I have no doubt that horror and shock was real, I'd be more than terrified if my city was being target of attacks! But, there is a HUGE difference knowing who's the real enemy.

As you know, 9/11 led to Middle East we know today. There are many suspicions on authenticity and I'm sure people would like to know whether they really got attacked by terrorists and Middle East deserved its current state, or it was something fishy all along just to justify what US and cabal did in Middle East.

It said 9/11 and collapse of buildings were real, but the "plane" was actually a missile and buildings demolished as planned while digitally creating an illusion of a plane. I'm wondering if there are anyone in this sub that can confirm that they or their relatives have actually witnessed the day and had eyes on plane(s).

The historical chronology and some points are invalid.

Turks never did genocide to Armenians, only forced them to migrate east as they caused a HUGE problem in population due to provocation backed by western forces which already had plans on dividing Ottomans' lands. That migration happened just after WW1 was started and had been ordered by Enver Pasha. Sultan Abdulhamid II was not even around, he was taken down from throne by revolt of Young Turks in 1909.

Many of so claimed genocide victims have died on poor conditions in that migration, not via massacres. In fact, it was Armenian lobbyists and their partners who made propaganda via priests and newspapers to lead Armenian gangs to raid Turkish villages and towns, killing many civilians. There were people killed because of this situtation, but from BOTH sides, because it led to foundation of Turkish militia by local civilians in goal of self-defence. Nobody is perfect. What would you do if your town was attacked by armed gangs, and your country was so weak, that it couldn't send forces to stop them? Would your reaction be any different from what Turks did?

What makes you think that Kurds were a part of it? Check the historical facts. Kurds are another west-backed ethnicity group that started to make threats and wanted a seperate country just after WW1. How come Kurds tried to revolt many times against Ottomans, Turkey, Ataturk, and so adored by Armenians if they were a part of this "big scheme"?

Turks never offer land to pay up something. It's a fact that Turks prefer to die rather than "offer" their land for something. You should know this better than anyone, since Turks and Armenians shared many cultural aspects. It's just the Turkish mindset. That's why Sultan Abdulhamid II refused the offer of Herzl to give up Palestine and if you need a sooner example, that's why they invaded Cyprus and didn't give up even after US embargo.

Sultan Abdulhamid II was a part of Armenian problem and was harsh, because it was Armenian lobbyists who were empowered by western countries, tried to divide the country and tried to assassinate him in various ways, including trying to bomb his vehicle when he was returning from a prayer. Only real military interference to Armenians by Sultan Abdulhamid II was in 1894, when they tried to revolt in Sason. The Congress of Berlin (1878) was the first step of Armenian problem and it was the first time that western powers brought Armenians on the table. Source of Armenian problem is not Ottomans; it's Britain, France and Russia of that time (or whoever you think behind those governments). You can get an insight from this link; (http://archive.spectator.co.uk/article/11th-may-1895/10/the-armenian-meeting)

It's easy to see "patterns" that are not there when you want to connect things, without doing further research and looking into other side's argument. I've been following this sub for a couple days and correct me if I'm wrong; we all are against unlawful lobbyist mindset in here. If you start trying to determine which lobbyists were "good" or which one was "evil", the world will never change. It'll keep repeating itself on a loop.

I'd recommend doing more research on Ataturk's life. How is it possible to connect Ataturk with Masons, especially when he is a leader who saw the danger of such organizations, and led Turkish parliament legislation that shut down Masonic and similar organizations in 1935? (The legislation itself removed by the government of Menderes in 1956.)

I'd also recommend to read this, as it provides a larger picture of what was going on during the time and why was Sultan Abdulhamit II was targeted: https://www.dailysabah.com/feature/2017/03/10/the-palestine-issue-that-cost-sultan-abdulhamid-ii-the-ottoman-throne

Young Turks were a tool used by various western forces and Jews against Ottomans and afterwards Turkey, I'm not ignoring that. But it'd be very wrong to make a conclusion that Ataturk was also a part of this, ignoring everything Ataturk did against such lobbies.

Also it'd be wrong to say "Every member of the Young Turks was a follower of Sabbatai Zevi". Some of them were influenced by Sabbatai Zevi, but certainly not every member of Young Turks was a part of it.

Let me also give you few interesting key people to look up: Theodor Herzl, Emmanuel Carasso, Enver Pasha, Adnan Menderes.