The history is very simple. The Ottomans killed some Armenians and caused some to die of sickness and possibly hunger ...yes !

But this did not happen when Turks first arrived at Anatolia ( like Europeans butchered American natives within 100 years of their arrival) or (like Germans when Jews started dominating their economy) or like (Italians in Algeria and French in Eithopia simply to continue their tyrany) or like (Sweeds,. simply because they were bored and wanted pure blood citizens in their country) In none of these cases the supressors ever shared sovereignity of the land with the people they massacred.

In Ottoman Empire. Turks and Armenians lived together for 800 years, in peace. There were times Armenians could have been cleaned out overnight. if that had been the Imperial intention. What you dont want to understand (possibly  because you have Armenian origins, and have a personal grief over the issue) is that the problem started when a part of the Armenian population rebelled against the Empire ( for welfare of which they were equally responsible. like any other ethnic group that made up the Empire), donned French and Russian Army uniforms and betrayed their own country. The rest of the Empire was fighting for its life in Gallipoli, at the time of this Armenian betrayal, for god´s sake  !

Rebelling Armenians definitely got what they deserved; they were not the first losing rebels in history...but they definitely are the only crying one.

The Russian records are open to verify my statement, and France is full of Armenian Memorials listing names of soldiers who lost their lives in Anatolia, in French uniform. Most of the names listed in those memorials have birthplaces in what was the Ottoman Empire, then.

I am telling you that Empire later court martialled some officers of the Empire - not for for killing rebellious Armenian gunmen, but causing perhaps unnecessary misery to some of the civilian  Armenians who lived in the area - some of those officers were found guilty and some even were punished with capital punisment. No Armenians other than those living in the area of rebellion or on critical supply routes to that area, suffered.

The next rebellion against the Empire was by Turks...which eventually ended up the Empire. The young Turkish Republic  does not carry any hatred or grudge towards the previous rebels, but has no intention of apologizing for what previous losing rebels suffered in the hands of a (now) non existent Empire either.

The choice for Republics of Turkia and Armenia, the two neighbor countries, now is to understand and acccept the history as it really was, forget past griefs and cooperate towards mutual welfare...or take advice from cold blooded murderers of the West and carry on with a totaly meaningles vendetta...

Turkia does not need me to protect her image - but I, as an intellectual, have every right to question the integrity and the credibility of those faceless accusers of Turkia...

And what griefs exactly do you or Turkey has to forget from Armenia? Why dont you google "Armenian genocide" to get a more objective story, even wikipedia will do.

"The denial of the Armenian Genocide is often identified by genocide scholars and historians as a crucial symbolic and ideological process which follows every genocide and which is intended to desensitize and to make possible the emergence of new forms of genocidal violence in the future." wiki

Do you know saying "There was no Armenian genocide" is subject to legal punuisment in some countries? Does that look equally ridiculus to you?

I bet, not !

It looks ridiculous to me. The matter is controversial, not really proven and/or not really fitting into the dictionary definition of genocide. Prosecuting somebody for daring to be of a different opinion is wrong and should not take place in countries which claim to support freedom of speech.

Yes, it is ridiculous!

DD - contrary to what you may hear, it is not a controversial matter.

Forget being hysterical about the issue catwoman...I have written enough for you to present a counter discussion, if you want any pragmatic results.

Blaming a nation with genocide is such a strong statement and it needs strong proofs. Gonecide has been defined by UN in 1948 and what happened in 1915 cannot be qualifed as such according to that definition. Armenians know it, otherwise they would have acted in that direction by now but they didn´t, you know. Instead they are lobbying everywhere to pass resolutions in some countries. Passing that resolutions doesn´t proove anything. As for those who vote for yes, I don´t think they know much about what happened in 1915. I don´t think they know where "Van" is and what Armenians did there before 1915 for example. But they know that the Armenian voters in their countries (US, France, Sweden etc.) will vote them during elections as a pay-back. And some posters in this thread refer to those votings as if they proove something. Get outta here...

And by the way Catwoman, you didn´t answer my question in this thread. It´s not very kind of you. You´re simply ignoring me. It´s not nice.

The amount of Armenian voters is so limited in Sweden, that the decision of the Swedish government has nothing to do with an Armenian pressure in their country.

It´s nice to quote a wikipedia source that says the Sweeds DIDN´T systematically kill Sami people (stop calling them Lapps) and then say that the Sweeds killed them in a genocide. How about looking at other sources for what happened to the Armenians? I think it´s very easy to recite what you have been dictated in a Turkish school. But how about informing yourself in every way possible first, then forming your own opinion. What I hear now is just a paste and copy from a school´s textbook.

So? You mean they voted yes because they know very well what happened back then and they had strong prooves that that was indeed and absolutely "genocide"? Nothing else, huh?

And it should proove something. Now we can say "look even Swedes accepted it there must be a genocide then, no way."?

Barba Mama....or whatever....although I love Wikipedia, it is only good as a source for information. That information needs to be verified. Each article has links,

As you suggested a little research will show Wikipedia articles change depending on who did the last entry. The Armenians have been very active, particularly in English versions of Wikipedia.

There are historic facts that even the most simple minded should able to follow, if they choose. 

Fact number one is the powers of France, England and Russia had plans for the Ottoman Empire,  and a big part of the strategy was to turn the citizens to revolt against their country. This is clearly shown with the Arab Revolt....aka Lawrence of Arabia....The Armenians were just another vulnerable group ripe to be exploited to revolt. They were a large Christian group who were cultivated by the other "Christian" countries.

That my dear is a fact. They did join Russian forces and fight against their counrtymen. When the Bolshevik Revolution took place they were abandoned by their Russian "friends". Did you forget the Great Influenza epidemic of 1918, where at least 20 million people died?

The issue of what happened during those years when the "Armenian Genocide" is to have taken place needs to be looked at without a jaundiced eye.

I am just saying... if you want to use wikipedia as a source to make your point, then at least have wikipedia STATE your point. If you want to say "the world is flat, look at wikipedia!" and wikipedia says "the world is round"...then why are you quoting wikipedia?