Submitted by Lynn, Oct 15, 2007 13:54

Whether there was a genocide committed by the Ottoman regime is hotly disputed between historians. Those who have concluded no genocide occurred include: Bernard Lewis, Pierre Oberling, Dankwart Rostow, Stanford Shaw, Justin McCarthy, Norman Stone, Guenther Lewy, Heath Lowry, and Avigdor Levy. They attribute the deaths of Armenians during WWI to the conditions of war, which were aggravated by the Armenian Independence Movement and Revolts that occurred from 1885-1919.

To pretend H. Res. 106 is about condemning 'another government from another time' and has nothing to do with the Turkey or Turks of today is disingenuous to say the least.

Anyone with any knowledge about this issue knows that recognizing Armenian genocide claims is tied to LAND RESTITUTION CLAIMS.

Armenia does not recognize Turkey's eastern border and considers east Turkey to be west Armenia. This is an ongoing territorial dispute to which history is just one component. THIS is one reason why Turks are reacting as angrily as they are.

Since it was founded, the Republic of Turkey has never sought an expansionist policy. It should be made abundantly clear to the Armenian Diaspora, Armenia and the U.S. Congress, that, as Ataturk once said, Turks will NOT give up one inch either.

If this was about historical truth, and not pandering to Armenian voters and contributers, then when are the Turks massacred by the Armenian militias going to be the subject of a resolution?

The genocide resolution says nothing about the 2 million Muslim and Turkic people forcibly relocated and ruthlessly massacred by Russia aided by ARMENIANS from 1820-1920. Nor does it address the horrid conditions under which Turkic and Muslim people were expelled from the Balkans.

According to ethnographic studies conducted by Professor Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, while populations the rest of the world over were increasing, due to war, massacre and ensuing famines, the population of Turkic Muslim people diminished by 5 MILLION between 1820-1923. Turks, however, do not run from one parliament to another screaming "genocide" because they understand, it was war. They do not use their dead for dishonorable means or financial gain.

This resolution also says nothing about the Azeris massacred by Armenians within the last 20 years or the U.N. Resolution calling for Armenians to return territories they've occupied in Karabakh.

If this is about historical truth, why does Armenia refuse to open its archives, as Turkey has? Why does Armenia refuse to take part in a historical commission and engage in a thorough review of these events using all available documents, as Turkey proposes? Why has this resolution not been written by historians?

Why are the views of the 69 historians who objected to the accuracy of H. Res. 106 when it first surfaced being ignored? Who in the US is a more qualified Middle Eastern Historian than Bernard Lewis? The Encyclopedia of History and Historians says nobody.

Apparently, some in Congress with large Armenian constituencies disagree, they feel they are better qualified.

Either that, or they are using despicable means that will put the lives of U.S. soldiers at great risk to get us out of Iraq (what else could the U.S. do if Incirlik is closed and the difficulty of supplying troops increased by an order of magnitude?)

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.