US describes mass killings as Armenian Genocide [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

US describes mass killings as Armenian Genocide

R.Federer
10-12-2007, 09:17 PM
I couldn't quite understand why/how the U.S lawmakers have the right to rule on a case which does not involve them. Does this constitute changing "history"? They don't have the right to do that either, though.

I was also not sure what the scale of mass murders have to be to be described as a genocide. It was a terrible thing that happened to the Armenians, but I am not sure why it has come up suddenly after so long? And what are the ramifications-- does this mean repatration of money/other things to descendants of those killed? What is the reason that this has to be passed in a US House?

Does anyone (esp. from Turkey and/or Armenia) know more?

Sparko1030
10-12-2007, 09:25 PM
I think it was just one of those symbolic resolutions. I'm not sure what, if any, effect it will have but never fear, it looks like the Pres won't be signing it anyway. Doesn't want to offend Turkey right now-needs to keep bases there to fly supplies into Iraq.

R.Federer
10-12-2007, 09:34 PM
I think it was just one of those symbolic resolutions. I'm not sure what, if any, effect it will have but never fear, it looks like the Pres won't be signing it anyway.
That probably won't matter -- about his not signing.

The damage is done. It has been publicly aired that the representatives of the US people think this to be the case.

Sparko1030
10-12-2007, 09:43 PM
I'm dont' know that much about what happened, but if there were mass killings of the Armenian people, why shouldn't that come out? Should we not talk about it? I'm not sure why its come up now, but talking about why something like this happens can maybe help to prevent a similar event in the future. :shrug:

There is bit of hypocracy to it all though as the US has not ever formerly passed anything admiting to how we systematically tried to rid our own country of the Native Americans or apologizing for allowing slavery. (my source for this info is the Daily Show-Ironically Jon Stewart is more reliable than most of the "real" news :lol: )

MarieS
10-12-2007, 10:28 PM
Really shortened version of this:
Armenians say that during WWI (more precisely in 1915), the Turkish government organized and carried out a systematic genocide against ethnic Armenians living in Ottoman territory, killing as many as 1.5 million of them and displacing 500,000. Numerous documents, reports, photographs, historians (including the person who coined the term genocide :p), and around 20 foreign governments agree/attest to this and have condemned the events as genocide. Turkey has a different version of events claiming that the killings are exaggerated and were done in the context of the war and also that just as many Turks died as a result. Armenians have fought for almost a century now to get the events recognized as Genocide and have the international community condemn Turkey.

Every 4 years around election time, the US congress 1. brings this up, 2. passes a resolution, 3. takes it out to the Congress floor where it is routinely rejected b/c Turkey is a major US ally and a strategic place since it is a moderate Muslim member of the NATO. We are in stage 2 right now; it's nothing major really :shrug:: look for stage 3 now in the coming weeks. This is mainly political: the Congress is just appeasing the Armenian lobby before elections. It's obviously a painful issue for US Armenians; if someone questions the Holocaust he's a madman, but if someone questions the Armenian genocide (which is just as well documented), they are just exercising their right to free speech.
Anyway that's the short version :p.
In the interest of full disclosure: I am Armenian; I tried being as unbiased as I can. I could write books on this...:lol:

R.Federer
10-12-2007, 10:39 PM
Thanks MarieS.

The Armenians should lobby the UN or some entity more globally respected to come out with a statement. Asking for the US's help is almost a step in the wrong direction seeing as how much wrath the US receives in the middle east region, and how little that region even cares about what the US stance on this is.

Sparko1030
10-13-2007, 12:02 AM
Thanks for the history lesson MarieS. You're account seemed unbiased to me.

So why doesn't some other country come to the forefront of this issue then? I don't doubt it comes to the floor at a politically expediant time for many politicians but for all our faults, at least some of the US congress is trying. We're so terrible but where are all the morally superior countries when it comes to taking a stand? This happened almost 100 years ago yet its still questioned? Seems like the whole world has ignored this issue.

Hendu
10-13-2007, 12:22 AM
Thanks for the history lesson MarieS. You're account seemed unbiased to me.

So why doesn't some other country come to the forefront of this issue then? I don't doubt it comes to the floor at a politically expediant time for many politicians but for all our faults, at least some of the US congress is trying. We're so terrible but where are all the morally superior countries when it comes to taking a stand? This happened almost 100 years ago yet its still questioned? Seems like the whole world has ignored this issue.

According to wikipedia,

Countries officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include:

Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City and Venezuela.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide

Fee
10-13-2007, 12:46 AM
Thanks for the info, Marie.

The unfortunate thing about this is that not enough is being made to seperate this horrible piece of history from the current Turkish government. No one alive is responsible for what happened in 1915, and I don't think any of these resolutions aim to blame Turkey for it. I think the ultimate goal is a more accurate historical record and I wish there was some way for the Turkish government to come to terms with it so that this annual struggle could end and everyone involved could move on to other things. Germany seems to have been able to do this, if I'm not mistaken.

And yes, Turkey and anyone else has every right to point the fingers at the US and bring up the slaughter of Native Americans in this country's history. It is shameful that subject is glossed over in so many text books, or even worse, treated as some type of isolated, rogue incidents.

Sparko1030
10-13-2007, 04:04 AM
According to wikipedia,

Countries officially recognizing the Armenian Genocide include:

Argentina, Armenia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay, Vatican City and Venezuela.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recognition_of_the_Armenian_Genocide

Thanks for correcting me :) I should have done more homework before I went off.

I still fail to see how the putting this issue in the spotlight is wrong though, other than its the US doing it right now and anything the US does must be wrong. There are more countries not on the list than on so a debate on it is still needed.

Hendu
10-13-2007, 04:09 AM
Thanks for correcting me :) I should have done more homework before I went off.

I still fail to see how the putting this issue in the spotlight is wrong though, other than its the US doing it right now. There are more countries not on the list than on so a debate on it is still needed.

Its not wrong, its good. Its only bad for the current political interests of the US Government.

Deboogle!.
10-13-2007, 04:39 AM
There's a very interesting independent movie on the subject. I had to do some clearance work on it for defamation issues a little over a year ago, so I watched the whole thing, but it ended up getting some decent press. the woman who made it is Armenian and also just a really nice lady. It was done in conjunction with System of a Down and is pretty well-done. It's obviously biased but it's still a good movie for those who are interested.

Marie, you might be particularly interested in it if you haven't seen it.
http://www.screamersmovie.com/
although i'm not sure how you'd get a hold of it, not sure it is available on DVD or anything.

The whole thing is indescribable, and it just seems so ridiculous to not pass a symbolic resolution. But at the same time, we live in such a tricky world where all the implications have to be considered and I don't really blame people who are afraid of upsetting Turkey.

