Wow alot has changed in the 5 years since you posted this comment

Maybe, could your dad be 350 lbs of angry asshole at the drop of a dime? Man I love that Dude. LOL

Are you going to post about Khojaly genocide, too?

************Some of you people have Waaaaaaaaaay to much time on you're hands.. lol kiddin..
the FAPPER is right., when it comes down to it --- Ya just gotta let it go.. (to quote my father) Never harbour hatred or resentment for someone else..., NO ONE (or race of people) should be occupying a room in you're head 'rent free'.. It is bad for you're heart and soul... LET IT GO...

I am not using any logical fallacies. I am trying to make you see that the very same things that you accuse muslims of having done were also done by christians. The reason why I am doing this is to make you see that you are taking things out of context and trying to reformat them rather miserably to fit into your personal line of thinking, which, in my view, is dominated by your deep hatred.

So, what you're saying is that Arabs and muslims used evil "Islamic philosophy" in their conquests, but the Crusaders used humane "Christian philosophy". Is that it? The Crusaders were more civilized and humane, while the muslims were naturally more savage. In the meantime, we had years of burning witches at stakes, the Inquisition, written documents like Malleus Maleficarum, the Bogomil & Albigensian genocides, the 30 Years' War etc etc... Do you really believe half the shit you posted in this thread?

I am stating the facts, also, PissFlap. What's the problem? Are my "facts" bothering you? Frankly, you kind of remind me of these fundamentalists that you seem to criticize. The very way you attempt to take events out of context and try to reformat them according to your own bias tells me that intellectual impartiality is something that you don't practice. All I hear from you is "muslims did this, muslims did that"... It is lame at best, and outright laughable at worst. I am very serious. There is too much hatred in your heart. I hope you find a solution to that one day.

Dude, you really have no clue what you're talking about in regards to the adoptions. I literally grew up in the Armenian section of Istanbul, which is "Kurtulus" by the way, not Kumkapi, and just like our Armenian neighbours baby-sat for me, my mother baby-sat for their kids. On the contrary to your naive assumption about a "few Turks" adopting, you'd be surprised how many Turks adopted both Greek & Armenian children during that era. Why do you think the government had to pass laws forbidding Turkish citizens from having access to their family records? And, no, these kids weren't adopted because they were "pretty girls". They were adopted because these people had been neighbours and often friends most of their lives. I am not sure what your problem is, but you really need to shed that hatred you harbour in your heart. It is bad for your soul.

Look, whether you think the Turkish government was genuine or not in its offer is your own opinion - nothing else. Erdogan did offer to open the archives and Armenia did not want to offer access to their archives. You can personally make a claim about who was genuine and who was not, but either way, it is once again your hatred that is talking, not facts. In regards to your amusing idea about "doctoring" the archives, it goes to show how uninformed you're, as it is nearly impossible to doctor those archives, which would naturally be viewed by "non-Turkish" experts. The reason why Armenia isn't willing to compare notes isn't because of documents that could be "missing". It is actually because of documents that are "not missing" and that would not support some of the claims...

I also don't understand what you're saying about this Turkish law - basically you admitting and accepting that young Armenian, Christian children (mainly girls, as they are more malleable), were adopted and made into Islamic brides - why waste good "meat" ? I have come across a surprising number of Turks (Fethiye Cetin, etc.) who suddenly discover that their GRANDMOTHER was an Armenian. Ataturk had an adopted daughter who was an Armenian orphan - I bet she wasn't brought up to have a knowledge of her past and religion, in the way say a black baby adopted by white parents might ensure has exposure to African/Caribbean culture...

How is the conversion of Hagia Sophia into a mosque different from the Christian tradition of converting ancient pagan sites of worship into churhces? Every church or cathedral of importance in Europe is erected on pagan sites that the Church declared "heretic"... what is your point? If you are so concerned about the "heart of Christiandom", I suggest you take a critical look at what the Chruch did to the Cathars in Langudoc, France. It wasn't the muslims that carried out that genocide, right, PissFlap? Or the Bogomils for that matter. As I said, don't let your hatred cloud your judgement.

