1- Once a minority collabrates with the enemy occupation powers and fights against the country it's living in, that is called a "treason". However, if you insist that it's a "conqured nation", even after 700 years of cheek-to-cheek living with Turks and other minorities in the area, then consider it a "war against Ottoman empire". (Not the mention the fact that there was no Armenian state when Turks arrived at the area)

First of all, the Ottoman empire was not a country, being not a country, it loses every right to claim its protection from a minority, because it was an Empire, an empire is maintained on conquest and massacres. Furthermore, there was no Amernian state at those periods, because the concept of state did not really exist at that period, this claim is used by ignorants such as you, and even used by so-called professionals such as McCarthy, during those periods Empires emerged by conquest, some areas were independent, some were not, what distiguished an area was its native population, and not if whatever or not there was any state or not. As for "treason", the word "treason" could not be applied in away for any subject waiting an empire, because there is no such concept of citizenship in the Ottoman empire, but rather the concept of Milleti and "Subject" a "Subject" can not commit treason, because the relationship between the subject and the "master" is not by choice but by obligation. If you take a hostage, and the hostage escape and alert authorities, you can't call him a traitor, because the relationship between the criminal that you'd be and the hostage, is a one of the imposer and the imposed. So, in no way the Armenians could be traitors, because the Ottoman was not a country, there was no concept of equality based on some sort of concept similair to citizenship. In the same way, we can't call the many Circassian tribs, traitors, when they revolted against the Russian Empire. The differenciation is very important, and the uses of the word treason by any so-called specialist downgrade their own claims, because the usage of the word demonstrate an ignorance from their parts of the notion of "treason."

Another important point, you can't call "war" a fight between a minority and an empire, its like for example France that could decide to attack its Arabic minority, the disproportion is too much important to call it a war, its simply impossible, both in term of numbers and the sole definition of what a war is, and I don't think I need to developpe this subject any further, because I believe that you are intelligent anough to read few books about war, and compare it with the situation of the Armenian minority in the Ottoman empire.


2&3 - Armenians did indeed stage uprisings before the relocation process. That was the whole reason of relocation. 100 Turks in Zeytun in 1914, 3.000 Turks in Van events in 1915, and 20.000 Turks lost their lives 1914 — 1915, in Mus Events. Also the Armenians who joined the Russian Army against Ottoman empire, with their arms, committed collectively the guilt of being “ treacherous to the land “. Not to mention the revolts ince 1870s...

The revolts "since" 1870 ? Give me any example of such revolts "starting" in 1870, if you can't, excuse yourself for having typed such a compleat nonesense, the said revolt activities started when the Ottoman entered in the Erzeroon Cathedral to allegedly find arms, and butchered those in, destroying anything they could, at the end there was no arm found. And since you though you were enough knowledgeble of the subject you think you can discuss about, I would give you the opportunity to search the date yourself, from your Turkish sources. Because the only thing before that, was the war of 1877-1878, that ended up with the Treaty of Berlin, that BTW was never respected by the Ottoman empire, that war, was a war like many others, between empires, minorities can take positions or not, that does not make any difference, it does not make them traitors, because this is one of the prizes to pay when you build an empire and have subjects under your hand, if you can't accept that, you just don't build an empire.

Another thing, I am in my knowledge the only one, recognising the genocide, that prefer to call the deplacement of the Armenians, "relocation" rather than "deportation," because the word relocation in itself is an evidences that what happened in fact was a genocide. Deportation allude that the Armenians were pushed out of the Ottoman, this word goes better with the European Jews that were deported from Europe inside the concentration camps, pushed out from many countries, such as Italia, France, etc... the other part, those in Germany, the word relocation would fit better... there was no "deportation" of the Armenians, because the Armenians were not pushed outside from the Ottoman.

What happened is that the Armenians had their circulation permits destroyed, they had no right to leave the Ottoman empire, they were relocated in the desert, many names of the concentration camps were given in Turkey.com by the alias Yolla(all of the posts being deleted, against the UN charter of freedom of opinion). I'm sure you have seen them, since I already know you come from there. The World is such a little place, right ? So calling it "relocation" bring evidences that it was an extermination, because they were relocated in the desert, and not deported in the exterior. Yolla as well has presented a work studying concentration camps in history in Turkey.com, the work in the chapter covering the Armenian genocide, present the difference of the concentration camps put in place by the Ottoman empire, and any other concentration camps known in all history. The authors of the work(none are Armenian BTW, you know it, because you probably have read this fact by Yolla) writes that unlike any other concentration camps, the Armenian concentration camps, had one perpuses, and always had one, and it was to exterminate the Armenians, while the concentration camps of NAZI Germany, were first build for isolation, than they were modified. I can treat about the subject of Van, Mush and any other locations you refer, if you want to be butchered intellectualy, go ahead be my guest, but if you decide to discuss about the matter, give me a garanty that you won't run away on the middle of the discussion.


4 - You are speculating. Armenian patriarche and missinories were fast enough to contact outer powers (Britain , US etc.) accuse Ottoman with a genocide taking place in eastern Anatolia . There's no rationale behind keeping the Istanbul ARmenians in place if Ottoman had really desired a genocide. Powers like Britain was in war with Ottoman at that time already, there's no reason for keeping the diplomacy up anyways.

In addition, keep in mind that Istanbul was not the only place that Armenians are not relocated.

Istanbul Armenians had to be deported and exterminated like the rest, your claim is a myth brough by ignorants, or forger of history like McCarthy(fervant defenser of this absurd claim).

"Chargé d'affaires" of German embassacy.

"According to a source worthy of faith, the Turkish gouvernment , contrary to all the promesses, decided to also deport the Armenians of Constantinople."

AA Türkei 183/40, A33705


The German embassador Metternich in December 7, 1915 informed Germany that there was 30,000 Armenians of Istambul that were already deported, and added.

"will evacuate gradually the 80,000 Armenians which still remains"

AA Tütkei 183/40, A36184


"I even learned that the entirety of Constantinople Armenian population was to be deported"

A. Refik, Iki Komite, iki Kital, Istambul, 1919, p.40

Ernst von Nahmer, correspondent of the Kölnische Zeitung, AA Türkei, 183/38, A30432, 5-6 Sep, 1915

"I have authentic information on the fact that the arrests are carried out completely arbitrarily. Prudence with which they are conducted explains by the presence of the ambassadors. Once that the mesures in force inside the country will have succeeded, the capital(Constantinople) will be next."

