| Original Message |
Imasdun (Login Imasdun7)
Forum Owner
Posted Jun 28, 2003 4:58 AM
Knight, amuse me even more, like I wrote in my other post, don't escape and only leave when the show is over.
The Turkish after war tribunal was a public tribunal, and the "occupied" power had even no right to assist to it, it was accepted by both parties that every documents presented at that tribunal, after it would be over should be handed to the British in order to prosecute the prisoners of Malta. This never happened. And BTW, your father the criminal considered as national hero, "Ataturk" was never "tried" by the tribunal, you are making a mistake between two Mustafa Kemals, as usual, like any deniers, you bring distortions, and continue to bring new ones before even admitting your old ones.
Ah, and there never was any Malta tribunal, it was planed that a tribunal should be build, based on what was decided during the Peace Conference, but it never happened, there was Malta prisoners, but there never was any Malta tribunal, it is a pure invention by denialists that tries to conter-attack against the Turkish military tribunal. Another claims of yours is that the "traitor" Sultan decided to punish, first of all, thanks for calling a humanist deciding to make justice a "traitor" it shows how your racist and fascist regime has educated you.
Oh ! O.K, so if the Turkish military tribunal is not to be trusted, so as the Nuremberg tribunal bringing NAZI war criminals to be judged, because this tribunal was an allied tribunal, while the military tribunal was a Turkish tribunal, so if a "Turkish" tribunal was a product of the "invadors" so was the Nuremberg tribunal. Are you not seeing how ridiculious is your claim ? And if in fact, the documents presented on this tribunal are forged, why than the Turkish government to these days forbidden any access to them, and that even to his own diplomats such as Kamuran Gurun ? If they are forged, why being afraid that people see forged documents ?
Another thing, look, I am not interested to answer rubish posted in various sites again and again. Why don't you tell us that the article you post us is a publication of the Turkish foreign ministry affairs, and the author is working at the Turkish diplomacy, and is none other than Bilal Simsir himself ? Why having not only posted the link of the article ? Are you afraid of the source ? Why not just providing the link ? Have you tough that by showing us that it comes from the site of the Turkish Ministry of foreign affairs, it will lose any credibility ?
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/grupa/ad/adf/simsir.htm
Lets see how a good part of those Malta prisoners in fact were taken as prisonners.
Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey Malta No. 2800
Interned 7.6.20
Appointments:
Vali of Bitlis, March 1914 to September 1915. Under Secretary of State, Ministry of the Interior. Vali of Aleppo October 1915 to April 1917 Brother in law of Talaat [Pasha].
Lists:
His name appears on Lists VI and VII ( List VII is the F.O. List).
Arrests:
A. He was arrested by the Turkish Government on 9th March 1919, not at our suggestion. The charge was murder. On the Turkish prison list of 7th February 1920, he is stated to have been release on bail; date not given (probably some time between 20.9.19 and 7.2.20).
B. He was again arrested by the British Military Authorities on or about the 14th May 1920.
Petitions: None to date, 25.2.21
Accusations:
5027/A/20. Through Mr. Ryan on 19th September 1919. Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, took part in the councils held at Erzurum to decide on the deportations and massacres of Armenians. These councils were presided over by Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, delegate of the Central C.U.P. (one of the Principal Eight); other members were Tashin Bey (a deportee), Vali of Erzurum; Muammer (a deportee) Vali of Sivas, Djevdet (a deportee), Vali of Van.
5030/B/10. On September 26, 1919, Mrs. Sophie Varjabedian, a Bitlis refuge then at Haidar Pasha, c/o Rev. B. Bedrossian, Bible House, Constantinople, writes accusing Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis having carried away under his personal superintendence the safe from the American Mission in Bitlis. The safe contained her money and jewelry. Miss Chane, now at Erivan, reported this to Mrs. Varjabedian. She asks for the restoration of her property and gives a list.
Assistant High Commissioner approved the suggestion of making inquires at the United States Embassy but there is no record as to whether any action was taken.
5031/A/6. Name merely appears on a Bureau d'Information Armenien list of 30. 12.18, as the Vali of Aleppo, in connection with Marash massacres.
5035/C/178. On June 7th, 1919, Mrs. Ahisag Ahet Ahlahadian writes, through the A.C.R.N.E (American Committee, Relief in the Near East), saying that she is a Protestant Syrian of Bitlis and that all her relatives had been massacred in 1915 in Bitlis in spite of the fact that she had paid the Vali, Mustafa Abdul Halik, to the extent of LT 541 gold.
