Turks irked over U.S. calling Armenian genocide a genocide, threaten to take it out on...the Armenians

To watch the Islamic world operate is akin to being at the Mad Hatter's tea party.

The behavior of the followers of Big Mo is simply idiotically inexplicable until it is understood that Islam is one gigantic cult.

The world will never know peace until the cult of Is-lam is ushered out of this world, to be known at that time as Was-lam.

Attaturk would be against this regime.

On what date do you estimate that the islamist regime will ban references to and photos of Attaturk?

Know any choice quotes from Attaturk on the dangers of fundamentalist islam and the importance of independent secular civil institutions?

I believe he had an opinion on women fashions...

BEING A MUHAMMADAN MEANS NEVER HAVING TO SAY YOU'RE SORRY!

There is no concept of humanity in Islam, only believers and unbelievers. There is no Golden Rule for unbelievers; there is no fairness for unbelievers.
The Armenians are unbelievers who have not been treated fairly, nor should they expect to be as long as Turkey has an Islamic government.
Life is unfair, so why be Muslim and make it worse?

The three principles of islam

1) Submission is Freedom

2) War is Peace

3) Ignorance is Strength

Not only is Turkey denying the genocide, it's also denying its own colonial past.

Today Turkish foreign minister Gul made the astounding statement that, "Turkey has never been a colonial country."

http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/news-204571-gul-non-colonialist-past-an-asset-for-turkey-in-africa.html

"Colonialism" doesn't apply to the Ottoman Empire apparently, just as "genocide" doesn't apply to the directed religious slaughter of Armenians.

The Turkish Muslims seem to dislike the fact that persons of Armenian descent, worldwide, being industrious and productive and articulate, are assisting their tiny remnant homeland.

From the article: "Any country which cares for Armenia, namely the US, France and Russia, should primarily help Armenia to free itself from the influence of the diaspora."

Mr Muslim Erdogan does not want tiny, impoverished Armenia - *which has a border with Turkey* - to receive assistance and advocacy and encouragement from those ethnic Armenians who live elsewhere in the world. Of course, any astute non-Muslim can see that were little Armenia thus cut off from outside help, and made even poorer and weaker, any future jihad by Turkish Muslims (or by Iranian, or by Azeri Muslims) against Armenia, would be much more likely to succeed...

Now, I wonder what Mr Erdogan would say, if it were pointed out how much money in the form of remittances flows from Turkish Muslims in, say, Western Europe, back to Turkey? And how would he react if it were suggested to him that Muslim TURKEY should be separated from ITS 'diaspora', and should receive no assistance from same, and should not seek to project its power, through same?

And what if it were acerbly pointed out to him that the multiplying, and frequently fraudulent and violent and unproductive and 'honor' murdering Turkish Muslims in other, non-Muslim lands, are essentially pursuing and promoting the Jihad against their hosts, and that this is undesirable in the eyes of non-Muslim nations thus afflicted? Not to mention the activities of sinister ilk of Milli Gorus, and Mr Fethullah Gulen. I remember Mr Erdogans's little poem about mosques and minarets, rifles and bayonets.

If Muslim Turkey expels those hundreds of thousands of impoverished, hard-working - and, doubtless, abused and cheated and underpaid, or perhaps not-paid-at-all - Armenian Christian housemaids and [I would guess] sweatshop 'employees' (anyone here want to hazard a guess as to how many of those girls and women, if of nubile age, are treated exactly as non-Muslim housemaids are treated by Muslim masters all over the rest of the Islamic world? ...that is, beaten, routinely raped, and sometimes even killed), then those countries of Western Europe that have large and aggressive Turkish Muslim colonies - for example, Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands - would be entirely within their rights to expel, in response, back to Muslim Turkey, the thousands upon thousands of aggressive and unproductive Turkish Muslims who have proliferated within their borders.

Let sauce for the Muslim goose be sauce for the Infidel ganders.

But yesterday there was uproar in Armenai [sic] over the suggestion of deportations. Hrayr Karapetyan, an Armenian MP, condemned Mr Erdogan's remarks as blackmail.

"The statement once again proves that there is an Armenian genocide threat in present Turkey...
.................

Now, why would the Armenians conflate "deportations"—no matter how unpleasant and unwarranted—with "genocide"?

Perhaps because, during the Armenian genocide, they were often one and the same.

We tend to think of "deportations" as orderly expulsions, where the deported are simply sent back to their home countries.

"Deportations" of Armenians during the genocide sometimes took the form of marching Armenians out to desolate areas—such as the Syrian desert-stripping them of their clothes and goods, and leaving them to die. Sometimes it took the form of marching them out and having them attacked, raped, and murdered by government-sanctioned brigand bands, and sometimes it took the form of marching them in circles for hours or days until—with no food, water, or rest—they all dropped dead.

If the escorting army became impatient at how long the process was taking, they would oftentimes simply shoot the remaining "deportees".

Here's a passage from a first-hand account from 1916 by a Turkish Army officer, Lieutenant Sayied Ahmed Moukhtar Baas, who was sickened by the atrocities:

"The women and children were sent ahead under escort with the assurance by the Turkish authorities that their final destination was Mosul and that no harm will befall them. The men kept behind, were taken out of town in batches of 15 and 20, lined up on the edge of ditches prepared beforehand, shot and thrown into the ditches. Hundreds of men were shot every day in a similar manner. The women and children were attacked on their way by the ("Shotas") the armed bands organised by the Turkish Government who attacked them and seized a certain number. After plundering and committing the most dastardly outrages on the women and children they massacred them in cold blood. These attacks were a daily occurrence until every woman and child had been got rid of. The military escorts had strict orders not to interfere with the "Shotas"."

[Of course, the reference to "committing the most dastardly outrages" on the women and children means rape—GI]

"The children that the Government had taken in charge were also deported and massacred.

The infants in the care of the American Consul of Trebizond were taken away with the pretext that they were going to be sent to Sivas where an asylum had been prepared for them. They were taken out to sea in little boats. At some distance out they were stabbed to death, put in sacks and thrown into the sea. A few days later some of their little bodies were washed up on the shore at Trebizond.