The Ottoman just was not able to compleat the final stage by wipping out the Armenians from Istanbul, because the minorities like the Armenians were controling Instanbul economy, and that since the government was controled from there, it would have been very irresponsable to pass to plan Ex.(plan to exterminate those Armenians by sending them to the concentration camps). But the documents are abund, and they demonstrate that a considerable part of the Armenians there were "evactuated" and that it should have been done gradually to not disturb the capital city, there was as well the fact that the various embassies from other countries were situated there. Later, the Ottoman was not able to compleat the task, the allies occupied the city, but still, gradually the genocide persued taking another form, before 1915, the Armenians were constituing near 20 % of the population of Istanbul, now they represent less than 0.1 % of the population, if thats not a compleated work, what it is then ?


5- Well, maybe they're not convinced because there's no evidence.

Be my guest, try me, say there is no evidence, what I ask you to do is not be a chicken and escape on the middle of the conversation, or start attacking me by telling how more intelligent you are, or how I am an idiot etc... like every other Turks before you. I dare you to prove me that what I present are not evidences, I give you the opportunity to refer me to any works, like I gave to any other denialists, you can bring me McCarthy, Shaw, Mango, who ever you want, when ever you want, and how you want it, the only thing I ask you is to have the face later to admit if you can't continue, that you can't continue the discussion because you don't have the knowledge, and that you are denying the genocide, not because you have done a study, but because you are a Turk, and that the victims were Armenians.

So what you say ? Would you be my guest ?


Regards,

Knight of Armenia

Yeh sure, and I'm Gengis Khan

Knight, how do you expect being taken seriously after your last reply to Twilight Bark, there is basic mistakes in your post, you even start refering to races rather than “ethnicity,” furthermore, the reason the Armenians suffered has little to do with the reason the Turks and Kurds suffered of. Yes ! there was lack of food, lack of medecine, lack of fuel, but it was the Armenians that were sent in the desert left to starve, not the Turks, the Ottoman Empire blocked any help provided to the Armenians, the reason given to the Red Cross and various relief organisations was that they wished nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. Here it is not only about starving and not enough food supply, here it is a question of blocking food supply and as pretext telling that they wish nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. There is even more to that, not only the Ottoman empire has forbidden any possible help destinated to the Armenians by various organisations, but they even refused the help offered by the Germans to feed the Armenians, the Germans in various secret reports, report how the Ottoman authorities were happy on letting the Armenians starve and how this time they have not lost the opportunity, such kind of evidences could even not be found in the cases of the Holocaust. This is even not all, the Turkish military war tribunal made it clear, that there was a plan destinated to destroy the Armenians, they present documents on the participation of physicians in poisoning people, drowning children, evidences of mass burning etc...

As for collaborating with the Enemy, here is the official declaration of the Armenian said revolutionary commity.

“[…] It was not enough to arrest and imprison the well-known and respected members of the Armenian community or exile them to remote areas; to create fear and terror among the whole nation. No, it was not enough, for the whole of Cilicia and Armenia had to be turned into one vast graveyard.[…] We wished to convince you [CUP] of the consequences of ill-fated policy you wished to pursue. We begged you not to bring about your downfall by starting hostilities with Russia. We implored you not to be swayed by German influence and not to take up arms against the Triple Entente, two of whose members, England and France, have always been loyal allies who have repeatedly saved the state from danger.[…] You behaved with ingratitude and turning your upon your former allies you threw yourself into the arms of Germany whose power turned your head. And, by abandoning the policy of neutrality which you had so far been pursuing you dragged the Ottoman state to destruction. The country, already poor, was totally ruined. You prepared the ground for serious disorders and the bloody defeats that violated the borders of Armenia. You destroyed and annihilated innumerable young lives. Today, incapable of saving your country, you are desperately fighting your last battle and are treacherously assaulting the unfortunate, unarmed and helpless Armenian nation. It is your own policy that has forced the Armenians to take up weapons and form bands in order to protect their communities from systematic extermination. You are reaping what you have sown. The press organ of the Armenian Revolutionary committee, independent of the Party, on its own responsibility, accuses you – those members of the government and of the Society of Union and Progress involved in these incidents – of having inflicted atrocities and murders on the Armenian nation and, likewise, of having committed crimes against the Ottoman state, and declares that it holds you morally and legally responsible. Signed: Dashnaktsutiun”

This version has been little bit manipulated by Uras, but in order that you don’t cry for fraud, I presented you the version “collected” by Uras, one of the head of the Ottoman propaganda machine. The source: Uras, Esat, “The Armenians in History and the Armenian Question, Istanbul: Documentary Publications, 1988.(Turkishe Erstausgabe 1953) pp. 874-77

I have another version published in a Canadian newspaper, that is actually closer to the true one, but lets take your own sources. The document is clear cut, it present how the Ottoman violated the border of Armenia, the “Armenia” that is refered here is Russian Armenia that the Ottoman tried to annex, if there was any traitor here, it was the Ottoman that decided to annex and take Russian Armenia, than after that the Russian Armenians fough against the Ottoman, the Ottoman took vengence against the Ottoman Armenians, the same way that the decision to exterminate the Jews was taken after the defeat in Soviet front. The Germans used that as a “said” evidence for a world Jewish conspiration. In this official document, we see nowhere that the Armenians decided any revolution, in fact, the Ottoman sieced the bureau of any Armenian organisations, and they found not any documents or any papers supporting any such thing, if you read the said compilation of Uras, he don’t refer to any such documents that were in the pocession of the Ottoman, because it would disprove what he try to prove. Do you imagine how his claims were unsupported ? The above text was the best he came to claim what he claimed, and this best, even disprove your own claim. Face it, you can’t back up your claims with any valide documentation.

Another mistake of yours that is ridiculous, the claim that the Armenians were exempted from taxation. Who are you trying to foul ? From the caclulation I did in the past, and I am ready to provide here evidences and documentations, the Armenians were paying 3 times more taxes than the Turks, and even more for some, they were the subjects that were paying the highest amount of taxes, they were the only having to pay the said Kurdish taxes, that was in part responsable of what happened in 1894. The only reason why the Armenian were exempt from military service was because no Christian subject were trusted to serve in the army, in order to compensate that, the Armenians had to pay the exemption taxe, the boy “head” tax, a taxation pied for any born boy. I am just refering to those, but I can be more specific about the taxation system if you’d like, I have no problem with that. Before claiming something verify if what you said has any sense, because you will only destroy your own credibility if you write such nonesense. Beside that the Young Turk took off the exemption thing.

As for British propaganda, and trial. The Turkish military after war tribunal has proved the genocide did happen. DO you know of any trial proving it never happened ?

Here is Kotus answer to me


----------------------



Turkish military war tribunal? Haha. You're talking about traitor Sultans who decided to punish someone in order to look nice to the occupying powers. Man, those guys also "tried" and declared Ataturk as enemy of state, and those were the guys clapping British invaders from Galata bridge!

Some trial that porves it never happened? Does Malta tribunals ring a bell?

