Talk:Armenian genocide/Fadix Analysis

This section exist to answer Torque claims and is kept up to date (new materials posted as well as new answers).

RE: Comparing the propagandistic factor of Raffi vs. Fadix

Let answer Mr. Torque yet again.

Raffi proudly exclaimed that he knows this subject "VERY well," yet it has become apparent he doesn't know that much at all... especially if he makes comments not steeped in reality, such as there was no Armenian rebellion.

ANSWER: Germany the Ottoman ally, The commander of the Ottoman IIIrd army, on the spot; the Ottoman Intelligent department II at the front, all of them haven't reported the rebellion you claim has happened. This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your website, none of the official documents support your claim, including the files collected by the father of denialism Mr. Uras, including the archives released by Turkeys ministry of foreign affairs.

Like 99% of Armenians, he is only content in studying what his deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell him... of which there is an "avalanche" of propagandistic information out there, since the Turks are not a "speak up" kind of people traditionally, and current ones don't have the motivation to bone up on this topic. (Even if they do, this one-sided "avalanche" is so firmly entrenched in the West, they would not be playing on an equal playing field.)

ANSWER: This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your site where you can post racist generalizations. If you want to spew your hateful venom and tell us what 99% of Armenians are, go find somewhere else.

Raffi has admitted he hasn't read Sam Weems' "Armenia," even though he has felt free to knock it down, and I have no doubt he has also not come near Gurun's "The Armenian File - The Myth of Innocence Exposed," even though he knocked that one down as well. This is the job of Armenians: to knock down anything that debunks their big genocidal con job, regardless of the source, and of the truth.

ANSWER: I have read both works and have already reviewed them, it is funny that you talk about people talk about books which they have not read and comment, you did this same thing with countless numbers of books, on the other forum, and in your official website, and do it here too, don't accuse others of things which you do in daily basis.

Raffi has demonstrated he has an aversion to truth. One example was his referring to me as a "pro-Turkish govt positionee," even though he has no idea of who I am. But a perfect example of how the Armenian strategy works is to overlook the forest, and single out the sole tree that supports their genocide. Raffi did this with our ICTJ exchange. Once again, the ICTJ is a body of lawyers (not historians) who decreed the Armenians' experience was a genocide... and the Armenians must latch on to this, as they have no other judicial proof.

ANSWER: Again hypocrisy at best, when an historian claim it was a genocide, you brag a so-called Malta tribunal that never was, and ask this cases to be “proven” in a court, when bunch of jurists do conclude it as genocide, you claim they are not historians. Do make a choice and stick to it, but I know that's to much asking to you.

A reader's comments: You can find the documents used at Malta Tribunal at University of Michigan. They refer to it as pending trial. Pending due to lack of evidence. So don't try to deny its existence.

In typical Armenian style,

ANSWER: That's the last time I will ask you to refrain making racist generalization, the next time I will complaining to Wikipedia, as I told you, this place is not your website where you can spew your racistic venoms.

we are asked to examine the surface; but if we dig deeper, we learn the ICTJ primarily used the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda to make their determination, and that their definition of genocide is that only one person needs to be killed... so that the murder of Talat Pasha by Soghoman Tehlirian can be called a genocide, rendering the word meaningless.

ANSWER: That's bullcrap, but I do expect from your part to assassinate the character of people supporting my theses, I do expect that you twist what they say... you are so good at it.

As rebuttal, I attached Justin McCarthy's views, where at one point he wrote the 1948 Convention is watered down enough to have the Armenians' experience called a genocide.

ANSWER: I have posted in the other forum over 40 pages of analysis regarding McCarthy and his works, but of course you prefer ignoring and taking the words of someone that receives grants directly from Ankara, but on the other hand you assassinate the character of people that are independent. Mr. Torque would probably be the first one to yap, if it was to happen that a historian was to receive grants from the republic of Armenia or was to participate in a ministry publication regarding the Turks, or yet better was to participate in an institute of Turkish studies of the Republic of Armenia destinated at supporting the “Armenian” theses. But what can we expect, since McCarthy is the best Mr. Torque can get.

Forget the fact that even with the 1948 Convention's broad definition, the Armenians' story still doesn't fit, as "intent" has yet to be proven, and the convention exempts political alliances; Raffi completely disregarded McCarthy's main point, which is what happened to the Muslims at the hands of the Armenians would then also be termed a genocide. All Raffi was interested in was the one statement that was helpful, and pretended the rest did not exist. An honest person seeking the truth does not operate in this fashion.

ANSWER: McCarthy is an academic fraud, he has manipulated the theory of stable population, has not respected any of the 4 points of the founders of that theory, and to get his work published he had to add on the first pages that the numbers presented there are too imperfect to be considered as correct. McCarthy is a fraud, he has manipulated works by including them in a footnote to support theses, when the works were telling the complete opposite of what he affirms(making those works say what they do not say). e.g, when he claimed Armenians started in Van, he provided two references, Ussher and Nogales, when both books say that this was not the cases. For Erzerun, he has used a propaganda material even more suspcious than the Andonians, prepared by Mehmed Sadik at the head of the Ottoman propaganda bureau, when another in that department has admitted that propaganda materials were build regarding the Armenians. But of course, again, McCarthy is probably the best Mr. Torque could get. As for 1948 genocide convention, it is recognized that not only the Armenian cases fit that definition, but even the restrictive term includes the Armenian cases as a part of its definition.

A reader's comments: Could you give us the numbers of McCarty? I believe it is about 1.7 million estimated total Armenian population. Toynbee estimate is 1.8 million and according to French, British and Russian estimates it is around 1.6-1.75 million. It doesn't look too bad to me.

Fadix has done what few Armenians have done; he has throughly studied this topic, making use of the limitless knowledge base of propaganda organizations like Vahakn Dadrian's Zoryan Institute. He follows in the footsteps of the slimy Dadrian, whose job it has been to try and discredit the real historical picture with the "avalanche" of selective "facts" the Armenian propaganda industry has had the luxury having produced for over a century.

ANSWER: The material I use are known authentic, compared to what you use. I am not the one that uses forgeries and falsifications, I am not the one using quotations that do not exist, you are, I have given bunch of examples of falsified materials you have used, but this didn't stopped you to use them again. Stop defaming a professional, you don't come to Dadrians foot fingers in what regards integrity and professionalism, your knowledge of the event won't give a digit on a calculator that can display 10 digits when compared with Dadrians knowledge. While I have analysed what McCarthy has actually writen, while I have commented his works, reviewed them and actually have read them all, you have slandered people and professional the works you have not read, you have tried assassinating their characters under the cover of anonymousness. You are both a coward and a racist.

A reader's comments: Dadrian often quotes from Morgenthau's memoirs. February 28, 1920 Morgenthau wrote in "The Independent" . "Two hundred and fifty thousand Christian Armenian women enslaved in Turkish harems call to the people of America for liberation", "One hundred thousand women already rescued by Near East Relief agents from harems" Do you have any idea what a harem is? Can you believe in someone's memoirs (written by his Armenian secretary) and who served in Ottoman Empire and can be so uninformed that he can write such a bogus article. Have you read Dadrian's response to Guenter Lewy. What do you see when you put the questions and answers one after another. He starts with comments like Lewy is apparently not knowledgeable about this issue even when he doesn't really disagree. Especially read the part about court martial and ottoman legal system. That response makes me think he's more of a rhetoric than a historian.

There have been a host of influential Western people who have been taken in by this hogwash, aided by the fact that the "Terrible Turk" has been looked upon as outcasts of humanity ever since the Crusades. It's not difficult to find seemingly legitimate people who have been suckered in to the Armenian madness. As latter-day examples, we have Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan adding their voices to the genocide bandwagon on Raffi's quotes page. But there certainly is no shortage of duped/prejudiced Westerners from the "genocide days" that Fadix makes extensive use of.... not excluding the (WWI allies) Germans and Austrians who were the enemies of the Ottoman Turks for centuries, and not all would be able to shake their feelings of animosity. How easy it was for them to accept the sob stories of the Armenians and the missionaries, as well.

ANSWER: What an hypocrite you are, but of course you ignored the fact that in Western history books of the time, in anthropological research, Armenians were either considered as Persians or Christian Turks, they were considered by the Germans as Christian Jews, or the Jews of Orient. There are bunch of documents supporting what I advance. The King Crane report even affirmed that the Turks were more liked than the Armenians, and this is confirmed in many literatures. So here again, talking of revisionism, you shout Western biases in every given occasion by thinking that it will undo the reports, that is not how it works, you can not undo peoples reports only by claiming their were Westerns. Beside that, the Austrian and German reports supporting the theses I advance were secret reports and not for public consumption. While the documentations early in the war for public consumption were supporting your theses, the secret reports were telling the quite opposite, later those for public consumption changed, but that was due to the fact that Germany was unable to hide what was happening anymore. Beside that, not only Western sources points to the Genocide, there are more clearer documents in the Armenians cases that display a clear intention from the government to exterminate the Armenian than the Holocaust. Hilberg an authority of the Shoah has himself claimed that there was no documents ordering the extermination of the European Jewry. In fact, you will never find any memoirs from German officials anything near to what Halil wrote in his memoirs, when he claimed that he has tried to exterminate the Armenians to the last individual, there are many such examples. But since you don't care of the truth, I do not expect you to change your mind, you are not here to know the truth contrary to what you affirm, you already have made your mind, because you hate the Armenians, and that is clear and becomes clearer in each of your posts. While the first book I have read about the subject was not supporting my cases(McCarthy), what you did is take trash and copypast them, without researching about the matter. What Yapp has claimed regarding Dadrian, that's exactly what you've been doing yourself.

This is why I say Fadix has zero credibility. He knows the other side of the story. When he comes across evidence from sources with no conflict-of-interest (indeed, Western sources are primarily anti-Turkish, and those who would refute his genocide would have no reason to lie), does he stop and say, Wait a minute... maybe there is something to this. No. His first instinct, in typical Armenian fashion, is to think, How can I discredit this?

ANSWER: Stop accusing me of what you see in your reflection in the mirror. While I comment and analysis works which I actually read, you on the other hand assassinate characters who's work you have even not read in the first place. I am not the one claiming Armenians=Truth, on the other hand, you are the one claiming Turks=Truth, you have claimed that being a formula in your own web site, and told your readers to remember it. You must be a hell of a hypocrite to claim what you claim here regarding me, after you have displayed to be exactly that. As for zero credibility, again, as I said countless numbers of times. A credibility is lost for a reason, not because someone said it. You have lost your credibility, because you have used distortions, non-existing quotes, forgeries, fabrications, non-existing materials to support your claims, and I have demonstrated that in countless numbers of occasions.

One of Fadix's many methods of putting up smokescreens (and to try and discredit me) is to claim I am "racist." This is ironic, because it has been documented (and hopefully it's not as true for current generations, but reading Armenian forums, I wonder) that Armenians have been bred to hate Turks. By contrast, the Turks deliberately didn't dwell on the past ills and shoved the 518,000 Muslims (the Armenians murdered) under the rug, stressing love and brotherhood.

ANSWER: You are a racist, you generalize and characterize people based on their ethnicity, this is a form of racism. On the other hand, be glad to show me where I did that with the Turks? While I refer to your side as denialists, you characterize Armenians and attach to them behaviors, which is racistic and is against Wikipedias terms of uses. Regarding the 518,000 Muslim being killed, you know well that I have shown this number to be a forgery, I have demonstrated that 3 numbers, for the same location, the same date and the same files, in which the “8” was taken and zeros added in each of them, I have demonstrated how this news was used by the intermediary of the German Chief of Staff for German public consumption soon during the war to ally the public opinion to a German-Turkish causes. But I don't expect you to stop shouting something I have shown you more than one occasion to be a forgery.

A reader's comments: Well. The guy you're calling racist has a point. Google and you'll find neo-nazi armenians posting on forums bragging about Turks being massacred. You can't ignore the mass graves that are found. If there's someone to blame it is the Armenian Revolutionaries. They never valued human life. Neither Armenian nor Turkish. And they're the ones still continuing the struggle now politically. People who didn't care about bloodshed is expected to do historical revisionism with much grace. Just think how much your grandfathers hated Turks? The real people who lived it? How much current generation does? Don't you think it is a little weird. Read about Celal Bayar's visit to USA in 1950 and how Armenian diaspora treated him.

Armenians are lovely people; we are all of the human family. But since Armenian sites like Raffi's love to put up testimony of what a "human cancer" the Turkish people are (usually from those who have never met Turks; those who have met them who say such things... like the one who wrote "The [Turkish] Blight of Asia" were zealous religious fanatics, such as U.S. Consul George Horton), should we close our eyes to how non-agenda-laden Westerners who have met Armenians typically think of them? In anti-Turkish history books documenting the Crusades, we often read how the Crusaders came out with a respect for the honor of the Turks/Muslims, and with a distaste for the Armenians/Greeks who have tried to cheat them.

ANSWER: What is said in those testimonies is not different than what was said regarding the Germans in World War II, after witnessing the German horrors of the war. Raffi is simply presenting the words of people being horrified. But of course you have no problem posting materials describing Armenians as worst in your own web-site. As for the Armenians being lovely people, comments like this won't undo your racist views.

June 16, 1880, Lt.-Col. C.W. Wilson, British Consul General for Anatolia described the Armenians as "immoral, fanatic, bigoted," and that "truth and honesty are sadly deficient."

ANSWER: Exactly what I told above, as I said, the Armenians were not viewed anywhere better than the Turks. So your claims regarding racism against the Turks and not Armenians is not valid.

A reader's comments: Think of it as this way. Maybe Armenians were not so great after all. They didn't descend from heaven. And continue to think of the most valuable sources of Armenian scholars? Who wrote them? They were biased against Turks weren't they? Morgenthau for example.

Harold Armstrong, 1925: "argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know-it-alls." The Armenians are "crafty, grasping, secretive, acquisitive and dishonest, making a great pretence of religion, but using it as a cloak for treachery and greed."

ANSWER: Again, this support my position, Westerners didn't had any better view regarding the Armenians, I fail to see how this can be an argument to support your theses. But of course your goal is not this, since you are a racist, you use such materials to support your claim regarding the Armenians being inferior as a “race.”

Sept. 30, 1908, British vice-counsel Capt. Dickson: "unsympathetic, mean, cringing, unscrupulous, lying, thieving... endowed with a sneak thief sharpness."

ANSWER: Again, the same thing apply here.

WOW! What better way to describe "Zero Credibility" Fadix? Especially with that "sneak thief sharpness"! The above described qualities are unfortunately not absent from Armenians who dishonestly try to justify their huge genocidal con job... at the head of which is that master manipulator, Vahakn Dadrian, who actually tried to legitimize Andonian's forged telegrams, the ones Andonian himself indicated were fake.

ANSWER: First of all, Andonian never claimed the documents as being fakes, he claimed that they were used as propagandas, so stop lying, you can lie in your website, but this is not the place. Second of all, Dadrian never claimed that the Andonians were authentic, his essay was a review of Orel and his colleagues review regarding the Andonians, he analyzed their arguments, he concluded that the arguments used can not support the claim that the documents were forgeries.

A reader's comments: You're playing with words... Concluding one way or another that they are not forgeries is equivalent to concluding that they are authentic.

I'll make use of Weems' "Armenia" and Gurun's "The Armenian File" to counter Fadix's smokescreen assertions. I urge you all to read these books... especially the mediator, who will also suffer from a bias (like the ICTJ lawyers), because of the prevalent Armenian propaganda that has brainwashed so many. Note Armenian attempts to discredit both authors have nothing to do with the immaculate sources that have been researched, particularly Armenian sources... sources that would have had no reason to be untruthful. Gurun's book is available online,

ANSWER: What a cheap trick, the decisions from the mediators should be taken based on what arguments are brought here. Kamuran Gurun was a Turkish diplomat at the Turkish foreign ministry and had as charge with peoples such as Ataov to deny the Armenian genocide. Gurun has used manipulations such as the figure of 702,900, the figures representing Muslim immigrants and passed them as Armenians, he brought as one argument, that since the Armenians did not exist, an Armenian genocide could not have occurred... he manipulated numbers from other sources, an example is provided in my answer regarding the Armenian losses from 1894 to 1897.

A reader's comments: How many Armenians out of the total figure was relocated and how many died during the relocation? Can you give me some figures. There are Bogos Nubar figures which I don't think you could disagree with that concludes only 1/3 of population was relocated and about 1/5-1/6 of that died.

As for Weems, I had a complete review of Weems that has been shut down by the Turkish site tetedeturc and Turkishforum, I may be wrong, but the fact of the matter is that one turk whom was discussing with me has emailed Turkishforum, and soon after my site was shut down. Such cheap tricks to silence the truth about Weems work tell it all. Weems has manipulated other figures of population statistics, and I have provided many examples, he claims having done research in Russian archives, yet as a picture of the building he present the Basilica which he mistake as the archives building. His translations of those archives were word by word identical to the official translations of the Turkish governments historiographies. There are hundreds of works regarding the genocide, the Holocaust Museum has 200 books, which represent a fraction, the Armenian genocide is considered as the second most studied genocide, There are works regarding the concentration camps, the special organization, German complicity, etc. etc. etc. And yet, you have nothing to present than a work written by a Turkish diplomat at the Turkish foreign ministry.

A reader's comments: You're lucky your website got shut down. If you talked loudly in favor of Turkish thesis somebody could blow your house. See Stanford Shaw.

RE: Is it irrelevant to consider what took place before "1915"?

Let's say there is a news story about how a teen-aged girl shot her uncle. Should we automatically conclude she was a cold-blooded murderer?

ANSWER: To determine if it was a cold blooded, traces of premeditation are researched, the history is only used to undo predetermination by claiming that since what happened in the past, the person that committed the act didn't had all his/her mind when he/she committed the crime. The prosecution tries to demonstrate on the other hand that because of the premeditated way the crime was committed, the accused had all his/her mind. This is why history is researched, it is to undo premeditation. There is a distinction between understanding and accepting in court of law.

No, ladies and gentlemen, when there is a crime committed, or what we are told is a crime committed in case there's no proof, we don't simply look at the final act. We look into the history of what took place in order to determine whether punishment is to be meted, and how much.

(It's funny how the Armenians love to have their cake and eat it too. For example, in the trial of Tehlirian, the assassin of Talat Pasha, the murderer walked scot-free. Why? Because the events in question -- and not the murder itself -- were examined in the fixed two-day trial, where only witnesses for the defense were permitted and whose outcome was pre-determined. Tehlirian had committed a "genocide," using the ICTJ's defintion. Tehlirian was unpunished. Maybe it's true what the genocide industry tells us, that if genocides remain unpunished, genocides will be committed again. This is why countless Armenian terrorists in future years committed genocides against innocent Turks, and some of the few who were caught usually got slaps on the wrists from biased Western courts.)

ANSWER: What a full of crap, Tehlirian was examined by various doctors, he had epileptic seizures as a consequences of the troma, not only because of what he has witnessed, but as well because he had brain damage from the hit he received on his head during the massacres that left him unconscious for a long time. The event itself made him an epileptic with psychosis. He ended up being a psychiatric cases under heavy medications. The only reason his history was brought was because it showed that he didn't had his mind when he killed Talaat, he thought that his actions were dictated by some divine interactions, and that his mother that was butchered was telling him to avenge her. This was why no witnesses from the other side were present, because the cases was not about what did not happen, but what Tehlirian possibly witnessed that made him insane.

And no, the ICTJ definition can not be applied here, while some such definitions may consider the murder of one person as a genocide, there should be intend to harm a group, which led the death of that person, in other cases such murder is called homicide.

This is how Armenian propagandists hope you will swallow their big con job. Look at the surface. Never scratch underneath.

ANSWER: In the discussions we had, everytime I was discussing by going deeper in the discussion you were displaying a clear ignorance of the subject, and here again your website clearly picture that. But of course given the way you put that, your words should not be taken seriously as usual.

On p. 162 of Hovannisian's "The Republic of Armenia," the Armenian professor explains: In 1800, Armenians were scattered (around) Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Eastern Turkey. In all but small districts, Armenians were a minority, which had been under Muslim, primarily Turkish, rule for 700 years. The Russian empire had begun the imperial conquests of the Muslim lands south of the Caucasus Mountains. One of their main weapons was the transfer of populations - deportation. They ruthlessly expelled whole Muslim populations, replacing them with Christians whom they felt would be loyal to a Christian government. Armenians were major instruments of this policy. Like others in the Middle East, the primary loyalty of Armenians was religious. Many Armenians resented being under Muslim rule, and they were drawn to a Christian State and to offers of free land (land which had been seized from Turks and other Muslims). A major population exchange began. In Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic), a Turkish majority was replaced by Armenians. In other regions such as coastal Georgia, Circassia, and the Crimea, other Christian groups were brought in to replace expelled Muslims. There was massive Muslim mortality in some cases up to one third of the Muslims died. The Russians expelled 1.3 million Muslims from 1827 to 1878. One result of this migration, serving the purpose of the Russians, was the development of ethnic hatred and...conflict between Armenians and Muslims. Evicted Muslims who had seen their families die in the Russian Wars felt animosity toward the Armenians. Armenians who hated Muslim rule looked to the Russians as liberators. Armenians cooperated with Russian invaders of eastern Anatolia in wars in 1828, 1854, and 1877. When the Russians retreated, Armenians feared Muslim retaliation and fled. Hatred grew on both sides.

ANSWER: STOP FABRICATING!!! STOP IT!!! I have exposed you manipulating and fabricating, and yet you do it again. Those are not Hovannians words, those are the words of McCarthy, they were uttered during a speech he gave in front of the House International Committee. It contains falsifications and manipulations like when he tries to fool the reader into believing that the Erevan province territory represent the republic of Armenia, when all the lands with a considerable Muslim population ended up in the hands of Azerbaijan and Turkey as well as Georgia. His numbers are bullcrap from Turkish foreign ministry historiography. Again, you got busted your pents down trying to fabricate and pass the words of an academic fraud like Faurisson or Rassinier, as the ones of Hovannessian.

There you have it. The roots of the "genocide" have nothing to do with false theories like pan-Turanism, Muslims hating Christians, and the coveting of Armenian wealth. the roots of the "genocide" lie in Armenian treachery.

ANSWER: Racist, as I have shown you, the quote above is not from Hovannessian, it is from McCarthy the academic fraud, the information not being accurate, the interpretation of an inaccurate quote can't be accurate either.

We can now understand how important it was for the Ottomans to take the Armenian threat seriously. If the Russians crashed through the gates, there would no longer be a refuge for Turks and Muslims to escape to. The Ottoman Empire was the last stop. The struggle was truly a matter of life or death.

ANSWER: Bullcrap, your regurgitations are the sames as those from German apologists regarding a so-called international Zionist conspiration to get by the help of the Russians the Bolshevization of Germany. The Armenian concentration camps of Deir-Zor, Ras Ul-Ain, Bonzanti, Mamoura, Intili, Islahiye, Radjo, Katma, Karlik, Azaz, Akhterim, Mounboudji, Bab, Tefridje, Lale, Meskene, Sebil, Dipsi, Abouharar, Hamam, Sebka, Marat, Souvar, Hama, Homs, Kahdem. Transit camps of Kangal, Malatia, Diyarbekir, Ourfa, Alepo. Those are enough to show a clear premeditation of the extermination. Such a premeditation makes of your claim fall short. the second organization that participated in the eradication of the Ottoman Armenians was founded by the lttihad ve Terraki technically appeared in July 1914 and was supposed to be different than the already existing organization in one important point, it was meant to be a government in a government(without needing any orders to act). Later in 1914, the Ottoman government decided to draw the direction the special organization was supposed to take by releasing criminals from central prisons to be the central elements of this newly formed special organization. For example, in Sivas, as soon as November 1914, 124 criminals were released from Pimian prison, in Ankara following few months later, 49 criminals were released from its central prison. Little by little from the end of 1914 to the beginning of 1915, hundreds of prisoners were freed to form the members of this organization that later were charged to destroy the convoys of Armenian deportees, the number then grew to thousands. The commander of the Ottoman third army, Vehib called those members of the special organization, the “butchers of the human specy.” This organization was led by the Central Committee Members Doctor Nazim, Behaeddin Sakir, Atif Riza, and former Director of Public Security Aziz Bey. The headquarters of Behaeddin Sakir were in Erzurum, from where he directed the forces of the Eastern vilayets. Aziz, Atif and Nazim Beys operated in Istanbul, and their decisions were approved and implemented by Cevat Bey, the Military Governor of Istanbul.

The criminals were chosen by a process of selection, they had to be ruthless butchers to be selected as a member of the special organization. The Mazhar commission has provided some lists of those criminals, in one instance for example, from the 65 criminals released 50 were in prison for murder, the lists all gave such a disproportionate ratio between those condemned for murder and others for minor crimes which constituted a clear minority. This process of selection of the criminal was a clear indicative of the government intention to commit mass murder of its Armenian population. It must be noted as well, that physicians participated in the process of selection, where health professionals were appointed by the war ministry to determine whether the selected convicts would be fit to apply a degree of savagery of killing that was required. So, no one give a crap of your insinuations and regurgitations. The Ottoman has build concentration camps and formed a special organization by using murderers that were sent to escort the Armenian refugees. Those murderers acted exactly as the Einsatzgruppen.

Not only is it relevant to examine the past (and things really heated up with Armenian treachery after 1877, with the formation of Armenian terror groups), but the events of post-1916 as well.

ANSWER: As I repeated, there can not be treachery in an Empire, where the concept of citizenship and allegiance did not exist. Populations were dumped in an empire by force and not by choice, the same could be said with the Russian Empire and what it did to its Circassian population that BTW actively participated in the side of the Ottoman Empire during the 1877-1878 like many other Muslim subjects, yet it is not the Russians that yap years after years of Muslim treachery. It is racist to generalize and claim that a population committed treachery, it is racist to claim that women, children and elderly, and the majority of men committed treachery, just because some have joined. And no, what happened after 1916 is irrelevant to determine if whatever or not there was a genocide. What happened after most of the Armenians were killed, doesn't change anything. It is not because the allies have bombed civilian targets in World War II, or because of the crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Union against the Germans, that it means there was no Shoah. Your twisting and playing with dates and numbers and your so-called chronology can only fool ignorants.

Hovannisian admits to Armenian atrocities ("Public opinion in Azerbaijan was incensed, and the government, revolted by the atrocities, demanded strong measures to ensure the safety of the Muslims," p. 181),

ANSWER: I don't remember those words uttered by him, be glad to tell me which Volume is it... sorry for the skepticism, but given your tendency to fabricate quotes, I have to do what i usually do, going at the source and see if it exist.

well confirmed in the memoirs of an Armenian officer, "Men Are Like That." This is the Armenian M.O., following the Orthodox (including Russians, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars) method of ethnic cleansing: massacre Turks and chase the rest away.

ANSWER:I already discussed about this work in the other forum, and explained countless numbers of time that Ohanus was referring to the 1905-1906 conflict in his village that was populated by both Tartars and Armenians, his village was part of the Russian Empire NOT Ottoman, and he claimed that both groups tried to exterminate eachothers. Now his village is part of Azerbaijan, and there is not a single Armenian recorded. Nice try, but one could expect such methods from your part.

These would be "Death and Exile"s 5 million expulsed Turks/Muslims and 5.5 million killed from the Greek War of Independence until the end of WWI...

ANSWER: First of all, those figures were fabricated by McCarthy, he himself admitted them being ultimate numbers, simple estimations he has taken from his hat... without supports one can not use those figures when McCarthy himself hasn't presented any supports. And beside that, what the hell does it change regarding whatever or not there was an Armenian genocide? Millions of Germans were expulsed from Europe and the Soviet Union, would that mean there was no Shoah?

the ones pro-Armenian "genocide scholars" like Israel Charny, Tessa Hoffmann and Robert Melson never talk about.

ANSWER: That's because as independent researchers, they don't give a thing of McCarthys claims, and consider that Muslim expulsions have nothing to do with the Armenian genocide. BTW, talking of hiding things, where McCarthy has ever said anything about the minority that has opened its door to the Balkan Muslims?

This policy was followed by modern Armenia in 1992, massacring Karabagh Azeris and expelling nearly a million. (Fadix will give you weasel facts to try and dispute this, even though these events are in modern memory; note the West is largely silent about this episode, and American policy has gone as far as to punish victimized Azerbaijan, thanks to the strong power of the Armenian lobby.)

ANSWER: What a hypocrite you are. While there was no Armenian state or Empire in 1915, you claim it was two sided, and Armenians were not the victims they affirm they were. Yet you shout genocide for what happened in Xojali, when there was two existing nations on war. How some hundreds of victims amount to a genocide, and not over a million? But of course, no one expect you to make any sense. What about Turkeys invasion of Cyprus and the 2000 people missing? Does that amount to genocide as well? In the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, 30,000 people died from both sides, it was the Karabagh Armenians that have used legal Soviet means which was answered by Azerbaijan by pogroms, in Sumgait, Baku etc... there was many Xojalis in the Armenian sides, but it it isn't the Armenian side that is yapping genocide there.

However, our topic is Armenian behavior in the Ottoman Empire;

ANSWER: Again a racist generalization, generalizing again an entire population. Do you think that a mediator will be as blind as to not see that.

Schreiner does not deny what was done to the Armenians. His problem was about such things as Morgenthau simplification of peoples character, but that Morgenthau liked to simplify peoples characters is nothing new, that he colored his reports is nothing new either. But I don't use Morgenthau, it isn’t the material that is lacking for me to need to use those being easy targets for denialists like you. Morgenthaus unfair treatment of Wangenheim wasn’t only reported by Schreiner. But beside that, what was as well known(from my study after that Wanderer(ehm you) referred to him), was Schreiners sympathy for the fatherland Germany, and the fact that Moregenthau, in his point of view was bringing his family’s nation into the mud. But as well, Schreiner was not a witnesses of anything from where he corresponded, and was as well completely wrong about Enver, as he refused to recognize. The esteem the Germans had for Enver had no bounds, as someone having studied in Germany, and made Germany his second nation, as far as modifying for himself the Pan-Germanist mentality that became with Hitler we know what.

Almost all were missionaries and racists or propagandists. After the war, we received better clues as to what really transpired, from pro-Armenians like Niles and Sutherland in 1919, and Admiral Bristol, whom the Armenians love to vilify.

ANSWER: Niles and Sutherland were not pro Armenians, Niles and Sutherland report was ignored by the Senate at that time for abvious reasons. The table he present, even McCarthy when he published them was trying to slowly pull them under the carpet because he knew it would defeat the purposes of a “report.”(adding that they reported what they “thought”/”believed”) When they claim that in Van for instance, there was nearly no Muslim villages left in 1919, and adding that the large majority of Armenian villages were left intact. Cevded himself in his dispatches at the war ministry, later followed by Halil himself reported quite the opposite, what to say about Nogales that claimed no Armenians were left. The tables anomalies clearly shows how Armenian villages in Van were repopulated by Muslims, and what was left was only devastated zones. Niles and Sutherland were under the custody of Ottoman authorities that were merely showing them what “they” wanted them to see. This can hardly be called an investigation. In 1919, there was no Armenian left in Anatolia.

In short, Niles and Sutherland were not there when the Anatolian Armenian population was destroyed, they were sent there when there was no Armenian left, yet the Turkish authorities have presented the villages and claimed them that Armenians were still living there and nothing happened to them, while the Muslim villages were destroyed, the claim is even not supported by revisionist literature that show clearly that there was praticaly no Armenian left there at that date, and even Gurun don't really deny that.

Admiral Bristol recognize what was done to the Armenians a deliberate premeditated government plan. So stop using sources which show the contrary of what you affirm, stop acting like McCarthy.

It is very relevant to see how the Armenians acted murderously, in order to incite violence against them...

ANSWER: Another generalization from Mr. Racist that can't do better than falsifying, forging and manipulating, and on top of that he's a racist that generalize in every given occasion.

and how the Armenians spread their false propaganda, which present day Armenians like Fadix and Raffi are still patriotically carrying out...

ANSWER: Propaganda is made for general public consumption, secret reports can not be propaganda, and the German secret reports that reported that the Ottoman was conducting premeditated plan of eradication of its Armenian population can therefore not be a propaganda. Refik admission that the Ottoman has build a so-called Armenian revolution show us that it was the Ottoman that was conducting propaganda. Vehib the commander of the IIIrd army, at the spot with his army during the time and admitted the Ottoman conducted a deliberate act of eradication. The number of Turkish officials that recognized, German officials., soldiers, Austrians etc... are in the hundreds... General Halil, that became the Suprem general of the East, Uncle of Enver, the minister of war, admitted in his memoirs that he tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual. That you twist and twist and twist and try to change the subject, won't change anything here.

thus inviting the European powers to intervene and give them "free land." The culmination of this treachery took place when the war broke out, and Armenians engaged in war against their country.

ANSWER: The Ottoman Empire was not a country, there was no citizenship, the Armenians were a subject, and the Turks were the ruling subjects. But of course Mr. Racist Torque find it normal that war of liberation brought by the Kemalist and does not call this treachery against the Ottoman elements of the Empire. Torque double standard is purely racistic, since he characterize and has a racist hierarchy of people, Turks on top, Armenians on the bottom.

The ingratitude and greed is mind-boggling. British parliamentarian Sir Ellis Bartlett, 1895 pamphlet: "The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees" and had been "wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Panslavic societies."

ANSWER: Again, Torque double standards, while I refer to witnesses of the events, Mr. Torque to support his cases refers to people that were not there during the 1894-1897 massacres. When the other side does the same, he yap and claim that those people were not on the spot when it happened. While hundreds of people on the spot reports the massacres as being full scale and generalized, including the secretary of Hamid, Mr. Torque refers to the few exceptions and try to draw the norm... this is not how history is written, this is not how it works in science too... if we were to use Mr. Torque standard, no any medications should be approved by the FDA, because few studied have demonstrated no efficiencies while most have.

Bartlett's notions are well confirmed in Capt. Norman's "The Armenians Unmasked." (http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/armenian/report1895.html)

ANSWER: What a report of 1895 from a man representing the British public relations to secure the Ottoman loans, instored back in 1856 with the Western banks, has anything to do with 1915? Quote, quote, quote, selectively quote and extend the little materials you have. The less we have the more we expend. Again, I wasn’t expecting much from you here.

The Armenian claim "that the Christian subjects of the sultan were denied all liberty, and atrociously presented was a thoroughly false one... no other government had for the past four centuries shown as much toleration, or given so much religious freedom as that of the Ottoman Empire. Every form of religion-- Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Roman Catholic and all others-- were allowed perfect liberty of practice and doctrine. Had the turks been less generous in the past, they would have escaped many of their present troubles. When heretics were burnt to death in France and Germany, and even in England, the Ottoman Government allowed its subjects entire religious freedom."

ANSWER: Ottoman tolerance is a myth, here an example of a work that exposes those myths: “The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam” by Bat Ye'or, David Maisel

Armenians were the most taxed people in the Empire, they had under the Islamic law no right to defend themselves on court, while Muslim false witnesses were accepted, Armenians were not. Armenian witnesses to defend their cases had to find a Muslim witness or their cases was dismissed. The Muslim were exempt from the Penal Code 166 controlling the manufacturing of gun powder and arms, while this same law was applicated point by point against the Armenians. An example was when the Ottoman army raided the Erzerum cathedral in 1890, killed countless numbers people, destroyed the inside and have found no arms at all. What Torque call treachery and Armenian rebellion, was legal for the Muslim and even supported by the government.

But of course Mr. Call that tolerance.

We can see the truth level of Fadix's attempt to make us believe how oppressed Armenians were ("second class citizen status on the law books and in practice ...'infidels'") by looking at Armenian sources. Oscanyan was so oppressed, he was allowed to go to America to study, where he wrote "The Sultan and his People" in 1857. Cymbal-maker Zilidjian was allowed to travel to Europe on a yacht he built, in the 19th century.

ANSWER: That Armenians were allowed to go study elsewhere is irrelevant, what is the relevancy?

This doesn't mean all Armenians were living in a utopia. Indeed there are countless hearsay accounts Fadix can no doubt unearth attesting to how Armenians were treated dismally. (I recall a story about how a Turk went to an Armenian's store, and lopped off his head. I think it was provided by a missionary.) And the Armenians of the east were subjected to injustices by lawless bands. What's never stated is Armenians suffered where Ottoman control was weak, and the ones who suffered were all Ottoman citizens, Muslims included. Moreover, among these lawless bands, not all were Kurds and Turks... there were also Armenian and Greek lawless bands, primarily targeting Muslims. Consequently, Muslims were being attacked from two sides, by Muslim and non-Muslim brigands.

ANSWER: Armenians were not nomads, the bands of criminals were nomads, that is why they formed bands, your claim here doesn't hold water. Just the fact that the Muslim of the East not only didn't needed to respect the Penal Code and Armenians were show us your hypocrisy. The crimes against the Armenians was not only a question of Ottoman weak control of the East, the Ottoman were not weak when targeting Armenians groups and finding caches of arms, when from the other side arming Kurdish brigands and forming an irregular police that was imposing upon the Armenians a Kurdish tax.

Migirdich B. Dadian, another Armenian living outside the Ottoman Empire, opined about the situation of Armenians in 1867, in a newspaper in France. What we understand is that the privileges granted the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were nothing less than a landless autonomy.

ANSWER: How an autonomy can exist with a double taxation system? And besides what the hell this thing having happened 50 years before the event has anything to do with the genocide?

These opportunities were officially given to the Armenian community, at a time when no state was interested in them (and it was these very privileges that opened the way to the troubles we are now haggling over). It can be said that of all the countries the Diasporan communities are currently living, not one of these communities has freedom to the extent granted to Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire.

ANSWER: What a bullcrap, you are a pathological liar. What you claim make no sense at all, simply because the concept of citizenship did not exist for an Empire. In any countries where the Diaspora live, everyone is equal in the eye of the law, something that wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. An Armenian, a Turk, a Chinese all will pay the same amount of tax if they have the same revenues, no double taxation system, it wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. In short, everyone were equal, and their ethnicity and religion have no take in that. So your Ottomanist propagandas you can shove them you know where.

The Armenians were the wealthy ones, and they made the wheels turn. ("This community constitutes the very life of Turkey, for the Turks...have relinquished to them all branches of industry. Hence the Armenians are the bankers, merchants, mechanics, and traders of all sorts in Turkey." Oscanyan, 1857)

ANSWER: The reason why Armenians have flourished has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that Armenians were the minorities that were most frequenting the schools has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that later they wanted to start their private business and leaving for some time in the West to help themselves has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances. The Armenians were more open to the European way of life, and this again has little to do with an Ottoman tolerances. It isn't because the pyramids were an archaeological achievement rarely seen, that it means that the aliens have build them.

Why would the Ottomans further weaken themselves during desperate wartime by ridding themselves of this valuable national resource... the ones who were so indispensible, Oscanyan stated, "without them the Osmanlis could not survive a single day"?

ANSWER: The subject has been already studied, and if you were to read the material that is available you will understand. You have no knowledge of what you are talking about, you have no knowledge regarding why the Young-Turks took power and their nationalization plan. You would rather prefer reading quotes and choosing selectively and twisting them, pass that, you have no clue of what you are talking about. If you were truly open minded and were to ask me about the Young-Turks nationalization of the Economy, and the obstacles, I would have provided you books, even Turkish ones, but you are not here to learn, you are here to spew your hateful venom.

Would it be fair to assume Clair Price made perfect sense in 1923: "...the military situation had turned sharply against the Enver Government. The Russian victory at Sarykamish was developing and streams of Turkish refugees were pouring westward into central Asia Minor. The British had launched their Dardanelles campaign at the very gates of Constantinople, and Bulgaria had not yet come in. It does not seem reasonable to assume that this moment, of all moments, would have been chosen by the Enver Government to take widespread measures against its Armenians unless it was believed that such measures were immediately necessary. Measures were taken."

ANSWER: Clair Price wasn't there, again you use a reference that has been published after... everyone can write a book, like Clair has written, more particularly when it is about the rebirth of Turkey and the American investment to the newly formed republic. In the entire book Clair claim, but doesn't support the claims brought. I can bring hundreds of such books from the other side, but since I do not consider those books valid, even when they support my theses, I do not quote from them.

RE: Analyzing Raffi's and "Zero Credibility" Fadix's claims

The Jews were allowed back into Germany when WWII ended. Not that any Jews wanted to go back. The Final Solution continued until the bitter last, taking away resources from the desperate German war effort.

ANSWER: The Ittihadists were accused to take away resources from the desperate Ottoman war efforts with the plans they have set against the Armenians. And the point is?

Armenians were allowed back once the relocation policy ended in 1916, before the war ended.

ANSWER: That is bullcrap, I have Kamuran Gurun book right on my hands right now, not the web copy. If you have it, (The Armenian File. The Myth of Innocence Exposed, The New York, 1985) go to the page 209, and read what it says about the “relocation,” he claims that the decision was final and terminal. This crap of them being allowed back isn't supported by any valid documents, the only figures really coming up with such a theses were Shaw and his wife Ezel Kural, without any evident support. The Ottoman while deporting the Armenian population was placing their homes on lists to be sold,(while they claimed it was for safeguard) the Armenians could not have returned back, because there was no places where they could be living in.

If there were an extermination policy, that makes no sense. Many Armenians cleared out with the Russian and French retreats, fearful of retaliation. A lot of interior Armenians were also called to populate Cilicia, killing Turks, in a last ditch effort for "Greater Armenia." These Armenians left with the French, and 5,000 died of famine and disease, no doubt included among the massacred in "genocide" figures.

ANSWER: You had to say it right? It's so easy for you to shout the word “killing Turks,” but only the fact that you claim 5000 Armenians having lost their lives in Cilicia after that the French have redrawn show us how a biased illogical individual you are. The Armenian quarter of Marash was burned, thousands were killed, there are specific records of population losses in that region with a precision that was really unusual, and yet you claim 5000. Your biases and falsification has no bound. You should ask for the records of the Armenian orphanage from Lebanon and Syria, for those orphans that survived from the disaster of Cilicia, there are very precise records, of their brothers killed, mothers, fathers, sisters, uncles etc. Such a loser you are.

Armenia called on the Ottoman Turks for help several times during 1918-21. Imagine the Jews calling on Nazi Germany for help, assuming the Nazis were still in charge after WWII.

ANSWER: That's bullcrap, most of the Jews of Germany survived the Holocaust, many Germans have hidden Jews, that's because the decision of extermination was taken after the defeat of the Soviet winter while the Jews were evacuated already from Germany. It is obvious that you totally ignore the history of the Shoah, stop talking about things which you ignore. By ratio, more Armenians died per population than Jews in World War II.

Fadix: "the claim that the Armenians were allowed to return back is one of the biggest lie ever. Armenians properties were sold for the fraction of the price." What was to prevent the Armenians from leaving? The real misconception is that the Armenians were held in concentration camps, in the lands they were settled in. Of course there were "camps", but not in the sense of Dachau and Auschwitz; there were measures to discourage their leaving, otherwise the whole relocation purpose would have been defeated.

ANSWER: You're shooting in your own feet, Dachau existed during Germany plan of evacuation of the Jews to Palestine, the concentration camps firstly were build for such reasons as transit camps, when Jews were thrown in trains. The other reason was to restrict the Jews from leaving until decisions are taken. It was only after the defeat in the Soviet Front, that the concentration camps slowly became killing machines, just as the Ottoman early defeat in the Russian front when the Ottoman decided to get rid of its Armenian population. You claim Armenians were prevented to leave, exactly, and this is an evidence that show premeditation. Armenians were sent in desertic areas and members of the special organization were sent on the spot to kill them.

Fadix will no doubt come up with "evidence," but keep in mind how these relocated people were living, from Morgenthau himself, straight from the mouth of an Armenian representative, Zenop Bezjian: "I was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being massacred. He gave me a list where the various camps are and he thinks that over one half million have been displaced." Armenian propaganda will have us believe these people were ready for the ovens.

ANSWER: This information is accurate and documented. Contrary to you, I accept evidences when they are presented. But what is as well known is the difference between Del-El-Zor concentration camp and the City of Zor, that many Armenians were able to reach. This was quoted in Lowry work as well as Halacoglus, but what you do not realize is that what happened in Zor after actually demonstrate that in fact there was a plan set to eradicate the Armenians. Let me explain you how Mr. Torque; when reports indicated that thousands of Armenians reached the transit camp of Alepo and the city of Zor, the Ottoman government decided to evacuate them. Those Armenians that were able to integrate with the Arab population, were in no way threats to the government. What the government did? At the end of December 1915 and the beginning of January 1916 they ordered the evacuation of the Armenians there, that sparked a conflict between the Arabs and the Turks, but it took time before the decision was answered by the autorities because of the conclict it sparked between the Turks and Arabs, more Armenian refugees for the months of February, March, April and May 1916 reached this destination, when the government finally took the dispositions to evacuate them to Del-El-Zor, in the desert. When the government realized that many were surviving, they decided to return them in the camps. This clearly show that the government when sending them to Zor believed that none would reach there, because after they realized that Armenians were actually able to reach that destination, they decided to send them back to the concentration camps.

Many obviously didn't want to leave (especially after relocation came to a close in 1916; which is why I'd imagine there are still sizeable Armenian communities in countries like Lebanon and Syria today.

ANSWER: That's because Armenians were hiding by the help of the Arabs, and besides, only the fact that those Armenians there were targeted after reaching their so-called destination, show us that Armenians were not evacuated because they were considered a threat for the Ottoman Empire.

And of course, Armenians were economically taken advantage of in the chaos and corruption that reigned. The Ottoman orders stipulated their property was to be safeguarded, and these orders were not written to fool future historians.

ANSWER: The properties were safeguarded yes! But not to return them to the Armenians, as Gurun admits, the “relocation” was not a temporary decision, so the safeguarding was not about returning those territories to the Armenians, because soon after they were distributed to Muslims or sold for the fraction of the price.

Witness the ruin of Japanese families in WWII America, forced to sell their properties at fire-sale prices. What prevented them from going back? In this case, the Japanese were loyal. The Armenians paid for the injustices put upon them, because the majority listened to their fanatical leaders.

ANSWER: Only claims, yet you weren't able to support them, and even from the official foreign ministry released archives. Armenian women, children and elderly were sent in the desert, members of the special organization formed by criminals released from prisons escorted the convoys by the order of the government. The Ottoman bared access to relief organizations including the Red Cross by pretext that they wished nothing to be done to prolong the lives of the “relocated.” Even the Germans offered to help the Armenians, and the Ottoman refused by similar excuses. The Armenian population, from which the men were already separated from, were sent in the desert in mass to die, and the rest to be killed by the members of this special organization. You can claim, twist and forge the way you want, those facts remains and those alone are enough evidences to support the theses of genocide.

"First of all the titled 'Armenian Beast' as I have said earlier was given by a Turk." Nicknames are traditionally given by others. What matters is Fadix proudly wears this nickname as a badge of honor (he was the one revealing, and thus bragging about it), attesting to how professional his mastery of propaganda is, and how the inundation of his selective "facts" can frustrate anyone.. What I'm wondering about is what identity should we give the beast in question? There can be only one answer, given his weasel facts: Fadix, the Armenian Weasel Beast.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque this is not the place to find names about individuals, I know that you are exceptional in your work to assassinate peoples characters, I have witnessed that, and many as well. I have never used this title as a badge, I have used it to show how those documenting the genocide cases are treated, what you have just done here was to confirm what I just said. Good job.

"Oh and, if I were Dadrian, I would not have taken you seriously ..." Of course Fadix is not Dadrian. The idea was to point to the absurdity of trying to find out who lies behind pseudonyms, as Fadix is in a panic to do with me.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque, it is obvious that I am not Dadrian, Dadrian is now over his seventies, he is present in conferences and does his own researches, to believe that a man of his age will after that have enough energy to counter forgeries and manipulations around the web, anyone believing that must be insane, more insane to believe that an academician like Dadrian would take someone like you seriously, only fools like me would take people like you seriously. On the other hand, my claims regarding your identity is another matter, you know I know that you are whom I affirm, it is even recorded in Wikipedia server with your user name Holdwater. So stop denying it, the only thing you are doing by denying it is affecting your own credibility.

The pseudonymous Fadix reveals he lives in Montreal, and I believe him. But personal information given by a pseudonymous party is to be taken lightly, because nobody can verify what's being said. What is fascinating about Fadix is his limitless stores of knowledge. I don't have a library of books at my disposal; I basically use the Internet for research... I have real life demands. Fadix, on the other hand has been an old hand at this game, judging by his own account, knowing the principals of forum participants. He comes up with references I've never heard of, and when I run searches on the Internet, I can't find them... at least not to the detail he can provide us with. A normal person interested in this topic cannot have these out-of-print books, frequently unavailable in libraries. Fadix may not be Dadrian, but he is such a professional propagandist, he must have the resources of a Zoryan Institute at his disposal.

ANSWER: My knowledge regarding the issue can hardly be used as arguments to support that I am some sort of pied propagandist. The only thing it display is that I did my homework and did research the issue. It is true that I have resources, but anyone affiliated to an university can have access to such resources by programs like the international Inter loaning system. And I even offered my help to you in the past you did ignore it, I told you that I would interloan the work you wanted and I would pay the charges myself, but this proposition was ignored, because you prefer using the dubvious material available on the web. For any serious researcher the web is not the place when there are subjects that both side propagandize. Yes! Both side, I do witness ignorance from Armenians on the web, I do witness exaggerations, I myself have had many fights with such Armenians. When someone want to really research the matter, libraries are a must, periodicals are a must, an Inter loaning access is the key... it is obvious that having access to the original material is VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. But you were never interested in that.

Unfortunately, since Fadix has zero credibility, we only have his word when he points to these not-readily available weasel facts , frequently cited without sources.

ANSWER: I have zero credibility according to you, but since you made many such false charges in countless numbers of occasions, your words are to be taken with caution. I have proposed to scan and show you pictures of such scans of the actual works, where it is demonstrated that the quotes you present do not exist, but you always ignored what I have proposed you. It is true that you may question what I affirm, but you must apply the same standard in what regards the materials you copy past from the web. Something you have not done so. Without confirming their existance when one claim they do not exist, you can not use them to support your theses, when their authenticity has not been demonstrated.

"a peer reviewed article is published based on the integrity of the material, and the right interpretation that the author come with, and interpretation based on the material submitted by the evidences collected" Highly debatable. Any number of works can easily be published by those who have come to be known as "renowned scholars," when the idea of scholarship is to dispassionately examine all sides of a story. When a Dadrian weasels with only one side of the story and deliberately falsifies information, and if he has "peers" that have similar agendas, that does not point to the "integrity of the material." This is why genocide industry participants prefer to operate behind closed doors, and don't invite members who don't belong to their club.

ANSWER: Not true, Dadrian lives in the US, he uses German, American, French, Austrian etc. documents which are accessible to other scholars, you can even have access to archives yourself with some inter loaning programs with a “copy order.” If Dadrian was to falsify such a material, since the material is widely available he will be exposed in his falsification. The same can not be said with works published by Turkish historians whom rely on materials written in Ottoman Turkish with Arabic scripts, while I understand Arabic script, my knowledge of Turkish is limited. So any such researchers, not only must know Turkish, but they should decipher the script and as well be able to have the permission to have access to those files, there are restrictions that makes any researcher ending up with the relevant material statistically unlikely. So, someone like Halacoglu, could claim anything they wants by footnotes to materials that no one could find. An example is how McCarthy himself uses materials, that the original he never came across of, yet he use them. Dadrians uses of Turkish sources is even more difficult, since if Dadrian was to use any Turkish sources which does not exist, the Turkish historians will be the first to expose him. As your comment regarding peer review, only an ignorant will make such comments, since Dadrian has published works in various prestigious and highly credible publications. Contrary to McCarthy he didn't need to warn at the first pages to get them published.

"I am not reinventing things here. " For the large part, that's true. Those like Dadrian have done the reinventing, and Fadix has done an outstanding job of chronicling the weasel facts of this momentous con job.

ANSWER: This is empty talk, I can make such charges without supporting them, but I won't, contrary to you.

"All sides including the Ottoman Empire, have admitted the crime, , what you can do best is find few individuals to support your cases, " Only the criminal can admit to the crime. The other parties must prove the crime. The Ottoman Empire has not admitted to a systematic plan of extermination, which is what most would define as "genocide." What has been admitted to is the Armenians suffered terribly, and some were massacred.

ANSWER: No any officials of any genocide have ever admitted having planned a genocide, not in Rwanda, not in Cambodia, not in Germany. Yet Talaat had admited during a conversation he had with Edip, Edip even wrote that in her own memoirs. Not only that, the Suprem general of the East, the Uncle of Enver, has admitted having tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual, such clear intentions and admissions from the memoirs of officials are hardly found, even in the cases of the Shoah. Vehib himself admitted, and he was the Commander of the IIIrd army, during the worst moments where the charges against the Armenians were made. There were such admissions, even from General Ilham. There are works published by members of the special organization telling about the way the organization worked and how the Armenians were asked to be liquidated, one of those works tell us more about the double talk of Talaat and even provides examples. You are here supporting your theses based on few materials you found on the web, against the thousands of thousands of files and documents that exist supporting the theses of genocide. As I said, there are stodies regarding the special organization, studies regarding the participation of physicians, or the concentration camps, on Chukru policy in those camps, the direct link between the Ittihadist branch with the second special organization, there were even a branch of the special organization coordinated by a German, and the reports are clearly indicative of a generalized plan of total extermination. I repeat, you're here discussing about something which you ignore, and here again, I merely answered you and did not document the cases, if I were to start doing that, you will be lost in references that you won't find on the Internet, but again, your job is to research the materials, the sources, and not use the Internet as sole reference for your study.

The officials who were outdoing one another trying to pin blame at the 1919 Ottoman kangaroo courts did so during British occupation. (Who told the Turks they must find culprits for the Armenian massacres, otherwise they would be dealt with severely at the Peace Conference. The Ottomans' reward for playing lap-dog: the death of the Turkish nation, via the Sevres Treaty.) These are the few individuals Dadrian and Fadix must cling to, because there is simply no judicial proof of a genocide.

ANSWER: Claiming that a tribal is not valid under the pretext that it was asked to bring the responsibles to justice is like dismissing the “investigational” process leading to the arrest of a criminal, as well as the prosecutions sides arguments, without even studying the cases. The process of requesting the criminal is how the Hague court of justice work, and how the Nuremberg and any such tribunals worked. What you claim has no sense at all.

Other parties have not proven the crime. The British desperately tried and failed at Malta, which we'll be getting to. The Andonian forgeries are the main proof, as Raffi believes; unfortunately, they are fake.

ANSWER: First of all, Orel and his colleagues analysis of the Andonians is very weak in what regards supporting their cases, and I have shown you how, if the same arguments used by Orel were to be applied to authenticate official telegrams, like those of Talaat which are recognize as authentic by the Turkish state, a large section of those documents will fail the test. In short, applying the same standards used to reject the Andonians, would in the same time reject a large section of the documents used by the Turkish states to support its theses. I am very comfortable with that, as I have provided lists of such documents, and it is apparent, that you need those documents to support your theses more than I need the andonians to support mine. But since your double standard has no bounds, I expect from your part to not make sense here again. As for Malta, I already covered that, and I just have read your laughable attempt to answer it and shall answer it.

Since Westerners are raised to regard the Muslim Turks as less-than-human, there are few who have gone against the "genocide" tide. But it is these few who must be listened to, because they would have had no reason to lie.

ANSWER: That's nonsense, you are interpreting here, first of all, you have yet to demonstrate that the Westerners in their large majority considered Turks are less than animals, you have to demonstrate that any such allusions to the Turks were independent to the massacres perpetrated against the minority. After doing that, you must support your second argument, which is that those that claimed the contrary to the theses that the large majority have reported had no reason to lie, given that, nearly all of those supporting your theses were even not there to begin with, when most of the Armenians felt victim.

"Lemkin reference is very relevant, he's the inventor of the word, so obviously he has a place in the genocide article, and why the Armenian genocide should be called such. But of course you prefer filling the article with irrelevant crap, and justify me why Lemkin numbers should not be accepted."

The point is, Lemkin was exposed to the same omnipresent "avalanche" of propaganda in order to draw his conclusions and numbers.

ANSWER: You suppose, but yet you haven't read any of those papers Lemkin wrote, neither his studies and documentations, so it is your opinion here that is POV, and has no value at all. Between you and Lemkin, you are the one to be less trusted. Sorry.

Lemkin did not make an impartial study of this history.

ANSWER: Again, that is according to you, it is POV.

He was taken in by reading works such as "The 40 Days of Musa Dagh," whose author was also taken in by believing in the Andonian forgeries. (Fearing Armenian reprisals, author Werfel dared not publicly acknowledge his error.)

ANSWER: Again, those are your own claims, without any supports, first, you have not demonstrated the Andonians as being forgeries, I call them suspicious, because I think Talaat was not dumb enough to leave such documents without destroying them, but do not call them forgeries, because Orel was not able to convince me, his arguments were not strong enough, and even confirmed that they may be authentic, I repeat, I said “may” and not “are,” Kriguer himself after investigation affirmed of their authenticity. As for the "The 40 Days of Musa Dagh," those are Novels, Lemkin study was a legal study, and novels in a legal aspect of a crime are irrelevant. Lemkin studied the Malta cases though.

