Alex Jones triggers the Young Turks

[Rozalia]

TREMENDOUS!

 

And for a better angle of that little slimy coward Jimmy Dore spitting on Alex Jones.

 

 

People often say violence is wrong, though considering the master level of trolling from Alex Jones perhaps Cenk could have been forgiven if he could not hold himself back. He'd get hit hard for it obviously, still will be as the message is quite simply that "progressives" react violently when challenged. Spitting on a man arguing with someone else and then running away though is on a different, simply disgusting level.

 

Apparently Alex Jones and Roger Stone were both asked by some TYT staffer to go on stage, which Alex had no problem with but Roger thought was a set up so he didn't. So perhaps some TYT guy tried to manufacture some controversy to make them look bad and botched it as little can touch Alex Jones and it could only backfire on the TYTs. 

 

Please do note how progressives who talk about "fat shaming" called a man a "fat-!@#$". Sizeist basards.

 

[Sketchy]

The young turks are idiots anyway. 

[Jakeman4]

Info Wars and TYT are basically the answer to the question:

 

What would you get if you took the people on the fringe of the political spectrum and coddled them into believing their views are widely held?

[Donald Trump]

So the genocide denier has a temper tantrum?

 

Who would guess! 

 

The guy names his show off a regime that killed 1.5 million people and has denied that the genocide has actually happened in the past. 

 

It's modern day liberalism, they WANT a genocide of Christians and Atheist living in American by slow Islamification, they WANT America to be destroyed and it's people killed and they WANT a global Islamic state, because mass murder is what their admire. 

 

Creepy Cenk is nothing more then a crook, as is his pedophile friend, Pervy Bernie. 

Edited July 22, 2016 by Donald Trump

[Kemal Ergenekon]

There weren't 1.5m Armenians to begin with, but OK, xdxd.

[Rozalia]

There weren't 1.5m Armenians to begin with, but OK, xdxd.

 

Hello Cenk.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Hello Cenk.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

[Rozalia]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Ottoman_Empire

 

Searched the same wiki to see about that as what you linked is the 1914 census. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_population

 

 

There was no official census in 1914, contrary to some sources, but a mere approximation of figures taken from the 1905-06 Ottoman census based on official yearly birth and date figures (leaving villages unreported) along with a religious grouping as opposed to an ethnic one, equating all Muslims in one single column and undercounting native Christian population growth rates, because of the Ottoman Court's deliberate omission of the Ecclesiastical statitics, which included actual denominational baptism and death rates. The 1905-06 Ottoman census was the last actual Ottoman census.

 

Armenian sources say on this matter:

 

 

This set of Armenian Patriarchate figures were published in 1913. The Armenian Patriarch ordered Armenian bishops to take Ottoman statistics and local information from Armenian parishes, correcting them for perceived undercounts.

 

In 1992, Raymond H. Kevorkian and Paul B. Paboudjian published a book containing figures drawn from the Armenian Archives and based on the archives of the Armenian Patriarchate of Constantinople, ranging from February 1913 to August 1914, that contains the figures for each Ottoman province in detail. The figures included here come from their book. For the figure of the entire Ottoman Armenian population, those records indicate 1,914,620.

 

These figures closely match with the Ottoman statistics for the Western part of the Empire, but diverge in the Eastern zone, where the Ottoman statistics are suspected to have considerably undercounted the Armenian population. In some regions, the actual Ottoman counts were higher.

 

In short the Turk source is dubious on several levels as not only is it an approximation but it purposely ignored Armenian information to low ball the number present.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Rozalia

[Kemal Ergenekon]

>Ottoman census records

>in the event of a genocide you don't want public and actively dispute the figures of you expect them to keep accurate records

>Turkbots constantly on Wikipedia changing figures. 

>multiple sources put it at 300k-1.5 million

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/genocidefaq.html

http://www.history.com/topics/armenian-genocide

http://www.genocide1915.org/fragorochsvar_bakgrund.html

http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/armenian_genocide.php

TYT are literally on par with Pol Pot. The hell are you talking about?

