Why should we recognise the Armenian genocide?

>I'm not a turk or anything,
youtube.com/watch?v=WcWM_1hBu_c

>inhuman death march

t.turkroach

>who gives a fuck what it's called
Because it was a systematic massacre of an ethnic peoples, as defined by the word "genocide" you filthy roach.

Jeeze do you not understand what I mean all genocides are just political footballs for liberal politicians to fight over for dmographic votes and liberal guilt votes

You're a fucking idiot.

The only reason why the armenian genocide is a "thing" now is because the soviets pushed for it to have a claim on east Turkey. The only reason why its a thing now is because of Armenian diaspora money and lobbying + politics (in the case of france pandering to its armenian minority for votes etc).

So yes, its completely about politics. The Armenian lobby is one of the biggest in America.

Difference is Turks were invaders of the Balkans while Armenians were invaded

Does that change anything about the fact that its ethnic cleansing of a people that lived there hor hundreds of years?

Nothing wrong with purging invaders from your own homeland.

The Turks did the opposite: they were the invaders who purged the Armenians off from Western Armenia.

I don't know why I'm even bothering with trying to lecture a Turkroach.

>Nothing wrong with purging invaders from your own homeland.
Irrelevant. We are not talking about whats right and wrong, We are talking about what it is, and its ethnic cleansing. If we are going to use this logic thn it would make Turkey even more justified, as it was Turkish land for centuries and not Armenian.

>The Turks did the opposite: they were the invaders who purged the Armenians off from Western Armenia.
Yeah, Turks captured the land, its theirs. And the Armenains were ALLOWED to keep living on the land for centuries.

>I don't know why I'm even bothering with trying to lecture a Turkroach.
Yeah, please dont bother replying to me again.

>Islam is responsible
Uh, I think it had more to do with ethnicity rather than religion, but okay.

>Why should we recognise the Armenian genocide?

to trigger turks

I have consulted the official textbooks, and there is no mention of any genocide.
OP is clearly either mentally ill or a gulanist agent provocateur.

>I'm not a turk or anything
Yeah...

Because they actually admit that mass killings by Roach troops happened but claim they never actually ordered it.
The eternal roach

>what do you think
That by any definition of "genocide", it was genocide.

>The only reason why the armenian genocide is a "thing" now is because the soviets pushed for it to have a claim on east Turkey.

No. It's because the Turks/Ottomans systematically exterminated 1.2 million of the Armenians in a clearly national government-run population removal.

You are retarded as fuck lol. There have been other acts of ethnic cleansing, for example belgian congo where 8 million lost their lives, happened after the Ottoman empire ethnic cleansing (not genocide), and yet you dont see anyone crying about it.

Its politics and politics only. The armenian cause became a thing many decades after it happened.

>belgian congo where 8 million lost their lives, happened after the Ottoman empire ethnic cleansing (not genocide)

You are fucking retarded if you don't know the difference between what happened in the Belgian Congo (wait, do you mean the free state?) and what happened in East Turkey.

>for example belgian congo where 8 million lost their lives,

>it's not genocide if the goverments don't report it

>You are fucking retarded if you don't know the difference between what happened in the Belgian Congo (wait, do you mean the free state?) and what happened in East Turkey.
Both was ethnic cleansing and not genocide. For examply the Armenians in West Turkey were left largely untouched. Everyone also likes the forget about the fact that there were armenian rebel groups fucking up the east hard. So i agree with you that i was wrong, one can consider what happened in Belgian congo being much more evil and harsh of degree, i guess we have something to agree on.

8 million? okay, 6 million, that better? or 5 million, thats better? 4.5 million? no? 4? no? less? just put a number on it mate, your pick

thanks for the deep insight and argument

>congo... happened after the Ottoman empire ethnic cleansing
The Armenian genocide (or whatever we choose to call it) happened during World War 1 in the 1910's, whereas the majority of the atrocities committed under the administration of the Congo Free State happened during the rubber boom of the 1890's.

