue of the Armenian paper "Mamoul":
"It's almost impossible to mention the criminal acts that happened this month one by one... As well as all counts of rape, among the victims a seven year old girl raped by a Turk, to humiliate our nation. As a result a number of people have come to the conclusion that it's advisable to consider conversion... At least that can be considered as a kind of freedom... In Van they (Turk and Kurd bandits) Attack, kill, burn, rape, plunder whenever they feel like it..."

An account of a sitting of the Ottoman Parliament is recorded in the July 19th, 1877 issue of "Masis", an Armenian paper published in Constantinople, where the representative of Karin, Hamazasp Ballarian has spoken about the Kurdish issue:
"When I asked the governors why the Kurds weren't punished, for which purpose two army battalions would suffice, instead, they were allowed to inflict atrocities without restrictions, they answered me that there was a hikmeti hokumet (state secret, hidden wisdom) in this. I finally figured out what that secret was. It is to crush any possible Armenian uprising by the Kurds. Also, in case of a war against Russia, the Kurds can be used as a volunteer force to aid the Ottoman army."

Because of the "Armenian police chief appointed by the Russians and his Armenian force...6,000 Muslim families had been forced to flee the city". Wow! It's true that there were Armenian officers in the Russian army (at least there they didn't have to function as beasts of burden, who would YOU choose between the two?), but the objective scholar who takes all the "facts" into account, fails to distinguish between Armenians living under different tyrannies.

Supporting the myth that Turks and Armenians lived like brothers and had equal rights (some Armenians were more equal than the Turks!), the professor of revisionism wouldn't like to examine "Armenia and the Campaign of 1877" by Charles Boswell Norman, a reporter of the English Times, where he describes the bestialities committed against the Armenians by the Turks and the Kurds, emphesizing that "The subject is too painful to need any coloring". He describes the pillage and the carnage done in Bayazed, Van, Bitlis, Alashkert, etc. See also Emil Dilo's accounts of the time.

It's noteworthy that the shameless, brazenfaced liars have dared to misuse this actual person and have attributed a ficticious manuscript allegedly written by Norman and kept in "The Institute of the Turkish Revolution" (of all places! And not in Britain for instance) that condemns the Armenians! How pathetic.

By 1900, approximately 1,400,000 Turkish and Caucasian Muslims had been forced out by Russians. One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease. Between 125,000 and 150,000 Armenians emigrated from Ottoman Anatolia to Erivan and other parts of the Russian southern Caucasus.

What is the fault of Armenians that "One third of those had died, either murdered or victims of starvation and disease"?
The blackened, hateful "heart" of the scumbag cannot let him utter the word Armenia... No way, Armenians didn't have the right to live anywhere on this planet, neither in "Eastern Anatolia" nor in "Russian southern Caucasus". How objective and non-selective...

This was the toll of Russian imperialism. Not only had one-and-a-half million people been exiled or killed, but ethnic peace had been destroyed.

The "philosopher" in the "historian" muses... Go on, take it out on the Armenians...Didn't you know they were responsible for the earthquake on the moon?

The Muslims had been taught that their neighbors, the Armenians, with whom they had lived for more than 700 years, might once again become their enemies when the Russians next advanced. The Russians had created the two sides that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder.

The pig has some imagination... Justify genocide, it's the right punishment for the Armenians who had suffered 900 years of Turkish barbarity and had given everything they had including their genes, who had almost built the Ottoman "Empire", who had pioneered every single possible idea in every imaginable cultural, economical, industrial, architectural field. "...that history teaches were to be expected in conflict and mass murder", some English!

The actions of Armenian rebels exacerbated the growing division and mutual fear between Muslims and Armenians of the Ottoman East.

The uprising of the Armenians, much later than all the other subjects of the Ottoman Tyranny, even those less culturally developed, was a natural evolution of circumstances. It resulted in the liberation of a small portion of the historic Armenian homeland and it saved the Armenian nation from total annihilation, much to the dismay of the Turkish phallus eating historian.

The main Armenian revolutionary organizations were founded in the 1880s and 1890s in the Russian Empire. They were socialist and nationalist in ideology. Terrorism was their weapon of choice. Revolutionaries openly stated that their plan was the same as that which had worked well against the Ottoman Empire in Bulgaria. In Bulgaria rebels had first massacred innocent Muslim villagers. The Ottoman government, occupied with a war against Serbs in Bosnia, depended on the local Turks to defeat the rebels, which they did, but with great losses of life. European newspapers reported Bulgarians deaths, but never Muslim deaths. Europeans did not consider that the deaths were a result of the rebellion, nor the Turk's intention. The Russians invaded ostensibly to save the Christians. The result was the death of 260,000 Turks, 17 percent of the Muslim population of Bulgaria, and the expulsion of a further 34 percent of Turks. The Armenian rebels expected to follow the same plan.

Oh, poor Ottoman "Empire", how just and humane you were that after all the good you had done, your ungrateful "subjects" revolted against you and demanded that your filthy paws be kept away from their pillaged and ruined homelands... I'd like to know what this swine thinks of the "Democracy" rhetoric his imperialist state preaches to the "savage" world all the time to satiate its limitless greed for oil. This "scholar" never seems the need to inquire the how and why of the presence of these "Muslims" in those Christian countries?

The Armenian rebellion began with the organization of guerilla bands made up of Armenians from both the Russian and Ottoman lands. Arms were smuggled in. Guerillas assassinated Ottoman officials, attacked Muslim villages, and used bombs, the nineteenth century's terrorist's standard weapon. By 1894 the rebels were ready for open revolution. Revolts broke out in Samsun, Zeytun, Van and elsewhere in 1894 and 1895. As in Bulgaria they began with the murder of innocent civilians. The leader of the Zeytun rebellion said his forces had killed 20,000 Muslims. As in Bulgaria the Muslims retaliated. In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died. Further rebellions followed. In Adana in 1909 the Armenian revolt turned out very badly for both the rebels and the innocent when the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians. Throughout the revolts and especially in 1894 and 1897 the Armenians deliberately attacked Kurdish tribesmen, knowing that it was from them that great vengeance was not that likely to be expected. Pitched battles between Kurds and Armenians resulted.

"In Van for example 400 Muslims and 1,700 Armenians died... the government lost control and 17,000 to 20,000 died, mostly Armenians." Confession is good for the soul, if creatures of the species to which the "professor" belongs have a soul. Now I would like to know the meaning of "losing control", if it's anything other than what happens to psychopathic murderers.

From "The Key Distortions and Falsehoods in the Denial of the Armenian Genocide", by Zoryan Institute:

The Redundancy of the Argument of Armenian Rebelliousness

The four instances of uprising were not only isolated, local, and disconnected incidents but, above all, they were improvised, last-ditch acts of desperation to resist imminent deportation and thereby avert annihilation. Being strictly defensive undertakings, practically all of the insurgents involved perished in the course of the operations regular Turkish army units launched against them to suppress the insurgency. By sheer chance and fortuitous circumstance only the insurgents of the Van uprising managed to survive when at last they were liberated by the advance units of the Russian Caucasus Army, which overwhelmed the surrounding Turkish defense positions and captured the city of Van. The term "chance" calls for emphasis, for but for the timely arrival of the Russian military units, the insurgents of Van were likewise doomed, given the inevitable depletion of their meager resources of defense, including ammunition and weapons, and the mounting casualties they were sustaining. A delay of two or three days in the arrival of the Russians would surely have sealed the fate of the desperate defenders. The following testimony of Vice Marshal Pomiankowski, mentioned above, (the preceding section of the article H.) succinctly encapsulates this plight of the Armenians. He characterized the Van uprising as "an act of despair" because the Armenians "recognized that the general butchery had begun in the environs of Van and that they would be the next victims."3 A similar judgment was expressed by Metternich, German ambassador to Turkey, and a Venezuelan military officer of Spanish extraction who was in charge of the artillery battery relentlessly bombarding and reducing the Armenian defense positions in Van. His eyewitness testimony has extraordinary value because, as he put it, he was "the only Christian who witnessed the Armenian massacres and the deportations in an official capacity...."4

3. Joseph Pomiankowski, Der Zusammenbruch des Ottomanischen Reiches (The collapse of the Ottoman Empire). Graz, Austria, 1969, p. 160.

