Its a difficult balance. Where there is an established body of historical evidence that genocide occured a court having the discretion to fine genocide deniers is justified, but locking them up is not.

One area the author doesn't touch is the mental suffering deniers inflict on the relatives (or race) of people slaughtered in a genocidal act. Historians like anyone else are not free to write anything if it definitely hurts those already kicked.

As to genocide of aborigines - yes hunting expeditions did go out to exterminate aborigines in Australia's past - with logistical support amounting to bounties. This is a national shame on par with the mass killing by Asian nations of different races, castes, religious or ideological groups.

Furthermore given the collaboration and war crimes of the many Swiss, Austrians and Germans aginst Jews in WWII its justified that they continue to atone for this by enforcing legislation thats prevents British authors from further exploiting inbred Germanic anti-Semitism.

Fighting fire with fire is an additional reason. Rightwing groups have been known to host, fund or encourage denialist authors and the Turkish Government likewise. Anti denialist governments have a right to combat group and State sponsored pro-denialists.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

If you want History with an end read the Book of Revelation.
Theres the end.
It wont budge one fraction from what John has written...no matter what anyone thinks:)

The logic of this article is so obvious. The people and governments who have, and who are attempting, to restrict the free expression of opinion are setting the foundation for a new variant of the very tyrannies and injustices that they claim they are trying to protect people against. This pattern reflects the same mentality of those who led the Medieval and Renaissance era Inquisitions . . . . "We have the absolute and unchanging truth for all time, and we must suppress any 'heresy' which denies that truth".
God help us all if that way of thinking continues to spread.

If "Pete" wants to fight "fire with fire", he has every right to do so on the basis of objective evidence and reason. He does not have the moral right to do so by soliciting the coercive power of the state to suppress the opinions of others, no matter how foolish those "other" opinions may be. There is a fundamental difference between merely expressing an opinion about an historical event, and actually personally ADVOCATING offensive violence and genocide against another group of people. It should be manifestly obvious that the infliction of "mental" suffering . . . as opposed to actual PHYSICAL suffering . . . is purely subjective. Islamic fanatics are constantly using the excuse of "mental and emotional suffering" to justify the suppression of opinion whenever they get "offended" by anyone possessing the temerity to question the misogynistic death-cult ideology of Islamic Jihadism. We have a right to be protected from PHYSICAL attack or specific and immediate threats of violence to our person. We do not have a moral right to be protected from opinions that we simply don't like.

Another example of people taking on things that they don't have to. I mean,how many people bother 'denying' events like the Holocaust and what happened to Armenians?

The answer is, only a very few nutty intellectuals trying to attract attention to themselves. Most people don't know and don't care.

There must be better subjects for consideration out there.

These historians should be very careful if they come to New South Wales. Unlike most english speaking countries, where truth is an absolute defence against a charge of libel, in NSW, to defend a charge of libel you must not only demonstrate that what you said was true, but also that it is in the public interest (as decided by the judge) that the truth should be revealed.

Again, if you assert that asians have an average IQ that is greater than africans, as happened recently, you are liable to be shouted down in lectures and barred from campuses by the administration. Notwithstanding that rational analysis makes it very unlikely that such different groups would have EXACTLY the same IQ, current political correctness requires that their IQ's must be regarded as equal, and that this fact is beyond dispute. Please note, I am not making any claims one way or the other, I am simply noting the situation.

If further proof were necessary, we need only look at the first amendment to the US constitution, which provides that:

"Congress shall make NO LAW respecting....the freedom of the press"

If I were you, I would be very careful about publishing there anything that the Supreme Court regards as being outside its protection.

Surely the only conclusion that we can come to is things have not changed much since the days of the inquisition, except that they would no longer burn you at the stake.

And people think we are ruled by elected politicians, not judges. What a laugh!

This is one of the best article I've read on this subject in quite a while. The issue with those laws isn't whether or not the events of 1915 constituted genocide, it's that governments don't have any business deciding upon these matters... And, not only that, but by these laws, governments want to tell people what to <em>think</em>.

<em>Disagreeing</em> - one can disagree on this issue while one knows <em>a lot</em> about it; many experts disagree with the Swiss government for instance - is illegal. The old adage, that the clash of two different opinions results in the truth, seems to have been thrown overboard.

Historical events should be left to historians to decide upon. And more frequently than not, they will <em>never</em> reach a consensus.