>Dipshit: The Post

>average Veeky Forums user: the post

When Greece and Armenia reclaim Anatolia t*rks will get to live on native T*rk reservations like Native Americans in the US :^)

Don't blindly trust a propaganda. It wasn't really a genocide, anyway. Just organized mass murders of group of people. Such things happen from time to time in human history.

Of people of a specific culture.
Because they were of that culture.

>He actually believes this
Greece probably lost its only chance to reclaim Istanbul.

And why exactly are there still Armenians living in Istanbul today?

A. That was almost 100 years ago.
B. It happened almost exclusively in the Eastern part of the Ottoman Empire, from what is today's Armenia down into the Levant.
C. A genocide isn't necessarily a killing of all people of that ethnicity. There are Jews in Berlin today.

>A. That was almost 100 years ago.
Yes.
>B. It happened almost exclusively in the Eastern part of the Ottoman Empire, from what is today's Armenia down into the Levant.
Yes, but you said people of one culture, and the Armenians in west Turkey are part of that culture. So you just proved your point is invalid as not everyone of the same culture got destroyed, as there still is an Armenian community in Istanbul today.
>C. A genocide isn't necessarily a killing of all people of that ethnicity.
Yeah, you claimed a specific culture, yet not everyone of that specific culture was destroyed. So your point is invalid.

>There are Jews in Berlin today.

So what you are claiming right now, is that Hitler left the jews of Berlin alone. Is that what you are claming? So you are telling me that if i look it up right now im going to find information about Hitler not wanting to touch the jews of berlin as he claimed they were not of capability of doing danger. Is that what you are claiming?

A genocide doesn't not become a genocide because it wasn't successful in eliminating all its targets.

So you just claimed that the Ottoman was planning on eliminating the Armenians of Istanbul. So let me get this straight, Armenians, living in the heart of the ottoman empire, living in Istanbul, were left for last? So you are claiming now, that the ottomans decided to remove the people in the east, and after that start with the ones in Istanbul. Thats an interesting point. Do you have any proof of this? Not to even talk about how little it makes sense, as i would first kill the ones in Istanbul as they would be the easiest to target first. Right?

Let me asnwer for your dumb ass. You wont find any proof that the armenians in istanbul should be removed, as there never was an intention to do so since their potential of being a dangerous force against the empire was non existent. Next time you decide to talk about shit, think first, punk.

But why did the Ottomans only think the Armenians, Cilicians and Assyrians would possibly help the Russians?
Because they were Christians. Hence the killing.

Are you actually going to argue that the Armenians and Assyrians weren't targeted specifically by the Young Turks government to be deported, with most of those that were moved either being killed or dying on the way to their destinations?

>But why did the Ottomans only think the Armenians, Cilicians and Assyrians would possibly help the Russians?
there were active armenian rebel groups fighting against the ottoman empire and they gained numbers. The most logical thing to do in this case was to remove the Armenians in the east and deport them, everyone in charge would do this as you dont want to lose land.
>Because they were Christians. Hence the killing.
Them being what they are is irrelevant in this case. As i explained before christians in west turkey were left alone.

>Are you actually going to argue that the Armenians and Assyrians weren't targeted specifically by the Young Turks government to be deported
No, thats what im exactly saying. Armenians in the east were targeted for being a danger against the empire. Meanwhile christians in the west were left untouched.

And the actions against the Armenians in Eastern Turkey was a genocide against them, the Armenians in Eastern Turkey.

So now its not against a specific culture? Make up your mind.

It is against a specific culture, in that location. I don't see why you're arguing the semantics so hard here. It seems like you agree with me.

>It is against a specific culture, in that location.
You are claiming that the christians living in the west differ from the ones living in the east, which is just wrong. You are claiming that if the christians in west turkey, would have also been targeted if they had the same culture in the east. You are the one grasping at straws here, not me.

Well, they very obviously differ from the ones in the East. The Christians in the West weren't in the path of the potential Russian advance. That's a pretty key difference, wouldn't you say?