4. German Foreign Ministry Archives, A.A. Türkei 183/40, A25749, September 18, 1916 report, p. 25. This source contains Ambassador Metternich's reference. For the Venezuelan officer's account, see Rafael de Nogales, Four Years Beneath the Crescent. M. Lee, trans. New York: Scribner's, 1926, pp. 1, 72-97.

But it all went wrong for the Armenian rebels. They had followed the Bulgarian plan, killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians. Their own people had suffered most. Yet the Russians and Europeans they depended upon did not intervene. European politics and internal problems stayed the Russian hand.

Take out the intentional falsification "killing Muslims and initiating revenge attacks on Armenians", as if the Turks had done nothing but deliver cookies to the Armenians for 900 years, and the above paragraph becomes a true account of the fate of the Armenians.

What were the Armenian rebels trying to create? When Serbs and Bulgarians rebelled against the Ottoman Empire they claimed lands where the majorities were Serbs or Bulgarians. They expelled Turks and other Muslims from their lands, but these Muslims had not been a majority. This was not true for the Armenians.

This has already been rebutted in previous sections.

The lands they covered were overwhelmingly Muslim in population.

The lands they COVERED, the excrement that covers the entire putrefied cadaver of the hypocrite, has entirely obstructed his "view".

The only way they could create an Armenia was to expel the Muslims. Knowing this history is essential to understanding what was to come during World War I. There had been a long historical period in which two conflicting sides developed.

The only way the Turks could realize their diabolical plan of uniting the savages in the Ottoman "Empire" with their nomadic kin in the steppes of Central Asia was to "expel" the indigenous Armenians from their homeland of thousands of years. Stop copycatting and replacing "Turks" with "Armenians" in your version of "history" if you cannot come up with something more original.

Russian imperialists and Armenian revolutionaries had begun a struggle that was in no way wanted by the Ottomans. Yet the Ottomans were forced to oppose the plans of both Russians and Armenians, if only to defend the majority of their subjects. History taught the Ottomans that if the Armenians triumphed not only would territory be lost, but mass expulsions and deaths would be the fate of the Muslim majority. This was the one absolutely necessary goal of the Armenian rebellion.

"Armenian revolutionaries" were the scourge of "Russian imperialists", how come the slime ball doesn't mention this, I wonder?
The despicable manner in which the despicable falsifier justifies genocide and depicts the Ottoman Tyranny as a benevolent state doing what was most rightful to do, is so sickening that doesn't need any comment.

The preview to what was to come in the Great War came in the Russian Revolution of 1905. Harried all over the Empire, the Russians encouraged ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, fomenting an inter-communal war. Azeri Turks and Armenians battled each other when they should have attacked the Empire that ruled over both. Both Turks and Armenians learned the bitter lesson that the other was the enemy, even though most of them wanted nothing of war and bloodshed. The sides were drawn.

You dried morsel of rat defecation, Azerbaijan had yet to be artificially inseminated between Turkish phallus and Russian Bolshevik anus in 1918. "Azeri Turks" refers to a fictitious "nation" that has never existed in history. Azari was referred to the language spoken in the real Azarbaijan (Aturpatekan) northwest of Iran by Arab historians, and it was a dialect of Persian Pahlavi language. Later, when the region was turkified under Iranian dynasties of Turkic origin, the appellation still designated the language (by then Turkish) of the people.

A summary of the Armenian-Tatar clashes of 1905 from Varandian's "History of Dashnaktsoutioun"

The non-selective historian refers vaguely to the Armenian-Tatar clashes in 1905-1906 confirming yet again the genocidal nature of the Tatars (later to "redefine" themselves as "Azeris").

The Tatars of the Caucasus, especially the upper classes: the khans, the land owners, the begs and aghas, who were used to seeing Armenians as loyal slaves that didn't dare raise their heads, had preserved certain privileges even under Russian rule, and had usurped vast areas of fertile land in Russian Armenia, couldn't stand the rapid progress of the Armenians in cultural and commercial fields. Although there were no clashes, the tension was palpable. The jealous hatred of Armenians manifested itself most obviously in Baku, where the "elite" of the Tatar community was centered, among which the bourgeois, the rich and the influential, fanatical clergy that received its fuel for hate speeches from Constantinople.
The Armenians that had migrated to Baku in 1880's, had engaged in buying oil wells from the Tatars along with Russians, Jews and Europeans, and as a result of their industriousness, had rapidly succeeded and in less than thirty years they occupied the highest posts in the oil producing council and other international companies. Consequently, this drew large numbers of Armenian laborers and businessmen from other eastern Armenian provinces. This was unbearable for the Tatars, whose majority were backward, fanatical, illiterate and untalented in business.
Another reason was the struggle of the Armenians the other side of the border to liberate their homeland, along with the demonstrations and revolt in the Caucasus against the Czarist state. This had stupefied the Tatars that had always viewed the Armenians as effeminate and coward slaves who shook before the Turks and the Persians. They now imagined that the same Armenians would someday, after the fall of the Czarist regime, establish their independent homeland and oppress the Tatars. Therefore they started spreading myths, the same way the sham professor does today, about the Armenian "conspiracy".
Not surprisingly the Tatar elite took the side of the Czarists in those days of Russian revolutionary movement. They thought it an opportune moment to crush the revolution and the Armenian hopes by joining forces with the Armenian hating Czarist state.
Unable to compete with the Armenians in the cultural and commercial fields, the Tatars opted, like their kin in Constantinople, for their much loved and preferred method, physical extermination.
They armed and incited the mobs in Baku, the Russians providing the arms themselves. Hand in hand they "trained" the criminal elements, spread lies about imminent attacks by Armenian Committees and succeeded in this provocation despite the fact that the Turks were the majority in Baku. Thus, the Tatars were already confident that any atrocities against the Armenians would go unpunished and that the government was also on their side. The clergy on the other hand, fueled the religious fanaticism of the backward mobs and invited them to jihad against the Armenians that were going to attack Islam and explode their mosques!
The desired pretext didn't come a minute too late. Early February 1905, a group of Russian soldiers were transporting Ashurbegov, a Turkish criminal, from court to prison. The convict tried to escape. The Russians, among whom an Armenian soldier, opened fire and by sheer chance, it was the bullet from the Armenian soldier's gun that killed the criminal. The Turks took notice and cried havoc and decided to take revenge on Armenians. A couple of days passed.
On 6th of February Armenians had gathered in the Armenian church yard. The soldier was among them. A Tatar called Babayev approached and shot and wounded him. The Armenians caught Babayev and handed him to the police, but he got away. Some Armenian youth followed him and caught and killed the offender. This triggered the bloody clashes...

For non-Armenian accounts of the conflict, below is a sample from Luigi Villari's "Fire and Sword in the Caucasus"

"In 1858 an attempt was made to extract petroleum from the crude naphtha, and in 1863 the first refinery was founded by the Armenian Melikoff. Armenians were indeed the pioneers of the industry, although Russians and foreigners soon rushed to Baku in large numbers.
The trade of Baku, especially the shipping trade, is wholly in Tartar hands, and M. Taghieff, who laid the foundations of his fortune by selling a plot of petroliferous land, owns a whole fleet of steamers ; the money-lenders are also all Tartars. But in spite of their wealth and the business ability of a few of them, the great majority are mere primitive savages. To the Armenians above all is the development of Baku due (emphasis is mine H.), for they were the first to work the oil-fields on a large scale and on modern lines ; they perform a large part of the skilled labour, and among them most of the managers, engineers, as well as many capitalists, are to be found. The British public supplied a considerable share of the capital invested, and there are several Englishmen and other foreigners in prominent positions. The roughest unskilled work (chornaya rabota) is performed by the Tartars, Lezghins, and Persians ; the skilled work by the Armenians and Russians ; the management by Armenians, Russians, and foreigners. Lately, since the disorders, many of the Armenian and Tartar workmen fled, and there has been a considerable influx of Russians in consequence.