So even though Lemkin invented the word, he based his belief on Armenian propaganda.

ANSWER: Again, this is POV, it is according to you, nothing more.

That makes him no more legitimate than the renowned Elie Wiesel for believing in the deception of Vahakn Dadrian today. 

ANSWER: What you call deception, is what independent scholars call carefully researched, like Richard Falk, professor of International Law at Princeton University has declared after reading one of Dadrians work: “No person of integrity can responsibly confront the contents of this Special Issue on the Armenian genocide without coming to closure on the historic truth of the principal Armenian allegations.” And this is one example among many. You can try to assassinate Dadrians character as much as you want, but it will be without success, for years your side has tried to do that, but all those attempts were pathetic failures.

And how quaint for Fadix to refer to firsthand sources as Dashnak leader Hovhannes Katchaznouni as "irrelevant crap."

ANSWER: Earth call moon, Earth call moon... are you blind or what? I told you that those words were NOT uttered by him, there are mistakes that expose Darounians POV in that text, TransCaucasia is NOT the Ottoman Empire, the content of the Erzeroon congress has nothing to do with what is reported, and as I said, this can be confirmed by using Uras own files(the father of denialism). This is why I call that a crap. Katchaznouni was there at the Alexandripole investigation, and I have already quoted from it.

We'll get to Lemkin's false numbers momentarily. "BTW You claim that I have not provided sources for my claims, tell me which one was it, " One answer followed in the passage directly after what Fadix wrote above, where I was quoted as saying, "George Cox estimating 2.4 million Armenians in the 19th century. I have no idea where that's from."

ANSWER: It is not George Cox, but Samuel Cox, he directed the United States embassy from 1880 to 1886, you will find the relevant information in the book: “Diversions of a Diplomat in Turkey,” New York, 1893. Good reading.

I realize we are going over many facts and we can't always stop and give a source. But a lot of sources weren't provided in Fadix's rewriting of the article.

ANSWER: True, I apologize for that, but I am always ready to document my cases when asked.

"Cox figures are based on US foreign diplomacy figures, they are numbers like others, one wonder why they should not be included as estimates" Same thing: did the "US foreign diplomacy" take a head count? Of course not. We don't know what they based these numbers on, as no census was taken.

ANSWER: Cox had an oil interest in the region, he tried to attract investors when later it was obvious for him that the disportions reported by the Ottoman of Muslim vs Armenians was not what was reported in the spot, even McCarthy in one of his essays, as I have noted he refers to the city of Rize. Beside that, even Nogales that was on the spot, realized that there was much more Armenians, much more towns, etc. he controlled 20,000 and had close relationship with Ottoman autorities and has estimated 2.5 million Armenians, Alexander in his book, point out that Djemal himself in his memoirs claims 1.5 million having been deported, and the investigations of the ratio was 2/3, which means that there was a lot more Armenians than reported.

Are the other examples Fadix provided of those over 2 million more legitimate? No. None of these Westerners went door-to-door in the foreign nation that was the Ottoman Empire. What they almost certainly did was rely on the Armenian Patriarch's exaggerations, counting up to 60 Armenians per household as Nerses documented in 1880.

ANSWER: You are lying here, there are countless numbers of reports which uses the Patriarchate figures, true, but the German statistics I provided were based on records obtained, many of those from the Ottoman. Cuinet and Lynch themselves have used Ottoman records.

Why? Gurun: "the Armenians who came to the Berlin Congress with the hope of establishing an autonomous Armenia in the eastern provinces felt the necessity to prove that the Armenian population of the region was more than the Muslim population so that their request could be considered justifiable. Thus they gave figures, knowing no limit to exaggeration, just as they have done in every matter. Their version of the Armenian population, which did not coincide with the records of the Ottoman Empire, or those of other states, was not taken seriously at the Berlin Congress or later."

ANSWER: As I have specified, Armenians were a clear minority only when packing all Muslim together and comparing them with the Armenians, but when one divide those Muslim, it is entirely another story. Eastern Anatolias Muslim population was Kurd not Turk, yet this pieces of land ended up in the hand of the Turks, but of course you don't find anything wrong there.

The Armenians are so self-centered, they would like to make us believe anything emanating from Turkish records is a lie, as if the whole Turkish world should be tied to the Armenians.

ANSWER: Again, a blunt generalization directed at the Armenians, you continue like this again and again, and in the same time you tell us how hateful the Armenians are. But reading the exchanges between you and me, it becomes clear that I'm more credible than you and does not generalize and make blunt comments regarding the Turks. As for the Turkish records, I do not use Armenian records, because you will call them propaganda, while you claim that Western records are not credible(actually you do consider credible, the infinitesimals which support your theses), and Armenian records even less, you want everybody to believe the Ottoman records as those representing the ultimate truth. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously after that?

If a country is going to take a census, it doesn't make sense if it's not going to be done accurately, for internal use. Gurun explains it was the American Ambassador who convinced the Sultan of a census' advantages in 1886, and "the preparations for a census were undertaken with the Ambassador's help. ...The results of this census were published in 1893. ...reliable, because everybody was given identity papers during the census, and from that date on it was impossible to engage in any occupation without these papers. However, the census was not taken as it is taken today, by requiring everybody to stay at home and going from one house to the next, but by asking the head of every household and by filling in a card for every member of the household. When these cards were being filled in, the muhtars (headmen of a quarter or a village) were present."

ANSWER: There was no census in the Ottoman empire, a Census is the counting of population, those were statistics, given a margin of error of above 30%, no one would consider such records as census, unless they are biased. Cuinet in his meticulous analysis has declared that the Ottoman did everything to prevent him to draw an accurate population statistic, and that they were not interested to have accurate numbers, hiding from him records. Such statements were made by the Germans as well, and I have provided one example. There were clear contradictions between what observers were observing on the Eastern zone, and what the Ottoman statistics were giving as numbers.

If the Ottoman census of 1893 figured 1,157,519 Armenians, what is more scientifically believable?

ANSWER: Death and birth records, which was kept by the Armenian church, but of course you don't accept them. The Armenian church kept official numbers(not those blunt statements made by the Patriarchate, but the official figures kept and hidden, because the Ottoman was eager to get any single Armenian to loot them from any single penny, by their sick taxation system), which were published by Krikor Zohrab, based on such records.

At any rate, what we are most concerned with are numbers not in the mid-to-late19th century (particularly Fadix's Austrian from 1856), where theoretically there could have been more Ottoman-Armenians before Russia had the chance to conquer Ottoman lands and attract more Armenians to move (for reasons Hovanissian outlined, above; remember, there were 3 million Armenians worldwide, and most came from the Ottoman Empire at one point), but numbers before the war, which we'll get to in the statistics section.

ANSWER: As I have admitted myself when I have provided thos numbers, and I also added, that even excluding those lands population, when applying a moderate increases of population, we come up with a figure higher than those you brag here and there.

"You wrote that Britannica 1911 edition provided 1.1 million and Toynbee 1915 provided less than a million. Both of those were lies. " I read the 1.1 million on a Turkish site, but then I checked the 1911 edition, available online. On one page there is the 1.1 million, but I noticed the 1.5 million on another page. We all don't have magical access to sources as Fadix so that we can check firsthand, and note his viciousness by terming information gathering as "lies."

ANSWER: Sorry to decieve you, but in it, there was no 1.1 million representing the Ottoman Armenian population, Lynch figures for the beginnings to mid 1890s of 1,056,000 were not Ottoman Armenians, as I have stated.

He does not explain how Toynbee's figures were a "lie."

ANSWER: I told you that the omly 1.1 million figures toynbee has provided he made it clear that it was from Ottoman sources, he never claimed Armenians being of 1 million, the claim that he did say that is a lie.

He says the encyclopedia referred to its 1896 figures (Amazing he has such access to old editions. I didn't scrutinize the online edition, but I didn't see any such notation),

ANSWER: I admit, that was kind of hard to find, but a real researcher go to the source, and I have provided the map reference used in Britannica, a publication of 1896(I even included the actual source), the map was published in 1896, but it missed entirely the population of Catholic and Protestant Armenians, that they were a minority true, but Western official records of the Catholics in Cilicia and in the West, in some areas were very very precise, more than any other records. As for the on line version, it's kind of surprising they do have it... now you got my interest I must admit :) What's the site, if it is the actual reproduction, the information must be there as well.

but my memory tells me the 1.5 million information was provided as current; it doesn't seem encyclopedic to provide outdated 15 year information when there were studies made in the interim.

ANSWER: They did, and I am quite sure that if they did have it on line, that information is there, since it was part of the entry. If you provide the link, that may help.

"With a moderate population increases 19 years later, we come up with an Armenian population of above 1.75 million, note here that in his demographic map, disputed bordering territories were excluded, and as well as an actual CLEAR undercount of Catholic and Protestant Armenians." No, "we" don't come up with that population; "Zero credibility" master propagandist Fadix comes up with that, chomping at the bit to have us accept deceitful Patriarch figures of over 2 million.

ANSWER: Do the math, I am not applying any Population stability formula here based on a half pyramid, I can't do that, because none of the four points would be respected. But use yourself a classic increase function, and you will see that by yourself. I am not reinventing anything.

The fact is, Armenian authors are agreed that following the revolts of 1894-6, and not counting the additional immigration caused by the turmoil of the Balkan Wars, hundreds of thousands of Armenians emigrated from the Ottoman Empire.

ANSWER: The way you shout on your own feet is amazing, you just answered to your own question regarding the number of Diasporan Armenians which according to you was disproportionate. BTW, the Balkan war did not resulted in any more than average Armenian emigration, from where you took that one wonder. As for hundreds of thousands having emigrated from what happened between 1894-1897, many Armenians left(actualy the word kicked out would fit better), but this actually demonstrate my theses... while Armenian sources took in account the decrease of population followed with what happened, the Ottoman statistics haven't recorded any anomaly in the average slight increase of Armenian population from statistics to statistics, which clearly indicate that the Ottoman statistics credibility in what concerns the Armenian population were near to about zero. And here I am not referring to the so-called 1912 statistics that never was, but more exactly those of 1906. The Ottoman knew clearly that there was more Armenians than recorded, so they kept keeping the same sort of population increase after what happened from 1894-1897. But of course, you won't mention that after 1908, when the new young Turk government took power many Armenians that have quit to the Russian Armenians have emigrated in the Ottoman, believing to the so-called changes that were to happen. But I don't expect Mr. Torque to take account of that.

Adjusting for population growth, the statistics of those two periods remained fairly constant.

ANSWER: That's the entire point, those records all one after the other showed no anomaly, years by years, when even the figures presented by the Armenians have shown them. I ask you again, where is the census that the Young-Turks were supposed to have published? Where are they? Why were they not published?

And why should the undercount of the other religious groups be CLEAR? Because Fadix's favorite deceitful Gregorian Patriarchate did not provide the figures? Perhaps Fadix prefers the number of Greek Catholics to be added, to inflate his numbers.

ANSWER: First of all Mr. I am not a Gregorian, but, agnostic born Catholic. The Armenian Catholic church kept records that were hardly equated by their precisions to anything else in that time, and I have seen what I affirm. Each church keep their owns, in a sort of book with a given pages, by only taking a book, you know already how many names are in it. But of course the Ottoman numbers compared to those figures were of a fraction, I can provide you examples like in Marash, where Cuinet himself calculate according to Ottoman sources, but when using the official records, the Armenian Catholics were 4 times more than what was claimed. So Mr. Torque, before claiming something which you totally ignore, document yourself. There are many records of Armenians which the precision is highly equaled, and the Ottoman knew when they asked in the 1910s to Armenians to present lists of their own assets, shops etc. because the Ottoman knew perfectly that the Armenians holding such records that no one else were holding. Greek Catholics? Do you know if they even exist in the first place? They are an insignificant fraction. Again, stop talking about things which you ignore.

"I could have deleted the NY Times entry, but did not, I left this little comfort for you. But since you bring it on, you just gave me the occasion to answer and discredit it. " Isn't that sweet of Fadix to be so comforting. And how interesting that his first impulse is always to try and discredit. In addition, note his arrogant tone that he's in charge, free to spread his propaganda at will.

ANSWER: Seems that you are mistaking me for yourself, try harder please.

It's appalling what he comes up with. In other words, the report that has been picked up was provided solely by lying Ottoman officials, who had no reason to blame the Armenians in Nov. 1914, unless there was reason for the rebellion, backed up by numerous sources (even Armenian) of Armenian planning and Russian-financing.

ANSWER: Do you know what about 200,000 rubles represent? The report comes from Tiflis? Am I right? Do you know how many arms, provisions, powder, resources one can buy with that money? Do you have anny idea of the costs when converted to rubles of each Ottoman Empires divisions? What kind of crap you will believe, it is really behind belief. And besides, imagine that they end up having from that amount 100,000 rubles to buy gun powders, from where they will get them? Tell me Einstein. As for your Armenian sources, show me, I presented you the official Tashnak letter, that is even found in Uras collections of files.

And if the Ottomans were behind these "lies," then it would be unlikely for the Russian press to rely upon an enemy source.

ANSWER: You're one of the kind, i must really give you that. Any press uses sources, any sources they can get, early in the war the Russians didn't invaded the front, they had no idea of what was happening inside, they would have published any news coming from an official media, and Germany was the best choice one could get, since they had reports on daily basis.

Then he has the gall to suggest a city in the Turkish empire should not be referred to as a "Turkish town," for the same reason that Fresno, California should not be referred to as an "American town," because Armenians might comprise the largest number.

ANSWER: Different, the Ottoman Empire was still not a Turkish nation, villeyets were called by the turks themselves based on the population that were living there, even Turks were calling the East villayets, “Ermeni.” The town that we are talking about here, was central Van, who's population was by its majority Armenian.

But were Armenians in the majority, in Van?

ANSWER: In the town? Sure, they were.

"Turks were a minority there, representing a little fraction of the population... this word came after the Ottoman decided to forge figures of population ..." What can be done with this "Zero Credibility" character? He'll say anything to justify his big con job, all in an effort to detract and confuse. For example, isn't it remarkable he can cite the details of how a long-ago 1914 newspaper story came to be? This is beyond the capacity of a normal interested party. Of course, all we have is his word, when he comes up with these weasel facts.

ANSWER: You are a complete liar, in the other board I have documented how the Germans took the news, I have quoted references , where an author(one of those a recipient of a Nobel Peace price) tell the entire story etc. yet you claim that my words should not be taken seriously and that I have zero credibility. I must admit, it is the first time that someone trying to use my exaggerated knowledge of an event as an argument to reject my theses. You are falling in new lows, I would never have believed that you could fall more than you have already fallen.

Perhaps Fadix is thinking about the Armenian population after the Armenians got through with their bloody work of ethnic cleansing and expulsing, enough so that an American-Armenian newspaper of the period bragged that only 1,500 Turks were left in Van.

ANSWER: Again, Mr. Torque generalization of the Armenian population. Second of all, the newspaper in question has never reported what you claim it has reported, this is a falsification brought in the newsgroups in the 90s, and beside that, it wasn't even a newspaper publishing in daily basis, it was more a periodical than anything else. But like this was not enough, the “newspaper” in question hasn't evenj published anything at the date it is claimed that quote comes from, not the dat before, or after, but the closest to eat was something like 10 days differences with the date of the publication and had nothing to do with what you claim, but rather the Ottoman armies attack on Van and the invasion in the Persian font. I told you this in more than one occasion, yet you still repeat this lie, when it was said to you that it was a lie.

Then the Armenians clearly had the majority. Beforehand, Fadix would prefer us to believe the Patriarch's figures from 1912, "enhanced" further by Marcel Leart (who was a forerunner of those sneaky Armenians who like to take on non-Armenian names in an effort to come across as impartial; his real name was Krikor Zohrap):

Zohrab never enhanced those figures, but I don't expect you to be a truth teller.

Van Turks: 47,000, Van Armenians: 185,000. (The Patriarch sometimes had a habit of leaving out other Muslims, like the Kurds.)

ANSWER: Those statistics are accurate, actually those numbers were higher than the figures of 30,000 Turks given by some Ottoman statistics. And yes! The Kurds whom were the majority were left out, but it was meant to show the differences between the Turks and Armenians.

The reader can consult Gurun's book (http://www.eraren.org/eng/armfile.htm) to see how Van statistics contrast with the Patriarch's. The most thorough foreign researcher, Cuinet, had Van Turks: 241,000 Van Armenians: 75,644.

ANSWER: Cuinet numbers were based on Ottoman statistics, furthermore he dumped Kurds as Turks.

These figures are from 1880, so let's refer to what Dr. Justin McCarthy came up with, known for his pristine demographics in all but Armenian propaganda circles. "in the province of Van 26% were Armenians. However, even in these two provinces, the Muslim population was twice that of the Armenians. Bitlis was 67% Muslim, Van 61%. In the Six Vilayets as a whole, Muslims outnumbered Armenians 4.5 to 1."

ANSWER: I have already analyzed McCarthy in the other forum, but yet you ignore that.

It could be Fadix is referring to the city of Van, and not the province. Regardless, it's good to know the history of what went on: "Part of the reason for the low numbers of Armenians in the East was the dispersion of the Armenian people. Armenians had been migrating for centuries, a movement that continued well into modern times. Of course, Armenians had moved into Russian Armenia. They had begun to leave Anatolia in large numbers in the time of the 1827-28 Turco-Russian War and had continued to move throughout the period of the 1877-78 war. In Russia, the Anatolian Armenians took the place of Turks and other Muslims who had been forced by the Russians to migrate into the Ottoman Empire." I hope Fadix will resist his character-assassinating temptation to charge McCarthy as being a paid Turkish tool. McCarthy's estimate of the Armenian population as a whole was on the high side, about 1,700,000, and let's not forget Fadix pointed to that.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque you seem to mistake character assassination, which is attacking the character of someone(for example, what you do with Dadrian, or Israel Charny in your web-site), and reviewing someones work and researching about him. I have presented about 40 pages of my over 100 pages of analysis of McCarthys work on the other forum, I have actually read all his works, and analyzed them. I have demonstrated all what I affirm, but yet you regurgitate the same crap like if nothing has been said.

"As for Morgenthau, I don't remember having used him when trying to support my theses. Have I ever used him?" That's besides the point; I didn't claim Fadix used Morgenthau. The point was Fadix was now trying to ironically discredit Morgenthau, a favorite Armenian guru, because Fadix did not like Morgenthau's rare support of the absolute fact that Armenians were armed to the teeth, and waiting for their rebellious opportunity. (An Armenian trying to discredit Morgenthau-- this might be a first.)

ANSWER: That's a claim, you have yet to show me that I am trying to discredit him first of all, second of all, if what I do may sound discrediting, you have to show me that I am doing that because it somehow(how, I have no idea still) support your claim. That's amazing because even Nogales claims that if 30,000 Armenians in Van were to use anything they can get, even if not guns, they could have kicked their asses and taken Van.

We're not referring to the Armenians of Van who were armed to the teeth. We're referring to Armenians all over the empire who were armed with caches of weapons, ammo and even uniforms.

ANSWER: A division was of about 20,000 in the Ottoman army, Nogales with one division was able to go through Van and Erzerun, Vehib after the return of the Soviet front did the same, even Djevet when returning on the front with his men before joining Nogales did the same. If what you claim was to be true, given the available unites, the Ottoman could never have imposed the “relocation” of the Armenians in the first place.

this is confirmed not by a "few references" but by numerous Western sources, hardly any who had reason to be sympathetic to the Turks. For example, Felix Valyi wrote in 1925: "It is known that the attempts made by Turkey to win the support of the 'Dachnakzoutioun' party against Russia at the beginning of the War were repulsed in the month of September, 1914, by the Armenian Congress at Erzurum, which declared itself `neutral'. Nevertheless the thousands of Russian bombs and muskets which were found in the hands of its members prove what this neutrality meant." Here I am providing evidence for a demonstrated historic fact that the Armenians rebelled. It's unbelievable. Unbelievable how the poison pen of propagandists can inflict so much doubt in this day and age.

ANSWER: Again, you are shooting on your own feet. You want clear witnesses, but what you can do best is pointing out writers that were even not witness of what happened. It will be relevent as well to not that this same individual was a supporting of the Turkish side in 1919, when the Turkish delegations came up with a bunch load of trash to be presented to support their position, while on the other side, criminals were trialled for attempting to exterminate the Armenians.

"It is said by the Turkish side that accounts from Armenian newspapers hailing the rebellion exist, but so as accounts in newspapers about Jewish declaration of wars before Germany declared war, declarations, and acts are two different things, and this is a pretty well known thing and recorded in history." Do those accounts from Armenian newspapers exist, first of all? Yes, they do. So what is this about "it is said by the Turkish side"?

ANSWER: No they don't. There is no such accounts from Armenian newspapers, the only you came up with does even not exist in the first place. Most of your Armenian sources that support your theses don't event exist.

Fadix wants to cast doubt, regardless. The reasons why this parallel is absurdly illogical is because if there were Jewish declaration of wars in newspaper accounts, they did not come from pro-Jewish newspapers. "Zero Credibility" Fadix will say anything in an attempt to draw a smokescreen.

ANSWER: What an absurd comment, your ignorance is amazing really, there is no more “Pro-Jewish” newspaper than the New York Times and Jewish newspapers and sources. Here some.

"Judea Declares War on Germany!" - Daily Express headline, March,24th, 1933

"Judea Declares War on Germany! Jews of all the World Unite! Boycott of German Goods! Mass Demonstrations!" - These were all headlines in the Daily Express on March, 24th, 1933.

"The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany. Fourteen million Jews stand together as one man, to declare war against Germany. The Jewish wholesaler will forsake his firm, the banker his stock exchange, the merchant his commerce and the pauper his pitiful shed in order to join together in a holy war against Hitler's people." - Daily Express, March, 24th, 1933

"Germany is our public enemy No.1. It is our object to declare war without mercy against her." - Bernart Lecache, President, Jewish World League

"This declaration called the war against Germany, which was now determined on, a 'holy war'. This war was to be carried out against Germany to its conclusion, to her destruction." - Dr. Scheidl, Geschicte der Verfemung Deutschlands

"Each of you, Jew and Gentile alike, who has not already enlisted in this sacred war should do so now and here. It is not sufficient that you should buy no goods made in Germany. You must refuse to deal with any merchant or shopkeeper who sells any German-made goods or who patronises German ships or shipping.... we will undermine the Hitler regime and bring the German people to their senses by destroying their export trade on which their very existence depends." - the New York Times, on August 7th, 1933.

"The fight against Germany has been carried out for months by every Jewish conference, trade organisation, by every Jew in the world.... we shall let loose a spiritual and a material war of the whole world against Germany." - M. Jabotinsky, founder of Revisionist Zionism, Natcha Retch, January, 1934

"Hitler will have no war (does not want war), but he will be forced to it, not this year, but later on." - Les Aniles, 1934

"We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany." - David A. Brown, National Chairman, United Jewish Campaign.

"There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it." - Jewish Daily Bulletin, July, 27th, 1935

"Before the end of the year, an economic bloc of England, Russia, France and the U.S.A will be formed to bring the German and Italian economic systems to their knees." - Paul Dreyfus of Mulhausen, 'La Vio de Tanger' May, 15th, 1938

"The Jews, taken collectively, view this war as a holy war." - The Daily Herald, No.7450, 1939

"This war is our business." - Rabbi Dr. Stephen Wise, Defence in America, June,1940

"In losing Germany, Jewry lost a territory from which it exerted power. Therefore it was determined to re-conquer it." - Louis Marschalko, Hungarian journalist and writer

"Joining with Samuel Untermeyer in calling for a war against Germany, Bernard Baruch, at the same time, was promoting preparations for war against Germany. 'I emphasised that the defeat of Germany and Japan and their elimination from world trade would give Britain a tremendous opportunity to swell her foreign commerce in both volume and profit." - Samuel Untermeyer, The Public Years, p.347

The Jews are accused of everything idiots of your ilk accuse Armenians of having committed. In fact, the Jews were even accused of more crimes, the accusations are even more abound and the belief of a Jewish conspiration against Germany was more intense than the one regarding the Armenians, when the Ottoman knew were not true(I will be bringing evidences later about this).

The Jews were accused of wanting to destroy Germany, to bring Zionism by the help of Bolshevism… and there are even references in Jewish sources of Jewish implications with communism.

"The Communist Movement and ideology played an important part In Jewish life, particularly in the 1920s, 1930s and during and after World War II."

Encyclopedia Judaica, Vol. 5, 1971, p. 792

"Communist tends became widespread in virtually all Jewish communities. In some countries, Jews became the leading element in the legal and illegal Communist Parties…"

ibid, p. 793

It is really easy to take things out of context like I just did here, of course there are many explanations regarding that, and it is obvious that Jews were in no way capable of representing any real thread for the German Reich. The same goes with the Armenian women, children and elderly, when at the beginning the Ottoman separated them from the men in age to fight, or when many were sent to complete the Baghdad railraod. You're just a total ignorant going after the web and finding any insignificant trash and believing having made a discovery which will show there was no genocide. By your own indirect admission you have recognised this to be a fact. You told that your primarily resources is the web, but of course all your materials are from revisionist websites... which means that you selectively go to those sites and take anything you can without verifying the validity of those sources.

"I have demonstrated that you use forgeries, manipulations, fabrications, reinterpretations etc. I have answered you with over a hundred pages, documenting every points I made. And now, I'm the one not having credibility? " It's a good thing I'm unaware of these hundred pages, because I'm having a hard enough time responding to the few pages of blabber Fadix has provided here. the difference between Fadix and myself is that I never knowingly use false information.

ANSWER: What a liar you are, you absolutely know of those over hundred of pages, you were at the other place, and did receive my answer. but since you deny being Holdwater the author of the tallarmeniantale website, you are in no position to claim I have no credibility. Beside that, show me any falsifications I have used, while I can show countless, countless that you use. Beside that, unknowingly doesn't excuse you from using falsehood, it is your responsibility to research and verify what you read. No one can be excused of ignoring the law.

I'm aware not everything I report might be accurate, as only supermen like Fadix has access to hundred year old books and the inside scoop on how old newspaper articles were prepared.

ANSWER: If you can not verify the accuracy of a material that someone tell you do not exist, it is to you to demonstrate its existence and not mine to demonstrate its non-existence. But again, I have even done that, and proposed you help, you ignored.

But we can see the extent of his weasel facts, and if there's something I'm unsure about, I can't take what he says at face value. That's because Fadix has Zero Credibility.

ANSWER: Again, you words regarding my credibility have no value at all. You can be unsure of my words, but when someone question the authenticity of a material, it is obvious that it is to you to document and demonstrate that they're authentic. Not only did I told you they were fake, but I even compared them with the originals, and in other cases confirmed their non existence, and other times, when the material is claimed having been published there was no issue of the periodical published.

"I have deleted the (Katchaznouni) entry because it is a mistranslation, the verbatim does not concord with the original. There is an elementary mistake that is proper to Darounian..." Here we have the manifesto of a prime Dashnak leader and Armenia's first president, Hovhannes Katchaznouni, and it's mind-boggling the lengths Fadix goes to discredit this primary source.

ANSWER: A translation of a work, more particularly when it is said to be verbatim, should refer to the original work from which it is said having been translated from. This is obvious. For example, when Dadrian document his cases from Turkish sources, he present the Turkish original version for people to compare. What you present is not a primary sources, it is Darounian POV, he mistake the Erzerun congress, as well as mix TransCaucasia with the Ottoman Empire, and does in no circumstances present the original. You want access to the original, I know you won't take my words, find the original, and I will translate it for you, and you can find another translator and compare them, because if I present them you won't believe.

The manifesto was prepared by an Armenian patriot, Arthur A. Derounian, published in 1955 by the Armenian Information Service, and we are asked to believe the translation is diametrically opposed to the original.

ANSWER: There was no such thing as an Armenian Information Service, this was build by Darounian during the conflicts between the Tashnakists and Bolshevic Armenians,(from the 30s to the 50s) each side accusing the other party of being responsible of the destruction of the Armenian homeland... the Montreux Convention followed etc. Darounian publication was meant to condemn the Tashnakist side, nothing more, the first 7 or 8 pages were said to be Verbatims and not transcriptions, they can not be a written Manifesto, if you go through Darounians publication, you will crealy see the differences between Darounian POV, and what followed after page 7.

The unreliability is "confirmed by the Dashnaktoutiun official press organ," Fadix tells us. the manifesto is entitled, "The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnagtzoutiun) has nothing to do any more," and is critical of the Dashnaks; how do you think the official press organ is going to react?

ANSWER: You don't imagine how I am laughing, The Dashnaktoutiun Press organs letter collected by Uras, and which was as well published in newspapers(I have one copy published in a Canadian Newspaper), was written in 1915, years before... so it could not have been a reaction of the Manifesto. You take the Hichakist and Tashnakists war to reduce eachothers, without even bothering searching about the first 7-8 pages of Darounians work and if it has anything to do with the actual manifesto... more so when there are two obvious mistakes that are Darounians POV in it, and like if this was not enough the original manifesto was written when Katachdounis presence was reduced as nothing more than a Soviet pow.

Then Fadix attempts to give us the true intentions of Katchaznouni, since he "nearly" wrote what he wrote as a "Bolshevic Red army pow."

ANSWER: This information is true, not only that happened to Armenian leaders, but as well as Azeri and Georgian leaders, and many other leaders.

There is no level Fadix won't stoop to. The terrorist Dashnaks completely mismanaged Armenia, as even Armenian historians like Hovannisian tell us.

ANSWER: Don't you you have any shame? Stop putting words in the mouth of peoples, leave Dadrian and Hovannessian alone... do you think that by forging a so-called statement made by people that it will make your position more credible?

These bloodthirsty bandits didn't care what happened to their own people, following through with their policies since the 1890s, robbing and killing their own directly and by also leaving them open to massacres by committing massacres against Muslims.

ANSWER: Those bloodthirsty bandits as you call them were the only defense left for the Armenian population against nomadic bandits whom were armed by the Ottoman government. If the Ottoman was to respect Treaties giving more rights to its minorities, and if it stopped supporting criminals back during the mass slaughters of the Armenians of Taurus in 1862(which is documented, one interest documentation of the situation was published in the Revue des Deux Mondes in February 15, 1863 titled: “Les Arméniens du Taurus et les massacres de 1862” by Victor Langlois), the Armenians of the Kars region etc. would have never supported the Russians in the 1877-1878. Why don't you tell us that organizations like the Dashnaks were formed after the raid of the Erzerum Cathedral killing countless numbers of Armenians on Sunday during prayers i n 1890? But as expected, yet, you have no clue of what you are talking about.

The corrupt officials were on the take, and left their people to die and suffer in massive numbers from starvation and disease (Hovannisian wrote 195 deaths for every birth?), after sneak-attacking two of their neighbors in 1918-9 when it was the worst time for the new nation, because of the typical Armenian land-grab greed.

ANSWER: In 1918-1919, already over a million Armenians felt victim, the genocide was nearly over, what happened with the Armenian men whom returned and have seen their entire villages destroyed, their brothers sisters, mothers fathers, uncles, grandfathers, grandmothers all butchered is entirely another story. And no, there was no sneak attack of two of their neighbors, stop farting, and talking about things which you ignore, I have corrected you about this in the other forum, and you know it, stop repeating this over and over again.

When these activities blew up in the Dashnaks' faces, and they meekly gave up their country (save for one short-lived attempt to fight, when they called on the Turks for help!) thus betraying their friends in the West, does anyone think the patriotic Katchaznouni would have needed a Bolshevik gun to his head to report the truth? (And Katchaznouni was not a POW, since there was no war between the Soviets and Armenia. Ohh, those Fadix "facts.")

ANSWER: Your ignorance is really, really, really amazing. What became the Russian Gulags, what was done to intellectuals, to leaders when the Russian Red Army entered. How they took control of those lands? Dude, go read some books, stop finding few quotes from the web and thinking you're an expert.

"what evidences is present in the cases of the Holocaust that does not exist in the Armenian cases. " Too complicated to answer fully here, but let's give a few examples. (1) No Wannsee Conference. (2)

ANSWER: What do you really know of the Wannsee conference? Was there any Ottoman conferences taking the decision...? Ignorant, as I have stated, and this is widely documented, at the end of 1914 criminals were released from the prisons to be part of the special organization, this is documented in Turkish sources, and not only those of the Military tribunal. At the same time at the end of 1914, there was a conference of the Ittihadit who decided to dissolve the government(that's how they declared the war). The meeting and the plan of destruction of the Armenians could be found in Mevlan Zade Rifat (who was in charge of rewriting in Verbatim meetinfs) work, “Turkie inkilabinin ic uyzu, Halep,” 1929. That such a meeting happened is confirmed by the Tribunals files regarding the decision at the same dates of releasing criminals from the central prisons.

No concentration camps (at least not constructed ones; see above).

ANSWER: There were a documented 25-26 cases of concentration camps, and 4 transit camps, it was called concentration camps, even by the Germans.

(3)Punishment for some Turks who acted criminally against the Armenians during the war

ANSWER: That's trash, what remains is that criminals were released from central prisons, and were selected, the majority were murderers, and those were specifically chosen to be sent to “secure” the Armenoan Convoys. So what you claim makes no sense, the same can be said of so-called materials regarding Hitler punishing criminals acting brutally, and how Hitler wasn't responsible of what happened to the Jews, he was against it. Irving in his so-called documentation can be found in his book: “Hitlers War.”

(4) About 200,000 western Armenians exempt from the relocation policy, along with some other groups

ANSWER: That's because you only selectively chose what happened from 1915-1917, but when taking what was left of the Armenian population in 1923, one can not say the same. Today in Istanbul, Armenians represent less than 0.01% of the population, when in 1915, they were over 10%... and this is the only place where there is a recorded Armenian population. In historic Ottoman Armenia, there is no traces of Armenians, yet disgustfully you even claimed Armenians were allowed back.

(5) No food rations reduced or public transportation banned, as Nazis did in 1942;

ANSWER: That's completely untrue, the fact that some concentration camps that were used for a very short time demonstrate that what you claim here is a complete BS(like those of Radjo, Katma and Azaz that were closed very soon during the extermination process (in those cases, Fall 1915).)

When the Red Cross proposed to feed the Armenians, they were restricted to do so, and the Ottoman even declared that they wished nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. When the Ottoman realised that many were able to reach Alepo(transit camp) and the City of Zor, they decided to pack them and re-sent them in the concentration camps in the desert, left there to die. This means that contrary to their reports that the Armenian refugees were sent to Zor, the Ottoman did not expected that they were survive. And this is only a few examples, many other examples such as when the Ottoman discovered that the 21 Armenian convoy leaving from Alepo and Zor City, some were able to buy food from Arabs... the Ottoman sent a complete brigade of the special organization on them.

no "yellow star" for Armenians (6)

ANSWER: From where it requires a yellow star, for a cases to be called a genocide?

Final Solution carried out until bitter end; relocation policy stops in 1916

ANSWER: Wrong, it stops in 1917 for near a year, and than it start again with the Kemalists so-called war of independence, and what happened in Cilicia and Smyrna.

(7) Nearly all Nazis found guilty at Nuremberg, conducted by Allies.

ANSWER: All leading figures of the Ittihadists were found guilty, even the leader of the government. When Hitler was found guilty?

No Turks found guilty at Malta Tribunal, conducted by Allies.

ANSWER: There was no Malta tribunal, on the other hand, the Turkish Martial Court found the leaders huilty.

(8) Rivki Cohen, Israel Ambassador to Armenia, Feb. 9, 2002 states a parallel must not be drawn between the Holocaust and the Armenian "genocide," following a similar statement by Shimon Peres. "This is totally irrelevant, how Armenians lived before the event doesn't show anything here. What is important is what happened in 1915, and the process of extermination. ..."

They are politicians not specialists, while you rely on such “evidences” I rely on evidences that can be used on court of law.

Wrong. Highly important. Every murderer must have a motive, unless insane or totally amoral.

ANSWER: True, I never said the opposite, there were motifs behind the Shoah and any genocide, as there were in the cases of the Armenian genocide... how a motif of a genocide could undo the fact that there was a genocide?

Since spurious pro-Armenian theories like "pan-Turanism" and "Muslims hate Christians" have huge holes in them,

ANSWER: I never used the “Muslims hate Christians” and have affirmed that the “Panturanian” ideology was restricted to a restritif cicles, such as Envers, and it became clear at the beginning of the war after the defeat at the Soviet front, that it was not really plausible. I have already studied the motifs, but you never bothered studying them yourself, you just are good at shouting Armenian “treachery.”

hopefully Fadix is not claiming by default that the Turks were insane/amoral as a people. He wouldn't do that, because he's not a racist.

ANSWER: I'm not you.

"I do know that you are a racist." Of course Fadix knows this. Fadix knows everything. Fadix fits Harold Armstrong's Armenian pattern of "argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know-it-alls."

ANSWER: You are supposed to bring arguments that you are not racist, after I have documented you were one, and what you do is further confirming by characterizing Armenians again,... that you are indeed a racist.

"Greeks and Serbs... rebelled and founded their own nations while Armenians were sitting like a 'fidel' house pet" They sure learned! When it was the Armenians' turn, they outdid the Greeks' and Serbs' bloody atrocities (also nearly never heard of in the biased West) by murdering 518,000, with Russian help. And these don't cover the thousands of innocent souls the Armenians murdered in their forty-odd year terror campaign before the war. (During the time of the Serbs' revolt, by the way.)

ANSWER: As I said, this 518,000 exist only in the imagination of people that don't have the intellectual capability to understand the statistical impossibility of such a figure. If Armenians could have done that, entire Turkey would not have existed. And I have even demonstrated to you that the 518,000 figures were forgery, and that Ahmed Emin himself doesn't even give half of that number.

"First of all, Armenians were the subjects of an Empire, those for the word treachery can not be applied to describe a rebellion. There is a difference between citizen and subject, there is no allegiance in the cases of a subject. " We've already demonstrated the Armenians were anything but downtrodden; they were, in fact, mainly in the "power" position. I realize that won't stop Fadix from repeating his propaganda. I would like to add, however, that Armenians have historically proven to switch allegiances at the drop of a hat.

ANSWER: Again, what you are doing is racistic, claiming that Armenians have done this and that historically to draw a picture of them is purely racist. Let me explain you how, suppose that a father did kill a member of another family, that father died, his son that did nothing is judged by the other family, and his children as well. This judgment is based on a stereotype, if the children of the son is taken alone, the fact that this person is judged is discrimination. The same goes with what you do. If you draw a portrait of the Armenians from generations to generations, this is simply racist, because you judge people just because they are Armenians. Now you judge me and quote someone that has said something about the Armenians over a century ago, why would this be relevant in what concerns my behaviors? You do that in your site too, you post materials describing Armenians back in the 1850s or so... in 1915, those people were even not alive in the first place.

Centuries ago, Roman historian Tacitus wrote: "The Armenians change their position relating to Rome and the Persian Empire, sometimes supporting one and sometimes the other ... they are a strange people."

ANSWER: Again, what the hell something of over a millennium ago has anything to do with “me” and the “Ottoman Armenians.” You are exactly acting like NAZI ideologues such as Rosenberg, trying to trace the Jewish “evil” roots back to millenniums ago.

When Armenia sneak-attacked neighbor Georgia in 1918, of course the Armenian-Georgians were largely in support, thus making the innocent and loyal Armenians among them suffer... just like in the Ottoman Empire! Georgia reacted, according to Hovannisian, by arresting hundreds, and then deporting them! (UNLIKE the Ottomans, who resettled their Armenians in other areas of their own country.)

ANSWER: Khram River was situated in what was called the Nakhichevan province. When the republic of Georgia was declared(months before Armenia) they invaded the place and declared the republic in the entire area… the only reason the attack of the republic of Armenia is considered as an attack here, is that Armenia didn’t existed before Dec. 1918, the conflict between those two party existed months before, but at that time no declared republic of Armenia existed. Before May 1918, Georgia was part of Russia, after the independence they signed a pact with Germany requesting to be occupied by German troops in order to secure their borders against a possible occupation of the by the Kemalists. When the republic of Armenian was formed in December 1918, Georgia was already occupied by the Germans and then the British… yes there was a war, a “cold” war between Georgia and Armenia, because the Georgians like the Armenians had both territorial claims(The Circassians took the Armenian side, as they do presently as well), but it wasn’t lunched by the Armenian side, because the Georgian frontiers were already protected by German troops, the Georgians thought that since they had protections they could lunch an attack… it was successful as later they took a part of the declared republic of Armenia so as Turkey and Azerbaijan did by taking Surmulu, Olti, Kars, Kakhisman, Ardahan and Ghazakh.

And the reason why Armenians were deported outside was because there was no plan to eradicate the Armenian population, so the Georgians kicked the Armenians out, while the Ottoman intention was to kill Armenians, that's why they were not permitted to leave.

When the government called for elections, "the Armenians in Georgia expressed outrage that this government would require every voter to be 'registered' as Georgian citizens." (Hovannisian.) Weems writes, "All democratic republics require citizenship before an individual can vote. But the Armenians claim their people must be 'Armenian' but should be an equal partner and vote in another republic's elections without declaring citizenship. Is there a single example of this type of attitude in any other nation's history?"

ANSWER: Weems once more. First of all, Armenians reaction was obvious, and contrary to what Weems affirm not only this is recorded in nations history, but it was wide spread when the principle of citizenship was brought during that time, which was new in the region. Armenians as anyone were new to that concept of “Citizenship” and “Republic,” this can not be compared to what we know as citizenship now. Any groups during those years when this concept was brought, took it as if they were not of an ethnic group but another, many thought that it was treachery from their parts to do so. Armenians found out that they were registered as “Georgians” while they considered themselves Armenians. I don't see why this is relevant here.

I guess it's because I recount such innocence-destroying facts from his own historians that makes Fadix smear the messenger, and attempt to detract from the message, by charging me with racism.

ANSWER: That you are a racist is obvious for anyone that read you. And no, in no way am I trying to detract from Hovannessians message, as I have explained what he reports isn't something amazing, but of course since you have nothing of value to support your cases, you rely on such diversions like the conflict between Georgia and Armenia.

"A traitorous minority consisting of women, children and elderly,(since the men on age to be a threat were separated from the rest at the beginning of the deportation) another example of your disgusting hateful and racist rhetoric." Fadix has it backwards. Most of the Armenian troops deserted and men from villages traitorously joined the Russians, or the revolutionary groups behind the lines. As Gurun wrote, "Every inch of the country was filled with deserters, every part was subject to the attacks of brigands. Because every Turk capable of bearing arms was recruited, the field was left to the Armenians." It was the Muslim and non-Armenian women, children and elderly who were left open to the attacks of these murderers, whose objective was to kill and expulse as many Muslims as they could in order to create a "Greater Armenia."

ANSWER: No one in his right mind, unless he's biased, would take the words of a Turkish diplomat working at the Turkish foreign ministry at face value, more so when the individual in question has a history of falsification and manipulation.

Of course there were many innocent Armenians who suffered from the greedy, treacherous decisions of their fanatical leaders.

ANSWER: It wasn't those “fanatic” leaders that have formed criminals released from prisons to escort the Armenian convoys, it wasn't those “fanatic leaders” that have set the concentration camps, it wasn't those fanatic leaders that have sent women, children elderly to die, and release on them, from the central prisons the worst butchers that one can get. Those actions were taken by the Ittihadist government, no one else.

But were all women and children innocent? Who took care of the traitorous rebels? Women helped in the manufacture of bullets.

ANSWER: What a full of crap apologistic disgusting individual you are. Pathological liar as you've always been. Care to document this please?

They were part of an entire network where the innocent could not be separated from the guilty in the desperate "life or death" Ottoman struggle, with great world powers threatening every gate.

ANSWER: I will again provided you the accurate diangosis, that you do suffer of severe delusion, and most probably you suffer of schziphrenia.

To give examples of how Armenian women and children took part in violence, albeit from an earlier period (but describing the same M.O.), here's what Aghasi (not the tennis player), who began the 1895 Zeitun rebellion, wrote in his diary: "A great number of Zeitunites came to join us in the mountains where we had been hiding. . . . They had all come with arms; there were even children who carried a knife or a gun. (p. 189) The women, armed with axes, guns, daggers, and sticks, chased the Turkish prisoners who were escaping, and killed most of them, only 56 of them were able to escape." [p. 289]

ANSWER: Mr. Manipulator, the event described here doesn't show Armenian women having manufactured gun bullets in 1915. The event described here from Aghasi diary describe what has happened in 1895, when the Zeitountsis have decided to refuse to pay the unfair taxes, refused the Ottoman unfair treatment, as an answer the Ottoman has sent tens of thousands of soldiers to destroy the entire place. The prisoners he is talking about were were 50 officials and 600 soldiers in their Barracks that were preparing to attack Zeitun, they were attacked by surprise and taken prisoner. So this is completely irrelevent.

I invite the reader to learn the rest of the harrowing account, in "The Armenian Question" chapter of Gurun's book (http://www.eraren.org/eng/armfile4.htm). (Hit Ctrl+F for the "Find" function if you have I.E., and type "Aghasi.) Since Fadix read these words from an Armenian who was in charge, the idea that he would still have readers believe the innocence of Armenians serves as one of many examples of his Zero Credibility.

ANSWER: Mr. Manipulator, this event that Aghasi tell us the story of in his dairy, is what happened in Zeitun, that is know in Armenian history to be the most heroic event. The Zeituntsis have forced the Ottoman Empire to sign a treaty which would consider them as equal as Turks. Zeitun was later the only place in the entire Empire, where Armenians were as equal as any Turks were. But of course, the disgusting individual that you are will yapp at Armenians having asked to be equal. I am sure that if the Turks were in similar conditions, you would yapp about it as the worst thing ever. Talking of credibility. And beside that, during the First World War, the Zeytuntsis were the first being deported, and their homes were right away distributed to the Turkish population.

"But you will never tell us why the Ottoman barred access to the Red Cross, and even to their own allies, when they have decided to feed Armenians themselves, and they have even pretexted that they wished nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. " I don't know anything about that, because I don't have access to Fadix's mysterious avalanche of professional propaganda. A country has the right to restrict access during the sensitivity of wartime.

ANSWER: Those documents are only mysterious for someone that has not researched the matter. Beside that, the 1864 Geneva Convention regarding “Humanitarian law” were clear, as well as the 1899 Hague Convention that was signed. Read more about the rules of “International humanitarian law.” Even the NAZI permitted the Red Cross access to the concentration camps. The Red Cross is considered as humanitarian and protected under international laws, as it was during the time, and recognized by the Ottoman Empire. But this didn't stopped the Ottoman army to attack a Red Cross mission trying to rescue the Armenians.

The Armenians were living in wretched conditions, as the huge operation didn't benefit from proper planning, like disasters occurring with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, also suffering from proper planning.

ANSWER: Your comparison is ridiculous. Where did the US deport an entire population in the desert, where did the US has build an organization which the members were prisoners condemned for brutal murders to escort the “relocated”? Your pathetic failed attempts for comparaisons are really laughable.

Maybe the officials knew sympathetic foreigners seeing suffering Armenians wasn't needed to add fuel to the propaganda fires, just like the U.S. military restricts access to journalists in Iraq...

ANSWER: Journalists are media figures, there are laws of war regarding the uses of media, but those laws for organizations such as the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations are quite different. And more yet you suppose and extrapolate reasons, but the Ottoman was clear when it refused relief, it claimed that they wished nothing to be done that could prolong their lives. And even if what you say would be true, the Germans even offered their help to replace other organizations that the Ottoman was restricting access to. But the Ottoman refused with similar reasons.

they want to avoid the type of Vietnam coverage that influenced public opinion.

ANSWER: BS, the Red Cross is not a news organization but a relief organization, and beside that, you are claiming here that the Ottoman preferred that all the Armenians perish instead of letting relief in, because they may report the situation. Why would they be afraid if there was no such crime to be reported in the first place?

What the Western world didn't care about was that Turks were equally suffering from famine and disease.

ANSWER: No, THEY WERE NOT!!! The Turks were not sent in the desert in mass, there were no special organization founded by the worst murderers of the central prisons sent on them. It is like claiming that since many Germans died during World War II, both died for the same reason. That's BS.

Thousands were dying daily, according to Morgenthau, and even Turkish soldiers were dying in the thousands, as Liman von Sanders testified as a friendly witness for Tehlirian.

ANSWER: That many Turks died, no one denies that, but for what the Turks died, that's the importance here, genocide is about this “why.”

What's remarkable is that the Ottomans allowed relief organizations (along with diplomatic and consular agents) to take care of the Armenians during their relocations, mainly supplied by the unfriendly nation of the United States (even following the entry of the U.S. into war on the side of the Allies against Germany, the Ottomans' ally). The American , as well as the members of the “American Near East Relief Society” continued their work in Turkey. In the history of mankind, this was an unprecedented humanitarian gesture. Imagine the Turks' magnanimity, allowing the hostile agents and a fanatical religious organization to move about the country freely to provide help for the Christian Armenians, citizens of the Ottoman Empire who were actively fighting against it.

ANSWER: No! No! No! First of all, when those relief organizations really organized, countless numbers of Armenians already died. Furthermore, those relief organizations were NOT allowed in the concentration camps, but allowed in the destinations, the transit camps, two in particular, because the Ottoman did everything to restrict access to the other two. And beside that, ones the 21 Armenian Convoys from Alepo and Zor were returned back in the desert during 1916, countless numbers were sent to be butchered, while so-called relief were permitted in the transit camp where most of the Armenians were sent back. The Red-Cross relief was specifically about the concentration camps, and were barred access, like other organizations, including what the Germans proposed to do to replace those of the United States that were refused access.

The fact of the matter is, if the Turks didn't care about prolonging Armenian lives, one million couldn't have possibly survived, out of a pre-war population of around 1.5 million.

First of all, the pre-war Armenian population was of about 2 million, and most Armenians DID NOT survive.

"don't make me change my behavior." Yes, we wouldn't want to change Fadix from the friendly rascal he has proven to be.

ANSWER: Don't worry, even if I change, I won't fall low like you.

"so I gave you a chance to safe your face here by not adding the records regarding how the special organization was formed, and how prisoners released from the central prisons were trained to butcher. " Yes, I've read that Dadrian garbage, concocted theories from the 1919 kangaroo courts. Fadix has no end to his propagandistic avalanche, prepared with loving care for over a century. He is well capable of smothering these pages with reams of his smokescreen weasel facts.

ANSWER: Garbage is what you fart, garbadge is what you copy past from the web, garbadge is what Halacogly, Gurun, Soysal, Simsir, Ataov and your McCarthy write. Yet the work that you call garbadge regarding the tribunals, not anyone dared to review and “disprove” Dadrian. While you slander the characters of people you do not like without analyzing what they wrote, I on the other hand comment on what they have actualy written.

"Are you insinuating that the Armenians were only temporary 'relocated' and that after the war they were allowed back? Because even Gurum writes that this was not the cases. " "Deportation" means exile outside a country's borders, so why put quotes around "relocated"?

ANSWER: I do accept the word “relocated” since the moving is “relocation” but the purposes of this “relocation” was extermination. Because if the Ottoman really did “relocate” them because they were threats, they could have kicked them out of the Empire, like the Russians did many times with their Muslim population, and like what happened to the Muslim in the Balkans. But the Ottoman did not leave the Armenians that choice, the Armenians were prevented to leave, exactly like the Germans restricted the Jews from leaving.

Since the Armenians were not in concentration camps surrounded by barbed wire and machine guns (but there were likely times they were discouraged from free travel; see above), I don't see what would have prevented those who wanted to return from doing so, after 1916.

ANSWER: After 1916, those being “relocated” the large majority have died, and are you really insane to believe that those that have actually survived and have lost the rest of their family members will return their and believe they would be safe? Your theses makes only sense if you suppose their was no genocide, but that is not how it works, you must show me that my theses does not make sense, and not bring arguments that would be true only if there was no genocide. Beside that, the Ottoman didn't cared if Armenians would have escaped the concentration camps, they were on the middle of the desert, their chances of survival was near to zero.

Most preferred to go to other lands, mainly Russia, and with the sympathetic foreign organizations largely taking care of them, access for immigration to lands like the United States were made available. What does Fadix think started the million Armenian number in the USA today?

ANSWER: The Armenians left, because, their homes were distributed to the Muslim population, they could not return. As for how there are one million Armenians in the US, the same could be said about Turkey, how come there is 65 million people in Turkey now? I have already presented the records and showed how the number of losses, population etc. when considering the assimilation etc. we come up about what is estimated as the total Armenian population in the world now.

I just read Gurun's book, and I didn't come across anything stating the Armenians were prohibited from returning. (The Treaty of Gumru allowed the Armenians' return for up to a year; according to Dennis Papazian's "What Every Armenian Needs to Know," the Russians were not as generous with Armenian refugees.)

ANSWER: I provided you the page, I think you need to read it one more time. As for your claim regarding Papazian comparison, provide me the page if you don't have the quote.

What makes me sad is that Fadix professes to have read Gurun's book, as I already suspected, and yet we know his only purpose was to see not the truths provided by unbiased sources, but to see what he could discredit. This is why he has zero credibility.

ANSWER: Are you suggesting that Kamuran Gurun was unbiased?

"Furthermore, one million Armenians can not have survived, the highest figure is the one considered by the League of Nations that is of 900,000 Armenians, that was incomplete. The figure I have demonstrated to be the closest to the truth is probably 800,000-850,000... " We can see the master propagandist weasel beast's tactics right here... authoritatively making claims that are simply untrue, but good enough to fool the uninitiated.

ANSWER: According to whom? You are in no position to tell us what is the true or not, you have admitted that the web was your sole source of information, but there is no any relevant material from the web that would lead to conclude that what I claim isn't true at all. McCarthys own uncompleted lists as well as those of the League of Nations support what I do advance.

A Commemoration of "Armenian Genocide of 1915," appearing in the April 24,1998 issue of The New York Times, and signed by the genocide industry's royalty, assures us a million Armenians survived. (All fleeing in exile, as they deceptively put it.)

ANSWER: What some writers claim has no relevancy at all, what is important is what documents say.

Boghos Nubar Pasha sounded a bit more reasonable, stating 280,000 Armenians remained in the Ottoman Empire after the war, while some 700,000 emigrated elsewhere. I'm curious as to how Fadix will attempt to discredit such figures as Hovannisian, Balakian, and his role model, Dadrian.

ANSWER: I discredit Balakian, and did it on hyeforum as well, his work contains many assumptions and regurgitated materials in my opinion. But I never discredited Dadrian and I am in no position to do that with the amount of research that man has done for years. As for Nubar figures, I already developed about these, but of course you prefer ignoring and repeating every crap like nothing has been said.

RE: On Fadix's huge essay, "the Malta tribunal that never was"

"Malta never existed, in fact, there is no work written by a Turkish historian that I am aware of, referring to anything called 'Malta tribunal'.” Let's remember what Fadix wrote here: "Malta never existed." An INCREDIBLE statement.

ANSWER: Trying to find bugs? It is obvious for anyone that I meant to say that the Malta “tribunal” never existed.

Fadix's main point: Simsir's statement, "As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal." Notice he doesn't go into what came before "as a result,"

ANSWER: What came before is irrelevant here, because I was answering your claim regarding if there was a Malta tribuna, what came before I have answered in the rest. You made the charge that there was a Malta tribunal, and now you try to back peddle.

because his typically Armenian tactic is to only want you to consider the end result.

ANSWER: Again a nice comment from Mr. Racist.

The reason why the Tribunal never took place is because there was NO EVIDENCE. The case was dismissed by the judges before even coming to trial.

ANSWER: My essay shows that this was not the cases.

If Fadix has not run into works by other Turkish historians, that only demonstrates how much Turkish historians don't care to obsess over this passion of the Armenians.

ANSWER: First of all, Simsir is more a diplomat than a historian, second of all, what you claim fall short given that the quote was taken by an article that was about Malta.

No way can the information that goes against Fadix's con job compare with the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda; searching for genocide links on the Internet bears testimony.

ANSWER: None-sense, there are as much revisionist sites as sites regarding the genocide, but yet like this was not enough, even the Turkish foreign ministry web-site has propaganda materials including embassies websites and other government sites, can you say the say for the republic of Armenia?

But we don't need Turkish historians. Fadix would have you believe they are all lackeys of the Turkish government, since that government is "totalitarian," according to propagandists like Peter Balakian. All we'll need are the British archives, the documents of the Turks' enemies.

ANSWER: Before concluding that someone is not credible I read what he/she has to say, I read their works, contrary to you, I do not assassinate the character of people just because the opinion I don't like. As for Balakian, I don't like his works, but yet what you claim is a lie, what he more said was that the British documents contain enough materials to support that in fact there was a genocide.

I accidentally discovered this piece -- and Fadix should not plaster long articles on this talk page, when he could have excerpted key points -- was written by Fadix (as "QueBeceR") at his Armenian haunting ground of HyeForum (http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=9509). Note how he enlists help from a whole network of obsessed Armenians... I'm envious! (And I like the way a fellow Armenian questions Fadix about his aversion to truth, by asking why he put quotes around "occupying" the capital.)