In July 1915 I was ordered to accompany a convoy of deported Armenians. It was the last batch from Trebizond. There were in the convoy 120 men, 700 children and about 400 women. From Trebizond I took them to Gumish-Khana. Here the 120 men were taken away, and, as I was informed later, they were all killed. At Gumish-Khana I was ordered to take the women and children to Erzinjian. On the way I saw thousands of bodies of Armenians unburied. Several bands of "Shotas" met us on the way and wanted me to hand over to them women and children. But I persistently refused. I did leave on the way about 300 children with Moslem families who were willing to take care of them and educate them.

[Clearly, the relatively decent Lieutenant Baas hoped for the best here. If these children were "lucky"—luckier than their families, in any case—they were converted to Islam and raised by their new Muslim families. This did not always happen—there are numerous reports of Muslim families, who, on the pretext of taking in these children, used them as slaves and sex slaves, and eventually murdered them—GI]

"The "Mutessarrif" of Erzinjian ordered me to proceed with the convoy to Kamack. At the latter place the authorities refused to take charge of the women and children. I fell ill and wanted to go back, but I was told that as long as the Armenians in my charge were alive I would be sent from one place to the other. However I managed to include my batch with the deported Armenians that had come from Erzeroum. In charge of the latter was a colleague of mine Mohamed Effendi from the Gendarmerie. He told me afterwards that after leaving Kamach they came to a valley where the Euphrates ran. A band of Shotas sprang out and stopped the convoy. They ordered the escort to keep away and then shot every one of the Armenians and threw them in the river."

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/br-12-26-16-text.html

An excellent—and deeply disturbing—book on the Armenian genocide is "The Burning Tigris", by Peter Balakian.

This is blackmail.

And blackmail is also what those Arab rulers, smilingly meeting with all the suavity, and furrowed brows expressing their deep and sincere concern and alarm, those visiting American generals, to whom they explain, with that famous deep sincerity, that they really can't be of much help, much as they would like to be, really can't be seen to be close to the Americans, much as they so dearly wish, unless and until those pesky Israelis are pushed back from their mad dreams of that Vast Israeli Empire, that Greater Israel, extending all the way -- all the way! -- beyond the 8-mile wasp waist at Qalilya, an amazing number (3? 4?) of miles beyond, to the river Jordan. The fantastic territorial ambitions of the Israelis, who would like to control the "West Bank" that is -- well, far smaller in land area than many cities in America -- well, of course the Arabs can't be expected to "collaborate" on Iran or anything else because, because, you see, Israel's revanchists, its stormtroopers, its fascists, its Nazis, simply cannot be abided by the natural allies of America, if only we saw things aright, the Muslim Arabs just waiting to be our true, to be our blue, to be our true-blue friends.

Another killing field being plowed for future harvest.

Kiss Turkey off to the dark side. Again.

Were cutting all those Defense programs because?

More and more such blackmail is coming.

Imagine, in the not distant future, Geert Wilders is Prime Minister of the Netherlands or, if not, at least the leader of its single most important political movement. And imagine that in France Philippe de Villiers is the new leader of what had been Sarkozy's party. And imagine that in Great Britain UKIP becomes the second most important party, taking votes from Labour and from those who might vote for the BNP too, and an important political force that the Conservatives dare not ignore. And imagine that the People's Party wins in Norway, that a similar party wins in Denmark, and all over Europe, threatened by Islam, people are waking up, late and furious at what has happened, not over centuries, but in just a few short decades of heedlessness and criminal negligence by those in their elites whom they trusted, and entrusted with their own security and the security of their country, of their civilisation created by people who could not for one minute have achieved what they did under Islam.

And imaine too that they begin to institute strict controls, halting all Muslim immigration, expelling all Muslim non-citizens, instituting naturalization procedures that insist upon a declaration of loyalty to the nation-state, the Infidel nation-state, with the proviso that any acts or statements that indicate the oath was not meant but was a perjured oath, would lead to a stripping of that citizenship so attained, and so on -- and imagine that the Saudis and other rich Arabs demand that the American government do something about these crazy Europeans who are not practicing the wonderful "tolerance" and "diversity" that is so necessary, a smiling Saudi says (being careful not to draw attention to how Saudi Arabia is run), if we are all to get along by mimicking that splendid convivencia of Islamic-ruled Spain, about which we have all heard so much.

Would the Americans bow to the Arabs, as right now they are bowing to the Arabs when they say America has got to pressure Israel to give up its legal and moral and historic claims to Jerusalem and to "the West Bank"(long ago correctly assigned, by William Rappard and the entire Mandates Commission of the League of Nations, to the territory set aside for the creation of the Jewish National Home)?

Or let's take the example above. Imagine that Turkey now said all American bases in Turkey had to be closed, and what's more, Turkey was pulling out of NATO, unless America not only rescinded any Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian massacres, but unless America also pressured the government of Sweden, and the French government, and any other government of a European country that had passed a similar resolution, to rescind similar resolutions.

What would America do? I know what it should do, in such circumstances. And so, I think, do you.

From Hugh above: "And imagine that the People's Party wins in Norway, that a similar party wins in Denmark, and all over Europe, threatened by Islam, people are WAKING UP"
And this is how they're waking up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CIZYqZrdwIM

Today I really hated Erdogan. I also hated all people voted for him.

"If necessary, I may have to tell these 100,000 to go back to their country because they are not my citizens. I don't have to keep them in my country."

Who does he think he is? A sultan or king?

Now I have no little doubt that Armenian genocide happened and same mentality is still alive in Turkey. I had little doubts before because I was brainwashed all these years but now I see the truth very clearly.

Kepha: for clarification I was referring to his secularization and not implying about his position on the genocide.

gravenimage: thanks for the expanded meaning of "deportation" as relates to the history of the slaughter. The photos that exist just break your heart, if you have one.

