Political activists continuously provide new arguments in order to convince uninformed individuals to flock to their perspective. One such argument was encountered in an article. The argument was that since Armenian women and children were relocated, then there must have been a genocidal plan of extermination, and asked why the Ottoman government would relocate women and children. Another activist explained why drawing such a conclusion through this sort of speculation would not be beneficial for society.

Some authors try to equate people who dismiss the Armenian Genocide label because of lack of evidence, with people who generally deny genocides with the intent to hate and promote racism. There is a difference.

Darfur, Sudan, is one of those sad stories that has been correctly labeled as the first genocide of the 21st century.

Armenians were not generally oppressed by governments, but more by regional people of power. They were in fact the second-most respected people of the Ottoman Empire, first being the Muslims (since it was an Islamic Empire). In fact, Albertus Bobovius, who was enslaved by Crimean Tatars and sold into the palace in the 17th century, reports that both Armenians and Jews were exempt from the devşirme levy. He writes that the reason for this exemption of Armenians is religious: That Gregorian church (Armenian Church) is considered to be the closest to Christ's original (therefore Muhammed's) teachings.

The debate over the legal definition of genocide regarding the tragic fate that befell the Armenians is one of the most controversial and heated debates within the field of Ottoman studies. On the one hand, you have scholars such as Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Stanford Shaw, Salahi Ramsdan Sonyel, Gunter Lewey, and Michael Gunter arguing that the Armenians did not suffer from genocide. According to Justin McCarthy:

Muslims and Christians have always had periods of tension, and World War I was a time when Muslims and Christians did indeed fight; however, not always because of religion. The problem is, people automatically jump to conclusions assuming that the Muslims and Christians are at some sort of religious war; however, there are always more factors to this equation...

This is a brief, concise explanation of the Armenian Revolt and the subsequent suppression. Most material you read on this topic will present a one-sided argument that fails in providing a critical analysis of events. Generally, material is designed by authors to "lead" the reader to come to a pre-designated conclusion of an "Absolute Genocide" or an "Absolute Denial".

It's truly saddening to see the numerous comments by Armenian propagandists that continue to focus hate on the Turkish government and their never ending quest to make the Turkish government look like "the liars." However, it is also uplifting to see some Armenians that will discuss these events maturely and will actually try to argue. While some of the Armenian propagandists will dismiss whole articles and use their argument of "it happened" or "everybody believes it already" or "The Armenian revolution is irrelevant", such arguments by scholars on all sides are said to not aid the Armenian genocide argument. It is a debate, and just because one says it isn't a debate, doesn't make it so.

This is a brief, concise explanation of the Armenian Revolt and the subsequent suppression. Most material you read on this topic will present a one-sided argument that fails in providing a critical analysis of events. Generally, material is designed by authors to "lead" the reader to come to a pre-designated conclusion of an "Absolute Genocide" or an "Absolute Denial".

This is a brief, concise explanation of the Armenian Revolt and the subsequent suppression. Most material you read on this topic will present a one-sided argument that fails in providing a critical analysis of events. Generally, material is designed by authors to "lead" the reader to come to a pre-designated conclusion of an "Absolute Genocide" or an "Absolute Denial".

Yes, that is true. This is the scale, there are extremists on both sides.

To pretend H.R. 106 is about condemning ‘another government from another time’ and has nothing to do with the Turkey or Turks of today is entirely disingenuous.

The Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.R. 106) was created to condemn and insult Turkey in order to promote more Turkish hatred by the outside world. This hatred will form the impetus for the next phase of their lobbying efforts when they begin putting pressure on the U.S. Congress and other nations to force Turkey to pay reparations and give land to Armenia for a genocide, not proven in a court of law, that they allege Ottoman Turks committed about a century ago. When nations reply that they cannot try an empire that does not exist anymore for reparations, Armenians will reply, "Well your country accepted this resolution on that year".

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.

It is important to note that Turkish Denial is always a key argument in Armenian Genocide supporters and that we need to understand whether this denial is a truth or a lie. In order to do this, you must take yourself out of the picture and stop picking sides, and start picking facts. Many people will claim the other side is being biased, and even the people claiming they are unbiased are usually biased. It's important to act as a detective which is what historians do when looking for facts.

Some Armenians have compared the events prior to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire to the Holocaust. This comparison is very far-fetched, let's consider all the details of the Holocaust and the Armenian Rebellion.

Armenian Genocide Supporters have all kinds of arguments, but very rarely can come up with any factual evidence. All the might and power of the Armenian propaganda machine has failed to get the whole world to accept the genocide, and some wonder why, and there are some that wonder how they even got this far.