Not an argument

>You are claiming that the christians living in the west differ from the ones living in the east,

Which is literally correct.

Not a genocide :^)

>Well, they very obviously differ from the ones in the East.
The differences are not big enough to be relevant in this case. You could easily give me a long big list what the differences are.

> The Christians in the West weren't in the path of the potential Russian advance.
So you AGAIN gave proof that it wasnt about what they are but simply because of their potential danger. You are literally saying the christians in the east were targeted as they were a danger to the empire and the christians in the west were left untouched. If the christians in the west would also have been a potential danger to the empire, they would have also been removed. In this case they could have been buddhists, or aliens. The fact of the matter is that there were active Armenian rebel groups that fucked shit up in the east. You just justified the deportations of the Armenians in the east as every single on of them as a potential Russian ally/rebel. What happened during these deportations are irrelevant of the choice of them having deported, as its ultimately more important to keep your land. The same would have happened to Kurdish groups if they rebelled against the ottoman empire.

>That's a pretty key difference, wouldn't you say?
Thats LITERALLY what i have been saying here, thats MY argument you dumb fucking retard. You LITERALLY explained that the Armenians in the east were deported as they were a danger. You literally just agreed with me that the christians in the west were left untouched not because of their culture but simply because they were not a potential danger to the empire.

Listen, just stop, you already lost the moment you claimed the Ottoman empire was planning on removing all the christians in west turkey. You have 0.00 proof for that. You literally claimed that there was intention to do that but you have no proof, the only logical conclusion according to your definition is that there was no genocide.

>TIDF is real thing.

Here I thought it was only memes.

>Maybe if I say that I'm not a turk they won't realize that I'm a turk

>Expecting Turkroaches to have any semblance of critical thinking

>as it was Turkish land for centuries and not Armenian.
>Yeah, Turks captured the land, its theirs.
Turks have no claim at any place they used to occupy considering that all non-Turkish ethnicities have been living there much longer than when the Turks laid their hands on.

>For examply the Armenians in West Turkey were left largely untouched.
That's fucking wrong, since the Great Fire of Smyrna was done to purge all Christians who lived in the area.

that is great and all but the picture is from a movie
there weren't any crucified christian girls
ottoman empire wasn't ruled with sharia law

this picture is also forged
in fact the only real pictures of armenian "genocide" shows some armenians starving in the middle-east after their deportations but no one tells you that anatolia was suffering just the same

>greeks burn down all of west anatolia
>but turks burned down symrna, a city they had just captured :^)

fuck off 60 iq greek gypsy

That "coolheaded armo" does not exist in real life.
At least for LA. Roaches are not the ones who chimpout outside embassies-blocking traffic.

>>greeks burn down all of west anatolia
Don't act like the Greek genocide didn't happen, roach.

>Turks have no claim at any place they used to occupy considering that all non-Turkish ethnicities have been living there much longer than when the Turks laid their hands on.
They have a claim on it because they conquered it idiot. Its only fair play to the balkans and Greece for ethnically cleansing the Ottoman muslims and getting their land back, but ultimately the Turks had a claim on that land since they literally owned it. The Armenians tried to do the same with east turkey and they got destroyed in turn. Their fault, maybe if they played their game a bit smarter and didnt rebel and fuck the east up so hard, they could still live on that land what is now infested with k*rds.

Thats a different time. It was in 1922 and the empire was no more. There were different reasons to why the great fire was needed by Ataturk.

Are you denying Greeks invading west turkey and fucking shit up? They only asked for it, clear and simple. They lost, fair and simple. If the greek genocide happened, so did the Ottoman muslim genocide in Greece, but no, it was both simple ethnic cleansing. The only reason why you guys believe one was so is because you dont care about muslims (which i understand), but dont go and complain afterwards we dont give a fuck about your claim of a ""genocide". You can keep calling us brainwashed, nope, we are simply uncucked.