Does anyone have any information about the role that the so-called grand mufti played in Smyrna during the genocide? My reading is that he served under German officers and that Smyna was the site of terrible crimes against Greeks and Christians. I'm speculating that mr. mufti received his early training in genocide then and there as he developed links with the German military. Wasn't many years later that he brought his genocidal acts to Palestine. Did he ever speak or write about this part of his murderous life?

On U-tude there is than 7 parts Video that prove there was no Aremenian genodic but than muslim genodic by Aremenian who commitee all type of evil deeds. Than report by than Imperial Russian Colonel who was than member of than red cell report that Armenian act like savage than he have more respect to the Turk.Than Red Cross Nurse in the Imperial Russia report that criminal savage acts done by the Armenian like going into than hospital than baynet pregeant muslim women and then tearing out they baba than murder the babies, murder ophan in a shether run by the red cross. In fact there where case that the Russian army got together with the Turk to put down the radic armenian like a dog with radic. The armenian amdrose was than total dilipmat disgace when he report prejury by protantion missories in his book about what happen, the State Department discredit his book than America Adimal report that was there report there was no armenian genocide but genocide against muslim women and old men. The french military record the same thing as the English military. There where no newpaper reporter in the warzone so any report from than newpaper is phoney.

Uh oh, the sub-bacterial-I.Q. defenderofsavagery is back again with his usual dross, defending evil and one of the biggest evils of all time, the Armenian Genocides. He doesn't hide the fact that he'd do tyhe same to us infidels as what the Turks did to the Armenians if given the chance. And we shouldn't forget it, because those who defend evil are more than capable of carrying out the evil they defend. All they need is the opportunity to do so.

Its about time they called it genocide.

Now if we could just get the world to face up to the ethnic cleansing going on in Egypt against the Copts we'd be getting somewhere.

Egypt is ethnically cleansing its Copts. Call it by name, and we can start to deal with it.

"Turkey threatens to expel 100,000 Armenians over 'genocide' row,"

So, the Turks are threatening to complete the genocide that they currently deny.

Yeah, as Mark Slackmeyer said in the famous "Doonesbury" comic strip - "That's guilty! Guilty! Guilty!"

Well, they are all reading out of the same book are they not? The mighty Koran, that living divine book that comes straight from God Himself and is God Himself, and if anyone should tear a page of it they must be killed - or if a Muslim Man should report that he witnessed such an event the offender must be murdered. Anyone who reads out of this cursed book, and believes what it says 100 percent, must committed murder and mass murder or be a strong supporter of such murderers. This is beyond argument - it is just a fact - it's in the book, take a look! The turks read the Book, that Bible of Bibles that is forever alive and correct not matter what, and so they act, think, and look just like all Muslims everywhere - not that there is anything wrong with that - unless you happen to agree 100 percent worth with that Bible cuz then you'd be pro - murder.

MY COUNTRY RIGHT OR WRONG

The Turkish denial of the Armenian genocide is in principle not different from the US denial of WWII war crimes committed against the civilian Japaneese population at the end of the war by extensive firebombing and dropping two nuclear bombs on Japaneese cities without any military value whatsoever.

Every year during the first two weeks of August the mass news media and many politicians at the national level trot out the "patriotic" political myth that the dropping of the two atomic bombs on Japan in August of 1945 caused them to surrender, and thereby saved the lives of anywhere from five hundred thousand to one million American soldiers, who did not have to invade the islands. Opinion polls over the last fifty years show that American citizens overwhelmingly (between 80 and 90%) believe this false history which, of course, makes them feel better about killing hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians (mostly women and children) and saving American lives to accomplish the ending of the war.

Like the American denial in regard to atomic war crimes the Turks are taught in school that no genocide against the Armenians occured. What took place were justified by the conditions of war. It is a vicious lie created by the enemies of Turkey.

The formal stance is that the deaths of Armenians during the "relocation" or "deportation" cannot aptly be deemed "genocide", a position that has been supported with a plethora of diverging justifications: that the killings were not deliberate or were not governmentally orchestrated, that the killings were justified because Armenians posed a Russian-sympathizing threat as a cultural group, that Armenians merely starved, or any of various characterizations recalling marauding "Armenian gangs." Some suggestions seek to invalidate the genocide on semantic or anachronistic grounds (the word "genocide" was not coined until 1943). Turkish World War I casualty figures are often cited to mitigate the effect of the number of Armenian dead.

The Turks should hire an American spin doctor to give the denial a final touch: The "relocation" of the Armenians actually saved lives."

I am still waiting for the wrong to be put right, both in the US and Turkey:

“I confidently trust that the American people will prove themselves … too wise not to detect the false pride or the dangerous ambitions or the selfish schemes which so often hide themselves under that deceptive cry of mock patriotism: ‘Our country, right or wrong!’ They will not fail to recognize that our dignity, our free institutions and the peace and welfare of this and coming generations of Americans will be secure only as we cling to the watchword of true patriotism: ‘Our country — when right to be kept right; when wrong to be put right.

(Senator Carl Schurz 1899).

Ladies and gentlemen

look at Ipso Facto's appalling piece of Tu Quoque, above.

Ipso Facto appears to believe that what the Japanese suffered *as a direct result of their having enthusiastically embraced a murderous supremacist fascistic ideology which led them to initiate all-out war upon, conquer, rob, torture and mass-murder a great many of their neighbours, such as the Koreans, the Chinese, and many, many others*, is a 'crime' equivalent to what the largely helpless and ill-armed Armenian dhimmi Christians suffered from their supremacist Muslim imperial overlords, not only in 1914-1916, but also in the 1890s and indeed throughout the preceding centuries, from the very first Muslim invasions of Anatolia.

He is equating the USA - engaged in all-out war against a totalitarian fascist military dictatorship that was manifestly imbued with a suicidal warrior ethos - with...the Turkish Muslims (adherents of a religion of blood and war even more violent and totalitarian than hakko ichiu).