As for the comment about psychological effects; that's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard. We could also turn it around; from a Turkish perspective it's incredibly 'stressful' to hear one's ancestors and one's country held responsible for a genocide that (according to most Turks) never happened. Not only that, but Armenians tried to ethnically cleansed the lands themselves; no one ever speaks about that. If you want to talk about 'psychological' stress, etc., you should take this all into account as well. Once you do, it never stops. Making opinions that people find difficult to hear illegal isn't a good solution.

The history of mankind should have taught us that by now.

This is one of the best articles I've read on this subject in quite a while. The issue with those laws isn't whether or not the events of 1915 constituted genocide, it's that governments don't have any business deciding upon these matters... And, not only that, but by these laws, governments want to tell people what to <em>think</em>.

<em>Disagreeing</em> - one can disagree on this issue while one knows <em>a lot</em> about it; many experts disagree with the Swiss government for instance - is illegal. The old adage, that the clash of two different opinions results in the truth, seems to have been thrown overboard.

Historical events should be left to historians to decide upon. And more frequently than not, they will <em>never</em> reach a consensus.

As for the comment about psychological effects; that's the biggest bunch of nonsense I've ever heard. We could also turn it around; from a Turkish perspective it's incredibly 'stressful' to hear one's ancestors and one's country held responsible for a genocide that (according to most Turks) never happened. Not only that, but Armenians tried to ethnically cleansed the lands themselves; no one ever speaks about that. If you want to talk about 'psychological' stress, etc., you should take this all into account as well. Once you do, it never stops. Making opinions that people find difficult to hear illegal isn't a good solution.

The history of mankind should have taught us that by now.

An interesting article.

However I have a question - what if one's right to free speech impinges on another's right to life, liberty, freedom or whatever?

I know there are no absolutes here (for example that was the very rationale Thatcher used to deny free speech to the IRA) but what about those whose speech is designed to inflame and physically hurt others, or to organise groups politically to do so. The Nazis seem a good example.

It seems to me that some deniers are not about historical debate or enquiry but about political activity to repeat previous outrages or continue old battles.

Nationalist Greeks, Armenians and ultra religious Christians are wielding a strong effort to put down Turks in media and parliaments worldwide. Unproven Armenian allegations are being used to further the anti-Turkish bias. It has become difficult for children of Turkish heritage to proudly attend school with a majority of Armenian children and for the educated adults to keep their jobs in face of racial bigotry. Turks have become the ‘Jews’ of Europe.

I think the correct action would be to curtail bias against Turkish people in general. But, instead; this bias took a more dangerous form and judges started to bend this artificially created social model. I can’t single out the Swiss judges with the excuse that they could be trying to clear out their guilty conscience at the Turks expense. (Reminder: Switzerland obtained its riches through innocent Jewish victims’ gold?)

The existing international laws of racial discrimination seem to ignore the Turks’ rights to free speech and their protection against genocide. No one stops to think for a minute what happened to the Turks who owned the land registry of most Balkan countries? Over 80% of Bulgarian land was registered to Turkish citizens of the Ottoman Empire. The majority of Balkan population was Turkish before the same World War I years that ended up with less Armenians in Eastern Anatolia. We must be prepared to apply the same standard in recognizing Turkish losses as well.

Also, the newly created position of ‘genocide scholars’ have to accept Armenian allegations hook line and sinker. Otherwise, they could lose their title. Have you heard about how Dr. Dennis Papazian of umich.edu wrote to everyone to tape what Hilmar Keiser says in his conferences and report to him. All of this because historian Hilmar Keiser thinks the Armenian relocation was self defense of Ottoman Empire.

An excellent article.

The quotation from JS Mill, however, is selective.

Mill said (at 340),"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."

The fact is that "history" which,for example, denies the Destruction of European Jewry or The Armenian Genocide is harmful to others, in particular to the victims of such historical events.

How many times does it have to be said?

The fact that someone may become emotionally upset by the mere expression of an OPINION about an HISTORICAL EVENT does not mean that they have been "harmed". No one in a truly democratic society has a moral "right" to NOT be offended. They only have a right to be protected from physical attack or direct and specific threats to their physical safety. There are people who will become offended at the drop of a hat. If someone wears green hair, rings through their eyebrows, bones through their nose, and I call them "ugly", does that mean the state has a right to prevent me from expressing an opinion about that individual because I may cause that hyper-sensitive soul emotional "harm"?

I agree with seneca.

Son of Eire, another point is that Nazis for example use freedom of speech to organise the next holocaust. Holocaust denial is part of that strategy.

To use your analogy, the real intent in calling someone ugly is not just to offend them (although they may be) but to use this divisive scapegoating as a way to achieve or continue in power.

In any event some words are of themselves hurtful, reflecting say a history of slavery and suppression of rights and liberties and are used to put people into a category of being inferior and second class.