>Roach reveals his butthurt at last

Listen Ogluzu, I understand that human qualities like "empathy" and "shame" are not present in you roaches, but surely you can see the difference between removing Turks, who are not native to Anatolia or the Balkans, vs removing Greeks and Armenians, who are native to West Anatolia and Western Armenia, respectively.

I understand that you gypsies feel the need to keep your forged identity that Atakurd created, after all, without that you niggers would have nothing. That being said, have you ever stopped and thought about just how much you people have stolen from others?

Since you retards love calling yourself "Turkic", why don't you fuck off back to Turkmenistan, and take those monkey Azeris with you too. I have no idea why Turks believe they have any claim to land in Anatolia or the Caucasus.

Why is genocide bad?

>Are you denying Greeks invading west turkey

West Anatolia is rightful Greek clay.

>Roach reveals his butthurt at last
Its clear who the one butthurt is.

>Listen Ogluzu, I understand that human qualities like "empathy" and "shame" are not present in you roaches
such things are for the weak

>but surely you can see the difference between removing Turks, who are not native to Anatolia or the Balkans, vs removing Greeks and Armenians, who are native to West Anatolia and Western Armenia, respectively.
irrelevant, if we could we would have removed all the greeks and all people living in the balkans if that meant saving all the ottoman muslims but unfortunately it could not be so, its us vs them, if you make such a big difference in one being there earlier, thats great for you, couldnt give less off a fuck myself, im glad we are able to save cypriot turks from ethnic cleansing not long ago

>I understand that you gypsies feel the need to keep your forged identity that Atakurd created, after all, without that you niggers would have nothing. That being said, have you ever stopped and thought about just how much you people have stolen from others?
oh wow go cry more, i mean sure, dislike us, but we couldnt give less of a fuck, you wont be able to brainwash us and turn us into cucks like germans

>Since you retards love calling yourself "Turkic", why don't you fuck off back to Turkmenistan, and take those monkey Azeris with you too. I have no idea why Turks believe they have any claim to land in Anatolia or the Caucasus.
We have a claim because we conquered it, retard. Go be more butthurt.

come and get it

What game?

If my country recongnize the armenian genocide, they would also have to recongnize the genocides made in Africa and South America.
And we're taught in school that we were very good and not bad. Only commies are bad.

Holy shit I didn't think of this before thank you user

Claiming Islam causes the Armenian genocide is like saying Christianity caused the holocaust. Sure it might have played a part but the Nazis were responsible for the holocaust and Enver Pasha was responsible for the Armenian genocide, along with other of course but I find it hard to name a group. Also the most realistic estimate is 1.5 million.

except turks are natives of anatolia, who were just turkified. just as many native anatolians were hellenized during hellenistic-roman and byzantine era

What you are suggesting is absurd, that if you convert to the wrong religion, if you begin to speak the wrong language suddenly you stop being a native.

The average "roach" you talk about looks far more like a greek or armenian, than a turk that lives in Kyrgyzstan.

Turks did not arrived, in 19th century, genocided the natives and settled anatolia with their slanty eyes. Turkic migrants were always a minority, and it was locals that were converted/turkified in a gradual proces. What genocides did was to homogenize the country

Killing average pissant farmer in balkans who happened to be a muslim just because they share the invaders religion is as absurd as killing average christian farmer in anatolia just because a tiny minority was a insurgent

I love this balkan-turk-armenian mentality, they are proud of the genocides they commit, they boast how many people they massacred, but they cry wolf when the same thing happens to them. If you justify one genocide over other you are fucked up, for most who died in the process had nothing to do with invasion/insurgency that you use to justify your deeds.

Not even a t*rk but triggered
>sharia law
when t*rkroaches had a different law
>islam
when the reason was ethnic

Also that pic is from a movie. I never knew propaganda could be so retarded

thats the most retarded picture ive ever seen

why would it matter if they were native or not, its always tragic when civilians get murdered

pic related is a book by lemkin, armenians LOVE to bring him up and talk about how he coined the term and took armenians as an example, what they LOVE to never bring up is how he brought up MULTIPLE examples...

and pic related is a picture of his unfinished book, where he literally talks about a genocide against turks by the greeks

showing them this makes them shut up real fast about lemkin, lol

Armenians burned Turkish villages and raped women, then Turks genocided them. It's just plain revenge.