The Japanese *started* the war, the Japanese waged total war, and having underestimated the opposition, suffered the consequences. Unless Ipso Facto thinks that Australia, America and every other Asian-Pacific nation were at fault and had so grossly wronged the poor, innocent peaceful and gentle Japanese hakko ichiu devotees, that the only reasonable and right response was to bare the neck and submit to the samurai sword? Perhaps Ipso Facto should compare the generally civilised treatment of Japanese POWs by their western captors, and of Japanese civilians during the Occupation that followed the Japanese surrender (from which it is manifestly clear that the Allies had absolutely NO genocidal intent toward Japanese people qua Japanese people), with the well-documented accounts of the sadism and murderousness with which Japanese captors treated Western military and civilian POWs, and the way in which the Japanese overlords treated Korean and Chinese civilians when *they* (the Japanese) were the Occupiers, from the early 1930s onward.

There would have been NO fire-bombings, and NO atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, had the Japanese not invaded Korea and (among other things) beheaded Korean Christians for refusing to bow to Amataseru the Sun Goddess and the Divine Emperor; had the Japanese not invaded China; had they not invaded and plundered Singapore, Indonesia, Philippines, Papua-New Guinea (leaving a trail of murderous atrocities against civilians, everywhere they went); and had they refrained from making war upon the USA.

And let us all remember, by the way, that the first great mass murder of Armenians by Muslims in 'modern' times took place in the 1890s, long before World War One; and that other mass murders of dhimmi populations had regularly been carried out by Turkish Muslim throughout their domains, from the time of their first conquests.

Hmm. It seems we have another moral equivalence nutcase here in ipso facto. Who let that loony out of his padded cell? The nuking of Japan was necessary to win the war, and save countless lives by shortening it by at least 18 months, and probably over 24 months. If the Japanese didn't want to be nuked, they shouldn't have bombed Pearl Harbor and conquered half of the far East and threatened Australia. Likewise, if the Germans didn't want Berlin and Dresden razing to the ground, they should have stayed out of Poland, Holland and France. But unlike the Germans and Japanese who went to war against armed nations, the Turks, just like Muslims in general went for the weak and defenceless and massacred unarmed Armenian Christians. And we know that Muslims play the victim when they get hammered by infidel armies - we have seen that almost continuously over the 327 years since the Battle of Vienna in 1683, most notably in 1697, 1828, 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973. And when you hammer Muslims into the ground, you free infidels from their bonds of slavery. Serbs, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians etc were freed from their Muslim enslavers by the gun. And it is only the gun that will free all infidels from the shackles placed around their ankles by despotic Muslim regimes and terrorist outfits from Morocco, Sudan and Egypt right through to Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia and the Philippines.

So now it seems that for you, 14 million Chinese have to be slaughtered for you to call it genocide. But an apologist like yourself will describe the treading on a Muslim toe as genocide. You are a dysfunctional toady who is firmly on the side of those who would seek the destruction of the US and Western civilization itself. We have seen countless examples of your type on this site. You value the so-called civilians of an enemy above those you grew up with. You spit on the graves of those who fight for the West, yet at the same time you sponge off us in the West, and continue to undermine it, because you see winning a war against those who would murder and enslave us as a war crime. You're a nasty piece of work who slithers up to all manner of Islamic terrorists and tyrants, and you're not fit to live anywhere in the West. If there was any justice in this world, it would be you who had to live the life of a persecuted Christian anywhere in the Muslim world.

Any attempt to argue that the fully armed and aggressive Japanese were to the Americans (whom they had violently and stupidly provoked) during World War II, as the unarmed indigenous Armenian Christian minority were to their cruel and violent invading-and-occupying Turkish (and Kurdish, and Arab, too) Muslim overlords during any period between the tenth century (say) and 1916, is so bizarre as to make my brain cramp.

Ladies and gentlemen.

I simply cannot see why Ipso Facto wants to divert the thread to the discussion of supposed - and disputable - American or Allied War Crimes in the closing days of World War II, in a thread whose subject is the public recognition, in the USA, of the Jihad Genocide of the Armenians carried out by Turkish Muslims, except in order to derail the thread into a Tu Quoque argument about Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tokyo, or else in order to demand that UNLESS the United States (and all other free western countries, presumably) submit to *his* (genuinely disputable) claim that they committed War Crimes, they have NO RIGHT to name as Genocide the Turkish Muslim jihad genocide of the Armenians which in fact took place in *two* major waves of violence, one in the 1890s and the second in 1915-1916.

'War crimes' are not the same thing as 'Genocide'.

Ipso facto seems to me to be trying to set up an equivalence between two entirely different events involving entirely different types of actors.

One was pretty much a fair fight, so far as I can see: a duel to the finish between sovereign nations, each possessing considerable resources and military might; and in which the victor, once victorious, behaved with magnanimity.

If Ipso facto wants to discuss war crimes, then war crimes of peculiar ghastliness were committed, repeatedly, by the Japanese armies from the 1930s onward; I actually think that, even taking the nuclear detonations into account, the Japanese never had to endure the half of what they'd inflicted on everybody else. Perhaps Ipso Facto should listen to the testimony of the Korean 'comfort women' who staffed the brothels of the Japanese army. And the Japanese, like the Turks, being an honor-shame society, without the sense of personal sin and individual responsibility that exists in the western world, have proven very resistant to any idea of 'owning up' to what they did to others, whilst only too happy to wallow in self-pity and bask in victim status as regards Hiroshima and Nagasaki...

Chesterton said that the true savage laughs when he hurts you, but howls when *you* hurt *him*. I am afraid that the Muslim supremacists and the Japanese supremacists both exhibited that characteristic in spades.

As opposed to World War II in which powerful America and powerful Japan duked it out, the genocide of the Armenians involved the overwhelmingly powerful (Muslims) stamping upon the weak (the Armenians), indulging - day after day, week after week, month after month - in merciless butchery of defenceless and hopelessly outnumbered groups of people, attended by orgies of hands-on individual cruelty and deliberate mutilation, rape, robbery and humiliation that are sickening to contemplate when one reads the historic testimony. Armenians were hacked to death with swords, axes, kitchen knives, farm tools by Muslim mobs; because the Muslims - who had, in some cases, been their next-door neighbours and employers - did not want to waste expensive bullets upon the hated Christians.