 

Hmm, shall I consider official census records as legitimate, or those proposed by organizations who directly benefit from inflating the numbers? I think I will go with the prior.

 

As for claims about Ottomans altering census records to fit the narrative, this is laughable. It would require Ottomans to have foreseen that they would have done a genocide three decades in advance and understated Armenian numbers accordingly. Plus, if this were the case, the ratio of Armenians to the rest of the population would fluctuate without explanations, but this is not the case.

 

Did 300k Armenians die during the time frame? Sure, that's an agreeable number. There are respectable estimates that go as high as 800k, but these count Armenians who hid their religious identity to avoid death as well. 1.5 million is just a joke that only Armenians and the uninformed believe.

 

Remember, 300k deaths are as horrible as 1.5m deaths. No need to discredit your argument with false facts when you can rely on true facts and still get the same effect.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Searched the same wiki to see about that as what you linked is the 1914 census. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Armenian_population

 

 

Armenian sources say on this matter:

 

 

In short the Turk source is dubious on several levels as not only is it an approximation but it purposely ignored Armenian information to low ball the number present.

 

Yes, it is very unsurprising that Armenian sources disagree. Who would have thought.

 

The fact remains that there weren't 1.5m Armenian deaths. It's the largest number Armenian historians could produce without being laughed outside the room even in amenable audiences.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Regardless. It's a genocide. And it's pretty !@#$ despicable to name your channel after a regime that murdered hundreds of thousands of people.

 

"Young Turks (Turkish: Jön Türkler, from French: Les Jeunes Turcs) was a political reform movement in the early 20th century, which favored replacement of the Ottoman Empire's absolute monarchy with aconstitutional government. Later, their leaders led a rebellion against the absolute rule of Sultan Abdul Hamid II in the 1908 Young Turk Revolution.^[1] With this revolution, the Young Turks helped to establish the Second Constitutional Era in 1908, ushering in an era of multi-party democracy for the first time in the country’s history.^[2]

 

[...]

 

The term "Young Turk" is now used to signify "a progressive, revolutionary, or rebellious member of an organization, political party, etc, esp one agitating for radical reform"^[10] and various groups in different countries have been named Young Turks because of their rebellious or revolutionary nature."

 

This is how Young Turks are known in Turkey and the broader world.

 

Those responsible for the ethnic cleansing of Armenians, the triumvirate of Talat, Enver and Cemal Pashas were indeed those who ruled the Committee of Union and Progress Party (Ittihat ve Terakki Partisi) to which many of the Young Turks joined. However, you cannot attribute the whole thing to the Young Turks. So that's why those guys named their show after TYT. If anything, it signifies secularist and anti-absolutism tendencies as opposed to the ruthless fascism the triumvirate imposed once they got the power.

[Rozalia]

Hmm, shall I consider official census records as legitimate, or those proposed by organizations who directly benefit from inflating the numbers? I think I will go with the prior.

 

Yes, it is very unsurprising that Armenian sources disagree. Who would have thought.

 

The fact remains that there weren't 1.5m Armenian deaths. It's the largest number Armenian historians could produce without being laughed outside the room even in amenable audiences.

 

Did you miss where it said 1914's census wasn't an official census but one that was approximations that outright ignored what the Armenian source hasn't?

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Did you miss where it said 1914's census wasn't an official census but one that was approximations that outright ignored what the Armenian source hasn't?

 

No, I did not quote 1914 census either. The actual censuses from early on have numbers around 1.1m-1.2m, and unless you claim Armenians bred like rabbits just before the ethnic cleansing occured, there is no way there can be 1.5 Armenian deaths when we live in a world that still has millions of Armenians. Any basic analysis with reasonable fertility rate assumptions would reject that story.

[Rozalia]

No, I did not quote 1914 census either. The actual censuses from early on have numbers around 1.1m-1.2m, and unless you claim Armenians bred like rabbits just before the ethnic cleansing occured, there is no way there can be 1.5 Armenian deaths when we live in a world that still has millions of Armenians. Any basic analysis with reasonable fertility rate assumptions would reject that story.

