| Original Message |
Imasdun (Login Imasdun7)
Forum Owner
Posted Jun 28, 2003 5:32 AM
Kotus answer to me.
--------------------
Quote:
Knight, amuse me even more, like I wrote in my other post, don't escape and only leave when the show is over.
|
Easy my friend, I don't need you intellectual intimidations. I am neither impressed by your posts nor did I gain anything from them yet. So put this aside, and give me some evidence iinstead .
Quote:
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...
|
Hahaha public tribunal, riiight. Not even the accused were represenetd properly in your public court. British compelled the Ottoman Government to detain and penalize the members of the Union and Progress Party. It is stated in the memoirs of Hüsameddin Ertürk Bey, a member of the Union and Progress Party, that during the occupation of the Allied Forces in Istanbul, when Zaven, the Patriarch of Istanbul, informed the Grand Vizier Damat İbrahim Paşa that a certain man had killed Armenians during relocation, the Court Martial presided by Judge Kurdish Mustafa Pasha (nicknamed Nemrud) of the First Court sentenced him immediately to death penalty. Hüsameddin Ertürk who helped with national struggle against the enemy in Anatolia, was caught and tried for being a member of the Union and Progress Party. When he was captured in Istanbul, he was accused with commanding Armenians to be deported and killed while he was positioned in Ankara during World War I. Let's take a section from the Judge's speech:
"You are a straight and good soldier and I am sure that you were never involved with anything other than being a soldier. I am also sure that your only aim was to unite the whole Islam world. But a Court Martial under siege acts on sentiment. This is an order that we have received from the upper echelon. Anyhow, I shall get you of this terrible situation. I shall rule that you will be tried without being arrested. "
Ertürk, Hüsameddin: op. cit.pp.370-373
Are you gonna take this court serious? It's nothing puppet gov't's cute acts to look nice to Brits.
Furthermore two lawyers each from the countries of Denmark (April 19, 1919), Spain (March 17, 1919), Sweden (April 19, 1919) and Holland (March 17, 1919) were requested to participate in the international committee to be formed to investigate if any injustices were made during the relocation.
The delegates of the investigation committee were to visit provinces in Anatolia to make inquiries to establish any injustice that took place and to solve the matter by lawful means.
However, this venture was not realized, as the concerned nations refused to send delegates (at the requested time). Archives of Prime Ministry, BOA HR:MÜ. 43/17
Quote:
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.
|
What document? Why would you need a document for finding someone guilty in such a court?
Quote:
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, ..
|
You are dereaming. Knight of Armenia did not say he was tried by this tribunal. The Armenian Knight said "those guys (same puppet govt) "tried" (I guess you get the message when I use "") and have declared Ataturk a traitor. There was no court whatsoever. Monarchy my friend..
Quote:
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,..
|
Ther was my friend, it is just that it never reached the "court stage" Guess why? It's because there was no evidence, nothing to stand in a serious court, to bring charges officially against the prisoners. The investigation took 2 years my friend! Nothing, not a single itsy bitsy real evidence that can hold in a serious court.
Can you believe it? Nothing in Ottoman archievs, nothing in British archives, nothing in American archieves, and nothing from any Armenian organization.
Oh ofcourse there was hundreds of Armenian propaganda, a little of British war time propaganda. LOL..
Quote:
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,
|
I neither stated that nor implied that. Read above, don't distort my arguments and abuse them.
Quote:
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 ?
|
What document? I told you, you don;t need anything in such a court. By the way if there were ANY forged/unforged documents that Turkish government forbids to access, those were available during Malta tribunals (I know you don't like the word "tribunal" here). Can you see how illogical your claim is.
Ottoman documents are open to all researchers today. In addition many ofthe documents are even on the internet. You can just click and see them. Check it out at <a href="http://www.byegm.gov.tr</a" target=_new>http://www.byegm.gov.tr</a>;/. Or check their whole translations etc, in ATAA website.
What about the Armenian documents my friend? Where are they? Are they open.
Quote:
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 ?
|
What is your point? Are you disputing it because it belongs to SImsir or because it's on Turkish website?
OR are you saying that there's somethign wrong with me copying pasting publications/articles?
What do you expect? History is a science, it has one truth. As opposed to the way Armenian sources are used to, we prefer to stick with the original history instead of shaping the history and rewriting it based on our "opinions" in order to serve our interests .
Now, let's get back to the Malta island. Curzon? SO you like quoting politicians . Fine..