The unfortunate thing about this is that not enough is being made to seperate this horrible piece of history from the current Turkish government. No one alive is responsible for what happened in 1915, and I don't think any of these resolutions aim to blame Turkey for it. I think the ultimate goal is a more accurate historical record and I wish there was some way for the Turkish government to come to terms with it so that this annual struggle could end and everyone involved could move on to other things. Germany seems to have been able to do this, if I'm not mistaken. The problem is, and I think you've said it yourself, is that the current Turkish Government refuses to recognize it. So it is hard to separate it. Even if the people who caused it are no longer alive, one can't help but think the thoughts that caused it still are. When you see a country like Germany, which is so conscious of distancing itself from what happened, instead of denying it and maintaining that hostility, it has accepted it and used it as a positive, to educate its people and to promote tolerance. Of course, the US made horrific mistakes with Native Americans and it may not be explored properly in textbooks, but we don't deny our past, there is not a mass governmental denial of what happened. They may be insufficient, but things have been done to at least attempt to remedy it. From my limited knowledge, it seems that Turkey has no interest in doing any of this, let alone even admitting on a base level that this happened. And I believe this plays a humongous role in why this issue is still so contentious. If the Turkish Government could just admit it, accept it, and move on, the US Government wouldn't have to be afraid of upsetting it.

Obviously the issue is very sad and complex especially with so many awful things going on right now in Africa. It's all just saddening and there are no easy answers :awww:

Haute
10-13-2007, 05:30 AM
90 years for the US to recognize the Armenian genocide, so does this mean that by 2100 we'll recognize Darfur? :rolleyes:

mtw
10-13-2007, 09:24 AM
I agree in one point. Bush is experienced person in genocide ( he commites it from 4 years in Iraq and Afghanistan )so called practising genocide and he knows the case. After ending his career he should get a office of retired genocide by UN. He would compare all cases of genocide with his activity and on this ground he would issue ( this crime was genocide and this not ).
By the way. Does he look back in time or go forward? Maybe in 10 years he encounters own genocide in Iraq and Afghanistan. In any event USA - genocide was in the far and near past and of course in the present times too.
For instance: 2 or 3 days ago was an atack on american base in Iraq ( american bases in Iraq are redundant, they are not attacked in USA and they should understand it and leave this poor country). And what did american occupational soldiers do: they killed in the revenge ( because it can be explained only as revenge ) 15 civilians - women and children - it was called - fight against al-qaida. It is massacre too and such massacre is called genocide. It is the fact. And such american actions ( massacres ) take place from 4 years there. They kidnapped an Iranian journalist in Afghanistan, they tortured him and threatend that they will kill him if he makes reportage of Afghanistan. It is crime and violation of human rights.

NyGeL
10-14-2007, 11:06 PM
They should accept Latinamerica's Genocide next year... wait, it was supported by US goverment :(

MarieS
10-15-2007, 03:53 AM
The outrage on this issue is largely misplaced :shrug:; important thing here isn't that the international community isn't discussing the Armenian Genocide now, the thing to focus on is that it was largely ignored it while it was happening. As MLK said (and this is often quoted when speaking about this issue): in the end we'll remember not the actions of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.


The unfortunate thing about this is that not enough is being made to seperate this horrible piece of history from the current Turkish government. No one alive is responsible for what happened in 1915, and I don't think any of these resolutions aim to blame Turkey for it. I think the ultimate goal is a more accurate historical record and I wish there was some way for the Turkish government to come to terms with it so that this annual struggle could end and everyone involved could move on to other things. Germany seems to have been able to do this, if I'm not mistaken.

The Turkish government is the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire. Also, as Deb mentioned, it's hard to separate the two when modern Turkey has done little in the way of showing remorse. It's not just the fact that they refuse to acknowledge it as genocide; they have a systematic campaign to deny it. Their history books claim that the Genocide is myth dreamed up by bitter Armenians; some Turkish historians/people go as far as to suggest that Armenians were actually the ones who killed thousands of Turks and committed Genocide as the Empire was collapsing. Of course we are entering the realm of impossibility here: the notion of an unarmed, powerless minority committing genocide is ridiculous at best, but this is actually a widely held belief in a lot of Turkey. There is a memorial to Turks who lost their lives as a result of the Genocide and it's actually on historically Armenian land (no, you can't make this shit up if you tried :o). It is amazing, absolutely amazing that a modern state spends millions and millions of dollars annually to purposefully falsify an enormous portion of its recent history and this is considered OK.


they killed in the revenge ( because it can be explained only as revenge ) 15 civilians - women and children - it was called - fight against al-qaida. It is massacre too and such massacre is called genocide. It is the fact.

You must not be very well versed in what Genocide is :).

edit: Deb, I've seen Screamers, it is absolutely amazing :worship:.

Deboogle!.
10-15-2007, 01:24 PM
The outrage on this issue is largely misplaced :shrug:; important thing here isn't that the international community isn't discussing the Armenian Genocide now, the thing to focus on is that it was largely ignored it while it was happening. As MLK said (and this is often quoted when speaking about this issue): in the end we'll remember not the actions of our enemies, but the silence of our friends. Very excellent point.

It's not just the fact that they refuse to acknowledge it as genocide; they have a systematic campaign to deny it.I thought this was the case, but as I didn't remember the details of the movie very well, nor did I even know how accurate the movie is at all, I didn't want to just accuse without fact, so thanks for mentioning that. People are actually punished for speaking out about it, is that correct?
edit: Deb, I've seen Screamers, it is absolutely amazing :worship:.Ohhhhhh that's good to hear that it got out there :) the filmmaker was sooo passionate about it that I was hoping it would succeed at some level :) Something I liked about it is that it was not myopic, it addressed the connection to the current horrors going on and why the need to address what happened in Armenia really isn't just symbolic as it appears at first glance.

Hendu
10-17-2007, 03:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17cong.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

Support Wanes in House for Genocide Vote

WASHINGTON, Oct. 16 — Worried about antagonizing Turkish leaders, House members from both parties have begun to withdraw their support from a resolution backed by the Democratic leadership that would condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians nearly a century ago.

Almost a dozen lawmakers had shifted against the measure in a 24-hour period ending Tuesday night, accelerating a sudden exodus that has cast deep doubt over the measure’s prospects. Some made clear that they were heeding warnings from the White House, which has called the measure dangerously provocative, and from the Turkish government, which has said House passage would prompt Turkey to reconsider its ties to the United States, including logistical support for the Iraq war.

Until Tuesday, the measure appeared on a path to House passage, with strong support from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. It was approved last week by the House Foreign Affairs Committee. But by Tuesday evening, a group of senior House Democrats had made it known that they were planning to ask the leadership to drop plans for a vote on the measure.

“Turkey obviously feels they are getting poked in the eye over something that happened a century ago and maybe this isn’t a good time to be doing that,” said Representative Allen Boyd, a Florida Democrat who dropped his sponsorship of the resolution on Monday night.

Others who took the same action said that, while they deplored the mass killings of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire, the modern-day consequences in the Middle East could not be overlooked.

“We simply cannot allow the grievances of the past, as real as they may be, to in any way derail our efforts to prevent further atrocities for future history books,” said Representative Wally Herger, Republican of California.

Representative Mike Ross, Democrat of Arkansas, said, “I think it is a good resolution and horrible timing.”

The Turkish government has lobbied heavily against the resolution, which is nonbinding and largely symbolic. But lawmakers attributed the erosion in support mainly to fears about a potential Turkish decision to deny American access to critical military facilities in that nation and its threat to move forces into northern Iraq.

