Armenian killings - mutual massacres or genocide?

Many of the Armenians died during their exile, but quite a few survived so your claims that Turks wanted to kill all Armenians is incorrect.

I have never said Armenians were not victims of a massive exile and ethnic cleansing from Eastern Anatolia, so I do not know what are you trying to prove by saying why are there so few Armenians now? What is your point in asking why are there Turks? Are you by any chance implying that since there are Turks in Eastern Anatolia, Turks were not victims of massacres? 

Besides there are no Turks in modern day Armenia either. Karpat in International Migration Review says:

What is their share of the Erivan population today? Where are these Turco-Tatars now? 

Originally posted by mamikon Turco-Tatars were an overwhelmiing majority in Yerevan? Are there any documeted massacres in Yerevan against Turco-Tatars, and if there are where they committed by Armenians? I wouldnt think so...oh and btw, are you quoting McCarthy again, I have seen somewhere that he gets paychecks from the Turkish governements but as of now I cant find that source, when I find it, I will present promptly.

No, the quote was from Kemal Karpat.

The source of the funding for McCarthy's work is irrelevant. It is interesting that instead of attacking the arguments and methodology of the person, you choose to attack ther reputation of the person himself. Attempts to discredit a person on matters such as funding that have no bearing or relevance to the topic at hand can only be attributed to desperation and lack of counterarguments.

I could also argue that Armenians spend millions in promoting their genocide thesis (the recent examply being the documentary that was mentioned in this thread), but I prefer not to enter such a futile discussion.

Before 1917 Turkish troops were retreating against the Russians, it seemed like they were loosing the war, they needed every able bodied man on the frontline, why under such circumstance would they bother to deport and kill their law abiding citizens?

Do not forget that this was a time when the Ottoman army lost more than half a milliong men in Gallipoli and hundreds of thousands of soldiers were killed or captivated by the Russians, the number of civilian casualties is far greater. The Turks were fighting an unequal war against virtually all major power - Russia, Britain, France and Italy - all of them had occupied chunks of the Turkish homeland and Greece was about to stage a major invasion into the Anatolian heartland.

Tell me why would under these conditions the Ottoman Empire start a deporation of its "loyal and law abiding" Armenian citizens - at a time when it needed every single man on the frontline? I think the answer is obvious really ...

The fact that Western Armenians collaborated with Russian forces would not make the killings against Armenians less of a Genocide,  but it will raise incovnenient questions about the massacres of hundreds of thousands of muslims by those RussoArmenian forces - massacres whose aim was to pave the way for an ethnicaly pure Armenian homeland of the Armenians (not Turks, not Kurds), massacres of truely genocidal proportions in which more than half a million lost their lives. So please stop trying to white-wash Armenians in this conflict - Armenians did not hesitate to burn the homes of their Muslim neighbours, and kill the children and women of the men that were fighting a desperate war to protect their homeland.

Yes, I understand that to differentiate between "innocent law abiding and loyal" West Armenians vs East Armenians, who participated in the Russian army as "loyal" Russian subjects is a convenient way to whitewash Armenians for their crimes against the Muslims.

An interesting witness account by an Armenian from Van for those who claim that "Western Armenians" were unarmed loyal law-abiding subjects that were not involved in the violance against Muslims:

http://ermeni.org/turkce/vkayutyun.php?tp=ea&lng=eng& ;nmb=33

And then you have a description of the massacres by the Turks and Kurds.

Of course this Armenian source speaks of Turks "fleeing" with their families. But why would women and children feel the urge to flee, if their life as not in danger? Here is an account of what had happened from the Turkish perspective:

thats absurd, when soldiers flee, they take their families with them., many germans fled from the americans even though they didnt have anything to fear, the same with the japanese. its just common sense for poeple to flee when their soldiers are fleeing.

Remember that this is an eye-witness account - when you have this type of interethnic conflict everybody is trying to justify their actions as a response to a previous provocation, thus adding another link to the chain of violance.

My point in including this Armenian eyewitness account was to demonstrate that:

1. Armenians of Van were armed

2. They did participate in the violance against the  Muslims

3. They won in Van and forced the Turks out by use of violance

I do not see how these sources "defeat" my arguments.

You stated that the Ottoman Empire started its relocation before the Russian invasion, could you please quote the date of the first major massacre against the Armenians and the date when the RussoArmenian offensive against the Ottoman Empire had started?

As far as I know the Armenians commemorate 24 April 1915 as the initiation of the deportations and massacres. But the Russian offensive had started earlier, on 4 January 1915 Turkish forces under Ahmet Pasha were defeated by the RussoArmenian forces at the Battle of Sarikamis. The Turks lost 77 thousand men.

According to Encyclopedia Britanica:

http://0-www.search.eb.com.library.uor.edu/eb/article-53136