Once the terrorist groups attained their aim of propagating the claims of genocide and introducing them into the global agenda by terror, Armenian radicalism moved on to the next stage. The world now had an “Armenian Question” that evoked curiosity and was unexplored. Now it was the time to build a narrative/discourse based solely on emotive Armenian historical narrative on occasion with the use of forged documents/photographs. In order to support this narrative, highly questionable methodology and exaggerated or dubious memoirs were also used.
The word “denial” is used intentionally to prevent opposing discourse and consequently a debate.
The Armenian narrative defines the events of 1915 a priori as “genocide” by putting the historical background and the concrete facts aside and also by completely ignoring the legal aspect. The narrative that revolves around genocide, gives both visibility to the Armenian thesis and also immunity/incontestability by almost canonizing the case.
Adopting the Armenian narrative is imposed as being politically correct, and any opposing approach is branded as “denial “and is suppressed by criminalization. Whereas, in its nature a claim can be questioned yet not “denied”. The word “denial” is used intentionally to prevent opposing discourse and consequently a debate.
The radical Armenian circles published countless documents centering on the Armenian discourse and presented the 1915 events to the global audience from their one-sided view. Many of these publications are in fact different versions of a few questionable main sources.
Many of the descendants of the victims of the events of 1915 and the following years –especially those in the Armenian diaspora – construct that identity around the perception that their community has been the victim of genocide.
The “genocide” claim is often used as a political tool in the hands of the politicians to their political goals.
Turkey does not deny that Armenians suffered terribly and many lost their lives. The deaths of millions of Ottoman Muslims in the same era, so often ignored in Western historiography does not constitute a reason for condoning or belittling the deaths of Armenians. “Fire burns the place where it falls”.
However, insisting on genocide as the only way to define the events of 1915 by ignoring historical facts, the wartime conditions and the law is an inappropriate way to honor the memory of lives lost. It also prevents Turks and Armenians from getting together to reconcile.
To accept Armenian views unequivocally, in order to demonstrate solidarity with this group that has experienced past suffering, ignores the grievances that were experienced by other nations and demonizes Turks unfairly.