ANSWER: First of all, this fellow Armenian is NOT an Armenian, believe me, you won't want to know that persons ethnicity, but be more specific, among the 3 person that answered, one(Edward) was an Armenian. As for the quotation marks, don't try to find sense where there isn't any, that part of the article was attached with another to form a complete essay and the quotation mark remained. And true I may have provided the link and not reposted it here, but you could have done the same and referred to your website, but you reposted your trash here.

The Armenian Weasel Beast is now in a big trap; let's reveal him for his Zero Credibilty.

ANSWER: You seem to think that by repeating a lie hundreds of times that it will become true. Nice try, I really hope for you that you succeed.

Here's the parallel: the 1919 Ottoman courts are illegitimate because they were conducted under the threat of coming up with the massacring culprits, or the terms in the peace conference would be harsh. (Dadrian himself reports this.)

ANSWER: As I clarified in the other answer, that is how it has worked with the Nuremberg and any court of justice, when the criminals are not brought to justice after intense negotiation, threats are used... but again this can't be used to question the legitimacy of the tribunal.

As a result, almost all (1,376; 62 executed) were found guilty, with almost no due process, and the Turks were falling all over themselves to point fingers at each other.

ANSWER: That's a pathetic lie, I already told you that 1,376 were not charged by the Military tribunal, many were charged with the tribunals set by the Nationalist regime. As for your smelly fart about Turks pointing fingers at eachothers, you see what makes someone lose his credibility? It is when he lie about things like you do now. The dependents had really competent layers, the documents to be used had to be authenticated first, many were freed under the claim that there was not enough evidences, and many others were charged, as a real tribunal work.

it was all for naught; the death sentence was pronounced anyway, in the form of the Sevres Treaty. The primary objective of the new government was retribution against members of the old.

ANSWER: Again, that's only your POV, without any supports, the fact that the defending party had the best layers that one can get, and there were even some criminals that were able to be released because of those competent lawyers makes of your claims just a balloon full of air.

What courtroom under enemy occupation can be deemed valid?

ANSWER: The Nuremberg, and EVERY other International Court of justices that have charged and sentences criminals. But then, your only problem is the military tribunal, because you are a Turk, and the victims were Armenians. There was in fact one differences with other court of justices like the Nuremberg, and it was the fact that the Judge was a Turk, and it was a Turkish tribunal.

Would Fadix and Dadrian try to legitimize a court of a European nation occupied by the Nazis?

ANSWER: Clown, the Nuremberg was a court by an occupied Germany. And your comparison doesn't make any sense at all, NAZI is a political body, if Germany was to invade an European country and request a tribunal, the tribunal will be taken at face value depending on the way it was conducted and as well the materials used, neither Vehib or others have dismissed and denied what they have said during the tribunal, Halil wrote his memoirs later etc. there are many such examples, where those having testified or were present have reconfirmed years later... if that was to happen to an European Court in an Europe occupied by the NAZI, yes! I will consider such a court as valide, because being “occupied” doesn't mean much here.

The Lebanese are making the news these days... how about Lebanese courts under Syrian dominance? (In cases where Syria's interests are at stake.)

ANSWER: As a Lebanese Armenian, I am telling you that you have no clue of what you are talking about. And yes! A court under Syrian occupation would be valid, if there are no evidences questioning the legitimity of the court in question. What happen in the court, is valid as long as the court is not disturbed for biases in any side or the other. There was no British in the court, and even if they could decide to assist them, they don't even knew the language. The documents presented were authenticated, and those that received or issued them have admitted their authenticity. The first part of the court has been published in Turkey as Volumes and recognized as valid, what is not published are the series of trials regarding the massacres against the Armenians, if the files used are forgeries, where are those files? Why Turkey still after years hasn't even shown any traces of those files including to its own diplomats? How do you explain that the dates presented in the court concords with German documents, how do you explain the precision of the documents, the name of the prisons where prisoners were released, the commissions, the hundreds of files... if such a thing was to happen in a Syrian occupied Lebanon, and that the court was to be conducted under similar condition, I swear I will consider such a court, and anyone would. Because occupation alone doesn't mean a court should not be trusted, what is important is under which condition it happened.

What about West Bank and Gaza courts presided by Palestinians, under Israeli occupation?

ANSWER: You really amuse me, shouting words to show me that you are literate about the subject, I will show you this to my Palestinian friend today, i was wondering what discussion I could have with him, beside those long boring ones, now I know. :)

So we don't compare these kangaroo courts with the Nuremberg Trial. Nuremberg was operated directly by the Allies.

ANSWER: EHEHEHEHEHE!!!!! Oh my, you really don't stop amazing me, do you reread yourself beside rereading to correct your grammar? You should reread yourself and take caution to not contradict yourself. You just said above that a controlled court should not be trusted, and now you tell me that it was not the same and that the Nuremberg is credible because it was directly controlled by the allies.

And even though the criminal Nazis got what they deserved overall, the Allied prosecutors didn't play fairly with every single suspect. There was an element of revenge (understandable, but still unjust) at play, an element that was not absent at Malta, as we'll discover soon.

ANSWER: That's only an empty talk you have decided to engage in here.

What we compare a court directed by Allies is another court directed by Allies. The parallel of Nuremberg is the Malta Tribunal.

ANSWER: You just admitted above that there was NO Malta tribunal, and you repeat that again. Can't you understand, or are you doing that on purposes? There was NO MALTA TRIBUNAL... NO MALTA TRIBUNAL!!! To compare a court with another, the court must exist in the first place, if it does not exist, you can not compare. Beside that, the files used during the Military tribunal were more indicative of premeditation than the files used during the Nuremberg, while the Nuremberg was set by the allied and entirely controlled by the allies, while the Turkish military tribunal was conducted by the Turks, the judge was a Turk, the lawyers were Turkish, etc.

When the British started Malta, they too were hoping to get the matter over with, in Kangaroo Court fashion.

ANSWER: Your fetish for kangaroo is pathologic. Again, that's only empty talk, while I have documented every points I have made in my essay about Malta, you just claim without any material support, what you say is only POV.

To their credit, they ultimately decided to follow the letter of the law. The process to try and find genuine evidence took over two years. They appointed an Armenian in charge of the Ottoman archives, and all documents were available to them. In their desperation, they even examined archives in other countries. At the end, all the Turks were set free.

ANSWER: Again, only claim, only POV, everyone can claim anything he wants, compared what I wrote about Malta and your answers, obviously there is a clear differences between my fairly well documented essay with your pathetic attempt to answer it.

"And if, in fact, the documents presented during the Turkish tribunal were forged, one wonders why the Turkish government until today forbids access to them. If they are forged???" Such irresponsible statements. To my knowledge, the Ottoman archives are open to all scholars. I understand those few who have misused them, such as Ara Sarafian and Hilmar Kaiser, have been banned. (However, only after being allowed to copy perhaps thousands of documents.)

ANSWER: Again, only POV. The fact that the Ottoman archives are not accessible is well documented, the fact that the Military archive is nearly entirely garded and controlled is nothing that new, the fact that ALL without exception, the files used during the military tribunal are unacessible is well documented as well. You can make any blunt claims, like the Sun is “spectroscopicaly” a Blue Star and not in the Yellow-White category, without even documenting your cases. And as for Sarafian and Kaiser having misused, that's only what propagandists want to make others believe, even Shaw contradicted himself regarding that issue.

Does Fadix know this firsthand? Armenian propaganda loves to proclaim the archives are restricted.

ANSWER: Are you suggesting to believe the Turkish government propaganda? I believe what is reasonable, and even Edward J. Erickson supports what I affirm.

Personally, I wouldn't blame the Turks from restricting the archives to those scholarly frauds such as Dadrian, whose agendas have nothing to do with truth.

ANSWER: The scholarly fraud as you claim is recognized as THE authority in the subject, perhaps are you mistaking your Gurun with Dadrian? Dadrian knows every relevant languages to conduct those studies, and did research Armenian, Russian, English, French, Turkish, Ottoman Turkish, German etc... sources. But of course idiots like you that have nothing better to do than assassinating the character of someone when they can't confront their research.

They will take any information and twist and manipulate the facts, as our Zero Credibility friend is proving time and again. (ANC reports Dadrian as having said on Apr. 26, 2002: "The Turkish archival material amply implicates premeditation." Since the body of Dadrian's "proof" lies with the kangaroo Ottoman courts, how could Dadrian make such a statement if access has been forbidden?)

ANSWER: Archives doesn't only mean States archives, the term “archive” can even be applied to old pictures having been archived. What Dadrian was implying is records such as the Turkish military tribunal, that you have tried discrediting in vein, without even telling me which documents used were forgeries and why. As for the credibility of Dadrian, like I have already stated, Dadrians credibility is questioned by someone(you) who was exposed used manipulated, forged, fabricated materials etc. Perhaps, the word “Zero Credibility” you shout everywhere is a defence mechanism to hide your lack of credibility?

"Additionally, what denialists fail to mention is that ..." Labeling does not help. Fadix is also a denialist. He denies Malta is a fact,

ANSWER: I never denied “Malta” existed, anyone knows that I forgot to type the word Tribunal, but I guess since you don't have better materials in your hand you will now use this to support your cases.

he denies there was a full-fledged Armenian rebellion, and he denies his so-called genocide did not exist.

ANSWER: The so-called Armenian rebellion, the Germans did not report what you claim, and they were at the spot, even Nogale whom you like quote has claimed that if 30 thousand Armenians, regardless if they had gun or not would have decided to kick their asses, they would have taken Van pretty easily, Vehib the Commander of the III army was at the front when the so-called rebellion has been reported, yet he claims that the Ottoman at that time planed the destruction of the Armenian population. Even Uras entire documentation which are at the basis of the denialist theses don't even support your crap. To claim something one must support it with clear evidences from people that were there and witnessed it, you have nothing, NADA, Zilch... you have just two isolated cases in the entire Ottoman Empire, and even in those cases, when taking a look of what happened, it does not support your claim. EVEN THE OFFICIAL ARCHYIVES RELEASED BY THE Turkish MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS DOES NOT SUPPORT YOUR THESES. Let just refer to them, the first document is the “BOA. HR. HU, Kr. 108/141” and there are no date attached to it, from reading it, it is obvious that it has been written AFTER, since the text tell us what happened early in the war and what followed etc... the archives ID indicate it has been published after the second archive they represent. The first archive that chronologically is the first(but second in the orders they present), and it is an order asking for the “deportation”(it is the official translation from the foreign ministry, they use the term deported) of the Armenians of Dörtyol, and they ask to take the measures to prevent revolts. Those Armenians were “relocated” in March 2, 1915(The archive ID: BOA. DH. SFR, nr. 50/141), and there are no report of revolts which those measures would be the consequences of. The deportation of the Armenians starts, but those archives released doesn't indicate any revolt that would explain the deportations.

The purpose of these defamatory labels, such as "racist," is to prevent honest discourse. Honest is the last thing a propagandist like Fadix wants, closing his eyes to honest truth time and again.

ANSWER: I call you racist because you are one, you characterizations such as “Armenian way” “typical Armenian...,” etc. your generalization isn't lacking for anyone to witness. So yes you are a racist.

"many of the prisoners of Malta were handed to the British officials after being convicted as guilty by the Turkish military tribunal" If they got away scot free as a result, by the British who had every reason to convict them in order to justify their hysterical wartime propaganda (they and other allies made a wartime vow to punish those responsible for the massacres),

ANSWER: When a tribunal conclude their guilts you claim the conclusion is not valid, when prisoners are released to be exchanged with other prisoners you claim that it was a tribunal and that it concluded that there was no genocide. But again, I don't expect you to make sense.

that demonstrates how invalid were the findings of the Ottoman kangaroo courts.

ANSWER: No, it only demonstrate that the British exchanged those prisoners with British prisoners taken by the Kemalists.

And how honorable is that, by the way, to be found guilty and then to be tried again? (Assuming Fadix is on the ball. Maybe he meant they were charged, and the British took the more important ones away for their own trial.)\

ANSWER: Not tired of lying? No! They were not charged, but trialled, it is true that were prisoners that were not trialled before being sent at Malta but rather charged, but the new Ottoman government thought that it was unfair to sent Turks at Malta simply because of charges so they conducted their own tribunal, I don't see anything unhonorable there.

"The claim that Malta prisoners were taken without any selections is groundless when reviewing .." Of course there was a selection of the high-ranked Turkish government officials, army commanders, governors, university professors, journalists, editors, and prominent society members. Second Political Officer Andrew Ryan, a vicious Turcophobe, employed Armenian informers to his staff, who did much of the fingering. Among them were Mihran Boyadjian, Karageuzian, Dr. Armenak Mediatian, Hagop Minas Berberian, Dr. Armenak Abu Haytaian, Eghia Bakalian, Aram Tosbikian, Hagop Terzi, Memduhi Tomasian, Aroussiagh Yervant Iskian, and Ardeshir Lepian. If whether this selection process was groundless or not rests upon the trial process and outcome, keep tuning in.

ANSWER: The fact that Armenians were there doesn't show anything here, the only thing it shows is your racism and your way of dismissing anything just because there was someone ending up with a “ian.” If I were to do that with any given Turkish figures, your entire theses would hardly be supported by anything while mine excluding Armenian sources, would be as strong as now.

"5030/A/21. Statement by Sympat Kerkoyan, merchant of Bitlis dated 19.5.20. Bitlis May 1915 atrocities. Massacre of Kerkoyan's family" He was not alone among Armenians making charges. There is no end to Armenians making charges.

ANSWER: Again you display your hate and disgust for the Armenians, and after such idiotic and racistic comments you still claim I have no credibility, maybe this may work in your delusional worlds, but not the real world in which we live.

Some were true, but given the penchant for Armenian propaganda and falsification, definitely not all.

ANSWER: Yes! True, we Armenians are such creatures, that we are pathological forgers, liars, murderers, the worst butchers that one can get. Why would anyone even be appointed as a judge when in a court cases one side is an Armenian, in fact the judge doesn't even need to hear the cases. This same idiotic racist individual was the one posting reports by Turks, while my character is assassinated when I display some skepticism, this same racist idiot has no problem exposing his generalization had disgustful hate for the Armenians. Is it such a character we expect to participate in the entry regarding the Armenian genocide?

Even if Kerkoyan's family was massacred, we don't know who did the massacring, and obviously his say so wasn't enough to convict the one he pointed his finger at.

ANSWER: Those responsible of the massacres of Bitlis were known. The point here is that there were officials that were reported having being responsible of massacres, and there was massacres, and the victims testified about those massacres, this is how it works in a court, a judge does not do like you, a judge does not reject someones claim because he/she is an Armenian, a judge would not be the racist you are.

Could that have been because the British, who wanted to wipe the Turkish nation off the face of the earth, were "pro-Turk"?

ANSWER: The British did now wanted to wipe the Turkish nation out of the face of the Earth, the British tried to bring justice and give Armenians and Kurds their homeland, because they considered that everyone had the right to have its homeland, something you do not share of course, but then, that is because you have a set of rules of the Turks and another for others.

"The group was even called "all the very worst of criminals." (Source: Report of September 19, 1919, Andrew Ryan" Here's a great example of why Armenian claims should never be accepted at face value.

ANSWER: And here another example of a blunt racistic comment from this disgustful individual making generalizations about “Armenian claims.”The only thing you show by your posts is that your claims should not be accepted at face value.

This is why Armenians hate to go beneath the surface.

ANSWER: Again, a generalization, while I judge individual at daily basis, on how they are as person, mr. Torque judge people by using their ethnicity, and that is enough for him to draw their entire picture.

Even if we knew nothing about Andrew Ryan, we know there is a great chance for the Irish-Briton to have been prejudiced, after being inundated by massive amounts of anti-Turkish propaganda, like most of his countrymen.

ANSWER: Again, that is entirely POV, you can't support the slightest claim here,. You take a single quote that you fished from the web, and have not read anything of the rest of those works etc. and presupposed and draw a story based on those tiny quotes. That is called selectivity and even manipulation.

But Andrew Ryan was a notorious anti-Turkish intriguer, later described by Major J. Douglas Henry during a Nov. 27-Dec. 5, 1921 interview as "the most hated man in Turkey... .an intriguer of a kind who did not scruple to employ traitors and turncoats for his purposes."

ANSWER: Thanks to Ayhan Ozer, we are witnesses again of another manipulation. Henry is simply interviewing someone and telling what it is said in Turkey about Ryan, but of course Ozer had to take of the relevant information with “...” Sometimes revisionists and denialists at work are more funny than circus clowns.

Wait until you see the kind of "proof" Ryan comes up with to prove the guilt of these "worst of criminals," coming up. (It basically boils down to what Fadix presents as proof of criminality, when he provides us with the groundless "files attached to each prisoner": the fact of merely being accused.)

ANSWER: First of all, the information was not confirmed, it was a story circulated about him in Turkey, and the antagonism against him because of his work there, the words were not Henrys claims, but what was said about the man, which were just claims like your claims about my credibly or your blunt statements.

"By doing such Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) refused to honour the Exchange Agreement of March 16, 1921 that was excluding in the exchanges several Ittihadists that had a key role in the Armenian genocide." How peculiar. Armenian propaganda tells us Ataturk admitted the genocide, and here we have him trying to cover it up.

ANSWER: I am just reporting here what happened, my above comment are even not denied by Turkish diplomats. So my comment is not POV, your answer is.

The fact is, the Turkish official in charge, Bekir Sami Bey, was under instructions to accept only an "all for all" exchange, and was forced to resign from his post for failing to do his job.

ANSWER: This is irrelevant, what is relevant is that Ataturk didn't respected the relevant agreement.

The prisoners were all arrested falsely, as we’ll see from the sequence of events, below.

ANSWER: That's only your POV, while I have documented the event, you just made unsupported claims.

Ataturk wasn’t singling out anyone; a partial exchange was out of the question. (He had arrested the British soldiers for the sole purpose of getting back at British injustice; was he going to defeat his own purpose?)

ANSWER: Exchange Agreement of March 16, 1921 not respected, it WAS an agreement he made, and did not respect it, you can claim all you want, the British refused to release many of the prisoners because of their clear implication, but they managed to escape. They escaped, and NOT released. So your claim that all were released is just a lie.

"The Turkish sociologist and publicist Yalman, who had secret discussions with many of the Ittihadists, has been himself detained at Malta and has stated that the anti-Armenian measures reflected a "policy of general extermination" to remove "the danger" to Turkey of "a dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces." (Source: A. E. Yalman, Turkey in the World War (New Haven, 1930), 220." The latter part is accurate; the treacherous Armenian rebellion posed a dangerous military threat to the beleaguered Ottoman Army; it's the rest we need to focus on, key word being "extermination."

ANSWER: That's your POV, Yalman was one of those accused and has never denied what was done to the Armenians, he was there, and reported what was the truth. That you claim it was not true is your POV. Beside that, as it is obvious you seem to ignore Yalman is Ahmed Emin, a prominent Turkish nationalist one of the fathers of denialism... but during his period it was the “Justification” period and NOT the denialist period, that happened later.

I learned from the Zoryan Institute that Yalman earned his Ph.D in Columbia University, so we can assume he was in the USA at the time of the book's American publication, and he was free to say anything he wanted.

ANSWER: That he was in the US or anywhere else, he wrote what I have reported, and any claims made by you are just POV.

I don't have the book, and we can't take Zero Credibility Fadix's word on how this incriminating statement was presented.

ANSWER: I provided the page of the work, and if anyone here can get the book, check it, if you don't find it, take any other claims I made as a lie. Don't mistake your non-existing quotes with my relevant posts.

If it's true, then I'd wonder in what context such ideas were presented, while Yalman was huddled up with fellow prisoners.

ANSWER: The context is irrelevant, many other such statements can be found, from other Turkish works and authors.

Could some of them have been angered at the injustice of their imprisonment, and fired off steam?

ANSWER: Those are only your hypotheses and are POV, Ahmed Emin was reintroduced in the Kemalist administration.

Could those who reached such conclusions in the position to know? (Few of the Malta prisoners were composed of the Ottoman administration's top guns. Yalman himself is described as a "publicist.") 

ANSWER: Emin was an ideologist and not just a publicist.

If not, and if Yalman was conscientious enough to implicate his government, and he was in a land free to write unhindered, then how could he not have provided specific details, telling us exactly what was said, and said by whom?

ANSWER: Emin was one of the worst nationalist that one could get, and given that he was one of the fathers of denialism, he would have never made such statements if they weren't true. He made that comment, that is a fact. General Halil wrote specifically in his memoirs that he tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual, General Ilham made similar statements, Edip in his memoirs report a conversation he had with Talaat, in which Talaat do say extermination, and claimed that he shall die for this decision(he predicted rightly, since Tehlirian shut him)... there are many, many references in Turkish documentations that support the conclusion of the Military tribunal, support the German documentations, the Austrian documentations etc. for you to do what you are doing with Emin, by trying to suppose and interpret, you have to answer those countless documents and reports, memoirs etc.

What would have been called for here would be a full scale book, on the level of Speer's book on Spandau prison. So I'll reserve judgment; what I'm surprised about is that an Internet search didn't come up with a single find on this seemingly important revelation.

ANSWER: The Internet is not a library in which every books exist, that you use the Internet as your sole book, is not my problem but yous, no one can condemn me for using books rather than the Internet.

"...in addition to the fact that ... they were exchanged with British prisoners," Fadix provides several weasel theories as to why the prisoners were released, including "good relations with the Kemalists???" (The question marks are appropriate), and that the Turks promised trials of their own, "officially on June 11, 1921."

ANSWER: I do not only provide theories, I supported with documentations what I affirmed, I am not you, I do not make blunt statements but rather document what I affirm, for you to “disproof” what I claim you should answer the relevant documentation I attached to what you call “my theories.”

But none of these theories have anything to do with the trial process; when one examines the sequence of events, the British were desperately seeking to find evidence up until the July 13, 1921 reply from the British Embassy in Washington. The one and only reason the Malta Tribunal was aborted: NO EVIDENCE.

ANSWER: Those are your POV, my answer and documentation demonstrate that what you claim is not accurate, neither that the prisoners were released for lack of evidences, neither that all prisoners were released. And lastly, there was no Malta Tribunal, if there was not prosecution, there can be no tribunal.

There never was any prosecution, pre-trial investigation, or interrogatory. So how is anyone to claim that any tribunal “proved” them not guilty, when there was no tribunal in the first place? That's because the tribunal couldn't have taken place. Because after much pre-trial investigation, there was NO EVIDENCE.

ANSWER: Again, that is your POV, while I documented that your POV was simply untrue.

"The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused." That's Curzon, from Fadix's deceptively selective archival information. Indeed, there was a prisoner exchange. Yet that did not stop the trial process from proceeding. Curzon was actively involved trying to gather evidence until the end.

ANSWER: There was no process of trial, neither a trial, you have yet to bring me evidences of the existence of such trials. As for Curzon, the fact of the matter is that he admit at the end that they have tried to justify the release of the prisoners when there was no any justification beside exchanging them with other prisoners. That is documented and recorded, the rest is only your POV.

Since Fadix enjoys Holocaust parallels, what would we have thought about the Allies at Nuremberg if they decided to call things off because a few soldiers were being threatened? If we examine the real trial process, it was obvious the British had no faith in finding real evidence; that's the one and only reason why they called it off.

ANSWER: There was a Nuremberg Tribunal, there was no Malta tribunal, there was a Military tribunal, and it sentenced the leading figures of the Ittihadist to be responsible of the destruction of the Armenian population... so the Nurember can be compared to a Tribunal that existed, and not a tribunal that did not, in this cases, the Military Tribunal. That you don't accept its conclusion isn't an evidence to question its legitimity.

"The claim that there was no evidence in US archives falls short when referring to the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921, when he declared, 'The U.S. archives contain a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres'." This one is a beauty from Zero Credibility Fadix. Point to a single supportive statement, while ignoring the rest.

ANSWER: Look who's talking, there are tens of thousands of documents supporting my theses, there are near to nothing supporting yours when using neutral documentations. Again you are mistaking me for yourself. Fact, many prisoners that were in Malta were not part of the exchange because of their clear implication in the massacres, they were not released, they escaped. Fact, the British exchanged the prisoners with other prisoners. What you claim is only your POV.

Of course, the U.S. archives contained an "avalanche" of information, forming the foundation of Armenian genocide claims. But what happened when the British Ambassador discovered the worth of that garbage? Read on.

ANSWER: Garbage are your materials, and your forgeries, again stop mistaking what you use as evidences and are recognized as evidences. Your theories about the British Ambassador are only POV.

"Not one Turk in a thousand will think that any other Turk deserves to be hanged for massacring Christians." So opines, it appears, W.S. Edmond. It's a worthless opinion. Sure, many Turks were disgusted by the treachery of their ungrateful supposed "Loyal Millet,"

ANSWER: Again, this is only your POV, your generalization of an entire population, women, elderly and children sent in the desert, and butchers and criminals sent on them by the order of the government. But of course the disgusting NAZI-like racist individual you are will prefer generalizing, something that you are good at, I must give you that.

after enjoying high prosperity for centuries, and then going on to help bring their nation to ruin.

ANSWER: That Armenians were prosperous is irrelevant here, what is relevant is that your above claim is POV, nothing more.

But if this individual would like to believe most Turks would not want to see murderers see justice, then he would not be alone among Westerners who concluded the Turkish people were beyond the realm of humanity.

ANSWER: Hypocrite idiot, you have absolutely no problem generalizing in every given occasion, but yet when you read anything that sound to be discrimination against the Turks you yap “Wolf.”

It's the old Muslims hate Christians card being played here.

ANSWER: I guess that's why the Arabs decided to protect the Armenians in Alepo and Zor city, I guess that is why the Mecca facing the horror of what has been done to the Armenians has issued an order to protect them. It seems it isn't Muslim vs Christian after all, but simply a sick government deciding to exterminate the Armenian population and played the Muslim vs Christian card to convince fanatics to butcher Armenians.

The British judge Lindsey Smith August 10 1921 declared: "a considerable amount of incriminating evidence was collected by the Turkish government but it is idle to expect to get it." If the judge was referring to the puppet Turkish government in Istanbul, then he was showing poor judgment. The British were in charge, they had over two years to look through the archives and every available document, and didn't do so by politely asking the permission of the Turkish government.

ANSWER: I am now in a situation, where I really seriously question your intellectual capabilities, I have documented by using even Turkish sources that the British had not access to those documents, and you repeat the same trash. You are not only bone headed, but are iron headed, you don't move an inch, even when you have been shown wrong again, again and again.

"The massacre and destruction ... of the Armenians was executed through secret orders by men who ostensibly had the assignment to implement the law of deportation." "The documents, personally signed by the defendants, confirm the fact that the gendarmes escorted the deportee convoys for purpose of massacre..." Source: Published on August 7, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3617, p.2, Yozgat Verdict, 8 April 1919 The source is provided as kangaroo court findings. These are the courts that were anxious to find culprits because, as Dadrian himself has said, the British warned the repercussions at the Peace Conference would be disastrous. That's one reason why these 1919 Ottoman courts were illegitimate.

ANSWER: Clown, do you have any idea of the restrictions imposed by the allies against Germany after World War I, and what about World War II, have you any idea under which circonstances the Nuremberg was conducted? As I said, that is how any international court have worked after a failure to get criminals. Even countries laws regarding homicides even in turkey works in a similar way. If someone is known to know the criminal, if he/she refuse to tell anything, he/she could be even charged of complicity, those are threats that have always existed, it isn't new. If we were to use your argument, no any court of justice would be legitimate.

Now here were the findings, conveniently published as "legal" documents. As you'll soon be reading, there was a phase when the British wanted to treat the Malta Tribunal just like the spurious 1919 Ottoman courts, in similar kangaroo court fashion.

ANSWER: POV, nothing more.

Here was the "proof" they were looking for... especially if some of the more important Malta detainees were involved with the 1919 courts, as Fadix told us. Why did the British ignore this evidence, with all resources in Istanbul at their fingertips, and continue to be frustrated in their search for evidence under every rock until mid-1921?

ANSWER: Iron head, I demonstrated in my essay that this is only trash, and unlike you i have documented every points I made, what I wrote was not POV, your answers are.

The "deportation" was mainly implemented by local officials. The central government didn't have the manpower to spare during desperate wartime to send enough people to oversee the movements of hundreds of thousands of people.

ANSWER: The Special organization was formed by the ministry of War, under Enver and Talaat supervision, one of the leading heads in the east was Halil, the uncle of Enver, whom wrote in his memoir having tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual. The training of the special organization was supervised by the order of the same ministry. The concentration camps locations etc. were governed by the government by the intermediary of Chukru, one leading head and link between the special organization and the government. All of those things are well documented, and not only by the Martial court.

If only a handful were then sent, going door to door, like Dr. Shakir...

ANSWER: Oh boy, do you even know whom Shakir was, and what was his position during the war? Stop taking things out of your a--.

and if you were the governor already with the official orders dictating the safety of the Armenians...

ANSWER: Do you know who was Djevet, and why was he replaced the other governor of Van? If I tell you he was the brother of law of *****, will you underhand what I mean? Do you know why the British under no circonstances refused to release him?You claim that what happened was because of local officials, but yet, those local officials were placed there strategically by the government, others were replaced by those that were known to be the worst. A Mulah was even murdered because he protested what happened, other Muslim got their house burned, and they were hanged because they were hiding Armenians. Do you even know what of what those hiding the Armenians were condemned for? Do you know that those new special laws were imposed by the government. Spot farting, you obviously know nothing, nothing of what you are talking about.

would you suddenly listen to a government lackey who shows up at your door telling you the "secret" orders required you to be involved in mass murder?

ANSWER: So now, Mr. Uses sarcasm, are you blind or what? Hello!!! Are you really reading what I am writing? Muslim were not asked door by doors to kill Armenians. Do you even believe that a typical Muslim will take a gun and go chasing the Armenians? The criminals and murderers released from prisons and selected to be members of the special organization did it, those people were sent to escort the Armenian convoys,l to ensure that no one would be left alive.

And if there really were "secret" orders to systematically execute all Armenians... how could if be possible for so many Armenians to have survived, one million from an original population of around 1.5 million?

ANSWER: First of, from 820-850,000 survived out of a population of 2 million, tens of thousands later perished... we can estimate that about 750-780,000 Armenians survived at the end of 1923, which represent a losses of over a million. More than 60% of the Ottoman Armenians lost their lives. The Ottoman official statistics are of 800,000 killed, and when using the 2/3 quota provided, we find out that indeed over a million died, as the Germans themselves reported, and even Nogales provided those numbers.

Why would there have even been the need to resort to the "slow death" method that pro-Armenians love to attribute to those who died of famine and disease? (Discounting the much greater number of Turks who died from famine and disease, of course.)

ANSWER: That is logically impossible, not only did more Armenian women children and elderly died per population than Turks, but even when taking the number of those that perished alone without considering the total population. It is rationally impossible to that Turks would record more mortality, when they were not sent in the desert to die en mass, all the convicts and murderers were not released from prison and sent on them. So again, your claim is simply unsupported by any neutral material.

If these "SS men" were charged with the responsibility of murdering the Armenians, wouldn't it have been their duty to see they were killed, without leaving to chance those who would survive "slow death"?

ANSWER: That is exactly what happened, when the Ottoman issued an order to evacuate Alepo and the city of Zor, when they have realized that many survived, they decided to sent them in the desert, and this time doubling and tripling the number of brigands escorting those 21 convoys.

"The documents incriminating some of the prisoners in Malta that the British were able to locate in Istanbul were reported disappearing. And the Nationalist government was suspected..." "...disappearance of documents incriminating certain persons saying that the matter has been arranged by local Nationalist leaders." (Source: Weekly Summary, March 4, 1920, British Embassy publication)" Since the British were in charge of Malta, the valuable evidence they were able to uncover would have been guarded in the premises of the British High Commissioner.

ANSWER: My essay answer this issue, while your suppositions are POV, my answer is not.

I doubt any Turks from the Nationalist government, as if they didn't have better things to do fighting the Armenians and Greeks with rag tag forces, would have been able to infiltrate British headquarters.

ANSWER: Are you claiming that the reports about this issue were untrue? Are you claiming that the Turkish sources claiming it did happen were untrue? I document, and what you do best is answering POV.

Could it be the British were trying to save face by planting this story in their official publication, since they were doing a terrible job of finding the evidence?

ANSWER: Again, your supposition is POV.

And it's obvious the following account regarding Talat Pasha, who had long departed by 1920, has nothing to do with the above.

ANSWER: Talaat departed, because he escaped justice with the help of the Germans, he was too coward to present himself on court, but still they had a lawyer presenting his cases.

So why does Zero Credibility Fadix tell us, "Other references to the destruction of those (Malta) documents could be found in (a story from years ago)"? There were obviously criminals who mistreated and killed Armenians. Some might have tried to cover their tracks by getting rid of the goods, even though the "avalanche" of information provided by Fadix in this particular installment amounts to hearsay. (It is plain mind-boggling the amount of research the obsessed genocide industry has come up with.)

ANSWER: Are you claiming that what I present is irrelevant? How come? You have no problem presenting irrelevant craps of decades before or after, but yet when I document exactly what it is about you call it hearsay.

However, if we are to refer to Fadix's favored Holocaust parallels, we're all aware of how the Nazis tried to destroy the evidence, all the way to demolishing death camps like Sobibor.

ANSWER: Wow!!! Mr. Torque has learned the word Sobibor, cute little boy :) For any neutral reader, my documentation regarding the destruction of the evidences demonstrate that in fact the Ottoman did destroy the evidences.

Yet incriminating evidence has survived. With the herculean job of transporting hundreds of thousands of Armenians, how is it possible not ONE document could have survived? Are we to believe Turks are more efficient than Germans?

ANSWER: Did you read Hilberg impressive Volumes regarding the Shoah, can you from it present me any single document coming from the authorities ordering the eradication of the Jews, Hilberg himself claim there are no such documents. One must be an ignorant to believe that there are quality evidences supporting the theses of the Shoah that do not exist in the Armenian cases... As I have demonstrated all of your distortions, manipulations, fabrications, are nothing more than a balloon full of air.

RE: The Real Malta Tribunal

This is an answer to Torque entry titled: The Real Malta Tribunal

It is kind of surprising(not so if we really think about it coming from Torque), that to answer my answer of Simsir essay regarding Malta, Mr. Torque post a work almost copied from Simsir. One wonder how an answer to a work can actually be discredited by posting a barrowed version of that work. I mean, I actually have shown how Simsir can't be trusted. I will repost my answer, and leave people judge by themselves.

Actually, there was only one Turkish searcher that really adventured in this subject. He published various works (Turkish and English(mostly the translation and reedition of the Turkish versions) about this topic, and it is Bilal N. Simsir. I will just quote the last words from his work: “The Deportees of Malta and the Armenian Question.”

“As a result, all detainees at Malta were released and repatriated without being brought before a Tribunal.”

Even he admit there was not Malta tribunal.

Denialists of the Armenian genocide often claim that a “Malta tribunal” was conducted by the British, and after investigations and prosecutions, the prisoners were released because of lack of “proof.” But according to historical records there never was any Malta tribunal; such lies are meant to fool the innocent reader into believing that the extermination of the Ottoman Armenians never occurred and in the same time to divert the attention from a real tribunal which concluded that, in reality, the Armenians were victims of extermination. In fact, the Turkish military tribunal brought evidence from Ottoman high officials that the Armenians were victim of a premeditated plan to annihilate them. The apologists of the genocide claim that the tribunal in question was set by the Allies and therefore not credible. Such denialists don’t realise that such a claim would just as well discredit the Nuremberg Tribunal that brought NAZI war criminals to be judged; because the Nuremberg Tribunal was conducted by the Allies, while the military tribunal was a Turkish tribunal, so, if a "Turkish" tribunal was controlled by the "invaders," so was the Nuremberg. And if, in fact, the documents presented during the Turkish tribunal were forged, one wonders why the Turkish government until today forbids access to them. If they are forged???, why the fear of making them public?

Additionally, what denialists fail to mention is that many of the prisoners of Malta were handed to the British officials after being convicted as guilty by the Turkish military tribunal; in fact, there was supposed to be two tribunals, the first one being a Turkish one to judge and send to Malta those being charged, and after the end of the same tribunal to provide to the British officials the documents that allowed them to charge the criminals sent to Malta.

The claim that Malta prisoners were taken without any selections is groundless when reviewing the files attached to each prisoner. One example here is the one of Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey.

Mustafa Abdul Halik Bey Malta No. 2800 Interned 7.6.20

Appointments:

“Vali of Bitlis, March 1914 to September 1915. Under Secretary of State, Ministry of the Interior. Vali of Aleppo October 1915 to April 1917 Brother in law of Talaat.

Lists:

His name appears on Lists VI and VII ( List VII is the F.O. List).

Arrests:

A. He was arrested by the Turkish Government on 9 March, 1919, not upon our suggestion. The charge was murder. On the Turkish prison list of 7 February, 1920, he is stated to have been released on bail; date not provided (probably some time between 20.9.19 and 7.2.20).

B. He was again arrested by the British Military Authorities on or about the 14 May, 1920.

Petitions: None to date, 25.2.21

Accusations:

5027/A/20. Through Mr. Ryan on 19th September 1919. Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, took part in the councils held at Erzurum to decide on the deportations and massacres of Armenians. These councils were presided over by Dr. Behaeddin Shakir, delegate of the Central C.U.P. (one of the Principal Eight); other members were Tashin Bey (a deportee), Vali of Erzurum; Muammer (a deportee), Vali of Sivas; and Djevdet (a deportee), Vali of Van.

5030/B/10. On September 26, 1919, Mrs. Sophie Varjabedian, a Bitlis refugee then at Haidar Pasha, c./o. Rev. B. Bedrossian, Bible House, Constantinople, writes accusing Mustafa Abdul Halik, Vali of Bitlis, of having carried away under his personal superintendence the safe from the American Mission in Bitlis. The safe contained her money and jewellery. Miss Chane, now at Erivan, reported this to Mrs. Varjabedian. She asks for the restoration of her property and gives a list.

Assistant High Commissioner approved the suggestion of making inquires at the United States Embassy but there is no record as to whether any action was taken.

5031/A/6. Name merely appears on a Bureau d'Information Armenien list of 30. 12.18, as the Vali of Aleppo, in connection with Marash massacres.

5035/C/178. On June 7th, 1919, Mrs. Ahisag Ahet Ahlahadian writes, through the A.C.R.N.E (American Committee, Relief in the Near East), saying that she is a Protestant Syrian of Bitlis and that all her relatives had been massacred in 1915 in Bitlis in spite of the fact that she had paid the Vali, Mustafa Abdul Halik, to the extent of LT 541 gold.

5036/48. A. Account by Sympat Kerkoyan of crimes committed by Mustafa Abdul Halik at Bitlis in 1915. Starving prisoners; massacring 200 to 300 at a time outside the town; ravishing and massacring the women; extorting and looting of Armenian property. The stench from putrefying bodies was so bad that Buheddin, Director of Health, Bitlis, received orders to have the bodies incinerated. Buheddin was in Aleppo in 1918. B. Also murder of Djerdjis Kerkoyan, brother of Sympat after Mustafa Abdul Halik had extorted his fortune on promising to spare his life. C. Mustafa Abdul Halik replaced Bekir Sami Bey (the "good" Vali, now a prominent Nationalist) at Aleppo on 4.10.15. There he gave orders for the deportation and killing of Sympat Kerkoyan. Thanks to Hadji Yehia Galib Bey, the defterdar (now the defterdar of Kastambol), Sympat reached Mossul alive. The above per Mr. Rizzo on 16.10.19.

5030/A/21. Statement by Sympat Kerkoyan, merchant of Bitlis dated 19.5.20. Bitlis May 1915 atrocities. Massacre of Kerkoyan's family; wife and three children; three brothers and their families. Kerkoyan's deportation to Mossul by the Vali of Aleppo; Mustafa Abdul Halik.

…”

This prisoner (Abdul Halik Bey) was not arrested without reason; from British archival records it is evident that Abdul Halik was present at the Council held in Erzurum to put in application the extermination measures. From the same British archival records, Cevdet the governor of Van, Tashin, Muammer, and Dr. Sakir were also present during that Council. The group was even called “all the very worst of criminals.” (Source: Report of September 19, 1919, Andrew Ryan, BFO 371/6501, pg 4, folder 540/40)

The British had even selected some of the prisoners that should, under no circumstances, be released, and about the four governors that planned and executed the eradication of the Armenians in Eastern Ottoman, after documenting their guilt they concluded, “whom we propose to retain to the last they are gravely implicated in the crimes of massacre.” (Source: BFO 371/6504, folders 136, 146. As well, BFO 371/6504/E10023)

But later the War Office implored Foreign Secretary Curzon to release the group in order to exchange them with the two British prisoners that the Kemalists took, Rawlinson and Campell.(Source: BFO 371/6504, E10411) By doing such Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) refused to honour the Exchange Agreement of March 16, 1921 that was excluding in the exchanges several Ittihadists that had a key role in the Armenian genocide. (Source: FO 371/6500/E3375 (folio 284/15)) In fact the new Foreign Minister Youssouf Kemal asked for the “all for all” exchange. (Source: FO 371/6509(folio 47)) But the British had still tried to impose the agreement and the promises given by Mustafa Kemal himself, more particularly regarding about 20 of the most criminals among them. First, Cevdet the governor of Van with another (they and some others were called “the most notorious members of the group”) escaped (source: FO 371/5091/E16080 (folio 85)); upon finding out about the escape the British Foreign Office responded that the two prisoners “have broken parole.” On September 6, 1921, 16 other Ittihadists excluded from the exchange as well were able to escape. Angry, the Foreign Office remarked, “how little Turkish sense of honor can be relied on.” (Source: FO 3071/6509/E10662 (folio 159))

The Turkish sociologist and publicist Yalman, who had secret discussions with many of the Ittihadists, has been himself detained at Malta and has stated that the anti-Armenian measures reflected a "policy of general extermination" to remove "the danger" to Turkey of "a dense Armenian population in the Eastern Provinces." (Source: A. E. Yalman, Turkey in the World War (New Haven, 1930), 220.

The British plan to send to justice more criminals was becoming more problematic by the end of September, 1919, when Sultan Damad Ferid's Cabinet was being dissolved slowly in the profit of the Kemalism. On November 17, 1919, the new High Commissioner Admiral de Robeck, told Curzon that

“…the present Turkish Government...[is] so dependent on the toleration of the organisers of the [Kemalist] National Movement that I feel it would be futile to ask for the arrest of any Turk accused of offences against Christians, even though he may be living openly in Constantinople...I do not consider it politically advisable to deport [to Malta] any more prisoners.”

(Source: BFO 371/4174/15672 1 (folios 523-24))

And later also noted:

“…the question of retribution for the deportations and massacres will be an element of venomous trouble in the life of each of the countries concerned.”

(Source: BFO 371/4174/136069 (folio 470))

During the 20’s, Lamb, the political-legal officer of the British High Commission at Istanbul, understanding the non-seriousness in the judging of the criminals detained in Malta, warned his superiors:

“Unless there is whole-hearted co-operation and will to act among the Allies, the trials will fall to the ground and the direct and indirect massacres of about one million Christians will get off unscathed.”

(Source: FO 371/6500/, W. 2178, appendix A( folio 385-118, 386-119), Aug. 11, 1920.)

One must not ignore that in addition to the fact that the prisoners were released because they were exchanged with British prisoners, as well the fact that it was advised to release them because the imperial government favored good relations with the Kemalists. Another major reason was responsible of the release of the prisoners, a reason that apologists have tried to keep under the carpet. On March 10, 1921, Ankara's Foreign Minister Bekir Sami assured the British that the prisoners being released would be judged in a court. Later officially on June 11, 1921, the Ankara government informed the British that when the Malta prisoners will be released in exchange of British prisoners:

“…those accused of crimes would be put on impartial trial at Ankara in the same way as German prisoners were being tried in Germany.”

(Source: FO 371/6499/E3110, p. 190; see also FO 371/5049/E6376, folio 187; A. Yalman, Turkey in My Time ( Norman, OK, 1956), 106.)

The British at the end had no reason to keep the prisoners anymore. By releasing them they scored many points. Firstly, the British prisoners would be released in exchange. Secondly they would not have to deal with what they viewed as “venomous trouble.” Thirdly, in the eyes of the Kemalists they would gain some respect which as a result would open the roads of economic exchanges. Lastly, why keep those prisoners and go through the trouble of judging them, when the Kemalists promised that those prisoners would be judged in Ankara?

It is true that many Ittihadist high ranked were judged by judicial proceedings in Izmir and Ankara. Among them were Halis Turgut who had escaped the prosecutions of the Turkish military tribunal previously, Ahmed Shükrü, Ismail Canbolat (the right hand of Talaat), Dr. Nazim, Yenibahçeli Nail, and Filibeli Hilmi (Dr. Shakir’s right hand). Some of the killed/condemned to death were brigands and military officials and soldiers used by the Ittihadists. One of those, Yahya Kaptan, was killed in July 1922 by unknown assassins. The rumour was that he had threatened Turkish officials with releasing state secrets if they were to carry investigations on him (he had a major role on the drowning into the sea of thousands of women and children). Topal Osman was killed by a military unit trying to capture him in March 1923. Halit (Deli) was killed in the Turkish parliament on February 9, 1925.

Even after those trials, the honesty of the Kemalist government could still be questioned, since many influential figures in the Young Turk government as well as pan-Turkists and Turanists were later introduced in the Kemalist administration. The Young Turk ex-minister of finances, Djavid Bey, was the nearest collaborator of Bekir Sami during the London Conferences. Yunus Nadi Bey, who was as well in the Turkish delegation in London was deputy of Smyrna; he was the leader of the “Yeni Gün” that was the principal Kemalist organ. Doctor Ziya Nur, considered by some the father of the neo-Turkism, was the private advisor of Youssouf Kemal (he himself found a place in the Kemalist administration), the then-minister of foreign affairs. Ahmed Nessimi Bey, the minister of foreign affairs under Talaat’s government, had leading roles in the administration. Sami Bey was placed at the head of the postal and telegraphic services at Ankara. Furthermore many pan-Turkists like Youssouf Aktchoura, Aghaoghlou Ahmed, Husseinzade Ali, Ziya Gökalp, Köprülüzade Fuat, Mehmet Emin, Hamdullah Suphi, Ali Haidar, Halide Edip, Celal Nuri, Falih Rifki, and Yacub Kadri, among others, were introduced in the Kemalist administration.

The two district governors that had a leading role in the genocide, Kemal and Nusret who were executed by the Kemalist government, were considered as “national martyrs” their families received large sums of money. Nusret got a region, a school, and a street in Urfa in his name; in Bogazliyan, Kemal was honoured with the erection of his statue in the public square. Ankara’s government also allocated pensions for the families of those executed by Armenian “avengers,” such as the families of Talaat and Dr. Behaeddin Shakir.

Now, back to Malta, Simsir in his work about Malta, with the aim of supporting his claim that the prisoners were released because there was no evidence, has referred to Curzon, but what Simsir ignores in his work is that Curzon later calls this decision a "great mistake," and he even admits that the rationale had been to support the release of the prisoners.

“The less we say about these people [the Turks detained at Malta] the better...I had to explain why we released the Turkish deportees from Malta skating over thin ice as quickly as I could. There would have been a row I think...The staunch belief among members [of Parliament is] that one British prisoner is worth a shipload of Turks, and so the exchange was excused.”

British Foreign Office Archives, FO 371/7882/E4425, folio 182

Curzon’s claims that they were released because there was no evidence, from his own admission, were just a reason among many to justify the decision (release of the prisoners), when in fact there was no justification whatsoever.

The claim that there was no evidence in US archives falls short when referring to the British ambassador in Washington, D.C., on June 1, 1921, when he declared,

“The U.S. archives contain a large number of documents on Armenian deportations and massacres.”

FO 371/6503/E6311, folio 34

There never was any prosecution, pre-trial investigation, or interrogatory. So how is anyone to claim that any tribunal “proved” them not guilty, when there was no Malta tribunal in the first place? The Turkish military tribunal on the other hand had charged many prisoners as guilty before sending them to Malta. This is why many were sent there. The Ottomans were supposed to send the documents supporting their guilt. No document was ever sent, however; the Kemalists dissolved the tribunal and the files were stolen.

Another interesting point is how Simsir uses in his article Undersecretary W.S. Edmond’s quotations, when the individual in question was one of those recognising that the documents giving accounts of the guilt of the prisoners were in Istanbul. He was troubled by the fact that Turks would react very badly if criminals were hung because of their participations in the massacres of Armenians. He himself declared even at an early stages:

“Not one Turk in a thousand will think that any other Turk deserves to be hanged for massacring Christians.”

(Source: FO 371/4173/61185, folio 1270/278. Minutes recorded on April 22, 1919)

The British judge Lindsey Smith August 10 1921 declared:

"…a considerable amount of incriminating evidence was collected by the Turkish government but it is idle to expect to get it. The only alternative is therefore to retain them as hostages only and release them against British prisoners."

(Source: FO 371/6509/E10023 (folios 100-01))

Now, it is important to ask the question, “Where were those documents?” since it is often claimed by denialists that the allies had the capital under control and that after searching they had found no evidence. It is even more important to know where the documents are, since the Turkish military tribunal brought to light that such documents in the form of “secret orders” did exist:

“The massacre and destruction (taktil ve ifna) of the Armenians was executed through secret orders by men who ostensibly had the assignment to implement the law of deportation. (zahiren tehcir kanununu tatbik etmek). “

Source: Published on August 6, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3616, p.1, Trabzon Verdict, 22 May 1919

This reference in the military tribunal refers to secret orders; references about those signed orders are abundant in the transcripts of the military tribunal published in the Ottoman Law gazette "Takvimi Vekâyi"

“The documents, personally signed by the defendants, confirm the fact that the gendarmes escorted the deportee convoys for purpose of massacre. There can be no doubt and hesitation about this. (maksadi ... taktili oldugundan süphe ve tereddüt birakmadigindan). “

Source: Published on August 7, 1919 in "Takvimi Vekâyi" No. 3617, p.2, Yozgat Verdict, 8 April 1919

On 10 February 1919, British High Commissioner, Admiral Calthorpe sent to London reports from the British intelligence agency, from where the Turkish Public security official Mr. Aziz in charge of Interior Ministry's wartime archives declares:

“Just before the Armistice, officials had been going to the archives department at night and making clean sweep of most of the documents.”

Source: British Foreign Office Archives. FO371/4172/31307, folio 385.

Tunaya relying on Ittihad's Secretary-General Midhat's testimony writes:

“The documents of Ittihad party were crammed into a suitcase by Dr. Behaeddin Sakir after they had been removed from the party headquarters by Dr. Nazim. The suicase was taken to home of attorney Ramiz, Sakir's brother-in-law.”

Source: Tunaya, T.Z. "Türkiyede siyasal partiler, Vol. 2, 2nd ed. Istanbul: Hürriyet Vakfi publications. p. 96, n.16.

The Turkish press reported in December 1918 ("Aksam," 12 Dec. 1918; "Tasviri Efkâr," 13 Dec. 1918) that when the police raided Ramiz’ homes, they found documents that were still intact and handed these documents to the Martial-court. Following the dissolution of the martial-court the documents left were never handed to the British like promised. Mr. Aziz, contrary to the promises he had made, never handed those documents to them.

It must be noted here that Djemal's bureau's Deputy Director stated that, before Djemal, flight from Istanbul:

“...some of his files [containing] official documents were left in the custody of Syfi, one of his men, who out of fear burned them. “

Source: Atay, F.R. "Çankaya." Istanbul: Sena. pp. 127-128

The then minister of education Midhat Shukru…

“…made most of the CUP documents relative to Armenians disapper.”

(Source: FO 371/6500 p.480)

The documents incriminating some of the prisoners in Malta that the British were able to locate in Istanbul were reported disappearing. And the Nationalist government was suspected of being the responsible.

“…disappearance of documents incriminating certain persons …saying that the matter has been arranged by local Nationalist leaders.”

(Source: Weekly Summary, March 4, 1920, British Embassy publication)

Other references to the destruction of those documents could be found in Aydemir’s work, where he writes:

“Before the flight of the top Ittihadist leaders, Talat Pasa stopped by at the waterfront residence of one of his friends on the shore of Arnavudköy, depositing there suitcase of documents. It is said that the documents were burned in the basement's furnace. Indeed ... the documents and other papers of Ittihad's Central Committee are nowhere to be found. “

Source: Aydemir, S.S. "Makedonyadan Ortaasyaya Enver Pasa." Vol. 3, 1914-1922. Istanbul: Remzi. p. 493

It is evident when referring to those pieces of references that the allies had no access to the documents contrary to what is claimed by denialists. A telegram ordering the destruction of telegrams, from the Turkish Interior Minister to the provincial governor at Ayintab, was intercepted by the General Headquarters of the British Army's Egyptian Expeditionary force on 24 January 1919.

“Burn originals of official telegrams since mobilisation on files of district. “

(Source: FO371/4174/15450)

On 17 June 1919 the Turkish foreign Minister Safa protested to the British High Commissioner regarding British intrusions by trying to examine documents, and finally answered that such an intrusion will be unsuccessful, because the Diyarbekir-based Director of Telegraphic Service sent a circular telegram ordering to destroy these documents. Admiral Calthrope reported to London after this message:

“…attention to the tenor of this note which treats as a mere matter of office routine such an important matter as the proposed destruction of documents relating to the period of deportations, massacres, and the activities of the Turkish authorities during the war. “

(source; FO371/4174/102551)

The British, facing the destruction of the documents, in a weekly summary of intelligence report, dated 4 March 1920, declared from the British Military Intelligence Bureau:

“…the disappearance of documents incriminating ... Ittihadist. Talking of Rauf: he urged the destruction of incriminating documents. It is understood that Rauf had already arranged the disappearance of documentary material implicating himself and Enver Pasa.” [source: FO371/5166/E1782, Reports 575, 592]

Karay, who in 1919 was the General Director of Telegraphic Service in Turkey, wrote that Mehmet Emin, his predecessor, had sent orders to all principal telegraph centres in the country, directing them to:

“…destroy all official papers, the originals and copies of all telegrams. “

(Karay, R.H. Minelbab lelmihrab, Istanbul: Inkilâp and Aka, p. 221)

Post minister Hüseyin Hasim admitted ordering the destruction of telegrams in 3 June 1919:

“…all military telegrams burned on orders from the War Office.” [source: "Takvimi Vekayi." No. 3573, 12 June 1919]

From these Turkish and British evidences, the present Turkish documents relating to the Armenian massacres are either forged or manipulated, because the Turkish authorities, in an attempt to deny the Armenian genocide, use documents that according to their own sources should have been destroyed. If in fact they were destroyed, then the documents the Turkish government presents are "reconstitutions" and more probably "forged," invalid in court of law.

Raphael Lemkin, Lawyer, and the inventor of the word “Genocide,” refers to the prisoners of Malta in one of his writings.

“In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?

“I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.

“A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? . . . The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians.”

[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]

After this basic attempt to analyse the Malta cases, one can find surprising the fact that any denialist could still claim that there was a Malta tribunal, or that prisoners were released because of lack of evidence or, even worse, that the allies had access to every document yet had found nothing. Because even after all the precaution the Turks took to hide the fact of the Armenian genocide, if one were to research this case honestly and without bias and compare it with, for instance, the Nuremberg tribunal, the researcher would quickly realise that even with all those forgeries from the part of the Turkish republic, after all those manipulations, and after all the destruction of files, one can still find that the evidence found in the official Ottoman Law gazette will without doubt show us that what the Ottoman Armenians have gone through was in fact an extermination, and those evidences by their quality show the intent more so than those used during the Nuremberg tribunal used to charge NAZI criminals.

One still wonders, and will keep wondering. Why going at these lengths to destroy those documents? Why did the Ottoman refuse to hand them to the British as promised? Why would the Kemalist government dissolve the tribunal? What were they hiding?

So let us ask this question again: Was there a Malta tribunal? No! There never was any Malta tribunal! Were the prisoners of Malta released because of lack of evidences? No! They were not, for Curzon’s admission shows us that this was not the case. Had the Allies access to every document they wanted when they were “occupying” the capital? No! Not only that was not the case, but even when using Ottoman Turkish documents, we have to conclude that even such documents show us that the Allies were unable to have access to such documents.

This peripheral analysis of historical records points us to a fact, the fact being that there never was any Malta tribunal and not only this but that the prisoners kept in Malta were not released because of lack of “proof.” This short essay shows us that the prisoners were released to be exchanged with British prisoners, as well as to not obfuscate the new nationalist power in place. And, finally, the British released those prisoners after having the guarantee that they would be put on trial in Ankara. Furthermore, not all prisoners were released. The British refused to release about 20 among them; as a result they succeeded in escaping by the help of the Kemalist. The use of the Malta case by apologists of the Armenian genocide is one more example of the apologist’s paradox. On the one hand the denialists reject the Turkish military tribunal, because they claim that it was a kangaroo tribunal set by the Allies; on the other hand they use the release of Turkish prisoners by the Allies as evidence that there was no genocide. If Malta prisoners were to be charged, the denialists will claim that the court charging them was set by the Allies, therefore not credible, whereas on the other hand, if the court in question were to release them, the same denialists will use this release as a “proof” that there was no genocide. In this case, there never was any Malta tribunal in the first place, so the denialist’s selective portrayal makes us believe there was one. The entire denialist methodology uses the apologist paradox. The heart of this paradox works like this:

Case A, Evidence A forgery

Case B, Evidence A not forgery

Let us examine case A. If evidence A is forgery, it is not an evidence. No further examination is necessary.