...The Tartars have always considered Baku as a Tartar city. The Tartar khans have ruled it for centuries, the great bulk of the native population of the whole province is Tartar, and the general character of the country until the recent influx of foreigners was mainly Tartar and Mohammedan. But the Armenians, with their superior education, their greater intelligence and push, have acquired an increasing influence in the town and the industry (emphasis is mine H.), and have edged the Tartars out of many professions.
One fact which struck me very forcibly during my stay at Baku was the extreme bitterness of the foreign element against the Armenians ; its sympathies, save in two or three instances, seemed wholly on the side of the Tartars.
...Quite apart from the greater personal charm of the Moslem over the Armenian, the views of foreign financiers and managers are greatly influenced by the fact that they are in close commercial competition with the Armenians.(emphasis is mine H.)
...Then, since the Government instituted persecutions against them and their Church, they indulged in political agitation, which, if not primarily directed against the capitalists, did cause them loss by disturbing the general conditions of the town. This explains the attitude of the foreigners, and accounts for their bitterness against the Armenians. One prominent Englishman said to me that he would be glad to see the whole Armenian nation wiped out! (emphasis is mine H.)

Prince Golytzin, who had been busy carrying out his anti-Armenian policy, had a few weeks before executed the confiscation of the Church property ; in October his life was attempted. Early in 1904 Prince Nakashidze, a Georgian noble, who as Vice-Governor of Erivan had been actively implicated in the said confiscation, was appointed Governor of Baku. His arrival coincided with a recrudescence of Armeno-Tartar hostility...
...the hatred of the two races increased, and the Governor did nothing to reconcile them. On the contrary, he was perpetually talking of an Armeno-Tartar pogrom as imminent; he openly encouraged the Tartars, and treated the Armenians with marked coldness... (emphasis is mine H.)

Early in February a Tartar shopkeeper named Gashum Beg, who had assaulted several Armenian boys and girls, was attacked by an Armenian and wounded, but he succeeded in killing his assailant. He was subsequently arrested, and as he was trying to escape a soldier of the escort, also an Armenian, shot him dead. The assailant proved to be a member of the revolutionary committee, but the Armenians deny that that association ordered him to kill Gashum Beg, and state that he had been deputed to do so by the family of one of the boys he had assaulted. A relative of Gashum Beg's, a rich Tartar named Babaieff, determined, according to the Tartar custom of vendetta, to avenge him, and a few days later tried to shoot an Armenian in the courtyard of the church, who had been pointed out to him as the man who had killed Gashum Beg ; but he failed, and in the émeute which ensued, another Armenian killed him. This deed caused great excitement in the town, and Prince Nakashidze summoned some Armenian journalists to his Chancery, and delivered them a long discourse on the dangers of an Armeno-Tartar pogrom. He declared that if the Tartars did rise against the Armenians he would be powerless to defend them, as he had not enough troops, and the police were unreliable, many of them being Tartars. In fact one of the said Armenians told me that parts of this speech corresponded almost word for word with the report which the Governor made after the massacre, which suggests that he had foreseen the whole affair.

The body of Babaieff was carried in procession through the Tartar quarter, and exposed to view. Had Prince Nakashidze wished to prevent trouble he would have stopped the procession (emphasis is mine H.); the sight of the murdered man roused the Moslems to fury, and on the 19th of February they proceeded to massacre every Armenian they came across (emphasis is mine H.). The Armenians defended themselves as best they could, but the Tartars were much more numerous and better armed. The authorities remained absolutely passive, and to the frenzied appeals for help which Prince Nakashidze was constantly receiving from hard-pressed Armenians besieged in their own houses, he replied that he had no troops and could do nothing, although as a matter of fact he had 2,000 men. He was seen driving about the town openly encouraging the Tartars, and slapping them on the back; and on one occasion, happening to see some too officious soldiers disarming a Tartar, he ordered them to give the man back his rifle, which of course they did ! M. Adamoff, one of the richest Armenians in Baku, was besieged for three days in his own house, and being a first-rate shot he killed a number of his assailants with his own hand; at last he and his son were shot dead, the Tartars set fire to the house, rushed in and butchered all the inmates. A similar fate befell Lalaieff, another rich Armenian, who defended himself until ammunition gave out, after which his house was burnt and the whole household killed. To his appeals for help the Governor made no reply, but came himself when all was over.

...The Armenians, however, took vengeance into their own hands, and on May 24th Prince Nakashidze was blown up by a bomb. As for his own guilt in this matter there can, I think, be no doubt whatever.

...The impunity of the Baku massacres encouraged the Tartars in other parts of the country. An account of the outbreak at Nakhitchevan, which was the outcome of the Baku disturbance, will be given in another Chapter...."

And the story goes on and on, until Sumgait, Baku and Gandzak massacres in our day and age.

13 September 1905 — in the Paris edition of the New York Herald:

Holy War Waged
St. Petersburg: The districts of Zangezur and Jebrail are swarming with Tartar bands under the leadership of chiefs, and in some cases accompanied by Tartar police officials. Green banners are carried and a ‘Holy War' is being proclaimed. All Armenians, without distinction of sex or age are being massacred. Many thousand Tartar horsemen have crossed the Perso-Russian frontier and joined the insurgents. Horrible scenes attended the destruction of the village of Minkind. Three hundred Armenians were massacred and mutilated. The children were thrown to the dogs and the few survivors were forced to embrace Islamism.

In late 1914, inter-communal conflict began in the Ottoman East with the Armenian rebellion. Anatolian Armenians went to the Russian South Caucasus for training, approximately 8,000 in Kagizman, 6,000 in Igdir and others elsewhere. They returned to join local rebels and revolts erupted all over the East. The Ottoman Government estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration but indicative of the scope of the rebellion. Military objectives were the first to be attacked.

"probably an exaggeration..." most definitely an exaggeration. Why shouldn't the Armenians have the right to liberate their homeland from centuries long Turkish Yoke? Were they less cultured or less deserving than Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, etc. who got their freedom? What is the reason for this level of self-righteousness coming from the Genocide deniers?

Telegraph lines were cut. Roads through strategic mountain passes were seized. The rebels attacked Ottoman officials, particularly recruiting officers, throughout the East. Outlying Muslim villages were assaulted and the first massacring of Muslims began. The rebels attempted to take cities such as Zeytun, Mus, Sebin Karahisar and Urfa. Ottoman armed forces which were needed at the front were instead forced to defend the interior.

The blatant lie is so thin that one doesn't know what to say. According to the decision of the Bureau at the eighth General Assembly of Dashnaktsoutioun in 1914, the bodies were ordered not to rebel against the Ottoman "empire".

From Ruben's "Armenian-Turkish problem":

"...despite the slaughter of 25,000 Armenians in Cilicia, Dashnaktsoutioun decided to remain calm and tried to demand that the Constitution be put to practice... But the Turkish leaders were walking along a new path that was more delusional... In 1912 Turkey was embracing a new ideal... Pan-Turanism... to turkify Turkey was the main reason that the non-Muslim and non-Turkish elements were being deported, persecuted and massacred in the country, and Turks were being settled in their places...

When, after having received facts and data from Germany and Bulgaria, they came to the conclusion that regardless of the position the Armenians took, the extermination of the Armenians, the intellectuals first, had already been planned all the same...
Dashnaktsoutioun (8th General Assembly) ordered its bodies to collaborate with the Turkish government and be with them even in the event of war (emphasis is mine H.). As a mature political organization, sensing the dire situation of the state, helped it, issuing orders to the provinces inviting the people to be loyal to Turkey (emphasis is mine H.) and as a conscientious nation, perform their citizen's duty. Talat Pasha was using Dashnaktsoutioun's loyal stand through Vardges, constantly sending telegrams to Van, Moosh and elsewhere to advise everyone to prevent any misunderstanding and to have patience to bear any bitterness without complaint.

