VERDICT WITHOUT DUE PROCESS AMOUNTS TO LYNCHING
Those who take the Armenian “allegations” of genocide at face value seem to also ignore the following:
1- Genocide is a legal, technical term precisely defined by the U.N. 1948 convention (Like all proper laws, it is not retroactive to 1915.)
2- Genocide verdict can only be given by a "competent court" after "due process" where both sides are properly represented and evidence mutually cross examined.
3- For a genocide verdict, the accusers must prove “intent” at a competent court and after due process. This could never be done by the Armenians whose evidence mostly fall into five major categories: hearsay, mis-representations, exaggerations, forgeries, and “other”.
4- Such a "competent court" was never convened in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict and a genocide verdict does not exist (save a Kangaroo court in occupied Istanbul in 1920 where partisanship, vendettas, and revenge motives left no room for due process.)
5- Genocide claim is political, not historical or factual. It reflects bias against Turks. Therefore, the term genocide must be used with the qualifier "alleged", for scholarly objectivity and truth.
HISTORY IS A MATTER OF SCHOLARSHIP, NOT CONVICTION, CONSENSUS, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS
History is not a matter of "conviction, consensus, political resolutions, editorial freedom, political correctness, or propaganda." History is a matter of research, peer review, and sound scholarship. Even historians, by definition, cannot decide on a genocide verdict, which is reserved for a "competent court" with its legal expertise in due process.
It is hoped that NYT will be shamed into accepting its ethocidal mistake that subscribing to a partisan characterization in a hotly debated controversy is incorrect, unethical, and un-American.
GENOCIDE ALLEGATIONS IGNORE “THE SIX T’S OF THE TURKISH-ARMENIAN CONFLICT”
1) TUMULT (as in numerous Armenian armed uprisings between 1882 and 1920)
2) TERRORISM (by well-armed Armenian nationalists and militias victimizing Ottoman-Muslims between 1882-1920)
3) TREASON (Armenians joining the invading enemy armies as early as 1914 and lasting until 1921)
4) TERRITORIAL DEMANDS (where Armenians were a minority, not a majority, attempting to establish Greater Armenia, the would-be first apartheid of the 20th Century with a Christian minority ruling over a Muslim majority )
5) TURKISH SUFFERING AND LOSSES (i.e. those caused by the Armenian nationalists: 524,000 Muslims, mostly Turks, met their tragic end at the hands of Armenian revolutionaries during WWI, per Turkish Historical Society. This figure is not to be confused with about 2.5 million Muslim dead who lost their lives due to non-Armenian causes during WWI. Grand total: more than 3 million, according to Prof. Justin McCarthy.)
6) TERESET (temporary resettlement) triggered by the first five T’s above and amply documented as such; not to be equated to the Armenian misrepresentations as genocide.)
"The Moslems who did not succeed in escaping [the city] were put to death..." wrote Grace H. Knapp on page 146 of his book, “The Tragedy of Bitlis”, Fleming H. Revell Co., New York (1919.) There is undeniable evidence that brutal Armenian Revolutionaries tortured and killed thousands of innocent non-combatant Turkish Civilians in this conflict thus recklessly endangering the Civilian Armenian Population at a time when the Turks were extremely vulnerable. Many Turks today have ancestors who suffered at the hands of merciless Armenian Revolutionaries. (www.tallarmeniantale.com)
Even notoriously anti-Muslim and anti-Turk Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire from 1913 to 1916 could not help revealing the much ignored Armenian aggression and atrocities on page 301 of the book ghost-written from him, “Ambassador Morgenthau's Story”, Doubleday, Page & Co., Garden City, New York (1918), “"...In the early part of 1915, therefore, every Turkish city contained thousands of Armenians who had been trained as soldiers and who were supplied with rifles, pistols, and other weapons of defense. The operations at Van once more disclosed that these men could use their weapons to good advantage..." But the NYT does not want any evidence that might embarrass the newspaper’s racist and dishonest position that it was genocide.
WHAT ABOUT THE MILLIONS OF TURKISH FAMILY TREES UPROOTED BY 100 YEAR OLD LIES?
While the human story is true and tragic, the way it is promoted with a strong sense of “selective morality”, unfortunately, creates sadness, alienation, and injustice in the hearts and minds of those Turkish survivors of Armenian atrocities during WWI. Why are Armenian deaths magnified and embellished while reciprocating Turkish deaths are dismissed and ignored? Isn’t this bias bordering on religious and ethnic discrimination, even racism?