The Armenians are sure that these events were genocide and claim that Turkey does not want to face with her history and so she does not scrap article 301 which restricts freedom of speech. However, Turkish articles obviously do not have any power of sanction on Armenians. So, what is the reason of Armenians’ insistent refusal of Turkey’s suggestions to discuss these events together with historians from both sides? For example:

*In 2004, the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform (VAT) was founded to exchange documents about the 1915 events by Austrian, Turkish and Armenian historians. After receiving 100 Turkish documents, the Armenians refused to send their documents which they promised, to the Turkish historians and afterwards the Armenian foreign minister announced that they did not want to discuss the 1915 events with historians.

*Armenia refused the Turkish prime minister's and the Turkish Assembly's invitation announced on 13th April 2005 which suggested to establish a Joint Commission composed of historians from both sides and discuss the events which took place during the 1st World War.

*Turkey sent full page ads to five popular newspapers of the United States (US) calling on Armenia to ‘bring light the events of 1915 together with Turkey and to establish a joint commission composed of historians from both sides in addition to historians from other nations’, in April 2007.

*And the Turkish prime minister repeated the same invitation on February 2008 , in Munich at the 44th Security Conference where the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Oskanian also attended?

In neither of these invitations was there any precondition, unlike it is claimed by the Armenians.

*Why did the Armenian historian Sarafyan, who accepted the recent invitation of the chief of Turkish History Foundation, Halaço&#287;lu, for cooperation to investigate Harput events, abandon the project, after talking the Armenian diaspora? .....

(continued in the next box)

cont..
*Why are the Armenian archives still closed? The archives of Ta&#351;nak (Dashnak) Party is present in Zoryan Armenian Institute in Boston. Both Turkish government and Turkish History Foundation offered the Armenians to open these archives; but the directors of the Zoryan Institute replied that they did not have enough money to open the archives. Turkish government and Turkish History Foundation promised financial support.Why did the Armenians refuse this suggestion too? (Nüzhet Kandemir, http://www.ntvmsnbc.com/news/418517.asp). Note that Zoryan Institute has quite enough money to provide financial support for Taner Akçam who advocates the Armenian claims in Minnesota University.

If a genocide had really occured, why did Brian Ardouny of the Armenian Assembly of America announce ‘We don’t need to prove the genocide historically, because it has already been accepted politically’? Why did the chief of the Armenian Archives in Armenia tell that they were not interested in the achives, but all they are interested is the world’s public opinion.

In your life, have you ever seen a criminal who persistently calls the victim to bring his evidences? And, have you ever seen a victim who passionately accuses somebody of committing crime and giving him great harm but strictly avoids of bringing his proofs before the referees or going to court, and tells that he need not prove that this person’s guilt, because the community has already accepted this person as guilty?

In this situation would you not ask the question of which era you are living in? 5000 BC or 7000 BC?

And what else should Turkey do, to FACE WITH HER HISTORY? Who is afraid of facing with her history? Turkey or Armenia and those who support them?

Thank you akasya.

It seems that I need to know a lot more about what is claimed to be the "Genocide of the Armenians"..

Can you recommend a book?

Part 1:
Whoever tells about topics which obviously abolish the Armenians' imaginary past, are labelled as ‘deniars’, as ‘agents of Turkish government’, or ‘people hired by the Turkish government’ or ‘disingenous scholars/authorities’. And, here are the names of Armenians who comply with the these terms:

The Armenian Soviet historian A.A.Lalayan who stated that the Dashnaks displayed extreme courage to massacre Turkish women, children and ill and old people (Contrarevolyutsionn&#305;y ‘Da&#351;naktsutyun’ &#304; &#304;mperialisti-çeskaya Voyna 1914-1918 gg.’, Revolyutsionn&#305;y Vostok, No.2-3, p.92, 1936) was an Armenian deniar and he was also hired by the Turkish government years ago.

Armenian Boghos Nubar, who told that ‘150 000 Armenian volunteers in Russian Army were the only forces against Turks’ (Times of London , 1919 Jan 30 Link: http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/10/2013-150-000-armenian-volunteers-in.html) was also a deniar and agent of Turkish government.

Armenian T. Haçikoglyan who told that the Dashnaks eradicated thousands of Turks with their bloody hands (T. Haçikoglyan, 10 Let Armyanskoy Sttrelkovoy Divizii,p4-6. &#304;zdatelstvo Polit. Uprav. KKA, Tiflis, 1930) was also a deniar and agent of Turkish government.