5036/48. A. Account by Sympat Kerkoyan of crimes committed by Mustafa Abdul Halik at Bitlis in 1915. Starving prisoners; massacring 200 to 300 at a time outside the town; ravishing and massacring the women; extorting and looting of Armenian property. The stench from putrefying bodies was so bad that Buheddin, Director of Health, Bitlis, received orders to have the bodies incinerated. Buheddin was in Aleppo in 1918. B. Also murder of Djerdjis Kerkoyan, brother of Sympat after Mustafa Abdul Halik had extorted his fortune on promising to spare his life. C. Mustafa Abdul Halik replaced Bekir Sami Bey (the "good" Vali, now a prominent Nationalist) at Aleppo on 4.10.15. There he gave orders for the deportation and killing of Sympat Kerkoyan. Thanks to Hadji Yehia Galib Bey, the defterdar, (now the defterdar of Kastambol) Sympat reached Mossul alive. The above per Mr. Rizzo on 16.10.19.
5030/A/21. Statement by Sympat Kerkoyan, merchant of Bitlis dated 19.5.20. Bitlis May 1915 atrocities. Massacre of Kerkoyan's family; wife and three children; three brother and their families. Kerkoyan's deportation to Mossul by the Vali of Aleppo; Mustafa Abdul Halik.
Like you see on the referenced document of accusation, this prisonners was not arrested for no reason, in fact this one like many others were arrested because the Turkish authorities after finding them guilty sent them to Malta and were supposed to hand them the documents charging them, those documents never were handed.
Since your Simsir is refering to Curzon, why not posting Curzon admissions that the prisonners were released only to be exchanged with British prisonners, and that he said those release were "a great mistake," and that they have build excuses(such as there was no evidences) to release them. Why Simsir has not included Curzon admission ?
"The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused."
British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7882/E4425, folio 182
Now, lets see if in fact there was no evidences, and I shall present them from Turkish sources this time. And just few ones.
Trabzon Verdict, 22 May 1919,
Published on August 6, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3616, p.1
" The massacre and destruction (taktil ve ifna) of the Armenians was executed through secret orders by men who ostensibly had the assignment to implement the law of deportation" (zahiren tehcir kanununu tatbik etmek).
Yozgat Verdict, 8 April 1919,
Published on August 7, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3617, p.2
" The documents, personally signed by the defendants, confirm the fact that the gendarmes escorted the deportee convoys for purpose of massacre. There can be no doubt and hesitation about this" (maksadi ... taktili oldugundan süphe ve tereddüt birakmadigindan). "
"When deciding to get rid of them, the party's Central Committee most probably reasoned as follows: 'Indebtedness to [recruited] executioners and murderers is bound to be heavy...Those who are used for dirty jobs are needed in times of necessity [in order to shift] responsibility. It is likewise necessary, however, not to glorify them but to dispose of them just like toilet paper, once they have done their job.'"(Erden, Birinci Dünya Harbinde [n. 8], p. 217) (About the Special organisation members used for the task of killing the Armenians, the job is killing Armenians)
Now for the denialists allegations of claming that the allies had Istanbul under control and had access to every files, and were not able to prove Ottoman government responsibility.
Here is proves that the Brits had not access to the majority of the files.
On 10 February 1919, British High Commissioner, Admiral Calthorpe sent to London reports from the British intelligentsia agency, from where the Turkish Public security official Mr. Aziz in charge of Interior Ministry's wartime archives declares:
"Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making clean sweep of most of the documents."
British Foreign Office Archives. FO371/4172/31307, folio 385.
Tunaya, T.Z. "Türkiyede siyasal partiler, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Istanbul : Hürriyet Vakfi publications. p. 96, n.16. Tunaya relying on Ittihad's Secretary-General Midhat's testimony write:
" The documents of Ittihad party were crammed into a suitcase by Dr. Behaeddin Sakir after they had been removed from the party headquarters by Dr. Nazim. The suicase was taken to home of attorney Ramiz, Sakir's brother-in-law."
The Turkish press reported in December 1918("Aksam," 12 Dec. 1918; "Tasviri Efkâr," 13 Dec. 1918) that when the police raided the home of Ramiz, they found documents that were still intact, they handed these documents to the Martial-court, then after the dissolution of the martial-court the documents left were never handed to the British like promessed, Mr. Aziz contrary to the promises he made never handed these documents to the British that were waiting them to charge the prisoners of Malta, because a good portion of them were already proven guilty and handed to the Brits, by the Turkish after war tribunal.
Atay, F.R. "Çankaya." Istanbul: Sena. pp. 127-128, Djemal's bureau's Deputy director state that before Djemal flight from Istanbul:
"...some of his files [containing] official documents were left in the custody of Syfi, one of his men, who out of fear burned them."
Aydemir, S.S. "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa." Vol. 3, 1914-1922.
Istanbul: Remzi. p. 493
"Before the flight of the top Ittihadist leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of Ittihad's Central Committee are nowhere to be found."