Can you show me the equivalent of a "muslim" patriarchy in any part of Europe, PissFlap? You can't even show an old synagogue in Europe. Why? Because religious tolerance at that time did not exist in Europe. However, it did exist in the Ottoman empire and that is why the Greek Orthodox & the Armenian Patriarchies are still in Istanbul after centuries... Just admit it, bro, there is nothing you can say that will change this fact. (I was in Kumkapi about 6 month ago btw, and it is amazing how well they have renovated that historic part of the city. When was the last time you visited Kumkapi?)

In fact, another great Turkish intellectual and friend of Armenians (and one I've met, shook his hand and have a signed copy of his book "A shameful act") is Professor Taner Akcam, a kindly academic. He has already accessed the Ottoman archives and come to the same conclusion!:

http://goo.gl/Cho72
http://goo.gl/xpjSd

For his sins, he told me how much he and his wife suffered at the hands of Turkish nationalists, who fire-bombed his flat in Istanbul.

Is there something wrong with the sultans being muslims? The monarchies in Europe were christians, were they not? You ever heard of the "Holy Roman Empire"? While jews, christians and muslims could live in a relatively tolerant empire, Europe was exclusively christian. Neither jews nor muslims could live there, although they could live in the Ottoman Empire. So, within the right context and during the same time period, it was actually the "muslim" ottomans that showed religious tolerance, not the Christian kingdoms of Europe, which were too busy killing off their own christian subjects due to sectarian differences. Ever heard of the Albigensian genocide? As I said, if you want to be taken seriously by people who know history, I suggest you don't let your hatred cloud your judgement. You may impress clueless fellows like Captain on this site, but you'd be a source of amusement at any dinner party that is attended by knowledgeable people.

So, basically, you are complaining that Arabs conquered all of north Africa, the middle east, Iran, and parts of northern India after Muhammed died, and you're saying that what took place in WWI is related to the shariah law...??? Is that it? Because if it is, it is nonsense. Had the Armenians, or the Crusades for that matter, been strong enough they would have conquered the Arabs. Following your logic, Atilla the Hun shouldn't have conquered anywhere either, and Anglo-Saxons should have stayed in what is today Denmark instead of crossing the channel. The problem with your arguments is that you let your deep hatred of Islam cloud your judgement, and that is why it is hard to take your claims seriously. Frankly, I don't like shariah law, or Arabs for that matter, anymore than you do, but I still don't undertand the point you're trying to make. Within 200 years of the zealous Arabs, we had the equally fanatic Crusades. So, what's your point?

From Wiki: Under Islamic law, jizya or jizyah is a per capita tax levied on a section of an Islamic state's non-Muslim citizens, who meet certain criteria. The tax is and was to be levied on able-bodied adult males of military age and affording power. From the point of view of the Muslim rulers, jizya was a material proof of the non-Muslims' acceptance of subjection to the state and its laws, "just as for the inhabitants it was a concrete continuation of the taxes paid to earlier regimes." In return, non-Muslim citizens were permitted to practice their faith, to enjoy a measure of communal autonomy, to be entitled to the Muslim state's protection from outside aggression, and to be exempted from military service and the zakat taxes obligatory upon Muslim citizens.

The last time the talks were cut off, it was done by the Armenian side. Tayyip Erdogan was very clear about opening the archives, and demanded that the Armenian side does the same. He made that offer despite tremendous pressure from the Azeris, who asked for "no talks" with the Armenian government till the Karabagh issue was resolved.

But, that's not what I was asking, is it? I asked you about the Turkish government's offer to provide access to an international consortium of historians to view the Ottoman archives, and the Armenian government's rejection of the offer. Clearly, the Turkish government feels confident that some of the "claims" being made would be debunked if the archives are opened. In regards to the "adoptions", what you are conveniently failing to mention is that many of the children of the Armenian families being sent on exile were actually hidden & adopted in secrecy by the Turkish families & neighbours of the Armenian parents being sent away. So, don't talk out of your ass about adoptions, my friend. There is a law in Turkey that doesn't allow "Turkish citizens" to access their family lineage, and that law is in place to prevent any future claims that could be made by those children that were adopted. Did you know that??? Yeah, I bet you didn't.

Cher is a better example of an Armenian-American - even though she is a little too Hollywood - but she's a talented singer/musician, an Oscar-winning actress, etc. Kim K is the biggest ho on the planet, even though she's quite pretty.