Turkish Muslim denials that this happened are pathological and bizarre, on a par with the efforts of the likes of David Irving to airbrush away the Shoah. It is clear from a mountain of documentation and testimony - see Vahakn Dadrian - that the Muslims in Turkey set out quite deliberately to destroy the Armenian Christians and did so with horrifying exhibitions of Islamic zeal amounting, at times, to the performance of ritual human sacrifice: for example, mass beheadings and butcherings of helpless captives, followed by the devout performance of ritual Islamic prayers. The word 'genocide' was in fact coined by the first major scholar discussing this event. Hitler's attempted extermination of the Jews was in part inspired by his knowledge of the assault upon the Armenians.

It is also quite clear that although the Allies, chiefly the USA in the Pacific theatre, intended to thoroughly defeat Japan and destroy the fascist regime that had taken Japan to war, they had NO intention of wiping out the Japanese people from the earth, or permanently colonising their territory.

The Japanese were a sovereign nation and remained so, after the war, becoming numerous and prosperous. This looks not to me like the aftermath of a genocide. IF 'war crimes', as ipso facto claims, were committed by the Americans in the closing stages of the defeat of Japan - and I myself think his claim is well and truly disputable - they still ARE NOT comparable to genocide.

The Armenians, on the other hand, a captive nation of exploited, despised and almost weaponless dhimmis, were completely destroyed on Turkish-ruled territory and most of what used to be the Armenian heartland is now 100 % Turkified and Islamified; a remnant of the Armenians survived, on a tiny rump of their homeland, under the protection of the Soviets to become the tiny Armenian nation state of today (and it is a measure of how awful things were under the Turkish Muslims, that the Armenians regarded life under the Soviets as preferable).

There is a difference both of degree and of kind, between what the Japanese brought upon themselves by entering a world war (driven by imperial ambition), and what the Turkish Muslims did to the Armenian Christians.

Start a war of imperial aggression as the Japanese did, underestimate your opponent, overestimate your capacity, enrage your enemy by behaving atrociously toward, for example, conquered populations, civilian captives and POWs (and torpedoing hospital ships, etc.) and, well, you suffer the consequences.

The Armenians cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as having 'provoked' or deserved what the Muslims did to them, from the first Muslim aggression and invasion, all the way through to the final triumphant Muslim islamification and occupation of huge areas that used to be Armenian.

Ipso facto, with extraordinary perversity and sophistry, seems to want to use the Turkish Muslim denial of the fact of the genocide of the Armenians, as a stick with which to beat the USA and accuse it of engaging in an identical denial.

I am not comparing genocide with war crimes, or the amount of suffering caused by the Japaneese to innocent people to the suffering caused by legitimate US military actions against an agressor in order to achieve the goal of "unconditional surrender." What I am comparing is the persistent denial in both Turkey and the US of breaking the civilized rules of war against all evidence to the contrary.

If I was the only person who ever claimed war crimes was committed against Japan by the US, or if this opinion was not based upon solid facts, or not supported by many brave and high ranking American officers - war heroes - in the armed forces and eminent scholars of history, then your negative reaction would be, at least understandable.

Here some quotes from other persons of "extraordinary perversity" who came to the same conclusion as I did:

DWIGHT EISENHOWER:

"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

(Dwight Eisenhower - Ike on Ike, Newsweek, 11/11/63).

ADMIRAL WILLIAM D. LEAHY:

(Chief of Staff to Presidents Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman)

"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

n early May of 1946 Hoover met with General Douglas MacArthur. Hoover recorded in his diary, "I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry of Russia into Manchuria."

GENERAL DOUGLAS MacARTHUR:

MacArthur biographer William Manchester has described MacArthur's reaction to the issuance by the Allies of the Potsdam Proclamation to Japan: "...the Potsdam declaration in July, demand[ed] that Japan surrender unconditionally or face 'prompt and utter destruction.' MacArthur was appalled. He knew that the Japanese would never renounce their emperor, and that without him an orderly transition to peace would be impossible anyhow, because his people would never submit to Allied occupation unless he ordered it. Ironically, when the surrender did come, it was conditional, and the condition was a continuation of the imperial reign. Had the General's advice been followed, the resort to atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki might have been unnecessary."

Norman Cousins was a consultant to General MacArthur during the American occupation of Japan. Cousins writes of his conversations with MacArthur, "MacArthur's views about the decision to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were starkly different from what the general public supposed." He continues, "When I asked General MacArthur about the decision to drop the bomb, I was surprised to learn he had not even been consulted. What, I asked, would his advice have been? He replied that he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it later did anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."

JOSEPH GREW:
(Under Sec. of State)

In a February 12, 1947 letter to Henry Stimson (Sec. of War during WWII), Grew responded to the defense of the atomic bombings Stimson had made in a February 1947 Harpers magazine article:

"...in the light of available evidence I myself and others felt that if such a categorical statement about the [retention of the] dynasty had been issued in May, 1945, the surrender-minded elements in the [Japanese] Government might well have been afforded by such a statement a valid reason and the necessary strength to come to an early clearcut decision.

"If surrender could have been brought about in May, 1945, or even in June or July, before the entrance of Soviet Russia into the [Pacific] war and the use of the atomic bomb, the world would have been the gainer."

JOHN McCLOY:
(Assistant Sec. of War)

"I have always felt that if, in our ultimatum to the Japanese government issued from Potsdam [in July 1945], we had referred to the retention of the emperor as a constitutional monarch and had made some reference to the reasonable accessibility of raw materials to the future Japanese government, it would have been accepted. Indeed, I believe that even in the form it was delivered, there was some disposition on the part of the Japanese to give it favorable consideration. When the war was over I arrived at this conclusion after talking with a number of Japanese officials who had been closely associated with the decision of the then Japanese government, to reject the ultimatum, as it was presented. I believe we missed the opportunity of effecting a Japanese surrender, completely satisfactory to us, without the necessity of dropping the bombs."

Bard also asserted, "I think that the Japanese were ready for peace, and they already had approached the Russians and, I think, the Swiss. And that suggestion of [giving] a warning [of the atomic bomb] was a face-saving proposition for them, and one that they could have readily accepted." He continued, "In my opinion, the Japanese war was really won before we ever used the atom bomb. Thus, it wouldn't have been necessary for us to disclose our nuclear position and stimulate the Russians to develop the same thing much more rapidly than they would have if we had not dropped the bomb."

LEWIS STRAUSS:
(Special Assistant to the Sec. of the Navy)

Strauss recalled a recommendation he gave to Sec. of the Navy James Forrestal before the atomic bombing of Hiroshima:

"I proposed to Secretary Forrestal that the weapon should be demonstrated before it was used. Primarily it was because it was clear to a number of people, myself among them, that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate... My proposal to the Secretary was that the weapon should be demonstrated over some area accessible to Japanese observers and where its effects would be dramatic. I remember suggesting that a satisfactory place for such a demonstration would be a large forest of cryptomeria trees not far from Tokyo. The cryptomeria tree is the Japanese version of our redwood... I anticipated that a bomb detonated at a suitable height above such a forest... would lay the trees out in windrows from the center of the explosion in all directions as though they were matchsticks, and, of course, set them afire in the center. It seemed to me that a demonstration of this sort would prove to the Japanese that we could destroy any of their cities at will... Secretary Forrestal agreed wholeheartedly with the recommendation..."

Strauss added, "It seemed to me that such a weapon was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion, that once used it would find its way into the armaments of the world...".

PAUL NITZE:
(Vice Chairman, U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey)

In 1950 Nitze would recommend a massive military buildup, and in the 1980s he was an arms control negotiator in the Reagan administration. In July of 1945 he was assigned the task of writing a strategy for the air attack on Japan. Nitze later wrote:

"The plan I devised was essentially this: Japan was already isolated from the standpoint of ocean shipping. The only remaining means of transportation were the rail network and intercoastal shipping, though our submarines and mines were rapidly eliminating the latter as well. A concentrated air attack on the essential lines of transportation, including railroads and (through the use of the earliest accurately targetable glide bombs, then emerging from development) the Kammon tunnels which connected Honshu with Kyushu, would isolate the Japanese home islands from one another and fragment the enemy's base of operations. I believed that interdiction of the lines of transportation would be sufficiently effective so that additional bombing of urban industrial areas would not be necessary.

"While I was working on the new plan of air attack... [I] concluded that even without the atomic bomb, Japan was likely to surrender in a matter of months. My own view was that Japan would capitulate by November 1945."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 36-37 (my emphasis)

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey group, assigned by President Truman to study the air attacks on Japan, produced a report in July of 1946 that was primarily written by Nitze and reflected his reasoning:

"Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945 and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated."

quoted in Barton Bernstein, The Atomic Bomb, pg. 52-56.

In his memoir, written in 1989, Nitze repeated,

"Even without the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it seemed highly unlikely, given what we found to have been the mood of the Japanese government, that a U.S. invasion of the islands [scheduled for November 1, 1945] would have been necessary."

Paul Nitze, From Hiroshima to Glasnost, pg. 44-45."

ALBERT EINSTEIN:

Einstein was not directly involved in the Manhattan Project (which developed the atomic bomb). In 1905, as part of his Special Theory of Relativity, he made the intriguing point that a relatively large amount of energy was contained in and could be released from a relatively small amount of matter. This became best known by the equation E=mc2. The atomic bomb was not based upon this theory but clearly illustrated it.

In 1939 Einstein signed a letter to President Roosevelt that was drafted by the scientist Leo Szilard. Received by FDR in October of that year, the letter from Einstein called for and sparked the beginning of U.S. government support for a program to build an atomic bomb, lest the Nazis build one first.

Einstein did not speak publicly on the atomic bombing of Japan until a year afterward. A short article on the front page of the New York Times contained his view:

"Prof. Albert Einstein... said that he was sure that President Roosevelt would have forbidden the atomic bombing of Hiroshima had he been alive and that it was probably carried out to end the Pacific war before Russia could participate."

LEO SZILARD:

(The first scientist to conceive of how an atomic bomb might be made - 1933)

" ... Two days later, Szilard met with J. Robert Oppenheimer, the head scientist in the Manhattan Project. "I told Oppenheimer that I thought it would be a very serious mistake to use the bomb against the cities of Japan. Oppenheimer didn't share my view." "'Well, said Oppenheimer, 'don't you think that if we tell the Russians what we intend to do and then use the bomb in Japan, the Russians will understand it?'. 'They'll understand it only too well,' Szilard replied, no doubt with Byrnes's intentions in mind."

THE FRANCK REPORT: POLITICAL AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS:

The Franck Committee, which could not know that the Japanese government would approach Russia in July to try to end the war, compared the short-term possible saving of lives by using the bomb on Japan with the long-term possible massive loss of lives in a nuclear war:

"...looking forward to an international agreement on prevention of nuclear warfare - the military advantages and the saving of American lives, achieved by the sudden use of atomic bombs against Japan, may be outweighed by the ensuing loss of confidence and wave of horror and repulsion, sweeping over the rest of the world...".

The report questioned the ability of destroying Japanese cities with atomic bombs to bring surrender when destroying Japanese cities with conventional bombs had not done so. It recommended a demonstration of the atomic bomb for Japan in an unpopulated area. Facing the long-term consequences with Russia, the report stated prophetically:

"If no international agreement is concluded immediately after the first demonstration, this will mean a flying start of an unlimited armaments race.".

The report pointed out that the United States, with its highly concentrated urban areas, would become a prime target for nuclear weapons and concluded:

"We believe that these considerations make the use of nuclear bombs for an early, unannounced attack against Japan inadvisable. If the United States would be the first to release this new means of indiscriminate destruction upon mankind, she would sacrifice public support throughout the world, precipitate the race of armaments, and prejudice the possibility of reaching an international agreement on the future control of such weapons.".

