What's new

Turkey's army on red alert, Syria in "real war", Spec. ops. in Syria

Proof about what? Everything I have said has been factual. Both sides acknowledge that Syrian airspace was violated. Saying that plane was in international airspace during time of shooting is only the Turkish perspective.

Proof of if it was flying in Syrian airspace when it shot down.

And Turkish perspective has no importance? So if someone enters Syrian border for a brief of time unintentionally, and left. Syria is free to shoot at it even while it is leaving the area?
 
Proof of it was flying in Syrian airspace when it shot down.

And Turkish perspective has no importance? So if someone enters Syrian border for a brief of time unintentionally, and left. Syria is free to shoot at it even while it is leaving the area?

Oh, I don't have proof of that. I'm not saying it was. What I am saying is that my arguments will be based on facts not opinions. The story that Turkish plane was in international airspace at time of shooting is the Turkish opinion, not fact.

All perspectives are important.

I'm sure that Syria did not see the jet as a threat to its security, so that fact it was leaving the area has no significance. The downing was symbolic; a way of telling Turkey to back off.
 
Oh, I don't have proof of that. I'm not saying it was. What I am saying is that my arguments will be based on facts not opinions. The story that Turkish plane was in international airspace at time of shooting is the Turkish opinion, not fact.

All perspectives are important.

I'm sure that Syria did not see the jet as a threat to its security, so that fact it was leaving the area has no significance. The downing was symbolic; a way of telling Turkey to back off.

How come the Turkish claims are just opinions while the Syrian claims are facts?

Turkey's claims can be proven with ease when the wreckage has recovered and with the radar records. So why would Turkey lie?
 
How come the Turkish claims are just opinions while the Syrian claims are facts?

Turkey's claims can be proven with ease when the wreckage has recovered and with the radar records. So why would Turkey lie?

You're just being stupid. I never said Syria's side of the story was factual. All I'm saying is that the ONLY FACT is that Syrian airspace was at some point violated. I will base arguments off of this.

Why would Turkey lie?!?!?! Why would Turkey lie about the Armenian Genocide, about the Greek Genocide, about the Chaldean Genocide, about claiming that Artsakh was always Turkish land, about claiming that there is religous freedom, about claiming that minorities have equal status.

Open your eyes, Turkey is a liar.
 
You're just being stupid. I never said Syria's side of the story was factual. All I'm saying is that the ONLY FACT is that Syrian airspace was at some point violated. I will base arguments off of this.

Why would Turkey lie?!?!?! Why would Turkey lie about the Armenian Genocide, about the Greek Genocide, about the Chaldean Genocide, about claiming that Artsakh was always Turkish land, about claiming that there is religous freedom, about claiming that minorities have equal status.

Open your eyes, Turkey is a liar.

You are the one who is being stupid. I'm saying, why would Turkey lie, if it can easly disprove by Syria when the wreckage have found and with the radar and radio records?
 
You're just being stupid. I never said Syria's side of the story was factual. All I'm saying is that the ONLY FACT is that Syrian airspace was at some point violated. I will base arguments off of this.

Why would Turkey lie?!?!?! Why would Turkey lie about the Armenian Genocide, about the Greek Genocide, about the Chaldean Genocide, about claiming that Artsakh was always Turkish land, about claiming that there is religous freedom, about claiming that minorities have equal status.

Open your eyes, Turkey is a liar.

Fact 1: Turkey is not a liar.
Fact 2: You are brainwashed and turk-hater.
 
Fact 1: Turkey is not a liar.
Fact 2: You are brainwashed and turk-hater.

I see. The 21 nations (and 43 US states) recognizing the Armenian Genocide are all liars just like me. And Turkey, successor of the perpetrator, is the truthful one. And I am the brainwashed one??????????/
 
I see. The 21 nations (and 43 US states) recognizing the Armenian Genocide are all liars just like me. And Turkey, successor of the perpetrator, is the truthful one. And I am the brainwashed one??????????/

I see. All those countries recognizing PKK as terror organization are all liars just like us. Actually they are freedom fighters like you're thinking... Yes, you're the brainwashed one !!!
 
I see. All those countries recognizing PKK as terror organization are all liars just like us. Actually they are freedom fighters like you're thinking... Yes, you're the brainwashed one !!!

I will gladly acknowledge PKK as terrorists if you acknowledge the Genocide.
 