Go away Cenk

...

Except German ambassador noted most of massacres happened in peaceful provinces.
It wasn't revenge. It was Turkish nation-building, by killing every Christian in Anatolia.
So a region that was 20-25% Christian by the end of 19th century is 99.9% Muslim now.
>average pissant farmer
Muslims weren't ''average pissant farmers''. They were elite that exploited Christians and owned 90% of land in Bosnia for example.
It's either us or them. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, if we let Muslims be we'd just be tying the noose around our neck and hope they don't kick the chair.
I don't expect mercy from a Muslim, so they shouldn't expect any from us.

>It wasn't revenge. It was Turkish nation-building, by killing every Christian in Anatolia.
It was Turkish nation building by killing christians in anatolia... but leaving them alone in west turkey? Thats cool. Also interesting how the area is now filled with Kurds and not Turks. The only one who did turkish nation building was ataturk and that was at the time the empire was no more so your point is invalid.

>Muslims weren't ''average pissant farmers''. They were elite that exploited Christians and owned 90% of land in Bosnia for example.
You are retarded. Many of them were farmers etc that lived for centuries in the balkans/greece. There were tons of Turkish farmers in Bulgaria and after they got cleansed Bulgaria had to start buying/importing food from turkey..

>It's either us or them. It doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong, if we let Muslims be we'd just be tying the noose around our neck and hope they don't kick the chair.
>I don't expect mercy from a Muslim, so they shouldn't expect any from us.

If the Armenians were not deported all of them would have allied with the Russians and if the treaty of sevres would have actually gone true all the Turks living on that land would have been cleansed. So yes, finally someone that says something usefull! For the ottomans it was either losing land or not, so they did what they had to do win in the east while they lost in the balkans and greece. Its all fair play. Armenians played their cards and lost. Its refreshing to see someone who understands this. I dont expect you to give a fuck about the ethnic cleansing of turks, and you dont expect me to give a fuck about the ethnic cleansing of whatever and we will all be happy.

>not a turk
>all of op's knowledge in the subject is turkish propoganda

Yeah okay kebab

To be fair Turks aren't particularly known for crucifixions. The Turkish Sword Dance on the other hand is more their specialty. They would tie a naked girl between two chairs, and place a sword pointy end up in the ground. The girl would get tired and her pussy would touch the sword, causing her to jump back up, hence the "dance." Eventually she would be too exhausted to keep up and would be impaled.

Contemporaries described it as extremely arousing to the troops.

>but leaving them alone in west turkey?
There are no Christians in West Turkey.
>Also interesting how the area is now filled with Kurds and not Turks.
Kurds participated in massacres too.
>Many of them were farmers etc that lived for centuries in the balkans/greece.
Who cares, they were Muslim.
>I dont expect you to give a fuck about the ethnic cleansing of turks, and you dont expect me to give a fuck about the ethnic cleansing of whatever and we will all be happy.
Exactly.

>There are no Christians in West Turkey.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey

you tie the killings of armenians to turkish nation building, so how come these people were not killed in the same time period? Are these not supposed to have been killed first since they lived in the heart of the empire?

>Kurds participated in massacres too.
yeah, kinda weird that its all inhabited by kurds now if its "turkish nation building"

>Who cares, they were Muslim.
so you agree that you were wrong, okay

Im not going to deny that the cleansing of Armenians turned in the favor of Ataturk with his new nation, but it had nothing to do with what you are claiming. The population exchange for example was real nation building.

hi OP, it's better to bring back this political discussion closer to home.

System of a Down - War
vs
Iron Maiden - Run To The Hills

> spoiler: the genocide of red indians is a far worse atrocity. cause Iron Maiden clearly wrote a better song.