ELLIS ZACHARIAS:
(Deputy Director of the Office of Naval Intelligence)

Based on a series of intelligence reports received in late 1944, Zacharias, long a student of Japan's people and culture, believed the Japan would soon be ripe for surrender if the proper approach were taken. For him, that approach was not as simple as bludgeoning Japanese cities:

"...while Allied leaders were immediately inclined to support all innovations however bold and novel in the strictly military sphere, they frowned upon similar innovations in the sphere of diplomatic and psychological warfare."

Ellis Zacharias, The A-Bomb Was Not Needed, United Nations World, Aug. 1949, pg. 29.

Zacharias saw that there were diplomatic and religious (the status of the Emperor) elements that blocked the doves in Japan's government from making their move:

"What prevented them from suing for peace or from bringing their plot into the open was their uncertainty on two scores. First, they wanted to know the meaning of unconditional surrender and the fate we planned for Japan after defeat. Second, they tried to obtain from us assurances that the Emperor could remain on the throne after surrender."

Ellis Zacharias, Eighteen Words That Bagged Japan, Saturday Evening Post, 11/17/45, pg. 17.

To resolve these issues, Zacharias developed several plans for secret negotiations with Japanese representatives; all were rejected by the U.S. government. Instead, a series of psychological warfare radio broadcasts by Zacharias was later approved. In the July 21, 1945 broadcast, Zacharias made an offer to Japan that stirred controversy in the U.S.: a surrender based on the Atlantic Charter. On July 25th, the U.S. intercepted a secret transmission from Japan's Foreign Minister (Togo) to their Ambassador to Moscow (Sato), who was trying to set up a meeting with the Soviets to negotiate an end to the war. The message referred to the Zacharias broadcast and stated:

"...special attention should be paid to the fact that at this time the United States referred to the Atlantic Charter. As for Japan, it is impossible to accept unconditional surrender under any circumstances, but we should like to communicate to the other party through appropriate channels that we have no objection to a peace based on the Atlantic Charter."

U.S. Dept. of State, Foreign Relations of the United States: Conference of Berlin (Potsdam) 1945, vol. 2, pg. 1260-1261.

But on July 26th, the U.S., Great Britain, and China publicly issued the Potsdam Proclamation demanding "unconditional surrender" from Japan. Zacharias later commented on the favorable Japanese response to his broadcast:

"But though we gained a victory, it was soon to be canceled out by the Potsdam Declaration and the way it was handled.

"Instead of being a diplomatic instrument, transmitted through regular diplomatic channels and giving the Japanese a chance to answer, it was put on the radio as a propaganda instrument pure and simple. The whole maneuver, in fact, completely disregarded all essential psychological factors dealing with Japan."

Zacharias continued, "The Potsdam Declaration, in short, wrecked everything we had been working for to prevent further bloodshed...

"Just when the Japanese were ready to capitulate, we went ahead and introduced to the world the most devastating weapon it had ever seen and, in effect, gave the go-ahead to Russia to swarm over Eastern Asia.

"Washington decided that Japan had been given its chance and now it was time to use the A-bomb.

"I submit that it was the wrong decision. It was wrong on strategic grounds. And it was wrong on humanitarian grounds."

GENERAL CARL "TOOEY" SPAATZ:
(In charge of Air Force operations in the Pacific)

General Spaatz was the person who received the order for the Air Force to "deliver its first special bomb as soon as weather will permit visual bombing after about 3 August 1945..."(Leslie Groves, Now It Can Be Told, pg. 308). In a 1964 interview, Spaatz explained:

"The dropping of the atomic bomb was done by a military man under military orders. We're supposed to carry out orders and not question them."

In the same interview, Spaatz referred to the Japanese military's plan to get better peace terms, and he gave an alternative to the atomic bombings:

"If we were to go ahead with the plans for a conventional invasion with ground and naval forces, I believe the Japanese thought that they could inflict very heavy casualties on us and possibly as a result get better surrender terms. On the other hand if they knew or were told that no invasion would take place [and] that bombing would continue until the surrender, why I think the surrender would have taken place just about the same time." (Herbert Feis Papers, Box 103, N.B.C. Interviews, Carl Spaatz interview by Len Giovannitti, Library of Congress).

BRIGADIER GENERAL CARTER CLARKE:

(The military intelligence officer in charge of preparing intercepted Japanese cables - the MAGIC summaries - for Truman and his advisors).

"...when we didn't need to do it, and we knew we didn't need to do it, and they knew that we knew we didn't need to do it, we used them as an experiment for two atomic bombs."

Quoted in Gar Alperovitz, The Decision To Use the Atomic Bomb, pg. 359."

It seems I am in good company with the true American patriots and not among moral nutcases as one opponent claimed.

As you know it is the truth that sets you free, not the lie.

Ipso Facto, would you be kind enough to define the "civilized rules of war," as those existed in 1945, and exactly where in those rules the use of any available weaponry was proscribed?

OK (sigh), here we go, then:

You can forget the League of Nations. Most of the principals in World War II were not members, including the USA! They couldn't help poor Haile Selassie & they couldn't prevent WWII.

ARTICLE XXIII A. To employ poison or poison arms...

As the world was fully 46 years from atomic weaponry, this clearly addressed chemical warfare. The USA did NOT use chemical warfare in WWII. Even the scientists who conceived and produced these weapons couldn't predict the ultimate effects of this new technology.
USA: NOT GUILTY

B. The combatants in the Pacific War who "killed or wounded treacherously," were the Japanese. They began the war in treachery and pursued it in oppression and butchery. This is documented beyond refutation!
USA: NOT GUILTY

C. To kill or wound an enemy, who, having laid down arms...

The Japanese had absolutely not laid-down arms!
They were warned at Potsdam. They were given the choice between "annihilation or the path of reason. There are no alternatives, we shall brook no delay." The Japanese response? Mokusatsu (kill with silence). They were warned again before Nagasaki. Still no surrender! In fact, they were preparing a suicidal fight-to-the-death for their entire nation against an Allied invasion--an invasion that was predicted to cost 500,000 to 1,000,000 Allied lives. Simply, the Japanese refused to surrender.
USA: NOT GUILTY

That's enough of this! I could refute EVERY accusation. But the facts are clear: The employment of Atomic weapons was necessary to end WWII. Only the unprecedented intervention
of the emperor himself in the Supreme Council--AFTER and BECAUSE the bombs were employed--ended the war. Period.
And we both know that the radical militarists
tried everything to sabotage that surrender, don't we?

