Before we start, kane, what would you like to refer to the subject as? "Armenian Genocide", "Acts of Genocide", "Armenian Question", or another term?

Armenian Genocide is probably the best term. I cannot stand political correctness, so any euphemisms annoy me no end.

I hate PC too, Roman, but I wish to hear kane's term. I wish to make a point about 'semantics'.

Say what you want but i prefer "Armenian Problem"

Obviously, it is not good for Turkey's reputation if it turns out that this could be called "Genocide". But then again... can you tell me, Kane, what the positive points would be if Turkey officially called this a Genocide by an act of Law. What positive points would there be?

What is your definition of "The Armenian Problem"?

Before answering questions i'll try to write a better explanation of what happened and i'll try to post it in 3-4 days. and can you tell me where do you live?!?!To make better timing ;)

No offense kane, but I can safely say ahead of time that I will not trust your version of the events even before you have actually written it! Why should I be so sceptical you ask? Well, apart from Turkish nationalism, there is also the fact that even those Turks who recognize the Armenian Genocide are restricted from publishing or otherwise spreading their opinion by Turkish law. Of course (unless you are a very brave man indeed) you are unlikely to write a version that disagrees with your government's stance on the Armenian Genocide if you could be arrested and tried for doing so!

"(3) My own country is guilty of acts of genocide and outright genocide that make the Armenian situation pale in comparison." May I ask, GoG, what do you mean by the difference between genocide and outright genocide?

"Obviously, it is not good for Turkey's reputation if it turns out that this could be called "Genocide"." I don't see why you think that? The Armenian Genocide is, outside of Turkey, generally recognized as a genocide already, so I don't think Turkey's reputation would suffer any more from this than it does already if Turkey recognized it as a genocide. The only reason some governments do not specifically refer to it as a genocide is not to 'offend' Turkey. "But then again... can you tell me, Kane, what the positive points would be if Turkey officially called this a Genocide by an act of Law. What positive points would there be?"" Most countries have some dark chapters, of varying degrees of darkness, in their respective histories. That is an unfortunate but unchangeable fact. Countries and nations, however, can change over time and in any case generations definitely change. Hence, past events can be forgiven. I personally, however, have great difficulty respecting countries that do not acknowledge their past. It is my belief that these countries are inherently dangerous, as they are apparently incapable of self-reflection and self-criticism, prefering instead to idolize themselves and blame foreigners. This is a paved road to future conflicts, or at least tensions. If Turkey recognized the Armenian Genocide, I would view it positively as a major step of dealing with the Turkey's past. Of course, the Ottoman Empire was a major colonial power, so it oppressed and slaughtered a large number of people of many nationalities, but I do believe that the Armenians suffered the most. As I already mentioned, many countries oppressed others, but most now recognize this as a stain on their past and do not try to deny it. This makes a big difference.