“This vote came face to face with the reality on the ground in that region of the world,” said Representative Rahm Emanuel of Illinois, the chairman of the House Democratic Caucus and an opponent of the resolution.

The Bush administration and top American generals have been vocal in warning that passage of the resolution could cause great harm to the American war effort in Iraq and have put significant pressure on Republicans to abandon their support for the measure. President Bush called Ms. Pelosi on Tuesday and asked her to prevent a floor vote.

“The president and the speaker exchanged candid views on the subject and the speaker explained the strong bipartisan support in the House for the resolution,” said Brendan Daly, a spokesman for Ms. Pelosi.

The Democratic leadership was examining the exact level of that support to gauge its next step, but lawmakers and officials said it was now unclear whether the resolution could be approved, given Republican resistance and Democratic defections. “We will have to determine where everyone is,” said Representative Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, the majority leader.

Ms. Pelosi, who has promised a vote on the resolution if it cleared the committee, said she was leaving it to its chief backers to round up votes. “I have never known a count,” she said.

Backers of the resolution, which has the fervent support of the Armenian-American community, described the shift as slight and attributed it to the intense lobbying by the Turkish government, the administration and their allies. They said they would try to change the minds of some of those who were wavering.

“This is what happens when you are up against a very sophisticated multimillion-dollar campaign,” said Representative Brad Sherman, Democrat of California, who chided the Turkish government. “Since when has it become fashionable for friends to threaten friends?”

But he acknowledged there was little margin of error for backers of the resolution, which had once boasted 225 co-sponsors. “If the vote were held today, I would not want to bet my house on the outcome,” he said.

Mr. Sherman and others noted that at the start of the war Turkey had refused to let American forces operate from its territory and that its intentions toward the northern border of Iraq clearly captured the attention of Congress.

American military officials in Iraq and in Washington said Tuesday they were concerned about possible Turkish military raids into northern Iraq against the Kurdish Workers Party, an ethnic separatist movement also known as the P.K.K.

At the moment, they said, they did not see many indications that the Turkish military was preparing for a large-scale incursion into the insurgents’ mountainous strongholds and expressed hope that diplomatic efforts under way between Iraqi and Turkish officials would ease the crisis, which was sparked by a wave of attacks in eastern Turkey that its government has blamed on the separatists.

“We see no signs that there’s anything imminent by Turkey,” said one senior military officer, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing military contingency planning. “So there’s time for the diplomacy to work for a few more days, if not weeks.” But, he added, the situation could get “ugly” if Turkey sent troops across the border and they clashed with Kurdish militias or Iraqi forces.

The biggest fear, several former officials said, is that Turkish forces could push past the border and head for Kirkuk. Such a move could force Iraq to respond and the United States to mediate between two allies, and decide whether to intervene. Such a crisis could also draw in Iran, which has also had growing problems with Kurdish groups crossing into its territory from Iraq.

In addition to the potential movement of Turkish forces, opponents of the resolution continued to point to Turkey’s role as a staging area for moving American military supplies into Iraq.

“This happened a long time ago and I don’t know whether it was a massacre or a genocide, that is beside the point,” said Representative John P. Murtha, the Pennsylvania Democrat who is urging Ms. Pelosi to keep the resolution from the floor. “The point is, we have to deal with today’s world.”

While the resolution enjoyed more than enough support to pass earlier this year, about two dozen lawmakers have removed their names from the official list of sponsors in recent weeks as the vote grew more likely and the reservations grew more pronounced.

“I think there was genocide in Turkey in 1915 but I am gravely concerned about the timing,” said Representative Jane Harman, a California Democrat. She said she would remain a co-sponsor of the resolution but at the moment would oppose it reached the floor.

Representative Doug Lamborn, a Colorado Republican who dropped his backing on Tuesday, said: “Nothing changes the fact that mass killings and unspeakable acts of brutality occurred. However, passing this nonbinding resolution at this critical time would be a destabilizing action when the United States needs the help of its allies, including Turkey, in fighting the global war on terror.”

Lossi
10-17-2007, 03:56 PM
Really shortened version of this:
Armenians say that during WWI (more precisely in 1915), the Turkish government organized and carried out a systematic genocide against ethnic Armenians living in Ottoman territory, killing as many as 1.5 million of them and displacing 500,000.

:hug: :hug: :hug: :hug:

The worst part is, when you meet people who were displaced or their families were, that they are STILL looking for family members :awww:

A guy my dad knows in Rome met his first cousin somewhere by accident, on a business trip. They didn't even know of eacher's existance before they started talking about their families.

As if I needed this thread to remind me why, if Turkey gets anywhere near the EU, I'll be at the protests :o

MusicMyst
10-17-2007, 05:19 PM
Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer mis-managed this big-time. It finally dawned on ol' Nancy that alienating an important ally like Turkey in the middle of campaign season would be handing the Republicans candidates a huge gift, and now she's backtracking like crazy. Turkey played hard ball and won.

I feel bad for the Armenian-Americans who got their hopes up, and now have the rug pulled out from under them. Pelosi and Hoyer should have been upfront with them and their House supporters from the start, and said that, while they agree with them on the merits of the issue, affronting Turkey was not something they were prepared to do.

G4.
10-17-2007, 05:31 PM
i hope the US congress votes the bill, the genocide is a historical fact , turkey pisses me off putting pressure over every State who votes a bill to recognize the genocide .

MarieS
10-18-2007, 12:21 AM
I thought this was the case, but as I didn't remember the details of the movie very well, nor did I even know how accurate the movie is at all, I didn't want to just accuse without fact, so thanks for mentioning that. People are actually punished for speaking out about it, is that correct?
Ohhhhhh that's good to hear that it got out there :) the filmmaker was sooo passionate about it that I was hoping it would succeed at some level :)
Yes, there's a law against "insulting Turkishness" and people who speak out against the Genocide are prosecuted within that framework (a Nobel Prize winning writer had to go trial because of it but charges were dropped and a Turkish-Armenian editor was killed in Istanbul while serving a suspended sentence for it).
I don't know if it got out there; I just went to a screening of it in Watertown ;).


The worst part is, when you meet people who were displaced or their families were, that they are STILL looking for family members :awww:

Yup... We have a lovely history; my grandfather's dad died in Russian concentration camps because he told his son to intentionally become a POW in Germany, to defect to the US and look for his (the dad's) brother who was saved by being sent to an American orphanage. They never found him :awww:; I prodded around a bit, but to no avail :shrug:.

Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer mis-managed this big-time. It finally dawned on ol' Nancy that alienating an important ally like Turkey in the middle of campaign season would be handing the Republicans candidates a huge gift, and now she's backtracking like crazy. Turkey played hard ball and won.

I feel bad for the Armenian-Americans who got their hopes up, and now have the rug pulled out from under them.
It's sick that people think of it in terms of politics, politicking and alliances, but it is what it is I guess :o.
And don't worry no one got their hopes up ;). If you read my first post in the thread you'll see that this was expected. :shrug:. As I said, it happens every time around elections, we're used to it by now unfortunately.

