cus said:
thanks for the thread pontiakos..
I'll break the topic into pieces hence it would be too long in one post..
I see most of people think that "Why do Turks never accept genocide?? Accept it and move along.."
there's small misunderstanding in this.. The terrible results of forcing armenians to migration should never be rejected..
1)No you're right is shouldn't be................but the Turkish government denies it to this day.....and it wasn't just Armenians it was Greeks, and Assyrians as well.
2)Migrations occured after the genocide was completed, and are not the only thing that occured. Here is an example of what did occur...of course you will refute this because all Greek and Armenian sources are historically innaccurate.
a)The Neo-turkish army(led by Topal Osman) would enter a city....for example Kerasous (Kerasounta) and round up all women and children in the city's greek orthodox church......and burn them alive.
b)All males of army age would be enlisted in the Turkish army and forced into labor camps......much like the NAZI labor camps you refuted in an other thread. If they tried to escape they were killed and if they did escape the army found their families and killed them as well.
cus said:
but is this really genocide? what do you think genocide is?
hmmm, I don't know let's see how the U.N defines it.......
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
Convention on the
Prevention and Punishment
of the Crime of Genocide
Adopted by Resolution 260 (III) A of the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948.
Article 1
The Contracting Parties confirm that genocide, whether committed in time of peace or in time of war, is a crime under international law which they undertake to prevent and to punish.
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* (a) Killing members of the group;
* (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
cus said:
According to Code of UN for Prevention and Punishment of Genocide Crimes, which was accepted to Turkey in 23.3.1950, the term genocide is:
you must mean the link?
cus said:
1- Massacre against ethnic or religious community should be planned and organised by government and accepted as a policy of the nation..
2- Massacre execution should be nationwide, not limited for a specific area..
3- Massacre should be repeated several times, not executed one time..
These look kind of different......
..........you didn't come up with them did you? ......What's funny is that even if you did, you still encrimenated (made guilty) the actions of the Kemalist Neo-Turks.......but let's take them one at a time....
1-hmmmmm....when the Neo Turks came to power in their declaration of the revolution they clearly state that there is no room in Turkey for non-muslims.....I wonder what they meant by that? .....maybe that they should all go home....
2-I'm sorry but that is just straight up b*llsh*t...unless these are the Turkish defenitions of genocide I don't see how this is lawful.....so what you're saying is that if a particular ethnicity happens to live in 2 places and they are all killed and wiped off the face of the earth in one of the two, its not a genocide because it only happened in one place and there are still some left? ....if this wasn't as serious a topic I would laugh in your face.....
3-HEEEELLLOOOOOOO 1908-1922 killings were spread out throughout those years.......and what you're saying is once again a joke. Especially since an entire village could, and was wiped out in a night.
cus said:
People never think that; "Fascist Nationalism" is the required for the use of term "Genocide" and it never developed in Ottoman Empire..
So for the use of term "genocide", there should be a plan appliced for complete execution of an ethnic group..
so the problem here is, the term genocide is suitable for this situation or not..
of course, noone should negate the carnage between armenians and turkish-kurdish audience..
let's get move onto it...
What the hell does the Ottoman empire have to do with this, the genocides began after the Neo-Turks took over........oh and by the way during the rule of the Ottoman empire the inhabitants of the entire island of Chios, Greece were wipped out.
More to follow....
...yeah you're right there is no evidence....even the turkish sources admit that "defectors" were killed because they committed treason....what they don't say it how many. .......history is written by the winners.....the only problem with this case is that the losers are still alive in their children and grandchildren through horrific stories..........but the states involved in the eastern front of WWI also kept good records. I am still waiting for some of them to be declassified.......those that have been declassified don't look good for the Neo Turks.
) Armenian terrorists attacked Bank of Ottoman in Galata, İstanbul and killed several people, and executed an unsuccessful assasination attack with 80 kg bomb against Sultan Abdulhamit, which killed 26 and left 58 wounded in 1905.. Abdulhamit survived thanks to a few minutes of latency.. 
