Yes, this is my best answer. If you re-read my message carefully without your “emotional victimisation”, you will find my answer to your question. I understand in lack of proper answer to the request by uninvolved editor to provide sources backing your argument of denying a massacre, you decided to send a sentimental message. The reason discussion went nowhere is that you are trying to divert the attention from the actual discussion and keep slandering neutral sources and authors in an attempt to disqualify them, while so far you haven’t provided any firm counter source. 
Moreover, we have RfC open and we have a neutral person who responded the RfC. You should ask your questions on the board of RfC to be transparent instead of canvassing and posting here selective messages. 
At this stage, the best we can do is to provide here the requested information, so that a person who mediates would make his/her conclusion. So, instead of "self victimisation" messages and author-slandering diverting the attention from the subject matter, providing neutral sources, which deny a massacre (as requested by Noleander), would be better.  talk