Enough of hollow Turkish / Erdogan threats. Syria doing all the massacres and international violations without minute fear and Turkey still talking without acting with force. It's damaging the Turkish image as most powerful nation in the Middle East (Along with Israel). Sooner Turkey acts against the brutal atrocities of the regime and invades to liberate Syrians of this tyranny better for it's image. Erdogan, now it's time to act and not just talk.

Why would Turkey risk 1000's or 10.000's of civilian and military casualties? If anyone cares so much, he should take his arms and go to the ground. Should Not ask Turks to do the fight.

I dont care for what **** erdogan says. He lives in Alice's wonderland. When The crisis hits the fan, he could not save Turkiye. Whole Türkiye's government is incapable of solving economic issues, let alone a war in syria.
 
I see. The 21 nations (and 43 US states) recognizing the Armenian Genocide are all liars just like me. And Turkey, successor of the perpetrator, is the truthful one. And I am the brainwashed one??????????/

"A lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on her boots", C.H. Sturgeon
"Give a lie twenty-four hours start, and it will take a hundred years to overtake it.", C.F. Dixon-Johnson
"There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof.", Henry R. Huttenbach
"It is... time that Americans ceased to be deceived by (Armenian) propaganda in behalf of policies which are... nauseating...", John Dewey


Brainwashed Kajutyun the Turcophobe, could you pls. answer these questions,

1) Why was every single Ottoman official, incarcerated for war crimes during the nearly two-and-a-half years of the Malta Tribunals, finally acquitted? Especially when they were in the hands of the occupying British force, a country (among others, but mainly it was Lloyd George’s Great Britain) who tried to wipe Turkey off the face of the earth... and every Ottoman document was freely available (before the days “shredding” would come to mind) to the Allies and their crack team of Armenian researchers?

2) The “Sick Man of Europe” was on her knees, financially broke and depleted of manpower (thanks to German-directed military mobilization) and needed resources. Why would the empire choose this most inopportune time to target the Armenians, who made the financial wheels turn and were clearly a vital resource to the country? Even if the Ottomans had the racist/religious zeal to wipe out the Armenians, wouldn’t it have been sensible to wait until they had won the war to do so? Do not give the argument that the Turks were mentally weak, as Ambassador Morgenthau and practically every other Turcophobe of the period loved to claim... this would have been a matter of insanity, not stupidity.

3) The “Sick Man of Europe” was on her knees, financially broke. Why would she spend a fortune on resettling the Armenians? If the idea was to wipe them out, why didn’t they massacre them on the spot, as the Armenians did with the Turks? Surely this money would have been better spent elsewhere.

4) Speaking of killing centers, while the Armenians’ usual 1.5 million figure of their murdered own is certainly less than the Nazis’ 6 million murdered Jews (keep in mind the Germans had a little more time, too... from 1942-1945, while the Armenian “Genocide” took place largely between 1915-1916)... it would be quite an effort to murder on such a grand scale. Especially when every military man was desperately needed at the fronts, the reason why the gendarmes assigned to protect the marching Armenians were few in number and low in quality. Even the Nazis went through a trial and error period before getting the science of genocide down pat. And we know the Germans are famous for scientific and other skills, order and efficiency, just as much as the Turks are known (Turcophobes like Morgenthau and George Horton would be the first to agree) to be disordered, lazy and incompetent. (Turcophobes also like to point to the fact that the Turks were so incapable, they had to go outside the country to get almost every need. Even their fezes were manufactured in Austria, one wrote. On the other side of the coin, Ambassador Morgenthau wrote in his ghostwritten book that one effect of the old capitulations was that the Ottomans were FORCED to buy their goods from outside..! The Turks are always damned if they do or don't.) The question then becomes.... could the Ottoman Turks have the TECHNOLOGICAL capacity to carry out a government-sponsored genocide on such a grand scale?

5) If the idea of the resettlement program was to subject the Armenians to a slow, genocidal death, why did so many Armenians survive? Turcophobes such as Christopher Walker love making dramatic statements to the tune of Armenians being deliberately sent to the desert “to die.” This gives the impression that the Armenians, already weakened after an arduous march, were abandoned in the middle of the sands, surrounded by the occasional bedouins who would do their best to finish off the last of them. (Was Aleppo, in Syria, that sandy and barren? Aleppo was kind of a "city," wasn't it? Of course, Aleppo was not the only destination, there was Damascus, and other cities) Why didn’t they all die? The Armenians had no picnic... they faced famine and disease (like their fellow Ottoman Muslims), added to the shock and tribulations of being transplanted. However, it’s not like they were without support, where they wound up. Where the Turks failed with what must have been their inadequate support system (they couldn't even feed Turks), the Christian relief organizations were around to take up the slack.