 

You are incorrect as what you linked to contained it and that would be the most relevant figure as it is right before the genocide. The link you gave gives three censuses, the 1881-1893 one putting Armenian numbers at 1,139,651, the 1906 one putting it at 1,086,135.5 (if I take the midway point in the two figures) and the 1914 one that puts them at 1,173,422. The 1914 census is again, an approximation and even if the equation used to determine the numbers is valid, if it's based on previous censuses that lowballed the Armenian numbers then it too would be lowballing. 

 

Ultimately whatever the case it was a genocide, that much is certain to everybody but the Turks who pretend it was all a pleasant experience. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

You are incorrect as what you linked to contained it and that would be the most relevant figure as it is right before the genocide. The link you gave gives three censuses, the 1881-1893 one putting Armenian numbers at 1,139,651, the 1906 one putting it at 1,086,135.5 (if I take the midway point in the two figures) and the 1914 one that puts them at 1,173,422. The 1914 census is again, an approximation and even if the equation used to determine the numbers is valid, if it's based on previous censuses that lowballed the Armenian numbers then it too would be lowballing. 

 

Ultimately whatever the case it was a genocide, that much is certain to everybody but the Turks who pretend it was all a pleasant experience. 

 

No, I just gave you a link, and didn't hold your hand to walk you through it, and you made a false inference on your own. I apologize for not babysitting you through the process, xdxd.

 

Ultimately, it was a horrible experience and an ethnic cleansing. As for genocide status, if you are willing to call what the Europeans did to Native Americans, or what the Belgians did to Congolese, or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as genocides, sure it's a genocide by that definition. Else, it's not.

[Rozalia]

No, I just gave you a link, and didn't hold your hand to walk you through it, and you made a false inference on your own. I apologize for not babysitting you through the process, xdxd.

 

Ultimately, it was a horrible experience and an ethnic cleansing. As for genocide status, if you are willing to call what the Europeans did to Native Americans, or what the Belgians did to Congolese, or the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki as genocides, sure it's a genocide by that definition. Else, it's not.

 

Right... you post there wasn't even 1.5 million Armenians and post a link which has a figure listed 1 year before the genocide and that isn't the most relevant part involved. In addition to this, you state me being incorrect but do not specify on what exactly. Dishonest behaviour from yourself I'd say. Please do "walk me through it" then.

 

You serious? Belgium Congo? I've written at length on that and horrible it was on here before, though it escapes me on how that came up... I think it was something to do with how certain ugly events are glossed over. Anyway, you're trying to poison the well by trying to find some (manufactured) hypocrisy in those you're against here as then that means what they've said on the Armenian genocide is wrong, but it doesn't work like that. 

Genocide isn't simply a mass number of deaths. Back in the day rulers used to put whole cities to death for resisting them and not surrendering, and was that genocide? Not quite, often those people were even their own people (though loyal to a rival lord). What was the intention is what to ask. America was at war with Japan and carried out a operation on mostly civilians to shock the leadership into surrendering. It was nasty business and is rightly attacked (though the other side of the argument is the alternative was worse, this is not the time to be talking on that), but was genocide the goal? No.

 

In regards to Turkey the goal very much was the wiping out the Armenian presence in the country. Primarily by moving them perhaps (if we're kind) but if most of them died it was no concern to them (as shown in the numbers that died).

 

Can you, without referencing this manufactured hypocrisy you say is present elsewhere as an effort to play down of Turkey's actions (that is why you're mentioning that and everybody knows it), say that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people which wiped a significant number of those present in Turkey out? A simple, "I acknowledge and accept that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people". That'll do.

Edited July 23, 2016 by Rozalia

[Clarke]

"Get off the stage you fat ****" - That really contradicts their social justice rhetoric. 

[Clarke]

Kemal is a Turkish name guys, no logic to be found arguing with someone who refers to themselves as Kemal. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Right... you post there wasn't even 1.5 million Armenians and post a link which has a figure listed 1 year before the genocide and that isn't the most relevant part involved. In addition to this, you state me being incorrect but do not specify on what exactly. Dishonest behaviour from yourself I'd say. Please do "walk me through it" then.