But I think the worst genocide ever was against the native americans. My armenian friend agrees. Just personal opinion. Genocide is genocide no argument.

http://youtu.be/QtGSMwUXCdk

One of the biggest and most respected Armenian communities in the ME is in Syria - just across the border from Turkey - in Deir-ez-Zor and Aleppo - but because our Western chums have been destabilising Syria, Armenians (and other Christians) have been victimised and killed by the idiot Jihadis flooding the country. Muslim persecution continues.

Yes, we can all get those dates from Wiki, too, but my question was not pertaining to the timeline of conquests. What I don't get is how you tie shariah law into what took place in World War I? There is nothing unusual or unjust about the Ottomans or the Arabs conquering new lands. The Scandinavian Rus tribes of Sweden conquered the Slavic lands of what is today Russia. The Germanic Franks conquered what used to be Celtic lands. The Anglo-Saxons conquered the Celtic British Isles. I don't get your frustration over the Ottomans conquering Anatolia? Are you saying they were doing something that nobody else in the world was doing at that time? That's just silly, PissFlap.

I don't believe that the Japanese have come to terms with their state's war crimes, the state curriculum only has passing references to atrocities in occupied territories during WWII. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…

I apologise for not having any more detail, but as you can see, from 600-1923, most of what Armenians suffered was to do with the surrounding empires, all Muslim. And the majority of those empires implemented sharia and all associated heavy taxes, conversions and destructions.

1400 - Tamerlane's devastating invasion of Georgia, Armenia and Central Anatolia leads to the slaughter of large portions of the population of Armenia and the enslavement of over 60,000 people from Anatolia and the Caucasus.
1502 - The fanatical Shi'ite Safavid Dynasty is established in Persia, that conquers most of Armenia.
1520 - Large portions of Armenia are conquered by Selim I.
1532 - The second series of Ottoman-Persian wars rage in Armenia (to 1555)
1598 - Continuation of the devastating Jelali revolts in Anatolia. (to 1611)
1603 - Shah Abbas of Persia invades Ottoman Armenia. (to 1618)
1623 - The final Ottoman-Safavid War rages in Armenia. (to 1639)
1747 - The Persians establish the Karabakh Khanate.
1894-1896 - Hamidian Massacres: An estimated 80,000–300,000 are killed.
1909 - Adana Massacre: An estimated 15,000–30,000 are killed.
1915 - Armenian Genocide: An estimated 1,500,000 are killed. (to 1923)

1194 - After the decline of the Seljuk dominace in the region, Eastern Anatolia is ruled by a slew of Turkish emirates and tribes, such as the Ahlatshahs, Mengujekids, Saltukids and the Artuqids. (to 1241)
1241 - Mongol Invasion of Anatolia, much of the sedentary population of Armenia is slaughtered. (to 1244)
1256 - Turco-Mongol rule continues in Eastern Anatolia under the Ilkhanate rulers and their Turkish and Kurdish vassals. (to 1335)
1335 - The decline of Mongol power leads Armenia to be dominated once again by Anatolian Turkoman tribes such as the Chobanids. (to 1400)
1375 - Fall of the Armenian kingdom of Cilicia to the Mameluks of Egypt and their Ramadanid vassals.

If the Christians were subjugated and killed wholesale, then how do you explain that the Orthodox Patriarchy, which is the equivalent of Vatican for orthodox Christians, has been in Istanbul for the past 400 or so years? If the Ottomans were so bent on killing all Christians, surely, they wouldn't let the Patriarchy survive on Ottoman lands, right, PissFlap? Care to expand on this somewhat inconvenient fact? The last time I checked, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchy was still in Istanbul. Can you name one mosque that has been in Europe for over 400 years dating back to the same era? Go on, give it a try... You can do it, we can help.

So, what has the Arab conquest of Armenia got to do with the events that took place in World War I? What is your point? I am really confused, that's why I am asking.

Yes, but what has the invasion of Van by Arabs got to do with the slaughter that took place 1200 years later during the First World War? Plus, the time periods and the incidents you're quoting are not events that are unusual - everybody else out there was trying to conquer each other. Were the Arabs or the Turks doing anything different than the Franks, the Romans, or the Greeks led by Alexander the Great? What exactly is the point you're trying to make, PissFlap?

