Lethe,

I don't know where you get your information from, but you are seriously mistaken here.

Let's go step by step.

Again, if the whole story was a series of clashes among gangs formed among two ethnic groups, we would call it an "ethnic conflict", nothing more, and we would move on. I don't know what you mean by the whole case being based on gangs, because no historian I know has ever made a case for genocide based on gang fights alone. This point seems like a diversion to me, and again, I don't know your sources. Also, come on, how is it conceivable that between 460,000 and 1mil. people die as a result of gang fights? How did gang fights kill innocent families from Kayseri, Sivas, and Urfa, the former two being far away from potential territorial disputes and border draws?

The "Tehcir", in and of itself, with no additional measure whatsoever, is a clear case of ethnic cleansing, because those who are relocated were forced to do so for no other reason than being Armenian. Mind you that this would be true even if not a single person died as a result of it. I don't know which other forced movements you have in mind, but we would have the same conclusion for them if they have the same characteristics, regardless of whether we are talking about Armenians, Turks, or any other ethnic or religious group.

Tehcir would constitute genocide if (1) it was anticipated ahead of time that the group would perish during the relocation, and (2) none, or little security measures were taken to prevent this. To answer a potential response to (2) ahead of time, let me add that incidents of individual efforts to save the Armenians are sometimes shown as evidence that security measures were in place, or that the intention of the ruling pashas wasn't the destruction of a whole people. It goes without saying that if there's such a destruction in place, there will also be saviors and protectors from the local population, from the state, from local administrations, and so on.

Of course, we are talking about the definition of genocide as accepted by the related UN convention (see below, esp. madde ©)*. The key word here is "intent", and that's what the historical reconstructions focus on.

So, if one likes to argue that tehcir does not constitute genocide, one has to show the following: Either the result was not anticipated, or appropriate security measures were taken at each step. To anyone who wants to pick up the challenge, good luck.

I realize that this is an issue for which it is incredibly difficult to filter the propaganda from reliable information. This is true for both Turkish and Armenian sources. I mind you that this is not even a matter of debate anymore anywhere outside Turkey, as historical facts are pretty much clear. My advice is to let go of any piece of information outside the scholarly articles, go to "scholar.google.com" (search engine for peer-reviewed journals), search "Armenian Genocide", and start reading from there. If one really cares to know the truth of it, that is.

In fact, lots of Turkish historians agree with Akcam on the tehcir, but I don't have to tell you that it is still a bit costly to come out and say it. We'll see the full extent of the Turkish opinion, including that of historians, when we manage to discuss this issue without boundaries. Also, I honestly don't see anything that is "against Turks" in what he says. The perpetrator of genocide is almost invariably the central authority, as it is the case here. Nothing to do with "Turks", or "Turkish people" being criminals.

Although he has a tendency to get frustrated, I like what Akcam is saying here: That naming of this thing isn't the core of the issue, and if we try to look at it from a human perspective, the rest will be very easy. These, along with his comments on Armenian irredentism, and the future of Armenian-Turkish relations, are the reasons I posted this video.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
Article II: 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.

http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/convention/text.htm

edit: Re-wrote a possibly misleading sentence.

ok. killed armenians and turks during ethnic conflict out; killed turks and armenians under standing army out so how do you say 460.000 to 1 mi.. and it is you. armenian activist are talking about killed 1.5 million armenians. it is impossible due to they were not that crowded during that time in anatolia. you can't come up to that numbers if you focus on only tehcir which was the "plan of the genocide". genocide is not number issue but it is one of the barrier for me that shows how they lie, manipulate the events, mixs events..etc

for genocide:

organization---> ottoman empire
plan-----> tehcir right?
armenians were question of relocation for security reasons during byzantium time. it was not crime. allmost all turks in ottoman empire were question of forced immigration... please search the ferman/law that explains how turkish cypriots gone to cyprus. than you understand what i mean... tehcir/relocation/forced immgration was not a crime... i don't need google to learn someting, i know how much they work on the issue and they have big coverage. but it doesn't work so. since you are sure that the intent of the tehcir was eliminating armenians, you should show us the document that prove your statement without using "isn't it; wasn't that". i can show you the documents that prove what ottoman empires intent was and wasn't with tehcir.

You are right, 1.5 million is a completely bogus number, but it's the official claim of the Armenian government. The Armenian Gov't doesn't have a clean record on this matter either, which complicates things beyond belief [as I think is evident from your post, and your take on this matter].

I also agree that this isn't a matter of numbers, and we may never know the exact death toll anyway. Nevertheless, I took the Ottoman records as a lower bound, and the Armenian claim of 1mil. as an upper bound, accepting that the true death toll is somewhere in between. To my information, there were about 1,5 million Armenians in the region, about a million died, and 500.000 survived. Therein kicks in the official Armenian claim: they include the survivors, some of which are children that ended up under the protection of Turkish families, in the death toll. My source for this is an interview with Hrant Dink, who cites an Armenian official saying "we know the number isn't as high as 1.5 mil., but 1.5 mil. is our official claim" (not exact quotation, but roughly the same thing). So yes, Armenian officials lie about this issue as well, and I suggested not trusting Armenian sources in my previous post.

It isn't the regular google that searches every shit-loaded propaganda website on the net. "scholar.google.com" searches articles from academic databases, such as Jstor, Science Direct, SpringerLink, Oxford journals, etc... Good tool if you ask me. If one doesn't at least care to keep an ear on peer-reviewed journals, there isn't much more to discuss I'm afraid.

If you have the documents that prove what you say, please share. I fear you might be falling into the trap I described in my previous post, though. I should also warn you that it is extremely unlikely for a genocide claim to be proved or discredited based on a single document alone.