6) How did Ottomans kill 1.5 million Armenians when there was not, or there was maximum 1.5 million Armenian population. If so where do todays Armenians come from. Space?
CENSUS.JPG

Estimates of the Ottoman-Armenian population, ten different sources

7) When the Armenians engaged in their policy of systematic extermination, much closer a parallel to the Holocaust than the arbitrary massacres by the Turks, they made sure to slaughter everyone, down to the children. Their goal was complete annihilation. Why then, would the Turks fool around by going through the musical chairs of separating the men (remember, the Armenians claim the men were largely unarmed)? Also, why were there supposedly so many orphans? If a government has in mind to wipe out a race, why leave so many children alive? The Armenians didn’t intend to leave the Turkish children alive. (Their cowardly goons, like the "Jew Hunter," General Dro... who went on to help the Nazis with the Final Solution... seemed to have made a point to specifically target the helpless children.)

8) Hitler began by targeting the Jews in Berlin. Why were the Armenians in Istanbul and other cities of the West such as Izmir, left alone for the most part?

9) As a related point (brought up by Turkish professor Turkkaya Ataöv... in his words ), "Talat Pas(h)a allowed the American missionaries to do relief work among the Armenians, in spite of the fact that Turkey and the United States were on the opposing camps during the war. How many examples are there in history of a combatant country permitting the citizens of another country fighting in the other camp to stay, feed, cloth and educate the people it is accused of exterminating?" BIG food for thought. Demonstrates an admirable magnanimity for a leader dumbly characterized by an Armenian apologist as "a man whose crimes equaled those of Hitler and Stalin." At any rate, Talat Pasha and the rest of the Ottoman leaders were bitterly aware of the horrendously unfair and untrue charges hurled against them, especially in the American media... and they must have been aware many of these lies originated with the biased missionaries. If a genocide campaign was planned, would it not have been sensible to round these unfriendly religious "witnesses" up first, and boot them out of the country? Where the Armenians were, the missionaries were... if the Armenians were to be murdered, why add fuel to the propaganda fires kept alive by the missionaries?

LAST ONE

10) If the Armenians are so convinced a genocide occurred, and assuming their typically exemplary character suffers a shortfall by not recognizing the terms of the Leninakan treaty, why don’t they take their case to an international legal body, such as the World Court? I understand the Azerbaijanis took their case of being massacred by the Armenians in the early 1990s to the court in The Hague.
 
"A lie travels round the world while Truth is putting on her boots", C.H. Sturgeon
"Give a lie twenty-four hours start, and it will take a hundred years to overtake it.", C.F. Dixon-Johnson
"There is no crime without evidence. A genocide cannot be written about in the absence of factual proof.", Henry R. Huttenbach
"It is... time that Americans ceased to be deceived by (Armenian) propaganda in behalf of policies which are... nauseating...", John Dewey


Brainwashed Kajutyun the Turcophobe, could you pls. answer these questions,

1) Why was every single Ottoman official, incarcerated for war crimes during the nearly two-and-a-half years of the Malta Tribunals, finally acquitted? Especially when they were in the hands of the occupying British force, a country (among others, but mainly it was Lloyd George’s Great Britain) who tried to wipe Turkey off the face of the earth... and every Ottoman document was freely available (before the days “shredding” would come to mind) to the Allies and their crack team of Armenian researchers?

2) The “Sick Man of Europe” was on her knees, financially broke and depleted of manpower (thanks to German-directed military mobilization) and needed resources. Why would the empire choose this most inopportune time to target the Armenians, who made the financial wheels turn and were clearly a vital resource to the country? Even if the Ottomans had the racist/religious zeal to wipe out the Armenians, wouldn’t it have been sensible to wait until they had won the war to do so? Do not give the argument that the Turks were mentally weak, as Ambassador Morgenthau and practically every other Turcophobe of the period loved to claim... this would have been a matter of insanity, not stupidity.

3) The “Sick Man of Europe” was on her knees, financially broke. Why would she spend a fortune on resettling the Armenians? If the idea was to wipe them out, why didn’t they massacre them on the spot, as the Armenians did with the Turks? Surely this money would have been better spent elsewhere.