Richard_from_Cal
10-18-2007, 02:10 AM
You searched for recognition of the Ukranian genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=recognition+of+the+Ukranian+ genocide&go=Go
No page with that title exists.
:lol:....Everybody's got a gripe.

Some are publicized, and remembered. I'm no diplomat...

...and, while my home community wouldn't have an Armenian district, if it weren't for the diaspora/whatever-you-would-call-it...
Give a Politician a hug!!
People just don't appreciate the things they do...:wavey:
http://www.entomology.umn.edu/cues/tenczar/Hadogenes/give_me_a_hug.jpg

Richard_from_Cal
10-18-2007, 02:31 AM
Apropos of the tennis angle:
(from the ATP rankings page)--

Turkish ranked singles players:
347 Ilhan, Marsel
964 Zorlu, Ergun
1370 Akkoyun, Haluk

347--http://www.tenisturkiye.com/v2/files/marsel_ilhan.jpg
^^is this an enemy?^^

964--http://www.tenisklinik.com.tr/images/trt_3_9_2.jpg
^^--looking genocidal?--(doubt it, He looks more like Mandy Patinkin.) :D --^^

MarieS
10-18-2007, 02:54 AM
Two ridiculous posts :o. Way to belittle the death of 1.5 million people :o. I guess if a lot of nations have a dark page in their history we should just ignore the things that happened :rolleyes:. Maybe if we paid more attention these tragic events wouldn't be as frequent. Just a thought :). You are not helping dispel the ugly American stereotype one bit by the way :o.

Who said anything about everyday people being the enemy? Are you usually THIS slow? I believe we were talking about the Turkish government, which by the way has suffocated the Republic of Armenia economically by closing the border with it. But never mind, since they have a few tennis players that look like nice enough chaps, we should just move past all that. WOW. :retard::retard::retard::retard::retard:

sierra91
10-18-2007, 03:49 AM
Thanks MarieS. I do recall hearing about this resolution circulating from to time but, in all honesty, I hadn't really understood what it was about. I certainly didn't learn about it in school. In fact, when I was in secondary (high) school in the early 1970's, and studying WWII, my history my history teacher sent me to the Principal to be punished because I dared to ask a question -- how was it possible that our textbook included only one paragraph about the Holocaust?

The person who posted above that just because the people who caused the genocide are not longer alive doesn't mean that the thoughts that caused it still remain was spot on. I believe that denial is a pretense for continuing to perpetrate the bigotry, greed, and hatred that leads to civil strife and genocide. It pains me that Holocaust denial, such a pernicious form of antisemitism, is on the rise again, and that here I am in ultra liberal Boulder Colorado and swastikas are regularly being painted on lockers of middle school children.

President Bush and the U.S. Congress could have honored those who were murdered, injured, or displaced in past genocides (having to use that term in the plural is scary enough) had they taken aggressive action to stop the atrocities in Darfur and thus save lives now. I find it utterly demoralizing that it has now been more than three years since the U.S. Congress unanimously declared that "the atrocities unfolding in Darfur, Sudan, are genocide" and President Bush and then Secretary of State Colin Powell said that the violence in Darfur was genocide and then, after making these staetments, have done next to nothing.

This was not a thread I expected to see here. Thank you all for your thoughtful comments. If such a diverse group from all over the world can talk among ourselves about these issues, maybe there is hope ... about as much as Bush finding WMD in Iraq.:rolleyes:

Richard_from_Cal
10-18-2007, 10:24 PM
I didn't ridicule the Armenian Holocaust, or Armenians, or Christianity, or Judaism, or the idea of holocausts, MarieS...but I'm not surprised that someone misunderstood.


http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html

Adolf Hitler to his Army commanders, August 22, 1939:

"Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my 'Death's Head Units' with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?"

The term 'Genocide' was coined by a jurist named Raphael Lemkin in 1944 by combining the Greek word 'genos' (race) with the Latin word 'cide' (killing). Genocide as defined by the United Nations in 1948 means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, including: (a) killing members of the group (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Recent to Past Occurrences

• Bosnia-Herzegovina: 1992-1995 - 200,000 Deaths
• Rwanda: 1994 - 800,000 Deaths
• Pol Pot in Cambodia: 1975-1979 - 2,000,000 Deaths
• Nazi Holocaust: 1938-1945 - 6,000,000 Deaths
• **** of Nanking: 1937-1938 - 300,000 Deaths
• Stalin's Forced Famine: 1932-1933 - 7,000,000 Deaths
• Armenians in Turkey: 1915-1918 - 1,500,000 Deaths
• Author/Bibliography
...neither am I Armenian, Ukranian, Jewish, Japanese...etc., etc....

But I am a Christian, and aware of the fall of the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.:
In the aftermath of the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD up to 1,100,000 lives are believed to have been lost. The Sea of Galilee ran red with blood along the shores. Given the world population at the time this may represent about one person in fifty world-wide.
http://www.dhushara.com/book/death/gen/genocide.htm

mtw
10-19-2007, 06:32 PM
You must not be very well versed in what Genocide is :).



And what is genocide in your opinion? How could you name murdering of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by your american troops? About 1 mln people lost their life, 4 mln were displaced and forced to leave country. It is just genocide and crime against humanity commited by USA, your president and his administration. Are your country out of law?

mtw
10-19-2007, 06:33 PM
I didn't ridicule the Armenian Holocaust, or Armenians, or Christianity, or Judaism, or the idea of holocausts, MarieS...but I'm not surprised that someone misunderstood.


http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/index.html

...neither am I Armenian, Ukranian, Jewish, Japanese...etc., etc....

But I am a Christian, and aware of the fall of the city of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.:

http://www.dhushara.com/book/death/gen/genocide.htm

You should not forget to add Bush: 1 mln people in Iraq and Afghanistan or maybe more.

R.Federer
10-19-2007, 08:09 PM
I do see what Richard from Cal is saying. It is quite ironic that the US of all countries is bringing this issue up, while most people would find it hard to disagree that it is they themselves who are 90% responsible for the genocide that is taking place AS WE POST HERE, in the middle east.
t is no wonder that this type of act by some US politicians ends up smacking of something done to win a local/national election. It definitely sounds disingenuous.


The outrage on this issue is largely misplaced :shrug:; important thing here isn't that the international community isn't discussing the Armenian Genocide now, the thing to focus on is that it was largely ignored it while it was happening.

Yes, and there is no way to go back in time and correct that mistake.
But the international community should at least learn from that and apply it TODAY while there are genocides going on.

Aloimeh
10-19-2007, 10:46 PM
Let us not exaggerate. 1 million people have not been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of what statistical manipulations might suggest. And it isn't genocide because extermination of the Iraqi people is not a goal of the US government.

Aside from that, there are many instances of war crimes and even mass murder (Fallujah, Abu Ghraib, Haditha, Mahmudiya and many other unreported incidents) and it makes no difference to victims whether they were just a single family that was killed or one family out of a thousand. Death is death and in war all deaths are cruel and unjust.

Aloimeh
10-19-2007, 10:55 PM
About the Armenian genocide:

Given Turkey's strategic position and their immature attitude, there will never be a "good" time to recognize genocide. On the other hand, if we recognized the Holocaust, why not this genocide? Can it really be that recognition of atrocity depends on political convenience?