All the Armenians of Erzerum embraced the recruitment, they were paying all the extra military taxes, they were tolerating every form of deprivation and plunder, refraining from any, although justified, objection and resistance.
In Van, there has been no serious undertaking by Tahsin Bey, before and mainly during the war, without the active collaboration of Dashnaktsoutioun (emphasis is mine H.)...
The people of Moosh and Sassoon, like the Armenians of Turkish vilayets, have been utterly loyal in the early stages of the war and have been extremely helpful to the state and the army...
Being aware of Dashnaktsoutioun's role, Servet Bey, the Mutisarrif of the time has turned to Dashnaktsoutioun time and again for help and he has got it.

They had organized:
1. A recruitment body that would go to Armenian villages to convince and encourage the youth.
2. Koryun's commission was charged to arrest and hand over the deserters.
3. Haji of Koto's commission transported supplies as far as Leez, Kop and Ghzl-Kyatuk.
4. Gegham of Erzerum's commission (Red Crescent) had engaged all the women and men incapable of fighting in diverse tasks."

So much for the garbage, repeated ad nauseam, that the Armenians, led by the Dashnaks collaborated with the Russians and stabbed "their" nation in the back.

The most successful rebel action was in the city of Van. In March 1915 they seized the city from a weak Ottoman garrison and proceeded to kill all the Muslims who could not escape. Some 3,000 Kurdish villagers from the surrounding region were herded together into the great natural bowl of Zeve, outside the city of Van, and slaughtered. Kurdish tribes in turn took their revenge on any Armenian villagers they found.

See "The Redundancy of the Argument of Armenian Rebelliousness" above.

Part II: Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets.

It is true (if truth is illusive, that is. H.) that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear Armenians, (with their entire army, the Ottoman officers in every remote corner of the "empire", the Kurdish bandits with license to kill, steal, rape and plunder; and all that after the battle-ready men had already been "recruited" and executed. H.) and that forced migration (read genocide. H.) was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians (with their army of millions! Or the "scholar" forgot that he said "estimated 30,000 rebels in Sivas Vilayeti alone, probably an exaggeration" above. Liars are forgetful indeed. H.), the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants (poor Ottoman Government... It breaks my heart into 1.5 million pieces. H.). Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived (out of over two million, 200,000 (according to the "historian") survived the barbecue in the Syrian desert. H.) Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. (Those who are unable to see that survivors of the Genocide, who witnessed the rape, plunder, torture, mutilation and slaughter of their loved ones in front of their eyes and took their pain to their graves without seeing justice, are also victims of genocide and suffer much longer than the dead, are insensitive, antipathetic bastards. H.) They also ignore the fact (the ignoramus has yet to present ONE, SINGLE FACT. H.) that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat (this argument is so fallacious that it's not worthy of a layman Turk to bring it up. A third rate historian would think twice before fabricating such garbage, because except the cities mentioned where there was a strong foreign presence, Armenians throughout the Ottoman Tyranny were massacred and "deported". H.) If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. (There was no STATE PLANNED killing of those and casualties of war, however great and painful (cf. millions of Germans and over 25 million Russians died in WWII) don't count as genocide victims and the "historian" knows it. H.) The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia (What? You mean the 25000 Armenians slaughtered in 1909 in Cilicia? H.), deplored even by their ("their"!!! You said Armenia never existed??? H.) French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered. (The shameless liar knows that the incidents in 1918-1919 were the consequence of a thousand years of genocide. Armenians also have the right to have a corner on this planet to call their home, especially when that corner is just 10% of their historic homeland, 90% of which is already under Turkish occupation after total ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Armenians. (back to "explanation" part, if you clicked the link further) H.)

Historical principles were once again at work. Rebels had begun the action and the result was the creation of two warring sides. After the Armenian deeds in Van and elsewhere, Muslims could only have expected that Armenians were enemies who could kill them. Armenians could only have feared Muslim revenge. Most of these people had no wish for war, but they had been driven to it. It was to be a merciless conflict.

Redundancy... See "The Redundancy of the Argument of Armenian Rebelliousness" above.

Besides, why should Armenians always bend their necks to the Turkish scimitar? Shouldn't for once, the Armenians defend themselves against the INVADING, UNWANTED, LOATHED and DESPISED occupiers and destroyers of their own homeland? Has ANY protestation of another occupied nation EVER been condemned as much as these sporadic, desperate self-defense acts of Armenians? WHY the double standards? Are Armenians less RIGHT in their just cause than the Palestinians or the Vietnamese or the Partisans or the Iraqis... or Bulgarians, Romanians, Serbs, Greeks and all the other nations suffering under the Ottomans?

For the next five years, total war raged in the Ottoman East. When the Russians attacked and occupied the East, more than a million Muslims fled as refugees, itself an indication that they expected to die if they remained. They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled. When the Russians retreated it was the turn of the Armenians to flee. The Russians attacked and retreated, then attacked again, then finally retreated for good. With each advance came the flight of hundreds of thousands. Two wars were fought in Eastern Anatolia, a war between the armies of Russia and the Ottomans and a war between local Muslims and Armenians. In the war between the armies, civilians and enemy soldiers were sometimes treated with humanity, sometimes not. Little quarter was given in the war between the Armenians and the Muslims, however. That war was fought with all the ferocity of men who fought to defend their families.

"...They were attacked on the roads by Armenian bands as they fled...". The "professor" should change "profession" and become a story-teller, not a good one, mind you. Proof mofo, proof!

I need to see a pre Genocide document or map that calls Armenia "Eastern Anatolia". If the falsifier cannot produce a proof then he should wash his filthy mouth. Proof mofo, proof!


Popular opinion today knows of only one set of deportations, more properly called forced migrations, in Anatolia, the deportation of the Armenians. There were in fact many forced migrations. For the Armenians, the worst forced migrations came when they accompanied their own armies in retreat. Starvation and disease killed great numbers of both, far more than fell to enemies' bullets. This is as should be expected from historical principles; starvation and disease are always the worst killers. It is also a historical principle that refugees suffer most of all.

Principle, principle, principle... "This is as should be expected" so no one's guilty. The prof. is a genius. By the way, if the armed to their teeth Armenian rebels were mere defenseless "refugees", as the sorry excuse for a lowlife states, then why were they being deported in the first place?

One of-the many forced migration was the organized expulsion of Armenians from much of Anatolia by the Ottoman government. In light of the history and the events of this war, it is true that the Ottomans had obvious reason to fear the Armenians, and that forced migration was an age-old tool in Middle Eastern and Balkan conflicts. It is also true that while its troops were fighting the Russians and Armenians, the Ottoman Government could not and did not properly protect the Armenian migrants. Nevertheless, more than 200,000 of the deported Armenians reached Greater Syria and survived. (Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived.)

The "excuse" that genocide and ethnic cleansing was an age-old tool worsens the case of the Defender of the Turk even more and is a proof that the Armenian Genocide of 1915 was one among countless others carried out by the "benevolent" Ottomans.
"...the organized expulsion of Armenians from much (=all) of Anatolia by the Ottoman government." means GENOCIDE.

"Some estimate that as many as two-thirds of the deportees survived." Would the "truth seeking" "principled" charlatan cite one or two historic sources for this claim?

Those who see the evil of genocide in the forced migrations of Armenians ignore the survival of so many of those who were deported. They also ignore the fact that the Armenians who were most under Ottoman control, those in Western cities such as Izmir, Istanbul, and Edirne, were neither deported nor molested, presumably because they were not a threat.

No claim of genocide can rationally stand in the light of these facts. (Not if one is as irrational as this learned sage. H.) If genocide is to be considered, however, then the murders of Turks and Kurds in 1915 and 1916 must be included in the calculation of blame. The Armenian murder of the innocent civilians of Erzincan, Bayburt, Tercan, Erzurum, and all the villages on the route of the Armenian retreat in 1918 must be taken into account. The Armenian molestations and massacres in Cilicia, deplored even by their French and British allies, must be judged. And the exile or death of two-thirds of the Turks of Erivan Province, the Armenian Republic, during the war must be remembered.