It seems the New York Times, generator and promoter of this story, is dedicated to keeping its tradition of anti-Turkish biased coverage of the Turkish-Armenian conflict since 1915. That year, the NYT published no less than 145 articles demonizing Turks with embellished, distorted, and even fabricated stories, usually filed by Armenian nationalists directly or via U.S. Protestant missionaries, diplomats, or other Westerners, while offering or allowing zero opportunities to Turks to respond and refute them. This lopsided, hateful, and propagandistic reporting is one reason why the NYT is considered to be one of at least six responsible parties that caused the human tragedy in Eastern Anatolia during WWI to be bigger than it had to be—the others being The British Empire, Colonial France, Tsarist Russia, The U.S. Protestant Missionaries sent from Boston, and the Armenians who allowed their ultra-nationalist organizations like the Dashnaks, Hunchaks, and others to manipulate the Armenian minority communities into the fallacy of Greater Armenia via ethnically cleansing the Muslim majorities first. (Please read the book “Death and Exile” by Justin McCarthy for details.)
The above story, though clearly embellished and even anachronistic in part, still tells only one part of the story. The other side, that is the Muslim, mostly Turkish side, is again ignored. The Ottoman deaths and suffering are routinely dismissed as if Muslims are not human beings or somehow their deaths are justified. Such a racist approach is clear not only in this article, but also in the NYT coverage of this issue since 1915. Turks lost 3 million lives, half of million of whom met their tragic ends at the hands of Armenian irregulars. If one does the math, one will see that this death toll translates into one in four Ottoman citizens being killed by bullet, epidemics, starvation, terrain, elements, and other such wartime conditions. This is why one can go to Any Turkish town today, stop the first person on the street, and ask for his/her last name’s significance and the horrors of WWI will gush out like Manavgat Falls of Antalya (Turkish equivalent of Niagara Falls.) When the death and destruction rained upon Turks during WWI by invaders and their domestic spies and agents are this wide spread, the question begging to be asked is, how come we never read about the Turkish suffering and deaths in the NYT pages? If the Turks do not mention these things as often as Armenians, it is not because Turks forgot about them; it is because Turks choose to move forward with hope to a brighter, more peaceful, and more prosperous future.
"For too many years Armenian mothers had lulled their children to sleep with songs whose theme was Turkish fierceness and savagery." Said Ohanus Appressian, lending testimony to how innocent Armenian children are subjected to the brutality of racism by their parents in the book “Men Are Like That”, published in 1926. Think about this for a minute. What has changed for the Armenians since then? If Turkey, rising out of the ashes of a multi-religious, multi-language, multi-ethnic, collapsed empire, is able to forge a democracy and prosper to the 17th largest economy in the world today while Armenia, land-locked, poverty-stricken, violent, corrupt, and shrinking, still lives on handouts today just like 100 years ago, one can hardly find anything wrong with the Turkish policies. The dignified silence of Turks, therefore, should not be interpreted as admission of guilt for a bogus genocide. And Armenians are well advised to reconsider their passion to cultivate hatred and systematically teach their children odium and vengeance. (For more facts and figures, please refer to “Genocide of Truth” by Sukru Server Aya.)
“…in Turkey, where even uttering the words “Armenian genocide” can be grounds for prosecution...” is fallacious when one considers the number of books written on both sides of the genocide debate and panels held in Turkey in the last 20 years. One cannot say the same thing about the U.S. where the NYT will not cover the Turkish side of the story pro-actively, sometimes even reactively. While there is no court verdict, deciding after due process, that the Turkish-Armenian conflict is genocide, the NYT and others see no difficulty in using the term “genocide” without qualifiers like “alleged, so-called, claimed, etc.” This ironic proof of blatant bias and bigotry in big media will be all the more dramatic when the history commission, as foreseen by the protocols signed by Turkey and Armenia, convenes soon. After all, the formation of a blue-ribbon investigation committee itself is an unmistakable sign that this issue is not settle history, that it is still controversial, and that the jury is still out. And here is the almighty NYT, already made up its mind and calling it a genocide. Would it be stretching the truth then to call NYT the head of a lynch mob? (For more information on this, please click on www.ethocide.com.)
While the biased article accuses Turkey for not having freedom of speech, the same article, and the NYT for that matter, are totally silent about the shameful “memory laws” in France and Switzerland where the writers of these lines could be jailed for denying an alleged (but never court proven) genocide. Is this stark contrast not significant enough to justify a mention anywhere? Is the fact that Turkish views concerning the Turkish-Armenian conflict are routinely censored in the big media, with Nazi-like justifications like “editorial freedom” or “being against the consensus”, not noteworthy enough to rationalize a citation? Bias seems to launder everything; the memory laws, censorship, biased coverage, racist editorial freedom, dishonest consensus, and more… (Please see http://www.turkla.com/index.php?c=1&yid=4 or http://www.turkla.com/index.php?c=1&mid=1405&yid=4 )