During the years of 1919-1920, when victorious British armies occupied the Ottoman capital Istanbul, hundreds of Turkish officials and officers were arrested in Turkey, without any serious inquiry. Then groups of hurriedly selected prisoners were taken from prison by the British military police and deported to the Mediterranean island of Malta. About one hundred forty persons, altogether, were deported to Malta by the British authorities.

Nearly all the deportees were prominent members of the Turkish society at the time. Former Grand Vizier, speaker of Parliament, Sheikh-ul-Islam, Chief of General Staff, State Ministers, Members of Parliament, Senators, Army Commanders, Governors, University Professors, editors, journalists and others were among the deportees of Malta.

They were accused lightly and roughly of three categories of "offences" : (i) failure to comply with Armistice terms, (ii) ill-treatment of British prisoners of war, and (iii) outrages to Armenians both in Turkey and Southern Caucasus.

The last category of "offence", directly related to the Armenian allegations, was particularly interesting, and the British documents on the subject are illuminating. The Malta episode of early 1920's give us, indeed, a true idea about much controversial Armenian deportation and alleged "outrages" in Turkey during World War I.

The British High Commissioner at Istanbul, Admiral de Robeck, was aware that the Turkish deportees accused of Istanbul outrages to Armenians were arrested and deported not on known facts, but merely on the statements of some unreliable informers and anti-Turk intriguers. It was impossible, therefore, to sustain definite charges against the deportees before a Court of Law. Admiral de Robeck reported to Lord Curzon on September 1919, the following:

"The deportees were selected from a list of persons considered dangerous ... The selection was necessarily made very hurriedly, and it was impossible to rely on known facts..."

"It is obvious that in these circumstances it might be very difficult to sustain definite charges against these persons before an allied tribunal. It is not politically desirable that any of them should be sent back to Turkey at present..." (1)

It seems that from the very beginning the British Government doubted much whether these Turkish prisoners at Malta were in fact guilty or not. The British authorities were not unaware that the stories of Armenian massacre were a part of war-time propaganda and were still much exploited against Turkey at conference tables during the armistice period.

But to make propaganda and to prosecute people before a serious tribunal were indeed quite different things. The responsible British authorities were, therefore, hesitating to accuse formally the deportees at Malta. On the contrary, they were contemplating their release as soon as possible. Thus, Mr. Winston S. Churchill, the Secretary of State for War, proposed to the Cabinet on July 19th, 1920, the release of Turkish prisoners at Malta "at the first convenient opportunity". (2)

Upon this, the question of Turkish prisoners at Malta was discussed, for the first time, at the British Cabinet. At the same time the Law Officers of the Crown were consulted on the subject. The Law Officers informed the Cabinet by a memorandum dated 4th August 1920 that they were dealing only with few Turkish deportees accused of ill-treatment of British prisoners of war. No material or evidence ever existed about alleged Armenian massacre. Therefore, the Law Officers of the Crown abstained from accusing anyone of Turkish deportees of such a crime. (3)

On August 4th, 1920, the British Cabinet decided that "The list of the deportees be carefully revised by the Attorney General with a view to selecting the names of those it was proposed to prosecute, so that those against whom no proceedings were contemplated should be released at the first convenient opportunity." (4) And the Attorney General wrote to the Foreign Office that the "British High Commissioner at Istanbul should be asked to prepare the evidence against those interned Turks whom he recommends for prosecution on charge of cruelty to native Christians. " (5)

The new British High Commissioner at Istanbul Sir H. Rumbold replied "that none of allied, associated and neutral Powers had been asked to supply any information, that very few witnesses were available and that Armenian Patriarchate had been the main channel through which information had been obtained. He said: "Under these circumstances the Prosecution will find itself under grave disadvantages." Further he added: "The American government in particular, is doubtless in possession of a large amount of documentary information..." (6) His colleague at the High Commission, Sir Harry Lamb was more precise and wrote:


"No one of the deportees was arrested on any evidence in the legal sense.

"The whole case of the deportees is not satisfactory...

"There are no dossiers in any legal sense. In many cases we have statements by Armenians of differing values...

"The Americans must be in possession of a mass of invaluable material..." (7)


To sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime as alleged "Armenian massacre" was ever committed in Turkey. Therefore it was impossible to produce any dossier in the legal sense against anyone of Turkish deportees at Malta. And the Law Officer of the Crown and H.M. Attorney General refused to involve themselves with the alleged case of "Armenian massacre" and he also carefully avoided to pronounce the word "massacre" which was so freely used by allied war-time propaganda machine and still uttered by some politicians as well as by few members of the British Foreign Office. "From the political point of view it is very desirable that these people (i.e. Turkish deportees) should be brought to trial" insisted one member of the British Foreign Office. And they decided to ask the assistance of the State Department.


On March 31st, 1921, Lord Curzon telegraphed to Sir A. Gedes, the British Ambassador in Washington, the following:


"There are in hands of His Majesty's Government at Malta a number of Turks arrested for alleged complicity in the Armenian massacre.

"There is considerable difficulty in establishing proofs of guilt...

"Please ascertain if United States Government are in possession of any evidence that would be of value for purposes of prosecution." (8)


A member of the British Embassy in Washington visited the State Department on July 12th, 1921, and he was permitted to see a selection of reports from American Consuls on the subject of Armenian question. The Embassy returned the following reply:

"I regret to inform Your Lordship that there was nothing therein (in American archives) which could be used as evidence against the Turks who are being detained for trial at Malta. The reports seen... made mention of only two names of the Turkish officials in question and in these case were confined to personal opinions of these officials on the part of the writer, no concrete facts being given which could constitute satisfactory incriminating evidence. "


"I have the honour to add that officials at the Department of State expressed the wish that no information supplied by them in this connection should be employed in a court of law.

"Having regard to this stipulation and the fact that the reports in the possession of the Department of State do not appear in any case to contain evidence against these Turks..., I fear that nothing is to be hoped from addressing any further enquiries to the United States Government in this matter." (9)


It was a disappointing result for some officials of British Foreign Office. One of them, Mr. W.S. Edmonds, minuted: "It never seemed very likely that we should be able to obtain evidence from Washington. We are now waiting for the Attorney General's opinion..."

Some obstinate British officials were still insisting for prosecution of innocent Turkish detainees accused of imaginary "Armenian massacre". In view of lack of evidence in legal sense they decided to use political argument. The Foreign Office wrote to H.M. Procurator General on May 31st, 1921, that:


"From political point of view, it is highly desirable that proceedings should take place against all of these persons... on the other hand, it is equally desirable to avoid initiating any proceedings which might be expected to prove abortive. In these circumstances, His Lordship (Lord Curzon) would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would be so good to favour him with an opinion..." (10)

The Attorney-General's Department returned the following reply:


"...It seems improbable that the charges made against the accused will be capable of legal proof in a Court of Law.