Arab Conquest of Armenia: http://goo.gl/EqcHa

... in 639, the Lake Van region of Turkey (heartland of Armenia) was over-run by 20,000 Arabs; in 642, 10's of thousands of Armenians were killed and even more carried off into slavery. The ancient chronicles attest to these incidents with writings depicting at the barbarity and religious zeal with which the Arabs came. Another 400 years later, the Islamized Turkic tribes began to pour into the Armenian heartland, systemically invading, converting and killing the Armenians, Assyrians and Byzantine Greeks to Islam. Remember, the heartland of Anatolia (of what is South East Turkey now) was and still is a heartland of Christianity.

It sounds just like the Crusades that took place between 1095 and 1290... Does it ring a bell? Plus, I didn't ask you what the Arabs did to Armenians. I asked Captain to clarify how the Armenian genocide had anything to do with Islam. Between the date you offered, 632 AD, and the First World War, there are more than 1200 years. So, what exactly is the point you're trying to make?

If I recall correctly, the Prime Minister of Turkey offered to access to the Ottoman archives and asked for the Armenian government to do the same with their own archives, so that both archives could be studied by an international consortium of historians & experts. Do you have any suggestions as to why the Armenian government rejected that offer?

Why so much to hide, why so much to be angry about? Germans, Japanese, Americans, the French, etc. have all come to terms with their history - no Brit will every question that the British Empire did very bad things to its subject peoples. 99% of Germans will feel ashamed of Hitler and the collective madness their grandfathers went through - however, they accept history, and have been able to move on, confident of who they are - the Turks and Turkey - still denying, fighting and silencing the truth.

The local metal shop here in town is owned by two Armenian brothers. They fucking hate the turks, and greeks for some reason, but mainly turks.

The concept of "genocide" was presented to the League of Nations by Raphael Lemkin, a Polish lawyer/historian of Jewish descent, in 1933, after he studied the destruction of the Armenians.

Esto me huele a pamper cagao!

Canadian Foreign Minister John Baird - "Canada views Iran as the most significant threat to global peace and security in the world today". Spetember 2012. Reports suggest one of the suspects is a Tunisian national and the other a Palestinian and that they were turned in by concerned members of the Muslim community in Toronto.

Well, I look forward to it... it will be a nice break from your usual "evil muslims and brainwashed communist liberal leftists cunts" themes... Let me guess... Are you planning to cover issues like the Armenian genocide or the Kurdish issue in Turkey as your "acid test" in order to "explain who I really am" in the hopes that I will embark on a feverish crusade to defend Turkey in the face of criticism? hehehe, good luck with that... In order to test how intellectually impartial I am, I suggest you ask yourself first how impartial you're in these matters.

Another paranoid delusional guy with a camera. Fox News will probably give him his own show.

When I served in Afghanistan and patrolled passed schools in the afternoon the women would all be waiting outside wearing identical, black burkas, yet their kids would come running out the gates and go straight to them. I used to wonder "how the fuck do those kids know which one's their momma"? Still haven't figured it out to this day :-I

I'm surprised this was submitted without looking at the pictures. FFS it says Malibu on the side of his spandex shorts IN THE FIRST PICTURE

and then tie him to a chair and beat the fuck out of him keeping him alive with bath salts, while slowly peeling his skin off.

oops to far?

Yeah, you can tell that he watched it since he knew that and didn't run over to press "stop" right away.

Thats not how you teach them to play fetch

Ummm ...NOOOOOOO!
this was done with sharpies foo

Number 7 looks like Burger King mascot.

Take out her trash?

I wish I could even half this good... I hadtrouble even drawing stick figures

[image]

She was able to laugh it off cause he kicks like a girl!!

Yes, extra points for her ability to laugh it off like an adult. Still, something tells me she won't be as chipper once the ethanol wears off in the morning.

It was the pants that gave that away.

It's probably being said in this instance more so as a prayer instead of as a war chant.

Is it more puzzling than saying "Oh, my god"?

Maybe he thinks it is what god wanted. Like a rape baby.

Most ridiculous comment on H666, congrats!

Only a muslim could have negged your comment. That pig is lush

"Anthropomorphizing"!!!!..... Fuck man, I nearly ran out of breath just saying it in my head.

Damn sure that got to be word of the month????