Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 129

Thread: Armenian Genocide Debate

  1. #61

    Default some photos about the turks being massacred in ottoman times by armenian murderers...

    http://www.kodadimedya.com/images/ermeni%20katliamı.jpg



    http://images.google.com.tr/imgres?i...lr%3D%26sa%3DG



    http://images.google.com.tr/imgres?imgurl=http://www.zaman.com.tr/2006/04/02/t-ermeni.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.zaman.com.tr/%3Fbl%3Dturkuaz%26alt%3Dhaberler%26trh%3D20060407% 26hn%3D271950&h=175&w=220&sz=23&hl=de&start=2&tbni d=oJXmpXzwROV9JM:&tbnh=85&tbnw=107&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dermeni%2Bkatliam%25C4%25B1%26svnum%3D 10%26hl%3Dde%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG



    http://images.google.com.tr/imgres?i...lr%3D%26sa%3DG

    http://www.kontv.com.tr/picture.php?id=7467



    A russian historian Igor Peçenev says that there has never been an armenian genocide done by turks. However, the controversy is true says he: "Azeri-turks and Turkey turks have been massacred during ottoman times...
    http://images.google.com.tr/imgres?i...lr%3D%26sa%3DG



    http://images.google.com.tr/imgres?i...lr%3D%26sa%3DG



    http://images.google.com.tr/imgres?i...lr%3D%26sa%3DG

    ----------------------------------------------
    There are dozens of scientists and historians from around the world , who are saying that it was not a genocide. For example Prof. Dr. Paul McCarthy (an Amarican) from Lousville University exlains everything....

    To me Armenians are trying to hide the truth with their offence depended on lies. They are afraid that one day the bitter truth will surface one day on favor of turks that it was not the turks but the Armenians who were massacring the turks...

  2. #62

    Default full story of the island says that greek cypriotors are also not the true cypriotors!

    [quote=MidtownGuy;125590] Of course people died on both sides, and I'm sure Greek Cypriots, the true Cypriots,
    quote]

    my aim is to show you and other people that you started with a wrong date to island history and this caused a misleading idea that greeks are the true cypriotors. Greek came to the island after The Mycenæan civilization. After around 400 years greeks started to come to the island with Trojan war...... IT MEANS THAT TODAY'S GREEK ON THE ISLAND HAD MADE AN INVASION AT THOSE TIMES......... Today they see themselves as the only boss of the island and try to assimilate and destroy step by step the second society, namely turks ,on the island....... This is the bitter truth related to the island....

    Source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus

    Prehistoric and ancient Cyprus

    Main articles: Cyprus (Prehistory) and Ancient history of Cyprus
    There are only small traces of the Stone Age, but the Bronze Age was characterized by a well-developed and clearly marked civilization. The people quickly learned to work the rich copper mines of the island. The Mycenæan civilization seems to have reached Cyprus at around 1600 B.C. and several Greek and Phœnician settlements that belong to the Iron Age can be found on the island. Cyprus came into contact with Egypt about 1500 B.C. and became an important trade partner for them.
    Around 1200 B.C., the Sea people began to arrive as settlers to Cyprus, a process that lasted for more than a century. This migration is remembered in many sagas concerning how some of the Greek heroes that participated in the Trojan War came to settle in Cyprus. The newcomers brought with them their language, new technology and introduced a new outlook for visual arts. The Phœnicians arrived at the island in the early first Millennium BC. In those times, Cyprus supplied the Greeks with timber for their fleets.
    In the 6th century B.C., Amasis of Egypt conquered Cyprus, which soon fell under the rule of the Persians when Cambyses conquered Egypt. In the Persian Empire, Cyprus formed part of the fifth satrapy and in addition to tribute it had to supply the Persians with ships and crews. In their new fate, the Greeks of Cyprus had as companions the Greeks of Ionia (west coast of Anatolia) with whom they forged closer ties. When the Ionian Greeks revolted against Persia (499 BC), the Cypriots, except for the city of Amathus, joined in led by Onesilos who dethroned his brother, the king of Salamis, for not wanting to fight for independence. The Persians reacted quickly, sending a considerable force against Onesilos. The Persians finally won despite Ionian help.
    After their defeat, the Greeks mounted various expeditions in order to liberate Cyprus from Persian rule, but all their efforts bore only temporary results. Eventually, Alexander the Great (356-323 B.C.) took the island from the Persians. Later, the Ptolemies of Egypt controlled it; finally Rome annexed it in 58-57 BC. No doubt the most important event that occurred in Roman Cyprus was the visit by Apostles Paul and Barnabas accompanied by St Mark who came to the island at the outset of their first missionary journey in AD 45. After their arrival at Salamis they proceeded to Paphos where they converted the Roman Governor Sergius Paulus to Christianity making Cyprus the first country in the world governed by a Christian ruler.
    [edit]

    Cyprus in ancient myth

    Cyprus is the legendary birthplace of the goddess of beauty and love the beautiful Aphrodite (also known as Kypris or the Cyprian). According to Hesiod's Theogony, the goddess emerged fully grown from the sea where the severed genitals of the god Uranus were cast by his son, Kronos, causing the sea to foam (Greek: Aphros). Her birth was famously depicted by the artist Botticelli in The Birth of Venus. The legendary site of Aphrodite's birth is at 'Petra tou Romiou' (or 'Aphrodite's Rock'), a large sea stack close to the coastal cliffs near Paphos. Throughout ancient history, Cyprus was a flourishing centre for the cultic worship of Aphrodite.
    [edit]

    Post-classical and modern Cyprus

    Cyprus became part of the Byzantine Empire after the partitioning of the Roman Empire in AD 395, and remained so for almost 800 years, though with brief period of Arab domination and influence.
    After the rule of the rebellious Byzantine Emperor Isaac Comnenus, King Richard I of England captured the island in 1191 during the Third Crusade. On May 6, 1191, Richard's fleet arrived in the port of Lemesos and took the city. When Isaac arrived to stop the Crusaders he discovered he was too late and retired to Kolossi. Richard called Isaac to negotiations but Isaac broke his oath of hospitality and started demanding Richard's departure. Richard ordered his cavalry to follow him in a battle against Isaac's army in Tremetusia. The few Roman Catholics of the island joined Richard's army and so did the island's nobles who were dissatisfied with Isaac's seven years of tyrannical rule. Though Isaac and his men fought bravely, Richard's army was bigger and better equipped, assuring his victory. Isaac continued to resist from the castles of Pentadactylos but after the siege of his castle of Kantara he finally surrendered. In a fit of sardonic irony, Richard had Isaac confined with silver chains, scrupulously abiding by a previous promise that he would not place Isaac in irons should he be taken prisoner. Richard became the new ruler of Cyprus, gaining for the Crusade a major supply base that was not under immediate threat from the Turks as was Tyre. Richard looted the island and massacred those trying to resist him. He and most of his army left Cyprus for the Holy Land early in June. In his absence Cyprus would be governed by Richard Camville.
    Guy of Lusignan purchased the island from Richard in 1192 compensated for the loss of his kingdom by purchasing Cyprus from the Templars. The Republic of Venice took control in 1489 after the death of the last Lusignan Queen, after which the Ottoman Empire conquered the Island in 1571.
    Ottoman rule brought about two radical results in the history of the island. For the first time since the Phoenicians in the 9th century BC, a new population group appeared, the Turks. The Ottoman Empire gave timars--land grants--to soldiers under the condition that they and their families would stay there permanently. During the 17th century the Turkish population grew rapidly. Most of the Turks who had settled on the island during the three centuries of Ottoman rule remained when control of Cyprus--although not sovereignty--was ceded to Britain in 1878. Many, however, left for Turkey during the 1920s. By 1970, ethnic Turks represented 18% of the total population of the island, with ethnic Greeks representing the remainder. The distinction between the two groups was by religion and language.
    The second important result of the Ottoman conquest benefited the Greek peasants who no longer remained serfs of the land they were cultivating. Now they could acquire it against payment, thus becoming owners of it. The Ottomans also applied the millet system to Cyprus, which allowed religious authorities to govern their own non-Muslim minorities. This system reinforced the position of the Orthodox Church and the cohesion of the ethnic Greek population. Gradually the Archbishop of Cyprus became not only religious but ethnic leader as well. In this way the Church undertook the task of the guardian of Greek cultural legacy which is partly carried on even now, although diminished after independence.
    The heavy taxes and the abuses against the population on the part of the Ottoman rulers in the early years after the Ottoman conquest gave rise to opposition, following which the Sultan ordered the Governor (the "Kadi") and the Treasurer to govern with justice. While the Sultan's orders indicated his goodwill towards the local population, the local administration proved indifferent, arbitrary and often corrupt, along with imposing a heavy burden of taxes. The inhabitants of Cyprus, disappointed at the mismanagement of Ottoman governors, soon turned to Western Europe in search for help for liberation.
    Between 1572 and 1668 AD about 28 bloody uprisings took place on the island and in many of these both Greeks and Turk peasants took part. But all of them ended in failure.
    About 1660 AD, in order to eliminate the mismanagement of the Ottoman administration, the Sultan recognised the Archbishop and the Bishops as "the protectors of people" and the representatives of the Sultan. In 1670 AD, Cyprus ceased to be a "pasaliki" for the Ottoman Empire and came under the jurisdiction of the Admiral of the Ottoman fleet. In his turn, the Admiral sent an officer to govern in his place.
    In 1703 AD Cyprus came under the jurisdiction of the Grand Vizier (Anthony Petane) who sent to the island a military and civil administrator. The title and function of this officer were awarded to the person who could raise the highest revenues in exchange. As a result, even heavier taxation was imposed. About 1760 AD the situation in Cyprus was intolerable. A terrible epidemic of plague, bad crops and earthquakes, drove many Cypriots to emigrate. In addition, what was worse for the Greeks and Turks of the island, the newly- appointed Pasha, doubled the taxes in 1764 AD. In the end Chil Osman and 18 of his friends were killed by Greek and Turkish Cypriots alike but the two ethnic elements had to pay a huge sum of money to the Sultan and the families of the victims. The latter did not accept this judgement and broke into an open rebellion, having Khalil Agha, the commander of the guard of the castle of Kyrenia, as their leader. Finally the uprising was crushed and Khalil Agha was beheaded.
    Cyprus was placed under British control on 4 June 1878 as a result of the Cyprus Convention, which granted control of the island to Britain in return for British support of the Ottoman Empire in the Russian-Turkish War.
    Famagusta harbour was completed in June 1906; by this time the island was a strategic naval outpost for the British Empire, shoring up influence over the Eastern Mediterranean and Suez Canal, the crucial main route to India.
    Cyprus was formally annexed by the United Kingdom in 1913 in the run-up to the First World War. Many Cypriots, now British subjects, signed up to fight in the British Army, in this and in the Second World War.
    During the 1900s and 1950s, Cypriots began to demand union with Greece. In 1950, over 95% of the population (including both Greek and Turkish Cypriots)(please provide proof of numbers) voted in a referendum in support of annexation, while the British sought to quell any movement which could threaten their possession of the island. In 1955 the struggle against British rule erupted with the foundation of EOKA, which lasted until 1959.
    Independence was attained in 1960 after exhaustive negotiations between the United Kingdom, as the colonial power, and Greece and Turkey, the cultural 'motherlands' for two of the communities on Cyprus. The UK ceded the island under a constitution allocating government posts and public offices by ethnic quota, but retained two small Sovereign Base Areas.The constitution, that was signed by both sides was later reneiged on by the first Greek Cypriot President leader Archbishop Makarios III, his Vice President was the leading Turkish Cypriot politician Dr Fazıl Küçük.
    [edit]

    Post-independence

    During the 1960s, Makarios and Küçük pursued a non-aligned foreign policy, cultivating good relations with Britain, Greece and Turkey, and taking a leading role in developing the Non-Aligned Movement.
    Tension began in 1963 when Makarios proposed thirteen amendments to the constitution of the Republic of Cyprus. Turkish Cypriots were opposed to the proposal since it removed some of the rights they received as part of the 1960 settlement. On 21 December 1963, clashes between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots erupted, with Greek Cypriot paramilitaries slaughtering hundreds of Turkish Cypriots.
    Between 1963 and 1974 sporadic violence erupted with both Greek and Turkish Cypriots accusing the other of committing atrocities. By 1974 thousands of Turkish Cypriots were living in enclaves, enduring poor living conditions in exchange for security from violent attacks, while Greek Cypriots took over the properties that Turkish Cyrpiots had to leave behind.[citation needed]
    By 1974, dissatisfaction among Greek nationalist right-wing elements in favour of the long-term goal of Enosis precipitated a coup d'etat against President Makarios which was sponsored by the military government of Greece and led by the Cypriot National Guard. The new regime replaced Makarios with Nikos Giorgiades Sampson as president, and Bishop Gennadios as head of the Cypriot Orthodox Church. Seven days after these events, and after the coup d'etat had already failed, Turkey intervened militarilly in Cyprus by sea and air on 20 July 1974. At the time Turkey claimed it was invading to uphold its obligation under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee. Talks in Geneva involving Greece, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the two Cypriot factions failed in mid-August, and Turkish forces subsequently moved from the previous cease-fire lines to gain control of 37% of the island's territory. During the invasion, over 160,000 Greek Cypriots were displaced from their home land, while Turkish forces killed several thousand Greek Cypriots captured in the occupied areas. While this was happening, several hundred Turkish Cypriots in the south were killed at the hands of Greek Cypriot paramilitaries. As of today, there are still thousands of Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots unaccounted for. The events of the summer of 1974 have dominated Cypriot politics ever since and have been a major point of contention between Greece and Turkey.
    Since 1974, there have been continual efforts to negotiate a settlement, which met with varying levels of hostility from either side. Since 18% of the population was left in control of 37% of the territory, including some of the most fertile and productive land, the Turkish government arranged an influx of settlers from Turkey whose exact numbers are disputed, but believed to be in the range of over 100,000. Turkey counters that the Turkish Cypriots - before 1963 - owned and farmed 33% of Cypriot land before being forced into enclaves, thus the take-over of one-third of Cyprus was seen as compensating the Turkish Cypriots for their lost land.
    Turkish Cypriots proclaimed a separate state under Rauf Denktaş on November 15, 1983. The UN Security Council, in its Resolution 541 of November 18, 1983, declared the action illegal and called for withdrawal. Turkey is the only country to date that recognises the administration on the Northern third of Cyprus (known as the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. Turkey does not recognise the Republic of Cyprus's authority over the whole island, and refers to it as the Greek Cypriot administration.
    Cyprus joined the European Union as a full member in May 2004. Although it was the island as a whole which joined (theoretically including the northern areas) the Acquis communautaire applies only to those (Greek) areas under the control of the Republic of Cyprus.
    Since the invasion, the south part of Cyprus has greatly grown economically, and enjoys a high standard of living. The north maintains a lower standard of living due to heavy dependence on Turkey on all aspects of economic activity as a result of a punitive embargo placed upon it by the Republic of Cyprus.
    Last edited by musicial; October 17th, 2006 at 05:07 AM.

  3. #63

    Default the reality on the island.





    acc. to this reality there are two things on the island

    1) there is a Nordern Republic of Cyprus founded on the north side, they are ethnically turks, speaking turkish and relegiously muslims. it's population is around 225.000

    2) there is greek administration and the greek cypriotors on the south. they are speaking greekish, ethnically they are greeks, and they are orthodoxes relegiously. it's population is around 800.000!?

    The problem is that althought the whole world, including Turkey and Greece, wants to see a united Cyprus but greek cypriotors see themselves as the only power and the boss on the island. So we must name this problem as "these two societies on the island cannot live together" that is why unification of the island is acc. to me a utopia.....

  4. #64

    Default

    OTTOMAN ARCHIEVES SAY THAT IN OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT (IN RULING STAFF IN GENERAL sense) THERE WERE 22 ARMENIAN MINISTERS, 33 ARMENIAN DEPUTIES, 11 ARMENIAN AMBASSADORS TO OTHER COUNTRIES OR ORGANIZATIONS, 28 PASHA (GENERALS), 11 PROFESSORS ETC. ETC. She says that from the archievs it is obvious that Ottomans were ruling the Empire with such people from the lands being conquered by the Ottomans.....

    A deputy of turkish parlement gives this information on channel TRT3, speaking in parlement. TSI 16:35. 17.10.2006

  5. #65
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NY,NY
    Posts
    1,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Is it a Genocide?...

    Strong Armenian lobby in Europe have succeeded for their claim of Genocide. Is the same about to happen here, in America?...Are we better of following in Europe's footsteps?...

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...ref07b.article

  6. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by milleniumcab View Post
    Strong Armenian lobby in Europe have succeeded for their claim of Genocide. Is the same about to happen here, in America?...Are we better of following in Europe's footsteps?...

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/othervi...ref07b.article
    They did not succeed in their claims in Europe but they came closer to their aims than they have never been before.... In USA the situation is app. the same. there are 300thousands turkish americans in USA. this number and their economic power are not enough to make lobby there, jewish lobby and american firms in Turkey make lobby to some degree in fovour of Turkey, there(sometimes I consider that there are so many turkish in some lands in Europe but they are suppressed by governments, i.e. this issue has nothing to do with lobbies, an invisible hand uses this issue against Turkey wenn required, 500thousands armenians take the control of French Parlement but app. 5millions of Turks in whole Europe has app. no effect in fovour of Turkey, that is my paradox in this issue).

    As for US, Last month Congress in USA accepted a draft with which USA advices Turkey to open the border with Armenia,good relations etc. etc.

    Actually armenian diaspora around the world has said so big lies to the world that they cannot get back now, they have to insist on their lies, they have no other alternative, they cannot deny that they are lying. they have no proofs, however, Turkey has uncountable number of historical records etc. etc. etc. showing the reverse of this situation is true. At ottoman times they (armenians with the help of Russians during world war I) made sometimes genocide attempts and sometimes genocide itself to Azeri Turks and to the Turks in East Anatolia (Turkey) wenn the Empire's armies were all at fronts...

  7. #67
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,797

    Default

    Actually armenian diaspora around the world has said so big lies to the world that they cannot get back now, they have to insist on their lies, they have no other alternative, they cannot deny that they are lying. they have no proofs, however, Turkey has uncountable number of historical records etc. etc. etc. showing the reverse of this situation is true......
    I am sure the Armenians have their historical records also. What makes Turkish records infallible, and Armenian ones "lies"? Like I suggested before, you build your opinions in a Turkish bubble of Turkish perfect innocence. That statement above is a load of bull.
    Last edited by MidtownGuy; April 14th, 2007 at 11:08 AM.

  8. #68
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NY,NY
    Posts
    1,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default Is The U.s.-turkey Alliance At An End?...


  9. #69
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NY,NY
    Posts
    1,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I do not agree with the politics of this issue. It should be decided by historians not politicians whose only goal is to satisfy their constituents. The archives of both sides (Turkish and Armenian) should be the only determining factors trying to resolve the dispute between these two nations. I believe, in this case, to call it a genocide might be an overprescription...

  10. #70

    Default

    Whatever Congress thinks happened in Armenia in 1915, the passing of a formal resolution on it was both unnecessary and politically unwise.

  11. #71
    Forum Veteran MidtownGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    East Midtown
    Posts
    6,797

    Default

    despite warnings from the Bush administration that its passage could seriously jeopardize the delicate relationship with Turkey
    Screw 'em.

  12. #72
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    31,519

    Default

    Under the United Nations there is a Legal Definition which covers Genocide :
    The Convention (in article 2) defines genocide as

    ...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.

    – Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

  13. #73
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NY,NY
    Posts
    1,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MidtownGuy View Post
    Screw 'em.
    It is this kind of mentality that got us to where we are today.. Everybody loves US these days....

  14. #74
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NY,NY
    Posts
    1,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Why don't both countries open their archives and let the historians decide whether any of the definitions given by lofter1 fits the events of 1915, not the politicians with ulterior motives who most likely did not even spend a minute of their time to hear the other side.. That's all I'm saying..

    Politicans have a hard time learning from history and tend to make the same mistakes over and over, just for a few votes.. In their minds, this might also be a way of punishing Turkey for not allowing a Northern Front for Iraq war.. I just think that it is a mistake to further alienate a staunch Nato ally to please a strong Armenian Lobby for their votes in upcoming elections...
    Last edited by milleniumcab; October 11th, 2007 at 10:01 PM.

  15. #75
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    NY,NY
    Posts
    1,211
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rapunzel View Post
    If it's a short-hand way of saying that we should not keep from calling it genocide just because Turkey doesn't like our calling it genocide, then I concur.
    We should seek the truth before calling an act a genocide..It is an extremely strong word..

    I don't think that they have done their homework before voting on it...

Similar Threads

  1. New Yorkers Debate Future Landscape
    By BigMac in forum New York City Guide For New Yorkers
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: March 18th, 2004, 02:49 PM
  2. Libeskind/My Memorial Not Compatible - Debate On Memorial
    By Gilbert Gjersvik in forum Anything Goes
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: March 5th, 2003, 02:01 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Wired New York on Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup -

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software