Genocide has been one of Islam’s preferred methods of negotiation since the time of the Prophet. One of the first things Mohammed, a man with a tendency to hold a grudge longer than most, did was to lead his followers in a systematic extermination of the Jewish tribes in his homeland as soon as it was politically feasible. In the centuries since then Muslims have slaughtered untold numbers of infidels, exterminating whole communities of Christians, Jews, Hindus, and other non-believers wherever Islam has taken hold. In particular the vibrant and varied Christian communities in the Middle East were annihilated very early, leaving a black hole that impoverished and changed forever the composition of Christendom itself.
The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin al-Husseini, was one of Hitler’s great admirers, and helped organize an Arab alliance with the Nazis during World War II. His reasoning? The Germans were undertaking the most worthy cause, one that the Arabs could wholeheartedly support. He was more than simply a casual collaborator; he rivaled the most dedicated Nazis in his zeal for the Holocaust:
|In 1941, Haj Amin al-Husseini fled to Germany and met with Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler, Joachim Von Ribbentrop and other Nazi leaders. He wanted to persuade them to extend the Nazis’ anti-Jewish program to the Arab world.|
|The Mufti sent Hitler 15 drafts of declarations he wanted Germany and Italy to make concerning the Middle East. One called on the two countries to declare the illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine. Furthermore, “they accord to Palestine and to other Arab countries the right to solve the problem of the Jewish elements in Palestine and other Arab countries, in accordance with the interest of the Arabs and, by the same method, that the question is now being settled in the Axis countries.”|
Observing their actions rather than attending their to their words, it is plain that genocide of non-Muslims is a never-ending project central to Mohammed’s followers at all times and in all places; the numbers of dead infidels rise and fall strictly according to political expediency of the moment. After seeing lists of the numbers killed — 100,000 here, 300,000 there — the mind grows numb. Of what consequence is a million or more in Armenia? Or North Africa? Or in Indonesia — one of the more recent locations where the Religion of Peace applied its standard, time-honored methods of death-dealing?
But modern Turkey is supposed to be different from its Ottoman predecessor, isn’t it? Turkey is enlightened and progressive; it is “Western”. Besides, that Armenian genocide is old news. Anyone in Ankara can tell you it is all fabrication anyway. Such events, if they ever happened, have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the Turkish Republic. Or do they?
Take a look at this story from the Assyrian International News Agency:
|Ankara (VOA) — An Istanbul court on Thursday ordered the cancellation of a conference at which Turkish academics were widely expected to challenge the official version of events surrounding the mass slaughter of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire. The ruling was condemned by the country’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Speaking to reporters shortly after the decision was announced, Mr. Erdogan said the decision did not conform to what he called freedom and modernity in Turkey. He said the right to free speech was an essential part of democracy.|
|Some Western diplomats said forces within the state that are opposed to Turkey’s membership in the European Union had probably influenced the ruling. Turkey is scheduled to start negotiations over the accession treaty with the European bloc on October 3.|
|Last month, another Istanbul court opened a case against Orhan Pamuk the internationally acclaimed Turkish author. He is due to appear in court on December 16 on charges of insulting Turkey’s national dignity by telling a Swiss newspaper that one million Armenians and 30,000 Kurds had been killed in Turkey and that nobody dared to say so. EU enlargement commissioner Olli Rehn warned Turkey earlier this month that if Mr. Pamuk were convicted, this could constitute grounds for suspending negotiations with Turkey.|
|Turkey has always denied that more than one million members of the Ottoman Empire’s once thriving Armenian community were the victims of genocide during and after World War I.|
Fjordman and others have long been making a strong case for denying Turkey’s entry into the EU. Political correctness aside, Turkey’s membership in the European Union would officially and legally open the floodgates for the torrent of Islamists to pour into the heart of Europe. The consequences — further tipping the demographic slide into a de facto Eurabia — would mean permanent dhimmitude for all of Europe. If anyone wanted a wake-up call in order to be there to observe the cultural divide between Turkey and the West, here it is.
Interestingly enough, it is Turkey’s legal community leading the charge against this gathering:
|The case to halt the conference was brought by the Turkish Lawyers Union and other lawyers. The details of their complaint were not made immediately clear.|
As usual, whenever trouble is afoot, there be lawyers.
Turkey wants to erase from history and memory what it did in Armenia in 1915. When “national dignity” is at stake, what harm is there in a little amnesia? The rest of the world seems willing enough to go along; after all, in the US we have Kate Moss and the Mourning Mother — along with a little manipulation by the MSM — to distract our attention.
Those mounds of skulls in Armenia, those mass graves in East Timor, the torched villages in central Africa — what are they to us? They happened a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away.
But the Turks may as well face their reality: the Armenians will never forget. Never.
Hat tip: Fjordman.
I never heard about the Armenian Genocide until I went to college. Even then, it was not a part of the curriculum, but a result of the huge Armenian presence on our campus.
I purposefully searched for a homeschool curriculum that included this event – and found sonlight.
Daughter #1 will be studying it next year.
Baron Bodissey argues that the Armenian Genocide is consistent with a policy of slaughter that Muslims have directed toward their enemies since Muhammed oversaw the annihilation of the Jewish community in Mecca.
However, the Armenian Genocide was in fact, carried out by the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) (or Ittihad ve Terakki Jemiyeti), popularly known as the Young Turks, a progressive, reform movement formed to oppose the absolute rule of the Ottoman Emperor Abdul Hamid that was also ethnocentric in nature.
The Genocide was carried out in 1915, during the midst of the First World War, at a time when the Ottoman Empire was being rent asunder by the nationalist, irredentist movements among the non-Turkish minorities, including Muslims and Christians alike. In the same year the Young Turks also massacred Arab nationalist intellectuals in Damascus and Beirut. Seen against this backdrop, the Armenian massacre was not because the Armenians were Christian, but because they were not Turkish.
Patrick Carroll —
You are right, I believe, that the Young Turks did not restrict their killing to Armenians or Christians. I’m no expert on Attaturk and the events of 1915, but, unless I’m much mistaken, one of the strategies the Young Turks employed was to harness the native Islamic zeal of the local population in order to carry out the genocide on the Armenians.
And the Turks certainly didn’t restrict themselves to the Armenians — they massacred Christian communities in all the areas in which they still held control.
Muslims are certainly no pikers when it comes to killing each other (e.g. Saddam vs. the Kurds), but they generally prefer to massacre infidels, if possible.