Let us now examine case B. If Evidence A is not forgery, it does not support the theses of genocide, so it isn’t an evidence to support the genocide. Therefore there is no evidence at all.

Those few lines are at the heart of the denialist methodology whereby they will first try to reject an evidence by trying to show it as forgery. If they are able, they will therefore conclude that this evidence is not an evidence. If on the other hand they are not able to show the evidence as forgery, they will try to give another meaning to the evidence, do everything to twist it, and finally conclude that even if it is not forgery, it does not support anything, therefore it is not an evidence. From this paradox, there can not be any evidence supporting the genocide, because the two theses lead to the same conclusion. No genocide.

RE: About Fadix's 19th century Statistics

A few words about Fadix's statistics. I already got into this topic in "Analyzing Raffi's and 'Zero Credibility' Fadix's claims," above.

ANSWER: You did that? I don't see you having done what you claim, you just attempted pathetically answering my documented and well researched answers.

"Mr. Torque quotes Bliss, and claims his figures were of 42,000. He is again manipulating." Our weasel beast friend is being unfair, as usual. Why would he say I'm "manipulating"? Does he really think I've made a detailed study of Bliss, the way Fadix has devoted his life to this obsession, pathologically finding whatever tidbit he can use to detract from the big picture? No, I used Gurun's figures, as he states, and whom he also blames as "manipulating." The reader can decide whether Gurun's mission was to manipulate, or to finally tell the truth, putting a dent in the singularly told avalanche of Armenian propaganda. Once again, an online source for his book (http://www.eraren.org/eng/armfile1.htm).

ANSWER: You did manipulate, you posted in your entry: Bliss: 42,000, which is a manipulation, so as Gurun claim, he takes the partial numbers provided by Bliss, dismissing completely the fact that Bliss provided for 1895 a conservative figure of 50,000, which he admits were the numbers representing mostly men, and the rest is very difficult to know. Adding to that, Gurun has added to the partial figures his trash of 6000-7000 victims for 1896, and claimed them to be Western source, which is manipulation at best.

Despite Gurun's impeccable research,

ANSWER: impeccable? Do you mean like when he tried to pass the 702,900 Muslim refugees as Armenians having been “relocated” ? Do you mean like when he claimed that since there was no Armenian, the Armenian genocide could not have happened? Gurun research is impeccable for those that are ready to eat the Turkish government poops.

he was only one man, and who could be a match for the massive reservoirs of propaganda that a whole network of obsessed Armenians have come up with?

ANSWER: For years Guruns pathetic work(which the title BTW is hateful and picture his racist character) has been debunked more than once, his arguments were more easily debunkable than the Holocaust revisionist Irving when he presents his cases in his book “Hitlers war.” Don't mistake the millions of dollars of university corruptions, and the millions of dollars that the Turkish republic spend per year to rewrite history with the Armenian Diaspora campagne trying to stop that.

Gurun exceeded Bliss' 35,032 figure from 1895, because of his honesty in attempting to estimate. (If Gurun were being dishonest, he would have tried to pass off 35,032 as the total figure for the 1890s.)

ANSWER: First of all, Bliss figures were not of 35,032, I quoted from the book, those figures were the total for the locations he presented, Bliss figure for that date was of 50,000, and Bliss added that those were very conservative numbers and represent mostly men, as the number of other victims is hardly to be known. To that, Mr. Gurun has added what he estimate for 1896 as being from 6000-7000, which alone is enough to show how a manipulator Gurun is to even suggest that in 1896 the numbers of victims were the fraction of what they were in 1894 and 1895.

Did Gurun undercount the casualties of 1896, by estimating 6-7,000, coming up with what he writes is an "approximate" figure of 42,000? Perhaps, but nowhere does he give the impression of being dishonest in his book.

ANSWER: First, as I said, the conservative non-complete figures for 1895 according to Bliss were of 50,000, and not 35,032, secondly, just the fact that Gurun suggest for 1896 a fraction of those of 1894-1895 expose him once again to be the fraud he is. Not only when reading his book someone is under the impression that he is dishonest, being under impression is to a kind of a word to describe his dishonesty.

Now Fadix says the real figure was over 100,000. Yes, that's what Fadix says, with his proven propensity for the truth.

ANSWER: Not only did I affirm it was over 100,000, but I have presented the most complete neutral compilations, which all suggest over 100,000. Those are not my words, those are what the data bring us to.

Bliss was a missionary, whose accounts were exaggerated to begin with; he had total sympathy for the Armenians.

ANSWER: Those are only your POV, but of course you prefer using your governments poops as numbers.

A passage of Bliss' la-la mentality is provided: "Mohammedans ... have been taught for centuries that a Christian slain was the surest passport to the favor of God and the enjoyment of eternal happiness. Under the insane spell of this awful fanaticism, they have come down like wolves on the gentle Christian people under their sway, and within the last year have slaughtered men, women, and children without mercy,...only because they are Christians."

ANSWER: This quote doesn't mean anything at all, were Christians not slaughtered? Yes they were, was it not true that Islamic fanaticism was really present in the empire? YES!!! It is true, it is known how religion was responsible of so many wars for centuries and countless numbers of people were butchered for no reason other than their faith, that is the truth, that Bliss report the condition of the Christians doesn't discredit his words, they are only discredited when one suppose that what he claim is untrue, and because untrue his words or not to be trusted. You use circular logic, and this hardly can be accepted as an argument.

We've already had plenty of examples of the shameless deception practiced by Armenians, to gain Western sympathies. Capt. C. B. Norman informs us of this "quality," back in 1895, referring to Cuinet’s statistics for Sassoun: "Now, out of the Armenian population of 8,389 we were told that from 10,000 to 20,000 had been killed but it was generally assumed that 15,000 was a safe estimate." At Amasya, the Armenian teacher Thoumanian stated that 800 perished. "A German resident and an Armenian merchant, both present during the disturbances, fixed the number at 53." At Berecik, where 2,000 Armenians were supposed to have been murdered, "only five lives were lost." The impartial British officer tells us the figures given by various correspondents in Istanbul were "willfully exaggerated."

ANSWER: First of all, the said British report isn't a “British” report at all, until the document is found in British archives, it is kind of surprising that the only copy I was able to find in all my research, is a said copy of a manuscript in the The Institute of the Turkish Revolution. The entire document regurgitate all of the crap that Abdhul Hamid propaganda bureau has spread. And to think that there was about 8 thousand Armenians in Sassoon(Again Ottoman statistics, and it tells much of its credibility), it takes a total ignorant. If half were boys/men, let say 4000 and half of those were in age to fight let say 2000... and let say, that miraculously, half of those decided to revolt(as it is claimed what happened in 1894, when finally Abdhul Hamid has decided to send an entire army), it would have taken at most a 1000 armed soldiers to put an end to the said revolt, but after the government armed Kurdish basibozuks, thousands of them, it took them an entire army to enter the place. One can hardly imagine that a town of 8,000 would be responsible of an entire mobilization, I live in Montreal, it is like claiming supposing that Quebec is a country, that it would sent the army, with tens of thousands of soldiers for a little town of 8,000 inhabitants. Beside that, Norman claim that those murders and the way it is said that it happened, was no confirmed by people in the spot, this is ridiculous, because those that were actually on the spot were those that reported the highest figures, Bliss himself admit that his numbers being conservative, those that were on the spot were giving higher estimates. The “53” figure collaborated by two people(a German and an Armenian) is nonsense, how can you give such a number to the last digit, unless the figures were published by the authorities, in this cases, an authority that had all the interest in the world to minimize the number of Armenians being butchered.

(This sort of dishonesty continued until the end of the conflict. For example, on Feb. 6 1920, Armenian Patriarch Zaven stated in a telegram to Nubar Pasha that 2,000 Armenians had been massacred in Marash. On Feb. 25, the Reuter news agency reported this figure as 70,000. What's heartbreaking is that even the original 2,000 had nothing to do with reality. French Prime Minister Millerand said in a telegram that "In particular the Armenian losses in Marash appear to be absolutely false.")

ANSWER: Again an example of manipulation. Millerand claim had NOTHING to do with what happened to the Armenians after that the French retreated from Marash. Why don't you quote what follows? Er? “Apparently, the Armenians took part in the struggle of our troops in this city and had casualties like all the fighters. A serious study of the figures shows that these Armenian casualties do not exceed 1000.” What Millerand is referring to has NOTHING to do with the numbers of causalities in Marash after that the Armenian quarter was burned, and Armenians were killed and kicked out. But of course, the likes of Mr. Torque will selectively quote out of context by trying to fool the innocent reader into believing that Armenian losses were just exaggerations. In Lebanon and Syria there is a Marash community there, there were orphanage with orphan Marashians having lost the rest of their family members, the figure of causalities amount to thousands. There were reports when it happened, publications, memoir etc. One example is the work written by Stanly E. Kerr “The Lions of Marash: personal experiences with American Near East relief, 1919-1922” Of course, since we have Mr. Torque with his falsifications, we can witness how revisionists use cheap tricks.

Who can believe any of these figures of biased people Fadix provides? For example, John Thompson. Most Britons were influenced by the horrendous anti-Turkish hatred spread by Prime Minister Gladstone.

ANSWER: What I present as figures were reported figures based on data transmitted, that you claim that they have exaggerated because they were anti-Turkish is only POV.

I don't know if John Thompson was one of them, but what I do know was that there were very few Captain Normans.

ANSWER: I am awaiting that you present me the original ID from the British FO of Norman manuscript, until then, it should not be considered.

Rummel is a "genocide scholar" who primarily listens to the Dadrians of the world, as the lot of genocide scholars.

ANSWER: You are a liar, Rummel in his list of historiography include books from both “sides” his list for his work is one of the largest one can get.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.REF.HTM

Stop lying about people, but as I said earlier, I don't expect you to stop anytime soon.

His research is one-sided and flawed.

ANSWER: That's what you want to be true, not the truth, his research is very complete and far from being one sided, he uses Gurun, and many Turkish diplomats, he as well lists McCarthy and others supporting your theses.

For example, he refers to unfounded Walker/Boyajian massacre counts of 6,000 to 10,000 in 1920 Kars, when even anti-Turkish Near East Relief individuals (whose exclusive concern was to alleviate the suffering of Armenians) such as Edward Fox, Harris, White, et. al. said there were basically no massacres whatsoever. Why should anyone listen to a biased "scholar" like that?

ANSWER: National Geographic December 1919 issue covers the situation, where a team of National Geographic embarked in one of those American Relief train, as a sub-title: “A Journey Through Starving Armenia on an American Relief Train.” I just took my copy of the issue and have it right in my hands. They cover the region, like Igdir, and tell the situation there, when countless bones covering the entire place, of Armenians lying dead. The article was written by Melville Chater. Beside that, there is not a single Armenian left in Kars now... I guess they all just disappeared without being massacred and kicked out.

And how laughable for Fadix to ridicule Nalbandian's range of 50,000-300,000, and then ask to consider Rummel's almost-as-wide range of 100,000-300,000.

ANSWER: Where did I ridicule her figures? I just said that as a writer, she presented a range which is untrue. Any foreign figures covering the massacres from 1894 to 1897 provide as minimum, 100,000, and that it ranges from 100,000 to 300,000, and I have presented some of those myself as support.

Our weasel beast friend then percolates at the mouth as he rants about Lepsius' 88,243 figure. (Of course, he adds that I am guilty of willful manipulation, when I simply took that figure from Gurun's book.) He says those figures are incomplete, as they did not include the millions of slain Armenians from "most" of 1896.

ANSWER: I did not only say that they were incomplete, I actually quoted him telling they were incomplete figures, they were the incomplete figures of William II, which excluded mostly the victims of 1896 some of 1985 and all of 1897. Those are not my words, I quoted from Lepsius, so to claim that Lepsius has presented those figures without indicating that he made it clear that they were preliminary ones, is manipulating the numbers. And that is what you did. The official German final figures as I have presented were of 200,000.

All I know is that the Vicar Lepsius was another religious fanatic like Bliss, and if anything, his 88,243 count was wildly exaggerated.

ANSWER: This is only your POV, a pathetic attempt to discredit people whom support my theses, nothing more.

Here's an example of the reliability of Johannes Lepsius: Aghasi, who began the 1895 Zeitun rebellion, writes in his diary (again, he was the Armenian leader, and was in a position to know): "From the beginning until the end of the insurrection, the Turks lost 20,000 men, 13,000 of whom were soldiers, and the rest were bashi-bozuks [irregulars]. We had lost only 125 men, 60 of whom had died in battle, and 65 of whom were dastardly killed during the cease-fire. (p. 306] Aghasi = 125 Armenians killed. Lepsius = 6,000 Armenians killed. (101, footnote, Gurun.)

ANSWER: To believe that that there was 20,000 Turkish “fighters” having lost their lives against under 200 from the other side during a fight, when one sides army by men and by arm represented over five times the one of the other side is insane. Those losses of 20,000 are not documented in Turkish sources, if they are. Where? Beside that, where Aghasi suggest that the losses in question include massacres and not men having died during those fights?

The reader can determine there has been a bottomless pit of horrible propaganda, still working its evil today. 125, from a genuine Armenian source, was the kind of figure Gurun HONESTLY used to calculate his conclusions.

ANSWER: Gurun can't even make the difference between his a-- and his mouth, just like Ataov, the fact that he took those figures of 20,000 and added to them a said 5000 others to claim that 25,000 Muslim died against 20,000 (which is about his figures of Armenian losses between 1894 to 1896) for the entire period show what kind of clown he is. Mr. Gurun that reject and manipulate every given sources, take a diary entry which is rationally impossible, without any support even from Turkish sources, he take it and add another 5000 he fished from here and there and compare it to his fictive delusional figure of fewer than 20,000 Armenians having lost their lives, when any other sources for the losses varies from 100,000 to 300,000.

We can readily believe the actual figures of Armenian mortality was not anywhere near the propagandistic levels of 100,000-300,000. No, as Gurun HONESTLY writes: "One thing is certain, and that is, even if we are to include the Armenians killed by the bullets of the Armenian rebels as having been killed by Turks, the number of Armenians who died during the rebellions in the 1890s will hardly reach 20,000."

ANSWER: One thing is certain, and it is that Kamuran Gurun the Turkish diplomat pied by the Turkish government to deny the reality of the Armenian genocide, is a known manipulator and is not to be trusted, and my answers to Torque, and my answers to Gurun claims are enough to support my theses.

Note how HONEST Gurun is. He doesn't rely on Aghasi's figure of 20,000 Turkish dead, attempting to deliberately inflate Turkish mortality to gain sympathy Armenian-style, since Gurun knows Aghasi would have been biased in wishing to inflate his heroism. But there would have been NO reason for Aghasi to have lied about the 125 figure.

ANSWER: The numbers provided by Aghassi were regarding the men losses during those fights, they have absolutely nothing, nothing to do with the victims of the massacres. Beside that, Torque has just shut on his own feet again. How someone exaggerating heroism won't try to reduce the numbers of loss during a fight? Torque claim that Gurun did not take Aghassi numbers of 20,000. Intriguing, since Gurun writes: “In the meantime it is also necessary to compute the number of Muslims who died in the same period. If we are to take seriously Aghasi's statement that they killed 20,000 Turks in Zeitun, then the Muslim casualties would approach 25,000, and would be twice the Armenian casualties...” True later to fool the reading into believing that he is independent he admit it to be exaggerations, but the interesting thing is that Mr. Gurun is suggesting that about 12,500 Armenians died during the Abdhul Hamidian massacres. What a predictable manipulator that Mr. Torque likes to quote.

Gurun: "There is a great difference between 20,000 and 300,000. At the very least it would be fair for those who give these figures to remember how many people lost their lives in rebellions or disorders in their own or other countries, and think how much right they have to use the term massacre.

ANSWER: actually, what Mr. Gurun, the Turkish diplomat that was pied by Ankara, and who's words Mr. Torque wants us to take, is telling us, is that the word massacre should not be used to describe the generalized mass slaughter of Armenians from 1894 to 1897. That is what Mr. Gurun want us to believe.

In the meantime it is also necessary to compute the number of Muslims who died in the same period. If we are to take seriously Aghasi's statement that they killed 20,000 Turks in Zeitun, then the Muslim casualties would approach 25,000, and would be twice the Armenian casualties. We leave aside this exaggeration. The number of Muslims who died during these rebellions in a two-year period is not less than 5,000.

ANSWER: Any documentations to support your claim that 5000 Muslim were killed by Armenians? Is that another poop mr. Gurun?

Most of these Muslims were killed without provocation, by shots fired on them or with bombs, so that the rest would be aroused and attack the Armenians. This is the real murder, the real massacre.

ANSWER: OK! It is clear now Mr. Gurun, most of this 5000 Muslim were actually massacred by Armenians, this is a real massacre, but that a government sent irregulars armed to the teet in Armenian towns and cities to chase them, is not massacres, it is just a self defense against the Armenian population, a minority group. Yeh real murder indeed, real massacres. Since Armenians are not human, why killing them would be murder or massacres? Right Mr. Gurun? Oh yeh, I forgot, since you claim about 13,000 Armenians fanatic animals were killed, against poor Muslim victims... again as usual Armenians were the aggressors.

I don't know if Ernest Jackh was a "Turcophile,"

ANSWER: Given your obvious limited knowledge, it is expected that you don't even know whom he was and why he was a Turcophile, but just because you don't know doesn't mean that he was not one.

although obviously Lepsius was an "Armenophile."

ANSWER: That's beside the point, the point is that he wrote, and your answer about what he wrote is POV.

Lepsius was a religious fanatic, he had reason to love the Christian Armenians.

ANSWER: Again, that he was a religious fanatic is your POV. Do you even know what is religious fanaticism?

What reason did Jackh have to love Turks? The fact that he wrote a book called "The Rising Crescent," and reported his facts straight?

ANSWER: Jackh reported 200,000 victims, you now claim he reported the facts straight, you just are giving validity to his numbers you are trying to discredit. How predictable, not being afraid to conctradict yourself more and more. You sound to be a circus clown, jumping from one side to the other.

Armenians are so used to Westerners who automatically hate Turks and to side with the Armenians, the instant a Westerner employs fair play, such a Westerner becomes "pro-Turk."

ANSWER: Pro- means supporting someones position, it does not mean what is reported is necessarily false. The reason why I claim him to be pro-Turkish is that he tries to justify by supporting Turkish positions, and give racial characterizations to the Armenians, but at least he does not deny what was done.

For example, even though Admiral Bristol has been smeared as being pro-Turk, one can tell from his writings he didn't love the Turks. What Bristol respected was the truth.

ANSWER: Bristol is a completely different story. Let see if he’s the man you claim him to be.

Let see if he’s the man you claim him to be.

“The U.S. High Commissioner to Turkey was Admiral Mark L. Bristol, a man with a reputation as a bigot and a determined advocate of U.S. alliance with Mustafa Kemal. "The Armenians," Bristol wrote, "are a race like the Jews-they have little or no national spirit and poor moral character." It was better for the United States, he contended, to jettison support for the Armenian republic as soon as possible, stabilize U.S. relations with the emerging Turkish government, and to enlist Kemal's support in gaining access to the oil fields of the former Ottoman Empire. Bristol's argument found a receptive audience in the new Harding administration in Washington, whose affinity for oil interests eventually blossomed into the famous Teapot Dome bribery scandal.

As High Commissioner to Turkey, Bristol had considerably more power than might be enjoyed by any conventional ambassador. As the civil war unfolded inside Turkey, Bristol barred newspaper reporters from access to areas where renewed massacres of Armenians were taking place, purportedly to avoid inciting further atrocities against civilians.

His correspondent at the State Department in Washington was Allen Dulles. After the Paris conference, Dulles had served briefly as chief of staff to Bristol, then moved on to Washington to become chief of the State Department's Near East desk just as "oleaginous diplomacy" was reaching its heyday.

Dulles supported Bristol's initiatives. "Confidentially the State Department is in a bind. Our task would be simple if the reports of the atrocities could be declared untrue or even exaggerated but the evidence, alas, is irrefutable," Dulles wrote in reply to Bristol's requests for State Department intervention with U.S. publishers to shift the tone of news reports still dribbling out of Turkey and Armenia. “ [T]he Secretary of State wants to avoid giving the impression that while the United States is willing to intervene actively to protect its commercial interests, it is not willing to move on behalf of the Christian minorities." Dulles went on to complain about the agitation in the U.S. on behalf of Armenians, Greeks, and Palestinian Jews. "I've been kept busy trying to ward off congressional resolutions of sympathy for these groups.

The change in the U.S. government's response to the Armenian massacres presents an acute example of the conflicts that often shape U.S. foreign policy. From 1914 to 1919, the U.S. government and public opinion sharply condemned the Turkish massacres. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau repeatedly intervened with the Turkish government to protest the killings, raised funds for refugee relief, and mobilized opposition to the genocide. A close review of the declassified State Department archives of the period shows that much of the government's internal reporting on Turkey was strongly sympathetic to the Armenians throughout the war and the first months after the war.

The Western press, too, was overwhelmingly favorable to the Armenians and hostile to the Turkish government. One recent study by Marjorie Housepian Dobkin found that between April and December of 1915, the New York Times published more than 100 articles concerning the massacres when the killings were at their height. All of the Times coverage was sympathetic to the Armenians, and most of the news stories appeared on the front page or the first three pages of the newspaper. A roughly similar pattern can be found in publications such as the New York Herald Tribune, Boston Herald, and Atlantic Monthly and in the journals of various Christian missionary societies. The volume of news coverage rose and fell with events over the next five years, but on the whole it remained strongly sympathetic to the Armenians.

Yet a remarkable shift in U.S. media content and government behavior took place as the new Harding administration established itself in 1921. "Those who underestimate the power of commerce in the history of the Middle East cannot have studied the postwar situation in Turkey between 1918 and 1923," Dobkin writes. "There were, of course, other political factors that proved disastrous for the Armenians . . . but the systematic effort (chiefly by the Harding administration) to turn U.S. public opinion towards Turkey was purely and simply motivated by the desire to beat the [rival Associated] Powers to what were thought of as the vast, untapped resources of that country, and chiefly the oil."

"It was not possible to bring about the desired change in public opinion without denigrating what the Armenians had suffered," she continues. Retired U.S. Admiral William Colby Chester joined Admiral Mark Bristol as a leading public spokesman for reconciliation with Turkey. Chester was not a disinterested party. The Turkish government had granted him an oil concession in Iraq that was potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars. Writing in the influential journal Current History, Chester contended that the Armenians had been deported not to deserts, but to "the most delightful and fertile parts of Syria ... at great expense of money and effort"-a claim that went well beyond even what the Kemal government was willing to argue. Dobkin reports that missionary leaders such as Cleveland Dodge and George Plimpton, who had once been instrumental in documenting the genocide, began to lend their names to publicity insisting that the reported Turkish excesses had been "greatly exaggerated." By mid-1923, the complex and interlocking challenges created by the demands for justice in the wake of the Armenian Genocide, on the one hand, and U.S. political and commercial interests in Turkey, on the other, had been settled in favor of a de facto U.S. alliance with the new Kemalist government. The day-to-day details of the U.S. diplomatic shift in favor of Kemal were handled by Ambassador Joseph Grew (who will reappear later in this narrative as acting secretary of state during a pivotal moment in World War II) and the chief of the Near East desk at State, Allen Dulles. The U.S., which had been the principal international supporter of the nascent Armenian Republic, withdrew its promises of aid and protection. Mustafa Kemal soon succeeded through force of arms in suppressing Armenia and in establishing a new Turkish government at Ankara. In July 1923, the Turks and the European allies signed a new agreement, replacing the aborted Treaty of Sevres with the Treaty of Lausanne. Western governments agreed to new Turkish borders, officially recognized Kemal's government, abandoned any claim on behalf of an Armenian republic, and specifically agreed to an amnesty for all Ittihadists who had been convicted in the earlier trials.”

Source: “The Splendid Blond Beast” by Christopher Simpson.

Bristol was as well the one asking Mark Prentiss an eyewitness of the burning of Smyrna to change his version.

The Armenians' numbers in the later part of the 19th century, from Lynch's book: "An Armenian clerical writer (Vahan Vardapet in an Armenian newspaper published in Constantinople, the Djeridei Sharkieh, dated 3/15 December 1886), who appears not to err on the side of exaggeration, has placed the entire Gregorian population, that is the great bulk of his countrymen in Turkey, at 1,263,900 souls. It is reasonable to suppose that the Armenian subjects of the Sultan number upwards of one and a half million."

ANSWER: That's exactly what I said, those numbers represent the Gregorian Armenians, while you have tried to make us believe that they represented all the Armenians. The genocide happened in 1915, about 30 years after those figures. Beside that, when Nogales was on the front, and saw the Armenian villages etc. in comparison of Muslim one, it didn't appeared for him that Armenians were the minorities that the Ottoman was trying to make them pass as, since he estimated 2.5 million, and had contact with Turkish officials. And as I have noted Alexander point in his work to Djemal memoirs whom claim 1.5 million Armenians having been deported, and the com mission gave a 2/3 quota, with suggest similar figures. The German Intelligentsia of war stationed at the spot, with direct contact with Ottoman authorities has estimated over 1.9 million, other estimations were of 2 million. The Ottoman after the Young-Turks took power was concerned to have precise numbers and for the first time they were about to obtain them, but for a reason, they were never published, the 1912 that McCarthy quote is based on the 1906 figures. Why so? Why did they not publish them, is it because it showed Armenians were not the minority they once were claimed to be. Why the Germans claimed that the Ottoman did not wanted to have precise statistics? Why Cuinet was barred access when he requested more precision? Did you read Lynch book, or have you just copypasted that thing? Do you want me to quote you the situation of the Armenians that he describe in his work? Oh I see, probably another Muslim hating European, but the same Torque has no problem quoting from them when it fits his belief. Beside that, the Ottoman took pieces of Russian Armenia, so the Armenian population should be added in the calculation of victims... something the denialists try to hide under the carpets, or as well when the Ottoman invaded Persia and committed massacres against its Armenian population.

Note Lynch is aware of the Armenian propensity for exaggeration, and thus commends Vardapet for being sort of honest, as far as can be expected from a people prone to exaggerate and sometimes outright falsify.

ANSWER: Again, the racist fool generalizing, idiot, if you were to read his book, you won't utter such absurdity, it is not by copypasting few quotes that were selectively chosen by denialists, that it meens you have the right to tell us what Lynch is talking about.

Lynch probably resorted to the Patriarch somewhat himself, when he came up with his own figures;

ANSWER: Again, a poop, that is your POV, you did even not read his book yet you claim, his figures were based on Ottoman figures from which he tried applicating some corrections. Nothing to do with the Patriarchate figures.

he did not research the matter as extensively as Cuinet 

ANSWER: That's according to you. It is POV.

[next section; Cuinet based his information from local Armenian Churches],

ANSWER: That's again your poop, Cuinet used Ottoman figures. Cuinet was charged to survey areas and count their population, etc… He was also used to establish the ability of the Ottoman Empire to pay its debts, but Cuinet clearly write in his work, “La Turquie d’Asie,” that it was not possible to have precise numbers, he gives two main reasons for this.

1- The barriers imposed by the Turkish authorities made his researches inconclusive.

2- Because of the lack of control of the Turkish authorities for farther provinces, it was impossible for him to complete his work.

Cuinet's statistics was drawn from Turkish authority numbers and information that they provided him, and those number concern the Armenian population for the year 1892, in the Vilayet of Aleppo (sandjak of Marash). The number is an impossible 4,300. The church numbers alone would contradict this, which is another thing that proves that this number is not only wrong but even impossible (the true number was four times greater) is that only in the city of Marash the Catholic and Protestant Armenians were numbering 6008, and this without including the Gregorians (Cuinet p. 237). This number is based on the church registry and is also supported from Catholic and Protestant missionaries, when the populations of Catholic and Protestants that the missionaries were basing their counts on were comparable to a census, since they were not only based on the birth and death certificate kept by the church but were verified by the Catholic and Protestant missionaries more particularly in Cilicia, where their missions were based on these precise numbers. So we remark that Cuinet numbers that were based on information provided by the Turkish authorities were biased and certainly wrong. He even affirms in his book that the Ottoman authorities refused any investigation. :

“The science of statistics so worthy and interesting, not only still is not used in this country but even the authorities refuses, with a party line, to accept any investigation.”

Vital Cuinet, La Turquie d’Asie, Paris, 1892, p. 7

although Lynch is known to have carried serious research in his own right. His figure: 1,325,000. (Breakdown: six provinces: 387,746; The rest of Asian Turkey: 751,500; European Turkey: 186,000.)

ANSWER: Lynch never presented any real figures for the entire Ottoman Empire, his figures for Turkish Armenia were of 1,058,000, which is closer to what I affirm.

So why is Fadix attempting to fudge our minds wih the over 2 million figures of George Cox and others who conducted no serious research or primarily relied on the lying Patriarch's figures?

ANSWER: My figures are based on Djemal memoirs, German War Intelligentsia, Germans stationed on the field with direct contact with Ottoman officials, and other soldiers serving in the Ottoman whom had direct contact with Ottoman authorities, like Nogales, when he himself claim 2.5 million. I use 2 million as a reasonable number, and this figure is as well the one that Rummel set two after compiling different figures in his table.

Why didn't Fadix make note of what an "honest" ARMENIAN came up with?

ANSWER: What that Armenian came up with support more what I have been saying than you were saying. Lynch does not draw the entire Ottoman population, Turkey in those literatures is not really the Ottoman Empire, McCarthy himself in his calculations makes that obvious, since when we take all of his numbers that comes from the Ottoman statistics, we find 1.7-1.74 million, and those are from the Ottoman statistics... and I have given examples on how they were clear underestimations like when taking Rize for instance when McCarthy in one of his essays recognize it, but still in his work use a moderate correction value.

Because his agenda is to want to make you believe there were greater numbers of Armenians, just like the Patriarch. Fadix has Zero Credibility.

ANSWER: I have zero credibility only in your imagination, you can try hard as much as you want trying to discredit me, but it is clear that more you try more you are losing your credibility, if you still have any credibility in the first place.

Here's an eye-opener: The Armenian Patriarch, whom we can always rely on to blow propagandistic hot air, first had the audacity to report the worldwide Armenian population as strictly from the Ottoman Empire, at 3,000,000. (At the Berlin Congress, end of 1877-78 War.) When he saw chances for autonomy slipping, and thought of the topic of taxes, he "revised" his figures to 1,780,000! That's still an exaggeration, but at least he came down from the stratosphere.

ANSWER: As usual, Mr. Torque manipulate and forge. For other readers, the 1,780,000 figure was the Caucasus Armenian population, I do not remember this figure of 1,780,000 to have been anything other than that. Perhaps it would be interesting if Torque could provide his sources. As for the 3 million figures, the only such figures I remember was when the Patriarchate in his numbers hasn't still came up with final numbers because of the changes in the borders... and the way it was used was to tell that at the center of Armenian homeland there was 3 million Armenians living, including parts of the Caucasus part of the Russian Armenia, and the Armenian province of Persia. If Mr. Torque has other informations regarding this, he is free to present his sources.

RE: The Relevant Statistics

In order to get a true picture of the population of the Armenians, so important to determine awfully exaggerated statistics like "1.5 million murdered,"

ANSWER: The 1.5 million figure were German figures NOT Armenian, one must not forget that the Ottoman invaded the Persian Armenian provinces, as well as stole a part of Russian Armenia.

let's not get distracted with what some obscure Austrian figure (at least I never heard of him, and I've done some studying) stated from the 1850s.

ANSWER: The figure I refered to is only obscure to those that have never done research about the topic. And no what you did can not be called a study, surfing on the web after denialist materials can hardly be called a real study. That you did not heard of the person, doesn't mean that what he has to say is untrue.

Let's focus on the Armenian population shortly before the 1915 period.

ANSWER: That was what I did by presenting figures from every sides, but you preferred manipulating figures and twisting numbers.

Let's face it; every dick and harry came up with numbers, but given the onslaught of religious and racial prejudice in the West against Turks, we can't give attention to every one of those who employed sky-high figures.

ANSWER: Clown, that you try to discredit everyone that support my theses by making charges such as they were Turk hater can hardly be considered as an evidences. That you even try to discredit the Turks whom support my theses, even less. You remind me Shoah revisionists that claimed how the Germans were hated, and how the NAZI at the Nuremberg were beaten to make false testimonies.

For example, the Near East Relief, through a film they had a part in releasing, claimed 4 million Armenians perished. They also claimed close to over 1.7 million survived, meaning the pre-war population must have been nearly six million.

ANSWER: Sources please.

Take with a grain of salt when Master Propagandist fires away figures that have no basis in reality,

ANSWER: I use figures and present the sources, my figures are from every sides, what you claim of them is only you POV.

from all kinds of sources, in his perpetual attempt to confuse the truth.

ANSWER: Again, you are mistaking yourself with me, confusing the truth is using manipulations, fabrications, distortions etc. you have done all of those.

The 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica figured 3 million worldwide, a jump of 100,000 from 1910. Alexander Powell agrees, granting half that figure (1.5 million) for the Ottoman Empire. Ludovic de Costenson believed 3,100,000 in 1913.

ANSWER: As I said, Britannica figures were those of 1896. As for Powell, are you telling me it is the same Powell whom was in a mission in Turkey to answer of the “claims” of massacres in the 20s, because the American public opinion was still down the road, because of the governments change of policy e.g. the the contracts like Chesler etc. and was interviewing the Sultan and many other to write his book? Is it the same individual that claimed that Smyrna was burned by the Armenians and Greeks, and that Westerns at the spot have testified, when this is absolutely wrong? Do you mean the same Powell working hand in hand with Bristol to redraw in the congress the plan to send American soldiers to secure Armenia and when they have succeeded? Are you talking about the same Powell that claimed that all the reports were exaggerated and claimed it has been demonstrated without even giving any single clear evidences of it? Can't be the same Powell. Right? Or is it the same? Merrill D. Peterson in his work “Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After” document the cases on how the Armenians were left out and how the American policy in the 20s was to ignore what has been done. Contenson figures are not supported in his work: “Les Réformes en Turquie d'Asie” 2nd ed., Paris, 1913, he could even not support his numbers for the Ottoman Armenians, which he say: "...les plus recentes statistiques..." and say nothing more about it(admitted by McCarthy himself).

(Gurun states the 1953 edition of the above encyclopedia "revised" [Armenians hate revisionists] 1911's 1.5 million Ottoman-Armenian figure to a whopping 2,500,550. An Armenian wrote the article!)

ANSWER: Most encyclopedia entries regarding the Shoah are written by Jews, from when the ethnicity of someone is enough to reject what he say? Oh I see, since Armenians are forgers by nature(your own allusions), it is expected that they will lie. Right? But, here again, there are many sources(that are non-Armenian) that give that figure, including Nogales, and even an Ottoman figure.

Vital Cuinet is said to have researched the empire's population most thoroughly, among foreigners. He wrote, "The work which we present today, to the public in general, is a compilation of statistic notes gathered on the spot, during various trips of exploration we have undertaken in the last twelve years."

ANSWER: He also add: “The science of statistics so worthy and interesting, not only still is not used in this country but even the authorities refuses, with a party line, to accept any investigation.” And finally add that because of two reasons, it was not possible to present valid data, and he added that those reasons were. First, The barriers imposed by the Turkish authorities made his researches inconclusive. And secondly, because of the lack of control of the Turkish authorities for farther provinces, it was impossible for him to complete his work. I already have presented an example with Alepo.

His figure includes all Gregorian, Protestant, and Catholic Armenians in Anatolia, where almost all of the Armenians lived.

ANSWER: That's according to you, and it is POV, Cuinet admit the limits of his numbers.

The French Yellow Book used these figures, recognizing them as official: 1,475,011.

ANSWER: It doesn't undo that Cuinet figures were incomplete as he admitted it.

Prof. Justin McCarthy arrived at virtually the same figure from "The Anatolian Armenians," 1984: 1,465,000, in 1912. In a table presented within a chapter (entitled, ""The Population of the Ottoman Armenians") in another book, when he adds the number of non-Anatolians, he arrives at 1,698,301.

ANSWER: Cuinet numbers were published in 1892, what McCarthy claims is supposed to represent the population of 1912, 20 years differences. While the Patriarchate figures(which matched the Ottoman ones for the Western region BTW, where the Ottoman control was the highest, and where the Ottoman had no reason to undercount them) were those for all Ottoman Armenians, those statistics were not. When adding all the Armenians McCarthy calculate in specific regions, we find out 1.7 million, but still many further villages were entirely ignored. In another essay, he claims 1.74 million Armenians, and those are based on Ottoman figures, McCarthy data would only be true if there was no deliberate policy to undercount Armenians, and the Germans and even including Cuinet have confirmed there was such a policy, which render McCarthy correction values useless.

The figures presented by Armenian partisans Richard Hovannisian and Christopher Walker both give ranges of 1,500,000-2,000,000. Let's present the fair median, 1,750,000, which isn't far from the above. (Hovannisian's figure is from his 1967 book, when he was more toned down with his nationalism. By the time of "The Republic of Armenia" about a quarter-century later, he would "revise" his figures to "approximately 2,000,000.")

ANSWER: When range are given, those ranges can be debated, this is how it works in the Academic world, some exclude or include different borders even when using the term Ottoman Empire, take McCarthy book for example, one would believe that it is actually 1.5 million, when he present 1.7 million. Harbord used 1.5 million for Asiatic Turkey... those are all different figures, and when one decide to make a median, it would give about 2 million. Rummel himself take all those figures, and the middle range is 2 million as the number of Armenians in the entire Ottoman Empire, and I consider those figure as being reasonable, so i take them.

Now there are sources like the 1912 British Blue Book, which state about a million (authoritative, as the "colored" books carried the stamp of officialdom), but it's nice that there's some sort of consensus with the disparate sources above.

ANSWER: There is nothing such, Lynch figures of Turkish Armenia have nothing to do with the entire Ottoman Empire.

Toynbee himself figured the total population of Armenians living in Anatolia as only 761,000.

ANSWER: Nothing such, as I have said countless numbers of times, the fact that Toynbee say what are Ottoman statistics doesn't mean they are his numbers, Toynbee claim that the true number is probably close to 2 million.

If we add the Armenians from the other parts of the empire, seeing what the other statisticians above came up with, Toynbee's number for the entire Ottoman-Armenian population could not have exceeded 1 million.

ANSWER: Those are your speculations on something that is even not true in the first place. What you claim being from Toynbee is not his to begin with.

That information is from his 1915 book, "Nationality and the War."

ANSWER: Tell me which page please.

The same year, Toynbee would be hired for His Majesty's Propaganda Division, Wellington House. He dishonestly gives greater valuation to the Patriarch's figure of 2.1 million only the following year, when he wrote "The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire," the basis for the Blue Book. But even Toynbee tries to be fair, finding the midpoint with the Ottoman census (not the latest one, which was 1.3 million; here he cites 1.1 million.), at 1.6 million. Note the outdated Ottoman figure he sought to discredit was 100,000 more than what he came up with the previous year.

ANSWER: This is a lie, he present both ranges, and say that the true figure is probably close to 2 million, and he never really said else, similar figures as those provided by the Germans.

So the range from "unbiased" Western sources is from 1 million to 1.7 million.

ANSWER: BS, another of your poops, there is no western sources when covering the entire Ottoman empire, and correcting it for the year 1915 that will give under 1.7 million, but there are western sources that gives 2.5 million, the Soviet Encyclopedia even present those figures, that Nogales himself provides. Rummel come up with a median of 2 million, and that is where I will sit at.

If we take near the top of this range, and figure the 1 million who survived, we get an idea of how many Armenians perished, the brunt from causes that did not involve outright murder. I believe up to 600,000 died.

ANSWER: BS, after 1923, close to 800,000 survived NOT 1 million, even the exaggerated figures of the League of Nations, mistaking Russian Armenian refugees as Ottoman Armenian refugees present about 880,000, what McCarthy has come up with. Which is above a million victim. The Turkish historian Fikret Adanir, admits over a million, Bertkay, he says probably about a million. The Turkish human right organization, at least 800,000. All of German and Austrian figures, above a million, Nogales himself say it was over a million. The median here is 2 million as Armenian population, and that above a million perished.

Of course, the fair people among us should not forget over 2.5 million Turks/Muslims died. Outright murder at the hands of Armenians, with Russian help? 518,000. More Armenians killed Turks than the other way around. Isn't it ironic we're focusing on a "genocide" that never took place? These Turks who were killed were the victims of a real extermination policy.

ANSWER: That is BS, those are McCarthy figures and its beside the point, Arabs have fought against the Turks, Kurds have fought against the Turks, there was a war on the Russian front and the Western front, those losses have nothing to do with the Armenians. Besides it takes a schizophrenic fool to think that Armenians have killed more Turks than Turks have killed Armenians, while I have shown you the nature of this forgery of 518,000 countless numbers of times, you still brag it. And I repeat, even Emin did not present those figures, not even half of it, so stop with your BS. To think that the Turks were victims of extermination and not Armenians, it takes someone having hyperactive dopamine neurotransmitters and needing anti-psychotics ASAP. To think that a population sent in concentration camps to die, and butchered in mass by a special organization that the government founded by released from central prisons, could actually be those having committed genocide, one must be a disgusting dehumanized less than a dog to even dare to revert the role of the victims and the aggressors.

RE: Other Notes

These pages are not meant to get into these detailed facts. We should encourage readability. the reason why I felt compelled to write in detail is because it is the strategy of Zero Credibility Fadix to "inundate."

ANSWER: I am not the one that was posting pages of trashes, manipulations, distortions and fabrications, you were. I came here to answer to your distortions of history, stop your plan of making this nice place a continuation of your website.

Pile up his "avalanche" of weasel facts, and it becomes hard to think clearly; he loves to stun his reader into submission.

ANSWER: It is obvious that every points made should be supported with materials, this is how it works, while you posted your POV, I documented every points I made, and this is what counts at the end, I have debunked all of your claims, your distortions of history, and you already know that that was to happen the second you have decided answering. I will answer back everytime you bring your revisionism, mark my words.

There's no end of biased, ignorant people who relied on Armenian propaganda, and Fadix can easily provide dozens of sources, since he is a professional propagandist, and has amassed his crooked knowledge.

ANSWER: My knowledge is based on the materials from both side that I have read, I am not you, I do not use the Internet as a big book and go after every quotations supporting my position. And you can claim I am a professional propagandist all you want, a fact remain, I SUPPORT any claims I make, I differentiate what is POV and what is NOT. I have shown that most of what you have written were POV, supporting by sources, that many times don't even exist to begin with.

As Goebbels put it, the task of propaganda is "to provide the naively credulous with the arguments for what they think and wish, but which they are unable to formulate and verify themselves."

ANSWER: How nice of you to quote from a NAZI whom had as charge to propagandize and justify the treatment of the European Jewry, I think you could learn much from him, since you yourself have quoted non existing materials, and have even not presented pages. While I on the other hand, present sources and even offer my help for those that want, to get the work in question. One can not say the same about you, who claim having ignored that a quote does not exist or deny it, when someone point you they do not exist, and then you even ask the other party to show of its non-existance, and when the other party proposes to do just that, you claim that his word should not be trusted and still continue using the same trash over and over again. As I said, I think Goebbel would be a good spiritual figure for you, both of you seem to have so much things in common.

What I needed to do was take apart Fadix's rewriting of the article, but his "ton of stuff" from the Talk Page took precedence. Here are two examples of how Fadix intended to deceive, in his article re-write. Fadix went to great lengths to demonstrate the Armenians who rebelled did not originate from the Ottoman Empire. Of course; according to preserve the Armenians' "Myth of Innocence," Armenian propaganda tells us all the men were killed, leaving the women, children and elderly free to be torn apart by the barbarian Turkish hordes.

ANSWER: Another lie, you are just copy pasting your trash from your website. Where did I say that all men were killed at the beginning, show me where liar. What I said was that they were separated at the beginning of the deportation, and this can even be confirmed by the said archives released from the Turkish foreign ministry. It is true that many men were disarmed at the beginning, others were sent to complete the Baghdad railroad with children and women, using them as slaves without respecting any convention of wars.

The fact is, most of the Russian-Armenians came from the Ottoman Empire.

ANSWER: Let me tell you this one more time, iron head, seems that you still can't comprehend that. There was a Russian Armenia, and an Ottoman Armenia. The Russian Armenians were defending their homeland that the Ottoman Empire tried to invade, obviously there was Russian Armenians fighting against the Ottomans in Transcaucasia and at the font, what do you expect them to do? Sit there and watch? Of course according to this revisionist that call himself Torque, the Ottoman has every right to backstab its Ottoman Armenian subjects by sending them as first front fighting against their brother on the other front, and when some desert as an answer, Mr. Torque bark like a dog claiming Armenian treachery. Imbecility has really no limits.

(Boghos Nubar told us there were 150,000 Russian-Armenians, and 50,000 "volunteers.")

ANSWER: 150,000 Russian Armenians fighting for their Tsar, what's the point? Again, Russian Armenians, NOT Ottoman Armenians, as for the volunteers, many were survivors, others were from Russia, and there were many Western Armenians volunteering again, and again as I said, there was no lesser Jews per population that served for the allies in World War II, this can hardly be used as argument to claim there was no Shoah.

As Ottoman control was weak in the east, Armenians from each side travelled freely across the border.

ANSWER: This is POV, and even if it were to be true, once someone leave, he has every right as a person to letter try to protect his homeland.

There are a number of Western sources (like Rafael de Nogales, whom Armenians like to cite) telling us how Ottoman-Armenian soldiers deserted in droves. Who knows how many went to hook up with their brethren in the Russian army. Some stayed behind, along with ordinary rebels, to create havoc behind-the-lines.

ANSWER: What western sources, show me liar, the only ones you have provided ended up saying nothing. You brag Nogales, who's book you have not read, you just took quotations you found from the web and think that you know his entire story. What do you know about the man? What do you know about the fact that he was researched for war crimes? What do you know about the fact that he had to blame Armenians in Van, because his hometown was not accepting him for what he did, even serving with Djevded. Obvious you know s*t about what you are talking about. You know s*t about the fact that it was claimed to him that Armenians were in a war, a generalized revolution, and when he decided to go at the spot at Van, he say that nothing such was happening, while he modified his introduction by accusing the Armenians as being responsible, while in the rest of his story, he left it intact and admitted that nothing such has happened. Stop pooping and filling the place with CH4. This place is for serious people, and I repeat, it is NOT your website in which you fill fabrications.

"Prudence was thrown to the winds; even the decision of (the Dashnaks') own convention of Erzerum was forgotten, and a call was sent for Armenian volunteers to fight the Turks on the Caucasian front." (Papazian, 1934)

ANSWER: CAUCASIAN FRONT!!! Take a MAP!!! How many time have I to tell you that, is the iron your head is made of, of an element not found in this universe? The Van Armenians have decided to ignore the neutrality when the ottoman decided to invade Russian Armenia, the official Tashnak letter that Uras cherished and kept with his other files, made it clear that the Ottoman has decided invading Russian Armenia, backstabbing its Armenian subjects that didn't wanted to fight against their brother on the other front, so they deserted, some escaped in the Caucasian front. No one can expect the Ottoman Armenians to attack and take Russian Armenia.

Are we going to conclude there were masses of Armenians in other countries to compose the ranks of these volunteers, fighting inside Ottoman lines? Most of the French Armenians joined a legion formed by by the French, who were put to violent use at the end of the war. And of the others who came from outside? "The Black Company," NYTimes, 12/15/1915: "They were part of a stream of Armenians that has been pouring down into the Caucasus from the United States, Canada, England, France, and elsewhere, but particularly from America, for several months now, practically all of them Turkish Armenians, relying on the promise of the Russian Government that part of whatever territory which they may take from the Turks will be given to them as an autonomous Armenia under Russian protection. Almost every ship... has been carrying Turkish Armenians back to fight their hereditary enemy and his adopted war lord. They pay their own expenses back to Russia, are transported by the Russian Government to Tiflis, in the Russian Caucasus, where they are drilled by Russian officers and formed into Armenian regiments, the Russian Government supplying half of their equipment and they themselves buying the rest out of their own pockets. Most of them have had military training in Turkey. For instance, "Charl' Chaplin," the little leader who drilled his company on the careening decks of our ship, had been a lieutenant in the Ottoman army during the first Balkan War. By the 15th of last October 26,000 Turkish Armenians had taken the field against their ancient overloads, and 15,000 more were drilling at Tiflis, these groups being entirely distinct from the 75,000 Russian Armenians that had already been welded into the Czar's army. Fully 2,800 of these Turkish Armenians had been contributed by the Armenian colony in the United States."

ANSWER: Again, exactly what I said, they were not Ottoman Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. What other Armenians have done from France, US, Canada etc. was their own business, many, many Jews enrolled themselves in the allied armies, how the hell this could be used as argument to claim there was no Shoah? Beside that, one question those numbers, when considering that the Republic of Armenia's army was considering of a tens of thousands of Armenians, not even a hundred thousand.

Most of the "foreign" Armenians fought in Russian regiments; maybe half of Nubar's 150,000 figure, if the article's 75,000 of original Russians is correct. (Poor Armenians, believing in Russian promises, time and again. Little did they know, the Russians had no intention for an autonomous Armenia. But why not? They had over a century of Russian broken promises behind them. Fanatics simply can't think clearly.)

ANSWER: One can not take numbers from one source and subtract them from the others regardless of what they mean, it is only people like you and Gurun that does that. First, those numbers reported don't claim 150,000, so you can not use one source and subtract it from another. Secondly, the only thing this shows is that there was many Armenians already living in Europe and America, which answer your question of how come a million Armenian in America now. Thirdly, the entire army of the first republic of Armenia didn't even had that much men. Those are facts which can not be denied. So, again, we are left with the fact that Ottoman Armenians did not revolted like you have claimed, and even the official Ottoman archives released from the Turkish foreign ministry don't report your theses.

(This is why William Saroyan wrote the great enemy of the Armenians is not the Turks, but the Russians.)

ANSWER: Don't use your dirty hands to write anything about Saroyan, you totally ignore of what you are talking about. Don't force me to post what he had to say about 1915.

And what of the Ottoman-Armenians who hadn't had the chance to emigrate, but were living in the country they betrayed? There are many inter-governmental Ottoman reports that were meant for internal use (only unearthed in recent years to fight the Armenian slander campaign, so it's not "propaganda"). Here's one from the Governor of Sivas, April 22, 1915 (note the date, preceding the order to arrest Armenian leaders by a couple of days): "...a great number of illegal weapons and dynamite have been found. According to the statement of the suspects who were caught, the Armenians have armed 30,000 people in this region,

ANSWER: To arm 30,000 men, it supposes that there was 120,000 Armenians left in Sivas, assuming that most Armenian men there in age to fight managed to have those arms, which is highly unlikely. This is an impossible figure and is most probably another forgery pooped by the Turkish government. Even the Van resistance that was considered didn't had that much armed men, even not half, and this even according to Nogales. And to think that the Governor of Sivas used those for secret consumptions, one must be a total ignorant, considering is connection with the special organization and direct involvement with Ottoman officials.

15,000 of them have joined the Russian Army, and the other 15,000 will threaten our Army from the rear, if the Turkish Army is unsuccessful." Despite the weasel beast's attempts to have us believe such rebellions were "localized," Multiply the figures provided by the number of other regions, and see how extensive and dangerous the Armenian rebellion really was.

ANSWER: Clown, I repeat, even Van was not in such a position with its proximity with the Russian front, there is nothing such reported in the Turkish ministry of foreign affairs released archives.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Armenians are Armenians first, and citizens of their adopted countries second. We've seen an example of this from 1919 Georgia, above.

ANSWER: And the Turks are different in that regards? And besides I already answered your irrelevancy about Georgia.

The fact is, when these Armenians were under the control of other armies, they went out of control... as Russian and French officers have documented extensively.

ANSWER: That is what happen when those having lost their family are sent to fight against those having butchered them, that the Russians and French have used those people, those were as French or as Russian as others. The ethnicity of people serving in an army is not important, what is important is the flag under which they fight. And again, you had nothing to present, to justify entire populations sent in the desert, neither having you posted anything justifying the release from prisons the worst murderers to escort the Armenian convoys. You even didn't tried to answer that. Why was it done? Why releasing murderers and sent them on the Armenians? Why sending back the Zor Armenians to Del-El-Zor? Were they not supposed to be relocated there? Why sensing them back? Obvious, because the Ottoman did not expected many would survive, when they realized they sent them back to die.

Ask yourselves: What is the difference between a Russian Armenian and an Ottoman Armenian?

ANSWER: As much difference between the European Jews and the Soviet Jews. One fact remain, the Ottoman Armenians mostly were innocent, not only were they sent in the desert, but criminals released from prisons were sent on them by the order of the government to butcher them. There is even one archive published by mistake by your government that suggest that. I guess they were so overflowing that they weren't even able to hide that too. Again, why the convoys of Alepo and Zor were sent back to the desert? Were those Armenians of any threats to the Ottoman Empire? Why sending them back? Why sending those tens of thousands of people back to the desert. ANSWER ME, stop twisting and twisting. Why criminals were released from prison and sent to escort the Armenians? Not simple criminals, but murderers selected. I can give many examples like this, but as usual you will skip them and talk about irrelevant craps like what happened in TranCaucasia, like if it was relevant what happened in the Soviet front to tell whatever or not the Shoah happened.

Even today: take their "colony" in America. Do you think the Armenians care about U.S. national interests when they try to alienate staunch ally Turkey with their genocide resolutions, enforced by politicians in their pockets?

ANSWER: You can poop and poop, Armenians will still continue to do that, until there is no Armenian left, this is the price the Ottoman left to the Turks to pay, those who's death you are denying will hunt you by the mouth of each Armenians alive, until the Turkish society move on and finally decide to recognize that the foundation of the Turkish republic was made possible by the destruction of the Ottoman Armenians. You can try to twist, forge, manipulate, as much as you want, nothing will change, I will expose your distortions, again, again, again and again.

Do you think they care about American law when they establish defense funds for their terrorist heroes who have murdered innocents?

ANSWER: No matter how a butcherer one may be, every has the right to be defended in Court of Law, if butchers like Talaat were(he was defended by lawyers even when he was too coward to present himself, knowing well that he had no chance at all). This is how a modern court of justice work. Let the judges handle this and stop politicizing everything.

One other "weasel fact" Fadix has provided was an article (166?) in the constitution banning arms for Armenians. His purpose was to make us believe the innocent Armenians couldn't arm themselves and were laid wide open to the onslaught of the Turkish hordes.

ANSWER: No, that was not my intention, my intention was to show you your hypocrasy, while arms were freely available for Muslim in the east, not only freely, but the government even armed them, while Armenians had to respect the Penal Code 166, that was allegedly for everyone, when they were obviously the first targets. Armenians had to hide their gins, while others could walk on the streets nearly armed to the teeth, and Armenians could have done nothing about it, because of the so-called militia acting as a police.

The reason for the implementation of that article was that all Armenians were free to buy all the arms they wanted.

ANSWER: So as the Muslim that were the majority, which means Armenians were far from being threats.

That was one reason why Adana exploded in 1909; with all the armed Armenians, the area was a powderkeg. (Naturally, the super weasel beast put in Adana as another example of innocent Armenians slaughtered, without mentioning who started it. The only reason why more Armenians got killed was because there were more Muslims, when the fierce fighting erupted.)

ANSWER: Another of Mr. Torque poop, there was a court for what happened in 1909, a Turkish court, there were admissions, there are Turkish authors even from the government, whom admitted that what happened in 1909 was caused by fanatics of the old regime. Armenians were manifesting as a support of the new government policies of more rights, when the supporters of the old Hamidian regimes started attacking them. Beside that, here an example again of talking about something you ignore, the Penal Code 166, existed about 3 decades before what happened in Adana.

But of course, Mr. Torque find in normal that while Muslim could have the gungs they wanted, the Armenians had to hide theirs, what a hypocrite he is. One imagine that, the conflicting other party is armed, without anything being done, but when you decide to arm yourself, you get an army destroying your home and serching for guns.

The article prohibiting arms came too late; already, practically all Armenians were armed to the teeth.

ANSWER: Another poop, First Penal code 166, in 1886, and we all know what happened, which later resulted at the destruction inside the Erzerum cathedral, and Armenian groups forming and getting arms underground because of this same law, while the Ottoman was sending Bazibozuks armed to the teeth's.

Even after the article, the Armenians got all the mausers (sophisticated pistols acting like machine guns, to the Turkish villagers' few rusty rifles, frequently breaking down after firing one shot)

ANSWER: That's only POV, the Turkish villagers were armed by the government, and during after following the Balkan war, this became really pathologic.

and other weaponry they wanted, since the Armenians were usually one step ahead of the authorities.

ANSWER: That's again your POV.