 

You serious? Belgium Congo? I've written at length on that and horrible it was on here before, though it escapes me on how that came up... I think it was something to do with how certain ugly events are glossed over. Anyway, you're trying to poison the well by trying to find some (manufactured) hypocrisy in those you're against here as then that means what they've said on the Armenian genocide is wrong, but it doesn't work like that. 

Genocide isn't simply a mass number of deaths. Back in the day rulers used to put whole cities to death for resisting them and not surrendering, and was that genocide? Not quite, often those people were even their own people (though loyal to a rival lord). What was the intention is what to ask. America was at war with Japan and carried out a operation on mostly civilians to shock the leadership into surrendering. It was nasty business and is rightly attacked (though the other side of the argument is the alternative was worse, this is not the time to be talking on that), but was genocide the goal? No.

 

In regards to Turkey the goal very much was the wiping out the Armenian presence in the country. Primarily by moving them perhaps (if we're kind) but if most of them died it was no concern to them (as shown in the numbers that died).

 

Can you, without referencing this manufactured hypocrisy you say is present elsewhere as an effort to play down of Turkey's actions (that is why you're mentioning that and everybody knows it), say that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people which wiped a significant number of those present in Turkey out? A simple, "I acknowledge and accept that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people". That'll do.

 

What a load of BS. You manufacture excuses for all of these mass murder of thousands of people, but claim Turkey's case is a unique one where there were no motives beyond killing the Armenians? Let me give you the motives: Those at power did not want to remove the Armenians because they wanted so. They wanted to move Armenians from the East to other regions in the Empire. That's what the deportation is all about. The reason, you ask? The Armenians aided the Russians, attacking Turkish villages, fighting alongside the Russians in the battles, and engaging in guerrilla warfare. This is well documented both by Armenian historians as well as Turkish ones. Do you know what the events of 1915 came after? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_SarikamishEnlighten yourself, properly this time.

 

So America kills 129,000–246,000 Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that's OK because America wanted to end the war quick, but when Ottoman Empire deports Armenians from the conflict zone during a battle of life or death, and the resultant deaths are considered genocide? What a goddamn hypocrite you are. I give you the gold medal.

 

And for comparison's sake, Ottoman Empire did what it did in hope of avoiding defeat, but at the end of the day, it was defeated and left with the sorry yellow area here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres#/media/File:TreatyOfSevres_(corrected).PNG

 

whereas the US had the conventional capabilities to beat Japan even without nuking two whole cities, and its mainland was not at existential risk, and it still went with murdering hundreds of thousands directly? Not because of disease or the elements, but directly? And you underplay it? Your hypocrisy is boundless.

 

Thanks for taking the bait, though. I enjoy destroying the critiques of Armenian Genocide who whitewash other crimes against humanity when they are committed by Western countries.

[Rozalia]

What a load of BS. You manufacture excuses for all of these mass murder of thousands of people, but claim Turkey's case is a unique one where there were no motives beyond killing the Armenians? Let me give you the motives: Those at power did not want to remove the Armenians because they wanted so. They wanted to move Armenians from the East to other regions in the Empire. That's what the deportation is all about. The reason, you ask? The Armenians aided the Russians, attacking Turkish villages, fighting alongside the Russians in the battles, and engaging in guerrilla warfare. This is well documented both by Armenian historians as well as Turkish ones. Do you know what the events of 1915 came after? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_SarikamishEnlighten yourself, properly this time.

 

So America kills 129,000–246,000 Japanese in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and that's OK because America wanted to end the war quick, but when Ottoman Empire deports Armenians from the conflict zone during a battle of life or death, and the resultant deaths are considered genocide? What a goddamn hypocrite you are. I give you the gold medal.

 

And for comparison's sake, Ottoman Empire did what it did in hope of avoiding defeat, but at the end of the day, it was defeated and left with the sorry yellow area here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres#/media/File:TreatyOfSevres_(corrected).PNG

 

whereas the US had the conventional capabilities to beat Japan even without nuking two whole cities, and its mainland was not at existential risk, and it still went with murdering hundreds of thousands directly? Not because of disease or the elements, but directly? And you underplay it? Your hypocrisy is boundless.