"Until more precise information is available as to the nature of the evidence which will be forthcoming at the trials, the Attorney-General does not feel that he is in a position to express any opinion as to the prospect of success in any of the cases submitted for his consideration." (11)


Upon the receipt of this reply, Mr. W.S. Edmonds minuted again: "From this letter it appears that the changes of obtaining convictions are almost nil... It is regrettable that the Turks have confined as long without charges being formulated against them..." (12)


From now on, the Turkish detainees at Malta were not considered as "offenders" for prosecution, but rather as "hostages" for exchange against British prisoners in Anatolia. Sir H. Rumbold, the High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote:


"Failing the possibility of obtaining proper evidence against these Turks which would satisfy a British Court of Law, we would seem to be continuing an act of technical injustice in further detaining the Turks in question. In order, therefore, to avoid as far as possible losing face, in this matter, I consider that all the Turks... should be made available for exchange purposes." (13)


And then, all Turkish deportees at Malta, embarked on board HMS "Chrisanremum" and RFA "Montenal" on afternoon of the 25th October, 1921, arrived at Inobolu on October 31st, and landed safely on Turkish soil. All Turkish deportees were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal. On the other hand, all British prisoners in Anatolia who were handed over to their authorities reached Istanbul on November 2nd. The episode of the deportees of Malta thus ended.

In conclusion, one can say that these prominent Turks, accused of Armenian persecution, were arrested and deported without any serious investigation. There was, from the very beginning, a great deal of doubts whether the accused were in fact guilty or not. From political point of view, it was "highly desirable" for the British Government that at least some of these deportees should be brought to trial. The British Foreign Office has left no stone unturned in order to prove that an "Armenian massacre" actually took place in Turkey, and consequently some of these detainees were guilty. But all efforts in this connection ended with a complete failure.

There was no evidence, no witness, no dossier, and no proof. The Armenian Patriarchate in Istanbul furnished nothing serious. The Ottoman capital city Istanbul was under allied occupation and all Ottoman State archives were there easily accessible to the British authorities. The Ottoman government was very docile and cooperative. Yet the British High Commission in Istanbul was unable to forward to London any evidence in legal sense. There was nothing in British archives which could be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees. The American State Department was unable to assist the British Government with evidence against these Turks. It is safe, therefore, to say that the alleged "Armenian massacre" was nothing but an imaginary product of a ruthless war-time propaganda campaign carried out against the Turks.

The Armenian casualties were first misrepresented and distorted by vindictive Armenian nationalist leaders. Then Allied Intelligence services, spread stories of imaginary "massacre", for the sake of their own purposes. The Prime Minister of former Armenian Republic in Transcaucasia, Howhannes Katchaznouni, wrote the following:

"In the Fall of 1914 Armenian volunteer bands organised themselves and fought against the Turks because they could not refrain themselves fighting. This was an inevitable result of a psychology on which the Armenian people nourished itself during an entire generation...

"We had created a dense atmosphere of illusion in our minds. We had implanted our own desire into the minds of others; we had lost our sense of reality and carried away with our dreams. (14)


Remember, British ambassador has also recently publicly said that Britain officially does not believe that events of 1915 constitute a "genocide". Ofocurse Armenian propaganda will not tell us about malta tribunals, and it will keep claiming that Turkey is the only country denying it.



References:


1 Public Record Office, London, FO 371/4174/136069 : De Rebeck to Lord Curzon, No. 1722/R/1315, of 21.9.1919

2 PRO-FO 371/5090 and C.P. 1649: Memorandum by the S.of S. For War on Pasition of Turkish prisoners interned at Malta, dated 19.7.1920

3 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934 (C.P.1770): Memorandum by Law Afficers of the Corwn dated 4th August 1920 and signed by Gordon Hewart and Ernest M.Pollock.

4 PRO-FO 371/5090/E.9934: Cabinet Oficer to Lord Curzon of 12.8.1929

5 PRO-FO 371/6499/E.1801: Law Officeres to Foreign Office of 8.2.1921

6 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3557: Sir H.Rumbold to Lord Curzon, No. 277 of 16th March, 1921

7 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3554: Inclosure, minutes by Sir H.Lamb, dossier Veli Nedjdet

8 PRO-FO 371/6500/E.3552: Curzon to Geddes. Tel No 176 of 31.3.1921

9 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8515: Craigie, British Charge d' Afaires at Washington, to lord Curzon, No.722 of July 13, 1921

10 PRO-FO 371/6502/E.5845: Lancelot Oliphant (Foreign Ofice) to Mr. Woods (Procurator-General's Department), May 31st, 1921

11 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.8745: Procurator-General's Department to the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, 29.7.1921

12 Ibidem : Minutes by Mr. Edmonds of 3.8.1921

13 PRO-FO 371/6504/E.10023

14 Hovhannes Katchaznouni, The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) Has Nothing to do Any More, New York: 1955, pp. 5-7


Regards, I'll respond your other posts, you sound well informed in the issue.

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.

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 Ýbrahim Paþa 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.

Knight, I hope you realise that asking evidences when I brough evidences for the point you refered, makes you unhonest ?

Lets sign an agreement while I am in my good mood. You have no right to plagiate from other works, needer you have the right to copy past materials, if you want to refer to a material be honnest enough to refer to the site and the author from which it comes from, because if you don’t than continuing any discussion with you will be a waste of time(it already is a waste of time).

Since you know who if Fadi(I shall come to that point later), you probably already know that I have read absolutly every documents you presented here, and since they are not your properties, why reposting them ? The documents I post, an important part of them have been brough in the web by me, they are my documents, I can copy-past them as much as I want, because there is no site from which they orginated, so I ask you to do the same.

Now about the Public tribunal, what do you find so funny about it being a public tribunal ? It’s unbelievable you even refer to “Hüsameddin Ertürk Bey“ do you actually know who he was ? Shall I help you to find the way ? What is presented as memoirs by “Arslan Terzioðlu“(that you quoted textualy, from the Turkish government formed Armenian studies), is not a memoir but a publication of none other than the so-called Dr. Samih Nafiz Tansu, the same “Editor” of many forgeries. In fact, Arslan Terzioðlu never ever even quoted the references himself, he just refered them, the other one I know that ever used this so-called memoir was Simsir that you quoted, Hüsameddin Ertürk Bey was a war criminal one of the head architects of the deportations, his memoirs never were published as memoirs, they were edited by the same known forger that has published other so-called documents, the same PhD member of the post-modern Turkish government propaganda machine, if I were to present any documents published by Armenias ministry of education concerning the Turks, would you accept them ? Would you ever accept said memoirs edited by an Irving, written by one of the 40s NAZI criminals charged at the Nuremberg ? You present me a professional liar, “Hüsameddin Ertürk” became rich by the expropriation of the Armenians, he was on the group of the Ittihad that was recycled by the Kemalists to stage finaly the rest of the Armenians left at the hearth of Anatolia. In court of law such documents would never have any validity, such allegations by a criminal discrediting the tribunal that was supposed to charge him, has no any value. As for the Judge, there was no one judge during the tribunal, the transcrips and reports and questionings by any judges presents there were published, there was no such thing said by the judge, you can not place any value of what a judge have said on a war criminal and a murderer that you try to defend here.

