- Joined
- Dec 27, 2014
- Messages
- 59,432
- Reaction score
- 39,000
- Location
- Best Coast Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
But the Aremians were second class citizens. They were oppressed just like the Shia are. And they were targeted like the Shia are in Yemen.
Yes, definitions that are highly politically motivated and can basically be used against anyone.
No I dont. I agree with some of the definitions but I am very warry to use those legal definitions because they can so easily be painted on any country or society. For example, the police department in Ferguson. They targeted black people... that is genocide according to the definition.
The slaughter of Armenians was Genocide.
It was a planned mass murder of an ethnic group. It meets the legal definition we now use for Genocide.
I think the war and the genocide was two different things in WW2. The war and territorial disputes was not genocide... the internal regulation and gathering of jews, then killing/experimenting on them was....
No, many misuse it. I have not.Except 'we' only use that legal definition when it suits us, and given that there is no court case pending, there's no plenary in which to make the argument in any case. It may meet your, or my definition of genocide, but so what? Still no one has answered my earlier questions: What are we meant to do with this debate? If we say "yes, that was genocide", what should be the consequence for Turkey, Armenia or in the international sphere? If we say that the Ottomans committed genocide, shouldn't we also open up the other issues already mentioned for reassessment? If not, why not?
Ferguson, no, you are musing the term to fit a variety of issues.
Ferguson would not come close to meeting the standard for Genocide.
Much in he same way you classify all war as genocidal. They are all not genocidal.
Now was Iraq and act of Genocide.
The slaughter of Armenians was Genocide.
It was a planned mass murder of an ethnic group. It meets the legal definition we now use for Genocide.
No, many misuse it. I have not.
As to other genocides, I missed your posts. Which were you referring to? Japan, Uganda, Darfur to name a few?
Why the hell not. The specific targeting of an ethnic group for punishment and death...
I said no such thing. I said that certain classification of the word genocide could mean that many wars were genocidal. Big difference. Do I think wars are genocide.. no.
Actually it is not that subjective as you might think. There is plenty of legal basis for the definition I pointed out and it has been used before. And as I pointed out, it is a weak definition because of the significant aspect.
Then there is a hell of a lot of genocide going on... basically any war.
Even worse definition.. does not even have to be a war.. gang crime in any major city could meet this definition.
By any these definitions, the US invasion of Panama could be called genocide.
Except 'we' only use that legal definition when it suits us, and given that there is no court case pending, there's no plenary in which to make the argument in any case. It may meet your, or my definition of genocide, but so what? Still no one has answered my earlier questions: What are we meant to do with this debate? If we say "yes, that was genocide", what should be the consequence for Turkey, Armenia or in the international sphere? If we say that the Ottomans committed genocide, shouldn't we also open up the other issues already mentioned for reassessment? If not, why not?
Nothing changes much. It has only been the last few decades that anyone questioned the wars, exterminations, and relocations of Native Americans was necessary and morally correct due to atrocities committed by NAs. Only "Indians," ie "savages," were committing genocide and atrocities against "settlers" was the truism of American history until recently. The winner writes the history.
I agree with you almost 100% up to this point."We" is a subjective term with selective values. "We" carpet firebombed German and Japanese cities specifically to kill civilians to "break their will to fight" - which never works and only makes people fight more. Literally more had been killed in a single night of firebombing than the atomic bombs had killed.
Yet we do not define bombing within the definition of "atrocity," "genocide" or "war crime." So we can kill tens of thousands of civilians in a single night, deliberately, but if German soldiers machine gun 100 American prisoners that is an unthinkable war crime for which those Germans should be hung.
We can machine gun down a dozen Iraqi civilians merely because one MIGHT have a firearm, and then shoot up an arriving ambulance too, from helicopters - and that's "war." ISIS cuts off a civilian's head? OMG WE MUST INVADE or at least do 1000 bombing runs and drone strikes.
What is evil and what isn't, what is a war crime and what isn't, depends upon which side you are on, and what constitutes a genocide and what doesn't often depends on who won the war and who lost.
The Armenians really didn't win the war. They lost horribly - to the Ottomans and to the Soviet Union, which engulfed rump Armenia and snuffed out all hope of independence for 80 years.Ottoman Muslims lost. Armenian Christians won. So Armenians wrote the history.
Except that far more Armenians fought on behalf of the Ottoman empire, within the imperial forces. That 150,000 figure is also a vast exaggeration, just as the 1.5 million deaths is an exaggeration.Give the massively greater number of civilian Ottoman Muslim deaths and that tens of thousands of Armenians were non-uniformed insurgents and 150,000 military enemy,
I agree that Turkey should not be alone in admitting the truth of the hideous behaviour of its ancestors, but it should admit it, as should those other nations I've already mentioned many times.it is no surprise that Turkey is not willing to accept singular and total accusations of genocide and atrocities for what was 6 decades of war - including overt genocide against Ottoman Muslims in the Balkins and Caucacus in this same time period and war period
The Ottomans were not under invasion and attack from the Armenians. The Armenians were historically a full part of the empire and the vast majority were loyalty subjects of the Sultan. The CUP (Young Turks) turned them into the 'enemy within' for cynical, political reasons. They knew that the Empire would lose the war, and a scapegoat was badly needed in order to deflect blame for the defeat away from the government. It's false to say that there was significant undermining of imperial authority by the Armenians that would justify even a tenth of the slaughter that the CUP unleashed. I'm afraid your reasonable arguments are significantly undermined by what appears to be a justification for the slaughter of innocents, by the tens of thousands.noting it also was the Ottomans who were under invasion and attack, not the other way around.
So the internal regulation and gathering of the Japanese was genocide? Now there was no active killing/experimenting.. but they were hardly held in pleasant conditions and many died.
If war and genocide are two different things then what about a civil war, which technically the end of Ottoman Empire could be categorized as.
Asking this question because recently one of my favorite bands System of a Down is starting a tour, and they are doing it in commemoration of 100th anniversary of "The Great Crime" (the Armenian Genocide) System of a Down to Commemorate Armenian Genocide | Al Jazeera America . This sparked my interest to see what DP's opinion on the manner is.
Many countries have not recognized the Armenian Genocide. Its a topic of heated debate. The US government has not recognized it, but 44 states have.
My question to you is: Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?
The Pope said that they did today, so I guess that's the end of it. Who's going to argue with the Pope?
I have Armenian people in my family.
That's all that I have to say on this topic. :roll:
Simpleχity;1064519683 said:In my mind yes - I consider this crime a genocide.
In his memoirs, Raphael Lemkin states that he began investigating the mass killings of Armenians while a university student in the 1930's and had this particular event in mind when he coined the term "genocide" in 1944.
right wingers are never sincere in their understanding of democracy :2razz:
poor native americans .
you should mention Crimean tatars and Ahıska Turks too.wait they all will begin to Google it now I wish they were popular too
Lolz, tell us more about native Americans, Turk.
Stand up and feel the war, Turk. It will be the day that never comes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?