Quote:
"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."
|
Heh, the agreement stipulated the release of all 22 British prisoners in Turkey and repatriation of 64 Turkish deportees of Malta. Article 2 of the agreement reads: "The repatriation of Turkish prisoners of war and interned civilians now in the hands of the British authorities shall commence at once and shall continue as quickly as possible. This will not apply, however, to persons whom it is intended to try for alleged offences in violation of the laws and customs of war, or for massacres committed during the continuance of the state of war in the territory which formed part of the Turkish Empire on August 1st, 1914. The British Government may make it a condition of the release of any individuals that they shall not visit Constantinople before the restoration of a state of peace and shall have the right to arrest and detain them in the events of this condition being violated." PRO-FO. 371/6500/K. 3375.
My friend, investigation went on for 2 years. Prosecutors, legal proffesioanals did their job. No evidence of Armenian allegations whatsoever was found, and all prisoners were released after 2 years.
I would expect such statements from Curzon. He's a politician, and he was one of the staunch supporters of Armenians during the war. And I guess you didn't miss
Curzon hoped for some evidence against Ottoman officers, but he ended up with nothing , he actually already knew that most of the issue was British wartime propaganda
Conclusion: British legal system has not found any evidence in any archieve to accuse Ottoman officers with Armenian allegations.
Quote:
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,
|
That is the state gazette my friend if you are not aware of it.
It gives news that the (puppet) state wants. Those are PR of the gov't, not evidence. That's why Malta tribunal didn't take them seriously either.
Quote:
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.
|
Nope, wrong again. By the way, I love your "denialists allegations" phrase , it reminds me of "operation iraqi freedom"... LOL
British had access to whatever is in the Ottoman archieves at that time, just like US have access to all Iraqi archives today. There were British soldiers in every state building, it was completely under British control.
Whether some documents are stolen before Brits arrive are not does not change the claim. When British invaded they had acces to whatever is in the archieves, so unfrotunately (for you) "denialists" ' claim is prefectly right.
So, you say:
Brits couldn't prove Ottoman guilty because the documents are missing.
And ALL related documents must be missing because Brit couldn't find anything that proves Ottoman guilty.
LOL, you start with the assumption that Ottoman is guilty, then you prove your assumption given that your assumption is true. My friend, I wish I was as creative as you are .
Innocent until proven guilty!
Ofcourse one will destory state secret documents when the enemy is approaching! How do you know those were Armenian allegation stuff. A lot of documents about Armenian relocation is today in the archives, they are meticulously recorded!
Why would Ottoman care about recording the Armenians and their properties? If I was plannign a genocide, I wouldn't waste money (especially when I am in war) on recording things.
Quote:
Here is proves that the Brits had not access to the majority of the files. ...
|
"Majority" of documents? Care to prove that Mr. Mccartylogist?
Did they destroy ALL documents? Not even one piece left?
Oh poor Brits, evil Turks destroyed every single document right?
Well, British High Commissioner seems to have enjoyed the Ottoman archives:
“The original text of a secret order dispatched by Talat Pasha was found in the British archives. (Dossier no. 371, document 9518 E. 5523) The last article of the order says: "...Because this order concerns the
disbanding of the Committees [terrorist bodies], it is necessary that it be implemented in a way that would prevent the Armenian and Muslim elements from massacring each other”. In his memorandum about this order, D. G. Osborne of the British Foreign Office says: “...The last article of the order states that one must refrain from measures which might cause massacre”. (371/4241/170751)
This single document is enough to indicate that aim of relocation was NOT destroying Armenians.
Quote:
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.
|
Hehhe, yeah right, if the documents don't show there's a genocide they must be forged, fake etc. My friend, the archieves are open. If you think something is forged, go get an appointment, see the document yourself, and prove that it's forged! Don't confuse use with Mr. Andonian please.
You can't just start with the assumption that there must be something wrong with any document that doesn't admit a genocide. Prosecutor has to prove that the suspect is guilty. It's not the other way around.
Quote:
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
|
Let's make one thing clear, nobody is disputing massacres of Armenians. "Massacre" and "Genocide" are totally different concepts.
Quote:
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."
|
And what was the 2 years of investigation for then?
Quote:
" 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"
|
Did you really spend time to make sure that you type "Turkish" with a small "t", or is it just a mistake you transferred while you are copying-pasting from your racist resource? hehe..
Quote:
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
|
Go ahead, write please , keep circling around the subject.