Copy, copy, copy, copy, just a recycling machine you are Knight, every thing you say, one has just to do a google search and he find up nearly the words textualy, if you have an argument of your own just tell it, if you don’t just post the web site from which you would want to take your argumentations, there is no point at discussing with a copy-past machine. You refer to the two lawyers from each independent coutries, this has nothing to do with the Turkish military tribunal, it is not because you have very few things in your hand that you should bring things out of their contexts, those lawyers were suppose to be used for the Malta prisoners, they had nothing to the with the Turkish military tribunal, they refused because those countries didn’t wanted to be involved at places where their personal securities were at risks and the Ottoman authorities sounded to be to instable, between the after-war government and the sign of a revolt preparing in the Ottoman, so you bringing this up does not disprove what I have written, if your post has nothing to do with mine, whats the need to post them, I mean you can’t just bring unrelated things only to show you have some content. And furthermore, the Ottoman knew it were to be refused, they presented conditions that no one would accept.

I present from Turkish sources how the documents were destroyed, how those documents were not made avelable to the British(sice you claimed they had access to everything they wanted) and then you ask which documents ?

So there was no court, there was nothing, it was Monarchy, like the Nuremberg I guess, not only you select documents that have no any values from criminals, but you even deny the existance of a court, how do you expect to be even taken seriously ? And after you claim there was trials, you now claim they never reached any courts stage ? You are contradicting yourself, there could no be any trials when there is no pre-trial investigations, as for evidences, I presented my cases, beside claiming this same thing like I wrote nothing, bring the documents I presented and claim me after why the things I present happened, what the Ottoman had to fear ? Why those documents about the Armenians destroyed ? If they had no participations, why than destroying those documents ? Why not handing them to the British like it was accepted previously ?

Which investigation are you talking about ? Present me any British documents presenting any investigations. Go ahead present me just one if you can. Non NADA, the Kemalists took prisonners and they forced the all and all exchanges, Curzon after everything recognised that they were released to exchange them with prisoners, he did not mentioned it happened because there was no evidences, so your claim again has no any value. On the other hand, the Turkish military tribunal lasted 2 years and they proved an extermination did happen, if this was a product of monarchy and that it was a biased court, why would than the British need such a court when they could just charge trial them themselves ? I mean, if those sentences were fakes and biased, why did the Brits not sentenced those in Malta ? Afterall they didn’t needed aby evidences, because the said court they controled already charged those “without prove.” You see, even condiering your own logic, it does not make any senses.

“I neither stated that nor implied that. Read above, don't distort my arguments and abuse them.”

OK, what you are telling us is that you recognise the legitimity of the allied tribunal of Nuremberg, but does not recognise the Military tribunal, because from your point of view it was a product of the Monarchy, the “allies” what make than the Nuremberg any more credible than the military tribunal ? Explain me this please.

Before continuing, present me just ONE, British document refering to any Malta tribunal or trials, go ahead just ONE ! Untill you don’t present one, your claim of trials or tribunal is not valid in court. As for the documents, if you said the British had access to everything they wanted, be glad to take my references from Turkish sources and explain me why those things happened, and how after all can anyone claim that the Brits had access to the CUP documents, when your own sources claims they were taken away and burned.

So Ottoman documents are open today ? But, how come, your own Turkish sources indicate they should have been destroyed, how a destroyed document can still exist ? Furthermore, where are the documents of the Turkish military tribunal, I mean if the tribunal was forged, than why still none of those “forged” documents are avelable, why would your government be afraid to present forged documents ?

As for Simsir, Simsir is working at the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs, he is pied from the Turkish government, in the past I already destroyed his claims and even refered to how he took off every important pieces in his quotations by replacing them by “...”

And, for the sake of argument, I do not uses Armenian sources, when your sources comes only from Turkish sources, and where they comes from the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs, would you recognise any documents published by Armenias ministry of foreign affairs ?

Now lets continue, and present another of your distortions, you present the “agreement” that was refused by the Kemalists, this agreement was never respected, and as well, there was a group that the British decided to keep that escaped prison.

“My friend, investigation went on for 2 years. Prosecutors, legal proffesionals did their job. No evidence of Armenian allegations whatsoever was found, and all prisoners were released after 2 years. »

Present me any documents that attest there never was any investigations, prossecutions, if you can’t than I shall know what to consoder your claim.

“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.”

OK, I understand, I guess its the same way when the allies captured Berlin and have found no documents ordering the destruction of the Jews, from your logic there never was a Holocaust. There never was in the history of genocide where the perpetrators left any documents attesting their intentions, but on the other hand, in the cases of the Armenian genocide there is German documents that refer to how their allies planned and executed the Armenian extermination. The German "Volkswirtschaftliche Studien in der Türkey" report. Stated :

"by February 1916, 1.5 million Armenians were destroyed ... the first step toward the recovery of the economic predominance in Turkey ... there was joy in the government circles that the long-desired opportunity finally presented itself...”

A.A. Türkei, 134/35, A18613, pp. 1,2,3,4 "Volkswirtschaftliche Studien in der Türkey"

Oh, I guess the German war Intelligentsia bureau stationed in Turkey, being Ottoman allie just build up war propaganda against the Ottoman, I guess those Turkish historians such as Dogan Avcioglu, are just pied by Armenians, when he writes.

« The Liquidation of the Christian elements was determined upon in the course of deliberations which were held at the War Ministry and which lasted months. »

I guess, Ismail Besikci was pied by the British propaganda bureau, when he wrote in his work.

"...the deportation of hundreds of thousands of Armenians which in actuality was a genocide... it was the result of an undertaking in which German imperialism, in a collision course with Russian imperialism ...enabled the Ittihadists to solve the Armenian question by spurring Turkism and panturanism."

Ismail Besikci, Kürdistan Üzerinde Emperyalist Bölüsüm Mücadelesi, vol. 1 Ankara, 1992 p.88 – 101

Those Turkish Physicians were pied by the British Propaganda Bureau I suppose.

Dr. Resid

" Even though I am a physician, I cannot ignore my nationhood. I came into this world a Turk. My national identification takes precedence over everything else... .Armenian traitors had found a niche for themselves in the bosom of the fatherland; they were dangerous microbes. Isn't it the duty of a doctor to destroy these microbes ? Either the Armenians would liquidate the Turks and become proprietors of this land or they would be liquidated by the Turks. I couldn't hesitate as to my opinion, and I opted. My Turkishness prevailed over my medical calling. Of course my conscience is bothering me, but I couldn't see my country disappearing. I shut my eyes and surged forth without reservation. As to historical responsability I couldn't care less what historians of other nations write about me."

From an interview with Ittihad party Secretary-General Midhat Sukru (Bleda) in "Resimli Tarih" 5 July 1953 and in "Imparatorlugun Cokusu" (Istanbul: Remzi, 1979), pp.57-9, It is also said that Dr. Resid had a diary, that he recorded with great care the daily events and his refelctions. During the war he had published a booklet. "How to Deal with the Armenians"(Jhogovourtee Tzain, 25 January 1919)


" A doctor named Aziz Bey told me that when he was at Merzifun in the vilayet Sivas he heard that a caravan of Armenians was being sent to execution. He went to the Kaymakam and said to him: 'You know I am a doctor and there is no difference between doctors and butchers as doctors are mostly occupied in cutting up mankind. And as the duties of a Kaymakam at this time are also like our own - cutting up human bodies - I beg you to let me see this surgical operation.' Permission was given, and the doctor went. He found four butchers, each with a long knife; the gendarmes divided the Armenians into parties of ten, and sent them up to the butchers one by one. The butcher told the Armenian to stretch out his neck; he did so, and was slaughtered like a sheep. The doctor was amazed at their steadfastness in the presence of death, not saying a word, or showing any sign of fear."

Faiz El-Ghusein, Martyred Armenia, pp. 27,28


Dr. Salaheddin

"...a large number of Armenians succumbed to these inhuman experiments, they hardly contributed to the health of others... .No positive results whatsoever were obtained. The unfortunate Armenians, whose existance was relegated to levels lower then animals, were victimased in the name of certain obscure points of science."

Ikdam, 26 December 1918

"Sabah" Nov. 21, 1918

"Did you not drop by every morning at Talât's home to receive your atrocious orders from that brigand chief [çetebaªi]? Did you not, as a result of a decision reached at Ittihad's party headquarters, release from the central prison of Istanbul the most ferocious murderers so that they could kill with axes the innocent Armenians in the vicinity of towns and villages of which they were the inhabitants? Did you not order similar releases from prisons in the provinces? Was it not the general purpose to select the most bloodthirsty murderers and enroll them in the brigand cadres [of the Special Organization] for which end you appointed the procuror-general of the Appellate Court, whereas [the] War Minister was represented by a high ranking officer? Furthermore, was not a physician appointed also to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing you required? Did not the formation of the brigand criminals take place in the office of the same procuror-general of the Appellate Court which was located just below your own office? Did not this organizational work continue for weeks during which one could observe the prison convicts being brought to the corridors located outside of the offices of the procuror-general, the chamber of the Criminal Court, and the Courtroom itself ? "

We see here a direct link between these Criminals and Physicians. And that when Refik stat:

"The criminal gangs who were released from the prisons, after a week's training at the War Ministry's training grounds, were sent off to the Caucasian front as the brigands of the Special Organization, perpetrating the worst crimes against the Armenians ... . The Ittihadists intended to destroy the Armenians, and thereby to do away with the Question of the Eastern Provinces."

Refik, Iki Komite...[n.8]p.23

We can see from the other quote that the physician’s examination etc... was part of these trainings. Dr. Resid was known to be one of the head planner of the training of the criminals, as well as the usage of morphine as tool of killing against children, when he used Red Crescent hospital as killing places. Cavalry Lieutenant Fadil Harun testified during the same Trabzon trial that Dr. B. Sakir, one of the heads of the planners of the crimes against the Armenians, was acted in the poisoning of children as well as the mass drowning in the black sea. Yozgat trial: "The male and female infants were taken to barges and boats in batches [to be] drowned (bahra ilka etmekle bogdurup mahv ettikleri).”

Dr. Saib(Director of Trabzons Health Services) was also implicated on the killings. Dr. Ziya Fuad the health service inspector during the Trabzon trial sitting recognised that Dr. Said: "caused the death of untold numbers of Armenian children who were injected with morphine." These information’s were provided by Drs. Ragib and Vehib, Saibs colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital.

The tribunal also accused physician Ahmed Midhat of anti-Armenian speeches dedicated to inflame the Muslim population.

All those evidences are product of the British propaganda bureau I guess, a kind of Armenian world conspiration.

I present you to the Central commitee foduments destruction and you tell me why all those has to do with the Armenian files ? Those documents were asked by the British in order to charge those condemned for the crimes against the Armenians, not about an alian ubduction, and you still continue asking where I have proven about the British having no access to most of the documents, when the evidences are above your head, up on this thread about how the Brits requested, and they never were able to have those documents that were destroyed, I don’t think you are a child, you can go and read it against all by yourself.

Some other gibberish trash you present, and then you allege that no boddy is disputing the massacres of the Armenians ? Well sorry to say you that your primary source used in your texts, Simsir the diplomat writes in his conclusion.

“To sum up, there was no evidence at all to prove that such a crime as alleged "Armenian massacre" was ever committed in Turkey.”

And then, you claim that you want evidences and not opinions, but Mr. Raphael Lemkin is the inventor of the word genocide.

Lemkin’s first studies concerning war “crimes against humanity” was referred to by H. Yahreas’ work, The World’s Most Horrible Crime, Colliers, vol. 127, 3 March 1951. The author retraces Lemkin’s interest concerning war crimes and extermination. In fact, the author reports that the first recorded conversation that Lemkin had about the subject was at Lvov University in 1920, when he engaged in a discussion concerning the extermination of the Armenians with his Russian Law professor. Rabbi Steven L. Jacobs, Temple B’nai Shalom, Huntsville, Alabama, and Martin Methodist College, Tennessee, who has researched Raphael Lemkin’s papers, has classed some of those concerning the Armenians and compiled them by the name "Lemkin and the Armenian Genocide." Lemkin also referred to the Armenian case, in his work “Le Crime de Génocide” as an example of extermination. Quoting here from its English version: “history has provided us with other examples of the destruction of entire nations, and ethnic and religious groups. There are, for example,… and more recently, the massacre of the Armenians.” (By Raphael Lemkin, American Scholar, Volume 15, no. 2 [April 1946]).

Lemkin started his works concerning “Crimes against Humanity” (we should remind the reader, that the term “crime against humanity” was first officially used to describe what happened to the Armenians) with the Armenian case. This same case, as mentioned previously, was also one of the main reasons why he decided to become a lawyer. He also gave as reference the Armenian case in his work “Genocide” whose aim was to describe what a genocide is. Lemkin was the inventor of the word, and he decided what event to call genocide. And he has chosen to call the Armenian case, genocide. No one could claim what a genocide is or not more so than the inventor, the inventor having decided to refer to the Armenian case like the Holocaust as a part of his distinct definition of the word genocide. Lemkin’s conception of the word predates the Holocaust, with the Armenian case, and then after the end of World War II, he finalized his work and published it in a series of essays. He also wrote papers, official and unofficial. In them, he referred to the Armenian case as an integral part of his definition, an “undissociable” element of the word that he himself invented.

