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 Boğos 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 Doğu 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 Yanıkyan, 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.