See the box above

That is the history of the Conflict between the Turks and the Armenians. Only when that history is known can the assertions of those who accuse the Turks be understood.

The defender of the Turkish Cause doesn't "seem" to know that history.

In examining the claims of Armenian nationalists, first to be considered should be outright lies.

Does this guy speak English? The sentence is so asinine that needs no comment.

The most well-known of many fabrications on the Armenian Question are the famous "Talat Pasa Telegrams," in which the Ottoman interior minister and other officials supposedly telegraphed instructions to murder the Armenians. These conclusively have been proven to be forgeries by Sinasi Orel and Sureyya Yuca. However, one can only wonder why they would ever have been taken seriously. A whole people (some eloquent English! H.) cannot be convicted of genocide on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad.

The genocide of "a whole people" cannot be denied "on the basis of penciled scribblings on a telegraph pad" being "proven" to be forgeries, by a couple of Turks, originals of which none of them have ever seen.

These were not the only examples of words put in Talat Pasa's mouth. During World War I, the British Propaganda Office and American missionaries published a number of scurrilous works in which Ottoman officials were falsely quoted as ordering hideous deeds.

And the vile rascal assumes the authority to "advise" people not to go and consult the eyewitness accounts.

One of the best examples of invented Ottoman admissions of guilt may be that concocted by the American ambassador Morgenthau. Morgenthau asked his readers to believe that Talat Pasa offhandedly told the ambassador of his plans to eradicate the Armenians. Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these supposed indiscretions. Can anyone believe that the Ottoman interior minister would actually have done such a thing? He knew that America invariably supported the Armenians, and had always done so. If he felt the need to unburden his soul, who would be the last person to whom he would talk? The American ambassador. Yet to whom does he tell all? The American Ambassador! Talat Pasa was a practical politician. Like all politicians, he undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Talat Pasa was an idiot. Perhaps Ambassador Morgenthau knew that the U.S. State Department would never believe his story, because he never reported it at the time to his masters, only writing it later in a popular book.

Dismiss a valuable document just by assuming you know Talat pasha and what he would or would not say. Lazy researcher. The "objective" scholar is asking his readers to believe his garbage without reading Morgenthau's accounts. "Can anyone believe that" this poor sod is "applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice" to discourage the uninformed readers? America wasn't invariably supporting the Armenians, just like any country, it was/is always considering its own interests. Besides, America was neutral during WWI, how surprising that the revisionist "doesn't know" this.
The sophism this Sherlock Holmes is employing is so thin and transparent that a teenager won't buy it. Is this his applying of historical principles?
I wonder why the non-selective historian is forgetting the copious correspondence of German consuls, for instance that of Wangenheim, with their government...

The use of quotes from Americans is selective. One American ambassador, Morgenthau, is quoted by the Armenian apologists, but another American ambassador, Bristol, is ignored. Why? Because Bristol gave a balanced account and accused Armenians as well as Muslims of crimes.

Armenian apologists... Where does this tramp copy his ideas from? Accused Armenians? What, he was a prosecutor or something?
Morgenthau was in Turkey during the Genocide whereas Admiral Bristol, became U.S. High Commissioner in Turkey after WWI and came to Turkey in 1920.

This quote may shed some light on the man's objectivity and honesty:
"The Armenians are a race like the Jews, they have little or no national spirit and poor moral character." Admiral Mark L. Bristol, U.S. High Commissioner to Turkey.
One wonders at the tactics of this impostor who on one hand bases his case on Armenian nationalism and on the other hand cites this fellow, who denies the Armenians any national character, as a reliable source to prove his garbage.

The most often seen fabrication may be the famous "Hitler Quote." Hitler supposedly stated, "Who after all is today speaking of the destruction of the Armenians?" to justify his Holocaust. The quote now appears every year in school books, speeches in the American Congress and the French Parliament and most writings in which the Turks are attacked. Professor Heath Lowry has cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote. It is likely that Hitler never said it. But there is a more serious question: How can Adolf Hitler be taken as a serious source on Armenian history? Were his other historical pronouncements so reliable that his opinions can be trusted?

Whether Hitler said this decades after the Armenian Genocide or not doesn't change the FACT that the Genocide happened. Besides, the "professor" says "It is likely that Hitler never said it", as his mentor, prof. Lowlife "cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the quote". Here, just like in Talat's case the "lawyer" assumes he knew Hitler, the apprentice of Talat, Jemal and Enver, personally. His "more serious question" is as misleading as his conclusions. To mention the Armenian Genocide doesn't mean one is a SOURCE on Armenian history or not.

Politically, "Hitler" is a magic word that conjures up an all too true image of undisputed evil. He is quoted on the Armenian Question for polemic and political purpose, to tie the Turks to Hitler's evil. In the modern world nothing defames so well as associating your enemies with Hitler. This is all absurdity, but it is potent absurdity that convinces those who know nothing of the facts. It is also a deliberate distortion of history.

Assuming that the Hitler quote is a fabrication without PROVING it, is total and impotent absurdity that caresses the ego of the deniers of the Armenian Genocide and those who do not want to know anything of the facts. Which Armenian history book, written in the course of the last 1600 years has the "historian" EVER read?

Population has also been a popular field for fabrication. Armenian nationalists had a particular difficulty -- they were only a small part of the population of the land they planned to carve from the Ottoman Empire. The answer was false statistics. Figures appeared that claimed that Armenians were the largest group in Eastern Anatolia. These population statistics were supposedly the work of the Armenian Patriarch, but they were actually the work of an Armenian who assumed a French name, Marcel Leart, published them in Paris and pretended they were the Patriarch's work. Naturally, he greatly exaggerated the number of Armenians and diminished the number of Turks. Once again, the amazing thing is that these were ever taken seriously. Yet they were used after World War I to justify granting Eastern Anatolia to the Armenians and are still routinely quoted today.

From whose land was the Ottoman "Empire" carved?
The Turks were the indigenous "people" of Asia Minor and the Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians came thousands of years later... Once again read what Tavernier said in the 17th century (from Tokat to Tabriz... it's not surprising to come across fifty Armenians for every single Muslim) and tell us how come in the 20th century, the Armenians weren't the largest group. If they weren't, then what happened to them? Turks and their defenders always say that Turks and Armenians lived happily ever after for centuries...

The Armenian apologists quote American missionaries as if missionaries would never lie, omitting the numerous proofs that missionaries did indeed lie and avoided mentioning anything that would show Armenians to be less than innocent. The missionaries in Van, for example, reported the deaths of Armenians, but not the fact that those same Armenians had killed all the Muslims they caught in that city.

American Ambassador lies, Johannes Lepsius lies, all missionaries lie, Armin Wegner lies, Toynbee and Bryce lie, not to speak of Armenian survivors and Armenian Genocide experts. Only Injust McFarty, who personally knows the vilest monsters who ever lived, like Abdulhamid, Talat and Hitler, NEVER lies.
How about the Persian writer, Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh who witnessed the plight of the Armenians, traveling from Berlin to Baghdad in spring of 1915, crossing from Istanbul to Aleppo and Baghdad, then back to Berlin. He noted down what he saw in "My Personal Observations in World War One". He is neither a Christian, nor a Jew nor a Westerner:

"We took a coach from Baghdad and Aleppo towards Istanbul. We saw many groups of Armenians from the very beginning of our journey, in unbelievable condition, and the armed Turkish gendarmes on horseback were driving them to their deaths. At first we were shocked, but we gradually became so used to it that we did not look at them anymore. It wasn't a sight to look at, indeed. Hundreds of weak and distressed Armenian men, women and children were being forced to walk forward by lashes and blows of rifle butts.
There were no Young men among the people, because all the young men were sent to the battle fronts or they were killed lest they'd join the Russian army. Armenian girls had shaved their heads and were completely bald to avoid being molested by Arab and Turkish men. Two or three gendarmes on horseback drove these groups forward by the whip like cattle.
If one of the captives fell behind as a result of exhaustion, weakness or nature's call, they would remain behind forever and the groans and pleadings of their relatives were useless. Therefore, here and there we saw Armenian men and women lying on the road side who were either dead, moribund or in near death agony.
Later we heard that several local young men, to quench their lustful desires, had not spared the honor of dead or dying Armenian girls.
Our route was along the western bank of Euphrates, and not a day would pass without us seeing the corpses floating on the river. One night, we stopped at a relatively habitable place and we bought a lamb from the residents and slaughtered and grilled it. We disemboweled the lamb and suddenly we saw a group of Armenians, whom the gendarmes had brought nearby, threw themselves on the green soup-like liquid waste from the lamb and devoured it. It was a sight I haven't forgotten to this day.
Yet another day we lodged in a place nearby a caravan from these Armenians under Ottoman police control. An Armenian woman with death like appearance came to me and said in French: "For God's sake, my children are dying of hunger. Take these two diamonds and give me some food instead."
Believe me, I didn't take the diamonds and I gave her some food, even though we were becoming short of food and we still had several days before arriving in Aleppo.
We arrived in Aleppo and lodged in a big hotel owned by an Armenian, called The Prince Hotel. He came to us in panic and said: "Jamal Pasha has arrived in Aleppo and is staying in this hotel. I fear he will arrest and kill me and he'll confiscate the hotel .
He entreated us to go to Jamal Pasha, who had become famous for his cruelty, and mediate. He said: "you are honorable people and your mediation might be effective". However, it remained ineffective, and after hours we heard that the Armenian man was arrested and he was taken to Beirut or somewhere that had become known as a huge slaughterhouse.
To cut it short, those were strange times and it has turned into a horrifying nightmare for me. It haunts me now and again, and it fills my entire being with pain and sorrow.

Mohammad Ali Jamalzadeh, 25 th of Khordad, 1350 (15th of June, 1971), Geneva.

The main falsification of history by the Armenian apologists lies not in what they say, but in what they do not say. They do not admit that much of the evidence they rely on is tainted because it was produced by the British Propaganda Office in World War I. For example, the Bryce Report, "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," has recently been reproduced by an Armenian organization, with a long introduction that praises its supposed veracity. Nowhere does the reprint state that the report was produced and paid for by British Propaganda as a way to attack its wartime enemies, the Ottomans. Nor does the reprint state that the other Bryce Report, this one on alleged German atrocities, has long been known by historians to be a collection of lies. Nor does the reprint consider that the sources in the report, such as the Dashnak Party, had a tradition of not telling the truth.

Whose propaganda muzzle may the "honest" scholar be, when he withholds all facts? The lazy bastard calls the Bryce Report "British Propaganda" and we have to dismiss it entirely. The Dashnak Party is a thorn in his eyes and a trunk in his mouth which happens to be between his butt cheeks. How many books by the great leaders of the Dashnak Party has the "all facts scrutinizing truth seeker" read to smear this great organization with the slime pouring out of every orifice of his putrid cadaver?

The basic historical omission is never citing, never even looking at evidence that might contradict one's theories. Nationalist apologists refer to English propaganda, missionary reports, statements by Armenian revolutionaries, and the like. They seldom refer to Ottoman documents, hundreds of which have been published in recent years, except perhaps to claim that nothing written by the Ottomans can be trusted although they trust completely the writings of Armenian partisans. These documents indicate that the Ottomans planned no genocide and were at least officially solicitous of the Armenians' welfare. The fact that these contradict the Armenian sources is all the more reason that they should be consulted. Good history can only be written then both sides of historical arguments are considered.

Why does he omit the thousands of video taped or written survivor accounts that prove the Crime beyond any reasonable and unreasonable doubt?
Which Ottoman documents is he referring to? Doesn't he know access to the supposed "open" Ottoman archives is not as easy as they claim? To phrase it in his own unworthy style:
Applying common sense and some knowledge of diplomatic practice helps to evaluate these documents. Can anyone believe that the Turkish government would actually publish documents that would prove their guilt?
The Turkish leaders are practical politicians. Like all politicians, they undoubtedly violated rules and made errors. But no one has ever alleged that Turkish politicians are idiots.

Worst of all is the most basic omission -- the Armenian apologists do not mention the Muslim dead. Any civil war will appear to be a genocide if only the dead of one side are counted. Their writings would be far more accurate, and would tell a very different story, if they included facts such as the deaths of nearly two-thirds of the Muslims of Van Vilayeti, deaths caused by the Russians and Armenians. Histories that strive for accuracy must include all the facts, and the deaths of millions of Muslims is surely a fact that deserves mention.

The basic treachery this criminal is committing is to pin the entirety of Ottoman war casualties on Armenians. He doesn't tell us how on earth, when all the men fit for battle had been recruited and executed, and given the number of the rebels didn't exceed several thousands, how on earth the women, children and elderly who were driven to the desert to roast could have inflicted millions of casualties on the Muslims. If they could, then how on earth, for the sake of his non-existing honor, did these armed to their teeth women, children and elderly not rebel and walked to their painful death in Der el Zor?

Those of us who have studied this question for years have seen many approaches come and go. The old assertions, based on the Talat Pasa telegrams and missionary reports, were obviously insufficient, and new ones have appeared.

Only he and those of the sort have studied this question for years! Give me a break.

For a while, Pan-Turanism was advanced as the cause for Turkish actions. It was said that the Turks wished to be rid of the Armenians because the Armenian population blocked the transportation routes to Central Asia. This foundered on the rocks of geography and population. The Anatolian Armenian population was not concentrated on those routes. The Armenian Republic's Armenians, those in Erivan Province, were on some of those routes. However, when at the end of the war the Ottomans had the chance to occupy Erivan they did not do so, but went immediately on to Baku to protect Azeri Turks from attacks by enough to believe that their chief concern was advancing to Uzbekistan. The last sentence is crippled. H.

Wonder why an objective scholar calls Constantinople, Angora or Smyrna by their newer Turkish names and shuns to call Yerevan by its Armenian name. He could also call it Erebouni if he wanted to use the old name or Iravan, its Persian name. But no, he must always use the Turkish name, because the Pan-Turanist "historian" doesn't want to see the existence of an Armenia, even if it's one tenth of its original size.
The basest of all liars omits the Sardarabad, Bash Abaran and Karakilissa wars, where the Turks were defeated and shamelessly claims the Turks were so kind, after having wiped the Armenians off the face of their homeland, they spared them in Yerevan.

Much was made of post-war-courts martial that accused members of the Committee of Union and Progress Government of crimes against the Armenians.

The accusations did not state that the courts were convened by the unelected quisling government of Ferid Pasa who created the courts to curry favor with the allies. The courts returned verdicts of guilty for all sorts of improbable offenses, of which killing Armenians was only one. The courts chose anything, true of false, that would cast aspersion on Ferid's enemies. The accused could not represent themselves. Can the verdicts of such courts be trusted? Conveniently overlooked were the investigations of the British, who held Istanbul and were in charge of the Ottoman Archives, but who were forced to admit that they could find no evidence of massacres.

Who elected the Ottoman sultans? Who elected Kemal. Is there a grain of integrity in the whole putrefied existence of this creature.

Part III: A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct ... The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. No one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian Foreign Minister (irrelevant, misleading garbage. He doesn't mention WHICH PRESIDENT and WHEN. H.) Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? (Is the junior falsifier begging for money? H.) Applying the principles of history (give us a break. H.), we can see that what occurred was, in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt, and ethnic conflict. The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide.

A recent find of the nationalist is the Teskilat-I Mahsusa, the secret organization that operated under orders of the Committee of Union and Progress. We are told that the Teskilat must have organized Armenian massacres. The justification for this would astonish any logician:

Recent? For you, novice ignoramus, maybe.

