Genocide? Now look at this Chewbacca..

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Yeah but what good does a democracy do when human rights are being violated every day. The Turks torture and neglect their psyichiatric patients for example, and some of them won't get free ever even when there is nothing wrong with them anymore.

and that's just one example

Like this...?

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=139035

[vomitus]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Would someone kindly translate this jibberish please?



I'm pretty sure it says "Page not found" but I don't speak Elvish.

Good one.

[Sandman]

I don't like their position, but all the Turks have to do to make this issue go away is to bring up all the various un-atoned-for massacres perpetrated by the various nations in the EU.

Start with the Belgian Congo. The Belgians have never really come to terms with that. If the higher death tolls are correct, then King Leopold II is top ten material for the most evil men in history.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs
Would someone kindly translate this jibberish please?

quote:
Takaisin

Pyytämääsi resurssia ei voida näyttää, koska pyynnössä esiintyy mahdollisesti haitallisia merkkejä.

Mikäli olit tekemässä hakua, ole hyvä ja tee haku uudelleen ilman erikoismerkkejä.

Takaisin

I'm pretty sure it says "Page not found" but I don't speak Elvish.

OK: There will be one who shall visit us, and he wieldeth the one true ring. One of our number shall offer him invaluable help, and she shall be hot. However, pay careful attention to the fact that she shall fall for a funny-looking human, and not teh Lord of Eva, Ted Striker.

[Pekka]

"You and many others who sympathise with the Armenian teminology generally have no idea about the untold thousands of Turks that died at the hands of Armenian nationalists at the time and the circumstances in which Eastern Anatolia erupted into flames."

"Turkey already accepts the fact that hundreds of thousands of Armenians died during the relocations. But it is against the retroactive labeling of the issue with a legally modern concept, and it is against presenting the issue as a one sided, unprovoked and thoroughly planned, deliberate act."

So I wonder why people symphatize with that. Retroactive labeling? lol, that's the best word for genocide denying . You'd make a great politician. Retroactive labeling, don't you mean the truth?

And about Armenians taking it quite seriously to this day, hey, I'm sorry but that seems natural. Frankly I don't give a **** if it's offensive to Turks. Genocide is more outrageus. Compare the two and you can be all outraged you want to be, no one is crying with you.

"There's no univarsal consensus among historians on the issue, not enough evidence to support Armenian claims, and a debate about the issue is going on."

YOu mean, Turks disagree? We knew that. You said yourself, hundreds of thousands died. I guess it was a bumpy road with all the relocations, uh? Not all historians agree that holocaust happened either.

"Perhaps, that was why your President was acting according to the dignity and responsibility of her office."

If denying genocide when you are official guest to the country is showing dignity, then I guess visiting Israel and denying holocaust is what.. devine?

What you need to understand is that most Euros don't give a crap about what happened in Armenia. But they do care, when there's denial, they do care especially when Turkey is entering the EU and it denies every action like this and does not accept any responsibility. Like you said, retroactive labeling.

What ever. Hundreds of thousands didn't commit suicide or just instantly die because of.. uh.. weak heart syndrome. If there would be some kind of recongition to the happening, no one would make a fuzz about it. Now they do.

[chequita guevara]

Regardless of whether or not it was an intentional attempt to destroy Armenian culture or whether the Armenians rose up and slaughtered Turks before suffering a reprisal, a vast number of Armenians were killed and in a large swath of Turkey they disappeared. That fits the definition of genocide, regardless of whatever else happened.

As I understand it, though, Armenia backed out of an international commission to look into the issues.

[Pekka]

I'm not saying she should have blamed Turks or anything. It was long time ago and we are kind fo bystanders. I was hoping more diplomatic answer. Not denial and 'actually we don't care about it either'.

More like 'There has been great deal of loss of life and we recognize it, and we hope that the normalization of relations can take a new step forward'.

Or 'no comment'.

Much better

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Regardless of whether or not it was an intentional attempt to destroy Armenian culture or whether the Armenians rose up and slaughtered Turks before suffering a reprisal, a vast number of Armenians were killed and in a large swath of Turkey they disappeared. That fits the definition of genocide, regardless of whatever else happened.

As I understand it, though, Armenia backed out of an international commission to look into the issues.

The definition of genocide, according to the Genocide Convention of 1948 is as follows:

...genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(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.

(Diclaimer: the "you"s I use below is intended to be generic, not with reference to Che per se, as most of the posters here seem to have a different opinion from mine on this issue.)

When you look at the killings of 1915, (a) definitely happened and one can argue that (c) was the most applicable means by which Turks chose to genocide Armenians (by putting the on the road and watch them perish).

However, there's one crucial element in the definiton of genocide that sets it apart from a "massacre" or "mass killing", which is the intent to destroy.

In the "Armenian genocide" literature, there is ample evidence of suffering and dying under terrible conditions, tens of thousands of personal tragedies. But when it comes to proving that crucial ingredient, intent, evidence is sorely lacking.

For a lay person and in public daily usage, genocide might be applicable to any event involving a number of death higher than, say, 10.000. From that perspective, the distinction necessary to define the event apart as genocide might seem cynical and heartless.