I don't think distinguishing so strongly between the Ottoman Empire and the Young Turks and the modern Turkey is as productive as some might think. Turkey has a horrendous human rights record against its Christian minorities and that spans over one century. In 1894-96 we had the Hamidian massacres of Armenians (100,000 to 300,000 killed) under Sultan Abdulhamid and in 1909 we had the Adana massacre (which the Young Turks "deplored") and then in 1915-1923, under the "progressive" Young Turks there was the genocide. Not only this: concurrently hundreds of thousands of Christian Assyrians were exterminated and after WWI, the Pontic Greeks were also exterminated.

In 1955 there was the Istanbul Pogrom of Greeks (200,000 fled Istanbul). In 1974 there was the invasion of Cyprus and expulsion and killing of Greek Cypriots. And just recently we had the assasination of Hrant Dink (Armenian journalist).

What emerges is that Turkey is a society which, through multiple political systems (political party: Young Turks, military rule: present, monarchy: Hamid, dictatorship: Ataturk, etc.), has a blatant disregard for the lives, properties, and human rights of non-Turks and in particular Anatolian Christians. This is a societal disease and it can only be uprooted at the grassroots level. A start would be for the present Turkish government to accept the responsibility of the Turkish state (state, not government) for the genocide, to apologize to the Armenians, and to dedicate themselves to eradicating long-standing deep-seated anti-Armenianism, anti-Hellenism, and other forms of anti-Christian sentiment. And all I've said also applies to Turkish treatment of the Kurdish minority, which is equally appalling.

R.Federer
10-19-2007, 11:05 PM
Let us not exaggerate. 1 million people have not been killed in Iraq or Afghanistan, regardless of what statistical manipulations might suggest. And it isn't genocide because extermination of the Iraqi people is not a goal of the US government.

Leave aside Iraq. What about what happened in the Balkans, in Rwanda (excess of million if I am not mistaken) and what is still happening in Darfur. Yes, there is no oil to be had, but if the foreign policy super powers have a shred of humanity, they would step in and stop that. So, I quoted MarieS's point to illustrate that mistakes are always obvious in hindsight. If you take what she said seriously (and some apparently do/did), then at least apply it now if you can go back and apply it 115 years ago.

Aloimeh
10-19-2007, 11:13 PM
Leave aside Iraq. What about what happened in the Balkans, in Rwanda (excess of million if I am not mistaken) and what is still happening in Darfur. Yes, there is no oil to be had, but if the foreign policy super powers have a shred of humanity, they would step in and stop that. So, I quoted MarieS's point to illustrate that mistakes are always obvious in hindsight. If you take what she said seriously (and some apparently do/did), then at least apply it now if you can go back and apply it 115 years ago.

I have no idea about Darfur. I am pretty agnostic about it and refuse to be swept up in the "genocide hysteria" since I've seen it before in other situations and it turned out to be untrue. Perhaps there is a genocide, perhaps not. However, I would note that there was comparatively little attention to the plight of Sudanese Christians and animists in the south of Sudan during that conflict, in which arguably many more people were massacred than in Darfur. So make of that what you will.

In the Balkans in the 1990s there were several ethnically and religiously motivated civil wars with numerous atrocities by multiple parties and military and civilian casualties in the several thousands or several tens of thousands on all sides. This is not genocide, and the post-war analysis is demonstrating that it wasn't, regardless of the findings of the so-called Hague tribunal.

In Rwanda, there was definitely a genocide (the usually given figure is 800,000) but there was absolutely no political will to do anything about it, and in defense of the outside community, it was a very fast genocide and there was hardly time to do anything anyway (it spanned 100 days), but I think even if it was longer nothing would have been done.

In all honesty, military action is taken only for political, economic, or ideological goals. Humanitarianism is never the reason. Rwanda was of no interest to the US or the West (except perhaps Belgium or France, who had their hands in that awful situation), so nobody did anything.

G4.
10-19-2007, 11:17 PM
A start would be for the present Turkish government to accept the responsibility of the Turkish state (state, not government) for the genocide, to apologize to the Armenians.

hard to see it happen , the turkish governement does not even want to recognize Cyprus even though they want to join the european union

Aloimeh
10-19-2007, 11:30 PM
hard to see it happen , the turkish governement does not even want to recognize Cyprus even though they want to join the european union

Well of course it won't happen because Turkey's very existence (unlike Germany's) is constructed on three genocides (Armenian, Assyrian, and Pontic Greek) and a multi-century history of appalling atrocity against the native Anatolian population: Greeks, Armenians, and Kurds.

It's no news that Turks are newcomers to Anatolia and the Middle East and it's no news that the existence of a mere 5000 Greeks in modern Turkey today vs. millions in the days of Byzantium could have been engineered only by forced conversion to Islam, atrocity, expulsion, and genocide.

MarieS
10-19-2007, 11:33 PM
And what is genocide in your opinion? How could you name murdering of innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq by your american troops? About 1 mln people lost their life, 4 mln were displaced and forced to leave country. It is just genocide and crime against humanity commited by USA, your president and his administration. Are your country out of law?
Genocide is not a matter of opinion; it is an internationally defined concept.
America is not my country :) and those aren't my troops. What they are doing might in individual cases amount to crimes against humanity but they do not in any way constitute genocide.:shrug:.

About the Armenian genocide:

Given Turkey's strategic position and their immature attitude, there will never be a "good" time to recognize genocide. On the other hand, if we recognized the Holocaust, why not this genocide? Can it really be that recognition of atrocity depends on political convenience?
...
Very good post :hatoff:.

Richard_from_Cal
10-19-2007, 11:45 PM
About the Armenian genocide:

Given Turkey's strategic position and their immature attitude, there will never be a "good" time to recognize genocide. On the other hand, if we recognized the Holocaust, why not this genocide? Can it really be that recognition of atrocity depends on political convenience?

I don't think distinguishing so strongly between the Ottoman Empire and the Young Turks and the modern Turkey is as productive as some might think. Turkey has a horrendous human rights record against its Christian minorities and that spans over one century. In 1894-96 we had the Hamidian massacres of Armenians (100,000 to 300,000 killed) under Sultan Abdulhamid and in 1909 we had the Adana massacre (which the Young Turks "deplored") and then in 1915-1923, under the "progressive" Young Turks there was the genocide. Not only this: concurrently hundreds of thousands of Christian Assyrians were exterminated and after WWI, the Pontic Greeks were also exterminated.

In 1955 there was the Istanbul Pogrom of Greeks (200,000 fled Istanbul). In 1974 there was the invasion of Cyprus and expulsion and killing of Greek Cypriots. And just recently we had the assasination of Hrant Dink (Armenian journalist).

What emerges is that Turkey is a society which, through multiple political systems (political party: Young Turks, military rule: present, monarchy: Hamid, dictatorship: Ataturk, etc.), has a blatant disregard for the lives, properties, and human rights of non-Turks and in particular Anatolian Christians. This is a societal disease and it can only be uprooted at the grassroots level. A start would be for the present Turkish government to accept the responsibility of the Turkish state (state, not government) for the genocide, to apologize to the Armenians, and to dedicate themselves to eradicating long-standing deep-seated anti-Armenianism, anti-Hellenism, and other forms of anti-Christian sentiment. And all I've said also applies to Turkish treatment of the Kurdish minority, which is equally appalling.Thank you, Aloimeh.