 

Thanks for taking the bait, though. I enjoy destroying the critiques of Armenian Genocide who whitewash other crimes against humanity when they are committed by Western countries.

 

I responded to your talk in regards to Japan, the rest I didn't touch and I have as I said spoken out against them in the past. Be it Native American, Congo, and so forth. Certainly there are people who could label me a hypocrite and debate the matter, I disagree with them but they certainly have some ground to speak on. A Turk using it in an attempt to downplay/excuse his country's acts however? No, you have no ground to stand on.

 

Anyway, just more of the same poisoning the well nonsense as expected. It doesn't actually matter if I (and the rest here) were to even go so far as deny the Holocaust when it comes to this, what I or anyone else thinks on those matters of other genocides doesn't matter one bit to the matter of the Armenian genocide and yourself. You don't get to whine that X genocide isn't recognised (many of which most wouldn't call a genocide but whatever) and so Turkey is justified in not seeing it as a genocide. Thats childish talk.

 

We both know you don't really care about Japan being "genocided" and are trying to use it to excuse Turkey. As for the Armenians being enemies, I see a lot of talk on that in front of me certainly. Lets see. That the Armenians were resented for being successful... that they were Christian and outside Christians of their allies (Germany/Austro-Hungary/so on) they were threats... that they (The Turks) wanted the empire to be Turkized... umm, what does that sound like. Who remembers the Armenian genocide indeed, Hitler was a big fan.

 

So you can't say to me that very simple and reasonable statement? Alright then, I'll mark you down as a Armenian genocide denier shall I?

Edited July 23, 2016 by Rozalia

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Hmm, shall I consider official census records as legitimate, or those proposed by organizations who directly benefit from inflating the numbers? I think I will go with the prior.

 

As for claims about Ottomans altering census records to fit the narrative, this is laughable. It would require Ottomans to have foreseen that they would have done a genocide three decades in advance and understated Armenian numbers accordingly. Plus, if this were the case, the ratio of Armenians to the rest of the population would fluctuate without explanations, but this is not the case.

 

Did 300k Armenians die during the time frame? Sure, that's an agreeable number. There are respectable estimates that go as high as 800k, but these count Armenians who hid their religious identity to avoid death as well. 1.5 million is just a joke that only Armenians and the uninformed believe.

 

Remember, 300k deaths are as horrible as 1.5m deaths. No need to discredit your argument with false facts when you can rely on true facts and still get the same effect.

 

Um sure, lol.

 

I'd just like to point out that the census (better yet all of them) undertook by the Ottoman Empire didn't really specify on ethnic groups. Firstly, if you were "Muslim" you were automatically added to that category in the census, regardless of your background or ethnic group you are apart of.  The Ottoman Empire censuses only gathered information on your religious affiliation, not a person's ethnicity. In the Ottoman Empire eyes to be considered "Armenian" you had to be an adherent of the Armenian Apostolic Church (or the armenian catholic branch). The same goes for the Greeks who were regarded as "Orthodox" in specific regions of the empire, once again had to be an adherent to the orthodox church, which once again goes to show this was motivated to show what religious affiliation people belonged to.

 

I'm not really arguing against the claim of how many exactly die (doesn't really matter, it was mass killing on a specific type of people and should be regarded as a genocide), but the use of Ottoman Empire censuses as "reliable sources" is dubious. I mean, the Ottoman Empire openly promoted the concept of "Ottomanism", which later espoused Islamism and tried to integrate all people under Ottoman rule under one distinction of being "Muslim".

Edited July 23, 2016 by Krustev Gunther

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I responded to your talk in regards to Japan, the rest I didn't touch and I have as I said spoken out against them in the past. Be it Native American, Congo, and so forth. Certainly there are people who could label me a hypocrite and debate the matter, I disagree with them but they certainly have some ground to speak on. A Turk using it in an attempt to downplay/excuse his country's acts however? No, you have no ground to stand on.