TORQUE'S RESPONSE: "FADIX FUNNIES"

ANSWER: Germany the Ottoman ally, The commander of the Ottoman IIIrd army, on the spot; the Ottoman Intelligent department II at the front, all of them haven't reported the rebellion you claim has happened. This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your website, none of the official documents support your claim of Ottoman propaganda, including the files collected by the father of denialism Mr. Uras, including the archives released by Turkeys ministry of foreign affairs.

FADIX FUNNIES: "ALL" of them haven't reported the rebellion you claim has happened"?

Lieutenant General Bronsart v. Schellendorf, the highest-ranking German military officer in the Eastern Front (i.e., the commander-in-chief of Turkish Land Forces), wrote an article to protest the fixed trial of Talat Pasha's assassin, where he or any other witness for the prosecution were disallowed from testifying. The article was published in Deutsche Allegemeine Zeitung on July 24, 1921 and stated that he had been a witness to the fact that the Turks did not commit any pre-planned massacre; on the contrary, many Turks were killed as the result of the Armenian terror that reigned in that period. In his article, he maintained that the relocation law was passed in order to safeguard the Ottoman Army. "Disputes increased as Armenians rebelled during the great war in the Eastern provinces of Turkey. There was no special reason for the rebellion since the Armenians had both chairs in the new parliament and voting rights. They also had equal social and political rights as the other (citizens). There was evidence, such as provoking brochures, which had proved that the rebellion were organized by external agents. Russia was financing the rebellion. Since all the Moslem men were in the Turkish Army, Armenians had the opportunity to massacre the defenseless folk. Armenians did not only weaken the Turkish Army in the East fighting against Russians, but also they massacred the Moslem folk in the region. As a person who had witnessed the cruelty, I could easily say that the cruelties were much more merciless than the (so-called Armenian genocide)."

General Liman von Sanders, the highest ranking officer in all of the Ottoman Empire concurred as a friendly defense witness in the Tehlirian trial, detail provided below.

The dishonest Fadix is probably going to tell us that of course Schellendorf was going to lie, because he was an ally of the Turks. But this was years after the war; no pretext was necessary. It is unethical to maintain the illusion that an Armenian rebellion never took place when there is a voluminous body of evidence from sources unsympathetic to the Turks clearly stating otherwise.

As far as a commander of the Ottoman Army and the "Ottoman Intelligent department II" (whatever that is)'s not reporting an Armenian rebellion (source?): here again, the weasel is presenting his weasel facts in an attempt to confuse and throw smoke. There is a huge body of inter-governmental military reports providing details on the treachery of the Armenians.

ANSWER: This place is an open source encyclopedia, it is not your site where you can post racist generalizations. If you want to spew your hateful venom and tell us what 99% of Armenians are, go find somewhere else.

FADIX FUNNIES: I actually underestimated; it's not 99%, but 99.9999999999%. If Armenians don't exclusively study what their deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell them, I challenge Fadix to present examples of Armenians who deviate from the line. (Aside from Edward Tashji, whom Armenians love to falsely claim is paid off by the Turks. The caliber of this typically dishonest Armenian claim rests here: if the la-dee-dah Turks really had a propaganda department to pay off Armenians to lie, how could there be just one measly example after all these many years?) After all, there is now a whole slew of opportunistic Turks following the example of Taner Akcam going against the Turkish line. Surely we're all individuals, and surely there must be a few examples of Armenians who disagree.

But there aren't. Not publicly, anyway. Those who know better are afraid of speaking up, because they know of the dirty, underhanded smear attacks of their vociferous and unethical brethren. Levon Marashlian, for example, jumped down the throat of "Armenian Forum" co-editor Vincent Lima for daring to criticize Richard Hovannisian in a small footnote, going so far as to insinuate Lima had a sinister agenda (Translation: paid off by the Turks). If religiously-genocide-enamored Armenian, acting monolithically is a fact, it can't be called "racist." How clever of the sneaky Fadix to throw off our consideration of his weasely, propagandistic ways, by lecturing us what the nature of Wikipedia is. As if he's our beacon of neutrality — Irony of ironies.

ANSWER: I have read both (Gurun and Weems) works and have already reviewed them, and beside commenting about books which people have not read and yet they comment, what a hypocrite you are, you did this same thing with countless numbers of people, on the other forum, and in your official website, don't accuse others of things which you do in daily basis.

FADIX FUNNIES: Nobody cares about Fadix's "reviews." We are becoming aware of his nature, that he will say anything to knock down anything contrary to his genocidal obsession, because his last concern is the truth. Besides, we weren't talking about the self-centered Fadix, but of Raffi. And how odd that Fadix tells me I have done the same thing, since he professes to know me better than myself, when he doesn't even know who I am. I have never commented on any source blindly. Even if I have, does that excuse Raffi and the bulk of Armenians who unethically put down anti-genocide books in book review forums, when it's obvious they haven't gone near the books? Just another way of "Zero Credibilty" Fadix to try and fudge the issues.

ANSWER: Again hypocrisy at best, when an historian claim it was a genocide, you brag a so-called Malta tribunal that never was, and ask the thing to be "proven" in a court, when bunch of jurists do conclude it as genocide, you claim they are not historians. Do make a choice and stick to it, but I know that's to much asking to you.

FADIX FUNNIES: The Malta Tribunal was desperately attempted to be brought to trial by the British, and was aborted after nearly two and a half years of trying to find genuine evidence. All of the wartime propaganda that constitutes the foundation of mythical genocide claims today was rejected. The Malta Tribunal definitely "was," but Fadix will always scream and yelp otherwise, continuing with his immoral propagandistic agenda. Fadix has Zero Credibility. And as far as "when an historian claim it was a genocide," I answer, what historians? If he's referring to those who have bought into the omnipresent Armenian propaganda, that does not make them real historians. A real historian loves the truth, and considers all sides — not just the one he/she is comfortable with. Finally, regarding the comparison of the jurists of the Malta Tribunal and the lawyers of the ICTJ: The ones who considered the evidence at Malta were not all legal experts, like the admiral who headed the High Commission and the ambassador in Washington. Secondly, there is a world of difference between real evidence the British looked at firsthand, and the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda that has had the luxury of some eighty-five years to perfect, that the ICTJ lawyers mainly and irresponsibly considered.

ANSWER: That's the last time I will ask you to refrain making racist generalization, the next time I will complaining to Wikipedia, as I told you, this place is not your website where you can spew your racistic venoms.

FADIX FUNNIES: He's becoming rather boring, hysterically keeping on with his baseless accusations.

ANSWER: That's bullcrap, but I do expect from your part to assassinate the character of people supporting my theses, I do expect for you to twist what they say... you are so good at it.

FADIX FUNNIES: He's referring to my example of the assassination of Talat Pasha as "genocide," based on the ICTJ's definition of only one person needing to be killed to constitute genocide. What's "bullcrap" is that nobody would define genocide in such a cockeyed manner; most think of what happened to the Jews under the Nazis as for the meaning of genocide and indeed, Armenian propaganda would have us believe there is practically no difference between their hoax and the Holocaust. (The weaseling Dadrian went so far as to find Ottoman parallels to Nazi doctors like Mengele.) Note how "Zero Credibility" Fadix doesn't even address the issue; he's just spewing forth his venom. And exactly whose character has been assassinated here? What is this maniac even talking about?

ANSWER: I have posted in the other forum over 40 pages of analysis regarding McCarthy and his works, but of course you prefer taking the words of someone that receives grants directly from Ankara, but on the other hand you assassinate the character of people that are independent. Mr. Torque would probably be the first one to yapp, if it was to happen that a historian was to receive grants from the republic of Armenia or was to participate in a ministry publication regarding the Turks, or yet better was to participate in an institute of Turkish studies of the Republic of Armenia destinated at supporting the “Armenian” theses. But what can we expect, since McCarthy is the best Mr. Torque can get.

FADIX FUNNIES: Unbelievable. In war, this is called a strategy of attrition. Fadix just pummels his opponent with his smears and propaganda, and it becomes tiresome to even defend oneself. I don't know about the grants McCarthy has taken, but I do know professors make a practice of taking grants from a multitude of sources, and taking a grant does not constitute selling one's soul. Anyone who reads McCarthy's pristine history cannot conclude McCarthy knows the real truth and purposely conceals it, like the bulk of Armenian historians have a habit of doing. Maybe because Hovannisian and Dadrian operate in this fashion, Fadix believes McCarthy would be of a similar bent, because Armenians love to blame the other party of doing exactly what they are guilty of. They massacre, they say the other massacres. They forge and falsify, they say the other forges and falsifies. They assassinate characters, and they say the other assassinates characters... all in a grand effort to put up a big smokescreen on their genocide hoax. Where are the ethics? Certainly "Zero Credibility" Fadix keeps proving he has none. And McCarthy is far from the best, although he is certainly one of the best who has had the courage to deal with these ethically challenged mythomaniacs through the years. There is a whole slew of unsympathetic Western testimony, including Armenians themselves, that turns the Armenian genocide con job on its ear.

is an academic fraud, he has manipulated the theory of stable population, has not respected any of the 4 points of the founders of that theory, and to get his work published he had to add on the first pages that the numbers presented there are too imperfect to be considered as correct. McCarthy is a fraud, he has manipulated works when including in a footnote to support theses, when the works were telling the complete opposite of what he affirms. e.g, when he claimed Armenians started in Van, he provided to references, Ussher and Nogales, when both books say that this was not the cases. For Erzerun, he has used a propaganda material even more suspcious than the Andonians, prepared by Mehmed Sadik and the head of the Ottoman propaganda bureau, when another in that department has admitted that propaganda materials were build regarding the Armenians. But of course, again, McCarthy is probably the best Mr. Torque could get. As for 1948 genocide convention, it is recognized that not only the Armenian cases fir it, but even the restrictive term includes the Armenian cases as a part of its definition.

FADIX FUNNIES: If McCarthy is a "fraud" regarding population demographics, then why would he cite figures at the high of the range of the pre-war population (1.7 million) that Fadix referred to, in order to support his position? The reader can judge for themselves as to how legitimate McCarthy is; his research is available through many essays on the Internet. By now the reader is aware of Fadix's slimy tactics, so we're not going to take the word of one with Zero Credibility, regarding any of his goofy claims. For example, he's caught with his pants down above, indicating Nogales vouched for Armenian innocence... for example, when he wrote:

"After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzurum, Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands. These bloody excesses had as their necessary corollary the immediate disarmament by the Ottoman authorities of the gendarmes and other Armenian soldiers who still remained in the army (probably because they had been unable to escape) and the utilization of their labour in the construction of highways and in carrying provisions back and forth across the mountains. The altogether unjustifiable desertion of the Armenian troops, united to the outrages they committed afterwards, on their return, in the sectors of BashKaleh, Serail, and Bayacet, did not fail to alarm the Turks and rouse their fear lest the rest of the Armenian population in the frontier provinces of Van and Erzurum revolt likewise, and attack them with the sword. This indeed is precisely what happened a few weeks after my coming, when the Armenians of the vilayet of Van rose en masse against our expeditionary army in Persia; thus giving rise to bloody and terrible occurrences which, under the circumstances, might have been foreseen."

We don't need Nogales to tell us the sequence worked like this: (1) Armenian rebellions and betrayal (2) Move the Armenian community out of the way, so they don't hinder the efforts of the Army in dealing with the mighty Russian invader. Armenian propaganda has it that the Ottoman Turks would have started massacring and "deporting" the Armenian population, and the poor, innocent Armenians only acted in "self defense." Stomach-churning.

In wartime nations engage in propaganda, and no doubt the Turks weren't exempt. But I'm not familiar with any branch known as "the Ottoman propaganda bureau"; if anything, propaganda is the weak point of the Turks. If the Turks were so good at propaganda, the Armenians wouldn't have been able to enjoy the overwhelming ways in which they've convinced the world to believe in their myth. What Fadix is trying to pass off here is that everything prepared by the Turks is a lie, since the Turks were on an equal level with the Nazis. Therefore, if any historian refers to Turkish documentation, he is in danger of being called a "fraud," because everything the Turks have prepared falls under the category of "propaganda material." This way the Armenians hope to continue to maintain the foothold they've had the luxury of maintaining over the many years: only pro-Armenian material must be accepted as the "truth." History doesn't work that way. There are always two sides to a story, and it is up to impartial observers to declare what is propaganda, and what is not.

ANSWER: The material I use are known authentic, compared to what you use. I am not the one that uses forgeries and falsifications, I am not the one using quotations that do not exist, you are, I have given bunch of examples of falsified materials you have used, but this didn't stopped you to use them again. Stop defaming a professional, you don't come to Dadrians foot fingers in what regards integrity and professionalism, your knowledge of the event won't give a digit on a calculator that can display 10 digits when compared it with Dadrians knowledge. While I have analysed what McCarthy has actually writen, while I have commented his works, reviewed them and actually have read them all, you have slandered people and professional who's the works you have not read, you have tried assassinating their characters under the cover of anonymousness. You are both a coward and a racist.

FADIX FUNNIES: So let's see. I am being accused of using "forgeries and falsifications," This comes as news to me. Because Fadix is a master propagandist and makes it seem as though he has at his fingertips all original sources does not mean we all can be similarly fortunate. I don't believe the material that I only have excerpts of , available mainly from the Internet, have been presented in bad faith. Because there has been a monumental snow job against the Turks (Armenians=loud, obsessed, numerous in the sympathetic West; Turks=quiet, apathetic, few in the unsympathetic West... but growing in numbers in the last generation or so), the Turks are presented as the "Nazis," and are on the defensive. Therefore, most who have researched this material and have made it available makes sure the material is accurate. Well in opposition to the Armenians who have gotten away with their lies and distortions for so long. And I'm certainly not comparing my amount of knowledge with Dadrian's, who has based his entire career on the Armenian obsession. But Dadrian only reveals the reservoir of knowledge that helps his agenda. Prof. Malcolm Yapp reviewed Dadrian's work, and said: "The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system." This is why Dadrian, like Fadix, are two peas in a pod, both having Zero Credibility. So of course the Fadix pea is going to cry in outrage over the defamation of his superior pea. And get this: the anonymous, character-assassinating Fadix charges me with being a "coward." (Brace yourself for further Fadix hysteria, charging Prof. Yapp as being a Turkish tool.)

, but of course you ignored the fact that in Western history books of the time, in anthropological research, Armenians were either considered as Persians or Christian Turks, they were considered by the Germans as Christian Jews, either the Jews of Orient. There are bunch of documents supporting what I advance. The King Crane report even affirmed that the Turks were more liked than the Armenians, and this is confirmed in many literatures. So here again, talking of revisionism, you shout Western biases in every given occasion by thinking that it will undo the reports, that is not how it works, you can not undo peoples reports only by claiming their were Westerns. Beside that, the Austrian and German reports supporting the theses I advance were secret reports and not for public consumption. While the documentations early in the war for public consumption were supporting your theses, the secret reports were telling the quite opposite, letter those for public consumption change, but that was due to the fact that Germany was unable to hide what was happening anymore. Beside that, not only Western sources points to the Genocide, there are more clearer documents in the Armenians cases that display a clear inetion from the government to exterminate the Armenian than the Holocaust. Hilberg an authority of the Shoah has himself claimed that there was no documents ordering the extermination of the European Jewry. In fact, you will never find any memoirs from German officials anything near to what Halil wrote in his memoirs, when he claimed that he has tried to exterminate the Armenians to the last individual, there are many such examples. But since you don't care of the truth, I do not expect you to change your mind, you are not here to know the truth contrary to what you affirm, you already have made your mind, because you hate the Armenians, and that is clear and becomes clearer in each of your posts. While the first book I have read about the subject was not supporting my cases(McCarthy), what you did is take trash and copypast them, without researching about the matter. What Yapp has claimed regarding Dadrian, that's exactly what you've been doing.

FADIX FUNNIES: Armenians go to great lengths showing biased Western maps of the centuries-ago period classifying "Armenia." The vast majority of biased historians from the old days definitely regarded the Armenians as a distinct people, fellow Christians suffering under the Turkish yoke. The reason why the King Craine Commission made that statement most people liking Turks is because it was true; those who came in direct contact with these people, unless hopeless religious and racist bigots, got to see the "honor" quotient of the Turks and the Armenians. Those secret reports by Austrians/Germans were mainly written by sympathetic co-religionists, listening to the tales of missionaries and Armenians, diplomats and "desk" military personnel who were far from the field.

Sorry, there is much matter deriving from Nazi sources indicating their guilt: the Wannsee Conference, memoirs written by the Auschwitz commander, and Armenian-Nazi radio broadcasts and newspapers as European-Armenians goose-stepped along with their Fuehrer, helping in the extermination of Jews. I don't know about Halil's memoirs, but I already covered how renegade government officials could act on their own away from official policy, like the American soldiers at the Abu Gharib prison. And, oh, Fadix is aware of Prof. Yapp's criticism of Dadrian. (Of course; Fadix knows everything.) So even if I am guilty of Dadrian tactics (and I freely talk about the massacres committed by the Turks and the huge suffering of the Armenians, unlike Dadrian who hasn't touched the vast crimes committed by the likes of Dro, Antranik, Garo, et. al), how would that excuse Dadrian's miserable unscholarly ways?

in your reflection in the mirror. While I comment and analysis works which I actually read, you on the other hand assassinate characters who's work you have even not read in the first place. I am not the one claiming Armenians=Truth, on the other hand, you are the one claiming Turks=Truth, you have claimed that being a formula in your own web site, and told you readers to remember it. You must be a hell of a hypocrite to claimwhat you claim here regarding me, after you have displayed to be exactly that. As for zero credibility, again, as I said countless numbers of times. A credibility is lost for a reason, not because someone said it. You have lost your credibility, because you have used distortions, non-existing quotes, forgeries, fabrications, non-existing materials to support your claims, and I have demonstrated that in countless numbers of occasions.

FADIX FUNNIES: As I said: Armenians love to charge others with their own misdeeds, to take the heat off. Fadix has Zero Credibility. Now he must say that I have no credibility. Because I refer to numerous web sites for my information, it could be some information could be inaccurate. But I never knowingly use false information. What Fadix should do is point to the "ton of stuff" I've been forced to come up with to counter Fadix's loud mouth, and come up with ONE example of "distortions, non-existing quotes, forgeries, fabrications, non-existing materials" that he shamelessly accuses of. (Be prepared that he will. To his fanatical mind, the "Malta Tribunal that Never war" is an example of a forgery or a falsification.)

With the statement Fadix made above, he temporarily has risen from "zero credibility" to "0.01 credibility," for not declaring Armenians=Truth. But he's only saying that, and doesn't really mean it. In practice, he never points to the volumes of Armenian lies, except to use them for his own agenda. For example, he doesn't come out and declare the Andonian forgeries to be forgeries, which is what an honorable person would do, especially since Andonian himself is on record for indicating they were fake. No, the times I've noticed Fadix refer to Andonian, he does so in a "They could be true" manner. He quickly slipped back to "zero credibility" territory again. (Actually, we're being kind. His credibility is below zero, in negative territory.) Is it fair to say Turks are always truthful? Of course not. But because Turks are on the defensive after having been slandered so long in Western nations that already have a built-in bias agaisnt them, it would be folly to present evidence that is nothing but truthful.

characterize people based on their ethnicity, this is a form of racism. On the other hand, be glad to show me where I did that with the Turks? While I refer to your side as denialists, you characterize Armenians and attach to them behaviors, which is racistic and is against Wikipedias terms of uses. Regarding the 518,000 Muslim being killed, you know well that I have shown this number to be forgeries, I have demonstrated that 3 numbers, for the same location, the same date and the same files, in which the “8” was taken and zeros added in each of them, I have demonstrated how this news was used by the intermediary of the German Chief of Staff for German public consumption soon during the war to ally the public opinion to a German-Turkish causes. But I don't expect you to stop shouting something I have shown you more than one occasion to be a forgery.

FADIX FUNNIES: Does the egomaniacal Fadix really believe I have nothing better to do with my life than keep track with all of his nonsense? There is a word for this, and it's called "delusion." As far as Armenian character (strictly regarding their genocide obsession, mind you), I laid a challenge before him. Come up with examples, aside from Tashji, who dares to go against the genocide tide publicly. Surely not all 7 million Armenians in the world can be of the same mentality. If the relentless Armenian propaganda has been recognized even during the war years by "friends" of Armenia (Armenian friend and missionary James Barton was practically weeping, in a letter to Admiral Bristol, to how often Vahan Cardashian has fouled him. Cardashian went on to form today's ANC, which Armenia gave eight million dollars to in 2001), and if this propaganda is still being jealously guarded and preserved by fanatics like Fadix (who insists there was no Armenian rebellion), then the exposure of the characterization of Armenians to lie and distort their religiously held genocidal obsession is not racism, but simply the truth.

As far as the 518,000 Muslims being killed, who is going to give a flying fluke about Fadix's weasel facts? These figures are documented by internal governmental reports. They are seconded by other parties, like Col. Stokes who reported the Armenians “massacred between 300,000 and 400,000 Kurdish Muslims in the Van and Bitlis districts.” The colonel was British, not German. (It's too bad we can't get more impartial Western sources to confirm these tragic figures, since Turks/Muslims were not regarded as human beings by Westerners; the accent was entirely on Armenian suffering, as usual.) And if the Germans used the news for their purpose, it doesn't mean the news was false. Of course, the bloodthirsty Armenian rebels had free reign to commit their ethnic cleansing over the many years.

ANSWER: Exactly what I told above, as I said, the Armenians were not viewed anywhere better than the Turks. So your claims regarding racism against the Turks and not Armenians is not valid.

FADIX FUNNIES: Fadix is referring to the opinions of those Westerners who came in direct contact and commented on their level of dishonesty. These views had nothing to do with the overwhelming perception in the West as to how wonderful the Armenians were, particularly since the minds of sympathetic Christian Westerners had been poisoned against the Terrible Turk. The twists and turns of the Armenian Weasel Beast strike again.

ANSWER: Again, this support my position, Westerners didn't had any better view regarding the Armenians, I fail to see how this can be an argument to support your theses. But of course your goal is not this, since you are a racist, you use such materials to support your claim regarding the Armenians being inferior as a "race."

FADIX FUNNIES: Note how he twists and turns again. Who is talking about inferiority? We're pointing out a simple characteristic of Armenians that is being utilized by those such as "Zero Credibility" Fadix. This characteristic of dishonesty is coupled with fanaticism. If Fadix thinks it's racist to bring up this characteristic acknowledged since centuries ago by a Roman historian, then he might think Ara Sarafian is a racist: "Hatred and envy: they seem to come naturally to us." And he might think Antranik Zaroukian is a racist: "What kind of people are we? What kind of leadership is this? Instead of compassion, mutual contempt. Instead of reason, blind instinct. Instead of common sense, fanaticism." (Zaroukian really nailed Fadix's character to a tee.)

ANSWER: First of all, Andonian never claimed the documents as being fakes, he claimed that they were used as propagandas, so stop lying, you can lie in your website, but this is not the place. Second of all, Dadrian never claimed that the Andonians were authentic, his essay was a review of Orel and his colleagues review regarding the Andonians, he analyzed their arguments, he concluded that the arguments used can not support the claim that the documents were forgeries.

FADIX FUNNIES: The reader can check to see what I had written: "Andonian himself indicated were fake." There is a world of difference between "indicated" and "claimed," but our Zero Credibility man will make his presentation to support his agenda, regardless of the facts. In Andonian's 1937 letter, full of discrepancies with Andonian's prior claims, Andonian admits that his product is not a historical work, but a propaganda piece. That is not the same as Andonian's simply stating the documents were used as propaganda, which Andonian also provides for additionally. (Andonian further wrote that the Armenian Bureau in London and the Armenian National Council in Paris have made use of his manuscript freely as they wished.) And as far as Dadrian's never claiming the Andonian documents were authentic, and yet going to great lengths to prove the documents were not forgeries... can the reader believe Fadix's dishonesty? What weasels, both.

ANSWER: What a cheap trick, the decisions from the mediators should be taken based on what arguments are brought here. Kamuran Gurun was a Turkish diplomat at the Turkish foreign ministry and had as charge with peoples such as Ataov to deny the Armenian genocide. Gurun has used manipulations such as the figure of 702,900, the figures representing Muslim immigrants and passed them as Armenians, he brought as one argument, that since the Armenians did not exist, an Armenian genocide could not have occurred... he manipulated numbers from other sources, an example is provided in my answer regarding the Armenian losses from 1894 to 1897.

FADIX FUNNIES: Contrary to the typical tactic of Armenian smear campaigning, we do not judge the merit of scholarship based upon what a man's career might have been previously; in Gurun's case, it is the fact that he was a diplomat that likely forced him to learn more extensively about the matter, when most Turks are ignorant about the topic, and it's the diplomats who are in the position of defending their slandered nation. This interest and subsequent research is what qualified him to write the book. And Prof. Ataov was not "under orders" to "make things up" by the Turkish government. He's an independent researcher who came up with his own conclusions. Today, although retired, I understand he still gives conferences, and the Turkish government is not holding a gun to his head. Such ugly Armenian defamations.

Fadix is gum-flapping with his claims that no one can take seriously because he has compromised his credibility so seriously. Gurun took the number of Muslims and passed them off as Armenians?? What is Fadix basing this ludicrous claim upon? And where did Gurun argue "since the Armenians did not exist, an Armenian genocide could not have occurred"? That is outrageous; the reader can refer to the online source to see about Gurun's adherence, or lack of, to the truth. Fadix loves to make charges, but Gurun's statistics are rock-solid. If there is an example or two where all the jigsaw puzzle nature of these numbers may not have been complete (at the time Gurun wrote his book, there was no Turkish Zoryan Institute to benefit by; it seems the author was on his own), is that a result of willful omission? That's what a "manipulator" would do. Once again, Armenians love to charge others with the same unethical stunts Armenians are guilty of.... like the master manipulator Fadix, who presents the side that strictly supports his agenda.

ANSWER: To determine if it was a cold blooded, traces of premeditation are researched, the history is only used to undo predetermination by claiming that since what happened in the past, the person that committed the act didn't had all his/her mind when he/she committed the crime. The prosecution, tries to demonstrate on the other hand that because of the premeditated way the crime was committed, the accused had all his/her mind. This is why history is researched, it is to undo premeditation. There is a distinction between understanding and accepting in court of law.

FADIX FUNNIES: This is an alleged crime, and "premeditation" has not been proven. Unless Phony Fadix wants to pass off the Andonian documents as his proof. (In other words: pointing to Armenians massacred by bands or even with the connivance of corrupt local officials, or the bulk of Armenians who died of famine and disease when the bulk of Turks were dying of the same, does not prove the federal government was behind a predetermined plan to systematically exterminate. If the crime itself cannot be proven, then all claims of premeditation boils down to speculation, and speculation is not acceptable, particularly in a court of law.

ANSWER: What a full of crap, Tehlirian was examined by various doctors, he had epileptic seizures as a consequences of the troma, not only because of what he has witnessed, but as well because he had brain damage from the hit he received on his head during the massacres that left him unconscious for a long time. The even itself made him an epileptic with psychosis. He ended up being a psychiatric cases with heavy medications. The only reason his history was brought was because it showed that he didn't had his mind when he killed Talaat, he thought that his actions were dictated by some divine interactions, and that his mother that was butchered was telling him to avenge her. This was why no witnesses from the other side were present, because the cases was not about what did not happen, but what Tehlirian possibly witnessed that made him insane.

FADIX FUNNIES: The case was a murder trial, not a psychiatric session determining Tehlirian's sanity factor. And he was not insane.

D.A.: "From a legal point of view, the case is quite simple. On March 15, 1921, the defendant shot and killed Talaat Pasha." The reason why there were no witnesses from the other side was because this two-day kangaroo court (where the Armenian financed "Tehlirian Defense Fund" was able to afford "Berlin's most famous criminal lawyers," as the NY Times reported) was a fixed trial. Otherwise, why not treat it as a murder trial, bringing in witnesses from both sides? (Reason, as Defense Attorney Werthauer clues us: "If a German court were to find Soghomon Tehlirian not guilty, this would put an end to the misconception that the world has of us..."

Tehlirian's epilepsy (and we don't know when that got started, aside from Tehlirian's word, which is about as worthwhile as Fadix's) was irrelevant. The D.A. said, logically: "Did he have a convulsive attack at the time he committed the crime or immediately prior? If not, then he acted as a normal person."

Two examples of Tehlirian's shifty character: The D.A. tells us Tehlirian had made a statement "the first time he thought of killing Talaat was fourteen days before the actual killing." Yet in the trial, Tehlirian indicated it was his visions that urged him to kill just the night before: "A fortnight before this deed the scenes of the massacre of Erzerum reappeared to me." This was the scene of his mother's ghost telling him if he didn't kill, he wouldn't be her son. Another example: he couldn't even vouch for whether his family was attacked by soldiers. He said "I was told that it was the Turkish gendarmes who opened fire on us." Was that the "evidence" that convinced Talat was to blame, relying on “Armenian Oral History,” and the fact that he was "told"? (And how could Tehlirian not know who the culprits were? Didn't he "eyewitness" his brother's skull getting split? Didn't he "eyewitness" his sister getting raped? Since the Turks' motive was supposedly to "annihilate" the Armenians, why wasn't the sister killed?)

Contrary to what Fadix tells us in his desperate desire make anything unsupportive of his genocide "full of crap," Tehlirian was in full command of his faculties. The D.A. listed many examples, concluding "from all the evidence, we can see that, except for the times when he was suffering from epileptic attacks, he was a mentally competent person." Germany's "insanity clause," Article 51, did not apply to the defendant, according to three experts in the court. The only "evidence" alluding to Tehlirian's mental imbalance was his "divine interactions" of mother's ghost (urging her son to kill. I don't know how "divine" that was). Yet, where was the evidence that Tehlirian had these visions? These stories were provided by Tehlirian himself.

ANSWER: STOP FABRICATING!!! STOP IT!!! I have exposed you manipulating and fabricating, and yet you do it again. Those are not Hovannians words, those are the words of McCarthy, they were uttered during a speech he gave in front of the House International Committee. It contains falsifications and manipulations like the fact that the Erevan province is not present republic of Armenia , all the lands with a considerable Muslim population ended up in the hands of Azerbaijan and Turkey as well as Georgia. His numbers are bullcrap from Turkish foreign ministry historiography. Again, you got busted your pents down trying to fabricate and pass the words of an academic fraud like Faurisson or Rassinier, as the ones of Hovannessian.

(NOT SO) FADIX FUNNIES: This was an error on my part; I apologize, and I thank Fadix for pointing this out. Actually, I did wonder about that passage, as I didn't think Hovannisian would be capable of writing such words, and they did sound vaguely familiar. The fact of the matter is, it took me an awfully long time to compose my reply to Fadix, and I didn't have the luxury he seems to enjoy, having every little item within reach. However, let's recognize the difference between accepting an account as the truth in good faith, and willful fabrication. Fadix, of course, will go to lengths making you think the latter. The reader can decide if I'm coming across as dishonest or even stupid; I know Fadix is on his toes, since he is a "professional" at this game. It would be awfully stupid for me to try and pass off someone's words as another's (especially when both professors are major components of the genocide industry), even if I were of the inclination to do so.

ANSWER: Racist, as I have shown you, the quote above is not from Hovannessian, it is from McCarthy the academic fraud, the information not being accurate, the interpretation of an inaccurate qwuote can't be accurate either.

FADIX FUNNIES: We are not here to debate McCarthy's level of expertise. There are legitimate peers of McCarthy who are capable of such analysis, and Fadix is not whom we turn to to make such determinations. For example, McCarthy stated, "In Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic)." That is not quite the same thing as the "falsifications and manipulations like the fact that the Erevan province is not present republic of Armenia." Actually, McCarthy is saying the Erivan Province is one and the same with today's Armenia, so why is our Zero Credibility friend attempting to make us believe McCarthy is stating the complete opposite? Furthermore, if McCarthy's "numbers are bullcrap from Turkish foreign ministry historiography," why does Zero Credibility refer to McCarthy's 1.7 million pre-war Armenian population, and his less-than-one-million survivors figure that even most Armenians are agreed on?

We can now understand how important it was for the Ottomans to take the Armenian threat seriously. If the Russians crashed through the gates, there would no longer be a refuge for Turks and Muslims to escape to. The Ottoman Empire was the last stop. The struggle was truly a matter of life or death. ANSWER: Bullcrap,

Amazing that the Zero Credibily Weasel Beast would answer "bullcrap" to the above, when it can't be disputed the Russians conducted an ethnic cleansing and expulsion policy with their 19th century conquests, as McCarthy demonstrated, that I gave Hovannisian the credit for. (The fact that the authors were mixed does not take away from the accuracy of the history.) Simply amazing.

He compares this with... "a so-called international Zionist conspiration to get by the help of the Russians the Bolshevization of Germany"??

Does Fadix have any respect for the truth, whatsoever?

He next offers a series of "concentration camps" that offers proof of "a clear premeditation of the extermination." If a relocation took place, they had to go somewhere. Once they got there, they couldn't have been allowed to leave, otherwise that would have defeated the purpose of the relocation. It was in these "concentration camps" that an Armenian vekil told Morgenthau the residents were doing well and making their livings. Did Auschwitz inmates "make a living"? Furthermore, if there was such intent for extermination, around two-thirds of the Armenians couldn't have survived. Then we learn about the release of prisoners to form an Ottoman SS, but we don't get any source other than Fadix's say-so. We could be sure the source is Vahakn Dadrian, who has even less respect for the truth than Fadix, as unimaginable as that may be. "The commander of the Ottoman third army, Vehib called those members of the special organization, the 'butchers of the human specy'.” Fadix informs us. Nobody is arguing there were criminals, otherwise there couldn't have been a single Armenian massacre. Perhaps there were some even at the higher ranks, acting on their own, as Oliver North supposedly did with Iran-Contra.

The real question is this: according to Dadrian, Vehib saw to it some of these perpetrators were punished, during the war. But isn't Vehib an army commander of the Ottoman Empire? If the Ottomans were bent on extermination, how could Vehib had been allowed to prosecute these criminals?

Is there a single example of a Wehrmacht general being allowed to punish SS men for their crimes against Jews?

Not only is it relevant to examine the past (and things really heated up with Armenian treachery after 1877, with the formation of Armenian terror groups), but the events of post-1916 as well. ANSWER: As I repeated, there can not be treachery in an Empire, where the concept of citizenship and allegiance did not exist. Populations were dumped in an empire by force and not by choice, the same could be said with the Russian Empire and what it did to its Circassian population that BTW actively participated in the side of the Ottoman Empire during the 1877-1878 like many other Muslim subjects, yet it is not the Russians that yapp years after years of Muslim treachery. It is racist to generalize and claim that a population committed treachery, it is racist to claim that women, children and elderly, and the majority of men committed treachery, just because some have joined. And no, what happened after 1916 is irrelevant to determine if whatever or not there was a genocide. What happened after most of the Armenians were killed, doesn't change anything. It is not because the allies have bombed civilian targets in World War II, or because of the crimes perpetrated by the Soviet Union against the Germans, that it means there was no Shoah. Your twisting and playing with dates and numbers and your so-called chronology can only fool ignorants.

FADIX FUNNIES: Indeed, that is a proper comparison between a Muslim population ruthlessly conquered by the Russians and an Armenian population who was rescued from Byzantine misrule and who were allowed to prosper for centuries. If "the concept of citizenship and allegiance did not exist" in empires that took other people's lands by force, should that mean Native Americans and Hawaiians of the United States are not loyal citizens? They were served a much rawer deal than the Armenians, and have been "under conquest" for a much shorter time than the Armenians. How peculiar that the Zero Credibily Weasel Beast states on one hand there was no Armenian rebellion, and on the other he asserts the concept of allegiance did not exist. Note how poor Fadix hysterically then goes on to tell us what is "racist." There can be no reasoning with his fanatical mind; he states the concept of allegiance did not exist on one hand, and on the other he proclaims that only "some" joined the rebellion... when in fact it was the bulk of the Armenian population who did. (By choice or by coercion. Let's not underestimate the power of the Armenian terrorist, equally spreading terror among their own.) And "most" of the Armenians were not killed after 1916. Tme and again, we get immense numbers of Amenian refugees, such as when Morgenthau wrote to General Harbord in 1919 about the 750,000 Armenian refugees "marooned" in Transcaucasia. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians moved back and forth with the Russians, some 150,000 dying of famine, according to Hovannisian in his 1967 work. (These dead were of course counted as "genocide" victims.) Where did all of these Armenians come from, if "most" were already killed?

ANSWER: I don't remember those words uttered by (Hovannisian), be glad to tell me which Volume is it... sorry for the skepticism, but given your tendency to fabricate quotes, I have to do what i usually do, going at the source and see if it exist.

It should be little trouble to check a page number out of only four volumes.

well confirmed in the memoirs of an Armenian officer, "Men Are Like That." This is the Armenian M.O., following the Orthodox (including Russians, Serbs, Greeks and Bulgars) method of ethnic cleansing: massacre Turks and chase the rest away. ANSWER:I already discussed about this work in the other forum, and explained countless numbers of time that Ohanus was referring to the 1905-1906 conflict in his village that was populated by both Tartars and Armenians, his village was part of the Russian Empire NOT Ottoman, and he claimed that both groups tried to exterminate eachothers. Now his village is part of Azerbaijan, and there is not a single Armenian recorded. Nice try, but one could expect such methods from your part.

FADIX FUNNIES: The story of "Men are Like That" goes well beyond 1905-06. Even if the book concentrated solely within the period Fadix misrepresents, note my original point only referred to the general Orthodox killing policy. And look at how Fadix tries to give the impression that the Armenians were off the hook, because "both groups tried to exterminate eachothers." Like the Karabagh conflict in recent memory, Armenians were the aggressors. Ohanus Appressian clearly wrote the Azeri Turks only had knives and primitive weapons, in comparison to the Russian trained Armenians with superior arms. under such circumstances, and given the Armenian penchant for attack, who do you think had the "extermination" idea?

ANSWER: First of all, those figures were fabricated by McCarthy, he himself admitted them being ultimate numbers, simple estimations he has taken from his hat... without supports one can not use those figures when McCarthy himself hasn't presented any supports. And beside that, what the hell does it change regarding whatever or not there was an Armenian genocide? Millions of Germans were expulsed from Europe and the Soviet Union, would that mean there was no Shoah?

FADIX FUNNIES: McCarthy admitted... these numbers were from his hat? Absurd! Is that McCarthy who actually admitted that (as usual, Fadix provides no support), or the ethically-challenged Weasel Beast spreading doubt in any way he can?

Fadix does his patriotic best to maintain the notion of exclusive victimhood. The importance of presenting these numbers has to do with how the hypocritical Western world only cares about Armenian lives, when the Turks are not regarded as human beings.

the ones pro-Armenian "genocide scholars" like Israel Charny, Tessa Hoffmann and Robert Melson never talk about. ANSWER: That's because as independent researchers, they don't give a thing of McCarthys claims, and consider that Muslim expulsions have nothing to do with the Armenian genocide. BTW, talking of hiding things, where McCarthy has ever said anything about the minority that has opened its door to the Balkan Muslims?

FADIX FUNNIES: The tragedy of this equation is that Western historians are so biased, very few works have been written about the Turkish/Muslim suffering. McCarthy's "Death and Exile" work was perhaps the first to explore the topic in detail. If the aforementioned "genocide scholars" were genuine, they couldn't close their eyes to the unimaginable suffering of the Turks/Muslims, whose mortality over a century was numerically no less than the Jews of the Holocaust. This is what reasonable folks, Fadix excluded, would call real racism. And am I the only one who couldn't figure out what Fadix was rambling about, regarding the Balkan Muslims? The only door open to the expulsed Balkan Muslims, the lucky ones who weren't murdered, was the door of the Ottoman Empire.

This policy was followed by modern Armenia in 1992, massacring Karabagh Azeris and expelling nearly a million. (Fadix will give you weasel facts to try and dispute this, even though these events are in modern memory; note the West is largely silent about this episode, and American policy has gone as far as to punish victimized Azerbaijan, thanks to the strong power of the Armenian lobby.) ANSWER: What a hypocrite you are. While there was no Armenian state or Empire in 1915, you claim it was two sided, and Armenians were not the victims they affirm they were. Yet you shout genocide for what happened in Xojali, when there was two existing nations on war. How some hundreds of victims amount to a genocide, and not over a million? But of course, no one expect you to make any sense. What about Turkeys invasion of Cyprus and the 2000 people missing? Does that amount to genocide as well? In the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia, 30,000 people died from both sides, it was the Karabagh Armenians that have used legal Soviet means which was answered by Azerbaijan by pogroms, in Sumgait, Baku etc... there was many Xojalis in the Armenian sides, but it it isn't the Armenian side that is yapping genocide there.

FADIX FUNNIES: the Karabagh discussion is another animal, but you can bet your bottom there's a lot more to the story than Fadix's weasel facts. ("you shout genocide for what happened in Xojali"? Can anyone see if I used the Genocide word up there?) "it was the Karabagh Armenians that have used legal Soviet means .." the master propagandist tells us. Does that include the one billion dollars in military aid the Soviets provided, including Soviet troop support?

As for Cyprus, what can we expect from this Zero Credibily Weasel Beast but to utterly misrepresent the real picture? On Feb. 17, 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide." Leader Makarios made statements through the years, indicating no less. The world didn't care, because the victims were Turks. Finally, in 1974, when the Greeks made good on their plans for "enosis" (union with Greece), the Turks on the island were doomed. The coup leader, Sampson, admitted in a 1981 Greek newspaper: ""Had Turkey not intervened I ...would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."

On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson." The Cyprus Mail wrote in 1995: "So now the truth is out. We are not talking about 300 dead, or 45 dead, but 96 people killed during action in 1974 — and that is only from an initial examination of 487 files out of 1,619 examined at the Attorney General’s office." The number was subsequently downsized 1,619 to 1,493. That was ten years ago, and I don't know how many more “missing persons” were discovered dead and buried in South Cyprus. naturally, we can expect Fadix to support the "truth" of anti-Turkish propaganda, and to inflate the numbers in typical Armenian fashion.

ANSWER: Niles and Sutherland were not pro Armenians, Niles and Sutherland report was ignored by the Senate at that time for abvious reasons. The table he present, even McCarthy when he published them was trying to slowly pull them under the carpet because he knew it would defeat the purposes of a “report.”(adding that they reported what they “thought”/”believed”) When they claim that in Van for instance, there was nearly no Muslim villages left in 1919, and adding that the large majority of Armenian villages were left intact. Cevded himself in his dispatches at the war ministry, later followed by Halil himself reported quite the opposite, what to say about Nogales that claimed no Armenians were left. The tables anomalies clearly shows how Armenian villages in Van were repopulated by Muslims, and what was left was only devastated zones. Niles and Sutherland were under the custody of Ottoman authorities that were merely showing them what “they” wanted them to see. This can hardly be called an investigation. In 1919, there was no Armenian left in Anatolia.

FADIX FUNNIES: He's weaseling again. Does Fadix believe two Americans sent to investigate eastern Anatolia for the purpose of granting "Near East Relief" exclusively to the Armenians were not pro-Armenians? Maybe he needs to be taught the purpose of the Near East Relief. And are we to believe in 1919 the travels of these two men were restricted in the chaos that reigned in that part of the region? No, Niles and Sutherland were reasonably free to go where they wanted, without escorts. I don't see how adding the words "thought" or "believed" signifies they were being tricked; anyone who prepares a credible report does so on the basis of what they have come to believe. (Fadix is so smart, he actually has the ability now to read Prof. McCarthy’s mind.) Claiming there were no Armenians left, as Fadix tells us Nogales claimed, is not the same as the evidence of Armenian villages being left intact. (Sequence: Russians leave, Armenians wreak havoc, until the Armenians leave as soon as the Turks are strong enough to come back.) Here is what the investigators said in their report, in their own words: "At first we were most incredulous of these (horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population), but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are the Armenian quarters, as was evidenced by churches and inscriptions on the houses, while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed. Villages said to have been Armenian were still standing whereas Musulman villages were completely destroyed" [U.S. 867.00/1005]."

"In 1919, there was no Armenian left in Anatolia." Since Fadix did not stress he made such a statement figuratively, we can get an even better idea about how he feels free in making incredible claims without adherence to the facts.

It is very relevant to see how the Armenians acted murderously, in order to incite violence against them... ANSWER: Another generalization from Mr. Racist that can't do better than falsifying, forging and manipulating, and on top of that he's a racist that generalize in every given occasion.

FADIX FUNNIES: That is no generalization, but the Armenian M.O. documented in so many anti-Turkish sources it's beyond imagination Fadix would try to discredit them. (And of course when we say "Armenians" we don't mean every single Armenian, even though Fadix told us a few paragraphs ago that "the concept of ... allegiance did not exist.") Is our boy beginning to sound like a broken record?

Admiral Bristol recognize what was done to the Armenians a deliberate premeditated government plan. So stop using sources which show the contrary of what you affirm, stop acting like McCarthy.

FADIX FUNNIES: Oh, now Admiral Bristol has become legitimate. And here I thought he was a sinister pro-Turk, according to Armenian propaganda.

ANSWER: Propaganda is made for general public consumption, secret reports can not be propaganda, and the German secret reports that reported that the Ottoman was conducting premeditated plan of eradication of its Armenian population can therefore not be a propaganda. Refik admission that the Ottoman has build a so-called Armenian revolution show us that it was the Ottoman that was conducting propaganda. Vehib the commander of the IIIrd army, at the spot with his army during the time and admitted the Ottoman conducted a deliberate act of eradication. The number of Turkish officials that recognized, German officials., soldiers, Austrians etc... are in the hundreds... General Halil, that became the Suprem general of the East, Uncle of Enver, the minister of war, admitted in his memoirs that he tried to eradicate the Armenians to the last individual. That you twist and twist and twist and try to change the subject, won't change anything here.

FADIX FUNNIES: Generally, "secret" reports cannot be considered as propaganda, it's true. Then why does Zero Credibility ignore the inter-governmental Ottoman secret reports that go wildly against extermination theories? We've already referred to the bulk of German-Austrian reports coming from sympathetic Christians listening to sob stories. most of the originators of these reports were diplomats or army chiefs-of-staff who were not on the spot. The Tehlirian trial summed up what the defense witness General Liman von Sanders, the supreme commander, testified:

General von Sanders testified explicitly as to the difference between the understanding behind the order given in Constantinople to deport the Armenians and the manner in which the deportation was carried out. The government in Constantinople had received word that the Armenians were thinking of betraying the government and plotting with the Allied Powers. It was decided that, as soon as the opportunity was ripe, they would attack the Turks from behind and create an independent Armenia. Thus, for defensive and military reasons, the government in Constantinople considered it necessary to deport the Armenians.

That has nothing to do with a "premeditated plan of eradication of its Armenian population."

Since Vehib, the Third Army commander, was part of the Ottoman machinery, why wasn't he ordered to comply with the "genocide"? How could he have been permitted to punish some of the criminals he came across? Would Rommel have been allowed to put Eichmann on trial? And I haven't read Halil's memoirs. We don't know what the context of his statement was. He might have taken it upon himself to set upon a murderous course. The little bit of his statement Fadix paraphrases can't constitute proof of high-ranked Ottoman culpability, since -- for one thing -- we would be reading his statement in every genocide article, instead of the purported Hitler quote. That kind of confession is the smoking gun the genocide industry has been dying for, and clearly his statement does not implicate the Ottomans on top -- even if he was Enver's uncle.

ANSWER: The Ottoman Empire was not a country, there was no citizenship, the Armenians were a subject, and the Turks were the ruling subjects. But of course Mr. Racist Torque find it normal that war of liberation brought by the Kemalist and does not call this treachery against the Ottoman elements of the Empire. Torque double standard is purely racistic, since he characterize and has a racist hierarchy of people, Turks on top, Armenians on the bottom.

FADIX FUNNIES: Actually, it's fairly clear the ordinary Turks were generally at the bottom, and the non-peasant Armenians who made the economic wheels turn were generally at the top. "Turk," actually, was a form of derision in the empire. And Fadix is becoming a real comedian as he now compares Armenian treachery against their desperate nation with Kemal's overthrow of a puppet government controlled by the Allies. And get a load of this guffaw-getter: "The Ottoman Empire was not a country." What was it, a giraffe?

The ingratitude and greed is mind-boggling. British parliamentarian Sir Ellis Bartlett, 1895 pamphlet: "The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees" and had been "wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Panslavic societies." ANSWER: Again, Torque double standards, while I refer to witnesses of the events, Mr. Torque to support his cases refers to people that were not there during the 1894-1897 massacres. When the other side does the same, he yap and claim that those people were not on the spot when it happened. While hundreds of people on the spot reports the massacres as being full scale and generalized, including the secretary of Hamid, Mr. Torque refers to the few exceptions and try to draw the norm... this is not how history is written, this is not how it works in science too... if we were to use Mr. Torque standard, no any medications should be approved by the FDA, because few studied have demonstrated no efficiencies while most have.

FADIX FUNNIES: If it wasn't so grim, we'd be rolling in the aisles from how the master propagandist, who only tells us one side of the story, attempts to instruct us on how to scientifically analyze history. Captain Norman: The English have "heard stories ad nauseam of massacres, of pillages, of the ravishing of women, but none of these stories have been corroborated by a single European eye-witness." Who are these "witnesses of the events" we have supposedly heard from?

Let's get this straight once and for all. There is no double standard employed. If the bigoted genocide witnesses derive from Westerners and missionaries who have it in for the Turks, they have a conflict-of-interest and are not legitimate. Those like Bartlett got their information from non-propaganda sources, have no reason to love the Turks, and have no conflict-of-interest; these far-too-few enlightened sources, in a world where the rest prefer to refer to the Turks as "unspeakable," are legitimate.

ANSWER: What a report of 1895 from a man representing the British public relations to secure the Ottoman loans, instored back in 1856 with the Western banks, has anything to do with 1915? Quote, quote, quote, selectively quote and extend the little materials you have. The less we have the more we expend. Again, I wasn’t expecting much from you here.

FADIX FUNNIES: Now he's trying to debunk Capt. Norman. Prof. Ataov tells us who Captain Norman was: Captain C. B. Norman was an officer in the Royal Artillery who was sent to Turkey to observe the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878. He finished a book, published by Cassell, entitled Armenia and Its Campaign of 1877 and printed in London. Later, he went to Indo-China to observe the French at war and also wrote on that. In his "Introduction" to the report, Captain Norman states that "the time has at last arrived when a true account of the Turco-Armenian conflict may be published". He underlines that hitherto the British have had "only the Armenian version of the disturbances embellished with the hysterical utterances of their English confrères." He says that "the Osmanli (Ottoman) has yet to be heard." Suddenly, Fadix's mysterious propaganda machinery has somehow come up with the unknown details of the life of this century-old account's author. It's scary!

And how could Norman be "representing the British public relations" when the British were clearly very unfriendly to the Ottomans during this period?

This is how the Armenian propaganda machinery attempts to debunk Admiral Bristol, by the way. He was in it for the profit. (Not unlike Prof. McCarthy and his mysterious "grants.") That is, until Bristol turns useful and declares, "what was done to the Armenians a deliberate premeditated government plan."

ANSWER: Ottoman tolerance is a myth, here an example of a work that exposes those myths: "The Dhimmi: Jews & Christians Under Islam" by Bat Ye'or, David Maisel

FADIX FUNNIES: Oh, defintiely this one book must override all of what has widely been recognized as Ottoman tolerance. "Ottoman tolerance is a myth." It's getting hard to refrain from stating Fadix is nothing less than a fool, sneaky and clever as he is.

Fadix cites examples of injustices against the Armenians, like they were the most taxed. They were also among the most wealthy, if not the most wealthy. That's what we call "progressive" taxation. We have other examples, but Fadix is using propaganda sources, and he may as well be talking about Ottoman "harems." In 1839, The Gulhane Constitutional Reforms offered several life improvements, such as establishing a just tax system, making the courts public, abolishing unjust punishment; the Sultan declared that the reorganization would be applied to all subjects of the state, without distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. In 1856, the Imperial Reform Edict, confirmed the decrees, including "The inviolability of the right to life, property, and honour granted to every subject without disciminating on the basis of religion or sect, according to the Gulhane edict."

Let's compare with French treatment of the Algerians in 1877. Algerians: disallowed to own arms. Armenians: allowed. Algerians: disallowed from government posts. Armenians: allowed. Algerians: disallowed from moving around the country without permission. Armenians: allowed. Algerians: disallowed from being citizens unless they converted to Christianity. Armenians: the Turks restored the Armenian Patriarchate centuries ago, after it was taken away by fellow Christians. Armenians prospered for centuries, in key societal positions, while allowed to maintain their religion. Remember, we are comparing the "Unspeakable Turk" with the "enlightened" and "civilized" French, who decimated the indigenous population from over four million in 1830 to less than 2.5 million by 1890.

ANSWER: That Armenians were allowed to go study elsewhere is irrelevant, what is the relevancy?

FADIX FUNNIES: The answer should be obious, when the topic is Fadix's wanting to make us believe the Armenians were oppressed. Were Soviet-Armenians allowed to travel freely? Even Tsarist-Russian-Armenians were not granted as many freedoms.

ANSWER: Armenians were not nomads, the bands of criminals were nomads, that is why they formed bands, your claim here doesn't hold water. Just the fact that the Muslim of the East not only didn't needed to respect the Penal Code and Armenians were show us your hypocrisy. The crimes against the Armenians was not only a question of Ottoman weak control of the East, the Ottoman were not weak when targeting Armenians groups and finding caches of arms, when from the other side arming Kurdish brigands and forming an irregular police that was imposing upon the Armenians a Kurdish tax.

FADIX FUNNIES: "the Muslim of the East ...didn't needed to respect the Penal Code"??? I suppose Zero Credibility would have us believe the Ottoman government desired the Muslims to have total anarchy. Furthermore, there were periods in history when Armenians migrated in large numbers, acting pretty nomadically.

ANSWER: How an autonomy can exist with a double taxation system? And besides what the hell thise thing having happened 50 years before the event has anything to do with the genocide?

FADIX FUNNIES: Fadix doesn't appreciate what an Armenian living outside the Ottoman Empire, Migirdich B. Dadian, wrote, making the basic point that Armenians had no problem with the State, that they could administer their internal affairs almost independently, without the Government intervening in the decisions they took concerning themselves, and that all this was taking place without the interest or the support of any foreign country. In other words, debunking his silly claim that "Ottoman tolerance is a myth." The privileges granted the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were nothing less than a landless autonomy. This doesn't mean the Armenians were getting a free ride; naturally, they were subject to taxation. I don't know what propaganda source he got his weasel fact about "double taxation," but the Gulhane reform applied a just tax system to all, regardless of religion. The relevance, as the Weasel Beast well knows, is that there was no reason to exterminate the Armenian people; most everything was hunky-dory, until the greedy, fanatical Armenian leaders ruined the Armenians' good life.

ANSWER: What a bullcrap, you are a pathological liar. What you claim can make no sense at all, simply because the concept of citizenship did not exist for an Empire. In any countries where the Diaspora live, everyone is equal in the eye of the law, something that wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. An Armenian, a Turk, a Chinese all will pay the same amount of tax if they have the same revenues, no double taxation system, it wasn't true under the Ottoman Empires rules. In short, everyone were equal, and their ethnicity and religion have no take in that. So your Ottomanist propagandas you can shove them you know where.

FADIX FUNNIES: The reforms in 1839, confirmed in 1856, is not "propaganda," it is "history." Surely we don't have to explain the meaning of "propaganda" to one who thrives on the word. When this history is confirmed by Armenians living outside the nation, only a dishonorable propagandist would stoop so low as to label it "propaganda." If this “double taxation” bled the Armenians dry, there could not have been any wealthy Armenians; and surely the honest Armenian chroniclers of the period would not have written as lovingly as they did. (Where exactly is the Ottoman law that stated Armenians must be taxed doubly because they are infidel Christians? Especially in the 19th century, with all the European protectors of Armenians, ready to intervene at the slightest sign of unfairness to Christians.) As for the concept of citizenship not existing for an empire, certainly there are differences with the democratic nations we know today. What else do we call the inhabitants of empires.... slaves? Perhaps with some empires that came close, as with the French empire's treatment of Algerians. or the British empire's treatment of Indians. Under the Ottoman Empire's fair "millet" system, the wealthy Armenians at times became more masters than slaves.

ANSWER: The reason why Armenians have flourished has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that Armenians were the minorities that were most frequenting the schools has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances, that later they wanted to start their private business and leaving for some time in the West to help themselves has nothing to do with Ottoman tolerances. The Armenians were more open to the European way of life, and this again has little to do with an Ottoman tolerances. It isn't because the pyramids were an archaeological achievement rarely seen, that it means that the aliens have build them.

FADIX FUNNIES: I guess Fadix just proved the Armenians enjoyed a landless autonomy after all! How could anyone flourish under such freedoms if the ones in control didn't show tolerance?

Why would the Ottomans further weaken themselves during desperate wartime by ridding themselves of this valuable national resource... the ones who were so indispensible, Oscanyan stated, "without them the Osmanlis could not survive a single day"?