G4.
10-19-2007, 11:53 PM
Well of course it won't happen because Turkey's very existence (unlike Germany's) is constructed on three genocides (Armenian, Assyrian, and Pontic Greek)

well Germany has 2, holocaust and genocide in Namibia considered as the first modern genocide, don't know if this one is recognized

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 12:04 AM
well Germany has 2, holocaust and genocide in Namibia considered as the first modern genocide, don't know if this one is recognized

Yes, but in neither genocide (and I know about the Hereros) was the atrocity necessary for the very existence of Germany. German colonialies were tangential to the existence and prosperity of Germany (unlike, for example, Spain or the UK), and the Holocaust, although it eliminated a very successful competitive minority, was hardly a "necessity."

Turkey, on the other hand, would not exist were it not for atrocity and genocide. The Seljuk Turks came into Anatolia in 1000 A.D. That is significantly after the Greek, Armenian, and Kurdish presence, which dates to the earlier part of the millenium B.C., i.e. 800-600 B.C. AT LEAST. The Turks met two very developed civilizations, the Armenian Kingdom and the Byzantine empire, the inheritor of Rome. To transform the Anatolian terrain from an essentially entirely Christian and linguistically Greek/Armenian/Kurdish territory to an entirely religiously Muslim and linguistically Turkish territory in as little as 500 years in some cases (Constantinople was 100% Greek in 1453 and now has 10,000,000 Turks and no Greeks), required massive crimes against humanity, whether forced conversion to Islam, ****, expulsion, brutal taxes and other humiliations, and ultimately extermination. Turkey could not exist as it is presently without such tactics.

G4.
10-20-2007, 12:11 AM
"Turkey, on the other hand, would not exist were it not for atrocity and genocide"

don't want to stir up flames, but could the U.S be what it is today without the massacre of native americans , every nation is based on violence , let's not blame modern Turkia for things that happened +500 years ago, apologizing for the armenian genocide is enough

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 12:21 AM
"Turkey, on the other hand, would not exist were it not for atrocity and genocide"

don't want to stir up flames, but could the U.S be what it is today without the massacre of native americans , every nation is based on violence , let's not blame modern Turkia for things that happened +500 years ago, apologizing for the armenian genocide is enough

Well, not only 500 years ago. It happened in 1915. In 1955. In 1974. In the 1970s and 1980s. Hrant Dink was just recently murdered because he "insulted Turkishness."

Oh, and while you're at it, explain why so many of the ancient churches of Constantinople, not least Hagia Sophia, are still either mosques or museums? The Greek Orthodox theological school (Halki) was shut down so no new patriarchs can be trained there, and to become a patriarch, one must have been born in Turkey. With only a population of 5000 Greeks in Istanbul and the main theological school shut-down (despite repeated requests that it be reopened), one can only conclude that Turkey is still trying to stamp out the Ecumenical Patriarchate so as to "purify" Turkey.

Something's rotten in Turkey, and it's not just a particular government - it's a society that refuses to face the truth of both their distant past and their living history. Now they're about to make more hell for the Kurds of Iraq.

When will Turkey STOP killing people? That's the question.

MarieS
10-20-2007, 12:27 AM
"Turkey, on the other hand, would not exist were it not for atrocity and genocide"

don't want to stir up flames, but could the U.S be what it is today without the massacre of native americans , every nation is based on violence , let's not blame modern Turkia for things that happened +500 years ago, apologizing for the armenian genocide is enough

That's funny, because when it comes to Native Americans (which was so much longer ago) people have no problem blaming today's US government and demanding reparations. Why SHOULDN'T today's Turkish government pay for its predecessor's actions? Especially in the context of them never denouncing those actions... At least the US government has taken SOME steps, however half-assed they might, to be correct the wrongs of their past. :shrug:

G4.
10-20-2007, 12:33 AM
i'm not defending turkia ,i just think it's not necessary to bring up things that happened +500 years ago , but on the rest i agree with you ,
that's why it saddens me to know that Turkey is going to join the E.U.

G4.
10-20-2007, 12:37 AM
Why SHOULDN'T today's Turkish government pay for its predecessor's actions?

Did you read anything i said

Stensland
10-20-2007, 12:49 AM
that's why it saddens me to know that Turkey is going to join the E.U.

is it? as far as i know in france there's a law that says that there must be a referendum on this particular issue.

and i don't believe the french will vote "yes" on this matter.

G4.
10-20-2007, 12:53 AM
the process is going to be changed

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 12:54 AM
Heck, I don't believe Poland or Austria or Hungary are going to vote Turkey in.

G4.
10-20-2007, 12:57 AM
the negotiations have already started , they will last 10-15 years , and when the negotiations start , it means that the state will join ,
plus the US govt is pressuring the euro states to let Turkey in

Stensland
10-20-2007, 12:59 AM
the process is going to be changed

what makes you believe that is the case? well, under sarkozy there definitely won't be any changes.

Stensland
10-20-2007, 01:00 AM
Heck, I don't believe Poland or Austria or Hungary are going to vote Turkey in.

turkey should consider itself lucky that german politicians don't like referundums. they'd get like a 70-80% "no"-vote when it comes to admission to the european union i guess...

G4.
10-20-2007, 01:02 AM
lol a secretary of state has already announced that they will remove the article on the referendum , with Sarkozy approval

Stensland
10-20-2007, 01:05 AM
lol a secretary of state has already announced that they will remove the article on the referendum , with Sarkozy approval

really? so what was all that rhetoric about pre-election?

and actually it just doesn't make sense for sarkozy and his party to allow turkey in. that just doesn't fit. why would he do that? did the secretary of state explain the action?

G4.
10-20-2007, 01:09 AM
lol it is simple , Sarkozy is a demagogue of the highest order , he did that to get all the right wing and extrem right wing votes ( with success ), all those who do not want Turkey because they are muslims etc

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 01:10 AM
really? so what was all that rhetoric about pre-election?

and actually it just doesn't make sense for sarkozy and his party to allow turkey in. that just doesn't fit. why would he do that? did the secretary of state explain the action?

Forces higher up than Sarkozy are directing policy. That much is obvious. The fact that after the French and Dutch resolutely rejected the EU constitution, the same sort of crap is being shoved down people's throats, shows that this EU monster is bigger than any one country or head of state. I used to think that Germany (perhaps together with France was the engineer) but now I'm starting to think that other factors are at play.

Stensland
10-20-2007, 01:15 AM
Forces higher up than Sarkozy are directing policy. That much is obvious. The fact that after the French and Dutch resolutely rejected the EU constitution, the same sort of crap is being shoved down people's throats, shows that this EU monster is bigger than any one country or head of state. I used to think that Germany (perhaps together with France was the engineer) but now I'm starting to think that other factors are at play.

like what? what factors? the eu itself is nothing, it's just the mix of the member states.

and i doubt that turkey has enough influence to have any real impact on eu matters. plus i also doubt that muslim organizations have had any major effect on the decisions made regarding turkey talks.