Hovannes Katchaznouni, the first prime-minister of the Armenian state founded in 1918 and the prime authority of the Dashnagzoutiun Party who wrote a book ‘Dashnagzoutiun Has Nothing to do Anymore’ and K.S.Papazian, the writer of ‘Patriotism Perverted’ published in 1934, in Boston were the main Armenian deniars. Because:

In both of these books, the writers displayed the terrorist identity of Dashnaks, and their lack of vision. Katchaznouni stressed on that they should have used a peaceful language towards the Turks but they (Armenian Dashnaks) rejected the Turks who suggested to negotiate with them and they went on fighting in cooperation with the Russians

Part 2
Papazian wrote that Khatisian and the then prime minister S.Vratzian didnot publish the text of Treaty of Gümrü which put an end to war between Turkey and the Armenian Republic on December 2, 1920, which coincided with the entrance of Bolsheviks into Armenia.Gümrü Treaty shows that in neither region of the Ottoman state, did the Armenians make up the majority of the population.

And both writers told that the Armenian prime minister Simon Vratzian applied to the Turkish government on March 18, 1921 and asked military help of the Turks against the Bolsheviks!

Of course, even these few examples give great harm to the present Armenian thesis and lead people to question the Armenian’s innocence, their predominance in Ottoman population, and most importantly their genocide thesis.

Of course, the fact that Ottoman government offered the Dashnaks negotiations long before deportation is the major point that is not wanted by the Armenians to be known since they make great effort to show that the Ottoman government committed a genocide aiming ethnic cleansing.

And they fear the question of why and how the Armenian prime minister Simon Vratzian applied to the Turkish government on March 18, 1921 and asked military help of the Turks against the Bolsheviks, in spite of that the Turks committed a (so-called) genocide and murdered 1.5 million Armenians!

So, it is not surprising that both of these books are banned in Armenia. It is also a fact that all the copies of the book of Hovannes Katchaznouni, in all languages were collected from the libraries in Europe by Dashnags. The book is included in the catalogues but no copies can be found in the racks.

Because, Hovannes Katchaznouni, the first prime-minister of the Armenian state and K.S.Papazian were the greatest deniars and the most disingenous scholars/authorities of the Armenians' present thesis

To Seneca,

Here are the sources which I think useful:

Electronic sources:

Edward J Erickson. The Armenians and Ottoman Military Policy,1915. War in History 2008;15(2):141-167.
http://wih.sagepub.com/current.dtl

GORDUKLERIM YASADIKLARIM - I witnessed and lived through
Written by a Russian Lt Colonel- PDF format in Turkish-English-French and original Russian

“The Armenians in the Late Ottoman Period” Published by the Turkish Grand National Assembly 2001, Ankara http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/armenian.htm

Ismet Binark “Archive Documents About the Atrocities and Genocide Inflicted Upon Turks by Armenians” Published by the Turkish Grand National Assembly, 2002, Ankara http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin3/atrocity.htm

http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/yayinlar/yayin1/6-Halacoglu(109-142).pdf
The reasons of deportation discussed by Yusuf Halacoglu

Issues Missed in the 1915 Armenian Debate
http://www.tsk.mil.tr/eng/ermeni_sorunu_salonu/sarem_book.doc

The Armenian Question- Basic Knowledge & Documentation
Review of ARMENIAN STUDIES

A Quarterly Journal Of History, Politics and International Relations
Armenian Issue by Forsnet (http://www.ermenisorunu.gen.tr/english/intro/index.html)

ATAA Reference Center

VIDEOS:Sari Gelin Documentary:
The truth about Armenian Genocide-episode1,2,3,4,5,6,7

English Books:
Sukru Server AYA. "The Genocide of Truth". 2008.

Guenter Lewy The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide.University of Utah Press

Justin Mc Carthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Task&#305;ran, Ömer Turan. The Armenian Rebellion in Van. University of Utah Press

Kamuran Gurun. "The Armenian File" (1983)

Professor Justin McCarthy and Heath Lowry have quite a bit of papers like "Who fired the First Shot" and "The US Congress and Adolf Hitler on the Armenians".

Prof. Turkkaya Ataöv "What Happened to the Ottoman Armenians", "The British Blue Books: Vehicles of War Propaganda (1914-1918)", "An Armenian Source: Hovhannes Katchaznouni", "Hitler and the Armenian Question".

There are many other books written in Turkish. Some books of Prof. Yusuf Halacoglu and Hikmet Ozdemir are translated into English and are on sale on Amazon.com.
Thank you

akasya......

Many thanks for going to so much trouble.

