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.

The Armenian Revolution is completely germane to this issue. One must ask the question of motive to understand what actually happened in World War I and before with the Armenians and the Ottoman Muslims. Would the Ottoman Empire that is at its lowest point since its formation, suddenly decide that it wants to exterminate all the Armenians when they are already in war on several fronts against Russia, England, and their allies? Would the Ottoman Empire just barely awakening from the fact that they just lost most of their empire in the last few decades suddenly decide that the Armenians need to be urgently exterminated? This is a silly argument at best. The Ottoman Empire had nothing to gain from exterminating its own subjects and civilian populations that pay them taxes.

As a counter-argument, the Armenian genocide argument supporters say that the Turks hated the Armenians. If the Turks hated the Armenians why didn't they kill them off centuries ago when Europe was in turmoil and when minorities in empires had no standardization of protection by the international authorities? If the Turks hated the Armenians why weren't there any hate speeches by government leaders like in Hitler's case or in every other real genocide? If the Turks hated the Armenians, why did they allow Armenians to have high ranking roles in their government and in their economy? If the Turks were out to exterminate the Armenians, why didn't they have some sort of identification process to identify who is Armenian? Nazi Germany forced all Jews to wear the Star of David as a yellow badge. Jews lived in certain ghettos and it was known where they were located. Armenians lived freely in Eastern Anatolia, they had their own national constitution and local government because the Ottomans granted them this through the millet system, which was Europe's standardized minority protection system that many European countries had adopted years ago.

The motive is this: The Armenians wanted their own nation, and the Armenians do not deny this. They claim the revolution was a response to the genocide---but wait a second, if the revolution was a response to the genocide, then why was the Armenian Revolutionary Federation established in the late 1880s? Please look up the Dashnak party and what they were created for, and you'll see that they were formed way before the supposed 1915 genocide.

The Armenians watched as the Balkan countries gained their independence with the direct help of Russia. Russia was desperate since the 1500s to take over the Ottoman Empire. Look up Turkish-Russian wars, there was at least ten of them maybe more. The Russians were finally winning, they had succeeded in the Balkans freeing many Slavic countries. Is it that unlikely that the Russians would even use their good friends the Christian Armenians to rebel as well? Is it that hard to believe, that the Russians wouldn't provide significant portions of weapons and ammunitions for the freedom of Armenia. Were the Armenians not nationalist by this point?

As a counter-argument, Armenian propagandists say that just because some Armenians were rebelling which they admit was before any massacres, doesn't mean that all the Armenians were rebelling. They are absolutely correct, but revolutionary leaders also know this, and this is their technique to defeat the Armenians who DO NOT want to rebel. They go ahead and massacre villages of the enemy that they want to rebel against. They let some of these villagers go to tell the others in neighboring towns or perhaps to deliver the news to the Sultan himself. Then they hide somewhere safe, in hopes that the enemy will try to take revenge and massacre Armenian villages in return. Their plan worked well; now the Armenians saying "No we shouldn't rebel against the Ottoman Empire, whats the point?" will now say "My God, the Turks killed my friends and my villages, we MUST rebel immediately!".

This always happens when there are two or three ethnicities living in a mutual area, revolutions usually are more difficult, and usually civilians also get killed. During the American Revolution, the British were not there, only the soldiers, and thus, British civilians were not harmed, and because the Americans won the war, they gained their independence. However, where revolutions fail, such as in Palestine, the people there, whether true or not, will claim that they had been oppressed, mistreated, or massacred, or even claim their aggressors committed genocide. This might or might not be true, and it should be investigated, but it is quite obvious there was no genocide in Israel. It is also just as obvious that there was no genocide in Eastern Anatolia by the Turks. There was no intent, no motive, no benefit, and of course no evidence, that the Turks committed genocide against the Armenians.

Some Armenians point to the Talat Pasha Telegrams as evidence that the Ottoman government intended to exterminate the Armenians. However, that evidence was proven false by many courts of law when used as a defensive argument for defendants from ASALA (Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia) that had murdered Turkish civilians around the world as evidence of a genocide. It was proven that the forger did not understand the Ottoman Royal language fully, and had wrongly forged the dates and ciphers used to authenticate telegram orders. Sometimes they use Hitler's quote saying "[Let's do the Holocaust, after all who here remembers the extermination of the Armenians]", not only is this not evidence, but it too was proven false by Western historians.

So was the Armenian Genocide the "First Genocide of the 20th Century"? No, it was not, that was the Congo genocide that eight to thirty million Congolese were exterminated for the purpose of clearing the nation to give it to the king of Belgium, this was before 1915. The fabricated Armenian Genocide, is more like the First Act of Collective Terrorism of the 20th Century, and it was for the purpose of creating mutual massacres to create a full Armenian revolt that will create their own nation!