Sorry for you that stark reality doesn't match your ideals. Defeating islam by whatever means necessary probably doesn't appeal to you either. You may have to consider growing some cajones or saving-up to pay the jizzya...

Good luck...

I am sure there are many other sites devoted to discussion of World War II, where ipso facto can castigate America's conduct of that war, to his heart's content.

This site is not the place for it.

I suggest in the meantime that if he hasn't already done so, he go and watch a few beheading videos, and videos of stonings, and the pictures of the bodies of the hostages at Beslan and Mumbai, in order to realize what sort of monster we are up against in this particular war...which has been going on, as hot war or as cold war, on multiple fronts, since the 7th century. What the Muslims did to the Armenians, they have done to others, in other places, and they can and will do it again (and worse, and more), to others, yes, even to us, the moment the opportunity presents. And they will not feel the least twinge of regret. *Muslims* - judging from the testimony of history, including the histories boastingly written by themselves - clearly feel entitled to break ALL the so-called rules of warfare; whether the rules of warfare that obtained, such as they were, in 7th century pre-Islamic Arabia, or the rules of warfare that the non-Muslims of high medieval India observed amongst themselves, or the rules of warfare devised by modern western nations.

I will make a further observation: it may just be that the new Japanese head of the IAEA is showing a little bit more initiative and backbone - and a little more wholesome fear - as regards Iran's nuclear project precisely *because* he knows, being Japanese, just exactly what atomic weapons can do.

The sensible thing for anyone who remembers and deplores Hiroshima and Nagasaki, to do, is to be screaming up hill and down dale for a concerted effort by all halfway sane nations, to obliterate both Pakistan's and Iran's nuclear capabilities, as fast and as completely as possible.

Having had a shocking object lesson as to what nukes could do, the Americans - and I think, too, the atheist Soviet and atheist Chinese regimes, for whom any 'paradise' was only to be found on earth and in this life, and for whom therefore the prospect of nuclear-poisoned gonads and mutant grandchildren was not exactly inviting - restrained themselves from the use of same. MAD *is* a deterrent for anyone with a gram of empathy...or rational self-preservation. But I do not think it will be much of a deterrent, long-term, for sharia-maddened Muslims.

Americans don't dance on the graves of the children who were killed in Tokyo, Hiroshima or Nagasaki. Americans don't visit those places to gloat. That there are American historians who regard the bombings as a tragic necessity, and reject the charge that they were war crimes, is not proof that Americans are morally the same as Muslims.

Muslims on the other hand - as witness the furious indignation of the Turkish Muslims whenever the killing of the Armenians is brought up - don't seem to feel any empathy at all, nor any regret over, the guesstimated two hundred seventy million human beings they've human-sacrificed, so far, on the battlefield altars of 'allah'. Anyone who has read the historical accounts of jihad warfare anthologised in 'Legacy of Jihad' or in Bat Yeor's books, is soon forced to the conclusion that for Muslims, mass murder (especially of POWs and helpless civilians) is not *simply* a brutal means to a brutal military end (such as one sees in the career of a non-Muslim warlord such as Genghiz Khan); it appears to be an end in itself, indulged in for its own sake, far exceeding any conceivable argument of military necessity.

Here's something another poster, thomash, shared recently: the testimony of two elderly survivors of the Armenian genocide, as related to him personally, many years ago:

"Some 20 years ago I sat next to an quite old Armenian couple while flying from California to Denmark. The man was a retired professor of medicine and his wife a general physician. They were very intelligent, cultured and erudite, but at the same time unassuming, sweet people.

"After some hours of conversation I mentioned the Armenian genocide by Turks. I regretted it immediately, because I felt I touched a deposit of terribly painful feelings.

"Both were born in Turkey and survived the genocide by a sheer miracle, but their entire families were butchered by murder intoxicated Turks who spared absolutely no one.

"What I will never forget is that when I asked them if they know, or have heard about cases of individual Turks who would try to hide, or in any way help an Armenian

'they stopped for a while trying to remember their own experience and stories of other Armenian survivors,

'then the man shook his head, smiled faintly and said quietly: my friend, there is no place for pity in the Turkish heart.

" 
I said that Nazi Germany and her helpers murdered millions of Jews, [but] nevertheless, and in spite of the danger there were thousands of individual people, ALSO Germans, who risking their own life rescued Jews.

"But the man repeated that he has never heard of even one similar case during the Armenian genocide.

"
I met quite a few Turks in my life and on a few occasions I heard what they had to say about the Armenian genocide.

"They were either defiant, in denial, or angry. But they all shared the attitude that the Armenians had it coming. No sorry, no regret, no shame.

"I have good reason to trust what the old Armenian said about Turkish compassion. Indeed, Islam distorts man’s heart in a most profound way." END QUOTE.

Devout Muslims could contemplate a planet-wide atomic jihad with nothing but ecstasy: nukes would allow them to 'scale up' the murder-'martyr' "slay and be slain in the path of allah' phenomenon, to the tune of millions. Inshallah fatalism plus malignant narcissism plus 'slay or be slain' plus jihad fi sabil allah, plus the idea that if you murder an Infidel that Infidel's death is your personal ticket to paradise, *plus nukes* is a terrifying combination.

Unless we resist Jihad on every front, *other* peoples will most assuredly be mass-murdered exactly as the Armenians were murdered. They *are* being so murdered, in the Sudan. And I believe it quite likely that the millions of Copts in Egypt are, today, in imminent danger of being subjected to something resembling the Shoah.

That is why bringing to public attention the jihad genocide of the Armenians - and commemorating, too, as one Australian city council has done, the Muslim mass murders of Assyrian Christians - is so important for us, today.