You have created a most valuable resource.

sonofiere.....

Your use of the Inquisition is quite incorrect. The Inquisition burnt books and people not in agreement with Roman Catholic dogma.

Holocaust denial, for example, denies the truth of an historical event which is the most researched and documented event ever.
Motive, therfore, is relevant. Why deny an event which according to all the evidence occurred?

"Motive, therfore, is relevant. Why deny an event which according to all the evidence occurred?"

In response to Seneca's question, the Holocaust is proven. The Armenian matter is an assertion made through politics and prejudice, not through the facts.

There is no "evidence." The British tried very hard to find the judicial evidence at the end of the war, in their Nuremberg, the Malta Tribunal. Everything claimed in Armenian propaganda was considered, and rejected, "evidence" such as British war propaganda (e.g., the Blue Book), U.S. State archival documents (Morgenthau, consuls, missionaries), newspaper coverage, 1919-20 puppet Ottoman government's kangaroo courts-martial; the British even had total access to the Ottoman archives, appointing an Armenian in charge for over two years, and the real evidence demonstrated that the Ottomans tried to protect the Armenians. (Some such documents were taken away and may be found today in the British archives.) "Personal opinions" is what one British official said of the "evidence," which is another word for "hearsay," and then there were the many forgeries, as that of Aram Andonian's Naim Bey memoirs. Every single one of the accused parties, totaling 144 at the height of the process, was released, none charged with any crime.

Motive is indeed relevant. The reason why the "evidence" falls short is that there was no motive to exterminate Armenians as the Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews. The Armenians served as a powerful and wealthy segment of Ottoman society, and there was no network of hatred against them. After the 1877-78 Russo-Turkish War, fanatical Armenian leaders kicked into high gear, aided by their missionary allies, and Ottoman-Armenians as a whole either learned to regard Turks as racially inferior or were coerced (via terrorism) to turn against their country. They joined the allies, and were subsequently relocated by the Ottoman government. Most Armenians who died lost their lives through famine and disease, as most of the nearly three million other Ottomans who died, even the soldiers. Armenians who were massacred were killed by locals, acting on their own accord; there is simply no evidence tying in the central government.

A post by Mr Right, from above: "Another example of people taking on things that they don't have to. I mean,how many people bother 'denying' events like the Holocaust and what happened to Armenians? The answer is, only a very few nutty intellectuals trying to attract attention to themselves. Most people don't know and don't care.

Mr. Right is right when he says most don't care. The only reason why "deniers" bother to get involved is for reasons of defense, and in defense of the truth because, unfortunately, genocide-involved people can be very passionate, very dogmatic, and often fanatical. If Mr. Right were accused of a crime where there is no evidence, he would be "denying" the charges as well. Mr. Right is very wrong when he labels professors as Norman Stone as "nutty." That is a highly un-intellectual comment, and if Mr. Right is so sure of the genocide evidence, he is welcome to point to it. What we may more correctly call those few intellectuals as Stone is "brave," since what will be have to gain by "attracting attention to himself"? Those who are for genocide make money in the highly profitable genocide business; those who point out the falsehoods only invite trouble and ostracism, and defamation such as charges of being "nutty." The only reason why a professor of integrity would dare to go against the tide, as far as the Armenian claims, is to tell and defend the truth.

Regarding Mr. Doolan's fine article:

"The great majority of informed commentators, including Harvard’s Samantha Fox, regard the terrible actions of the Ottoman authorities to have been genocide."

Anyone with minimal objectivity and the desire to peruse below the surface can quickly see what a sham the Armenian genocide claim is. If "Harvard’s Samantha Fox" has concluded genocide, she has only consulted the ubiquitous propaganda, and that hardly makes her a "competent" commentator, let alone an "informed" one.

"intent to destroy" is indeed important.

From 1902 to 1923 we see a strong intention to destroy the Ottoman Empire and wipe out its Muslim Turks from all lands captured by the invading forces.

For instance; prior to 1912, 80% of Bulgarian land was registered to Muslims, but no Muslims remain there now. Turkish names were wiped out from the historic grave stones and at one time it was deemed illegal to use Turkish names, let alone speak Turkish. Similar events took place in all Balkan Countries.

In contrast for over 600 years, Armenians freely practiced their religion and spoke their language under the Turkish Ottoman rule. How could the same government all of a sudden, decide to carry out Armenian genocide at a time when majority of its high ranking government posts were held by Armenians? e.g. The Ministry of Foreign Afafirs, the Finance Department, and all trade was in the hands of Armenians during 1915.