Telegram ordering the destruction of documents, from the Turkish Interior Minister to the provincial governor at Ayintab, was intercepted by the General Headquarters of the British Army's Egyptian Expeditionary force on 24 January 1919.
"Burn orginals of official telegrams since mobilisation on files of district."
FO371/4174/15450
On 17 June 1919 the Turkish foreign Minister Safa protested to the British High Commisioner because of their intrusion on trying to examine documents, and in the same time said that, British intrusion will not give much success, because the Diyarbekir-based Director of Telegraphic Service sent a circular telegram ordering to destroy these documents. Admiral Calthrope reported to London after this message:
" attention to the tenor of this note which treats as a mere matter of office routine such an important matter as the proposed destruction of documents relating to the period of deportations, massacres, and the activities of the Turkish authorities during the war."
FO371/4174/102551
The British realising the destruction of the documents in a weekly summary of intelligence report,
dated 4 March 1920, declared from the British Military Intelligence Bureau:
"the disappearance of documents incriminating ... Ittihadist." Talking of Rauf: "he urged the destruction of incriminating documents. It is understood that Rauf had already arranged the disappearance of documentary material implicating himself and Enver Pasa."
FO371/5166/E1782, Reports 575, 592
Karay was in 1919 the General Director of Telegraphic Service in Turkey, he wrote that Mehmet Emin his predecessor, has sent orders to all principal telegraph centers in the country, directing them:
"destroy all official papers, the orginals and copies of all telegrams."
Karay, R.H. Minelbab lelmihrab, Istanbul: Inkilâp and Aka, p. 221
Post minister Hüseyin Hasim admitted ordering in 3 June 1919:
"all military telegrams burned on orders from the War Office."
"Takimi Vekayi." No. 3573, 12 June 1919
From your own Turkish documents, your government documents are forged, because the documents they present to deny the Armenian genocide should have been destroyed like those sources indicate. If in fact they are destroyed, than the documents your government present are "reconstitutions" and more probably "forged" invalide in court of law.
Furthermore, when asked for documents, The British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921, declared.
"The U.S. archives containe a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres"
FO 371/6503/E6311, folio 34
Later, it was admited.
"specific task of prosecution that would require pre-trial investigations, the administration of interrogatories, and the application of other methods of evidence gathering, and it was better to exchange them with prisoners."
There never was any prosecutions, no pre-trial investigations, no interrogatories, so how can anyone claim to that matter that any tribunal proved them not guilty, when there was no tribunal in the first place ? The Turkish military tribunal on the other hand, proved that many of those were in fact guilty of ordering and participating in the massacres, this is why they were sent in Malta in the first place, the Ottoman was supposed to send the documents proving why they were guilty, no document was ever sent, the Kemalists dissolved the tribunal and they took off those files.
Another interesting point, is how Simsir uses in his article Undersecretary W.S. Edmonds quotations, when he was one of those recognising that the documents are in Istanbul, and that since many were arrested by the Turkish authorities by those documents, they are needed to start the prosecution of those individual.
About those prisoners and the evidences about them he declared in August 3, 1921
" there is probably some evidence in the archives of the turkish court martial at constantinople but the really important documents could no doubt be smuggled away before we begin to examine them"
But then, about those sent in Malta by the Turkish authorities charging them guilty, the British judge Lindsey Smith August 10 1921 finaly declared.
" a considerable amount of incriminating evidence was collected by the turkish government but it is idle to expect to get it. the only alternative is therefore to retain them as hostages only and release them against british prisoners"
So much, of your said Malta tribunal. I have many other things to write, but for now, I think this is enough, the next time, I will refer to the special organisation, the role of physician etc...
PS: So you were saying the British had access to every documents they wanted ? The Turkish sources and British sources above prove the absolute contrary.
As for what Britain believe it has absolutly no historical value at all, the British are in part responsable of the Genocide, and they participated on the illegal building of a new Treaty without respecting the Hague principle of 1899, and more, Politicians moves have no any credible values to write what a genocide is or not, considering British collonisations and past genocides.
On the other side, the inventor of the word genocide, is the one that decided what consitute a genocide or not, he has chosen to call the Armenian genocide as genocide, the Armenian genocide was a part of his definition, claiming that what happened to the Armenians is not a genocide, is taking off an important aspect of the definition of the word itself.
This is what the inventor of the word says about "Malta" and the Genocide convention.
Raphael Lemkin, Lawyer, and the inventor of the word Genocide.
"In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?
I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.
A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? . . . The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians."
[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]
So, here we see Lemkin explaining why he became a lawyer, the Armenian massacres were the central reason why he decided to became a lawyer and fight to stop such crimes. Claiming the Armenian massacres were not a genocide, is to take of somehow the legal aspect of the word genocide.
|
|
|