Quote:
As for what Britain believe it has absolutly no historical value at all, the British are in part responsable of the Genocide..
|
Big time HAHA, so now you don't care what Brits thinks because they don't admit, and you blamed the genocide allegation on them too.
I'll tell you, most guilty parties for the Armenian suffering are the Russians and Armenian ultra-nationalists living in a pipeline dream of it's their land since there were soem ARmenian pricipalities almost a MILLENIUM ago.
Are you gonna accuse Swedish parliment, or not care about them too?
Quote:
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 ....
"BLAH BLAH BLAH"
|
I asked for evidence, not for opinions. Don't post me what a politician thinks or what a writer says.
Where is your evidence that there was a "genocide"?
What are you gonna show me?
Andonian's "artsy" telegrams? [R1]
Or how Hitler took the so-called "Armenian Genocide" as a model for his actions? [R2]
Or are you gonna show me Vassili Vereshchagin's 1872 "The Apotheosis of War" painting for some amusement? [R3]
Mr. MacCartoon, allow me to ask you a couple questions. I really care a lot about your responses on these.
1- If Armenians really believe in their case, why the hell did they resort to FORGERIES, LIES, and MISQUOTATIONS (in order to play on Jewish holocasut sentiments, man these Armenians are really very smart.) ? Refer to R1, R2, R3.
2- What do you think about Armenian terrorism targeting various precious Turkish diplomats ( I can give you the list if you want) ? Why the hell did Armenians resort to using terrorism for their cause? Isn't claiming that you have been a victim of crimes against humanity, and killing innocent civilians to get your voice heard hypocrisy at worst ??
3- Shouldn't Armenia start looking at what she's doing to Azeris TODAY, instead of creating allegations about 90 yrs ago?
R1:
Talat Pasha Telegrams - A forgery
The Ottoman Empire fought, in the First World War on the side of the Central Powers against the Entente Powers- England, France, Russia and their allies. During the War, as part of standard war propaganda, Ottomans were being accused of massacres against the Armenians who were assisting the Russians, the same way as their wartime ally the Germans were being accused of atrocities against the Belgians.
After the Treaty of Lauseanne in 1923, the Armenians realized that an independent Armenia promised to them by their allies for their efforts against the Ottomans during the First World War, was now a failed dream. They started a large propaganda campaign against the newly formed Republic of Turkey and after the Second World War they cashed-in on the word "genocide". The intention was to draw a parallel between the fate of the Armenians in the First World War and Hitler's extermination policies towards the Jewish people.
The Armenian propaganda claiming genocide, required proof that a decision to exterminate the Armenians was made by the Ottoman Government as a policy. The reason for this was that, the definition of the word "genocide" approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations in December 1948, required that there had to be an intent of destroying a national, ethnic, racial or religious group. For this purpose Armenians produced a number of telegrams attributed to Talat Pasha, the Minister of Interior of the Ottoman Government, supposedly found by the British forces under the command of General Allenby, when they captured Aleppo in 1918.
The basis of the accusations against the Ottomans was a book written by an Armenian, Aram Andonian in 1920, "The Memoirs of Naim Bey: Turkish Official Documents Relating to the Deportations and Massacres of Armenians". Mr. Andonian published his book simultaneously in London, Paris and Boston - in English, French and Armenian. Ever since then, these "documents" have formed the backbone and the basis of all Armenian accusations against the Ottomans and later against the Turks.
It has been proven by scholars for quite some time now that these "documents" were fabricated. The originals of the papers copied by Andonian were never seen. When the British Foreign Office enquired about them at the War Office and with General Allenby himself, it was discovered that they had not been found by the British Army, but rather had been produced by an Armenian Group in Paris. Not a single one of these "important" documents reproduced by Andonian in his book, can be found today.
Andonian made so many mistakes in preparing the papers, however, that it is possible to prove with absolute certainty that they were forgeries, even without the originals. Scholars and historians demonstrated that they did not resemble the Ottoman administrative documents neither in form, reference numbers, script nor phraseology.
The simplest, absolutely irrefutable proof of the forgery involves Andonian's incorrect use of calendar information. Naturally, for his forgeries Andonian used the Rumi calendar which was in use in the Ottoman Empire at the time. Because this calendar's starting point is the year 622 A.D. and uses the lunar years, there are some complicated technicalities in converting between the Gregorian and the Rumi calendars. The analysis of the "documents" reveal that the forger simply knew too little about the Ottoman calendar and overlooked the tricky details in converting. As a result, the forger reaches some impossible and humorous conclusions.