Stensland
10-20-2007, 01:16 AM
lol it is simple , Sarkozy is a demagogue of the highest order , he did that to get all the right wing and extrem right wing votes ( with success ), all those who do not want Turkey because they are muslims etc

yeah and now he wants to repell his voters? why? he has a solid majority to back him up in france, why would he wanna risk that?

G4.
10-20-2007, 01:20 AM
no big deal , the french have short memories , it won't be the first time it happens.
the E.U is seen as a big market with no borders by the politicians, and Turkey would be a good adition to this market , there is no place for social justice anymore

Stensland
10-20-2007, 01:24 AM
no big deal , the french have short memories , it won't be the first time it happens.
the E.U is seen as a big market with no borders by the politicians, and Turkey would be a good adition to this market , there is no place for social justice anymore

...which is not answering my question at all, sorry.

why would sarkozy back down if he's got the majority of voters behind him on this particular issue? if sarkozy was that fond of populism as you say, the logical thing to do would be keeping the referendums and maybe even enlarging the whole referendum thing on different issues (like the swiss guys and blocher are trying to do it).

Aloimeh
10-20-2007, 01:26 AM
like what? what factors? the eu itself is nothing, it's just the mix of the member states.

and i doubt that turkey has enough influence to have any real impact on eu matters. plus i also doubt that muslim organizations have had any major effect on the decisions made regarding turkey talks.

I could only speculate. However, if what is said is true and Turkey will be pushed into the EU (or rather the EU to accept Turkey), and this is obviously against European interests, then it is obvious that someone else is directing things.

G4.
10-20-2007, 01:28 AM
the official version is that the referendum process might prevent balkanian countries from joining the E.U , my personal opinion is that he never was against Turkey in europe ,
anyway he will not be here when Turkey joins so he has nothing personal to gain here

G4.
10-20-2007, 01:30 AM
I could only speculate. However, if what is said is true and Turkey will be pushed into the EU (or rather the EU to accept Turkey), and this is obviously against European interests, then it is obvious that someone else is directing things.

really depends on where you stand

Stensland
10-20-2007, 01:34 AM
my personal opinion is that he never was against Turkey in europe

if he would be anywhere near his official party policies, he'd be against turkey in europe.

but i see, that balkan thing makes a little sense. i don't believe that would be such a problem though, most of those countries wouldn't have that much of a problem when it comes to a referendum. firstly because they're not associated with the same things that turkey is associated with and secondly: they're nothing population-wise compared to turkey (which is gonna have more than 80 mio inhabitants by the time it will/won't access the european union).

G4.
10-20-2007, 01:43 AM
if he would be anywhere near his official party policies, he'd be against turkey in europe.


Chirac was in favor of Turkey in europe and other ministers , so that does not mean much

Stensland
10-20-2007, 02:09 AM
Chirac was in favor of Turkey in europe and other ministers

yep, and that was one of the reasons why his own party didn't like him at the end of his reign whereas sarkozy stood for the majority of the party.

G4.
10-20-2007, 11:58 AM
no that is not the sole reason

Stensland
10-20-2007, 12:16 PM
no that is not the sole reason

i didn't say that. ;)

mtw
10-20-2007, 06:10 PM
America is not my country :) and those aren't my troops.

So, your posts are very strange. I understand some people, who are Americans and they want to defend their politics in the bad understanding interest. But if somebody is not American, has no interest in this country and he tries to defend a man and people, who decimate innocent people in the other country and try to explain that killinig of innocent people by American leaders and troops is not genocide and not crime against humanity. It is very strange. Could you explain it? And maybe you think that these Arabians, Kurds and people of other ethnicities, who live in Iraq and Afghans are people of worse category than for instance Armenians in XIX century?
I can say to you that these Afghans, Iraqis are such people as we are and this what made there Americans is crime against humanity and genocide.

Richard_from_Cal
10-20-2007, 11:18 PM
Deuteronomy 5: 6-10 ""I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments."

or

Jeremiah 31: 29-30 "In those days they shall say no more, The fathers have eaten a sour grape, and the children's teeth are set on edge. But every one shall die for his own iniquity: every man that eateth the sour grape, his teeth shall be set on edge."

mtw
10-21-2007, 06:37 AM
About 1 mln people were killed in Iraq and about 800 000 in Afghanistan = 1 800 000. And it was done by USA. Is in not the american crime against humanity and genocide? It is clear that it is just american genocide, violation of human laws and crime against humanity.

Bilbo
10-21-2007, 10:25 AM
let's not forget it's not only bush who has blood on his hands. rumsfeld and cheney are also big time involved. rumsfeld is probably even worse than bush. this guy is a racist at it's finest.

i would like to see all 3 getting hanged at the same time to hear their necks snapping.

Stensland
10-21-2007, 11:32 AM
let's not forget it's not only bush who has blood on his hands. rumsfeld and cheney are also big time involved. rumsfeld is probably even worse than bush. this guy is a racist at it's finest.

i would like to see all 3 getting hanged at the same time to hear their necks snapping.

oh lord... :rolleyes:

Jim Jones
10-21-2007, 01:20 PM
oh lord... :rolleyes:

Yes oh Lord indeed. The guy is a hypocrite. He blasted me for being pro-death penalty and now glows about hanging. Anyway welcome to the club bilbo. :devil:

Bilbo
10-21-2007, 02:02 PM
oh lord... :rolleyes:

are you referring to yourself? looks like you are fine with what they do.

mtw
10-22-2007, 02:54 PM
let's not forget it's not only bush who has blood on his hands. rumsfeld and cheney are also big time involved. rumsfeld is probably even worse than bush. this guy is a racist at it's finest.

i would like to see all 3 getting hanged at the same time to hear their necks snapping.

Of course, bush and his all administration rumsfeld, cheney, petroleum and other involved persons and this primitive society ( how could these simple people to vote for this miscellany of scums ), which voted for this criminals are guilty of this crime against humanity and genocide, because it can not be named in other way. They commited crime against humanity and genocide. And it is fact.
And what now? When do they intend withdrew their psychopathic troops from these occupied countries ( Iraq and Afghanistan )? Have they plans of it or they want to be the most intensive and long - lasting genocides in history.

Winston's Human
10-22-2007, 03:10 PM
President Bush did not support this resolution.

It is a political stunt by Speaker Pelosi and Congressman Lantos to drive a wedge between the United States and Turkey in order to undermine our efforts in Iraq.

Deboogle!.
10-22-2007, 05:19 PM
I do see what Richard from Cal is saying. It is quite ironic that the US of all countries is bringing this issue up, while most people would find it hard to disagree that it is they themselves who are 90% responsible for the genocide that is taking place AS WE POST HERE, in the middle east.
t is no wonder that this type of act by some US politicians ends up smacking of something done to win a local/national election. It definitely sounds disingenuous.