Also, I don't buy this cliche of "selling the burden of proof", neither I am in the business of proving things myself. From years of reading, and keeping a critical eye on things, I am convinced that this thing is appropriately labeled as genocide. If you are not convinced of that, or want to call it something else, that's just fine. I mentioned before that what we end up calling it doesn't really matter.

What really matters is this: There's a huge Armenian neighborhood in my hometown (Kayseri), and many other cities in Turkey. Today, they are all empty. What happened to these people? What did they go through? Does it not matter for us to look into what happened as honestly as we can, and learn why these neighborhoods are completely lifeless today? Do we not owe this to ourselves, to our own dignity as Turkish people, and to our then-neighbors who are long gone? Or, are we going to reduce the pride of this nation into seeking justification for the loss of countless lives, presumably serving an ill-defined state interest?

you still add the armenians who died in gang fight, armeninas who died in french, russian, turkish standing armies.. you say it is not naming issue but apology, it is about being human... empathy etc. please tell me why should i feel sorry for killed armenians who kill muslim civilians under french uniform. and i should feel it while other side act like ugly freaks. hadi canım..

i know what scholar.google is. i can reach to both akçam and halaçoğlu's essays during my search. i really don't care what do they say. i care more about how do they say what they say. based on what? even academics can manipulate data that they have and they do it. so i don't get their kahvehane talks. stick on original sources.

tehcir kanunu is it self good source what was the intent of the kanun and wasn't. what do they show to explain that the intent of the migration was genocide. nothing!! i remember only a fake telegram. but you sure the intent of the kanun was genocide so how do you come that conclusion? you can find many documents which talks about killing members of group in proven genocides. for this, we can't talk about killing orders of armenians in foreigner (missionaries, politicians, mil.) rich anatolia.

yes we all know how similar events labeled as genocide and not genocide or ignored by same persons... it is not history but politics.... if it is not label issue so what?

your emotional thoughts is your own business. i can't know why you don't care about zero turks in ex turkish majority city yerevan or your less care about hocali... if the issue is labeling as genocide they should find similar evidences that can be found in proven genocides. manipulation or demagogy don't work.. their claim is big event to hide even that time period... if the issue is about apology or something like that. i am sorry. i hate them for known reasons. i wouldn't be satisfied if they apology for their past and present actions.

There's a huge world of academia beyond Akçam and Halaçoğlu, and one needs to know what it's saying to understand this matter as a whole. You don't need to buy into any published article, as academia itself needs scrutiny. BUT, do you realize the extent of the crime you're committing by discrediting the entire academia here? What you are saying adds up to this: there's no absolute truth, everything is pretty much relative, so I don't need to listen to historians and/or scientists, and I take the opinions of renowned sociologists and historians as equals to that of state propaganda. As a result, you get people completely devoid of critical thinking, and will argue against any scientific rigor because it suits them so for whatever reason. A hobo on this forum responds to the theories of Darwin, and that of the majority of biologists today, with propaganda videos of Harun Yahya, and feels free to post his completely ignorant POV to presumably discredit Darwin. Is this the kind of society we'd like to live in? Well, screw that.

Sorry, but how the tehcir law itself is worded doesn't prove anything.

This is what it adds up to, doesn't it? You hate Armenians. It's a blood feud, and we must choose our sides. Sorry, but my children don't deserve to live their already short lives like this. Neither do the children of Armenians.

Also, come on, think twice before accusing me (or anyone else) of "not caring about Turks". It's cheap and it's despicable. It's the soft version of yelling "vatan haini" in someone's face.

it is not critical thinking if they choose their sides before their thinking. our duty is read them with respect and show up our own thoughts. if you choose one of them on doubtful ground later you can choose other one too. it can work on that way if the issue was philosophical but it is historical problem. i can say only "bravo" when you say "i read some academics and they think so" as a answer for the question "how, why" for understanding historical event.

sorry, tehcir law it self shows what it was there for it shows what it wasn't too. the law was not a plan eliminating armenians.

yes it is up to me and i hate them. it is not bood feud. and it is not about your or armenian childeren. i hate you too if you continuously curse / asperse me. as you said it is up to me.

why can't i accuse you or akçam or armenians for not caring about turks.. it is what you do in action. if i want to say "vatan haini" to you.. i say it. btw, you are cheap and despicable. using such words are not cool as much as not being valid.

"why don't you care about the killed muslims/turks?"

Whole arguements in Turkey end in this point i think. But there is a simple law in maths. (actually it's not even a law)


{x = x and y = y then x = x & y = y}

in this case, equality of x is not a proof for a possible y inequality. As it's seen, these two operations are not related. I mean come on be abicim, don't you think this one is ridiculous.

{if x = x and y = y then y ≠ y}

I mean, asking "what has really happened to my neighbours?" doesn't mean "I don't care about what happened to my family". Or asking "how come the mass murder of more than 500.000 people and systematic erasing of their culture makes no sense for you?" doesn't mean "I don't give shit about what has happened in Hocalı". And i really don't understand how people comes to this conclusion.

maybe you misunderstand their conclusion.

here:

t=a

a--->d than s (true)
t---->d than s (wrong)

Likewise:

Person A: We condemn the death of Hrant Dink in the hands of murderous bastards.
Person B: But you don't condemn the death of our soldiers, you traitor.
Person A: ...???... {dumur}.

or,

Person A: We're all Hrant. We're all Armenians.
Person B: Nooooooo, fuck that, we're all Turks.
Person A: Hmm OK, thanks for the information.

He's not a historian, he is a piece of shit.