>Are these not supposed to have been killed first since they lived in the heart of the empire?
Guess they didn't have resources or wits to multitask.
But they would get to it.
>kinda weird that its all inhabited by kurds now if its "turkish nation building"
Turks killed too, I just said Kurds participated. Leaders were Turks in any case.
>so you agree that you were wrong, okay
Nope. Muslims were privileged class (and invaders) that fucked this region for centuries.
I already mentioned the fact that in Bosnia for example 90% of land was Muslim.
>but it had nothing to do with what you are claiming
It did.
Turk never had a clear meaning really, Turks are mostly converts who adopted language and religion of conquerors. Turkish nation virtually didn't exist before late 19th/early 20th century.

>But they would get to it.
so basically "im wrong but i dont want to say it"

>Turks killed too, I just said Kurds participated. Leaders were Turks in any case.
Yeah, and its weird that its literally all inhabited by kurds now, no? Its weird to do turkish nation building, kill someone, and give that land to someone non turkish. Man, Turks really must be dumb.

>I already mentioned the fact that in Bosnia for example 90% of land was Muslim.
doesnt change the fact that the average ottoman muslim in the balkan lived there for centuries on a non combat role

>It did.
nope

>You just justified the deportations of the Armenians in the east as every single on of them as a potential Russian ally/rebel
>POTENTIAL for joining the enemy
>This means they were totally helping Russians and therefore enemy
>Implying that potential for joining enemy is justification for deportations and genocide
But what else should be expected from Turkroach.

you ignore the fact that there were already active armenian rebel groups and more being formed as they were fucking shit up in the east, like everyone else does, everyone with half a brain in charge of the empire would deport them all, if you dont you are just delusional as fuck

>so basically "im wrong but i dont want to say it"
What were Hamidian massacres?
>and give that land to someone non turkish.
Kurds were suitable settlers, and they were Muslim.
>doesnt change the fact that the average ottoman muslim in the balkan lived there for centuries on a non combat role
...and had Christian serfs work his land, and enjoyed privileged status in every aspect.

>What were Hamidian massacres?
What about them?
>Kurds were suitable settlers, and they were Muslim.
so it wasnt about turkish nation building, k
>...and had Christian serfs work his land, and enjoyed privileged status in every aspect.
Still innocent people who lived there for centuries. I dont have a problem with them getting massacred, as its ultimately the ottoman empires fault for not protecting them and massacring the people who massacred them.

>What about them?
What was the reason for them?
>so it wasnt about turkish nation building, k
Removing unsuitable minorities is nation-building. Kurds were suitable back then.
>Still innocent people
And Armenians and Greeks and Assyrians were all criminals?
>massacring the people who massacred them
Massacring the people who did that was exactly what led them to do it. Dumb Turk.

Sorta related, but are Turks more or less delusional than Chinese? Chinese at least somewhat understand that mainland china is shit, but will never admit it and just talk shit about other countries, where as Turks just deny anything bad about their country, and everyone who disagrees is actually Gulen, lives on cyprus, or is armenian.

>What was the reason for them?
What does it have to do about "turkish nation building"? You are the one who needs to answer that, dumb idiot.

>Removing unsuitable minorities is nation-building.

Yeah, thats what Ataturk did with the populaton exchange. So you are literally claiming the ottoman empire was "nation building"... You are retarded as fuck and have no idea what you are talking about. You just keep on grasping at straws like a couple other dudes in this thread do. Retards like you need to know when to stop, its like talking with a retarded child.

Balkanites arent better desu. I dont know whats wrong with these peope down there.

They might as well be the most nationalistic people on Earth right now. And they have made literally no contributions to mankind other than destroying other civilizations. Quite a feat.

>Balkanites arent better
What? Have you spoken to balkanites, at all? Most of them agree that their countries are shitty, at least at the moment, except for the Serbs maybe. Greeks are a special case because they actually have many achievements to boast about in the past so pride is expected, but they too accept that their country is a German colony nowadays.