Obviously the Ottoman Government had no intention to perform Armenian genocide; when armed Armenians pillaged Muslim villages in cooperation with invading Russian forces, Turkish government reacted with a tactical decision to relocate them from the zone they posed a danger to the Ottoman Army's maneuvers.

The Armenians' hatred of Turks is evident from folk songs of the times. Whereas no hatred of Armenians has been traced to Turkish people. "People's hatred" and "intent to destroy" are very important.

Let us reevaluate Armenia’s persistence on the word ‘genocide’ from a different perspective:

Armenia’s attitude towards Turkey’s land integrity: Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence of August 23, 1990; refers to Eastern Anatolia of Turkey as Western Armenia and as such beholds that this area is part of Armenia. Since the Armenian constitution recognizes as a basis “the fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood and national aspirations engraved in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia”, it likewise accepts the characterization of Eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia and this, albeit indirectly, translates into the advancement of territorial claims. The Armenian politicians and school books call Eastern Anatolia of Turkey, ‘invaded mother land of Armenia’ and in Armenia the school children are being grown up being conditioned to be patriots to rescue their invaded land. Even the marches they sing are about this condition. The Armenians who write in such blogs that the Eastern Anatolia cities do not belong to Turkey, as if the present Eastern boundaries of Turkey was not determined by treaties of Gumru (1920), Moscow (1921) and the whole boundaries by Lausanne (1923) Treaties; after the Turkish Freedom War.

Additionally Armenia refused Turkey’s recurrent offers to commit an agreement declaring that each country recognizes the other country’s land integrity, in 1992 and later.

Why do the Armenians force Turkey to accept a genocide? The answer is hidden in a speech of the chief of Dashnak Party Hrant Markaryan who told that their efforts for the recognition of Armenian (so-called) genocide was not an isolated purpose but it was a part of the struggle for rescue of the West Armenia (Armenian Forum Vol2 No 4; Armenian Weekly On-line, 18 June, 4 July 2003). The Armenian then prime minister Andranik Markaryan told that the internationally recognition of (so called) Armenian genocide and demanding land from Ankara as 'compensation' was possible only after Armenia had strengthened and the Armenians should not have told that they demanded land from Ankara loudly and everywhere (Arminfo 26 May 2004). On one occasion President Kocharian stated that since today’s Armenia does not have the clout to advance such demands, doing so should be left to future generations at a time when conditions would hopefully be better suited to this end'. A poll taken in Armenia revealed that almost all youngsters in the Republic of Armenia wished to follow up with land claims from Turkey and 90% of them said Turkey must unequivocally accept genocide allegations. (Milliyet - April 11, 2006)

The world should not forget that Germany's claim on Zudetland and Gdansk just because they were its historical lands caused burst of World War II! History is full of wars which broke up because of claims of states on their historical lands. If an item like the aforementioned Armenian item were present in the lawbook of Mexico claiming that Texas, Arizonna, New Mexico and California which were historical lands of Mexico, belonged to Mexico but invaded, would the American tolerate it?

Therefore the world should not overlook Armenia’s aggressivity, which is hidden behind their role of victim and should think about the price of their support to the Armenians very well.

The documents the Armenians present to prove that genocide occurred consists of many forgeries. For example:



1) The number of Armenians who were relocated:

The number of the Armenians who were relocated was reported as 600-700 thousand by Bo&#287;os Nubar Pasha who attended to the talks of Sevres Treaty as a chief of Armenians. However the number of relocated Armenians is given as 1.5 million by some Armenian sources and 2 and even 2.5 million by some others.

2) Aram Andonian’s book (The telegrams which were claimed to have been sent by Talat Pasha to order the massacre of the Armenians which were pressed in the book of Aram Andonian in 1920, in three languages): It was proven by both the Turkish and foreign historians that these telegrams were fake too.

After these telegrams were published in Daily Telegraph in England, in 1922, the English Foreign Ministry made a scrutiny and denounced that they were prepared by an Armenian association.

3) Diary of American Ambassador Morgenthau published in 1918. Professor Heath Lowry, an American historian from Princeton University displayed that the events depicted in the book depended on lies or half true events, by comparing the information Ambassador Morgenthau sent to American Foreign Ministry, with those written in the diary, in his book entitled ‘The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, in 1990 .

4) The cover photograph of the book of Tessa Hoffmann: Tessa Hoffmann printed the painting of Russian artist Vasili Vereshchagin depicting a mass of skulls which was painted in 1871, as if it were the photograph of 1915 Armenian genocide, in the cover of his book and had to admit his forgery during the trial of Do&#287;u Perinçek held in Switzerland in March 2007, in which he was listened as a wittness

Interesting article. And from the posts it again demonstrates that history changes perspective depending on the viewpoint. Australians should well understand this considering our own history.

