Quoting AEnigma III: Quoting si++: Muslim and Armenians were killing each other, Ottomans decided to relocate the Armenians to save their lives(A good intention) A BAD INTENTION to pretend it never happened and try to say it was for "their own good". I wonder if the Armenians see it that way? Quoting si++: American took their decision of dropping atomic bombs targeting to kill as many civilians as possible At least the US don't deny it happened! Its so typical of Turks to avoid questions about their wrong-doings and just find wrong-doings from other countries as their "defence"

The definitional article included in the 1948 convention stipulates:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion. Now tell me can you see any "intent to destroy" in the Ottoman decision? But I can see it in the American one.

The Ottoman Empire was not an empire like the others, meaning that it was not built through colonization. It was created by the necessity of self-defense. And Ottoman rulers believed that it was their God-given duty to protect the peoples of the countries they ruled. For example, they reduced taxes in all those countries, abolished taxes in poor countries, and even sent sacks of gold to countries and cities in need, including some European cities. They sent food to Ireland when it was badly needed. They sent aid as far as Indonesia. They treated all citizens equally. When they liberated Cyprus from the occupation of Catholics, they sent gold, materials, personnel, and even drawings to repair Orthodox churches left in ruin by the Catholic occupiers. This is how the Ottoman "Empire" lived for 500 years. Armenians were given the status of preferred people because of their activities useful to all citizens.

After the Ottoman rule's usefulness and power diminished, Western states began dismantling the Ottoman "Empire" for colonizing many of the countries they "liberated." Their main strategy was to promise independence to the non-Turkish citizens and to help them to rebel against the State. This strategy worked well in the Balkans and in the south of Anatolia, because Turks constituted a minority in most cities there.

But, the Westerners and the Russians made the mistake of using the "liberation" strategy also in Anatolia where the Turks constituted the majority. They choose the Armenians as their tool in Eastern Anatolia. For this strategy to work, Armenians had to become the majority, and this necessitated genocide against the Turks. This is how Anatolian genocide began, but it was committed extremely savagely by the Armenians against the Turks, with the help of Western powers and the Russian army invading Northeastern Anatolia. This is the great truth that has to be known by the whole world. Armenians joined Russian troupes in masses and also engaged in sabotage acts behind the Turkish army. The guilty Armenians fled with the retreating Russian forces. This process was repeated several times following the military developments and carried many Armenians outside Anatolia. The same things happened again in Southeastern Anatolia with French forces using the Armenians. Of course, Turks defended themselves but never committed the atrocities like those committed by Armenians. Also, more Turks died than Armenians, because Armenians were trying to realize genocide.

The Ottoman Government, which included Armenian ministers, ended the hostilities in Northeastern Anatolia by relocating the Armenians of the region to other places of the Empire. American missionaries accompanied the migration with the permission of the Ottoman Government. They did not report any act of genocide against Armenians. This is reported in the American journals of that time because the events of Northeast Anatolia have been discussed in the US Congress. The accusations directed to Turks have been manufactured afterwards.

One of the Armenians' reasons for accusing the Turks of having committed genocide is of course to secure material gains. And the Western politicians who support Armenian allegations are after the votes of the Armenian citizens of their countries. But the problem has deeper and less rational roots.

The Armenians who committed genocide against the Turks were after undeserved gains but suffered losses, although they hurt the Turks much. Consequently, they are now obsessed with the idea of genocide and compulsively try to compensate their losses.

Armenians murdered more than 60 innocent Turkish diplomats around the world in several decades in the 20th century. They tried genocide against the Azerbaijan people because they are of Turkic origin. French newspaper Le Monde wrote about those events: "We created monsters."

The French are the most ardent supporters of the Armenians, because France has a large population of Armenian immigrants, which means plenty of votes, and also because the French government has been the first Western government which accepted failure in using the Armenians against the Turks and made peace with the new Turkish government, thus deserting the Western camp.

The Turkish account of the Ottoman history was recorded by these official historians by chronological order:

Naima,Rasid,Suphi,Izzi,Vasif,Cevdet,Asim,Sani-zade,Lutfi.

For any view to hold water, you need to read all of the books written by those historians as well as the released reports on important affairs by foreign consulates in Turkey as well as the accounts of international historians.

For my part, I cannot claim to have gone through such a comprehensive research. In the absence of knowledge of histrory all we are talking about is merely based on speculations we hear from other people.

I invite everyone to be a bit careful when talking about such a vital subject. Don't forget we are talking about a genocide.

This is just weird! We are not talking about ancient history - its relatively recent events. Why is it still so vague? Why do we have to individually research in order to try and discover what happened?

More importantly, why haven't the Turkish government done this "research" long ago and put an end to speculation?