There were already multiple Armenian revolutionary/liberation movements prior to the World War 1. The movement itself existed prior to the Hamidian Massacres, which revolutionary societes such as ARF, Armenakan and Hunchkyan Party. Prior to the Hamidian Massacres, most of the activities done by these parties were usually appealing to the European powers, to aid them in their struggle, and to non-muslim to revolt against their muslim overlords, through phamplets and wall-posters.

However, there were multiple armed militias operating in Eastern Anatolia against Ottoman administration and local Kurdish militias, in form of guerrilla warfare. These irregulars, who were named fedayi, gained support, largely from Russian Empire. At the height of Hamidian Massacres in 1890s, their numbers were around several thousand. Although they largely defended towns and territories, and raided army supplies, there are instances of them counterattacking and raiding Muslim villages.

Most of these fedayis were disbanded and Armenian national movement "slowed down" in 1908, with Young Turk revolution and the second constitutional era, which gave Armenians same rights as Turks and Kurds. Armenians were represented with 12 respresentatives in Ottoman parliament, and ARF became the official party of Armenians. However, most Armenians still desired to be under Russian rule. This was "solidified" with a railroad project in the Armenian vilayets and make transport between them and eventually Russia easier. Although the project failed due to lack of capital, and some Armenian officials were forced to resign.

The "climax" of this was the Erzurum Congress, where Armenian and Turkish liasons met to discuss plans for WW1 and Caucasus campaign. Armenian vilayets of Van and Bitlis were positioned in a chokehold between Kurdish territories and Persia. Ottoman plan was to conquer Transcaucasia by declaring holy war together with Kurds, Persians and Muslim nationalities residing in the region. In exchange for Armenian "inaction" to this plan, all six Armenian vilayets would be granted autonomy. However Tsar also promised Armenians all the six vilayets, and 2 Armenian provinces in Russian Transcaucasia. Armenians already had previously taken support from Russians, and decided with them. Several thousands Armenians joined the Russian army as volunteers, and fedayis were re-established as a guerilla force and the war began.

Sources:

Pastermadjian - Armenia and her claims to freedom and national Independence

French national archives

Hovhannes Kachaznuni - Armenian Revolutionary Federation has nothing to do anymore

I will partially address only a part of the comment section of your post.

The term genocide is one of the causes of discord in the context that you have given in your comment. This is why some try to avoid the term altogether. The concept of genocide has several definitions and its colloquial understanding also is varied. To understand the problem you exposed in your comment one must also look at what is genocide and its different interpretations. I will only touch on two understandings of genocide. There are more.

Raphael Lemkin who defined the concept and coined the term genocide was a jurist who sought to cover the legal void of protection of groups or minorities within states at a time when no universal international legal recourse existed in the event of a government deciding to destroy a group. This is what he came up with:

By "genocide" we mean the destruction of an ethnic group…. Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups….

His work on criminalizing genocide began early on when he presented a draft about what he called "crimes of bararity" at the time to a convention in Madrid in 1933, which was rejected. He based his legal reasoning on the trial of Soghomon Tehlirian who assassinated Talaat Pasha, the ministry of interior of the CUP government in 1915. Talaat was a free man in Berlin at the time in exile while trials were ongoing against the perpetrators of the massacres of the Armenians in the defeated Ottoman Empire. Lemkin noted that while Tehlirian was taken to trial in Berlin for assassinating one person, Talaat was a free man having been responsible for the killings of many. He saw this as an injustice and noted that because of a lack of legal recourse the victims were forced to take justice in their own hands. Lemkin regarded the Armenian case as an example of what he meant by genocide.

The UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide legally defines and typifies genocide as a crime. It is the international legal mechanism set up to partially fulfill what Raphael Lemkin had originally intended. The legal interpretations of this law are very recent and are still ongoing (International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda). These courts produce case laws with their interpretations of some of the controversial aspects of the law such as how to determine genocidal intent or "the aim of annihilating the groups themselves" as Lemkin stated. These recent case laws use different criteria to establish genocidal intent without the need for direct evidence of "orders to annihilate a people". These interpretations also make a clear distinction between motive and intent of the acts, establishing that motive is not an element of genocide. Meaning that the motives behind committing acts do not preclude genocide if the rest of the criteria is met. In this context the "excuse" that you mention in your comment would be the motive. There are legal experts in genocide law who consider the Armenian case to be a genocide.

If the term genocide is what is at the center of the discussion, one way to approach this problem would be to consider the question of whether the events that occurred in 1915-1916 constitute a genocide from the understanding we have of the term today from a legal perspective. Another angle would be, if the same events were to occur today would the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide be triggered to act?

---

• William Schabas, Genocide in International Law

• Lemkin Rafael, Axis Rule in Occupied Europe

• Human Rights Watch, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity: A Digest of the Case Law of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

• Pioneers of Genocide Studies

• Geoffrey Robertson, An Inconvenient Genocide: Who Now Remembers the Armenians?

• 1949 Raphael Lemkin CBS interview with Quincy Howe.