That's why, regardless of what may be the official, or generally understood to be the truthful version of history, it is concerning when laws are made to prohibit an alternative view. It is not even so much an issue of free speech.

How can a view that might be erroneous be corrected if it has to stay underground? Making expressing a particular view punishable by law does not make it go away or even make it more wrong, you know, as opposed to just a little wrong.

Also by strenuously denying any other voices will not alter what happened. It will not diminish the suffering of any individual.

Maybe by listening to the other side, by seeing how something horrible was justified at the time will make us more alert to similar arguments today and prevent genocide from occurring in the first place.

We are all getting steamed up about 'true' versions of history without acknowledging that the very atrocities we condemn are still happening today and will continue to happen. Official versions of which future historians could be jailed for. It is insane.

Creating a law against deniers of anything does not diminish the culpability of those standing by pleading it didn't concern me.

However unpalatable, the actions of peoples in every historical event made perfect sense to all the players on all sides. There is no such thing as the 'good' guys and the 'bad' guys. That only happens in B grade movies.

I wonder how easily people who advocate human rights, peace and freedom of speech forgot all the following:

Did the Armenians not establish outlawed terrorist organizations ASALA, JCAG (Justice Commandos for Armenian Genocide) and ARA (Armenian Revolutionary Army) and did they not perform dozens of murders and hundreds of terrorist activities? Because of these Armenian terrorist organization’s activities, did 70 people not die (39 of whom being innocent Turkish diplomats); were 524 people not wounded; were 105 not pledged? Additionally did these organizations not perform 208 bombing activities during 1975-1986? Then, they did not stop; they only passed on their trade to kill Turkish people to the PKK.

What did the American Armenians do when Armenian Yan&#305;kyan, who murdered the Turkish diplomats Mehmet Baydar and Bahadir Demir in Santa Barbara, California and surrendered the police (and inspired the formation of ASALA afterwards) ? The Armenians gathered around the district and SALUTED the murderer!

The Armenian criminal of Orly Airport massacre, Karapetyan, a member of ASALA, who was imprisoned for 18 years but set free by France, Armenians’ ally in crime, returned to Armenia in May 2001, he was welcomed by the then Armenian prime minister A.Margaryan, the Armenian folk and journalists who applauded him as if he were a national hero. A. Margaryan told that he appreciated this hero’s service for his country. Armenian Yerivan municipality provided work and house for the MURDERER (www.prima-news.ru/news/articles/2001/9/13/15705.html)

A monument of Tehleryan, the murderer of Talat Pasha was erected in Yerivan in 2006 (Milliyet March 17,2006 and Agos March 24, 2006)

Mourad Topalian, ex-leader of Armenian National Committee of America was sentenced to 36 months in prison for his complicity in bombing the Turkish mission at the United Nations. In spite of this, he was not labeled a terrorist by Armenian Americans.

In the lecture of Richard G Hovannisian, held in Florida Atlantic University, on April 2, 2008, one Armenian woman told that the Armenians should have killed more Turkish diplomats!........

.....The inadequacy of the international community to give honest and evidence-based responses to the massacres inflicted upon Turks/Muslims by the Armenians in Anatolia in the 1st World War, and its tolerance to aforementioned Armenian terrorism, led the Armenians to perform new Turkish massacres during their invasion of the Azerbaijani territory in 1992. The genocide of the Azarbaijani Turks by the Armenians in Hocali; was witnessed by the European journalists: One woman’s fingers were plucked and two men’s skins were flayed. (The Economist March 7, 1992, p.48), some were burned, some of the bodies were destroyed (New Republic Vol 206, No 14, April 6, 1992, p.11); more than 1000 Azarbaijani Turks were massacred (‘Faces of Massacre’ Newsweek, March 16, 1992; ‘Massacre by Armenians Being Reported’. The New York Times, March 3, 1992)].

Here are other examples showing that the Armenians have adopted the language of violence as a life style:

The Armenians committed sabotage upon the house of American historian Stanford J Shaw just because he declared that Armenian genocide did not occur in 1977. They also murdered their own chairman of assembly Karen Demirciyan and prime minister Vazgen Sarkisyan in the Armenian Parliament building, in 1999. (http://raufray.worldpress.com/2008/03/14/armenianterror)

Turkish prime minister and Turkish Assembly several times suggested Armenia to discuss these events together with historians from both sides and even historians from other countries. Armenia persistently refused. By making the parliaments pressure to pass genocide resolutions, Armenia aims to bypass historical realities and wants to escape from facing with its own history unlike Turkey.
Therefore, people and countries who support Armenia in its policy, foster and approve violence which had become Armenian national language, instead of supporting dialogue and peace for other countries.