ANSWER: The subject has been already studied, and if you were to read the material that is available you will understand. You have no knowledge of what you are talking about, you have no knowledge regarding why the Young-Turks took power and their nationalization plan. You would rather prefer reading quotes and choosing selectively and twisting them, pass that, you have no clue of what you are talking about. If you were truly open minded and were to ask me about the Young-Turks nationalization of the Economy, and the obstacles, I would have provided you books, even Turkish ones, but you are not here to learn, you are here to spew your hateful venom.

FADIX FUNNIES: It was a simple question. It is not surprising Fadix refrained from presenting an answer. The Young Turks were even more liberal in the beginning. Every time the Armenians were granted further freedoms, they gained increasing license to practice their treachery... the treachery that was well in place from previous generations, particularly after the formation of their revolutionary groups. It was the Armenians from outside the country that instigated the peaceful Armenians from within. Woe be it to anyone who asks for the great know-it-all weaseling propagandist to act as one's teacher.

ANSWER: Clair Price wasn't there, again you use a reference that has been published after... everyone can write a book, like Clair has written, more particularly when it is about the rebirth of Turkey and the American investment to the newly formed republic. In the entire book Clair claim, but doesn't support the claims brought. I can bring hundreds of such books from the other side, but since I do not consider those books valid, even when they support my theses, I do not quote them.

FADIX FUNNIES: Clair Price made the entirely reasonable conclusion, based on genuine history, that "It does not seem reasonable to assume that this moment, of all moments, would have been chosen by the Enver Government to take widespread measures against its Armenians unless it was believed that such measures were immediately necessary." Generally, Western documentation that doesn't treat the Turks as inhuman, can be trusted. A historian doesn't have to "be there" to be legitimate. If a historian or knowledgeable author does not support Fadix's fanaticism, then it's time to bring out the smear campaign tactics. At least Fadix restrained himself from making a charge like Clair Price working for "public relations to secure the Ottoman loans," or that Clair Price had a Turkish spouse.

RE: Analyzing Raffi's and "Zero Credibility" Fadix's claims

The Jews were allowed back into Germany when WWII ended. Not that any Jews wanted to go back. The Final Solution continued until the bitter last, taking away resources from the desperate German war effort. ANSWER: The Ittihadists were accused to take away resources from the desperate Ottoman war efforts with the plans they have set against the Armenians. And the point is?

FADIX FUNNIES: The point is being accused of committing an act and actually committing it are two different things. That's why we need that bothersome thing known as "evidence." And Fadix's response has nothing to do with the answer to Fadix's first ridiculous point. Is this any way to carry on an intelligent discourse, with a fanatic who knows no rhyme or reason? He gets backed into a corner and creates a whole new attack strategy.

And who accused the Ittihadists, and when? If there is documentation during the war (not the 1919 fake courts) where the military complained of the "Armenian extermination plan" taking away needed resources, that would be significant. Of course there is no such evidence.

Armenians were allowed back once the relocation policy ended in 1916, before the war ended. ANSWER: That is bullcrap, I have Kamuran Gurun book right on my hands right now, not the web copy. If you have it, (The Armenian File. The Myth of Innocence Exposed, The New York, 1985) go to the page 209, and read what it says about the "relocation," he claims that the decision was final and terminal. This crap of them being allowed back isn't supported by any valid documents, the only figures really coming up with such a theses were Shaw and his wife Ezel Kural, without any evident support. The Ottoman while deporting the Armenian population was placing their homes on lists to be sold, the Armenians could not have returned back, because there was no places where they could be living in.

FADIX FUNNIES: I've often wondered how Fadix manages to come up with passages from books no ordinary person can easily get their hands on. Now I am getting the idea the ethically challenged weasel simply makes things up. I don't have much of a library, but I do own the 1985 St. Martin's Press original, which has been faithfully reproduced in the online version. (The book was not a big seller, and I doubt there was a second printing, at least not years ago.) The reader can go to http://www.eraren.org/eng/armfile5.htm, and hit the "Find" function of your browser (Ctrl+F in IE), and type 371/9158. That will take you to page 209, where the first paragraph begins with "Thirdly, a temporary law" (after a few lines on the top of the page) and ends with the paragraph beginning with "On 18 May (5 May 1331." there is nothing about the relocation decision being "final and terminal."

I've been withholding myself from stooping to Fadix's vicious level, but here is a case where we can justifiably conclude Fadix is a "liar."

If there were an extermination policy, that makes no sense. Many Armenians cleared out with the Russian and French retreats, fearful of retaliation. A lot of interior Armenians were also called to populate Cilicia, killing Turks, in a last ditch effort for "Greater Armenia." These Armenians left with the French, and 5,000 died of famine and disease, no doubt included among the massacred in "genocide" figures. ANSWER: You had to say it right? It's so easy for you to shout the word “killing Turks,” but only the fact that you claim 5000 Armenians having lost their lives in Cilicia after that the French has redrawn show us how a biased illogical individual you are. The Armenian quarter of Marash was burned, thousands were killed, there are specific records of population losses in that region with a precision that was really unusual, and yet you claim 5000. Your biases and falsification has no bound. You should ask for the records of the Armenian orphanage from Lebanon and Syria, for those orphans that survived from the disaster of Cilicia, there are very precise records, of their brothers killed, mothers, fathers, sisters, uncles etc. Such a loser you are.

FADIX FUNNIES: Now that we're getting a better idea of Fadix's tactics, not that more proof was necessary, the 5,000 Armenians did not constitute the Armenians who lost their lives in Cilicia/Adana. These were the famine losses that took place among those who accompanied the French on their retreat, no doubt included among "genocide" victims among dishonest Armenian parties like Fadix.

Armenia called on the Ottoman Turks for help several times during 1918-21. Imagine the Jews calling on Nazi Germany for help, assuming the Nazis were still in charge after WWII. ANSWER: That's bullcrap, most of the Jews of Germany survived the Holocaust, many Germans have hidden Jews, that's because the decision of extermination was taken after the defeat of the Soviet winter while the Jews were evacuated already from Germany. It is obvious that you totally ignore the history of the Shoah, stop talking about things which you ignore. By ratio, more Armenians died per population than Jews in World War II.

FADIX FUNNIES: In his mad zeal to show exclusive victimhood for his people, now Fadix is in a race as to who suffered more, the Armenians or the Jews. Incredible! Is this a contest?

And note the point he's singling out as "bullcrap" is the number of Jewish victims. The POINT was that the Jews could not possibly have called on the Nazis for help, assuming Israel was established (and in danger of attack by her neighbors) after WWII, with a weakened Nazi state still in existence. Yet, Armenia called on the Turks for help against the Soviets. Is that conceivable?

To stress this very important point: If the Turks really embarked on exterminating the Armenians, is it CONCEIVABLE Armenians would call on such murderers to rescue them only five or so years later?

As a minor point, even though it's not our topic, where did Germany's Jews go, once evacuated? (Discounting the many who were allowed to emigrate in the 1930s; hundreds of thousands of Ottoman-Armenians also immigrated before WWI began.) My knowledge is the majority went to concentration camps like the rest of the Jews. How, then, could "most of the Jews of Germany (have) survived the Holocaust"? Talk about "bullcrap."

ANSWER: You're shooting in your own feet, Dachau existed during Germany plan of evacuation of the Jews to Palestine, the concentration camps firstly were build for such reasons as transit camps, when Jews were thrown in trains. The reason was primarily to restrict the Jews from leaving as well. It was only after the defeat in the Soviet Front, that the concentration camps slowly became killing machines, just as the Ottoman early defeat in the Russian front when the Ottoman decided to get rid of its Armenian population. You claim Armenians were prevented to leave, exactly, and this is an evidence that show premeditation. Armenians were sent in desertic areas and members of the special organization were sent on the spot to kill them.

FADIX FUNNIES: No, Armenians were not only sent to desert areas. Some Armenians were relocated all across the land, as the idea was to integrate them into towns where they would constitute no more than 10% of the town's populations. Moreover, houses were supposed to be built for these people. I'm sure in the desperation of wartime, this was not a priority for the bankrupt Ottomans, and the Armenians had a horrible time. However, the relocation orders spelled out in Gurun's book are genuine, and they were internal orders, and can't be defined as "propaganda," according to Fadix's own rule he applied above. Readers can go to that page mentioned above, when Fadix made up his deviation from truth. As far as the "desert," there were some locations that were lousy, and some that were pretty delightful. As Admiral Chester (another who has been vilified by the Armenians; he purposely lied, you see, because he was out to make a buck, like Captain Norman, above) put it in his 1922 NY Times article. "Turkey Reinterpreted": "Those from the mountains were taken into Mesopotamia, where the climate is as benign as in Florida and California, whither New York millionaires journey every year for health and recreation. All this was done at great expense of money and effort, and the general outside report was that all, or at least many, had been murdered."

Fadix will no doubt come up with "evidence," but keep in mind how these relocated people were living, from Morgenthau himself, straight from the mouth of an Armenian representative, Zenop Bezjian: "I was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being massacred. He gave me a list where the various camps are and he thinks that over one half million have been displaced." Armenian propaganda will have us believe these people were ready for the ovens.

ANSWER: This information is accurate and documented. Contrary to you, I accept evidences when they are presented. But what is as well known is the difference between Del-El-Zor concentration camp and the City of Zor, that many Armenians were able to reach. This was quoted in Lowry work as well as Halacoglus, but what you do not realize is that what happened in Zor after actually demonstrate that in fact there was a plan set to eradicate the Armenians. Let me explain you how Mr. Torque; when reports indicated that thousands of Armenians reached the transit camp of Alepo and the city of Zor, the Ottoman government decided to evacuate them. Those Armenians that were able to integrate with the Arab population, were in no way threats to the government. What the government did? At the end of December 1915 and the beginning of January 1916 they ordered the evacuation of the Armenians there, that sparked a conflict between the Arabs and the Turks, before the decision was respected, more Armenian refugees for the months of February, March, April and May 1916 reached this destination, when the government finally took the decision to evacuate them to Del-El-Zor, in the desert. When the government realized that many were surviving, they decided to return them in the camps, which show that the government when sending them to Zor believed that none would reach there, because after they realized that Armenians were actually able to reach that destination, they decided to send them back to the concentration camps.

FADIX FUNNIES: I'm not well versed in this area. I have an open mind, and I'm not ruling anything out. If there were REAL evidence of extermination, I would never perpetuate a lie. Unfortunately, I'm familiar with the fact that my adversary is highly subjective and, contrary to the vicious charges he repeatedly makes upon others, is the one prone to falsify. If he got this "evidence" from those such as Vahakn Dadrian who have only the purpose to "prosecute," then we are hearing only one side of the story.

What I do know is that if Fadix’s version is as cut-and-dried as he would like to make us believe, then that would constitute genuine evidence. But there is no evidence. So what we have are theories. Theories like “Pan-Turanism,” and Ottoman SS men travelling town-to-town implementing secret extermination orders. Unfortunately, the ones who come up with these theories have a despicable agenda, and are known to make things up, supported by whatever damning anecdotes they can come up with, from sources with conflicts-of-interest.

Many obviously didn't want to leave (especially after relocation came to a close in 1916; which is why I'd imagine there are still sizeable Armenian communities in countries like Lebanon and Syria today. ANSWER: That's because Armenians were hiding by the help of the Arabs, and besides, only the fact that those Armenians there were targeted after reaching their so-called destination, show us that Armenians were not evacuated because they were considered a threat for the Ottoman Empire.

FADIX FUNNIES: That must have been a lot of Armenians hidden by the Arabs. Boghos Nubar gave us a combined figure of 100,000 in a Dec. 1918 letter to the Foreign Affairs Minister of France.

And of course, Armenians were economically taken advantage of in the chaos and corruption that reigned. The Ottoman orders stipulated their property was to be safeguarded, and these orders were not written to fool future historians.

ANSWER: The properties were safeguarded yes! But not to return them to the Armenians, as Gurun admits, the “relocation” was not a temporary decision, so the safeguarding was not about returning those territories to the Armenians, because soon after their were distributed to Muslims or sold for the fraction of the price.

FADIX FUNNIES: We already covered the fact that Gurun did not admit any such thing, at least not on the page Fadix provided. "Article 3" on that page stipulates "The revenue will be deposited for safekeeping in the name of the owner to the financial office, and will be included in the liquidation. At the end of the liquidation the remaining sum will be paid to their owners." In my readings, I've come across stipulations that the properties would be sold for fair market value. This does not mean the Armenians did not get a raw deal, I'm sure, especially by corrupt local officials. However, the Ottoman government's heart was in the right place.

Witness the ruin of Japanese families in WWII America, forced to sell their properties at fire-sale prices. What prevented them from going back? In this case, the Japanese were loyal. The Armenians paid for the injustices put upon them, because the majority listened to their fanatical leaders. ANSWER: Only claims, yet you weren't able to support them, and even from the official foreign ministry released archives. Armenian women, children and elderly were sent in the desert, members of the special organization formed by criminals released from prisons escorted the convoys by the order of the government. The Ottoman bared access to relief organizations including the Red Cross by pretext that they wished nothing to be done to prolong the lives of the “relocated.” Even the Germans offered to help the Armenians, and the Ottoman refused by similar excuses. The Armenian population, from which the men were already separated from, were sent in the desert in mass to die, and the rest to be killed by the members of this special organization. You can claim, twist and forge the way you want, those facts remains and those alone are alone enough evidences to support the theses of genocide.

FADIX FUNNIES: What we've heard above is the typical Armenian propaganda line. If things were this awful, not a single Armenian could have survived, yet the Armenians themselves concede one million (about two-thirds) were left alive. What kind of an incompetent way would that be to run a genocide, particularly if all who are on hand are women, children and the elderly? And there is no question the majority of Armenians, particularly in the eastern provinces were moved by the oratory of their leaders. We have already provided plenty of documetation from sources that would have had no reason to be untruthful. Let's keep in mind not all Armenians wished to join in the mad bloodlust, but those who refused were made examples of, and the rest learned to comply. Such was the double-edged sword of Armenian terrorism.

"Oh and, if I were Dadrian, I would not have taken you seriously ..." Of course Fadix is not Dadrian. The idea was to point to the absurdity of trying to find out who lies behind pseudonyms, as Fadix is in a panic to do with me. ANSWER: Mr. Torque, it is obvious that I am not Dadrian, Dadrian is now over his seventies, he is present in conferences and does his own researches, to believe that a man of his age will after that have enough energy to counter forgeries and manipulations around the web, anyone believing that must be insane, more insane to believe that an academician like Dadrian would take someone like you seriously, only fools like me would take people like you seriously. On the other hand, my claims regarding your identity is another matter, you know I know that you are whom I affirm, it is even recorded in Wikipedia server with your user name Holdwater. So stop denying it, the only thing you are doing by denying it is affecting your own credibility.

FADIX FUNNIES: I just got through stating that I know Fadix is not Dadrian and he babbles on about the same thing? At least we are finally in agreement on something. I have only one Wikipedia identity, and it is "Torque." I noticed in the history page (from a couple of months ago, I believe) of the article an entry by a "Holdwater." Click on the changes "Holdwater" made, and see if you still think I am "Holdwater."

The pseudonymous Fadix reveals he lives in Montreal, and I believe him. But personal information given by a pseudonymous party is to be taken lightly, because nobody can verify what's being said. What is fascinating about Fadix is his limitless stores of knowledge. I don't have a library of books at my disposal; I basically use the Internet for research... I have real life demands. Fadix, on the other hand has been an old hand at this game, judging by his own account, knowing the principals of forum participants. He comes up with references I've never heard of, and when I run searches on the Internet, I can't find them... at least not to the detail he can provide us with. A normal person interested in this topic cannot have these out-of-print books, frequently unavailable in libraries. Fadix may not be Dadrian, but he is such a professional propagandist, he must have the resources of a Zoryan Institute at his disposal. ANSWER: My knowledge regarding the issue can hardly be used as arguments to support that I am some sort of pied propagandist. The only thing it display is that I did my homework and did researched the issue. It is true that I have resources, but anyone affiliated to an university, can have access to such resources by programs like the international Inter loaning system. And I even offered my help to you in the past you did ignore it, I told you that I would interloan the work you wanted and I would pay the charges myself, but this proposition was ignored, because you prefer using the dubvious material available on the web. For any serious researcher the web is not the place when there are subjects that both side propagandize. Yes! Both side, I do witness ignorance from Armenians on the web, I do display exaggerations, I myself have had many fights with such Armenians. When someone want to really research the matter, libraries are a must, periodicals are a must, an Inter loaning access is the key... it is obvious that having access to the original material is VERY, VERY IMPORTANT. Something you did not do.

(NOT SO) FADIX FUNNIES: Thank you, Fadix. This is one of the rare times you are sounding like a reasonable human being. I never said you were a paid propagandist, but a "professional" propagandist; what I see in you is an extremely obsessed individual, like Vahakn Dadrian, who we know has made a good living from all of this. It's abnormal the amount of time you appear to devote to this topic. For me, it's torture to spend the time; I have much better things to do with my life, and my only motivation is to see the truth, as I see it at this point, to get out there. A terrible injustice has been done upon the Turks, as far as I'm concerned, but you are too emotionally motivated to see clearly. It also doesn’t help your ethics are low. If you made such an offer for international loaning, that was very gracious. This is the first I'm hearing about it, because I don't keep track of what you say. Regardless, how kind of you to be so magnanimous toward one whom you see as a detestable "racist."

Unfortunately, since Fadix has zero credibility, we only have his word when he points to these not-readily available weasel facts, frequently cited without sources. ANSWER: I have zero credibility according to you, but since you made many such false claims in countless numbers of occasions, your words are to be taken with caution. I have proposed to scan and show you pictures of such scans of the actual works, where it is demonstrated that the quotes you present do not exist, but you always ignored what I have proposed you. It is true that you may question what I affirm, but you must apply the same standard in what regards the materials you copy past from the web. Something you have not done so. Without confirming their existance when one claim they do not exist, you can not use them to support your theses, when their authenticity has not been demonstrated.

FADIX FUNNIES: What I know is you don't have to scan and show Pg. 209 of the Gurun book. Sometimes even books aren't reliable, unless they're the first editions. Erich Feigl tells us, comparing to the original German version of "40 Days of Musa Dagh," the later English and French editions were hijacked and "the Armenian mafia has already fulfilled a fine job. Werfel’s '40 Days...' underwent in their hands a true 'purgatorium.' They cleared the book from all passages which could create doubts at the reader or any historian." Similarly, I wonder why the recent reprinting of the Doubleday Morgenthau book would have even required the services of an editor, in the person of master craftsman Peter Balakian. It's unfortunate, but Fadix's zero credibility is only the tip of the iceberg, as far as the way Armenians handle their genocide obsession.

As far as my having "made many ...false claims in countless numbers of occasions," it is true Fadix never loses as opportunity to hurl charges such as "manipulator," "fabricator," and "pathological liar," as the reader has witnessed. This is the typical Armenian smear tactic going way back, perfected by many ethically-challenged Armenians like Vahan Cardashian.

While I hoped to cover Fadix’s madness point-by-point, my rebuttal now comes to an end. I have to consider my time and energy, and arguing with Fadix is like arguing with someone coming at you with an axe. It’s not going to do any good as far as he’s concerned, since he can run down the Energizer Bunny. It’s really Fadix who keeps going, and going... armed with his endless assortment of weasel facts to throw up one smokescreen after the other. If the reader has had the tenacity to come this far, the reader can determine whether my charge that Fadix has Zero Credibility is said on spite, or whether it’s based in truth. --Torque March 6, 2005

RE: TORQUE'S RESPONSE: "FADIX FUNNIES"

"ALL" of them haven't reported the rebellion you claim has happened"? Lieutenant General Bronsart v. Schellendorf, the highest-ranking German military officer in the Eastern Front (i.e., the commander-in-chief of Turkish Land Forces), wrote an article to protest the fixed trial of Talat Pasha's assassin, where he or any other witness for the prosecution were disallowed from testifying. The article was published in Deutsche Allegemeine Zeitung on July 24, 1921 and stated that he had been a witness to the fact that the Turks did not commit any pre-planned massacre; on the contrary, many Turks were killed as the result of the Armenian terror that reigned in that period. In his article, he maintained that the relocation law was passed in order to safeguard the Ottoman Army. "Disputes increased as Armenians rebelled during the great war in the Eastern provinces of Turkey. There was no special reason for the rebellion since the Armenians had both chairs in the new parliament and voting rights. They also had equal social and political rights as the other (citizens). There was evidence, such as provoking brochures, which had proved that the rebellion were organized by external agents. Russia was financing the rebellion. Since all the Moslem men were in the Turkish Army, Armenians had the opportunity to massacre the defenseless folk. Armenians did not only weaken the Turkish Army in the East fighting against Russians, but also they massacred the Moslem folk in the region. As a person who had witnessed the cruelty, I could easily say that the cruelties were much more merciless than the (so-called Armenian genocide)." General Liman von Sanders, the highest ranking officer in all of the Ottoman Empire concurred as a friendly defense witness in the Tehlirian trial, detail provided below. The dishonest Fadix is probably going to tell us that of course Schellendorf was going to lie, because he was an ally of the Turks. But this was years after the war; no pretext was necessary. It is unethical to maintain the illusion that an Armenian rebellion never took place when there is a voluminous body of evidence from sources unsympathetic to the Turks clearly stating otherwise.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque quote Von Sanders, he probably has read that one from Raffis websites Tehlirian trial. But did Torque researched regarding this man and how he differentiate those limited groups in Van etc. with the rest of the Armenians? Has Mr. Torque read Sanders book: “Five Years in Turkey” published in 1927? Of course, probably not. What else Mr. Torque knows about Sanders? Probably Mr. Torque ignore Sanders threats of using the military to stop the preparation of the deportation of the Armenians from Smyrna, as he added not to protect the Armenians, since he didn’t give a thing for them, but rather all the resources the Ottoman were using to destroy the Armenians was seriously interrupting the war effort. Another thing Mr. Torque probably ignores about Sanders, and it was Sanders disgust regarding the decision of the destruction of the Armenians in the Capital. Another figure Mr. Torque refers to, and it is “Schellendorf” more known as General Major Fritz Bronsart von Schellendorf. Another thing he fished from the net, without knowing anything else from the man that the irrelevant quotes he copypasted. Bronsart, the Chief of Staff at the Ottoman General Headquarters and whom requested an emergency secret conference with Enver, Talaat Von Sanders and of course him, in which he concocted with Enver and Talaat a so-called Armenian rebellion and is accused of being one of the initiators of the anti-Armenian measures, and planning the replacement of the Armenian economical power from the East with the Germans. Another thing that Mr. Torque ignore is that by using Bronsart he is shooting in his own feet, because Bronsart is another evidences that the Armenians were NOT “relocated” because they were considered a threat for the Ottoman. Bronsart was the one proposing severe measures against the Armenian men in the Ottoman labour battalions, because he considered them as potential resistance against the Armenian deportations, which means that the Armenian deportations were not a consequences of any Armenian attacks, but rather the Armenian male were killed because they were considered as potential resistance to prevent the Armenian deportations. Bronsart was as well the responsible of the replacement of Scheutner Ritcher, because Ritcher was interceding in the behalf of the Armenians.

But is this all about Bronsart? Is this all that must be said? I can discuss the matter, like how he was the leading figure and responsible of the German war effort on the Russian front by the intermediary of the Ottoman front soon during the war. Bronsart was as well a known racist, one of those Germans in the military that had Hitlerite mentality. The same sort as those NAZI and Holocaust denialists that accused the Jews for their own destruction. Let me now quote from Bronsart own words, in which he clearly refer to what happened to the Armenians as their murder, but accuses the Armenians and compare them to Jews: “Namely, the Armenian is just like the Jew, a parasite outside the confines of his homeland, sucking off the marrow of the people of the host country. Year after year they abandon their native land—just like the Polish Jews who migrate to Germany—to engage in usurious activities. Hence the hatred which, in a medieval form, has unleashed itself against them as an unpleasant people, entailing their murder.” (A. A. Bonn. Goppert Papers (Nachlass), vol. VI, file 5 (files 1-8), p. 4, February 10,1919). Those are the best references Mr. Torque could get, what a predictable individual he is.

As far as a commander of the Ottoman Army and the "Ottoman Intelligent department II" (whatever that is)'s not reporting an Armenian rebellion (source?): here again, the weasel is presenting his weasel facts in an attempt to confuse and throw smoke. There is a huge body of inter-governmental military reports providing details on the treachery of the Armenians.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque doesn't even know what was the Ottoman Intelligent department II, the same department that has fabricated Russian reports of Armenian rebellions which he himself has used. Source? You want source? OK, for the Xnt time, let re-quote it.

“Criminal gangs who were released from the prisons, after a week's training at the War College's training grounds, were sent off to the Caucasian front as brigands of the Special Committee, perpetrating the worst crimes against the Armenians...The Ittihadists intended to destroy the Armenians, and thereby to do away with the Question of the Eastern Provinces.” (Source: Iki Komite Iki Kital, A. Refik (Altinay), 1919, p. 23)

He add regarding the so-called reports of Armenian revolution.

"In order to justify this enormous crime the requisite propaganda material was thoroughly prepared in Istanbul: 'The Armenians are in league with the enemy. They will launch an uprising in Istanbul, kill off the Ittihadist leaders and will succeed in opening up the straits.' These vile and malicious incitements could persuade only people who were not even able to feel the pangs of their own hunger" Source: Iki Komite Iki Kital, A. Refik (Altinay), 1919, p. 40)

But of course the same Refik, to maintain his face and justify his implications has used the same sort of Propaganda material to try to equilibrate by referring to those fabricated reports in Erzerun. But unfortunately for him, Vehib witnessed what really happened there. I have quoted you at the other place, COUNTLESS NUMBERS OF TIMES. I leave people judge if in fact I am confusing the point. Mr. Torque rely on materials that were propagandas manufactured to justify the destruction of the Armenians, and to support his claim, he uses the few Germans that support his position, against the rest, who numbers the thousands. Not only does he do that, but the Germans he uses, one of which the Ottoman Chief of Staff, had themselves comploted with the Ittihadists to get the Armenians destroyed.

I actually underestimated; it's not 99%, but 99.9999999999%. If Armenians don't exclusively study what their deceptive Armenian professors and the hypocritical genocide scholars tell them, I challenge Fadix to present examples of Armenians who deviate from the line. (Aside from Edward Tashji, whom Armenians love to falsely claim is paid off by the Turks. The caliber of this typically dishonest Armenian claim rests here: if the la-dee-dah Turks really had a propaganda department to pay off Armenians to lie, how could there be just one measly example after all these many years?) After all, there is now a whole slew of opportunistic Turks following the example of Taner Akcam going against the Turkish line. Surely we're all individuals, and surely there must be a few examples of Armenians who disagree.

ANSWER: Why any Armenian intellectual will support your theses, when the large majority of neutral intellectuals DON'T!!! Your position would be understandable if there was no genocide, again you are using circular logic, “this is true, because it is true” to judge the Armenians. Beside that, I never claimed Tashji is pied, it would be overestimating him, after you got Tashji, who isn't even an intellectual, against the Turkish intellectuals who recognize the genocide, and the number is growing each day, regardless of the threat the Turkish government uses. And you must be a hypocrite to even suggest Tashji is unjustfully threated, when you assassinate the character of the Turks who recognize the genocide the worst way possible. And no, there is no Armenians that disagree, for the simple reason that every Disapora Armenians have a history of such Ottoman brutalities. That's why they don't disagree idiot.

But there aren't. Not publicly, anyway. Those who know better are afraid of speaking up, because they know of the dirty, underhanded smear attacks of their vociferous and unethical brethren. Levon Marashlian, for example, jumped down the throat of "Armenian Forum" co-editor Vincent Lima for daring to criticize Richard Hovannisian in a small footnote, going so far as to insinuate Lima had a sinister agenda (Translation: paid off by the Turks). If religiously-genocide-enamored Armenian, acting monolithically is a fact, it can't be called "racist." How clever of the sneaky Fadix to throw off our consideration of his weasely, propagandistic ways, by lecturing us what the nature of Wikipedia is. As if he's our beacon of neutrality — Irony of ironies.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque is playing with the ignorance of the readers, he is trying to picture the incidence between Lima and Hovannessian as a disagreement regarding the genocide. But it is not so, what he is pointing to, is Hovannessian position to not debate with Turkish historians, which sparked a controversy. Marashlian never claimed that Lima was pied, the sinister intention was not about that, but rather getting some sort of meetings, when many Armenian intellectuals officially boycott such discussion with people that deny the genocide.

Nobody cares about Fadix's "reviews." We are becoming aware of his nature, that he will say anything to knock down anything contrary to his genocidal obsession, because his last concern is the truth. Besides, we weren't talking about the self-centered Fadix, but of Raffi. And how odd that Fadix tells me I have done the same thing, since he professes to know me better than myself, when he doesn't even know who I am. I have never commented on any source blindly. Even if I have, does that excuse Raffi and the bulk of Armenians who unethically put down anti-genocide books in book review forums, when it's obvious they haven't gone near the books? Just another way of "Zero Credibilty" Fadix to try and fudge the issues.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque you can not excuse your behavior of commenting about books which you have not read, by claiming that others do it, and now you deny doing that, but are you not the one having used individuals and commented about them, when those individuals did not even exist, and the works were even less “existing?” You poop(the best worst I have found to qualify your BS) that I do everything to knock down anything? Again, circular logic Mr. Torque, this works only when one supposes that there was no genocide. It isn't my fault that your arguments are weak, it isn't my fault that you discuss about things which you ignore. Beside that, of what the hell are we talking about here? While I was discussing about relevant informations, you have quoted my answers that are unrelated and now are trying to drag the entire discussion, just because you well know that you can't counter me. Who cares about my reviews? Not you of course, but it is obvious that someone that is interested to read a book, he would read the reviews of people that have actually read them. They won't read reviews of books by people that have not read those books, and since they have not, they try to assassinate the character of the writer by believing that they are actually discrediting the work. You should know better, you are so good at doing just that. It is true that many Armenians do that, but the discussion here is about the genocide, and the relevant materials.

The Malta Tribunal was desperately attempted to be brought to trial by the British, and was aborted after nearly two and a half years of trying to find genuine evidence. All of the wartime propaganda that constitutes the foundation of mythical genocide claims today was rejected. The Malta Tribunal definitely "was," but Fadix will always scream and yelp otherwise, continuing with his immoral propagandistic agenda. Fadix has Zero Credibility.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque think he is actually able to fool the reader. But Mr. Torque, are you that dumb to not realize that my essay clearly show that what you just say here is untrue? Why don't you directly address the essay? Do you really think that by regurgitating the same trash that I have shown to be trash, you will convince readers? Do you think that by repeating, over, over and over again, something that was shown to you to be wrong, people will start saying: “Oh yeh, torque has a point here.” That will not gonna happen, the only thing that people will say to themselves is how ridiculous you sound to repeat the same thing, when it was shown to you that this thing isn't even true in the first place. There never was any Malta tribunal, and the only Turkish searcher having done any research about it, recognize himself there never was one. But this isn't important for Mr. Torque, because since this Malta tribunal that never was is one of his strongest arguments... but as I have demonstrated to him in the past, his strongest arguments in most cases don't even exist in the first place... that is why they are his strongest arguments, because those that have manufactured it have realized they had no strong arguments so they had to fabricate some. I will again tell the readers to go and read my essay in this page as an answer to Torques Real Malta tribunal(RE: The Real Malta Tribunal).

And as far as "when an historian claim it was a genocide," I answer, what historians? If he's referring to those who have bought into the omnipresent Armenian propaganda, that does not make them real historians. A real historian loves the truth, and considers all sides — not just the one he/she is comfortable with. Finally, regarding the comparison of the jurists of the Malta Tribunal and the lawyers of the ICTJ: The ones who considered the evidence at Malta were not all legal experts, like the admiral who headed the High Commission and the ambassador in Washington. Secondly, there is a world of difference between real evidence the British looked at firsthand, and the "avalanche" of Armenian propaganda that has had the luxury of some eighty-five years to perfect, that the ICTJ lawyers mainly and irresponsibly considered.

ANSWER: There never was any Malta tribunal, when will you address my essay? If it is crap, why don't you review it? Which information in it is wrong? Which quotations and admissions are erroneous? Show me... My essay is based on records, it is not POV, it is a description of what happened in Malta by using records. The only tribunal that was during that time, it was the Military Tribunal, and it demonstrated the Ottoman plan and execution of the destruction of its Armenian community. You can try to discredit it the way you want, you won't be able to do so. If there was to be a real Malta tribunal, and if a court there was to judge those convicted, Mr. Torque would yap it was an allied propaganda. Afteral he does desperately try to discredit the Turkish court that judged the Ittihadist leaders. An interesting note, Mr. Torque claim, what historian; perhaps, is Mr. Torque denying the fact that most historians recognize that a genocide did happen? Oh yeh! I forgot, those that recognize the Armenian genocide are not true historian according to Mr. Torque, they have bought Armenian propaganda.

He's becoming rather boring, hysterically keeping on with his baseless accusations.

ANSWER: That you are a racist is not a matter of dispute, one has just to visit your website and read what you say regarding the Armenians, I defy any impartial individual to do that(visiting your website) and come here and dare claiming you're not a racist, and that my claims are baseless accusations. Don't mistake me for you.

He's referring to my example of the assassination of Talat Pasha as "genocide," based on the ICTJ's definition of only one person needing to be killed to constitute genocide. What's "bullcrap" is that nobody would define genocide in such a cockeyed manner; most think of what happened to the Jews under the Nazis as for the meaning of genocide and indeed, Armenian propaganda would have us believe there is practically no difference between their hoax and the Holocaust. (The weaseling Dadrian went so far as to find Ottoman parallels to Nazi doctors like Mengele.) Note how "Zero Credibility" Fadix doesn't even address the issue; he's just spewing forth his venom. And exactly whose character has been assassinated here? What is this maniac even talking about?

ANSWER: Mr. Torque yap again about the ICTJ, when I showed him how can a murder of one person be considered as a genocide, it require one important thing, the person in question should die as a result of a planned program trying to harm a group. Example, if a government decide to deport a population, to depopulate it, and as a result, one person die, this can be considered as a genocide according to the wide definition, but as I have demonstrated, the Armenian cases is considered a genocide not only by its wide definition, but as well by its restrictive definition. Jews and NAZI? Mr. Torque, uses the same BS Ernst Zundel, the Shoah revisionist use. Mr. Zundel claims that the Jews were sent in the concentration camps because they committed terrorism after the Reichstag fire. According to Zundel, they were in camps to prevent them to rebel, and were left there until the war was over, or until somewhere else was found for them. Mr. Torque should invite Zundel who is leaving Canada, he should drink some coffee on a table discussing about the myths of genocides in the last century. They will become good friends. Mr. Torque poop that Dadrian has tried to find parallel between the Turkish and NAZI doctors like Mengele, I guess he just has found a new name searching in the web, by believing that this will make him sound more knowledgeable. Mr. Torque probably has read the title of one of Dadrians work, without having actually read the work in question, because he would not poop this thing. Why? Well, simply because Dadrian end his analysis by discussing about the differences between the Armenian genocide and the Shoah,(he state, the Armenian cases was not a racist act, while the Shoah was) and nowhere did he directly compare both doctors cases. Why should i be even surprised again of Torque trying to review a work that he has not read? Would Mr. Torque poop the same thing regarding Dadrian research about the destruction of American aborigine in his comparative studies? Which issue I don't address, show me please, i though I have answered every points you made.

Unbelievable. In war, this is called a strategy of attrition. Fadix just pummels his opponent with his smears and propaganda, and it becomes tiresome to even defend oneself. I don't know about the grants McCarthy has taken, but I do know professors make a practice of taking grants from a multitude of sources, and taking a grant does not constitute selling one's soul. Anyone who reads McCarthy's pristine history cannot conclude McCarthy knows the real truth and purposely conceals it, like the bulk of Armenian historians have a habit of doing.

ANSWER: McCarthy grants weren't just simple grants, from “various” sources, they were grants originating from Ankara. It is like if Israel Charny or Melson were to receive grants from the republic of Armenia. But this doesn't end there, McCarthy has participated in the Armenian Studies institute founded by the Turkish republic to specifically deny the Armenian genocide, Mr. McCarthy has participated in the publication of a diplomatic work regarding the Armenians, from a Turkish ministry, one of his book has even been published in the past in the official Turkish foreign minister website. Mr. McCarthy do claim to possess the real truth, he himself claimed in an article that he has actually established it. I could continue like this citing many examples, like when he admitted during an ATAA conferences to try to change the image of the Turkish republic. Mr. McCarthy uses terms in his works which are not used by any credible historians, like yapping forgery etc. without much support and has mislead readers by footnoting references which say the complete opposite of what he affirms, or how he has manipulated the Erivan province, as I have demonstrated in the other page.

Maybe because Hovannisian and Dadrian operate in this fashion, Fadix believes McCarthy would be of a similar bent, because Armenians love to blame the other party of doing exactly what they are guilty of.

ANSWER: I officially announce now, that since you continue to generalize against the Armenians, I will report your racistic behavior to the administrators. But since my goal here is to debunk you entirely, I will be doing so this time and fill the complain later. McCarthy is a fraud, I have not only claimed so, but have actually showed it, the same McCarthy that declared that Turkey should use propaganda against “Armenian claims.” I wonder if there is any credible historians, or including Armenian historians that would make such a remark as: “Armenia should use propaganda against Turkish claims.”

They massacre, they say the other massacres. They forge and falsify, they say the other forges and falsifies. They assassinate characters, and they say the other assassinates characters... all in a grand effort to put up a big smokescreen on their genocide hoax. Where are the ethics? Certainly "Zero Credibility" Fadix keeps proving he has none. And McCarthy is far from the best, although he is certainly one of the best who has had the courage to deal with these ethically challenged mythomaniacs through the years. There is a whole slew of unsympathetic Western testimony, including Armenians themselves, that turns the Armenian genocide con job on its ear.

ANSWER: If McCarthy is not your best, I wonder who is. I have still to read THE BEST book, because unfortunately for you, there isn't any works supporting your side which I came across that made any senses. I hope that you list me one, because I am really questioning the intelligence of morons like you who believe a theses that can't even be supported, and when even Turkish references could “disprove.”

If McCarthy is a "fraud" regarding population demographics, then why would he cite figures at the high of the range of the pre-war population (1.7 million) that Fadix referred to, in order to support his position?

ANSWER: 1.7 million is not the high range, it is just a figure based on Ottoman records, which he “corrected” by applying a correction value. He came from the 1.3 million, to a little less than 1.5 million, adding the rest of the Armenians, 1.7 million. This is the minimum range of Armenian population, if we suppose that the Armenians haven't under counted themselves to escape the military tax, and the Ottoman authorities did not purposely under counted the Armenians for obvious reasons, and those are just two factors, when there are many. What McCarthy has shown is that even when using Ottoman records, and trying to minimize the Armenian presence to a lowest, he can't decrease the Armenian population to less than 1.7 million.

The reader can judge for themselves as to how legitimate McCarthy is; his research is available through many essays on the Internet. By now the reader is aware of Fadix's slimy tactics, so we're not going to take the word of one with Zero Credibility, regarding any of his goofy claims.

ANSWER: I don't get pied or have no monetary advantages for what I do, McCarthy works in an Ottoman department, and has all the advantages to deny it. And even if he was to change his view, it is obvious that he will never publish a work titled: “How I was wrong about the Armenians.” My words are as credible as they make sense, and wherever or not I am an Armenian is a none issue. Did I show that McCarthy is to not be trusted? I did, and that is important. For each neutral specialist you can come up with, there are probably over 100 telling the opposite. Professor Daniel Panzec, is an authority of Ottoman and Islamic research, and he analyzed McCarthys work, and clearly state that McCarthy hypotheses defy logic. Who i will trust, a fraud, or a known neutral researcher? The answer is obvious.

For example, he's caught with his pants down above, indicating Nogales vouched for Armenian innocence... for example, when he wrote: "After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly for Erzurum, Garo Pasdermichan, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers that fell into their hands. These bloody excesses had as their necessary corollary the immediate disarmament by the Ottoman authorities of the gendarmes and other Armenian soldiers who still remained in the army (probably because they had been unable to escape) and the utilization of their labour in the construction of highways and in carrying provisions back and forth across the mountains. The altogether unjustifiable desertion of the Armenian troops, united to the outrages they committed afterwards, on their return, in the sectors of BashKaleh, Serail, and Bayacet, did not fail to alarm the Turks and rouse their fear lest the rest of the Armenian population in the frontier provinces of Van and Erzurum revolt likewise, and attack them with the sword. This indeed is precisely what happened a few weeks after my coming, when the Armenians of the vilayet of Van rose en masse against our expeditionary army in Persia; thus giving rise to bloody and terrible occurrences which, under the circumstances, might have been foreseen."

ANSWER: Poor Torque, I do have his book, Nogales did not actually witness what was said to him, Ottoman officials claimed this. And it takes some guts to try to take seriously those words of a mercenary that it is said was later researched for war crimes for what he did in the East, and when he placed his native countries population in his back, and how they never have forgotten his participating on what happened in Van. Isn't it ironic, that the crimes happened everywhere beside his army, and that he had nothing to say by trying to justify the cannonading of Armenian churches and monuments he was responsible of?

Regardless of that, here another relevant information regarding what did happen, from the same book.

pp. 136-137

”The presence of the corpses surprised me in the extreme, for the Ottoman civil authorities make it an almost invariable rule to erase evidences of their crimes very carefully; so that circling vultures and snooping scavenger dogs may not reveal to passers-by the site where the hyena gorges himself with the crescent stamped upon his brow.

There can be no doubt that the massacres and deportations took place in accordance with a, carefully laid-out plan for which the responsibility lay with the retrograde party, headed by the Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha and the civil authorities under his orders. They aimed to make an end first of the Armenians, then of the Greeks and other Christians, Ottoman subjects, in the Empire. We glean ample verification of this from the massacres of Sairt, Djesiret, and the surrounding districts, during which perished no less than two hundred thousand Nestorian Christians, Syrio-Catholics, Jacobites, etc., who had no connection whatever with the Armenians, and who had always been the Sultan's loyal subjects. Evidence also lies in the deportation of the Armenians of Angora, who were almost all Roman Catholics, preferring death to the apostasy of professing Mohammedanism, as had been done by the majority of the Gregorian Armenians, to whom the Turks had offered the same alternative.

As an illustration of the criminal indifference with which the Ottoman civil authorities contemplated the martyrdom and slaughter of the million and one-half of Christians who perished during those massacres, I believe it will suffice to record the phrase tittered by the Grand Vizier Talaat Pasha during a certain interview of his with the American Minister, Mr. Morgen-thau: "The massacres! What of them I They merely amuse me.”

p. 17

“However, upon the breaking out of the World War the massacres recommenced with such violence that, of the two and one-half million Armenians that lived in Turkey before 1914,I believe not even one-half million remain, including the three or four hundred thousand who dwelt in Constantinople and Smyrna, and who, by means of I know not what miracle, escaped the deportations and lived. Had the Armenians been more prudent and less ambitious, they would probably control Turkey today. But they set themselves to star-chasing and tried to subdue the Turks of the eastern provinces, with the fatal result that we know and, as good Christians, deplore; since the Armenians represented, in spite of their grave defects, a civilizing nucleus which might have served first as a bridge and then as a foundation for the pacific penetration of the Near East by Occidental civilization.”

Take a closer look at what he say regarding Armenians being responsible. Those were at the beginning of his work, but if you had actually read his work, you'd see how he contradict himself, and how it is obvious that he has tried to play with his memoirs to discharge him from his responsibilities, preventing the exposure of his psychopathic tendencies of cannonading entire villages and buildings. But people should not take my words for it. Let see if in fact Armenian started according to him, and if he has not manipulated his memoirs to hide his participation of the crime, actually one can understand his psychopathic tendency, just by reading the works first pages about how desperately he has tried to get in an Army to fight, like if war was a game, he finally was able to enroll as a mercenary, having 20,000 men, the bloody Djevded men has even joined Nogales men in Tokaragua(as he admit in his book). But as I said, no one should take my words for it, let quote from the book.

pp. 57-58

“Next morning, which was the twentieth of April, 1915, we stumbled, near El-Aghlat, upon mutilated Armenian corpses strewing the length of the road. One hour later we saw numerous gigantic columns of smoke surge up from the opposite shore of the lake, indicating the sites where the cities and hamlets of the provinces of Van were being devoured by flame.

Then I understood. The die was cast. The Armenian "revolution" had begun.”

He saw from far smokes and concluded that an Armenian revolution has started, recycling what those in the military with him were saying.

In his way to the scene, that is what he witness.

p. 60-61

“April 21. At dawn I was awakened by the noise of shots and volleys. The Armenians had attacked the town. Immediately I mounted my horse and, followed by some armed men, went to see what was happening. Judge of my amazement to discover that the aggressors had not been the Armenians, after all, but the civil authorities themselves! Supported by the Kurds and the rabble of the vicinity, they were attacking and sacking the Armenian quarter. Three or four Christian artisans were trying desperately to defend themselves against that mob of villains. But, breaking down doors and scaling walls, the assassins penetrated into the houses, and, after knifing the defenseless victims, obliged the wives, mothers, or daughters of those miserable creatures to drag their wounded out to the street by the feet or arms. There the rest of the scoundrels killed them, despoiled the corpses of clothing, and left them lying, at the mercy of vultures and jackals.

In spite of the lively firing that swept the streets, I succeeded at last, without serious accident, in approaching the Beledie reis of the town, who was directing the orgy; whereupon I ordered him to stop the massacre. He astounded me by replying that he was doing nothing more than carry out an unequivocal order emanating from the Governor-General of the province . . . to exterminate all Armenian males of twelve years of age and over. I, as a soldier, could not prevent the execution of this decree, which was purely civil in character, however much I desired. So I ordered the gendarmes to retire, and waited until the hell was over.

At the end of an hour and a half of butchery there remained of the Armenians of Adil-Javus only seven survivors, ...”

Let clarify what happen, it was reported that Armenians were revolting, this is what Ottoman officials tell him, he go there, and what he see? That it was the Armenians that were attacked.

And that's what he has to say regarding what the General Governor of Dyarbekir. Reshid had to say.

pp.146-147

“Afterwards, through some exceedingly prudent but very explicit remarks, he gave me to understand also that, in regard to the extermination of the Armenians of his vilayet, he had merely obeyed superior orders; so that the responsibility for the massacres perpetrated there should rest not with him, but with his chief, the then Minister of the Interior, Talaat Bey— one year later the Grand Vizier, Talaat Pasha. Talaat had ordered the slaughter by a circular telegram, if my memory is correct, containing a scant three words: "Yak—Vur—Oldur," meaning, "Burn, demolish, kill." The authencity of that terrible phrase was confirmed by The Press of Constantinople after the Armistice with the publication of a certain telegram which the Ottoman commission engaged in investigating the massacres and deportations had discovered among the papers of the Committee of Union and Progress. In it the Grand Vizier, Talaat Pasha, ordered the local head of the Committee in Malatia to exterminate the Christians of that vilayet by the following means, word for word: " Anéantisses, ex-pulsez, etc. . . . j'assume la responsabilite morale et matérielle."

Coming to the quote Mr. Torque point to, it is surprising still that Enver doesn't say anything of that sort when he declared in February 1915: "I am giving you my thanks and using this opportunity to tell you that the Armenian soldiers in the Ottoman army are executing their duty in the theatre of war scrupulously, as witness my own experience. I wish you to communicate this to the Armenian nation, known for its complete devotion to the imperial Ottoman government, the expression of my satisfaction and gratitude." For the general reader, it is important to know that Mr. Torque quote comes from page 45, title of the Chapter: “Winter in Erzerum,” he was there at the end of February 1915, the hostility against the Armenian men in the army happened late 1914. Let see what happened in the region(Erzerum) before the event, according to German sources, in December 5, 1914, Schwarz report to Wangenheim after alerting the commander of the Fortress of Erzerum, General Posseldt, serious incidents. Some of them, February 1, three irregulars have taken the Armenian priest of Osmi(Erzerum plateau), and killed him, (probably to force the Armenians to react.) in the village of Tewnik(again in the Erzerum plateau), 12 irregulars chained all the Armenian males of the village and asked 100 pound, knowing that no one could find that much in the village, again probably doing that to get the women report the situation to the Armenian bishop in Erzerum and force Armenians to react. The Armenian bishop reported those and many other incidents to the Vali, who claimed that they will get rid of the irregulars. But obviously it did not happen, because they were placed there to instigate the Armenians to find a pretext for the officials to take measures against them. Actually, Nogales got his propagandas from the same originators of those propagandas that have proposed the deportations, even as soon as February 1914, during a conference lecture sponsored by the “Deutch-Turkische Vereinigung.”

Originator I said? Well, yes! Not only Enver and the Ottoman military but: “As for myself, General von Bronsart was throughout his stay in Turkey not only a generous protector but an excellent friend, of whom I shall always think with the sincerest and truest gratitude.”(p. 29)

We don't need Nogales to tell us the sequence worked like this: (1) Armenian rebellions and betrayal (2) Move the Armenian community out of the way, so they don't hinder the efforts of the Army in dealing with the mighty Russian invader. Armenian propaganda has it that the Ottoman Turks would have started massacring and "deporting" the Armenian population, and the poor, innocent Armenians only acted in "self defense." Stomach-churning.

ANSWER: I won't say you don't need, but rather you can't support your theses by using Nogales, even after being the psychopath mercenary that cannonaded the east, watching building fall one after the other, his said memoir contradicts what you claim, the only instances of anything showing Armenians having started anything, he wasn't even on the spot but rather relied to what was said to him. In Van, when deciding to visit the place where Armenians were said to have attacked, he witnessed the opposite. But yet he contradict himself everytime he participated in missions, Armenians magically became well armed, trying to preserve his memory, to not be exposed to be the psychopat who destroyed the entire Armenian town with canons. Do you have any idea on how the Venezuelans viewed Nogales participation? He has even gone as far as to make people buy that the Armenians there would waste dozens of bullets on an elderly women, while they were surrounded by an Ottoman army with CANONS. As for your claim, even Djemal was not aware of why Armenians were deported. He writes in his memoirs: "Finally we became actively involved in the World War. A few days after the declaration of War I was appointed to the Command of the 4th Army and left Constantinople to proceed to Syria. From that time I have learnt nothing further of the conditions in the vilayets of East Anatolia, nor on what grounds the Government saw itself called upon to deport all Armenians." (“Memoirs of a Turkish Statesman,” 1913-1919 Djemal Pasha, George Doran Co., New York, 1922, p. 277). One wonder how come that is possible, one of the restrictive leading figure of the Ottoman is even not aware that Armenians were actively revolting. The Armenians did not revolt more than the few instances which were localized and were caused by irregulars whom did it to forge a pretext to answer back. Soon during the war, the decision of destruction of the Armenian communities were taken, and even when using Nogales, it would still demonstrate that the Ottoman did plan the EXTERMINATION of the Ottoman Armenians. You can poop or manufacture what you want, I will expose your poops and disgusting reversion of the roles of the victims and aggressors.

In wartime nations engage in propaganda, and no doubt the Turks weren't exempt. But I'm not familiar with any branch known as "the Ottoman propaganda bureau"; if anything, propaganda is the weak point of the Turks.

ANSWER: If we were to consider everything you ignore as non-existing, not much of the things that exist would be considered as existing. The Ottoman propaganda bureau was very active during the war, they have published countless numbers of papers to be distributed in mass, even after the shortage of papers. They even participated in the publication of German materials, and have forged in 1914 so-called Russian sources to justify the decision that they were about to take. Propaganda yes! But when every sides claim something did happen, including the Ottoman allies, and Ottoman officials, generals, commanders, and members of the special organization, there is no any reasonable dough left that the event in question did happen. And this is why the number of Turkish intellectuals that recognize the event is only growing by numbers.

If the Turks were so good at propaganda, the Armenians wouldn't have been able to enjoy the overwhelming ways in which they've convinced the world to believe in their myth.

ANSWER: Again, what you claim would be true only if a genocide did not happen. This is not valid, and is a form of circular logic. The Armenian genocide has convinced the world, because it is well documented, and not because of the Armenians, there are hardly any Armenian sources used to demonstrate the Armenian genocide, while if we were to not rely on Turkish sources, you could even not bring a position to defend.

What Fadix is trying to pass off here is that everything prepared by the Turks is a lie, since the Turks were on an equal level with the Nazis.

ANSWER: It is the other way around, the burden of proof is on my side, since I am the one making the charges of genocide, and you are the one claiming it did not happen. I can not be the one claiming that what the other side brings is a lie, you are. Because I document the genocide, and you reject it, and for you to reject it, or you have to tell the material is not valid, or that it is a lie. Furthermore, I never claimed the Turks were in an equal level as NAZI, I am not the one trying to make false charges against ethnic groups, you're the racist here. You are the one pooping about an Armenian NAZI connection in your webiste. What I am doing is supporting the theses of genocide, nothing more, and simply because this entry is about the Armenian genocide.

Therefore, if any historian refers to Turkish documentation, he is in danger of being called a "fraud," because everything the Turks have prepared falls under the category of "propaganda material."

ANSWER: Hypocrite, there are a lot more materials folds more, that support the theses of genocide, so it would be your side that would claim that most of the materials are lies. You do the same for the Turkish materials that do not support your theses. Beside that, it is your side that has made the decision to present your cases as propaganda. If your position was defended by only Turkish historians without government implication, you would have some points, but the Ottoman records are kept not by a government that has no position, but rather a government that reject the theses of genocide, and they spend millions in doing so. It would be stupid to believe that one could rely on Ottoman archives when they are guarded by people that deny the crime. It is like a British government denying that aborigines existed in North America, and that they make available their archives to “prove” their position.

This way the Armenians hope to continue to maintain the foothold they've had the luxury of maintaining over the many years: only pro-Armenian material must be accepted as the "truth." History doesn't work that way. There are always two sides to a story, and it is up to impartial observers to declare what is propaganda, and what is not.

ANSWER: There is no two side for a genocide, there is no two side for sending people in the desert and commit mass butchery, you can poop a big picture, and this won't change anything. It is the side that accept the theses of genocide that should document the cases, and it is your side that should show that the documentation is not accurate. But your side can't do that, they would rather yap world conspiration, yap propaganda, and fabricate an Armenian revolution, like if it would “disprove” the fact that Armenians were butchered in mass. As it is clear with our exchanges, that my side is able to document everything, while yours can't. And this is why the majority of historians accept the theses of genocide, because your position defy logic.

So let's see. I am being accused of using "forgeries and falsifications," This comes as news to me. Because Fadix is a master propagandist and makes it seem as though he has at his fingertips all original sources does not mean we all can be similarly fortunate.

ANSWER: Stop repeating that is new to you, everytime I report you use forgery and falsification. I showed you how you use quotes that do not exist, how you use works which do not exist, there are bunch in your own website. Claiming that you do not have access to the original sources does not justify the fact that you rely on fabricated materials to support your theses.

I don't believe the material that I only have excerpts of , available mainly from the Internet, have been presented in bad faith.

ANSWER: They have, changed words in a quotation, altering them to change its definition, fabricating quotes and attributing them to works, and even fabricating work titles, anyone doing that would do it in a bad fate. I reported you those things in the past, but you have ignored and have still used them, and this show that you present them in bad fate. For others, if you want any information regarding those falsifications, I will list them here.

Because there has been a monumental snow job against the Turks (Armenians=loud, obsessed, numerous in the sympathetic West; Turks=quiet, apathetic, few in the unsympathetic West... but growing in numbers in the last generation or so), the Turks are presented as the "Nazis," and are on the defensive.

ANSWER: Sick mind, this doesn't even worth answering to.

Therefore, most who have researched this material and have made it available makes sure the material is accurate. Well in opposition to the Armenians who have gotten away with their lies and distortions for so long.

ANSWER: Another sick racistic statement. Idiot, I did show you that those materials were NOT accurate.

And I'm certainly not comparing my amount of knowledge with Dadrian's, who has based his entire career on the Armenian obsession. But Dadrian only reveals the reservoir of knowledge that helps his agenda.

ANSWER: Dadrian alone gave the denialist claims a rest, he is an example of perspicacity and credible researcher, one of his kind who exposed the fraud that is “the other side.” You will never be able to discredit him.

Prof. Malcolm Yapp reviewed Dadrian's work, and said: "The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system." This is why Dadrian, like Fadix, are two peas in a pod, both having Zero Credibility. So of course the Fadix pea is going to cry in outrage over the defamation of his superior pea. And get this: the anonymous, character-assassinating Fadix charges me with being a "coward." (Brace yourself for further Fadix hysteria, charging Prof. Yapp as being a Turkish tool.)

ANSWER: Turkish tool? Where I said that? Again Mr. Torque won't show Dadrian answer and how Yapp was contradicted? For any independent historians, Dadrian answer was exceptional and placed to rest Yapp false charges. (See for example the correspondence published in “Middle Eastern Studies,” Vol. 33, No. 3, July 1997, pp. 640-642.

Armenians go to great lengths showing biased Western maps of the centuries-ago period classifying "Armenia."

ANSWER: Biased Map? How maps of historic Armenia can be biased? Do you know something we don't?

The vast majority of biased historians from the old days definitely regarded the Armenians as a distinct people, fellow Christians suffering under the Turkish yoke.

ANSWER: Untrue, Armenians were classified as a Persian colony or Christian Turks by most “specialist.”

