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.

Many arguments break out all over the internet between all nationalities of people about the Armenian Genocide. Most of the time, it becomes a circular debate where the pro-Turkish side argues that since there was no intent to kill, no orders to kill Armenians, it couldn't have been a genocide. The pro-Turkish side says that the numbers of the Armenian Genocide deaths is usually blown out of proportion for dramatical effects but do acknowledge that Armenians did die. They say the rebellion effort was causing great discomfort to the Russian-Ottoman wars in the east, and that is why the Sultan ordered all Armenian villages near Van (Eastern Turkey), to be relocated (not deported) to Syria another Ottoman territory. They also argue that the large population of Armenians in Western Turkey remained unharmed where genocide could have been easiest and explains that these facts along with a wide array of others prove it wasn't genocide but a civil war between civilian populations of Muslims and Armenians.

The Armenian side on the other hand tries not to focus too much on the history of the issue. Their best evidence has been eye-witness accounts of famous anti-Ottoman officials that are neither Armenian nor Ottoman. They also say that the world has already accepted the Armenian Genocide. They say 21 countries recognize the Armenian Genocide and thus it must be true. They also mention their most ridiculous but consistent argument that a majority of unnamed Western Historians agree with the Armenian Genocide theory and that only the Turkish government denies it. When they do mention history they usually point out fake documents such as the Talaat Pasha telegrams which were proven to be forgeries since the forger's didn't know about the Ottoman Royal language only used in such documents, and the encrypted numbering system used for each document.

However, although sometimes the pro-Turkish side can make ridiculous claims too, many of the Armenian-Genocide arguments are completely baseless, hearsay, or speculation. While the pro-Turkish side tries to apply logical arguments that seem to fit better in the world puzzle, the Armenian-Genocide proponents try to use distractions and portray a sense of security by claiming everyone is on their side.

There are some flaws in the Armenian Genocide argument. The 21 countries that recognize the Armenian Genocide all seem to have a large number of Armenian populations (definitely larger than Turkish populations), and therefore it could be a result of political pressure by Armenian lobbyists and voters.

They mention that a majority of Western historians support the Armenian Genocide theory. However, this is just an exaggeration, the real numbers are unknown, and is more likely to be much closer to being even on the issue rather than one side being a majority. There are many Armenian descendant historians in Western countries who focus their research on this issue. As you probably already know, when someone who investigates an issue with an already strong held belief in one side of the issue, will be biased and only pick and select evidence to support his or her own thesis.

In addition, Armenian Genocide supporters will mention different Turks that are known to support the Armenian Genocide issue (usually for money or Armenian descendants who are also Turkish citizens). These people include Orhan Pamuk, a Turkish writer who writes about fictional stories who won a Nobel Prize for his literary work (not a credible historian in many peoples opinion, but still mentioned by Armenian Genocide supporters). Also they mention Taner Akcam, a sociologist, terrorist, and political activist who escaped from prison (arrested for terrorism) to Germany where he found political asylum (not a credible source with a huge history of inciting rebellion in Turkey and no degree in history; many speculate he is of Armenian descent).

The pro-Turkish side also argues that an empire on the verge of collapse, that is already labeled the sick-man-of-europe, and is struggling with Arabic rebellions and European rebellions on all its territories with wars on many fronts, would not waste their time, money, and manpower to systematically slaughter Armenian civilians which will not stop war only create more rebellion.

Many Turks and pro-Turkish supporters also point out the many thousands of dead Azerbaijanians, Turks, and Kurds, that were killed in the hands of Armenian rebels as evidence that it was not a genocide but a deadly long civil war. They claim that Armenian Genocide supporters pray on the sympathy of Christians to other Christian cultures to raise money to promote this Armenian Genocide theory and use dramatic stories to promote emotion and sympathy for the Armenian cause which plans to receive land and reparations from the Turkish government as the Jewish people have from Germany.

The pro-Turkish side also mentioned the Malta trials which was a predecessor to the Nuremberg trials. Many of the Ottomans top officials claimed to have been involved in the genocide were tried for two and a half years on the island of Malta by the British and Armenians after World War I disbanded the Ottoman Empire. With all the Ottoman archives at their arsenal, they found no evidence that there ever was an Armenian Genocide. Without lawyers the trial went on, and the Ottoman officials were released (most of them later murdered by Armenian terrorists), and found innocent. The case was closed until the 1970s when the issue began to gain attention once again (thought to be because of the reparations paid to the Jewish people after World War II).

The Turkish government does not deny the deaths of thousands of Armenians, they express that it is a tragedy and Armenia and Turkey should be friends in the future and the argument should be settled as a civil war since both sides have lost many lives and since there was no direct ordering of mass murders.

However, the argument lives on and recently France has even made it a law that no one can mention the Armenian Genocide is false in France. Which is quite ironic since France is supposedly a very democratic country that is now attacking freedom of speech so directly.