nah, that was politicide. Similar concept though.
Anyway, my two cents on the topic-I agree with getting rid of Venizios (or however you spell it). In fact, I would have suggested that earlier, but I couldn't remember the guy's name. For a good account of all the wrangling and stupidity that went on immediately post-war, check out Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan. I think it's the definite account of that era.
Since people are *still* arguing over the genocide issue, I figure I'll throw my two cents in. Anatolia 1915-22 was a very, very nasty place. And it was not just a one sided conflict. It was Turk vs. Greek vs. Kurd vs. Arab vs. everybody. The Armenians, in my mind, just got the worst of it because they were relatively well off and scattered geographically, making them a vulnerable target. As for the actual acts themselves, it was definitely ethnic cleansing, usually by multiple parties against each other. I do not believe it was some sort of systematic murder machine, as some would have you believe, but rather an uncoordinated spasm of violence as local strongmen and criminals and overzealous or psychotic army officers took advantage of the situation and made off with their neighbors belongings, similar to what happened with the break up of Yugoslavia.
Whether or not that was genocide is up to you to decide. Personally, I believe ethnic cleansing does count, from my reading of the Genocide Convention (in whole or in part), but again, personal view. I don't expect everyone else to agree with me.
Also, one more thing. Ian, I love ya as admin, but please don't diss the IAGS. There may be some crazies in their ranks, but they've done a lot of good with research and raising awareness about crimes against humanity.