 

Anyway, just more of the same poisoning the well nonsense as expected. It doesn't actually matter if I (and the rest here) were to even go so far as deny the Holocaust when it comes to this, what I or anyone else thinks on those matters of other genocides doesn't matter one bit to the matter of the Armenian genocide and yourself. You don't get to whine that X genocide isn't recognised (many of which most wouldn't call a genocide but whatever) and so Turkey is justified in not seeing it as a genocide. Thats childish talk.

 

We both know you don't really care about Japan being "genocided" and are trying to use it to excuse Turkey. As for the Armenians being enemies, I see a lot of talk on that in front of me certainly. Lets see. That the Armenians were resented for being successful... that they were Christian and outside Christians of their allies (Germany/Austro-Hungary/so on) they were threats... that they (The Turks) wanted the empire to be Turkized... umm, what does that sound like. Who remembers the Armenian genocide indeed, Hitler was a big fan.

 

So you can't say to me that very simple and reasonable statement? Alright then, I'll mark you down as a Armenian genocide denier shall I?

 

As usual, you are unable to respond to any single thing I mentioned. You are a Nuclear Holocaust denier, a supporter of the nuking of hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Look how easy it is to accuse people of such things.

 

I am not trying to excuse anything. What the Ottoman Empire did back in the day was deplorable. It was not more or less deplorable than all the incidents I counted, nor did it constitute a genocide more or less than those incidents. Any claims to the contrary can be debunked easily, as I did in the case of nuking Japan. Whatever excuse you can come up with to claim nuking Japan was a necessary evil, I can come up for the deportation of the Armenians.

 

All in all, humans are disgusting creatures capable of immense evil. However, the crimes of the winners are whitewashed and overlooked, whereas the crimes of people you hate because of your racism or whatever other fundamentalist ideology you harbor are cast out as the Evil Incarnate, and brought to attention not merited by their actual human suffering content.

 

So you want to call me a genocide denier despite the fact that I said, "sure, call it a genocide if you call these genocide as well"? Go ahead. I will call you a racist bigot who only cares about the Armenian ethnic cleansing because it gives you ammunition to attack Turks, who you hate because of your racist and fascist ideology. Have a great day my hypocrite friend.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Um sure, lol.

 

I'd just like to point out that the census (better yet all of them) undertook by the Ottoman Empire didn't really specify on ethnic groups. Firstly, if you were "Muslim" you were automatically added to that category in the census, regardless of your background or ethnic group you are apart of.  The Ottoman Empire censuses only gathered information on your religious affiliation, not a person's ethnicity. In the Ottoman Empire eyes to be considered "Armenian" you had to be an adherent of the Armenian Apostolic Church (or the armenian catholic branch). The same goes for the Greeks who were regarded as "Orthodox" in specific regions of the empire, once again had to be an adherent to the orthodox church, which once again goes to show this was motivated to show what religious affiliation people belonged to.

 

I'm not really arguing against the claim of how many exactly die (doesn't really matter, it was mass killing on a specific type of people and should be regarded as a genocide), but the use of Ottoman Empire censuses as "reliable sources" is dubious. I mean, the Ottoman Empire openly promoted the concept of "Ottomanism", which later espoused Islamism and tried to integrate all people under Ottoman rule under one distinction of being "Muslim".

 

 

True. These are the only official statistics we have though, so we will have to make do and use them to extrapolate to the extent possible. Bear in mind that if you compare the fraction of Ottoman Armenians who died during the period to the total Armenian population, the estimates of various authors have much less variation. If I recall correctly, roughly 30-35% of the Armenians were dead during the whole time period, which is a huge number, and clearly worth condemning as a crime against humanity. But even the most generous estimate of the Armenian population in the Ottoman Empire is around 2 million, and 1.5 million would still be like 75%, which is ludicrous.

[Rozalia]

As usual, you are unable to respond to any single thing I mentioned. You are a Nuclear Holocaust denier, a supporter of the nuking of hundreds of thousands of Japanese. Look how easy it is to accuse people of such things.

 

I am not trying to excuse anything. What the Ottoman Empire did back in the day was deplorable. It was not more or less deplorable than all the incidents I counted, nor did it constitute a genocide more or less than those incidents. Any claims to the contrary can be debunked easily, as I did in the case of nuking Japan. Whatever excuse you can come up with to claim nuking Japan was a necessary evil, I can come up for the deportation of the Armenians.

