Why is it that the Muslim victims at the hands of Armenian nationalists during WWI is almost always ignored?
According to the “Dictionary of WWI” by Stephen Pope & Elizabeth-Anne Wheal, 2003, ISBN 0 85052 979-4, page 34, 120,000 Muslims, mostly Turkish, were killed by Armenian nationalists in 1914.
And that does not even take into account the infamous Van Rebellion by Armenians in April of 1915.
Why is it so difficult to comprehend that the Van Revolt by Armenians—where about 40,000 Muslim inhabitants of the town were cut down by Armenians and the city was turned over to Russian invader—is the EQUIVALENT TO 9/11 FOR THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE?
Consider this: The U.S. crossed oceans and continents to wage a trillion dollar global war on terrorism because about 3,000 of its citizens were killed on American soil. Why is it, then, so difficult to understand that the Ottoman Empire, having lost 120,000 of its citizens, resorted to similar , but much lesser, measures of TERESET (Temporary Resettlement) of the perpetrators?
Rephrased, how can 3,000 victims in 2001 justify a international, global war, but 120,000 victims in 1914 (and many more in 1915) do not justify even a domestic, local TERESET ?
Values and concepts like fairness, balance, double standards, religious bias, ethnic bigotry, racial prejudice, defamation, demonization, and others seem to all come into play here…
24TH OF APRIL, 1915: IT IS THE BEGINNING OF OTTOMAN GUANTANAMO, NOT A BOGUS GENOCIDE
Why is it so hard to see that the 24th of April, 1915, is the beginning of OTTOMAN GUANTANAMO, not the bogus genocide. On that day, some 237 Armenian suspects (not thousands as claimed) of treason were arrested and sent to central Anatolia, to places like Corum, and subjected to house arrest, which meant they could roam around during the day but had to check into a designated house at night. Not exactly even Guantanamo, is it? All of them were returned in the end, except two. They were murdered but on unrelated matters of money and trade. No matter how one slices it, this does not sound like genocide, does it?
Here is, then, the forest for those who miss it because of a tree or two: Turks and Armenians had lived in a relatively harmonious cohabitation in Anatolia for nearly a millennium before the Armenian took up arms against their own government towards the end of that millennium (i.e. 1894-1915). Had the Armenians (and others) not taken up arms against their own neighbors, co-citizens, and government, they would have still been living in Anatolia today, just like the Armenians of Istanbul who mostly stayed loyal to the Ottoman Empire .
Since when, then, defending one’s home a genocide?
Would America behave differently today if three million Americans (roughly equivalent of 120,000 Ottomans killed by Armenians) were mercilessly killed by some insurgent groups who then enthusiastically joined the enemy armies equally brutally invading America?
Please!