In one of his forged documents, Mr. Andonian dates a note and signature attributed to Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey, purported to be the Governor of Aleppo. A comparison with authentic correspondence between the Governor of Aleppo and the Ministry of the Interior in Istanbul, on the date in question, reveals that the Governor of Aleppo on that date was Bekir Sami Bey. In his attempt to prove massacres, Mr. Andonian, due to his lack of knowledge of the tricky technicalities in the conversion between the two calendars, was having Mustafa Abdulhalik Bey signing documents as the Governor of Aleppo while he was still in Istanbul, before he was even appointed to the position.
Erich Feigl, in his book entitled "A Myth of Terror - Armenian Extremism: Its Causes and Its Historical Context", published in 1986, outlines in great technical detail all the crude forgeries concocted by Mr. Andonian and his associates, on the so-called "Talat Pasha Telegrams".
For decades, Armenian activists referred to these fabricated "documents" as evidence, in their attempt to persuade the politicians and the public opinion in the west regarding their claim of an Armenian genocide.
R2:
Hitler's quotation regarding the Armenians - A myth
Every year Armenian activists lobby politicians in Canada and the U.S. to proclaim a "genocide remembrance week" in April recognizing the so-called Armenian genocide. Every politician who speaks in favour of such a motion inevitably refers to the following statement, given to them by the Armenian activists who claim it was made by Hitler; "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians".
This so-called Hitler statement is accepted as a "historical fact" and has been quoted by numerous politicians who support the Armenian cause, in parliamentary debates in North America. It also appears routinely in Armenian propaganda publications.
The Armenians want to play on the sentiments of the Jewish Holocaust and purport that Adolf Hitler made this quotation in a speech regarding his planned annihilation of the European Jews. One of the most frequently utilized falsifications by Armenian spokesmen is that Hitler felt justified in going forward with his plan to exterminate European Jewry during the Second World War, because he was encouraged that the world had not reacted to alleged Ottoman mistreatment of its Armenian population during the First World War.
The problem with this linkage is that there is no proof that Hitler ever made such a statement. It is claimed that he referred to the Armenians in the manner cited above, while delivering a secret talk to members of his General Staff, a week prior to his attack on Poland. However, there is no reference to the Armenians in the original texts of the two Hitler speeches delivered on August 22, 1939, published as the official texts in the reliable Nuremberg documents.
It is natural to assume that Hitler spoke to his generals on that day in his and their native tongue, German. The Nuremberg documents are the only authoritative and authentic sources. However, a few English translations that appeared in New York Times and London Times in 1945 carried an additional sentence in Hitler's speech that does not occur in the authorized German texts.
At the Nuremberg tribunal there were three authentic versions of the records of the Hitler's meeting with his generals, although no official minutes exist. All three versions are similar in content. William L. Shirer in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" states as follows:
"At Nuremberg there was some doubt about a fourth account of Hitler's speech listed as N.D. C-3., and though it was referred to in the proceedings, the prosecution did not submit it in evidence. While it rings true, it may have been embellished a little by persons who were not present at the meeting at the Berghof".
In several publications Armenian activists refer to the fabricated Hitler statement about Armenians and quote it as "exhibit US-28 of the Nuremberg Tribunal" to mislead the unsuspecting public as if it were authentic and credible. They obviously fail to indicate that exhibit US-28 was not introduced as evidence by the prosecution because of lack of proof of its authenticity and was not preserved in the records of the trials. This is the record Shirer refers to as being "embellished by persons who were not present at the meeting at the Berghof". Neither of the two versions of the records introduced as evidence in Nuremberg nor the notes kept by General Franz Halder who was present at the meeting, contain any reference to Armenians.
This quotation, and indeed an entire text of a Hitler speech purportedly made at Obersalzberg on August 22, 1939, was first published in 1942 in a book entitled "What About Germany?" authored by Louis Lochner.
Lochner cited an unnamed informant as his source for a document called "Contents of Speech to the Supreme Commanders, and Commanding Generals, Obersalzberg, August 22, 1939". He further stated that he obtained a copy of this speech one week prior to Hitler's 1939 invasion of Poland. This "document," the origin of which has never been disclosed, investigated, and much less established, is the sole source of Hitler's purported remark regarding the Armenians.
It is interesting to note that, in Lochner's unnamed informant's documents, there is
not a single direct or implied reference to the Jewish people. The statement referred to Hitler's impending invasion of Poland and to the fate he envisioned for its citizenry; it had absolutely nothing to do with his plans for the Jews of Europe.