It is alleged that because a secret organization existed it must have been intended to do evil, including the genocide of the Armenians. As further "proof," it is noted that officers of the Teskilat were present in areas where Armenians died. Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one. By this dubious logic (misleading, inapplicable conclusion. H.) Teskilat members must also have been responsible for the deaths of Muslims because they were also present in areas where Muslims died.(wtf??? H.) Does this prove that no Teskilat members killed or even massacred Armenians? It does not. It would be odd if during wartime no members of a large organization had not committed such actions, and they undoubtedly did so. What it in no way proves is that the Teskilat was ordered to commit genocide.(Some reasoning, some English. Man, pathetic are those who put their fate in the claws of this moron. H.)

"Since Teskilat officers were all over Anatolia, this should surprise no one"... You said the poor Ottoman government was falling apart and could not control the "empire"???

A German scholar has decided that the Ottomans reported and killed Armenians so that they would have space in which to settle the Turkish refugees from the Balkan Wars. For those who do not know Ottoman history, this might seem like a reasonable explanation. Those with some knowledge of Ottoman history know that the Balkan refugees were almost all settled in Western Anatolia and Ottoman Europe, not in the East, and that the refugees were all settled before the World War I Armenian troubles began.

Whether an unspecified German scholar has a theory that may or may not "seem like a reasonable explanation", doesn't mean that one can refute the fact of the Armenian Genocide by "proving" him wrong. If this is the method of "applying historical principles", then the term needs to be redefined.

Such assertions are the result of the methods used. Nationalist apologists first decide that the Turks are guilty, then look for evidence that will show they are correct. They are like a man in a closed room fighting against a stronger enemy. As the enemy advances the man picks up a book, a lamp, an ashtray, a chair -- whatever he can find -- and throws it in the vain hope of stopping the enemy's advance. But the enemy continues on. Eventually the man runs out of things to throw, and he is beaten. The enemy of the nationalist apologists is the truth. They have thrown false telegrams, spurious statistics, sham courts, and anything else they could find, but the truth has advanced.

Same "methods" babble again... The excrement this ordure, locked in his filthy closed dump, is throwing at Armenians has hit the fan and his entire corpse reeks of that perfume.
The faded analogy shows that the literary aspirations of the professor wouldn't bring him much further in that field either. Get a life, lowlife scum.

Some tactics have been all too successful in reducing the number of scholars who study the Armenian Question. When the fabrications and distortions failed, there were outright threats. When the historians could not be convinced, the next best thing was to silence them. One professor's house was bombed.


Others were threatened with similar violence. Campaigns were organized to silence historians. One professor was mercilessly attacked in the press because he advised the Turkish ambassador on responding to questions about the Ottoman Armenians. It is worth noting that no one questioned the probity of the American Armenian scholar who became the chief advisor of the president of the Armenian Republic or doubted the veracity of the American Armenian professor whose son became the Armenian foreign minister. No one questioned the objectivity of these scholars or attacked them, nor should they. The only proper question is, "What is the truth!" No matter who pays the bills, no matter the nationality of the author, no matter if he writes to ambassadors, no matter his religion, his voting record, his credit status, or his personal life, his views on history should be closely analyzed and, if true, accepted.

Jumping from one subject to an unrelated subject is a proof of the "probity" and "veracity" of the impostor. What on earth has the appointment of the SON of the great and upright professor Richard Hovanissian, whose excrement is worthier than the fake scholar, as foreign minister in Ter Petrossian's (disliked and discredited by most Armenians) government to do with the anti Armenian denial campaign launched by dubious characters like himself?

The only question is the truth. (No kidding! H.)

Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?

Translated: Give me money, I'm a poor (read unscrupulous) scholar "risking" my miserable life, threatened by those bad Armenians.

I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.

The ordeal faced by the Armenians for nine centuries, culminating in the Genocide of 1915 would make every self-respecting human being think twice before spewing such stinking rubbish.

To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this -- my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.

Politicized? Nationalist? Scholar? You are none of them in your wildest dreams.

When, despite the best efforts of the nationalist apologists, some still speak out against the distortion of history, the final answer is political: Politicians are enlisted to rewrite history. Parliaments are enlisted to convince their people that there was a genocide. In America, the Armenian nationalists lobby a Congress which refuses to even consider an apology for slavery to demand an apology from Turks for something the Turks did not do.

Then where are the indigenous inhabitants of Armenia? They evaporated just like that...

In France, the Armenia nationalists lobby a Parliament which will not address the horrors perpetrated by the French in Algeria, which they know well took place, to declare there were horrors in Turkey, about which they know almost nothing. The people of many nations are then told that the genocide must have taken place because their representatives have recognized it.

The recognition or denial of the Armenian Genocide doesn't change the fact that it happened. What does the "scholar" know of the horrors in Turkey?

The Turks are accused of "genocide," but what does that appalling word mean? The most quoted definition is that of the United Nations: actions "committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic, radical, or religious group as such." Raphael Lemkin who invented the word genocide, included cultural, social, economic, and political destruction of groups as genocide. Leo Kuper included as genocide attacks on subgroups that are not ethnic, such as economic classes, collective groups and various social categories. By these standards Turks were indeed guilty of genocide. So were Armenians, Russians, Greeks, Americans, British and almost every people that has ever existed. In World War I in Anatolia there were many such "genocides." So many groups attacked other groups that the use of the word genocide is meaningless.

If it's meaningless then why all the fuss?

Why, then, is such a hollow term used against the Turks? It is used because those who hear the term do not think of the academic definitions. They think of Hitler and of what he did to the Jews. The intent behind the use of the word genocide is not to foster understanding. The intent is to foster a negative image of the Turks by associating them with great evil. The intent is political.

The Turks brought civilization, culture, art and science to the backward world.

What must be considered by the serious historian is a simple question, "Did the Ottoman Government carry out a plan to exterminate the Armenians?" In answering this question it is important not to copy the Armenian apologists. When they declare that Armenians did no wrong, the answer is not to reply that the Turks did no wrong. The answer must be honest history. What cannot and should not be denied is that many Anatolian Muslims did commit crimes against Armenians. Some of those who committed crimes were Ottoman officials. Actions were taken in revenge, out of hatred or for political reasons. In total war men do evil acts. This again is a sad but real historical principle. The Ottoman government recognized this and tried more than 1,000 Muslims for war crimes, including crimes against Armenians, hanging some criminals.

Then why do they deny now?

Applying the principles of history, we can see that what occurred was in fact a long history of imperialism, nationalist revolt and ethnic conflict.

One who doesn't have any principles is boasting on and on that he's able to apply "the principles of history".

The result was horrible mortality on all sides. There is an explainable, understandable history of a two-sided conflict. It was not genocide. Throughout that history, both sides killed and were killed. It was not genocide.

Casualties of war are not considered victims of genocide. Millions of Germans died in the WWII. More than twenty five million Russians died as well. No one sees them as victims if genocide, however tragic the loss may be. Wiping a country from its inhabitants of thousands of years in order to realize a sick dream of "uniting" members of the same species of savages is a crime against humanity. This was the case of the Armenians, and there is no "explainable, understandable history" that could justify it. IT WAS GENOCIDE.

Much archival evidence shows Ottoman government concern that Armenians survive. Also, it must be said that much evidence shows poor planning, government weakness and in some places criminal acts and negligence. Some officials were murderous, but a sincere effort was made to punish them. It was not genocide.

The fake scholar who has never bothered to consult one real and valid history book or historical document out of the mountain of evidence, makes an insincere effort to exonerate the tyrannical Ottoman regime from the most barbaric crime in the history of humanity. Why? Only he knows it. The plan was murderous, IT WAS GENOCIDE.

The majority of those who were deported survived, even though those Armenians were completely at the mercy of the Ottomans. It was not genocide.