The reason why the King Craine Commission made that statement most people liking Turks is because it was true; those who came in direct contact with these people, unless hopeless religious and racist bigots, got to see the "honor" quotient of the Turks and the Armenians.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque exposed again as as racist. He bark I have zero credibility, while he is exposed as being a racist, more and more. Clown, the Armenians were hated because they were accused of avarices, for any Western trying to establish there, it was impossible to get a commerce run because of the Armenian concurrence. For the same reasons as Jews were hated in Europe.

Those secret reports by Austrians/Germans were mainly written by sympathetic co-religionists, listening to the tales of missionaries and Armenians, diplomats and "desk" military personnel who were far from the field.

ANSWER: Poop, poop, poop again, poop there, poop here. One wonder if any German military would rely on missionaries report. There was no military secret report by missionaries, no military secret reports by Armenians, those reports were made by German commanders, Generals, soldiers, officials etc. They WERE on the field, one of those was even at the head of one of the secret organizations. But Mr. Torque would fabricate another lie trying desperately to discredit German reports.

Sorry, there is much matter deriving from Nazi sources indicating their guilt: the Wannsee Conference, memoirs written by the Auschwitz commander, and Armenian-Nazi radio broadcasts and newspapers as European-Armenians goose-stepped along with their Fuehrer, helping in the extermination of Jews.

ANSWER: Expose your racist hateful characters, the clown quote Roman statements regarding the Armenians, find anything to characterize the Armenians, and now he attempt to link them to the NAZI. The clown has no dignity, the Moron has absolutely no dignity, no respect for the hundreds of thousands of Armenians enrolled in the Soviet army fighting against Germany axes, the disgusting moron has no respect for the tens of thousands who died fighting against Germany, while Turkey was sympathetic to the German causes and has even imitated them by introducing the capital tax targeting the Armenians, Greeks and the Jews, Karabekir even proposed to deport them in the East, because they have found NAZI “isolation” plan so “cool.” From 300,000 to 500,000 Armenians served in the Soviet Union, their brigades were the first to enter Berlin, among the first to liberate Auschwitz. Armenians had key roles in the French resistance, Manouchian and l'affiche rouge are pretty well known. A Soviet thank, “Sassountzi David” was entirely financed by the Diasporan Armenians, and was used attacking German troops. The 18,000 Armenians in German army, were mostly prisoners of war, from whom 11,000 were field battalions and 7,000 in supply. The official Dashnak position was AGAINST Germany, and its headquarters in Cairo was staunchly pro-British. Beside that, Hitler was not interested to have Armenians and Georgians in his army, because he was not convinced of their royalty. Those that served were sent to the Netherlands where most deserted.(See: “German Rule in Russia 1941-1945” by Alexander Dallin) I could continue long and long by enumerating examples. Now, let compare that with Turkey. In May 10, 1934, student associations were distributing Swastikas at university levels. Later, German officials in the guise of assistant professors, accompanied their colleagues in the Tukish army, with the purposes of making the promotion of Nazism( Dr. Ayhan Aktar, Varlik Vergisi ve 'Türklestirme' Politikalari. (The Capital Tax and and the politics of turquification), Iletisim Publishers, Istanbul, 2000)

Later an agreement between NAZI Germany and Turkey was made preventing Jewish immigration to Turkey. On December 15, 1941, the ship named “Struma” with 761 Jewish passengers escaping the NAZI invasion arrives in Istanbul and asks for the authorization to cross the Bosphorus. The ship had to wait until February 24, 1942, over a month of negotiations between the allies and Turkey, requesting Turkey to permit the passage, Turkey denied access. They haven't even fed the passengers, who were dying of famine, the Ship had to return, where it was torpedoed by a submarine. One survivor. One day after, people would have expected the prime minister to apologies, but no, the then prime minister Refik Saydam, happy to respect their agreement with Germany declared: “Turkey cannot be the destination of undesirable refugees” While in 1942 NAZI Germany takes the decision to destroy the Jews, on November 11 of the same year, Turkey come up with the Capital tax against the Jews, Armenians and Greeks, and even propositions are made of their deportation, the capital tax was justified with this remark: “Against those who profit from the hospitality offered by this country and become wealthy, while at the same time abrogate their responsibilities at this critical moment, the law will be applied with full force”. Turkey had even plans to join Germany to invade SSR Armenia, when Germany was to take Stalingrad. A report was make regarding the Jews, Armenians and Greeks. For the Greeks, it was written among many other things: “On the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman forces, not one Greek should be left in the city.” About the Armenians: “Armenians are not assimilable and those who survive must be encouraged to depart (emigrate).” And for the Jews: “Stop all Jewish immigration, while provoking incidents within the country with the goal of creating a Jewish exodus, keep them away from all government activity, be it financial or economic” (source: Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari (Passengers to Askale—Capitial Tax and forced labour camps), Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999) Is this enough? No not enough. I told you countless numbers of times that you will be the one to lose in this game of trying to link the Armenians with the NAZI. I told you countless numbers of time in the past to stop doing that or I will have to answer. I have no interest to bring this, but since you have repeated this trash again and again about a so-called Armeno-NAZI link, this time I had enough, so I will document it a little more to show you why you should NOT play with this. In 1948, 40,000 Turkish Jews living in Istanbul have run away in Israel. Embarrassed and exposed, Turkey was the first Muslim state to recognize Israel and thought that it would be some sort of way to apologize.

No! I will not stop here. At the outbreak of the war, Turkey mined 190,000 tons of chromite, 1/5 of the world total output. (See: Turkish Foreign Policy 1943-1945: Small State Diplomacy and Great Power Politics by Edward Weisband) Those were the result of agreements between Germany and Turkey, Turkey becoming the major German supplier, of this essential material for the military. Turkey later signed another contract with Germany to provide 135,000 tones, regardless of the allies pressures to stop. The German minister of armaments and munitions declared that chromium was the element with the shortest supply, and was indispensable to a highly developed armaments industry. Turkey permitted the German armament developments, ignoring the continuous allied requests. As the German Minister for Armaments and Munitions Albert Speer confirmed when he wrote in his memoirs: "Hence the element in shortest supply is chromium. This is especially grave since chromium is indispensable to a highly developed armaments industry. Should supplies from Turkey be cut off, the stockpile of chromium is sufficient only for 5.6 months. The manufacture of planes, tanks, motor vehicles, tank shells, U-boats, and almost the entire gamut of artillery would have to cease from one to three months after this deadline, since by then the reserves in the distributions channels would be used up." He then declared that if it wasn't of Turkish supply: "no more or less than that the war would be over approximately ten months after the loss of the Balkans." (Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, translated by Richard and Clara Winston (New York and Toronto, 1970)). In short without Turkeys help, the war would have not continued more than months. I could continue and discuss regarding the “Missing Jews” or the missing gold bars looted by NAZI Germany and transferred to Turkey. Do you want that I document this as well, or IS IT ENOUGH??? Do you now understand why I told you to stop playing this stupid NAZI accusations? Do you have any idea of why Turkey declared war on Germany few days before the end of the war? Do you want that I develop about this? Those are not my interest, my goal is not to attack Turkey in any given occasions, neither the Turks, this is why I only discuss about the genocide, now you have forced me with your racistic BS trying to picture the Armenians as the worst thing existing on Earth, being NAZI, being everything, even a patient man like me has limits, and believe me I did not tell everything that happened in WWII. I thought that I will stop here.

I don't know about Halil's memoirs, but I already covered how renegade government officials could act on their own away from official policy, like the American soldiers at the Abu Gharib prison.

ANSWER: You don't get it, do you? It is not just one General, I have cited you others, it is not just one commander, there are many... it is impossible that there is no government involvement when many Generals order their commanders, to order destructions, this involve thousands of people. To think that criminals were released from prisons without Ottoman accords, from every corner of the Ottoman empire, one must suffer of severe debility. The American prison was one cases, this is about the entire Anatolia, generals at many corners, commanders at many corners. The special organization was formed by criminals released from central prisons, the Mazhar commission has established that most of those were murderers, which mean that murderers were those selectively chosen to be members of the special organization and be sent to escort the Armenian convoys. Impossible that all those things happened without an order from the top. Impossible.

And, oh, Fadix is aware of Prof. Yapp's criticism of Dadrian. (Of course; Fadix knows everything.) So even if I am guilty of Dadrian tactics (and I freely talk about the massacres committed by the Turks and the huge suffering of the Armenians, unlike Dadrian who hasn't touched the vast crimes committed by the likes of Dro, Antranik, Garo, et. al), how would that excuse Dadrian's miserable unscholarly ways?

ANSWER: Yapp review was not a criticism, it was a stupid attempt to discredit Dadrian, and he failed, Dadrian answer was exceptional, and if any neutral person would have read it, they would never use Yapp review. From all Dadrians answers I have read, his answer to Yapp was one of the best. He acted professionally and heroically. As for Dadrian not touching what you say, Dadrian can not touch something which did not exist. Antranik was a criminal, this was recognized by the first Armenian republic, they haven't even permitted him to be in the military, the guy was forced to leave.

FADIX FUNNIES: As I said: Armenians love to charge others with their own misdeeds, to take the heat off. Fadix has Zero Credibility.

ANSWER: Moron, with his generalizations against the Armenians. As any reader could witness, after all your slanders against the Armenians, never have I answered back doing the same with the Turks, I always answered this moron and attacked HIM, and not the Turks. And after that, he still hammer his poop of: “Fadix has Zaro Credibility.”

Now he must say that I have no credibility. Because I refer to numerous web sites for my information, it could be some information could be inaccurate. But I never knowingly use false information.

ANSWER: BS!!! BulS-t!!! You did use them after I HAVE SHOWN YOU they were inaccurate, and that countless numbers of times. In the other forum, I gave many examples, and I come here and you use the same trash I have shown you to be fabrication in various occasions. Beside that, those that you did not know were fabrications, if you were neutral you would have tried to verify if the information in question was accurate. You have not done so.

What Fadix should do is point to the "ton of stuff" I've been forced to come up with to counter Fadix's loud mouth, and come up with ONE example of "distortions, non-existing quotes, forgeries, fabrications, non-existing materials" that he shamelessly accuses of. (Be prepared that he will. To his fanatical mind, the "Malta Tribunal that Never war" is an example of a forgery or a falsification.)

ANSWER: That Malta tribunal never was is even not a matter of dispute, even the only Turkish searcher that researched the matter recognize that there was no such thing as a Malta tribunal. As for a list of falsifications. MANY!!! Darounian references about a Muslim genocide with a number that you present in your website. The Goshnak publication about only few Turks remaining in Van, after Armenians having killed them, DOES NOT EXIST. Katchadouni quotes coming from the first 7-8 pages are reflection of Darounian POV, and not the originals. The Armenian work which you brag, admit in p. 85, the quote in question DOES NOT EXIST, NOWHERE IN THE THE TWO VOLUMES!!! The Voices of agonies, DOES NOT EXIST. Many Armenians you have quoted in your website the quotes DOES NOT EXIST. Morgenthau report of cannibalism, DOES NOT EXIST. You provide other words supposedly uttered by Armenians which were brought by Multu and his other aliases, THEY DO NOT EXIST!!! The words from Darounian work, of Armenians serving with anyone, the word Tashnak politics was reverted to Armenians, changing the entire sense etc... etc... etc... Do you want me to be more specific? Do you want me to “prove” you? Or do you want other examples of falsifications your side uses? What about the falsified Russian reports coming from Sadik Department II?

With the statement Fadix made above, he temporarily has risen from "zero credibility" to "0.01 credibility," for not declaring Armenians=Truth. But he's only saying that, and doesn't really mean it.

ANSWER: NO! I TRULY MEAN IT!!! I don't judge people by basing myself on their ethnicity, I judge people in daily basis and individually, as a PERSON!!! Of course you can't comprehend this, as a racist, it is hard for you to comprehend that there are people out there that do not view people as “He's Armenian so...”, “He's a Turk, so...”, you can't comprehend that there are some that will only say, “this is a person, and this person is...” Those things sound so alien for you.

In practice, he never points to the volumes of Armenian lies, except to use them for his own agenda.

ANSWER: LIAR!!! And those Armenians that hate me will be the first to confirm your pathetic BS claim. I would point out lies no matter from where they come from. But again, it isn't my fault that the genocide did occur, it isn't my fault that that's the true. I can not point to a lie, where there is no lie. How could I do that?

For example, he doesn't come out and declare the Andonian forgeries to be forgeries, which is what an honorable person would do, especially since Andonian himself is on record for indicating they were fake.

ANSWER: That's because Orel and Yuka were not convincing, I say they are suspicious, because I don't believe Talaat would be enough dumb to not destroy those documents. For the rest, Dadrian analysis and review of Orel work, indicated that we can not base ourself on Orel analysis to declare them to be forgeries. We just don't know and should not be using those documents alone to determinate there was a genocide. But again, I have never used the Andonians to make my point, did I? No! I did not. As for Andonian, he never suggested they were fakes, he admitted that they were used for propaganda, it is not the same. It is true they were used for propaganda, how would that discredit them?

No, the times I've noticed Fadix refer to Andonian, he does so in a "They could be true" manner. He quickly slipped back to "zero credibility" territory again. (Actually, we're being kind. His credibility is below zero, in negative territory.)

ANSWER: That's BS, I merely said that I can not know if they were forgery or not, I don't see how being undecided about something can be used against me. I just don't know, and since i don't know I don't use them. If you think that I am making the wrong choice, explain how.

Is it fair to say Turks are always truthful? Of course not. But because Turks are on the defensive after having been slandered so long in Western nations that already have a built-in bias agaisnt them, it would be folly to present evidence that is nothing but truthful.

ANSWER: The problem is that, there are even Turkish records supporting my theses, Ottoman allies, Austria and Germany as well... even your own records, and even your own Ataturk support my theses. This is not anti-Turkism, that's simply common sense.

FADIX FUNNIES: Does the egomaniacal Fadix really believe I have nothing better to do with my life than keep track with all of his nonsense?

ANSWER: To keep track of nonsense, nonsense should be there in the first place.

There is a word for this, and it's called "delusion."

ANSWER: Look who's talking, again Mr. Torque accusing me of what I have diagnosed him in the past. You are the one believing in some sort of Armenian world conspiration, a Western international anti-Turkish conspiration. Mr. Torque thinks that by trowing words that they will actually stick.

As far as Armenian character (strictly regarding their genocide obsession, mind you), I laid a challenge before him.

ANSWER: Don't try to back peddle, your characterization of the Armenians doesn't end with what you consider genocide obsession, as it is displayed in this site and your website.

Come up with examples, aside from Tashji, who dares to go against the genocide tide publicly.

ANSWER: There is no Armenian intellectuals supporting your theses, it is obvious, it would take serious brain damage or severe psychosis never recorded in the history of humanity, for an Armenian intellectual to support your theses, when the genocide affected and still affect nearly all the Armenians, the blackest moment of Armenian history. There are hardly any serious historians who support your theses, why would any Armenian historians do so, when there are already Turkish historians that do claim there was a genocide?

Surely not all 7 million Armenians in the world can be of the same mentality. If the relentless Armenian propaganda has been recognized even during the war years by "friends" of Armenia (Armenian friend and missionary James Barton was practically weeping, in a letter to Admiral Bristol, to how often Vahan Cardashian has fouled him. Cardashian went on to form today's ANC, which Armenia gave eight million dollars to in 2001),

ANSWER: Mr. Torque is manipulating again, and this time, by changing dates, the letter in question was a REPLY to Bristol letter in 1921(years after the Anatolian Armenian population was destroyed), regarding massacres that were happening that year(1921). IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH 1915-1917, when most of the Armenians had died. Another note, Cardashian reports were not as erroneous as Barton thought they were(again YEAR 1921 and NOT 1915-1917), since Barton was relying on Bristol informations which were contradicting what Cardashian was reporting, so Barton took Bristol words as truth. But I also documented in the past in the other forum how Bristol bared access to reporters during 1920s for them to not witness the massacres, or how he forced witnesses of Smyrna fire to change their versions. I have quoted from Christopher Simpson book “The Splendid Blond Beast,” and the American policies of the 20s is well documented, and I have as well referred to another book by Merrill D. Peterson “Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide.” He document much about about the 20s policies and how the Armenians were left out.

and if this propaganda is still being jealously guarded and preserved by fanatics like Fadix (who insists there was no Armenian rebellion), then the exposure of the characterization of Armenians to lie and distort their religiously held genocidal obsession is not racism, but simply the truth.

ANSWER: No SALAK! It IS RACISM! You deny the genocide because you are a Turk and the victims were Armenians, and I have shown you how your poop about Barton has nothing to do with 1915-1917, but rather the situation in the 20s, and like this was not enough, he was relying on Bristol, that I have much documented in the past. Bristol was one of the initiators of the Chester concessions and whom brought investors in Turkey and got signed the first contracts with the republic of Turkey 3 days after its declaration.

As far as the 518,000 Muslims being killed, who is going to give a flying fluke about Fadix's weasel facts? These figures are documented by internal governmental reports.

ANSWER: 518,000 figure which I have shown to be a complete fabrication. Let me repeat for other readers what I have shown him countless number of times, let me show an example of figures coming from this number. Something I have shown this poor pathetic guy in more than one occasions, but since his point is not to tell the trust, but rather disgustfully denying a genocide, for no other reason than because he is a Turk and the victims were Armenians, he will ignore the fact that he uses forgeries and will be still using them.

”This attempt of the Armenians to defend themselves against the Turkish attack in Van was promptly misrepresented in a communique' which was sent by Enver Pasha and the Turkish Government to Berlin, and thence spread all over the world, as an attack by bands of Armenian insurrectionists who, in the rear of the Turkish army had fallen prey upon the Mohammedan population. Out of 180,000 Moslems in the Vilayet of Van only 30,000 had succeeded in escaping! In a later report issued by the Turkish embassy in Berlin on October 1, 1915, the story was further embellished: "No fewer than 180,000 Moslems had been killed. It was not surprising that the Moslems had taken vengeance for this". Some 18 Turks, answering to the number of Armenians they had killed in Van, had turned into 180,000! This astonishing impudent lie has a kind of foundation. According to statistics there should be 180,000 Moslems, including 30,000 Turks and 150,000 Kurds, in the Vilayet of Van. The Turks fled westwards when the Russian army advanced, while the 150,000 Kurds remained where they were, and were molested neither by the Russians nor the Armenians”

Armenia and the Near East, Dr. Fridtjof Nansen, 1928, p.302

But afterall, why would Mr. Torque take the words of Nansen one of the greatest humanist the world has known, a Nobel Peace Prize. So, since Mr. Torque has assassinated the character of Nansen, I have used his own material (the one telling 518,000 being killed) to show him how from his own materials there has been falsification. Let take this same statistic of Van, and this time from his list which comes to 518,000.

Belge no. 3, Tarih. 1916-5-22, number of Victims(Van): 8

Belge no. 3, Tarih. 1916-5-22, number of Victims(Van): 8,000

Belge no. 3, Tarih. 1916-5-22, number of Victims(Van): 80.000

The three are coming from the same said “document.” The same identification, the same date, the same location. One can wonder, how Armenians for the same date, the same location, in the same document could have killed, 8, 8,000 AND 80,000. In fact, there has been another version, where there has been a “1” added before the 80,000 to be presented to the Germans as the one that Nansen is referring to. The list that Mr. Torque present to come up with 518,000 Muslim killed(and now he introduce the Jews, I guess it makes more “in”), the list is full of such BS. I have explained this to him COUNTLESS numbers of times, but this hasn't stopped him to use this forgery.

They are seconded by other parties, like Col. Stokes who reported the Armenians “massacred between 300,000 and 400,000 Kurdish Muslims in the Van and Bitlis districts.”

ANSWER: No Salak, this records come from a document of 1920, in which Stokes provides numbers that have been presented by the Ottoman Empires in 1915 to justify their decision to “relocate” the Armenians. Strokes has got there on the front fighting(he lost his battle BTW), late 1919 or later, if my memories serves me right.

James Morgan Read, in his work “Atrocity Propaganda 1914-1919,” Yale University Press 1941, covers the wars propagandas, he writes:

"Certain "revolts" of the Armenians had taken place but most of them came after the deportation policy had started and were the result, not the cause, of the cruelties committed by the Turks. Three minor uprisings took place before the deportations were initiated. Two of them were nothing more than rows of gendarmes with deserters. The only one of any consequence was the trouble in Van - apparently a case of self-defense on the part of the Armenians. In all these "revolts" the maximum losses which the Turks suffered amounted to not more than three hundred soldiers. The oath of the Mutessarif of Musch at the burial of seven Moslem gendarmes who had been killed was almost fulfilled: "For every hair of your head, I will have a thousand Armenians slaughtered."

He as well confirm what Nansen reported:

"The Turkish ally also furnished German papers with stories of Armenian cruelty to offset the unfavorable publicity directed at the Central Powers for their alliance with the "terrible Turk", the perpetrator of the "Armenian massacres." The Armenians were accused of helping the Russians burn the Moslem quarters in the province of Van, rape the women and girls, kill all the men. According to a later estimate the Russians had burned alive 500 people in one village of Van, and only 30,000 of the 180,000 Moslems in the province had escaped. Germans who read that the Armenians were especially fond of burning Turks to death were not likely to have much sympathy with the Christian minority of Turkey. An intensive anti-Armenian campaign was staged by the official Turkish news agency as late as February and March, 1918. In this group of stories the most refined types of mutilation were included, such as Armenians waylaying Turks, tearing out their lungs and hanging them on the wall."

The colonel was British, not German. (It's too bad we can't get more impartial Western sources to confirm these tragic figures, since Turks/Muslims were not regarded as human beings by Westerners; the accent was entirely on Armenian suffering, as usual.)

ANSWER: Again, that's your poop, the next time I wont consider what you say as POV, but PTP(for Pathetic Torques poop). It is not a report from a British declaring anything, its just a report of the the Ottoman version made by Strokes in 1920, when there was nearly no Armenians left in the Heart of Anatolia.

And if the Germans used the news for their purpose, it doesn't mean the news was false. Of course, the bloodthirsty Armenian rebels had free reign to commit their ethnic cleansing over the many years.

ANSWER: Salak, what the hell are you talking about? I have demonstrated that the German records support the theses of genocide, what's that new PTP of yours?

Fadix is referring to the opinions of those Westerners who came in direct contact and commented on their level of dishonesty. These views had nothing to do with the overwhelming perception in the West as to how wonderful the Armenians were, particularly since the minds of sympathetic Christian Westerners had been poisoned against the Terrible Turk. The twists and turns of the Armenian Weasel Beast strike again.

ANSWER: The West DID NOT favor the Armenians, that's a MYTH!!! I have documented countless numbers of times that it was a MYTH!!! In 1909, there was Battleships from all the powers stationed in the sea, none have done anything to stop what was done in Adana. In 1878, when Russia was to invade the rest of Anatolia, it was the WEST that stopped it. During Abdhul Hamids massacres, NOTHING was done, British officials have even tried to bare reports of the massacres.

Why? Here an incomplete list of Ottoman debts.

France: 3,285,272,377 Frs(Francs)

Germany: 1,443,486,506 Frs

England: 813,312,496 Frs

This incomplete list, when transferred to what it worth now, simply means that the Ottoman economy was just crumbling, the west could never have afforded to destroy the Ottoman Empire, with all what they have loaned. That's why they have closed their eyes for long, and that is why they ignored the Armenians during the Treaty of Lausanne and their plight was ignored ever after. One billion of worth gold mark alone from Armenian properties looted, the Ottoman Empire pied the allies the war debts and got the foundation of the republic. 15 million of Turkish golds, which were mostly Armenian assets were taken over by the allies when they captured Berlin after the Armistice(the money was transferred by the Ottoman authorities). This amount got in the allies pocket. The Armenians were Europe's obstacle for Ottoman investments, because they owned everything they got. Armenians could never have been advantaged, the Turks were, the allies closed their eyes in 1894-1897, they have stopped the Russians invasion in 1878, they have closed their eyes in 1909, they did the same for 1915, and exactly the same when they left Armenia to get destroyed. Stop pooping about Armenians being favored, when it was obviously NOT the cases.

Note how he twists and turns again. Who is talking about inferiority? We're pointing out a simple characteristic of Armenians that is being utilized by those such as "Zero Credibility" Fadix. This characteristic of dishonesty is coupled with fanaticism.

ANSWER: Salak, the only here twisting is you, and again, display your racist hate. Talking of fanaticism, I never was and will never be one... one has to read you to understand who the fanatic is. You'll make Karabekir proud.

If Fadix thinks it's racist to bring up this characteristic acknowledged since centuries ago by a Roman historian,

ANSWER: It is racist to stereotype people and attribute them characteristics just because they are part of an ethnic group. So yes! You are a racist. And again, you show your hypocrisy... when someone say something about the Turks, you consider it as anti-Turkic, when someone say something bad about the Armenians, it becomes a reported truth. But what can we expect from a racist.

then he might think Ara Sarafian is a racist: "Hatred and envy: they seem to come naturally to us." And he might think Antranik Zaroukian is a racist: "What kind of people are we? What kind of leadership is this? Instead of compassion, mutual contempt. Instead of reason, blind instinct. Instead of common sense, fanaticism." (Zaroukian really nailed Fadix's character to a tee.)

ANSWER: Those are not Sarafians words, those are Baliozians words quoting supposedly some Armenian writers. Beside that, those are called self-criticism, it is a known phenomenon, when writers try to awake the social consciousness of their society. There are such writers among the Turks, here in Quebec, there are such writers. Self-criticism should not be confounded with racistic generalizations, because self-criticism does not make any comparisons.

The reader can check to see what I had written: "Andonian himself indicated were fake." There is a world of difference between "indicated" and "claimed," but our Zero Credibility man will make his presentation to support his agenda, regardless of the facts.

ANSWER: WOW! I have no credibility because I have mixed the word claimed and indicated. Ladies and gentlemen, when you manipulate, fabricated, distort, you don't lose your credibility, but when you mistake the words indicates with claims... you just lost your credibility.

In Andonian's 1937 letter, full of discrepancies with Andonian's prior claims, Andonian admits that his product is not a historical work, but a propaganda piece. That is not the same as Andonian's simply stating the documents were used as propaganda, which Andonian also provides for additionally. (Andonian further wrote that the Armenian Bureau in London and the Armenian National Council in Paris have made use of his manuscript freely as they wished.) And as far as Dadrian's never claiming the Andonian documents were authentic, and yet going to great lengths to prove the documents were not forgeries... can the reader believe Fadix's dishonesty? What weasels, both.

ANSWER: Clown, those are Ataov words of the letter, the letter does nowhere suggest that the Andonians were fake, in 1937, he reaffirmed them to be authentic, when he had no reason anymore to claim so. The word propaganda does not mean fake, it just mean to use it for public consumption for some reasons. McCarthy has requested Turkey to use propaganda against Armenian “claims.” According to your interpretation, McCarthy is asking the Turkish republic to lie(he don't need to ask that though, it already does lie). Furthermore, the English version of the Andonians has serious translation mistakes, not only on the archives, but the rest of the book, those alone address some of the issues of Andonians reaffirmation, in which Ataov has found differences. Rossler himself saw some of the originals, and did criticize the work(not the documents), but Andonian book was not only those documents, Ataov is trying to fool the readers as usual. And besides, Ataov was the one asking Orel and Yuka to study them, and Dadrian review was Orel and Yuka study. Dadrian never affirmed them to be authentic, his work had nothing to do with showing that they were not forgeries, his work was SIMPLY an analyzes of Orel and Yuka study. It was just that, that you try hard to trow mud on Dadrian, don't expect that some will stick. That's not gonna happen.

Contrary to the typical tactic of Armenian smear campaigning, we do not judge the merit of scholarship based upon what a man's career might have been previously; in Gurun's case, it is the fact that he was a diplomat that likely forced him to learn more extensively about the matter, when most Turks are ignorant about the topic, and it's the diplomats who are in the position of defending their slandered nation.

ANSWER: It is remarks like this that makes me believe that you are an imbecile. Slandered nation? So for you idiot, this is about slandering a nation? What kind of individual with severe debility you are to even think that this is about slandering a nation? No wonder the Turkish society is at a point that it still has serious taboos, which the discussion will provoke such a severe reaction. No, it is not normal to have diplomats writing most of the Turkish publications regarding the matter, IT IS NOT NORMAL. When a state officially has a set position, its publications are not considered as neutral, it can not be, neither the publication of its diplomats, neither their archives. And I told you why, even if I had to not tell you that, it should be obvious. This is not about slandering a nation, this is about accepting history. The Turkish state act like a Sado-Mazo, it just take to say, OK it did happen, I apologize for all those years of denial, we will open our borders with Armenia and will try to set a discussion between the Azero-Armenian conflict. But until there are morons with your mentality in the Turkish government and fanatic nationalists stopping Turkeys progress, it is expected that they will never recognize it. Because for you it is a “Us vs them” game, it is about slandering a nation.

This interest and subsequent research is what qualified him to write the book. And Prof. Ataov was not "under orders" to "make things up" by the Turkish government. He's an independent researcher who came up with his own conclusions. Today, although retired, I understand he still gives conferences, and the Turkish government is not holding a gun to his head. Such ugly Armenian defamations.

ANSWER: Ataov was a political scientist, working as adviser for the Turkish government, had pay check from them, published diplomatic materials that are officially in their official websites. Ataov is less credible than Gurun, Ataov is a moron that pooped a so-called Jews massacres by Armenians, or a so-called Armeno-NAZI link. Ataov is a clown, if he were to be a Western scholar, and if he had to publish the same materials he had published in Turkey, he would have been considered as a racist. Those are not defamations, those are simply facts, telling Ataov is a fraud is insulting frauds.

Fadix is gum-flapping with his claims that no one can take seriously because he has compromised his credibility so seriously.

ANSWER: I did compromise my credibility, according to you, but we all know now, what your opinions worth.

Gurun took the number of Muslims and passed them off as Armenians?? What is Fadix basing this ludicrous claim upon?

ANSWER: The 702,900 was a single citation from the Ankara military archives, Ara Sarafian has documented that an examination of the record show that those were not Armenians but Muslim from the Russian front. Those refugees were moved, fed, vaccinated, and resettled in the region where its Armenian population was cleared. What Gurun did was to manipulate the archives, he did that, because in the record there was list of amount of money provided to be used on them, as if that amount was used on the Armenians. If the Ottoman was able to provide such lists for the Russian Muslim populations, why there is no such list for their own Armenian subjects?

And where did Gurun argue "since the Armenians did not exist, an Armenian genocide could not have occurred"? That is outrageous; the reader can refer to the online source (http://www.eraren.org/eng/armfile1.htm) to see about Gurun's adherence, or lack of, to the truth.

ANSWER: I addressed this issue, on my other answer which you did not answer and probably won't answer. His first chapter is about that, trying to show that Armenians did not exist.

Fadix loves to make charges, but Gurun's statistics are rock-solid.

ANSWER: I just gave above an example on how solid his statistics are, and this is one example among other things I have shown about him.

If there is an example or two where all the jigsaw puzzle nature of these numbers may not have been complete (at the time Gurun wrote his book, there was no Turkish Zoryan Institute to benefit by; it seems the author was on his own), is that a result of willful omission?

ANSWER: That's bullcrap, fabrication can never be justified, and lack of resources doesn't explain falsification or manipulation of statistics. Gurun was a fraud, you can do everything you want to try to picture him as credible, you won't be able to do so.

That's what a "manipulator" would do. Once again, Armenians love to charge others with the same unethical stunts Armenians are guilty of.... like the master manipulator Fadix, who presents the side that strictly supports his agenda.

ANSWER: Again, exposing his hateful racist character.

This is an alleged crime, and "premeditation" has not been proven. Unless Phony Fadix wants to pass off the Andonian documents as his proof. (In other words: pointing to Armenians massacred by bands or even with the connivance of corrupt local officials, or the bulk of Armenians who died of famine and disease when the bulk of Turks were dying of the same, does not prove the federal government was behind a predetermined plan to systematically exterminate. If the crime itself cannot be proven, then all claims of premeditation boils down to speculation, and speculation is not acceptable, particularly in a court of law.

ANSWER: Again, that the government has ordered those crimes is even not a question of debate, even Lowry at the end has admitted having come across a document in the Ottoman archives that strongly suggest a government implication in the massacres. There are more evidences of government implication in this cases, than Serbian authorities implications in the massacres in Bosnia. I have documented admissions by generals, and even your Nogales state that in his discussion with Turkish officials, they said that Talaat ordered those crimes. This is called premeditated slaughter ordered by a government to destroy a group. And again, and again. I repeat, ARMENIAN DEATHS HAVE LITTLE TO DO WITH Turkish DEATHS. Armenians were sent in the desert to die in mass, TURKS WERE NOT SENT IN THE DESERT. Criminals released from prisons were sent on them. WHERE AND WHEN CRIMINALS RELEASED FROM CENTRAL PRISONS WERE SENT ON THE TURKS? Face it, you can try to compare Turkish and Armenian victims, it is NOT comparable. And no premeditation is NOT speculation here, it is established, and the materials clearly show that the Ottoman authorities have decided to destroy the Armenian community and they did everything to destroy them.

The case was a murder trial, not a psychiatric session determining Tehlirian's sanity factor. And he was not insane. D.A.: "From a legal point of view, the case is quite simple. On March 15, 1921, the defendant shot and killed Talaat Pasha." The reason why there were no witnesses from the other side was because this two-day kangaroo court (where the Armenian financed "Tehlirian Defense Fund" was able to afford "Berlin's most famous criminal lawyers," as the NY Times reported) was a fixed trial. Otherwise, why not treat it as a murder trial, bringing in witnesses from both sides? (Reason, as Defense Attorney Werthauer clues us: "If a German court were to find Soghomon Tehlirian not guilty, this would put an end to the misconception that the world has of us..."

ANSWER: Again, you have that all wrong, the case was about Tehlirian and if his act was premeditated, and if he had all his mind when he killed Talaat. The reason why witnesses were not allowed from the other side was because Tehlirian did not deny having killed Talaat, witnesses of a crime are presented to support the theses that the person that is accused did or did not kill the person he is accused of having killed. And whatever or not Tehlirian entire family was killed was not as well a matter of debate. Why should there be witnesses claiming that the butchery of his entire family did not happen, when it obviously did happen? What you claim makes no sense what so ever, since the butchery was even not questioned.

Tehlirian's epilepsy (and we don't know when that got started, aside from Tehlirian's word, which is about as worthwhile as Fadix's) was irrelevant. The D.A. said, logically: "Did he have a convulsive attack at the time he committed the crime or immediately prior? If not, then he acted as a normal person."

ANSWER: One thing is true though, Tehlirian was not as insane as you are... Mr. Torque is trying to show that Tehlirian should have been sentenced for premeditated murderer, when he has witnessed his entire village population butchered, including his entire family, and that he has killed the person he thought was responsible of that murder. It takes an insane individual to think that someone witnessing such crimes would have committed a murder of the responsible should be sentenced for premeditated homicide. One wonder if there is any single Western Court of justice that would claim, that a Touti having witnessed the destruction of his villages entire population would have killed the person who he thought was the responsible, did it when he had all his mind. Tehlirian killed a mass murderer, one of the worst butcher the world has known. And this was even not a question of debate. And why don't you quote all the paragraph of Attorney Werthauer remark? Is it because even the Defense supported the theses that the Armenians were exterminated?

Two examples of Tehlirian's shifty character: The D.A. tells us Tehlirian had made a statement "the first time he thought of killing Talaat was fourteen days before the actual killing." Yet in the trial, Tehlirian indicated it was his visions that urged him to kill just the night before: "A fortnight before this deed the scenes of the massacre of Erzerum reappeared to me." This was the scene of his mother's ghost telling him if he didn't kill, he wouldn't be her son. Another example: he couldn't even vouch for whether his family was attacked by soldiers. He said "I was told that it was the Turkish gendarmes who opened fire on us." Was that the "evidence" that convinced Talat was to blame, relying on “Armenian Oral History,” and the fact that he was "told"? (And how could Tehlirian not know who the culprits were? Didn't he "eyewitness" his brother's skull getting split? Didn't he "eyewitness" his sister getting raped? Since the Turks' motive was supposedly to "annihilate" the Armenians, why wasn't the sister killed?)

ANSWER: Salak pooping another big s-t. Tehlirian did not concluded that Talaat was to blame because of what was said by Armenians. If you had actually read the transcript you would see how he concluded that it was Talaat. He has read the press during the military courts in the Ottoman, that Talaat was the one being the responsible of the massacres. That he had a shifty character is a none-issue, that he has contradicted himself is a none-issue. A fact remain, that his entire family was butchered. And the disgusting moron you are claim his sister was not killed? Who told you so? Where is his sister? Rape is a known crime of war, that you poop a disgusting remark like this only display your psychopatic tendency. Talaat was the responsible, this, there is no reasonable doubt, he was accused by the Military tribunal, many officials have testified and claimed that they were just following orders, Nogales himself report that Governor Reshid told him that he was following orders, and that Talaat was the responsible. The government complicity has even been confirmed by your Ataturk. So, Talaat was responsible(he had already been condemned to death by the military court, and Tehilirian decided to sentence him for what he was condemned), Tehlirian family was butchered, he has witnessed the massacres, that's it, that's all... he was cleared. I am against death penalty, but I consider Talaat as even lower than any animals at the bottom of the food chain, no one should have been condemned for having killed this animal, I would have killed him, and would have been proud of doing it. Tehlirian is a hero.

Contrary to what Fadix tells us in his desperate desire make anything unsupportive of his genocide "full of crap," Tehlirian was in full command of his faculties. The D.A. listed many examples, concluding "from all the evidence, we can see that, except for the times when he was suffering from epileptic attacks, he was a mentally competent person." Germany's "insanity clause," Article 51, did not apply to the defendant, according to three experts in the court. The only "evidence" alluding to Tehlirian's mental imbalance was his "divine interactions" of mother's ghost (urging her son to kill. I don't know how "divine" that was). Yet, where was the evidence that Tehlirian had these visions? These stories were provided by Tehlirian himself.

ANSWER: Pathetic @#$, how can anyone prove that they actually hallucinate something? Hallucinations are all about that, they can not be shared by others, they can't. Talaat was released, it was a court, there may have been mistakes, as any other courts, but I would trust German court system, and take their words before yours. Tehlirian killed a vermin, a danger for humanity, a lower than an insect, he sentenced it(not him, Talaat was not human), to what it was condemned to. You can poop and throw your PTP, it won't change anything. He was cleared, END of the story. Mr. Torque find weaknesses to support his theses in a court that actually existed, for him that court was not a real one, but at the same time poop a Malta Tribunal that never existed.

This was an error on my part; I apologize, and I thank Fadix for pointing this out. Actually, I did wonder about that passage, as I didn't think Hovannisian would be capable of writing such words, and they did sound vaguely familiar. The fact of the matter is, it took me an awfully long time to compose my reply to Fadix, and I didn't have the luxury he seems to enjoy, having every little item within reach. However, let's recognize the difference between accepting an account as the truth in good faith, and willful fabrication.

ANSWER: Like I said on my other answer, this is not the only wrong information you posted. It would be great from your part to report me from where this wrong information came from.

Fadix, of course, will go to lengths making you think the latter. The reader can decide if I'm coming across as dishonest or even stupid; I know Fadix is on his toes, since he is a "professional" at this game. It would be awfully stupid for me to try and pass off someone's words as another's (especially when both professors are major components of the genocide industry), even if I were of the inclination to do so.

ANSWER: I already said that I will not use your mistake regarding Hovannessian, since you have admitted your mistake. But I note again that it is not the first time you did that.

FADIX FUNNIES: We are not here to debate McCarthy's level of expertise. There are legitimate peers of McCarthy who are capable of such analysis, and Fadix is not whom we turn to to make such determinations. For example, McCarthy stated, "In Erivan Province (today the Armenian Republic)." That is not quite the same thing as the "falsifications and manipulations like the fact that the Erevan province is not present republic of Armenia." Actually, McCarthy is saying the Erivan Province is one and the same with today's Armenia, so why is our Zero Credibility friend attempting to make us believe McCarthy is stating the complete opposite?

ANSWER: You don't get it, do you? Let me make this clearer for you, Erivan province is not the current republic of Armenia, McCarthy claim it is, when it isn't, Erivan province borders were changed many times, with different delimitations, McCarthy claims that in 1910, Muslim were a majority, this is not so, because Armenia has lost many lands, all of those where Muslim were a considerable population, I have listed in my other answer many examples which alone explains above 400,000 of the Muslim losses which are only attributed to the fact that Armenia lost lands. Furthermore, McCarthy claims of population for the area is erroneous, his quota of Muslim vs Armenians for that region(outside of Ottoman territory) is derived from Turkish historiography, and are reported since then, to be nothing more than manipulation of data.

Furthermore, if McCarthy's "numbers are bullcrap from Turkish foreign ministry historiography," why does Zero Credibility refer to McCarthy's 1.7 million pre-war Armenian population, and his less-than-one-million survivors figure that even most Armenians are agreed on?

ANSWER: I was not referring to his numbers regarding Ottoman Armenians, but rather Caucasian Armenians, and his quota of Muslim vs Armenians in the territory that is now part of Armenia. See above, and see my other answer where I give list of lands lost. The rest, about the population of Ottoman Armenians, I have already discussed about that and shown that the median is 2 million, the number that should be used for Wikipedia.

Amazing that the Zero Credibily Weasel Beast would answer "bullcrap" to the above, when it can't be disputed the Russians conducted an ethnic cleansing and expulsion policy with their 19th century conquests, as McCarthy demonstrated, that I gave Hovannisian the credit for. (The fact that the authors were mixed does not take away from the accuracy of the history.) Simply amazing.

ANSWER: Azerbaijan exist, and many Muslim people exist, all those have self administrations in what we know of todays Russia, the Circassians are probably the worst victims, and I have already recognize the Russian genocidal policy against them. There are very credible works treating those issue, but McCarthys works are not among them. McCarthy is not credible, it is not because he does not agree with me, but because of many other things that have to do with his works in general. I have done a mistake in my analysis about him, and it is regarding Rize city, which was more about the Muslim, and here I admit that mistake. But over my 100 pages of review of his works, it is clear that McCarthy is not credible, his theses defy logic, his footnotes don't support what he present as facts, in other instances he uses dubious materials, and his methodology is plain wrong, and I am not making this up, the Stability theory of population requites the respect of four major point, and none McCarthy has respected, as Frédéric Paulin has established in his doctoral study. I can load this place with obvious examples of McCarthy lack of professionalism.

He compares this with... "a so-called international Zionist conspiration to get by the help of the Russians the Bolshevization of Germany"?? Does Fadix have any respect for the truth, whatsoever? He next offers a series of "concentration camps" that offers proof of "a clear premeditation of the extermination." If a relocation took place, they had to go somewhere. Once they got there, they couldn't have been allowed to leave, otherwise that would have defeated the purpose of the relocation. It was in these "concentration camps" that an Armenian vekil told Morgenthau the residents were doing well and making their livings.

ANSWER: Will you one day answer why those reaching the transit of Allepo and the city of Zor were sent back in the desert? The statement to Morgenthau as I have repeated countless numbers of times was BEFORE those same Armenians(from Allepo and the city of Zor) were sent back in the desert. So your claim here only show that the Ottoman did have criminal intentions.

Did Auschwitz inmates "make a living"?

ANSWER: Allepo was NOT a concentration camp, it was a transit camp, which is different, the Armenians in the concentration camps were making as much living as those in Ghettos were transferring foods back at forth.

Furthermore, if there was such intent for extermination, around two-thirds of the Armenians couldn't have survived.

ANSWER: A little over 1/3 survived not 2/3. and beside that, a losses of 1/3 of a population because of such a harsh decision from a government is alone a genocide.

Then we learn about the release of prisoners to form an Ottoman SS, but we don't get any source other than Fadix's say-so. We could be sure the source is Vahakn Dadrian, who has even less respect for the truth than Fadix, as unimaginable as that may be. "The commander of the Ottoman third army, Vehib called those members of the special organization, the 'butchers of the human specy'.” Fadix informs us. Nobody is arguing there were criminals, otherwise there couldn't have been a single Armenian massacre. Perhaps there were some even at the higher ranks, acting on their own, as Oliver North supposedly did with Iran-Contra.

ANSWER: No Salak, Dadrian is a researcher, he merely point to existing documents, Ottoman newspapers, the court and even memoirs of members of the special organization show that to be a fact. The Kemalists themselves had problems later with those criminals that they had to catch and sentence them again. Many were killed by a court that the Kemalists have set, another one in 1926. To think that those criminals would have been released from every corner of the Ottoman Empire without any government involvement is illogical and absurd.

The real question is this: according to Dadrian, Vehib saw to it some of these perpetrators were punished, during the war. But isn't Vehib an army commander of the Ottoman Empire? If the Ottomans were bent on extermination, how could Vehib had been allowed to prosecute these criminals?

ANSWER: That's not according to Dadrian; Vehib wrote that in the affidavit he presented. Vehib wrote: "When I came to my post in Erzincan, I saw that the Armenian population had vanished, no trace of the Armenians in the entire region. I immediately suspected that a major crime had been committed, but being a military officer I could not investigate out of curiosity. I was waiting for an opportunity, and that opportunity came."

"Armenian women and children were burnt alive in the village Tchurig, located 5 km north of Mush."

"In all the wooden houses of that village, Armenian women and children were crowded and burned alive. ... I saw their charred remains."

"One can hardly find in Islam a parallel to such atrocity and savagery."

"The massacre and destruction of the Armenians and the looting of their goods were the result of the decision of Ittihad ve Terakki. Behaeddin Sakir was the one who procured the butcher men in the IIIrd Army zone, directed and employed them. The government leaders submitted to Behaeddin Sakir's orders and directives. All the human tragedies, all the instigations and acts of depravity within the IIIrd Army operational zone were the result of his machinations. These involved the recruitment of men of the Gallo bird kind and gendarmes with bloodstained hands and bloodshot eyes. The atrocities were carried out under a program that was determined upon and involved a definite case of criminal intentions. It was ascertained that these atrocities and crimes were encouraged by the district attorneys whose dereliction of judicial duties in face of their occurrence and especially their remaining indifferent renders them accessories to these crimes."

Takvimi-i Vekay N. 3540, p.7

Those are his words not Dadrians, he later decided to punish some of those responsible, but this were his intention, while he clearly state that the Ittihadists had clear plan to destroy the Armenians.

Is there a single example of a Wehrmacht general being allowed to punish SS men for their crimes against Jews?

ANSWER: That's irrelevant, since Vehib punishment was a personal one, he hanged the responsible, what is relevant is that Vehib admitted that the decision came from the top. There were Germans in the army that refused to follow orders, one of them, Anton Schmid Kaserne.

FADIX FUNNIES: Indeed, that is a proper comparison between a Muslim population ruthlessly conquered by the Russians and an Armenian population who was rescued from Byzantine misrule and who were allowed to prosper for centuries.

ANSWER: In Turkey, nothing really remain of the minorities, only Kurds, and only because they were Muslim. And again, what happened centuries ago has no relevancy, what is relevant is that Armenians were victim of genocide. This Wikipedia entry is about the Armenian genocide, nothing more.

If "the concept of citizenship and allegiance did not exist" in empires that took other people's lands by force, should that mean Native Americans and Hawaiians of the United States are not loyal citizens? They were served a much rawer deal than the Armenians, and have been "under conquest" for a much shorter time than the Armenians.

ANSWER: Another peoples genocide doesn't justify the Armenian genocide. Wikipedia entry is about the Armenian genocide. And besides, the Natives don't pay tax, they have special rights because they were the natives. Do Natives in Turkey have those rights?

How peculiar that the Zero Credibily Weasel Beast states on one hand there was no Armenian rebellion, and on the other he asserts the concept of allegiance did not exist.

ANSWER: You are twisting what I said. There might have been isolated cases of rebellions, but this was not why the Ottoman government “relocated” the Armenians. I have established and documented, that every reported Armenian incidences happened AFTER the Ottoman government decided to “relocate” the Armenians. So the decision of moving Armenians was not taken as preventive measure. It was a final decision to destroy the Armenian presence from the heart of Anatolia. This is called genocide, by its wide definition and restrictive one. I have as well documented how irregulars were sent in 1914 to commit crimes and wait for any incidents to justify decisions taken against them.

Note how poor Fadix hysterically then goes on to tell us what is "racist." There can be no reasoning with his fanatical mind; he states the concept of allegiance did not exist on one hand, and on the other he proclaims that only "some" joined the rebellion... when in fact it was the bulk of the Armenian population who did. (By choice or by coercion. Let's not underestimate the power of the Armenian terrorist, equally spreading terror among their own.)

ANSWER: If the bulk of Armenian population revolted, GIVE ME ANY INSTANCES WHERE ARMENIANS WERE ABLE TO RESIST THEIR “RELOCATION” ANYWHERE IN THE HEART OF ANATOLIA??? GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE MORON, JUST ONE. THE EXCREMENT LIED ABOUT ARMENIAN WOMEN ALLEGEDLY MANUFACTURING GUN BULLETS, AS IF THE ENTIRE ARMENIAN POPULATION WAS IN AN OPEN REBELLION, WHEN NOT ONE INSTANCES OF RESISTANCE PRESEVENTING ANY “RELOCATION” HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE HEART OF ANATOLIA. THE ENTIRE BULK OF ARMENIAN POPULATION VANISHED, WITHOUT EVEN PREVENTING ONE CONVOY TO BE “RELOCATED.” WOW!!! WOW!!! THIS GUY MUST BE SUCH A BRIGHT INDIVIDUAL, UNDERSTAND HOW THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED. This schizophrenic must be one of the rare cases that could as well be classified as a psychopath.

And "most" of the Armenians were not killed after 1916. Tme and again, we get immense numbers of Amenian refugees, such as when Morgenthau wrote to General Harbord in 1919 about the 750,000 Armenian refugees "marooned" in Transcaucasia. Hundreds of thousands of Armenians moved back and forth with the Russians, some 150,000 dying of famine, according to Hovannisian in his 1967 work. (These dead were of course counted as "genocide" victims.) Where did all of these Armenians come from, if "most" were already killed?

ANSWER: Could you be kind enough to quote me the letter to General Harbord? This number is about as much as there was Armenians in Ottoman Armenia according to Ottoman statistics. It is an impossibility, and I am pretty sure that you are manipulating it, I need source, page etc. Beside that, it is true that there was many Armenian refugees in Transcaucasia, but it is as well known that Armenians in Transcaucasia who were NOT from the Ottoman Armenia WERE as well refugees. It is still funny you use Harbord, why don't you point the fact that Ataturk in September 1919 confirmed him the statistic of Armenians killed to be 800,000? coming to those countless numbers of Armenians that died of famine. Let quote German records of post war(after 1917), regarding those Armenians dying of famine on that region(Ottoman Eastern borders zone and Transcaucasia), and show you why those are included in the genocide.

Otto von Lossow, Major General, Military attache and, March 1916-September 1918, "German Military Plenipotentiary in Turkey"; German Representative at Batum Conference May, 1918. In Turkish military services, 1911-1914:

”The Turks have embarked upon "the total extermination of the Armenians in Transcaucasia also”

”After "completely encircling" (vollige Abschliessung) the remnants of the Armenian nation in Transcaucasus "The Turkish intention (Absichi) ... to starve off the entire Armenian nation, is evident"”

The Ottoman government encircled the Armenians there, and starved them as method of extermination.

Friedrich Freiherr Kress von Kressenstein. Major General, July 1914. Chief of Operations, Turkish General Headquarters; later Chief of Staff of Turkish IV, the Army in Syria and Palestine; September 1917, Commander in Chief of 8th Army, Palestine; June 1918, Chief of the German Imperial Delegation in the Caucasus:

”The Turkish policy of causing starvation is an all too obvious proof,...”

Do you want me to quote the rest of their reports Mr. Torque? Those are only about the starvation. Do you now understand what I mean when I say that the victims were not only Ottoman Armenians, many Armenians felt victim as well? Those are just few records.

It should be little trouble to check a page number out of only four volumes.

First I have to pay, to inter loan them again, there is no way I will loan four books just to check a page. I am merely asking you which of the four volumes it is, and it is obvious that you don't even know it, you probably fished that from the web. So please, again, be gentle to provide me the volume. I always provide you the informations you ask, do the same.

The story of "Men are Like That" goes well beyond 1905-06. Even if the book concentrated solely within the period Fadix misrepresents, note my original point only referred to the general Orthodox killing policy.

As I said, I don't even feel concerned when you shout orthodox, I am not one. The only thing you display here, is your rudimentary simplistic retarded backward mentality of Orthodox vs Muslim.

And look at how Fadix tries to give the impression that the Armenians were off the hook, because "both groups tried to exterminate eachothers."

ANSWER: No Salak, those are not my words, most of the work reported incidences are about his village in 1905-1906, this village now is part of Azerbaijan, and there are no Armenian living there. Here is what is said before the story about the incident is started: "I was in Azerbaijan during the Tartar War of 1905. I was working then in a little village near the Persian border. There were as many Tartars as Armenians in the village. Each group tried to exterminate each other with the result that each became besieged within its own section of the town. It was then that I showed my skill." A village, in 1905-1906, in Azerbaijan... thats the story which you quote all about. Now, let see what is said about the Ottoman Armenians, in the same book: "Turkey was sunk in barbarism. Turkish Armenians could not rise above the level of their masters. Under the government of the Turks there was no security for life or property from one day to the next. Armenians were oppressed and restricted in every way and often were victims of massacres at the hands of the Turks or the allies of the Turks, the Kurds and Tartars." another quote from the same book: "There is an art in survival, an art that Armenians have mastered through bitter experience. It constitutes the Armenians' defense against invasions and conquests and attempts at their extermination." Another from this same book: "When one remembers the length of time during which we Armenians have been an oppressed people, and knows our traditions, is it to be wondered that we should have developed something of a slave psychology which manifests itself in many disagreeable traits, or that we should possess -- perhaps I should say, be possessed of -- a heritage of fear and hate where Turks are concerned."

One can see how Mr. Torque manipulate and distort everything, trying to find any material one can find regardless of if it is relevant. This entry is about the Armenian genocide, not what happened in a village in Azerbaijan.

Like the Karabagh conflict in recent memory, Armenians were the aggressors.

ANSWER: Of course, it is in our blood, we are born aggressors and we die aggressors. It was my fault that Azerbaijan decided to kick the Karabagh Armenians out before the conflict, or as well the pogroms in Baku and Sumgait were my fault.

Ohanus Appressian clearly wrote the Azeri Turks only had knives and primitive weapons, in comparison to the Russian trained Armenians with superior arms. under such circumstances, and given the Armenian penchant for attack, who do you think had the "extermination" idea?

ANSWER: Salak, this is a village, a VILLAGE, do you know how many people lived in typical villages at that time in that region? Armenian population in that region now = 0. This was in 1905-1906 in the Caucasus etc. this Wikipedia entry is about 1915-..., and about the Armenian genocide. Even the book you refer to point to what I affirm. You poop that Appressian clearly wrote, I did know that he wrote the book, he must have been a miracle, since he didn't even knew English.

McCarthy admitted... these numbers were from his hat? Absurd! Is that McCarthy who actually admitted that (as usual, Fadix provides no support), or the ethically-challenged Weasel Beast spreading doubt in any way he can?

ANSWER: His table page 339, presents many figures that he calls “rough estimates” this attached to his figures of Muslim losses in the East that makes no sense whatever when considering that he writes on page 338 about the table: “The numbers in Table 30 are low estimates of Muslim mortality. Many Muslim dead were never recorded or even estimated. Moreover, in calculating the figures in the table, low estimates have always been chosen. Had high estimates been taken, the final figures of both mortality and migration would have increased by millions. (For example, Kemal Karpat has estimated that 2 million Caucasian Muslims were driven out, of whom 1.5 million survived.) 3 Deaths of Muslim soldiers and deaths of civilians who were not in war zones (from war-caused famine, disease, etc.) have not been included, even though they can justifiably be called the results of the same factors that killed those recorded in the table. (For example, Muslim population losses in Anatolia from 1914 to 1922 were actually almost three million; only 2.4 million are listed in the table because central and northern areas of Anatolia that were not in the war zone have been excluded.) With the exception of the figures for the period from 1914 to 1922, most of the Turkish soldiers who died in the wars are also not included. Soldiers from Anatolia, in particular, fought in all the Ottoman-Russian wars and died in great numbers.” This is called absolute numbers, he took those out of his hat, and he even suggest that those were minimum numbers, when he suggest for the Armenian losses as being maximum. The Entire chapter is supported by 4 footnotes on page 340. And here they are.

1. Counting as " Western Europe": France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, and Italy -- not the British Isles.

2. These are extremely rough estimates, but can be taken to be generally true. To arrive at the totals, the refugees and their descendants were assumed to have kept a constant population until 1878, then to have increased at a rate of .013 per year until 1922. Twenty percent was subtracted for deaths in the period 1912-22. These rates were approximately true for the Muslim population of the "target" areas of in-migration. No allowance was made for intermarriage of refugees and for the original population. The actual proportion of refugee descendants was obviously a greater number than indicated here, and much more than one-fifth of the Muslim population of Turkey had at least one refugee ancestor, but the increase in the total population would have been unaffected; i.e., if the refugees had not come, the original inhabitants would have married others and had children. (The availability of n extra persons meant that n times the fertility rate extra children were born.)