But in fact, what makes genocide a true shame and horror for a showcase of human behaviour is that man can kill man on such massive scale with cool intent. Therefore, before moving from a disgust in light of high numbers of deaths to identfying it as genocide, you have to make real sure about whether such a serious accusation is due, keeping in mind all aspects of genocide. You have to look at that crucial component of intent, completely apart from the evidence of terrible numbers of deaths, before passing your verdict on the issue. Otherwise, you will only have demoted the horrors of genocide to the level of any other massacre or mass killing.

Having said that, one may feel reaction at the thought of so many deaths occuring without thorough planning. But then again, if there was such a thorough planning, there has to be evidence of it, however small, somewhere, somehow.

The order of relocation of Armenians were made in great haste, in extraordinary circumstances of a collapsing front. Orders were dispatched to the governors on the path of relocation to provide for the relocees. Those who failed to do so were tried and executed.

I know, from previous related threads, that there are things you can throw at these arguments ("orders were not sincere", "trials were to save the ass of the real perpetrators" ). But then, check out the list of assumptions you have to make in this issue to maintain your judgement:

- Ottomans destroyed each and every single scrap of document related to an undertaking ivolving deaths of hundreds of thousands.
- Orders to provide for the relocees were in fact insurance policy for the future, if sh!t happened
- Trials after the war to punish those who committed excesses were also halfhearted and only to seem to do something about it.

Can you really maintain a legal case with such a list of assumptions with hardly any evidence other than your subjective good sense about it?

I remind you again; genocide as we use in daily language is different from genocide as a legal definiton, and if you want to be legal, you have to act legal and judge according to whatever evidence is around.

[Pekka]

blaablaablaa.

Ah Mr OJ Simpson we find you .. not guilty!

oh wait, that's not it. Listen, you are perfectly living up to the Chewbacca title.

Keep circling, trying to find some ways to declare an argument that can't be beaten, a thing that can't be proven that it would satisfy your needs, or what ever.

Legal schmegal. So which one was it? a combination of mother nature and cruel weather, separate incidents thought quite big ones, and the rest is made up and they kind of just died. So are you justifying what happened or just denying it?

I know teh Armenians got bad rep for being close with the Rooskies the some of them, and they went against some Turks, but you know that's kind of what the Jews were blamed too... Ironic, isn't it?

Everyone KNOWS it happened. OK, it's not like it's a subject of debate even.

Ta-ta!

[Ancyrean]

Originally posted by Pekka
blaablaablaa.

Ah Mr OJ Simpson we find you .. not guilty!

oh wait, that's not it. Listen, you are perfectly living up to the Chewbacca title.

Keep circling, trying to find some ways to declare an argument that can't be beaten, a thing that can't be proven that it would satisfy your needs, or what ever.

Legal schmegal. So which one was it? a combination of mother nature and cruel weather, separate incidents thought quite big ones, and the rest is made up and they kind of just died. So are you justifying what happened or just denying it?

I know teh Armenians got bad rep for being close with the Rooskies the some of them, and they went against some Turks, but you know that's kind of what the Jews were blamed too... Ironic, isn't it?

Everyone KNOWS it happened. OK, it's not like it's a subject of debate even.

Ta-ta!

I was trying to say, genocide is a much more serious definiton than many seem to take, and that certain conditions need to be fulfilled to come to that specific conclusion. You might not be having your most subtle day, but a subtle difference here is an important part of the debate.

If you bear with me, I am neither justifying the deaths of people nor denying it. I'm just describing the wider context in which it happened and comparing it what I would take to be where the Armenian argument fails.

The decision of relocation was made in an extraordinary emergency, and the Armenians were forced to relocate with a view to end an uprising behind an almost collapsing front, not with a view to exterminate a race. Once on the road however, Armenians died from hunger, from cold, from bandit attacks and what not. This is different from looking at the result and assuming/inferring the intent. I'm maintaining that it's a grave mistake to define genocide with such a line of reasoning, in the absence of evidence.

The massive uprising of the Armenians is well recorded, with all the consequent mass killings of Turks, attacks on Turkish villages and associated outrages. The "uprising" or "conspiracy" of Jews agains Germany is not.

[VetLegion]

What came of the joint commission?

[chequita guevara]

Armenia withdrew before it began.

[VetLegion]

Why did she withdraw?

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
I admire what Turkey has accomplished since 1919. Turkey today is a model of democracy.

massacring 1.5 million people? good for you. as for democracy, far far from it.

I always found unnerving the instistance of ultranationalists jews to defend a genocide and not recognize it. especially due to jewish history. but i guess nothing is too bad for defending the israeli-turkish military alliance.

still it gives me a rather unhealthy vibe. the epitomy of hypocricy and sleaziness, in my view. or submitting to national interests at all costs.

[Bereta_Eder]

also joitn commisions is a attempt by turkey to rid itself of international pressure conserning the genocide. if it can arm wrestle armenia (which is compltetly defendless btw) into accepting what turkey wants, or something close, it would have gained an important leverage to the int. opinion. apart from what washington and the jewish lobby already provide.