Yes, and there is no way to go back in time and correct that mistake.
But the international community should at least learn from that and apply it TODAY while there are genocides going on.You're not speaking factually. It is not the "US" that brings this issue up - it is Armenian interest groups who want the resolution passed. There are some members of Congress who support it, but please, get the facts straight. It has nothing to do with the election in 2008 or anything like that, and it is not disingenuous. As someone said early on in this thread, this issue arises all the time and as I said earlier in the thread, there is an independent film about this very issue that discussed it all when Hastert was still speaker of the US House of Representatives. This is not new, and it is not a political stunt. Armenians in this country care - they want the US to recognize this atrocity, as well they should. And the reason why Congress has not been able to pass a resolution is because people are afraid of upsetting the delicate relationship with Turkey - agree or disagree, whatever your politics are, these are the FACTS of the situation. As for calling Iraq a genocide, that's just laughable. Do you know the definition of a genocide? Just in case you don't: The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group. Agree with the war or not, hate Bush or not, I don't care, but again, please get the facts straight.

That's funny, because when it comes to Native Americans (which was so much longer ago) people have no problem blaming today's US government and demanding reparations. Why SHOULDN'T today's Turkish government pay for its predecessor's actions? Especially in the context of them never denouncing those actions... At least the US government has taken SOME steps, however half-assed they might, to be correct the wrongs of their past. :shrug::yeah:

mediter
10-23-2007, 09:24 AM
The stupidity of the turkish governments in spending time and resources on an essentially unproductive,unethical effort (that lacks lot of a credibility outside trukey)must rank the highest on that scale.

mtw
10-24-2007, 10:01 AM
...to undermine our efforts in Iraq.
It seems that nothing will undermine your ,,efforts,, in Iraq. 1 mln people were killed by representatives of your nation, 4 mln. were thanks to these representatives displaced and this country looks like a pile of ruins. It has nothing: only occupational regime, no government - only proamerican chieftains, who take money from americans to both pockets, big poverty, malnourished children, epidemy of cholera and your american soldiers-psychopaths, who kill almost day in day new group of Iraqi people ( most of all Shiites both rebels and civilians ) and inspire there only fear and will of revenge. And this is this american effort in Iraq.

MarieS
10-25-2007, 12:03 AM
But if somebody is not American, has no interest in this country and he tries to defend a man and people, who decimate innocent people in the other country and try to explain that killinig of innocent people by American leaders and troops is not genocide and not crime against humanity.

Read the rest of the post you quoted :rolleyes:
Genocide is not a matter of opinion; it is an internationally defined concept.
America is not my country :) and those aren't my troops. What they are doing might in individual cases amount to crimes against humanity but they do not in any way constitute genocide.:shrug:.

mtw
10-25-2007, 02:40 PM
Read the rest of the post you quoted :rolleyes:

Yes, it is american crime against humanity and genocide caused by Bush, his scums and american soldiers. Don't niggle the words. If you think in other way, you should give your definition of crime against humanity and genocide. About 1,8 mln people killed , innocent civilians and they are killed by americans day in day there, occupying american regime, stealing this country, total destroying of countries, ruining of life of milions of people. Is it not enough to recognise this crime as genocide and crime against humanity? Why? Because Bush and his myrmidons said that this people are in their opinion criminals and they don't deserve for life in their opinion( in opinion of Hitler Europeans and Jews were criminals too. Why did this crime against humanity recognised as genocide and crime against humanity? Why did Serbian attack on Bosnians is recognised as crime against humanity? It had lesser range ). No they are not criminals but he and his scums of all kinds are criminals and genocides.

Stensland
12-22-2011, 05:39 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/turkey/8973189/Turkey-recalls-French-ambassador-over-Armenian-genocide-bill.html

FRANCE: Turkey 'recalls French ambassador' over Armenian genocide bill

Turkey is to recall its ambassador to France in retaliation for a vote in the French parliament making it a crime to deny the First World War-era mass killings of Armenians amounts to genocide, according to reports.

Gagsquet
12-22-2011, 05:42 PM
Great move from French parliament.

abraxas21
12-22-2011, 05:48 PM
france has a pretty long memory when it comes to accuse the faults of others but a very limited capacity to recognize their own errors.

maybe first worlders should look into themselves before pointing fingers at others. otherwise they'll always be perceived as hipocritical in the eyes of most.

that said, it's not hard to see that this move only responds to a harder political aspiration of dettachment from turkey.

Stensland
12-22-2011, 06:08 PM
Great move from French parliament.

not gonna happen in germany, pissing off the millions of turks in germany would be deemed unacceptable.

Bilbo
12-22-2011, 06:10 PM
not gonna happen in germany, pissing off the millions of turks in germany would be deemed unacceptable.

sounds like you have a beef with turks. must be the geography.

Stensland
12-22-2011, 06:42 PM
must be the geography.

what do you mean?

Garson007
12-22-2011, 07:28 PM
Whatever the idea is behind the scenes, Turkey isn't a part of European culture. I'm sorry, they shouldn't be part of the EU.

buddyholly
12-22-2011, 10:13 PM
Ahhhhh, this page has just brought back nostalgic memories of ''mtw'' If only he/she had stayed around, abraxas would be totally superfluous.

Black Adam
12-22-2011, 11:39 PM
Turkey is never gonna be in EU. Atm, it's looking good for them to avoid being part of that sinking ship.


Good on France.

abraxas21
12-23-2011, 12:27 AM
Whatever the idea is behind the scenes, Turkey isn't a part of European culture. I'm sorry, they shouldn't be part of the EU.

feels like the good old days

the culture 'argument' never gets old to when it comes handy to cover the real motive, racism

Topspindoctor
12-23-2011, 12:31 AM
feels like the good old days

the culture 'argument' never gets old to when it comes handy to cover the real motive, racism

...Or maybe the reason is because Turkey is an economically backward and Europe doesn't need more of such countries to carry, considering their own impending economic ruin, partially brought about by including countries like Greece, Portugal, etc into EU.

...but of course "racism" is easier to blame. (wasn't aware that being born in Turkey or being of Muslim faith is now considered a race).

abraxas21
12-23-2011, 12:46 AM
...Or maybe the reason is because Turkey is an economically backward and Europe doesn't need more of such countries to carry, considering their own impending economic ruin, partially brought about by including countries like Greece, Portugal, etc into EU.

yeh, those greek and portuguese wogs really fucked up australia too, right mate?

Topspindoctor
12-23-2011, 12:52 AM
yeh, those greek and portuguese wogs really fucked up australia too, right mate?

Australia isn't Europe and we're quite fine economically BECAUSE we aren't EU who tried to oppose yank economy by joining up. Too bad the plan backfired when they included third world countries into their little alliance and had to repeatedly bail them out, which only served to exacerbate the crisis they're suffering right now :wavey:

Imagine AU joining up in an economic alliance with Papua New Guinea or something :spit: Even Julia Gillard wouldn't be dumb enough to do that :o

shiaben
12-23-2011, 02:14 AM
Oh the double standards :D

If you want to force one country to recognize genocide, you might as well make the whole world recognize their parts in genocide.

The U.S. should recognize the North Korean, Vietnamese, Native American genocides while it is at it.

Australia should recognize the genocide of the aboriginals.

France should recognize the genocide of the Algerians.

Belgium should recognize the genocide of the Congo people.

You see the list can go on and on and on and on. Why the double standards?