The German word often used for the word genocide, "Völkermord" has been used to describe what happened to the Armenians, even before the introduction of the more official word, “genocide.” An example of the usage of the word "Völkermord" could be found in the work of S. Zurlinden, "Der Weltkrieg, Vol. II (Zürich: Art. Institut Orell Füssli, 1918), p.649.

This German word had not the legal aspect that the word genocide does. Lemkin at that time was pressed to release his studies and the legal aspect of such crimes, in order to have legal bases for the prosecution of people responsible of such crimes. For Lemkin the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released, and for him the reason was because there were laws binding countries concerning killers and criminals, but there were no laws for criminals that in the name of a state and from its laws commit genocide, as he wrote, “Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?” And it is exactly why, in 1944, Lemkin was preparing the legal aspect, and knew that once the war was over these NAZI criminals would be released in the same way that the criminals responsible for the Armenian genocide were released if there were no new laws that could permit judgement of the criminals.

It must be understood once again one of the main reasons of why the word genocide was invented. It was primarily invented in order to have a legal basis to condemn people accused of such crimes, in order that they do not escape justice like they had done in the case of the Malta prisoners, and also to name such crime that until then there was no word to describe. For Lemkin the Armenian case was the archetype, the case that was used as jurisprudence, in order to come up with legal bases to condemn NAZI criminals, and be sure that the same mistake that happened in the post-World War I period were not to happen in the post-World War II period or ever again.

This is exactly why there is no possible debate concerning whatever or not what happened to the Armenians was a genocide or not, for people that allege it wasn’t a genocide not only have no knowledge of or reject the why of the usage of this word, but they also have no knowledge of or reject the fact that the Armenian case is a Jurisprudence and a distinct and indivisible element of the existence of the word, an integral part of the word, months before the introduction of this word in 1948, on the date of May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. Obviously, the United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide. Later in 1973, a reference in one of the United States papers concerning the Armenian genocide resulted on the part of Turkey to pressure the United Nations to withdraw the case of the Armenian genocide from the list. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote, from which only one member was against, the only vote against the resolution being from the representatives of the Soviet Union.


But these important details have been ignored by deniers, such deniers like the Holocaust “negationist” Paul Rassinier, Flaurisson and the Irving’s of this world, thinking that they are in a better position than Raphael Lemkin to tell what a genocide is or not. For each genocide there is its denier, and the Armenian case of course is not an exception, but contrary to other forms of denial, the Armenian genocide denial is financed by a government. This genocide has its own deniers. In this work we will limit ourselves to the basic study of one of them, Justin McCarthy, who is the most widely cited Western denialist of the Armenian genocide and who, like many other denialists, is arrogant enough to think he knows that he is in a better position than the inventor of the word “genocide” to dispute what is a genocide and what is not.

So, Lemkin is not telling an opinion, he is the inventor of the word, and he put the Armenian cases as a part of his definition.

“Mr. MacCartoon” SO starting with personal attacks ? Signe of disparation ?

Another interesting poitn here.

“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.”

I never used the Andonians to prove anything, neither Hitler quote. On the other hand, the one here resorting to forgeries and lies was you, you were the one inventing a tribunal that never existed, or claimed Armenians were not taxed etc... etc... etc... But lets still refer to the Adonians, that your ilks claim to be forgeries, when using the same standards will prove many Turkish documents as forgeries.



First, before developping about the Andonians, I shall present your “sources” for the three point you made, you just copy-pasted it from here.

http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/arm2_fcta.html writting by an idiot by the name of Demir Delen. You again have not respected copyrights(I remember someone like that, but lets stick to the facts right now, and bring the other subject later).


Andonians

There is only one work that is the bases of the denialists arguments that has been later translated into English and it is the work of Orel and Yuca "Ermenilerce Talat Pasa'ya Atfedilen Telgraflarin Icyuzu" Ankara, 1983

Dadrian has proved this work is worthless by covering the 5 allegations that these two diplomats brings to prove that the Andonians are forgeries...

And do you know what proves that the Andonians could be authentics ? Specifically its mistakes found in other Ottoman documents.

First allegation is the fact that the papers used of these documents looked like the ones used for calligraphy lessons in French schools... and do you know how they came to the conclusion ? The orginal have not been studied by these two diplomats they came to that conclusion basing themselves on the spacing of the lignes standarts in the French system.

Here is the point, this proves that the Andonians could in fact be authentics, because none other then Turkish high officials would know that Talaat during wartime was using ordinary paper because of the paper crises in Ottoman, exporting papers from Germany, that was using French lign specing system... and Talaat specifically used such papers.

Ahmed Resit [Rey] in his work "Gorduklerim Yaptiklarim", (1890-1922), Istanbul, 1945, p.117 explain that Talaat used such specific papers.

How Andonian could know this ?

The second argument by the two diplomats are not proof itself, because they are used in a way, that they do not reject the authenticity of the Andonians... These diplomats question the fact that Naim has kept these documents, and it was not possible that telegrams were kept for more then 3 years before destroying them.

But again, here the two diplomats show the ignorance of Ottoman documents classifications... yes it was true that in Istanbul for example orders to destroy the documents have been given and later in the entire Ottoman itself, and I gave you in one of my above post examples of such orders, but it was not really the case for Allepo for that time, and Aleppo was one of the only places for that period, that the Documents were not classed to be protected, and here again Andonian could not have known this, the German Consul Walter Rossler, that believe that these documents could be authentic recognise that "entirely granted for as far as I knew the Turks [in Aleppo]never catalogued and attached (nie geheftet) their documents." The Daily Telegraph reported: "on the lightening advance of Allenby's forces...time was lacking for so complete an obliteration of the tragic archives while subordinates, who remained behind, sometimes retained possession of compromising documents..." The period that Andonians say having taken these documents makes a lots of sens, as well as the fact that he took them from somehwere that it was specifically one of the only places that documents important such as this could not have been destroyed.

Then our 2 Turkish diplomat palls alleges by refering to the February 18 and March 25 letters, that the errors made in them could not have been made by a Turk, but again, they are wrong. These are orders letters, handwrittings, they are not publications to be read by a mass, our 2 dimplomats mesures for example the letter b etc... to show us that it could only have been made by someone that could not master the Ottoman script, but what they do not point out, is that a hand writting to give an order is not a paper to be corrected, or a litherary work for mass consuption.

Ahmed Mithad the well known Turkish language specialist as well as writer recognised the irregularities of the Turkish language "The Ottoman language is such a rotten structure that which-ever part is touched, falls down... We have to give up making repairs."