 

All in all, humans are disgusting creatures capable of immense evil. However, the crimes of the winners are whitewashed and overlooked, whereas the crimes of people you hate because of your racism or whatever other fundamentalist ideology you harbor are cast out as the Evil Incarnate, and brought to attention not merited by their actual human suffering content.

 

So you want to call me a genocide denier despite the fact that I said, "sure, call it a genocide if you call these genocide as well"? Go ahead. I will call you a racist bigot who only cares about the Armenian ethnic cleansing because it gives you ammunition to attack Turks, who you hate because of your racist and fascist ideology. Have a great day my hypocrite friend.

 

Accuse? I did no such thing, I let you do that to yourself. I asked you to state that you were not a denier and to state unequivocally your condemnation of Turkey's actions without any of the defenses. You have not done so, instead trying to poison the well and to play this childish game of false equivalencies. I myself take issue with the Holocaust number of six million that is ingrained in people's minds myself... that doesn't mean if someone were to ask me to state if it happened or not and to state if I found such a thing wrong that I wouldn't, or state some garbage about how unless you call nuking Japan a genocide then I'm justified in not acknowledging it as one or excusing it.

 

You really have no idea how weak that is? Sure alright. "I am not trying to excuse anything. What Nazi Germany did back in the day was deplorable. It was not more or less deplorable than all the incidents I counted, nor did it constitute a genocide more or less than those incidents. Any claims to the contrary can be debunked easily, as I did in the case of nuking Japan. Whatever excuse you can come up with to claim nuking Japan was a necessary evil, I can come up for the killing of the Jews". Sorry no, some killings not being recognised as a genocide because they were not an attempt at wiping out a people is not a valid shield. 

 

Yes, me, someone who attacks the west constantly am white washing for the victors, the west (I don't quite understand this as Turkey was quite clearly the "victor" but whatever). I also really hate Turks now, oh wait you're going for Muslims now perhaps. Again, poisoning the well. Even if I did indeed, proven, hate Turks/Muslims it wouldn't matter one bit to the matter at hand. Which is you excusing and justifying a genocide. Your attempt to attack me even if you were successful would not give you a "get of jail free" card on this.

 

You are simply dishonest is the issue. You said that but you can it seems not resist trying to make excuses and justifications for Turkey, to downplay it. That is why I asked you to clearly state what I did as that would show what you really believe. As Genocide denying/excusing/justifying is a terrible thing I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing as you would have simply stated it didn't happen completely otherwise... I'll ask again, a bit clearer for you.

 

Can you, without referencing these false equivalencies of yours in an effort to play down Turkey's actions, say that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people which wiped a significant number of those present in Turkey out? A simple, "I acknowledge and accept that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people" will do.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Accuse? I did no such thing, I let you do that to yourself. I asked you to state that you were not a denier and to state unequivocally your condemnation of Turkey's actions without any of the defenses. You have not done so, instead trying to poison the well and to play this childish game of false equivalencies. I myself take issue with the Holocaust number of six million that is ingrained in people's minds myself... that doesn't mean if someone were to ask me to state if it happened or not and to state if I found such a thing wrong that I wouldn't, or state some garbage about how unless you call nuking Japan a genocide then I'm justified in not acknowledging it as one or excusing it.

 

You really have no idea how weak that is? Sure alright. "I am not trying to excuse anything. What Nazi Germany did back in the day was deplorable. It was not more or less deplorable than all the incidents I counted, nor did it constitute a genocide more or less than those incidents. Any claims to the contrary can be debunked easily, as I did in the case of nuking Japan. Whatever excuse you can come up with to claim nuking Japan was a necessary evil, I can come up for the killing of the Jews". Sorry no, some killings not being recognised as a genocide because they were not an attempt at wiping out a people is not a valid shield. 