PC: But, when Hrant Dink was murdered, Turkish people, president, all members of goverment, bureaucrats from all levels, journalists sincerely mourned and condemned the murderer. Millions of Turkish citizens gathered in his funeral ceremony and shouted as ‘we are all Armenian’ with tears. Including the annual Press Freedom Award of Turkish Journalist Association, Hrant Dink was awarded with many prizes, after his death.

This is becoming tedious.

"Passy" and "Seneca" . . .

For anyone to claim that collective knowledge about past events should be set in stone . . . that there is nothing more to be discovered . . . that all the "truths" are established . . . that the "sacred cows" cannot be questioned because doing so may hurt someone's feelings . . . is as arrogant as saying we have discovered everything there is to know about physics, or medicine or the origin of the universe. It is absurd. I don't believe in "sacred cows" . . . period, even if questioning those sacred cows causes "offense" to someone else. Verbal or written "offense" is, almost always, in the subjective eye and ear of the beholder. I can't count the number of times I have caused "offense" to some hyper-sensitive soul because THEIR definition of an adjective that I used to describe something had a different emotional connotation than my definition of the SAME word. I'm not psychic. Am I supposed to walk around in a state of fear about offending people because of the possibility they may misinterpret an honest expression of OPINION as a personal insult? I get annoyed and offended by "Passy"s" Marxist dogma everytime he puts a word to a page, but I would not dream of suppressing his right to do so . . . as long as he does not cause me PHYSICAL harm.
Look, this is not rocket science folks. If someone is so emotionally fragile as to fall apart over WORDS, how in heaven's name are they going to survive in this world? Earth is not a monastery. I have a pretty thick skin, and I have been insulted many times by people who have called me "stupid" simply because I expressed an opinion different than their own. So what? The world did not come to an end.

It was Churchill early in WW2 who declared that he preferred his top generals to have a thorough knowledge of historical strategy right back to the Greeks.

No doubt Churchill's grave mistake over giving the order for the alled attack on Gallipoli early in WW1 had got conveniently stuck in his mind.

However, though a knowledge of historical strategy is all-important for leaders, it is surprising how many of our leaders pattern the needed strategy for today on lessons they say of early WW2.

Rather than an obvious build-up and takeovers by the Nazi forces, we have had much smaller incidents such as the 9/11 attack, the Americans putting on such a show as if their whole nation was to be taken over.

Similar to the overdone occupation of Iraq, which is now in the position that Saddam's Sunni forces our allies went into defeat because they were so cruel to the Shias, are now on the American side trying to defeat Iraqi Shias whom apparently got fed up with the Americans trying to save them?

With much of the blame now being lofted on Shia Iran, even academic historians are wondering what warlike events back in history could be similar to it?

Of course, we might get over it by placing the whole blame on Islam, or even Mahomet.

Or why not on Christianity which hasn't proven as snow white as it's Angel's wings neither?

We might ask where do genuine historical laws come in below?

It has been asked in the Guardian newspaper recently why the Americans have such a love of war?

Maybe the same can be asked of the Islamics?

Also historically the white Western races are descended from the warlike barbarians over the Alps, as the Romans called the Germanics.

Also the mostly Arab Islamics are descended from barborous Arabic tribes.

The British Germanics of a smallish island state, have proven themselves as seafarers as well as ruthless colonialists, becoming a powerful global entity, to colonise North America, beginning what is now not only the independent entity of the United States, but today the world’s ever strongest power.

From the above we hsve the horrific situation in the Middle East, seemingly consisting of tribal problems between mostly whites and dusky off-whites, which according to the United States President, George W Bush, is mostly about right and wrong.

But should a leader of a nation based on the colonial subjugation of native inhabitants be lawfully trusted to make decisions about right or wrong?

Indeed, it was Immanuel Kant, German philosopher who declared back in the late 17th century, that not one personage, nor one nation even under God should ever be trusted to have dictatorship over this world?

Thus it was the League of Nations followed by the present United Nations, both beginning with a belief in a democratic representation of Kantian global philosophy, which was simply an elected federation of world nations of arranged equal power, with multilateral shared leadership.

But the problem has never ever been solved of how to prevent one ruthless big power unlawfully ruling the world, and the only nation allowed to have an unlimited armoury - as it was to some measure with Britain with the League' and to the full right now with the United States from the UN?