The Martial Court itself had to rewrite an entire sentence from an official Ottoman document because "very ineptly used Turkish." A Turkish Interior Minister also denounced as "bad" (bozuk) the Turkish language of a 1912 Young Turk Congress.

A Turkish Historian also recognise that Talaat Turkish writing was "bad" Turkish, refering to his telegrams, pointed out in "Izahli Osmanli TarihiKronolojisi", Istanbul. 1961, I.H. Danismend

Could Andonians have known that Talaah had bad Turkish ? So again, like I said the mistakes found in the Andonians only prove its authenticity.

The datation now, Dadrian give examples of the same kind of mistakes in Ottoman documents recognised as authentic by Turkey.

To finish, Andonian was a Journalist writer, mastering Armenian as well as Ottoman Turkish, his Ottoman Turkish, living in that time, was certainly better then Orel and his friend pseudo Ottoman Turkish knoweldge... if he would have wanted to forge documents, these little mistakes easy to correct would have not been done... like using different papers for many of the telegrams(this was a known Talat mistake), datation mistakes, someone that would want to forge documents, would not for example forge some documents have the correct datation and not for others, in order to have correct datation, one should know Higir Calender, if he would know it, why making mistakes for some datations and not others ? When you forge, you try to be the most credible possible, and when you have a knowledge of Ottoman Turkish and as Journalist the Hegir datation, and the capability to use the same kind of paper for all the documents, then why making everything possible in order that you left arguments for the opposition party ? Is that make any sens ? As well mistakes of the Hegir Calender in various Turkish documents are abound, Dadrian refered to few in his work, from the same logic applied to prove the Andonians as forgeries, Orel should conclude that documents admitted as authentic by Turkey are in fact forgeries.


Now, here about Hitler quote.

First, the document has been provided by Lochner, direcly came from General Canaris, the Head of Hitler military Intelligencia. Another copy of it from German High Command, another one from Admiral Böhm, another copy found in General Halder memo's, another copy of it from Army's war diary compiled by H. Greiner.

The file of Lochner was direcly from Admiral Canaris, the Chief of Counterintelligence, took during the conference on August 22.

Similair quotation by Hitler was recorded by a confidencial Interview in 1931, of his new world order and the theory of living space. The interview quote as this, at the end as reference of his plan.

"Erinnern Sie sich doch an die Austrottung Armeniens."

Translation.

"And emember the extermination of the Armenians."

From the german daily Leipziger Neueste Nachrichten., compealed and translated in the Calic, Unmasked n.8-, 81, and from the Leipziger compilation original version p. 101

He refer to the extermination of the Armenians, and telling to remember it as an achievable thing.

And don’ forget Dr. Max Erwin von Scheubner Richter, one of Hitler closest friend, that founded with him the nationalist party leading to the NAZI, and with the SS, bases based on Richter note on Ottoman special organisation.

Richter was the vice consul in Erzeroun calling the Armenians the "Jews of Orients" and also it was him that noted the Armenians and placed them as "degerate race" non-aryan.

The allegations of the Telegram being a forgery is based on Ataov so-called study at the Turkish foreign ministry affairs, in the same type as Ataov work about the extermination of jews and Muslims by Armenians, and a supposed Armeno-NAZI collaboration.

Nothing was surprising with Hitlers quote, considering that many NAZI publications the Armenians were viewed as in the same branch as Jews.

"Armenians were even worse then the Jews."

The Myth of the Master Race, Alfred Rosenberg and the NAZI ideology, by Robert Cecil /n.32 / p.30

And calling the Armenians.

"Armenian Jews"

From the NAZI critic work .Das Schwarze Korps, November 1936

As for the photographs of human skulls, in never have read any Armenian works refering to them, people like you need to pump the air again and again... I’m not interested.


----------------

Now comming to Turkey.com, so Togarama threw my lies ? How ? My posts were deleted by the moderators, my accounts banned, the entire Yolla alias posts have been totally deleted.

If your side have the truth, why needing to bane and delete ? When the individual in question was one of the only one having respected the rules of virtualcountries, and the worst racists were made moderators ?

Armenians.com is a personal web-site financed by an Individual, MosJan, the forum and the technical stuff maintained by Garo the Administrator, Virtualcountries.com is a compagny making money from its sites, what happened to me in Virtualcountries could never happen in this personal web-site. Never will any moderators in this site post pornographic materials and accuse a Turkish member to assassinate his caracter, never any moderator will lie claiming that the IP adresses matches with this Turkish caracters, when it is impossible.

In Armenians.com you will never find the moderators attacking a member the way I have been attacked in Turkey.com, I have every right to take legal actions against Virtualcountries for everything they did to me, for my caracter assassination in face of every other members accusing me of posting pornographic, and viewing me as a pronograph, the most down the belt machinations to assassinate my cracter, because there was nothing left in their hands to kick me out from there.

And I very well know whom are implicated, and why DA_Director unregistered with Museum when they heard that I was considering taking legal actions, and when they just pup-up again when I gave no news, and why Circassian the sick schizophrenic caracter, being presently the administrator was playing with the board by trying to hide he was still a moderator. I am preparing a surprise for them, don’t worry, yes ! I am the same Fadi, that alone crushed all of YOUR lies, the same that got his post deleted, by claims it was an “accident” others just poof gone, like if they were never posted, and you have the face to claim you exposed my lies ? I know you are Toagarama, I know it like the sky is blue. I know it because of the way you write, the same way by copy-pasting without even being honnest enough to include the name og tha author, and how you made a mistake on your last post addressed to me in a place and talked with the impersonal way like you did in Turkey.com “Togarama say this” “Togarama say that”

Do you want me to post your racist remarks about the Armenians for everyone to see ? You know, have you wondered how I knew you were from Turkey.com ? I knew it only by the way you wrote, I knew exactly who you were by your first post, After this experience for all those years, I smeel those things. You now claim here that you are alone... I was alone as well in Turkey.com, they had to be a binches answering at the same time, but still I never used me being alone as an argument, and still that was not enough, they had to delete my posts, ban me, and delete the entire argumentation by Yolla.

Deny being Togarama, and I shall show you what evidences are, I shall present how you write, and what kind of “Impersonal” answer you make that were proper to Togarama.

What all of you are afraid off ? Why do you all need to hide behind aliases denying to be the previous ones ? Everytime ones lies was smashed, Poof just disapear, and later a new aliases pupit-up, I have been always constent, and always took the responsability of what my other aliases have written, because all of those are the same person. On the other hand, you need to hide your past mistakes, this say a lot about you, the same mentality as the Turkish society denying the Armenian genocide.

Now be a respectable man, beside copy-pasting references, make your argument or shut up, whats the need to recopying others work ? When you already know I have read them and discredited them bunch of times.

Have a nice day, and tell to your buddys Turkey.com, I have not forgotten them.