 

Yes, me, someone who attacks the west constantly am white washing for the victors, the west (I don't quite understand this as Turkey was quite clearly the "victor" but whatever). I also really hate Turks now, oh wait you're going for Muslims now perhaps. Again, poisoning the well. Even if I did indeed, proven, hate Turks/Muslims it wouldn't matter one bit to the matter at hand. Which is you excusing and justifying a genocide. Your attempt to attack me even if you were successful would not give you a "get of jail free" card on this.

 

You are simply dishonest is the issue. You said that but you can it seems not resist trying to make excuses and justifications for Turkey, to downplay it. That is why I asked you to clearly state what I did as that would show what you really believe. As Genocide denying/excusing/justifying is a terrible thing I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing as you would have simply stated it didn't happen completely otherwise... I'll ask again, a bit clearer for you.

 

Can you, without referencing these false equivalencies of yours in an effort to play down Turkey's actions, say that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people which wiped a significant number of those present in Turkey out? A simple, "I acknowledge and accept that Turkey committed the terrible act of genocide on the Armenian people" will do.

 

No matter how much you play with words, you cannot hide your hypocrisy Rozalia. You are claiming that I am an Armenian Genocide denier. Even that sentence assumes that the events are without doubt a genocide, and I am denying some factual truth. You are mistaken. Firstly, I do not deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians have perished. Neither do I claim that this was something that should have been done, or claim that the perpetrators deserved nothing less than execution. However, when you start throwing around concepts like "genocide", I take an issue.

 

Killing and deporting the Armenians, however "justified" it could be in a time of war where the Armenians had backstabbed the Turks, siding with Russians and attacking Turkish villages and civilians, constituted at least ethnic cleansing. However, your insistence on calling it a genocide whereas you do not call other similar acts of brutality not genocides implies that what happened to the Armenians was (1) on the level of the actual Holocaust (2) worse than all the events I counted. That is patently false, and that is what I am challenging.

 

You attempt to show as if I am as unreasonable as claiming Holocaust was OK. While, being a fascist, you might have approved of the genocide of the Jews and others, what Nazi Germany pulled and what Ottoman Empire tried to do are extremely different. For one, the Ottoman Empire had nowhere near the capabilities or the organization of Nazi Germany. The bulk of the Armenian deaths were a result of forcing the Armenians to relocate, and exposing them to the elements. If you had even a small inkling of knowledge of history, you would know that attrition due to diseases and cold killed more soldiers than the enemy in that age and in the extremely harsh climates of Eastern Anatolia. For those who don't know, Eastern Anatolia has mountains as tall as 5/7ths of Mount Everest in Himalayas. Armenians, being forced to move, died in droves to diseases, hunger, and cold.

 

The rest of the deaths were due to Kurdish militias and robbers killing and looting the Armenians. The Ottoman leaders at that time told the Kurds that they would turn a blind eye if the Kurds murdered the Armenians and took their stuff. And Kurds being Kurds did exactly that.

 

Now, these are horrible things. But if you are going to claim that this is on the level of Nazi Concentration Camps where they were trying to devise ways to kill people efficiently, and somehow worse than nuking 200k people in the blink of an eye, then you are just being either dishonest, or have zero common sense and act according to a set of ethics I cannot fathom.

 

Also, thanks once again for showing your ignorance of history: Turkey lost World War 1 and was reduced to a fraction of Anatolia. Turks lost against the Russians, and all the Entente countries. Just look for the map of the Sevres treaty I posted before. Turkey lost perhaps 90% of its territory between 1914-1918, and 1915 was a response to Armenians siding with the Russians, resulting in the defeat of Sarikamis where 100,000 Turkish soldiers perished. I am not counting the civilian casualties due to Armenians giving as good as they got against Turkish civilians (which is never mentioned in the West because Muslims are bugs whereas Armenians, being Christians, are valuable human beings).

 

"I acknowledge and accept that Turkey committed the terrible act of ethnic cleansing on the Armenian people"

 

I won't call it genocide unless the rest of mankind calls the other events and countless more I mentioned genocide, because that would imply it was worse than those events, but it is not. If you claim I am a genocide denier, then I claim you are a denier of many other genocides many of which I believe were much worse and unjustifiable than the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians.