|Re: something else|
- Thursday, September 16 2010, 22:50:50 (UTC)|
from 220.127.116.11 - 74-136-241-111.dhcp.insightbb.com Commercial - Linux - Mozilla
I found this from a web site called "Tall Armenian tale" It was started by an American Turk who was born and raised in the U.S and only uses western sources. I read something similar to what Pancho wrote. Here it is:
"No person of Turkish heritage would accept what the Turkish Government has to say about this issue, as the final word. Just like no person of Armenian heritage should care about what the Armenian side has to say. What every person needs to do is look at the facts. If there were REAL proof of government- sponsored evil planned against the Armenians, a people who peacefully lived with and prospered beside the Turks for over five centuries, it would be Turks crying out against such horrors before most everyone else... one's humanity and integrity should ideally supersede loyalty to one's ethnic tribe."
" This web site will present evidence — mostly from Western sources (not easy to supply, as few Westerners cared about seeking out the truth back then... a situation which has barely improved with the passage of the years) — in as impartial a way as possible*, so that visitors can make up their own minds. (Assuming, of course, that the visitor is not beyond hope and not totally brainwashed, like most genocide-obsessed Armenians and their supporters... everything is a "lie" with them, no matter what the source.) Was there an Armenian Genocide? None of us who are rational and reasonable can say with absolute certainty. However, all we can rely on are cold, hard FACTS. Certainly, Armenians were killed as a result of massacres... often by their Muslim neighbors, in reprisal for the murderous acts committed by the Armenians (when they sided with the Russian enemy in hopes of carving out their own independence); but anybody who calls acts of massacres a "genocide" doesn't know the meaning of the word. (At least the way most of us perceive the meaning, as with what Hitler did to the Jews; the legal definition of genocide is essentially meaningless, and can be applied to almost any conflict.) If a genocide is how you like to describe what happened to the Armenians, then you need to refer to what American soldiers committed in My Lai as a "genocide."
Ironically, if anyone acted genocidally, with the intention of systematically wiping out people because of their ethnic or religious identity, it was the people who are traditionally accepted as the victims of this conflict. Another irony is that while Armenians have been doing their utmost to portray Turks as Nazis (in an effort to equate themselves with Holocaust victims, the one group best known to have fallen prey to genocide), Turks did their best to save Jews during World War II... while European Armenians actively supported the Nazi cause.
Since the Turkish perspective is attempting to undo nearly ninety years (and well beyond) of the unopposed one-sided view that has permeated Western minds, also having to contend with charges of "revisionism" and "denial"... defensiveness unfairly becomes part of the picture. While the aim of this site is to present mostly impartial views to get people to question what they have unthinkingly accepted, what this entails is that the Turks are put in the uncomfortable position of having to prove a negative — a difficult, if not impossible task... on the order of attempting to prove God does not exist. The issues are whether there was a state directed policy of extermination (that is, genocide... with the provision that there must be intent — backed up by tangible, no-buts-about-it evidence — as defined by the 1948 United Nations rule... and also whether Armenians constituted a political group, unprotected by another article from the U.N. Convention on Genocide)... and whether the Armenians and other minorities were the sole victims of massacres.
"If anyone is familiar with the 1957 movie "Twelve Angry Men" (based on a television play, starring Henry Fonda and Lee J. Cobb... later remade with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott)... you might remember how eleven jurors accepted at the outset the "obvious" guilt of the young man on trial, perpetuated by the race of the accused. The message of the film was that things are not always what they seem... and the Henry Fonda character, through logic and facts, turned around the opinions of each of his co-jurors. Quite a task lay before him, since the other co-jurors were motivated by other factors instead of the pertinent one at hand (i.e., Justice), but ultimately truth prevailed... as will inevitably occur one day with the Armenian "genocide," once people put their prejudices aside, and look at the validity of the evidence offered on both sides. We are now in the first fifteen minutes of the movie, and the Turks are in the Henry Fonda role... and the Armenians are in the Lee J. Cobb role. (The one difference in the way our play will work out is that most Armenians will never accept that there was no genocide... as the genocide has become too much a reason for the Armenians' existence, and facts become irrelevant, or conveniently altered.)
Innocent until proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt should be the legal principle at work here, and ideally it should not be up to the Turks to prove that they did not commit genocide but for Armenians and their Turk-hating supporters to prove that the Turks did. This "trial" has already historically taken place, as you will soon see... and the resulting "acquittal" hasn't made any difference in the eyes of those who will condemn the Turks, regardless of the facts."
Who can argue with that?
The full topic:|
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:18.104.22.168) Gecko/20100106 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.7