Qestions for Armenians .They can not give answers but at least they can read
Why was every single Ottoman official, incarcerated for war crimes during the nearly two-and-a-half years of the Malta Tribunals, finally acquitted?
THIS IS THE QUESTION THAT WOULD PUT AN END TO THE “ARMENIAN GENOCIDE” MATTER, TO ANY LOGICAL MIND. I HAVE NOT SEEN THE MALTA TRIBUNALS REFERRED TO IN ANY OF THE ARMENIAN WEB SITES.
2) The “Sick Man of Europe” was on her knees, financially broke and depleted of manpower (thanks to German-directed military mobilization) and needed resources. Why would the empire choose this most inopportune time to target the Armenians, who made the financial wheels turn and were clearly a vital resource to the country?
3) The “Sick Man of Europe” was on her knees, financially broke. Why would she spend a fortune on resettling the Armenians?
If the idea was to wipe them out, why didn’t they massacre them on the spot, as the Armenians did with the Turks?
4) Could the Ottoman Turks have the TECHNOLOGICAL capacity to carry out a government-sponsored genocide on such a grand scale?
5) If the idea of the resettlement program was to subject the Armenians to a slow, genocidal death, why did so many Armenians survive?
If there was a true government sponsored policy of extermination, why leave the barely-living starved alive? In short, it all boils down to: how could the great majority...one million out of less than one and a half million... have survived?
6) Why then, would the Turks fool around by going through the musical chairs of separating the men (remember, the Armenians claim the men were largely unarmed)?
Also, why were there supposedly so many orphans?
If a government has in mind to wipe out a race, why leave so many children alive?
The Armenians didn’t intend to leave the Turkish children alive.
7) Hitler began by targeting the Jews in Berlin. Why were the Armenians in Istanbul and other cities of the West such as Izmir, left alone for the most part?
The Armenians say this was because these cities were under too much foreign observation. However, the Ottomans were aware, after generations of being subjected to capitulations, that foreign posts were set up even in the distant corners of the empire... as readily under foreign observation.(American consuls of these out-of-the-way distant provinces, such as Leslie Davis [the genocide-proving “big gun” highlighted in the PBS pro-Armenian programs covered at this site], were among them. In addition, the missionaries were everywhere.)
8) As a related point, "Talat Pasa allowed the American missionaries to do relief work among the Armenians, in spite of the fact that Turkey and the United States were on the opposing camps during the war.
How many examples are there in history of a combatant country permitting the citizens of another country fighting in the other camp to stay, feed, cloth and educate the people it is accused of exterminating?
9) The Armenian perspective never fails to offer the convictions Turkish courts laid out to their own officials immediately after the war, and the Sevres Treaty, which partly proclaimed a large chunk of Eastern Turkey to be part of Armenia.
For a better proof of judging whether a genocide occurred, one must look at the Treaty of Leninakan (Gümrü) signed (December 3, 1920) by the Armenians and Turks, which closed the book on past ills, foregoing the issue of reparations.
If the Armenians were truly outraged over the Turks’ Nazi-like evil campaign to exterminate them, how could they have agreed to such terms?
"If the Ottoman Empire really did commit the crime of genocide from 1915-1919, as Armenians allege, then why would the newly established Armenia turn to the Ottoman Empire for help in 1918, 1919, or 1920?
10) As yet another follow-up, why didn't Armenian delegate to the Paris Peace Conference, Boghos Nubar Pasha, mention the "genocide" in his January 30, 1919 letter to The Times of London?