The Nuremberg transcripts, however, clearly demonstrate that the tribunal rejected Lochner's version of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech in favor of two more official versions found in confiscated German military records. These two records are, respectively, the detailed notes of the August 22, 1939 meeting taken down by Admiral Hermann Boehm, Chief of the High Seas Fleet, who was in attendance (Document No. 798-PS) and a memorandum in two parts which provides a detailed account of Hitler's August 22, 1939, remarks at Obersalzberg (Document No. 1014-PS).
This second document originated in the Chief of the High Command of the Armed Forces files and was captured by American troops at Saalfelden in Austria. This was the chief document introduced by the prosecution at Nuremberg as evidence in the course of the session concerned with the invasion of Poland.
These two versions are in fact preserved in the transcripts of the Nuremberg Tribunal and are internally consistent with each other regarding the wording of Hitler's Obersalzberg speech. It is important to note that none of these eyewitness versions contain any reference whatsoever to Armenians.
In addition, a third eyewitness account of the Obersalzberg meetings is found in the detailed diary kept by General Franz Halder. His notes, which were not submitted as evidence at the Nuremberg Tribunal, also do not contain any reference to Armenians.
A story in the Times of London on November 24, 1945 based on a "leaked document" on the assumption that it would be introduced as evidence by the time the story broke, made reference to the Armenians in Hitler's statement. The document which was provided to the prosecution by "an American newspaperman", is the source of the alleged Hitler statement on Armenians. However, this document was not introduced as evidence, after the original minutes of the Obersalzberg meeting were found.
The results of the erroneous Times of London story were far reaching. The world has been misled by Armenians since then, into thinking that the Nuremberg transcripts contained the quote attributed to Hitler; "Who still speaks nowadays of the extermination of the Armenians"? Armenian spokesmen have been free to argue that Adolf Hitler justified his planned annihilation of the Jews on the world's failure to react to the alleged Ottoman genocide of the Armenians during the First World War.
In truth, no document containing the purported Hitler statement on the Armenians was introduced or accepted as evidence in the course of the Nuremberg trials. The Nuremberg transcripts through their preservation of Document Numbers 798-PS and 1014-PS and the notes of Admiral Boehm, demonstrate that the alleged statement is conspicuously absent from Hitler's remarks. The assertion that Hitler made a reference to the Armenians in any context whatsoever is completely without foundation.
Yet Prof. Richard Hovannisian and a host of other Armenian spokesmen have been planting this statement into the minds of Canadian and U.S politicians during the last two decades. A significant portion of Armenian propaganda efforts has been devoted to establishing a linkage between their own historical experiences and those of European Jewry during the Second World War. The cornerstone in their case has long been the spurious Hitler quote, "Who, after all, speaks today of the extermination of the Armenians?"
For a detailed analysis of the Nuremberg Trials records regarding this false statement that is attributed to Hitler, please refer to "The U.S. Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians" by Prof. Heath W. Lowry, Political Communication and Persuasion, Volume 3, Number 2, 1985.
R3:
Photographs of Human Skulls - A Distortion
For several decades various Armenian publications have featured a photograph of a pyramid of human skulls which they alleged belonged to Armenian victims of Turkish massacres during the First World War. In most cases the date of 1915 - 1917 was explicitly stated in the legend underneath.
It has been published on the cover of a book with the Ottoman Minister of the Interior Talat Pasha's photograph inserted on the upper left corner, announcing in the inner pages that the cover photograph shows "Turkish barbarism". The same photograph was enlarged and shown to the Canadian public in the 1970's, in the Yerevan Pavillion at the annual Metro International Caravan festivities in Toronto, as proof of "Armenian genocide".
In reality, this was a photograph of a painting entitled "The Apotheosis of War", created in 1872 by a Russian master called Vassili Vereshchagin (1842-1904), which hangs in the Tretyakov Gallery in Moscow. The canvas, the subject of which has got nothing to do with the Armenians, was painted 43 years before the alleged massacres. It was used fraudulently and freely by the Armenians, as a tool to deceive and convince the public into believing their unfounded allegations about a "so-called genocide".
The purpose of this deceitful manipulation was to create a false impression in the minds of those who observe the photo arrangements. It was designed to insult the Turkish people while serving the political objectives of Armenian activists.
Well my friend, I suggest you go back to Zoryan and find some answers.
Have a nice day. I'll reply your other posts when I find time. You're posting a lot of crap at once, it's really time consuming to reply all. |
|
|