Ad homs won't change the content

Submitted by Levent (Turkey), Jun 10, 2006 at 18:27

The question of 'witnesses' does not arise. You posted a letter addressed to an individual, I posted that individuals response. You made no attack on his response, just on his character. I do not see how his character, or lack thereof, mades one iota of difference to the contents of Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919-39," volume VII, 1954.

A persons character does not change the contents of these documents.

You made the claim that Balakrian 'meliculously sourced' the supposed statement. You then pointed to the above documents. If this statement has been conclusively sourced, why do we keep relying on pointers to the source rather than the source?

If you ARE able to source this, you can bury an argument that has raged on for years. It rages on because people like you claim you have proof but are quite unable to settle the issue by producing it.

No, Peter Balakian did not sourced it and neither can you. There are no (excluding both Armenians and Turks) historians to my knowledge that are prepared to use their professional capital to underwrite the validity of the quote - whilst there are several who would concede it simply cannot be sourced. Others seem happy to call it spurious.

Other Armenians I have spoken to about this (including the discussions re Armenia in Wikipedia) have conceded this point.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".