3. Kemal H. Karpat, Ottoman Population, 1830-1914: Social and Demographic Characteristics, Madison, Wisconsin, 1985, p. 69.

4. The refugees in the table add up to slightly less than five million, but many are surviving refugees, not the greater number who set out; internal refugees, those within the Ottoman Empire, are often not included.

In short McCarthy uses of statistics, is rather about trowing numbers than anything else.

Fadix does his patriotic best to maintain the notion of exclusive victimhood. The importance of presenting these numbers has to do with how the hypocritical Western world only cares about Armenian lives, when the Turks are not regarded as human beings.

ANSWER: McCarthy numbers can not be demonstrated, the reason why the Armenian cases is considered is because it is well documented, and not because Armenians are Christian and Turks are Muslim. Beside that, those that were really victim of genocide that could come close to the Armenian cases, were the Circassians, but their destruction was not done in such a short time. Most Armenians were destroyed in a little period of 2 years, that's why the intention of the government is more clear. It is not because in other years other people died that it means that there was no genocide. This entry is regarding the Armenian genocide.

The tragedy of this equation is that Western historians are so biased, very few works have been written about the Turkish/Muslim suffering. McCarthy's "Death and Exile" work was perhaps the first to explore the topic in detail.

ANSWER: The reason why there are few works, is because it is harder to document, while documenting the Armenian cases is pretty easy. There are interesting works that treat what Muslim have faced which are neutrals, McCarthys work is not one of them though.

If the aforementioned "genocide scholars" were genuine, they couldn't close their eyes to the unimaginable suffering of the Turks/Muslims, whose mortality over a century was numerically no less than the Jews of the Holocaust.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque pooping again, is Mr. Torque suggesting that the majority of Muslim died in the region? Your cases can not be well documented, even Ottoman records don't contain such claims. For one to claim something, he should be able to present many collaborative evidences that would support it. The Armenian cases is well documented, and the Armenian mortality per population per year is hardly recorded in human history. An entire population from their homeland vanished in such a short lapse of time. That things happened to Muslim does not relativise the crime, a genocide is not “relativizable.”

This is what reasonable folks, Fadix excluded, would call real racism.

ANSWER: No Salak, racism is not about religion, racism is about clear categorization of people. You are the racist one proposing that the West Academia are the real racists just because they do not adhere to your biased version of history.

And am I the only one who couldn't figure out what Fadix was rambling about, regarding the Balkan Muslims? The only door open to the expulsed Balkan Muslims, the lucky ones who weren't murdered, was the door of the Ottoman Empire.

ANSWER: The Muslim were kicked out from the Balkans, this is the differences with the Armenian cases, the Armenians were not kicked out from the Ottoman Empire, they were not permitted to leave, they were sent in the desert to die. Where in the Balkan, criminals were released from prisons by any governments to be sent on people that had no right to escape? As for the people who opened their doors. Many Balkan Muslim were relocated in Armenian homes, without their Armenian inhabitants.

the Karabagh discussion is another animal, but you can bet your bottom there's a lot more to the story than Fadix's weasel facts. ("you shout genocide for what happened in Xojali"? Can anyone see if I used the Genocide word up there?) "it was the Karabagh Armenians that have used legal Soviet means .." the master propagandist tells us. Does that include the one billion dollars in military aid the Soviets provided, including Soviet troop support?

ANSWER: Not here, but the other board Mr. Torque. As you said, Karabagh is another issue, this entry is about the Armenian genocide, but since you are the racist you are, you will try to use any materials regardless of how relevant they are.

As for Cyprus, what can we expect from this Zero Credibily Weasel Beast but to utterly misrepresent the real picture? On Feb. 17, 1964 the Washington Post reported that "Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide." Leader Makarios made statements through the years, indicating no less. The world didn't care, because the victims were Turks. Finally, in 1974, when the Greeks made good on their plans for "enosis" (union with Greece), the Turks on the island were doomed. The coup leader, Sampson, admitted in a 1981 Greek newspaper: ""Had Turkey not intervened I ...would have annihilated the Turks in Cyprus."

ANSWER: MORON, STOP THAT RETARDED “WORLD DIDN'T CARE BECAUSE THEY ARE TURK, WHEN HAS THE WORLD EVER CARED WHEN A GENOCIDE HAPPENED? DID THEY CARE WHEN OVER 800,000 TOUTIS WERE BUTCHERED? HAVE THEY DONE ANYTHING TO PREVENT THE MURDER OF OVER A MILLION CAMBODGIANS BY THE KMER ROUGE? DID THEY DONE ANYTHING AGAINST THE BUTCHERIES IN SIERA LEONE, WHAT ABOUT SUDAN? HAVE THEY DONE ANYTHING IN 1894-1897, IN 1909 IN 1915? According to Mr. Idiot, only Turks are human, and the world should always care only for them. Cyprus issue is well recorded, the US placed an embargo to Turkey after what happened. End of the story. It is amusing to see how an hypocrite you are with Cyprus vs Karabagh. One rule for the Turks, another for others.

On April 17, 1991, Ambassador Nelson Ledsky testified before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee that "most of the 'missing persons' disappeared in the first days of July 1974, before the Turkish intervention on the 20th. Many killed on the Greek side were killed by Greek Cypriots in fighting between supporters of Makarios and Sampson." The Cyprus Mail wrote in 1995: "So now the truth is out. We are not talking about 300 dead, or 45 dead, but 96 people killed during action in 1974 — and that is only from an initial examination of 487 files out of 1,619 examined at the Attorney General’s office." The number was subsequently downsized 1,619 to 1,493. That was ten years ago, and I don't know how many more “missing persons” were discovered dead and buried in South Cyprus. naturally, we can expect Fadix to support the "truth" of anti-Turkish propaganda, and to inflate the numbers in typical Armenian fashion.

ANSWER: Oh! Sorry, it was 1,500 missing people not 2000... Like if that would change the fact that those people are still missing and probably murdered, which would be a serious crime of war, to kill that much prisoners. If one visit Mr. Torque website, one would find as well a page on Cyprus.

He's weaseling again. Does Fadix believe two Americans sent to investigate eastern Anatolia for the purpose of granting "Near East Relief" exclusively to the Armenians were not pro-Armenians? Maybe he needs to be taught the purpose of the Near East Relief. And are we to believe in 1919 the travels of these two men were restricted in the chaos that reigned in that part of the region? No, Niles and Sutherland were reasonably free to go where they wanted, without escorts.

ANSWER: Mr. Torque pooping again, it is obvious that Mr. Torque did NOT read their report. Mr. Torque, their report was not even considered, it reported that Muslim villages were destroyed in Van, while Armenian ones were left intact, when even Nogales has reported the cannonading of Van Armenian sections, and how nothing remained. The numbers of buildings were obviously subtracted from one to the other. If you have the report, read the lists, you'll see by yourself. And no, they were not free to go where they wanted, they didn't even know the place, yet alone knowing how to situate themselves in Van. They were escorted by Ottoman authorities to report Armenians conditions there, and their reports was that the Armenian villages were all left intact, and that it was the Muslim that needed those relief. But Salak, even Ottoman documents doesn't show that Armenian villages were left intact. Or your Nogales is lying when he said the place was destroyed to the ground by canon, or it is those men that were mistaken, make you choice and pick.

I don't see how adding the words "thought" or "believed" signifies they were being tricked; anyone who prepares a credible report does so on the basis of what they have come to believe. (Fadix is so smart, he actually has the ability now to read Prof. McCarthy’s mind.)

ANSWER: McCarthy does claim it, he refer to the report and provide his list in Death and Exile, see by yourself, but I expect you to not even having read that book. And yes! They were obviously tricked, their tables are OBVIOUSLY wrong, if in those years Armenian villages were intact, why even the Ottoman authorities haven't denied that there was no Armenian left there? They were tricked by Ottoman authorities that were trying to get a hand on the relief destinated to the Armenians that they have butchered.

Claiming there were no Armenians left, as Fadix tells us Nogales claimed, is not the same as the evidence of Armenian villages being left intact. (Sequence: Russians leave, Armenians wreak havoc, until the Armenians leave as soon as the Turks are strong enough to come back.)

ANSWER: THAT'S THE THING, NOT ONLY NOGALES CLAIME THERE WAS NO ARMENIAN LEFT, BUT HE AS WELL PARTICIPATED IN THE DESTRUCTION OF THE ARMENIAN VILLAGES, BY CANON... THE DESTRUCTIONS WERE DONE BY CANON!!! ,YET IN THE REPORT NILES AND HIS FRIEND CLAIM ARMENIAN VILLAGES WERE STILL STANDING WHILE MUSLIM VILLAGES WERE DESTROYED. And you know what is the amazing part, the type of destruction they report could have been only done by canon. From Bitlis to Van. Did Armenians had dozens of canons as well? And which Ottoman or ANY documents show they had any? Their report was set by Ottoman authorities, the lists they present makes no sense at all. Besides, there was no Armenian left there to say anything about it. The Ottoman authorities were disgusting enough to even have an eye on the American relief destinated to Armenians, by setting a scene.

Here is what the investigators said in their report, in their own words: "At first we were most incredulous of these (horrible atrocities of every description upon the Musulman population), but we finally came to believe them, since the testimony was absolutely unanimous and was corroborated by material evidence. For instance, the only quarters left at all intact in the cities of Bitlis and Van are the Armenian quarters, as was evidenced by churches and inscriptions on the houses, while the Musulman quarters were completely destroyed. Villages said to have been Armenian were still standing whereas Musulman villages were completely destroyed" [U.S. 867.00/1005]."

ANSWER: “Said” to have been Armenians, and there are no way to confirm the destroyed villages were Muslim, NO WAY!!! A destroyed village, is just a devastated area. I will just present his records to show you the absurdity of the thing.

Van cities:

Muslim houses, 3,400 before wars, August 1919 3 left.

Armenian houses, 3,100 before wars, August 1919 1,170 left.

Bitlis cities:

Muslim houses, 6,500 before wars, August 1919 none.

Armenian houses, 1,500 before wars, August 1919 1,000 left.

Villages in Van (houses)

Muslim 1,373 before, 350 after

Armenian 112 before, 200 after(They say Armenian and mixed for others, that they concluded it after they realised it was impossible is another story)

Bayazit (houses)

Muslim 448 before, 243 after

Armenian 33 before, 33 after

I don't need to say why this is nonsense, but if you want to know, be glad to ask me. The “nonsense” nature of this report is exposed in the report itself. Let me quote the relevant part.

“When the Turkish army advanced at Erzindjan, Erzerum, and Van, the Armenian army broke down and all of the soldiers, regular and irregular, turned themselves to destroying Musulman property and committing atrocities upon Musulman inhabitants. The result is a country completely ruined, containing about one-fourth of its former population and one-eighth of its former buildings, and a most bitter hatred of Musulmans for Armenians which makes it impossible for the two races to live together at the present time. The Musulmans protest that if they are forced to live under an Armenian Government, they will fight, and it appears to us that they will probably carry out this threat.”

It was reported by(to them) them that Armenians actually managed to destroy ¾ of Ottoman population and 7/8 of the buildings. Do I need to continue, or the worth of this commission is clear by now?

"In 1919, there was no Armenian left in Anatolia." Since Fadix did not stress he made such a statement figuratively, we can get an even better idea about how he feels free in making incredible claims without adherence to the facts.

ANSWER: No Salak, when both men presented themselves there, the Kemalist movement was already engaged, it was August 1919, there was some pocket of Armenians left there and here, but that's all, so I don't see what is wrong to claim that the Armenians from the Heartland of Anatolia were destroyed, some remained in the borders which were still not delimited.

That is no generalization, but the Armenian M.O. documented in so many anti-Turkish sources it's beyond imagination Fadix would try to discredit them. (And of course when we say "Armenians" we don't mean every single Armenian, even though Fadix told us a few paragraphs ago that "the concept of ... allegiance did not exist.") Is our boy beginning to sound like a broken record?

ANSWER: Yes! It is generalization, you just confirmed in this posted I am answering to, and this in more than one place, that this is exactly what you meant. And no! It is not because I have said that allegiance did not exist like it exist in the concept of citizenship that I admitted anything. Don't put words in my mouth.

Oh, now Admiral Bristol has become legitimate. And here I thought he was a sinister pro-Turk, according to Armenian propaganda.

ANSWER: Bristol lied for what happened in the 20s, but not before, because if he had tried to deny it, the rest of his reports would have been discredited. And no, that he was a sinister pro-Turk can even not be debated, that he forced others to change their reports neither, those are well recorded and established.

Generally, "secret" reports cannot be considered as propaganda, it's true. Then why does Zero Credibility ignore the inter-governmental Ottoman secret reports that go wildly against extermination theories?

ANSWER: There was no such thing as secret reports telling to protect the Armenians, cipher telegrams from the Military archives in the zone of the Third Army is absent in everything that concerns the Eastern Armenians, while there are bunch of documents even for the Russian Muslim refugees. You just pooped secret reports because I referred to German secret reports. The cipher telegraphs, and telegrams as I have documented in my essay regarding Malta, were destroyed.

We've already referred to the bulk of German-Austrian reports coming from sympathetic Christians listening to sob stories.

ANSWER: No! Those are your POV, there is no reason that the Germans, who were Ottoman allies would make false internal reports for such critical informations, just because the Turks were Muslim. If the Germans were to find Turks religion as such a factor, they would not have allied with them in the first place.

most of the originators of these reports were diplomats or army chiefs-of-staff who were not on the spot.

ANSWER: That's a lie, internal reports were accurate informations, to think that the Germans during the war would rely on unreliable informations is to completely undermine German military genus.

The Tehlirian trial summed up what the defense witness General Liman von Sanders, the supreme commander, testified: General von Sanders testified explicitly as to the difference between the understanding behind the order given in Constantinople to deport the Armenians and the manner in which the deportation was carried out. The government in Constantinople had received word that the Armenians were thinking of betraying the government and plotting with the Allied Powers. It was decided that, as soon as the opportunity was ripe, they would attack the Turks from behind and create an independent Armenia. Thus, for defensive and military reasons, the government in Constantinople considered it necessary to deport the Armenians.

ANSWER: You are shooting again on your own feet, this above quote only indicate that the decision was taken before Armenians having done anything which could have explained the “relocation.” But again, Refik do admit that those propagandas about Armenians comploting with the allies were build in Istanbul to support the decision against the Armenians. And I have as well noted that Sanders was one of those present in the secret meeting of 1914 preparing the “relocation” of the Armenians. Intention, without material support has no place in history, history record “happenings.”

That has nothing to do with a "premeditated plan of eradication of its Armenian population." Since Vehib, the Third Army commander, was part of the Ottoman machinery, why wasn't he ordered to comply with the "genocide"? How could he have been permitted to punish some of the criminals he came across?

ANSWER: This is specifically explained in Nogales own book, which you quote, but have not read. The official Ottoman army in many zone were not those responsible of the massacres, since Talaat government got into the war by dissolving the Cabinet, it would have been impossible for them to get the entire regular army to comply. This is why, those leading responsible of the genocide were close to Talaat and Enver circle, General Halil was Envers uncle, Djevet was Envers brother in law etc. Officials were replaced by brutal officials, even in Zeytoon, where it is said that Armenians were revolting, the Governor was replaced, because the other was was allegedly too sympathetic with the Armenians. The Ottoman mostly relied on the irregular army and the second special organization and the officials they have placed in key regions. Vehib clearly recognize the Ittihadist involvement in the massacres, and his punishment of responsible was personal nothing more.

Would Rommel have been allowed to put Eichmann on trial?

ANSWER: The Internet is such a place, that complete ignorants can search names on the web to show that they know of what they are talking about. What you say here is “debile,” are you comparing the German ordered army with the Ottoman one? If Rommel had to do that, it would have been reported right away and killed. Vehib was in the Ottoman regular army, he had under his control thousands of men who fought on that zone, theoretically his words are above irregulars, so he could have managed to do what he did. The Germans had official unites, regular unites, they didn't needed to rely on criminals released from prison, the killing of Jews didn't required the same level of brutality, because it wasn't the bullets that were missing, neither the killing methods.

And I haven't read Halil's memoirs. We don't know what the context of his statement was. He might have taken it upon himself to set upon a murderous course. The little bit of his statement Fadix paraphrases can't constitute proof of high-ranked Ottoman culpability, since -- for one thing -- we would be reading his statement in every genocide article, instead of the purported Hitler quote.

ANSWER:There is nothing such as a Hitlers quote, Hitler was not dumb enough to leave any documents attesting to such decision. And Irving even in his work proposes that Hitler even disagreed with those decisions, I guess all deniers are alike, no matter what genocide they deny. "I have endeavored to wipe out the Armenian nation to the last individual." Those are Halil words, and I fail to see which circumstances could justify such a statement. He even claimed having killed 300,000 Armenians. Do you want that I cite the memoir and the page? And the only reason that those are not in genocide articles is because such evidences there are many, and such statements are only used to demonstrate that the genocide did happen, the recent publications regarding the genocide are not anymore about whatever the genocide happened or not, this is even not a question of debate.

That kind of confession is the smoking gun the genocide industry has been dying for, and clearly his statement does not implicate the Ottomans on top -- even if he was Enver's uncle.

ANSWER: Only for someone having an IQ under average would believe that generals like Halil, general Ilham, etc. Governors, the irregular army, the special organization, all will act without any order from the top, more so when many, even Governor Reshid, affirmed that the order was given by Talaat. According to Mr. Torque, those prisoners released from central prisons from everywhere in the Ottoman empire, were not released from an order coming from the government. All those reports from German official discussing with Ottoman officials about the destruction of the Armenians, were all forgeries, build by Germany to defame their own allies I guess.

Actually, it's fairly clear the ordinary Turks were generally at the bottom, and the non-peasant Armenians who made the economic wheels turn were generally at the top. "Turk," actually, was a form of derision in the empire.

ANSWER: Shooting on your own feet again. That's specifically one of the mandates of the Young-Turks government to correct, the epidemic situation of 1911, and the conference is another evidence. The Young-Turks were planing the nationalization of the economy, and the Armenians were the major obstacle against this plan. The Turkish historian Avioglu, claims that one of the two reasons why the genocide happened was specifically because of the governments plan of nationalization of the economy. The decision of “relocation” was proposed in February 1914, and as a tool to replace the Armenian predominance, even Edib admit this in her memoir.

And Fadix is becoming a real comedian as he now compares Armenian treachery against their desperate nation with Kemal's overthrow of a puppet government controlled by the Allies.

ANSWER: Better being a comedian than a clownt with severe debility a psychopathic racist s-t. While I never have tried to generalize regarding the Turks or slander them, the moronic donkeys excrement you are still ejaculate your racistic generalizing of a people that were victims of genocide, and are even as low as to revert the role of victims and aggressors. I am very harsh, but at least I directly slander a moron, and do not slander an entire nation like you continuously do.

And get a load of this guffaw-getter: "The Ottoman Empire was not a country." What was it, a giraffe?

ANSWER: No clown, it was an Empire, there is a distinction between an empire and a country.

If it wasn't so grim, we'd be rolling in the aisles from how the master propagandist, who only tells us one side of the story, attempts to instruct us on how to scientifically analyze history. Captain Norman: The English have "heard stories ad nauseam of massacres, of pillages, of the ravishing of women, but none of these stories have been corroborated by a single European eye-witness." Who are these "witnesses of the events" we have supposedly heard from?

ANSWER: There is no way to confirm if this report is accurate until we find it in British records, the copy from the The Institute of the Turkish Revolution, attached to the Languages and History-Geography Faculty of Ankara University, is the only that we know of the existence of. Sorry of my skepticism, but given that Norman in his “Armenia and the Campaign of 1877” , London, 1878, blame the Turks for having started the war, and his taking position for the Russians, I would have to see records of this manuscript outside of a faculty in Ankara to autentificate it.

Let's get this straight once and for all. There is no double standard employed. If the bigoted genocide witnesses derive from Westerners and missionaries who have it in for the Turks, they have a conflict-of-interest and are not legitimate.

ANSWER: The “Armenian Unmasked” material is about 1894-1897, the manuscript central theses is impossible, even Bliss which you have used, clearly refer to eyewitnesses, I have quoted in my series of discussions in the past, witnesses of the 1894-1897, and there were even admissions from Ottoman circles, including by Abdul Hamids own secretary. As far as 1915 is concerned, there isn't even any possible debate regarding the witnesses, Turks have witnessed it, there are Kurds, Arabs, Germans, Austrians etc... from every sides. There is no conflict of interest. The crime was reported, and we have witnessed the results, in the Heartlands of Anatolia,Armenian population=0, end of the story.

Those like Bartlett got their information from non-propaganda sources, have no reason to love the Turks, and have no conflict-of-interest; these far-too-few enlightened sources, in a world where the rest prefer to refer to the Turks as "unspeakable," are legitimate.

ANSWER: Bartlett was there, you were not, what's the point?

Now he's trying to debunk Capt. Norman. Prof. Ataov tells us who Captain Norman was: Captain C. B. Norman was an officer in the Royal Artillery who was sent to Turkey to observe the Ottoman-Russian War of 1877-1878. He finished a book, published by Cassell, entitled Armenia and Its Campaign of 1877 and printed in London. Later, he went to Indo-China to observe the French at war and also wrote on that. In his "Introduction" to the report, Captain Norman states that "the time has at last arrived when a true account of the Turco-Armenian conflict may be published". He underlines that hitherto the British have had "only the Armenian version of the disturbances embellished with the hysterical utterances of their English confrères." He says that "the Osmanli (Ottoman) has yet to be heard." Suddenly, Fadix's mysterious propaganda machinery has somehow come up with the unknown details of the life of this century-old account's author. It's scary!

ANSWER: Right, you're right, I have copypasted my wrong answer from a mistake I did on the other forum. Since denialist trash are repeated, I usually copypast what I have written previously to save time, and since I copied the wrong stuff in the past in the other forum, I listed the wrong answer. But still, since I have consulted my references, I provided my answer about Norman above.

And how could Norman be "representing the British public relations" when the British were clearly very unfriendly to the Ottomans during this period?

ANSWER: Made a mistake, if you look deeper, in my answer I don't name Norman, because the wrong answer to the wrong person was made.

This is how the Armenian propaganda machinery attempts to debunk Admiral Bristol, by the way. He was in it for the profit. (Not unlike Prof. McCarthy and his mysterious "grants.") That is, until Bristol turns useful and declares, "what was done to the Armenians a deliberate premeditated government plan."

ANSWER: As I have noted previously in my answer, Bristol implication in Chesler concessions, or forcing witnesses to change their version in the 20s is well documented, if doubt there is, I can document even more. This is not Armenian propaganda machinery, it is recorded, and those that have recorded it are even not Armenian in the first place.

Oh, defintiely this one book must override all of what has widely been recognized as Ottoman tolerance. "Ottoman tolerance is a myth." It's getting hard to refrain from stating Fadix is nothing less than a fool, sneaky and clever as he is.

ANSWER: If Ottoman tolerance isn't a myth, where are the Arabs, the Armenians, the Greeks, the Assyrians etc. I guess they were abducted by a spaceship.

Fadix cites examples of injustices against the Armenians, like they were the most taxed. They were also among the most wealthy, if not the most wealthy. That's what we call "progressive" taxation.

ANSWER: Another Torquian poop, talking about a thing which he has no clue of. Clown, how the Kudish tax is about progressiveness, this is not about making more money therefore paying more, because the same % taxation represents more. An Armenian and a Turk making as much money, an Armenian would pay much more taxes, the reason why Armenians were paying more taxes had little to do with the fact that they were making more money. I already clarified that, but you still repeat it.

We have other examples, but Fadix is using propaganda sources, and he may as well be talking about Ottoman "harems."

ANSWER: Where did I mentioned or suggested this? I am not Mr. Torque trying to find anything to slander a nation, my goal was to document the genocide, and the only times where I got out of the subject was because you did that, and I had to answer.

In 1839, The Gulhane Constitutional Reforms offered several life improvements, such as establishing a just tax system, making the courts public, abolishing unjust punishment; the Sultan declared that the reorganization would be applied to all subjects of the state, without distinction between Muslims and non-Muslims. In 1856, the Imperial Reform Edict, confirmed the decrees, including "The inviolability of the right to life, property, and honour granted to every subject without disciminating on the basis of religion or sect, according to the Gulhane edict."

ANSWER: You are mistaking the Government overall plans, with the double taxation system in the east. The Armenians were paying the Kurdish taxes, that's what sparked the tragic events of 1894. As for the public courts, true, but how many cases in the East were presented in such courts vs the Islamic court where Armenian witnesses were not allowed? Government policies and applications of such policies are different things. And besides, I don't need to remind you what Abdul Hamid did with those laws once he took power. Do I?

Let's compare with French treatment of the Algerians in 1877. Algerians: disallowed to own arms. Armenians: allowed. Algerians: disallowed from government posts. Armenians: allowed. Algerians: disallowed from moving around the country without permission. Armenians: allowed. Algerians: disallowed from being citizens unless they converted to Christianity. Armenians: the Turks restored the Armenian Patriarchate centuries ago, after it was taken away by fellow Christians. Armenians prospered for centuries, in key societal positions, while allowed to maintain their religion. Remember, we are comparing the "Unspeakable Turk" with the "enlightened" and "civilized" French, who decimated the indigenous population from over four million in 1830 to less than 2.5 million by 1890.

ANSWER: I have already addressed this issue in the talk page. Why do you post the same thing in different places?

The answer should be obious, when the topic is Fadix's wanting to make us believe the Armenians were oppressed. Were Soviet-Armenians allowed to travel freely? Even Tsarist-Russian-Armenians were not granted as many freedoms.

ANSWER: Soviet Armenians were not allowed to travel freely, because of the Communist system, like in Cuba, the Communistic oppression doesn't make of the Ottoman government tolerant. Besides, Tsarist Armenians were not as much oppressed as those in the Ottoman Empire, you just have cited one reference which was out of context to support it.

"the Muslim of the East ...didn't needed to respect the Penal Code"??? I suppose Zero Credibility would have us believe the Ottoman government desired the Muslims to have total anarchy. Furthermore, there were periods in history when Armenians migrated in large numbers, acting pretty nomadically.

ANSWER: Yes! There was anarchy in the East, and it became worst at the end of the Balkan war. The irregular police of Abdhul Hamid was never really disarmed by the Young-Turk government, those were Kurdish Bazu... and irregulars, and they posed much more danger to the Eastern stability than all the Armenian so-called revolutionaries put together. The Kemalist regime was known to be the second most lethal system, because of all those guns in circulation. As for Armenian migration... what is the relevancy here, I already addressed that issue.

Fadix doesn't appreciate what an Armenian living outside the Ottoman Empire, Migirdich B. Dadian, wrote, making the basic point that Armenians had no problem with the State,

ANSWER: Are you referring to his work ‘La société Arméniene contemporaine’ ? That work was published in 1867, after the government new reforms, but this has nothing to do with what Abdhul Hamid has done with those reforms. The genocide was in 1915, the reference you point out was even not written during Abdhul Hamids reign.

that they could administer their internal affairs almost independently, without the Government intervening in the decisions they took concerning themselves, and that all this was taking place without the interest or the support of any foreign country.

ANSWER: Again, that followed the reforms of the 1850s, but it does not represent the Abdhul Hamidian system, neither what happened with the Armenians in 1915.

In other words, debunking his silly claim that "Ottoman tolerance is a myth." The privileges granted the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire were nothing less than a landless autonomy.

ANSWER: Those reforms didn't lasted more than 2 decades, an article regarding the Ottoman reforms of the 1850s and 1860s has little to do with the Abdhul Hamidian regime, and the Young-Turk policy.

This doesn't mean the Armenians were getting a free ride; naturally, they were subject to taxation. I don't know what propaganda source he got his weasel fact about "double taxation," but the Gulhane reform applied a just tax system to all, regardless of religion.

ANSWER: The Kurdish tax was a known phenomenon, it is not a myth, I have documented it from Ottoman sources, Sassun conflict in 1894 sparked when the Armenians refused to pay the Kurdish tax, if there was no Kurdish tax, why than the irregular Kurdish “police” was sent on the Armenians when they refused to pay this tax, if it did not exist. Denying or questioning such facts affect only your credibility. The reforms of the 1850s, has little to do with what Adbhul Hamid instored, and how he has thrown the Ottoman constitution that was supposed to be reintroduced by the Young-Turks..

The relevance, as the Weasel Beast well knows, is that there was no reason to exterminate the Armenian people; most everything was hunky-dory, until the greedy, fanatical Armenian leaders ruined the Armenians' good life.

ANSWER: “Fanatical leaders” just don't pop up out of the blue sky, for one to have a causes, this causes should exist in the first place, for one to have revendications, there must be things to reventicate. The Ottoman government took the decision to destroy the Armenians, the blame is in its hand, no one else.

The reforms in 1839, confirmed in 1856, is not "propaganda," it is "history."

ANSWER: A reform is on paper if there is no act, Abdhul Hamid has thrown the Ottoman constitution, and that is another fact, few decades of changes until Abdhul Hamid came to power has no relevancy on what concerns 1915.

Surely we don't have to explain the meaning of "propaganda" to one who thrives on the word. When this history is confirmed by Armenians living outside the nation, only a dishonorable propagandist would stoop so low as to label it "propaganda."

ANSWER: The work was published BEFORE, Abdhul Hamid regime, so your uses of it IS propaganda, and IS about twisting facts... as if the man was talking about 1915, when the work doesn't even contain Abdhul Hamids regime.

If this “double taxation” bled the Armenians dry, there could not have been any wealthy Armenians; and surely the honest Armenian chroniclers of the period would not have written as lovingly as they did. (Where exactly is the Ottoman law that stated Armenians must be taxed doubly because they are infidel Christians?

ANSWER: You're such an ignorant, The letter is about 1867, and the new government reforms, we are here talking about 1915, the letter doesn't even include Abdhul Hamid regime, and you want to apply it for 1915. The Young-Turk was supposed to reestablish the constitution, but they realized that their new policies were impossible because of the Armenian presence. During the war, they have realized that they will lose the Arabian part, and the Armenian zone will be the only left, which means that after the war Armenians would have probably controlled economically the entire Empire, and their destruction was the only way to revert this situation. That Armenians were the economical power is not a question of debate, that they were the major obstacle to the nationalization of the economy is not a question of debate either. The situation is much more complex than your narrowed knowledge, you can not expect to know about the situation by only fishing quotes from the Internet.

Especially in the 19th century, with all the European protectors of Armenians, ready to intervene at the slightest sign of unfairness to Christians.)

ANSWER: And when did the European intervened? Tell me when? Did they left Russia taking Ottoman Armenia in 1878? Did they stop what happened from 1894-1897? Did they stop 1909? Did they stop what happened from 1915 and later? I have shown you that Europeans did not take Armenians positions, they always closed their eyes on war crimes, no genocide has ever been prevented by the West in the last century. Europe could not have afforded to take Armenians position, and I explained why, in the 20s, they did everything to hide what has happened under the carpet and even tried to demonize the Armenians to justify their decision to let them off.

As for the concept of citizenship not existing for an empire, certainly there are differences with the democratic nations we know today. What else do we call the inhabitants of empires.... slaves?

ANSWER: You fail to still understand what makes an Empire, an Empire... there is no such thing as tolerance in an Empire, an Empire goal is to invade, wage war, destroy nations, it's goal is power, POWER. People do not decide to be part of an Empire, they are forced in, that's why I am telling you that there is no allegiance, if you weren't a hypocrite, you will try to apply your standard on everything. The Turks have made a Turkish nation out of the Ottoman Empire, from your same logic they have backstabbed Kurds and other minorities, and have Backstabbed the Ottoman Empire. Just for a moment, ignore your prejudices, even though I think it is impossible for you. Think about what I just said.

Perhaps with some empires that came close, as with the French empire's treatment of Algerians. or the British empire's treatment of Indians. Under the Ottoman Empire's fair "millet" system, the wealthy Armenians at times became more masters than slaves.

ANSWER: Ottoman Empires system wasn't more tolerant than the French Empire, neither the British Empire, the French Empire wasn't responsible of the destruction of Algeria, Algeria still exist, the Ottoman empire destroyed all other nationals to preserve a Turkish predominances, if there was a genocide that could be compared, it is what happened to the aborigines in America, but those that survived have special rights now, one of the recognition of their statue, and as reparation.

I guess Fadix just proved the Armenians enjoyed a landless autonomy after all! How could anyone flourish under such freedoms if the ones in control didn't show tolerance?

ANSWER: No, that is not tolerance, if the Ottoman empire was to prevent Armenians to do that, the Ottoman would have been in a worst shape, for the economy to run, the Armenians were needed. As Fatma Müge Göçek write in her work: “Rise of the Bourgeoisie, Demise of Empire: Ottoman Westernization and Social Change.” It was a consequences of the eighteenth century shift in Western trade. Armenians being in the East, they controlled as Göçek writes: “the trade routes leading to Persia, Central Asia, and India and became active in banking.” When that started, the Armenians per population represented more than they represented in 1915. If the Armenians were not to make run the East, it would have affected the Ottoman economy. You are making this sound as if it was tolerance rather than economic necessity.

Why would the Ottomans further weaken themselves during desperate wartime by ridding themselves of this valuable national resource... the ones who were so indispensible, Oscanyan stated, "without them the Osmanlis could not survive a single day"?

ANSWER: The German and the Turks were supposed to replace the Armenian predominance as Edip write in her memoir.

It was a simple question. It is not surprising Fadix refrained from presenting an answer. The Young Turks were even more liberal in the beginning. Every time the Armenians were granted further freedoms, they gained increasing license to practice their treachery... the treachery that was well in place from previous generations, particularly after the formation of their revolutionary groups. It was the Armenians from outside the country that instigated the peaceful Armenians from within. Woe be it to anyone who asks for the great know-it-all weaseling propagandist to act as one's teacher.

ANSWER: Another slanderous and racist comment from Mr. Racist. The reason why I did not answer you is because only by asking such question, it shows that you have done nothing other than trying to fish quotes from the web which would support your theses, you have no background regarding the topic, no knowledge. Those things are pretty well documented. As for your yet another disgusting answer, I guest the single digit IQ you are, believe that people will just start rebelling for fun or for no reason, when they hell know how it would be answered. As I have documented in this post, it is clear that your theses makes as much sense as the way your mind works.

Clair Price made the entirely reasonable conclusion, based on genuine history, that "It does not seem reasonable to assume that this moment, of all moments, would have been chosen by the Enver Government to take widespread measures against its Armenians unless it was believed that such measures were immediately necessary."

ANSWER: Clair Price wrote that in “The rebirth of Turkey” the same year of the declaration of the republic. The work had only as aim to revert the American public opinion. The work entirely regurgitate Ottoman government claims and apologistic rhetorics, in fact, all the documentation in the work is based on those same claims that were used to justify the decision against the Armenians. Even the claim that Armenians seized Van, when there was no any single witnesses including Nogales that have claimed that in Van the trouble started because Armenians have seized the place. Was that person on the spot? No, that person had his @ss sit on America writing a book justifying why the Armenians were left out and America has signed contracts just three days after the declaration of the republic. You're the same shooting and asking for witnesses, so stick with your words and stop referring to people who were not there. When I present witnesses you don't trust them, but you have no problem using a material that was only published for apologist reasons.

Generally, Western documentation that doesn't treat the Turks as inhuman, can be trusted. A historian doesn't have to "be there" to be legitimate. If a historian or knowledgeable author does not support Fadix's fanaticism, then it's time to bring out the smear campaign tactics. At least Fadix restrained himself from making a charge like Clair Price working for "public relations to secure the Ottoman loans," or that Clair Price had a Turkish spouse.

ANSWER: A work should be supported by documents, Clair work was to document the rebuild of Turkey, American investments etc. you don't expect that person to write about the destruction of the Armenians in a work regarding the rebuild of Turkey that was made possible by that destruction? You cite one work, but yet, I have never used such books myself, there are by the hundreds... for each person you find, there are over a hundred saying the complete opposite. When even Bristol doesn't deny what happened in 1915, for Clair to make such charges, they should have come from somewhere, if not of the Western Materials, including your Nogales support what that person claim, obviously it was coming from the originators of the propaganda. There is nothing magical in that. Only the title of the book alone and when it was published, is enough evidences for what I am saying here.

The point is being accused of committing an act and actually committing it are two different things. That's why we need that bothersome thing known as "evidence." And Fadix's response has nothing to do with the answer to Fadix's first ridiculous point. Is this any way to carry on an intelligent discourse, with a fanatic who knows no rhyme or reason? He gets backed into a corner and creates a whole new attack strategy.

ANSWER: Your above comment has no substance at all, the only claim is that I have no reason and that I change strategy. But that's obviously wrong, while I am the one sticking to the point, you change the entire subject. But I am quite habituated to such methods used by denialists.

And who accused the Ittihadists, and when? If there is documentation during the war (not the 1919 fake courts) where the military complained of the "Armenian extermination plan" taking away needed resources, that would be significant. Of course there is no such evidence.

ANSWER: The military courts are not fake, the conclusions and documents concords with tGerman, Austrian and many other records, they were corroborated. As for the military complaining about using the resources of war, Sanders, which you have quoted, actually just said that in his work, and I have pointed to that above.

I've often wondered how Fadix manages to come up with passages from books no ordinary person can easily get their hands on. Now I am getting the idea the ethically challenged weasel simply makes things up. I don't have much of a library, but I do own the 1985 St. Martin's Press original, which has been faithfully reproduced in the online version. (The book was not a big seller, and I doubt there was a second printing, at least not years ago.) The reader can go to http://www.eraren.org/eng/armfile5.htm, and hit the "Find" function of your browser (Ctrl+F in IE), and type 371/9158. That will take you to page 209, where the first paragraph begins with "Thirdly, a temporary law" (after a few lines on the top of the page) and ends with the paragraph beginning with "On 18 May (5 May 1331." there is nothing about the relocation decision being "final and terminal." I've been withholding myself from stooping to Fadix's vicious level, but here is a case where we can justifiably conclude Fadix is a "liar."

ANSWER: Your imbecility is beyond human comprehension Mr. Torque, DID YOU actually READ THAT PAGE??? IF YOU DID, I AM SERIOUSLY QUESTIONING YOUR INTELLIGENCE. This specifically shows that the decision of the “relocation” was final, read above and read the law... Shall I quote it for you? You claimed that the Armenians were allowed back, when according to Gurun and to what he refers to, the decision of “resettling” was FINAL... Armenians were to be sent another place to LIVE there... and NOT to return back. But of course we alk know how credible this law was, it was actually used for the regular army, as a justification, while there was another set for officials, and for the special organization. Anyone is free to read the page in question, and see by yourself if in fact I lied.

Now that we're getting a better idea of Fadix's tactics, not that more proof was necessary, the 5,000 Armenians did not constitute the Armenians who lost their lives in Cilicia/Adana. These were the famine losses that took place among those who accompanied the French on their retreat, no doubt included among "genocide" victims among dishonest Armenian parties like Fadix.

ANSWER: Your above post is incomprehensible. You presented the 5,000 figure, which was nonsense, and now I wonder what you are attempting to do, are you finally admitting that 5,000 is a clear underestimation? BTW, what the Armenian quarter in Marash was burned? Again?

In his mad zeal to show exclusive victimhood for his people, now Fadix is in a race as to who suffered more, the Armenians or the Jews. Incredible! Is this a contest?

ANSWER: I did that? How? Suffering in such situation is not quantifiable, and I have never done what you claim.

And note the point he's singling out as "bullcrap" is the number of Jewish victims. The POINT was that the Jews could not possibly have called on the Nazis for help, assuming Israel was established (and in danger of attack by her neighbors) after WWII, with a weakened Nazi state still in existence. Yet, Armenia called on the Turks for help against the Soviets. Is that conceivable?

ANSWER: You're out of touch from reality, I wonder what you are even debating about. If that is relevant with the genocide, tell me how... if you are gonna show me any references about that go ahead... until then, I have no idea of what you are babbling about.

To stress this very important point: If the Turks really embarked on exterminating the Armenians, is it CONCEIVABLE Armenians would call on such murderers to rescue them only five or so years later?

ANSWER: Again, I have no idea exactly of what you are babbling about, over 5 years ago, in 1921, Soviets sent 6,500,000 roubles, 33,275 rifles, 57,986,000 bullets, 327 machine guns, 54 canon, 129,479 canon ball, 1,500 sabres, 20,000 gas mask and many other military equipments to the Ottoman Empire and have comploted with the Bolshevics. If those are the important points you can come with, I wonder which ones are not the not so important ones.

As a minor point, even though it's not our topic, where did Germany's Jews go, once evacuated? (Discounting the many who were allowed to emigrate in the 1930s; hundreds of thousands of Ottoman-Armenians also immigrated before WWI began.) My knowledge is the majority went to concentration camps like the rest of the Jews. How, then, could "most of the Jews of Germany (have) survived the Holocaust"? Talk about "bullcrap."

ANSWER: You have no idea of what you are talking about, don't you? About 30,000 Jews were intermarried with German, most of them survived the Shoah, after the incidences of the 30s, many Jews left, from those remaining, many had the chance to be “kicked out” while the Germans still were taking of the Jews evacuation. The proportion of Jews that survived, German Jews were among those that survived the most when compared to Austria, or the Polish Jews. And no, hundreds of thousands of Armenians didn't left before the war, when Abdhul Hamid regime was reverted, many Armenians who left the Ottoman came back, some later left, but all for all, you can hardly compare it with the German Jews that were able to escape Germany. As for your knowledge, your knowledge regarding the Armenian genocide is very limited, one can imagine your knowledge regarding the Shoah.

No, Armenians were not only sent to desert areas. Some Armenians were relocated all across the land, as the idea was to integrate them into towns where they would constitute no more than 10% of the town's populations.

ANSWER: Where are those 10% Armenians? Show me?

Moreover, houses were supposed to be built for these people. I'm sure in the desperation of wartime, this was not a priority for the bankrupt Ottomans, and the Armenians had a horrible time.

ANSWER: What a dumb claim, according to you, the decision of “relocation” was taken because Armenians rebelled, according to you houses were supposed to be build. What kind of BS is this? If the decision was taken during the war, there could possibly not be any such policy of building houses during the war, if plans of construction of houses were made after the war. Where are they? One can not only claim, history only record happenings. The same goes with your so-called Armenian revolution. You claim that if the decision taken exgainst the Armenians was to not be taken, the Armenians would have. But would have is not happenings... they are only “if” and not what did happen.

However, the relocation orders spelled out in Gurun's book are genuine, and they were internal orders, and can't be defined as "propaganda," according to Fadix's own rule he applied above.

ANSWER: The relocation order was not internal, the order was not for internal consuption, it was practiced openly and made public... one should not confuse public orders with internal laws. Any public orders in such circumstances would only be propaganda materials.

Readers can go to that page mentioned above, when Fadix made up his deviation from truth. As far as the "desert," there were some locations that were lousy, and some that were pretty delightful.

ANSWER: Sure, yeh sure, like the City of Zor? But those were sent back after they actually reached the destination. For one to have a destination to go, the destination should be reachable, most died, and if they did not, were sent back... And here again, those are supposition, history record happenings. Where are those Armenians? What I proposes is not only supported by documents, but actual observations as well.

As Admiral Chester (another who has been vilified by the Armenians; he purposely lied, you see, because he was out to make a buck, like Captain Norman, above) put it in his 1922 NY Times article. "Turkey Reinterpreted": "Those from the mountains were taken into Mesopotamia, where the climate is as benign as in Florida and California, whither New York millionaires journey every year for health and recreation. All this was done at great expense of money and effort, and the general outside report was that all, or at least many, had been murdered."

ANSWER: Admiral Colby M. Chester and his “Chester Project” and the “Chester Concession” obtained from Turkey. Chester father and son were not present, neither witnesses of the events of 1915-1917, where most of the massacres happened. In fact, Chester “report” had as aim to support the establishment of American companies, and the achievement of the railway in the East, to exploit the Mosul oil field; and was NOT based on an investigation to verify if the massacres in fact happened. One of the contracts between the Turkish government and the Chesters (father and son), was that they will try to “correct” the Turkish image. What the Chesters had as exchanges? Does it only stop with the exploitation of the railway and the oil field?

"…the American promoters of the Chester lines are granted exclusive rights to the exploitation of all mineral resources, including oil, lying within a zone of twenty kilometres on each side of the railway lines. The Bagdad Railway mortgaged the revenues of Imperial Turkey; the Chester concessions mortgage the natural resources of Nationalist Turkey. The Ottoman-American Development Company, furthermore, is authorized to carry out important enterprises subsidiary to the construction of the railway lines and the exploitation of the mines aforementioned. It may, for example, lay such pipe lines as are necessary to the proper development of the petroleum wells lying within its zone of operations. It is permitted to utilize water-power along the line of its railways and to instal hydro-electric stations for the service of its mines, ports, or railways. It is required to construct elaborate port and terminal facilities at Samsun, on the Black Sea, and at Youmourtalik, on the Gulf of Alexandretta." (Turkey, the Great Powers, and the Bagdad Railway : A Study in Imperialism, by Edward Mead Earle ; Macmillan & Co., 1924, pp. 341-342 )

It takes a little satisfaction for a denialist to support his claims by using as source an individual that was neither present during the mass extermination of the Armenians, neither an unbiased investigator, but rather a businessman that was able to have a concession from the then Turkish Nationalist power by as exchange promoting Turkey and denying its crimes. Beside that, George R. Montgomery answered to Admiral Colbys “Turkey Reinterpreted” published in the New York Times monthly magazine Current History on its September 1922 issue, by an article published in the same magazine in its October issue of the same year, titled: “The massacres of Armenians in 1915: A refutation, from authentic sources, of the allegation that the Turks were not guilty of wholescale slaughter of the Armenians – Testimony of German and Turkish eyewitnesses of the crime.” In this article, Montgomery answers point by point Chesters allegations by referring to Turkish and German sources to refute Chesters entire argumentation. Later on, Chesters claims being refuted, his son, Arthur Tremaine Chestler, in his fathers business, came to his defence by writing an article titled: “Angora and the Turks” in the February, 1923 issue of the same New York Times magazine, Current History. Where he regurgitates the entire denialist theses by subtitling his article: “Armenians Deported for Treachery” by recycling Esat Uras allegations.

Fadix will no doubt come up with "evidence," but keep in mind how these relocated people were living, from Morgenthau himself, straight from the mouth of an Armenian representative, Zenop Bezjian: "I was surprised to hear him report that Armenians at Zor were fairly well satisfied; that they have already settled down to business and are earning their livings; those were the first ones that were sent away and seem to have gotten there without being massacred. He gave me a list where the various camps are and he thinks that over one half million have been displaced." Armenian propaganda will have us believe these people were ready for the ovens.

ANSWER: As I have noted, the Armenians in the city of Zor left in 1916 back in the desert, 21 convoys left. What you cite here is just documenting that the Armenian genocide did happen, because if the Armenians were to be resettled, why did the Ottoman government sent them in the desert after they realized that they were doing well?

I'm not well versed in this area. I have an open mind, and I'm not ruling anything out. If there were REAL evidence of extermination, I would never perpetuate a lie. Unfortunately, I'm familiar with the fact that my adversary is highly subjective and, contrary to the vicious charges he repeatedly makes upon others, is the one prone to falsify. If he got this "evidence" from those such as Vahakn Dadrian who have only the purpose to "prosecute," then we are hearing only one side of the story.

ANSWER: You are lying here, it is obvious that you will not change your mind, you just participated here to sell your trash. If what you claim was to be true, you would not have considered the genocide as a slander for your nation, you would not have used references going as back as the Roman. You just have tried to slander Armenians the worst way possible, when I did nothing such with the Turks. While I try to document the genocide, you try to slander an entire nation by generalizing, and putting them all in a pack.

What I do know is that if Fadix’s version is as cut-and-dried as he would like to make us believe, then that would constitute genuine evidence. But there is no evidence. So what we have are theories.

ANSWER: You have admitted relying mostly on the Internet, and yet you claim there are no evidences, if you were to really research the matter, you would realize how this claim fall short. Those are not theories, the Armenian genocide has undeniably happened, and this you can't do anything about it. The reason why you can't confront me, the reason why more Turkish intellectuals start to recognize it, is because the evidences are abound.

Theories like “Pan-Turanism,” and Ottoman SS men travelling town-to-town implementing secret extermination orders. Unfortunately, the ones who come up with these theories have a despicable agenda, and are known to make things up, supported by whatever damning anecdotes they can come up with, from sources with conflicts-of-interest.

ANSWER: Are you actually denying that the second special organization existed? I guess those memoirs written by those members were written by people that did not exist. The German that was at the head of one of those, did not exist, all those records regarding them did not exist... sorry to decieve you, but its existance is well established, and even the consequences of releasing those prisoners are well known. The Kemalists had hard time kicking them back in prisons, one of them even attempted to the life of Ataturk.

That must have been a lot of Armenians hidden by the Arabs. Boghos Nubar gave us a combined figure of 100,000 in a Dec. 1918 letter to the Foreign Affairs Minister of France.

ANSWER: That number extend to the region of Syria, and even Lebanon, I don't see how 100,000 is a high number.

And of course, Armenians were economically taken advantage of in the chaos and corruption that reigned. The Ottoman orders stipulated their property was to be safeguarded, and these orders were not written to fool future historians.

ANSWER: Their properties was to be safeguarded, but since even according to Gurun, the decision was final, and the Armenians were supposed to be kicked out, those properties could possibly not be safeguarded to be given to the Armenians, since the Armenians were supposed to be “resettled” definitely in new regions. Armenian properties were distributed to Muslim refugees, other sold for the fraction of the price, I don't know of any Armenian, and don't know if there is any Armenian that testified, that the Ottoman actually returned them the money after selling those properties, regardless of the archive released from the foreign ministry, regarding selling them and giving them the amount of money.

We already covered the fact that Gurun did not admit any such thing, at least not on the page Fadix provided.

ANSWER: You certainly do suffer of dumbness, it is stated that the Armenians should be “resettled,” which means the decision IS FINAL! And then, he goes in detail referring to Enver, about why the decision was taken, and the decision, and again, it support what I did say.

"Article 3" on that page stipulates "The revenue will be deposited for safekeeping in the name of the owner to the financial office, and will be included in the liquidation. At the end of the liquidation the remaining sum will be paid to their owners." In my readings, I've come across stipulations that the properties would be sold for fair market value. This does not mean the Armenians did not get a raw deal, I'm sure, especially by corrupt local officials. However, the Ottoman government's heart was in the right place.

ANSWER: You're a moron, Hitler heart was in the right place, go post that in the Holocaust section. The Armenian properties were sold, the money WAS NOT returned to its owners, the Ottoman transfered hundreds of millions of gold Marks to be secured in Berlin from the Armenian assets, only the incomplete list of property worth at the beginning was estimated at a billion of Gold Mark... those later were used to pay the war dept and get the reconstruction of the Turkish republic. My family got all their belongings confiscated by the government, and I don't know of any Armenian being “relocated” who got the money after the Ottoman actually sold the properties. So again, there is a distinction between what is claimed, and what happened. History records happenings.

What we've heard above is the typical Armenian propaganda line. If things were this awful, not a single Armenian could have survived, yet the Armenians themselves concede one million (about two-thirds) were left alive.

ANSWER: Another debile answer, did the Toutis entirely vanished, did the Jews entirely vanished? Did the Cambodian entirely vanished? And no, 1 million Armenians did not survive, that is an impossible figure, and neither do a serious researcher claim that number. Near 2/3 perished... which per population can be as disastrous as a fatal genocide can be. The egnocide was even a success, no Armenian left. I don't see how more complete it could have been.

What kind of an incompetent way would that be to run a genocide, particularly if all who are on hand are women, children and the elderly?

ANSWER: Everyone beside Istanbul, 0 Armenian. If that is called incompetent, I wonder what competent might be.

And there is no question the majority of Armenians, particularly in the eastern provinces were moved by the oratory of their leaders. We have already provided plenty of documetation from sources that would have had no reason to be untruthful.

ANSWER: Which source? Again, Torque pooping.

Let's keep in mind not all Armenians wished to join in the mad bloodlust, but those who refused were made examples of, and the rest learned to comply. Such was the double-edged sword of Armenian terrorism.

ANSWER: Those are Torquian poops, his POV, without any credible documentations, while he claims being after the truth, he ignores the fact that for each dubious materials he can present to suport his theses, there can be over a hundred credible discrediting it.

I just got through stating that I know Fadix is not Dadrian and he babbles on about the same thing? At least we are finally in agreement on something. I have only one Wikipedia identity, and it is "Torque." I noticed in the history page (from a couple of months ago, I believe) of the article an entry by a "Holdwater." Click on the changes "Holdwater" made, and see if you still think I am "Holdwater."

ANSWER: I am not claiming that you thought I was Dadrian, I am showing you the differences between what I advance and what you do advance. That I am not Dadrian is clear and obvious, but that you are not Holdwater is another matter. His changes are NOT evidences Mr. Torque, what is indicative though is that Holdwater was an alias used in this site, and that you have with your Wanderer alias posted in Amazon to review, and have even participated in Tashji website, that you are Holdwater as I have demonstrated in the other forum, is not simply a claim.

Thank you, Fadix. This is one of the rare times you are sounding like a reasonable human being. I never said you were a paid propagandist, but a "professional" propagandist; what I see in you is an extremely obsessed individual, like Vahakn Dadrian, who we know has made a good living from all of this.

ANSWER: That's only POV and unrelated with the genocide entry.

It's abnormal the amount of time you appear to devote to this topic.

ANSWER: You had all your time yourself when you were posting in forums, writing review in Amazon, building your website... but when I expose you, now I become the obsessed one. Who cares, call me obsessed for all I care. What is important is that I document the cases.

For me, it's torture to spend the time; I have much better things to do with my life, and my only motivation is to see the truth, as I see it at this point, to get out there.

ANSWER: Your motivation is not to see the truth, and it seems that it became only a torture when I came in taking the time to answer you.

A terrible injustice has been done upon the Turks, as far as I'm concerned, but you are too emotionally motivated to see clearly.

ANSWER: I am better positioned than you to see the truth, I do not hate the Turks, have not tried to do everything to bring them in the mud, like you have done with the Armenians. The hate you display for the Armenians is disgusting and all telling Mr. Torque. On the other hand, I can bring many Turks here testifying that I am very rational in this issue and am far from being a Turk hater. There was no injustice done to the Turks, a genocide has been perpetrated, and that's unjust.

It also doesn’t help your ethics are low.

ANSWER: My ethics are not low, far from it, I am known to be a very ethical person, and even Turks on the web would admit it. In real life I could sell my best friend, if I knew he did something bad and accusing a complete stranger.

If you made such an offer for international loaning, that was very gracious. This is the first I'm hearing about it, because I don't keep track of what you say. Regardless, how kind of you to be so magnanimous toward one whom you see as a detestable "racist."

ANSWER: No one should be restricted to learn, even not a racist, I would do everything in my disposition to teach someone, no matter what the subject is, and will do everything to help them learn.

What I know is you don't have to scan and show Pg. 209 of the Gurun book. Sometimes even books aren't reliable, unless they're the first editions. Erich Feigl tells us, comparing to the original German version of "40 Days of Musa Dagh," the later English and French editions were hijacked and "the Armenian mafia has already fulfilled a fine job. Werfel’s '40 Days...' underwent in their hands a true 'purgatorium.' They cleared the book from all passages which could create doubts at the reader or any historian." Similarly, I wonder why the recent reprinting of the Doubleday Morgenthau book would have even required the services of an editor, in the person of master craftsman Peter Balakian. It's unfortunate, but Fadix's zero credibility is only the tip of the iceberg, as far as the way Armenians handle their genocide obsession.

ANSWER: Could not comment, I never have read "40 Days of Musa Dagh," it is a novel, and I only read history works regarding the issue, but I can't neither trust Feigl, after how Hilsenrath has review his work in his book: “Mdrchen vom letzten Gedanken.” I had to scan the entire work OCD it, and use a software translator to actually read that German book. But it really was worth doing it. As for Balakian, I didn't liked his book, and have already admitted including in hyeforum. :)

As far as my having "made many ...false claims in countless numbers of occasions," it is true Fadix never loses as opportunity to hurl charges such as "manipulator," "fabricator," and "pathological liar," as the reader has witnessed. This is the typical Armenian smear tactic going way back, perfected by many ethically-challenged Armenians like Vahan Cardashian.

ANSWER: Another racistic comment. As for the rest, I don't see what I can address more about that, when I addressed the issue.

While I hoped to cover Fadix’s madness point-by-point, my rebuttal now comes to an end. I have to consider my time and energy, and arguing with Fadix is like arguing with someone coming at you with an axe. It’s not going to do any good as far as he’s concerned, since he can run down the Energizer Bunny. It’s really Fadix who keeps going, and going... armed with his endless assortment of weasel facts to throw up one smokescreen after the other. If the reader has had the tenacity to come this far, the reader can determine whether my charge that Fadix has Zero Credibility is said on spite, or whether it’s based in truth.

ANSWER: True, let the reader judge.