Speaking of mercy in relation to a barbaric species, who since the ill day they set their cloven hoofs in Armenia, have brought nothing but pain and disaster, is so absurdly grotesque, "For children were ravished from the embraces of their mothers and mercilessly hurled against rocks" (From Aristakes Lastivertsi's history)
The survivors suffered more than those who died, thus, they were also victims of the Genocide. Seeing their loved ones raped and slaughtered in front of their eyes and carrying the pain to their graves without seeing justice done is worse than dying. Since an entire nation was thrown out of their homeland for thousands of years, IT WAS GENOCIDE.

The Armenians most under Ottoman control, the Armenian residents of Istanbul, Izmir, Edirne and other regions of greatest governmental power were neither deported not attacked. It was not genocide.

The cunning wolves did not generally kill the Armenians in those cities because of the presence of foreigners. Though, the intellectuals, the poets, politicians, musicians, writers, etc., i.e. the head of the Armenian nation, were arrested in Constantinople and carried to remote places and brutally mutilated. To cut off a nations head, the recruiting and subsequent execution of the men capable of fighting, before slaughtering the women, children and the elderly or walking them to the desert to roast, confirms the diabolical nature of the meticulously planned extermination policy. IT WAS GENOCIDE.

Why are the Turks accused of a hideous crime they did not commit? The answer is both emotional and political. Many Armenians feel in their hearts that Turks were guilty. They have only heard of the deaths of their ancestors, not the deaths of the Turks. They have been told only a small part of a complicated story for so long that they believe it to be unquestionable truth. Their anger is understandable. The beliefs of those in Europe and America who have never heard the truth, which sadly is the majority, are also understandable. It is the actions of those who use the claim of genocide for nationalist political motives that are inexcusable.

You ignorant cowboy, what do you know of the Armenian history?

Does any rational analyst deny that the ultimate intent of the Armenian nationalists is to first gain "reparations," then claim Eastern Anatolia as their own?

Once again: I demand the sham scholar to produce ONE map or document from before the Armenian Genocide that calls Armenia "Eastern Anatolia". Otherwise he has to shut the hell up and eat defecation and die.

Finally, what is to be done? As might be expected from all I have said here today, I believe the only answer to false allegations of genocide is to study and proclaim the truths of history. Political actions such as the resolution recently passed by the French Parliament naturally and properly draw corresponding political actions from Turks, but political actions will never convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide. What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide? What is needed to convince the world is a great increase in scholarship. Archives must remain open and be easy to use for both Turks and foreigners. Graduate students should be encouraged to study the Armenian question. No student's advisers should tell him to avoid this subject because it is "too political," something I have heard in America and, unfortunately, in Turkey as well.

"What is needed to convince the world that Turks did not commit genocide?" ...Search and you may someday come to your senses and stop this campaign of slander against a nation who has had more that their share of tragedy.

I suggest, as I have suggested before, that the Turkish Republic propose to the Armenian Republic that a joint commission be established, its members selected by scholarly academies in both countries. All archives should be opened to the commission -- not only the Ottoman Archives, but the archives of Armenia and of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. (The call is often made for the Turkish Archives to be opened completely. It is time to demand that Armenians do likewise.) I have been told that the Armenians will never agree to this, but how can anyone know unless they try? In any case, refusal to fairly and honestly consider this question would in itself be evidence that the accusations against the Turks are political, not scholarly.

The usual "Armenian archives should be opened" crap, when they have been open for years... Typical applying of historical principles, McFarty style.

Whether or not such a commission is ever named, the study of the Armenian question must be continued. This is true not only because it is always right to discover accurate history. It is true because honor demands it. Honor is a word that is not often heard today, but a concept of honor is nonetheless sorely needed. I have been told by many that the Turks should adopt a political strategy to deal with the Armenian problem. This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain.

Honor... "This strategy would have the Turkish government lie about the past for present political gain". This is what the "honorable" rascal has been doing so far.

The government would state that the Ottomans committed genocide, but that modern Turkey cannot be blamed because it is a different government. This, I have been told, would cause the world to think more kindly of the Turks. I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone. I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow such a statement. But that is not the reason to reject such easy political lies. They should be rejected purely because they are wrong. Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong. I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors, no matter the benefits. I also believe that someday, perhaps soon, perhaps far in the future, the truth will be recognized by the world. I believe that the accurate study of history and the honor of the Turks will bring this to pass.

"I do not believe this ultimately would satisfy anyone". Who the hell are YOU?
"I believe that calls for reparations and land would quickly follow..." You bet your sorry behind!
"Even if the lies would bring great gains, they should be rejected because they are wrong." Then why have you been lying the whole time?
"I believe the Turks are still men and women of honor. They know that it can never be honorable to accept lies told of their ancestors."
This is what their ancestors have been doing ever since they set hoof west of the Caspian Sea:

From Aristakes Lastivertsi's History, who was there about thousand years ago and saw it with his own eyes

In the same year, the gate of Heaven's wrath opened upon our land. Numerous troops moved forth from T'urk'astan...
...pounced upon the Christians as insatiably hungry wolves devour their food...
...as far as the great estate called Vagharshawan they demolished and polluted twenty-four districts with sword, fire, and captive-taking. This narration deserves many piteous laments and tears.
They sped like lions, and like lion cubs, they mercilessly threw the corpses of many people to the carnivorous beasts.
Now although there was plenty of prey for them everywhere, for the country before them was like a lush garden full of fruit...many who had gone up to a cave were crushed to death by huge rocks [rolled on them], and their corpses tumbled down upon each other resembling heaps of wood-shavings...
Because of the severe crisis, many pregnant women aborted their babies...
Others who were terribly wounded, and could not make sounds, were breathing violently. Others whose throats had been slit but were still alive were emitting gurgling sounds in pain. Yet others, who had been badly wounded, were scraping the ground with their feet and clawing at it with their fingernails...
...they took the children from their parents' embrace, and threw them to the ground, and [the Saljuqs'] place of encampment was swarming with them. Some [of the children] had died when they fell against rocks. The sides of some of them had torn open and their intestines poured out onto the ground...
Mercilessly setting fire to the homes and churches wherein refugees had fled, [the Saljuqs] burned them down, considering this a benevolent act...

Regarding How Terribly the City Called Kars Was Struck:
...the people were celebrating the mass of the day, [singing] with joyous voices, the troops of the infidels unexpectedly attacked....
Well-respected and honorable merchants were wickedly slain, youths and athletes/wrestlers lay stabbed to death in the streets, and the blood-spattered heads of the elderly lay fallen near them. By such deeds was the city stripped of its population.
Only the one who managed to enter the stronghold located above the city saved his life. The entire remainder of the day, [the Saljuqs] rummaged through the houses, then set the city on fire. Taking their captives and the city's plunder, they went to their own land...
Swords in hand they came upon some, fell upon them like beasts, pierced their hearts and killed them instantly.
As for the stout and corpulent, they were made to go down on their knees, and their hands were secured down by stakes. Then the skin together with the nails was pulled up on both sides over the forearm and shoulder as far as the tips of the second hand, forcibly removed, and [the Saljuqs] fashioned bowstrings out of them
[the Saljuqs] totally stripped and pillaged whatever we had, even though we had done nothing to them...
They took the young boys and other little children and used them as targets, wickedly piercing and killing them with lances and arrows. Nor did any feelings of pity find their way into their natures. I need not mention the children who were torn from their parents' embrace: the boys were hurled against rocks, while the attractive women and girls who had been reared in comfort were disgraced...
One could see there the grief and calamity of every age of humankind. For children were ravished from the embraces of their mothers and mercilessly hurled against rocks, while the mothers drenched them with tears and blood. Father and son were slain by the same sword. The elderly, the young, priests and deacons also died by the same sword. The city became filled from one end to the other with bodies of the slain, and [the bodies of the slain] became a road...
Resembling the viper, their rage did not let up; resembling the fire, their greed had no bounds. For whatever they proposed regarding us was evil...

Those HONORABLE Turks... H.

Professor (in Inefficient and Stinking Garbage Production and Wasteful Management of Sucking Up to the Turk. H.) Justin McCarthy teaches at the University of Louisville in Kentucky. (Poor students... H.)