4) Speaking of killing centers, while the Armenians’ usual 1.5 million figure of their murdered own is certainly less than the Nazis’ 6 million murdered Jews (keep in mind the Germans had a little more time, too... from 1942-1945, while the Armenian “Genocide” took place largely between 1915-1916)... it would be quite an effort to murder on such a grand scale. Especially when every military man was desperately needed at the fronts, the reason why the gendarmes assigned to protect the marching Armenians were few in number and low in quality. Even the Nazis went through a trial and error period before getting the science of genocide down pat. And we know the Germans are famous for scientific and other skills, order and efficiency, just as much as the Turks are known (Turcophobes like Morgenthau and George Horton would be the first to agree) to be disordered, lazy and incompetent. (Turcophobes also like to point to the fact that the Turks were so incapable, they had to go outside the country to get almost every need. Even their fezes were manufactured in Austria, one wrote. On the other side of the coin, Ambassador Morgenthau wrote in his ghostwritten book that one effect of the old capitulations was that the Ottomans were FORCED to buy their goods from outside..! The Turks are always damned if they do or don't.) The question then becomes.... could the Ottoman Turks have the TECHNOLOGICAL capacity to carry out a government-sponsored genocide on such a grand scale?

5) If the idea of the resettlement program was to subject the Armenians to a slow, genocidal death, why did so many Armenians survive? Turcophobes such as Christopher Walker love making dramatic statements to the tune of Armenians being deliberately sent to the desert “to die.” This gives the impression that the Armenians, already weakened after an arduous march, were abandoned in the middle of the sands, surrounded by the occasional bedouins who would do their best to finish off the last of them. (Was Aleppo, in Syria, that sandy and barren? Aleppo was kind of a "city," wasn't it? Of course, Aleppo was not the only destination, there was Damascus, and other cities) Why didn’t they all die? The Armenians had no picnic... they faced famine and disease (like their fellow Ottoman Muslims), added to the shock and tribulations of being transplanted. However, it’s not like they were without support, where they wound up. Where the Turks failed with what must have been their inadequate support system (they couldn't even feed Turks), the Christian relief organizations were around to take up the slack.

6) How did Ottomans kill 1.5 million Armenians when there was not, or there was maximum 1.5 million Armenian population. If so where do todays Armenians come from. Space?
CENSUS.JPG

Estimates of the Ottoman-Armenian population, ten different sources

7) When the Armenians engaged in their policy of systematic extermination, much closer a parallel to the Holocaust than the arbitrary massacres by the Turks, they made sure to slaughter everyone, down to the children. Their goal was complete annihilation. Why then, would the Turks fool around by going through the musical chairs of separating the men (remember, the Armenians claim the men were largely unarmed)? Also, why were there supposedly so many orphans? If a government has in mind to wipe out a race, why leave so many children alive? The Armenians didn’t intend to leave the Turkish children alive. (Their cowardly goons, like the "Jew Hunter," General Dro... who went on to help the Nazis with the Final Solution... seemed to have made a point to specifically target the helpless children.)

8) Hitler began by targeting the Jews in Berlin. Why were the Armenians in Istanbul and other cities of the West such as Izmir, left alone for the most part?

9) As a related point (brought up by Turkish professor Turkkaya Ataöv... in his words ), "Talat Pas(h)a allowed the American missionaries to do relief work among the Armenians, in spite of the fact that Turkey and the United States were on the opposing camps during the war. How many examples are there in history of a combatant country permitting the citizens of another country fighting in the other camp to stay, feed, cloth and educate the people it is accused of exterminating?" BIG food for thought. Demonstrates an admirable magnanimity for a leader dumbly characterized by an Armenian apologist as "a man whose crimes equaled those of Hitler and Stalin." At any rate, Talat Pasha and the rest of the Ottoman leaders were bitterly aware of the horrendously unfair and untrue charges hurled against them, especially in the American media... and they must have been aware many of these lies originated with the biased missionaries. If a genocide campaign was planned, would it not have been sensible to round these unfriendly religious "witnesses" up first, and boot them out of the country? Where the Armenians were, the missionaries were... if the Armenians were to be murdered, why add fuel to the propaganda fires kept alive by the missionaries?

LAST ONE

10) If the Armenians are so convinced a genocide occurred, and assuming their typically exemplary character suffers a shortfall by not recognizing the terms of the Leninakan treaty, why don’t they take their case to an international legal body, such as the World Court? I understand the Azerbaijanis took their case of being massacred by the Armenians in the early 1990s to the court in The Hague.

If it matters, I was never taught about the Armenian genocide in school, I'd never even heard of it until I started visiting the PDF.
 

Latest posts

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom