UN to consider the Armenian Genocide

For many years, international recognition of the Armenian Genocide has remained a foremost priority for Armenian Diasporas all over the world. Some achievements have been realized in this area (Armenian genocide's recognition by over 30 countries, the support of leading world's mass media and public organizations). But to date, it is clearly insufficient to fully resolve this issue, and that is why the struggle for this recognition is continuing with some success.

For instance, the US Armenian Diaspora has been working so actively in this area that it has recently achieved the signing of the relevant declaration by the Governor of the State of Alabama, whose state has become the 49th one that has recognized the Armenian Genocide. And now it comes down to the official recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the White House.

Moreover, Armenians may soon take this process to another level as evidenced by the documents indicating the US readiness to bring their matter before the UN Security Council.







In fact, not only adoption by the UN Security Council of the resolution on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide during the World War I, but also some sort of punishment of Turkey for its current insubordination rather than for its past mistakes may be made at the instigation of the White House through paying compensation for the Armenian people.

Armenians' insistence and resourcefulness can create and convey only respect for them. For more than 100 years, they have not forgotten about the tragic events happened when their people were mass executed, deported and became the subject of medical experiments. As a result, they had to run for their lives. The US Armenian Diaspora also consisted mainly of those people, who had managed to escape from the Ottoman Empire and had not become the targets of mass reprisals on grounds of nationality and religion. This is the pain of the Armenian people. They are legally and legitimately demanding the recognition of the genocide and calling for its condemnation and assumption of responsibility by Turkey for crimes committed.

And to achieve these goals they picked a pretty good time as relations between Washington and Ankara are at their lowest point. And, therefore, using the growing contradictions between the countries, the US Armenian Diaspora played the situation very shrewdly and urged Washington to recognize the Armenian Genocide although the USA was ignoring to discuss this issue for many years.

The White House was previously intent on maintaining cooperation with Turkey to avoid any damage to relations between NATO allies, yet as tensions between the two countries are mounting, Washington is rather keen on punishing Ankara. Rumors of the Americans having a hand in the 2016 failed coup attempt in Turkey as well as the fact that the United States provides shelter to Fethullah Gulen, a mastermind of the coup, serve only to exacerbate the situation. Furthermore, an incident with oppositional journalist Khashoggi, whose body had been dismembered inside the Saudi Arabian consulate in Istanbul, did not improve relations between the countries either. The case has been widely publicized in the press, which has been initiated by Turkish authorities.

The US recognition of the Armenian Genocide can hurt Turkey badly. It is already not the subject of the US particular attention, and now this whole thing seems only logical for D. Trump, who wants to draw a line in the sand with such ambitious man as Erdogan.

This raises the question for Armenians whether it is worth initiating the recognition and condemnation of hundred-year-old crimes, which leads to heightened tension in the region.

I can imagine one youtube journalist. Who's going to be a little sour about this.

Was no genocide...mass death and killing of supposed rebels and their families sure, but genocide no.

How do we know this? The Armenian quarter in Istanbul. If there was a genocide or attempted, then one would expect that the Armenians in the capital of the Ottoman Empire would have been among the first to be driven out and killed. And yet there was a considerable Armenian population during and after the so called genocide. By all accounts the population of Armenians in Istanbul did not change much during the period. Hell today there is over 150k in Istanbul. So how can it be an organised purge of a population (the definition of genocide) if a significant important part was left virtually untouched?

That does not mean that the Ottomans did not commit atrocities during the last years of Empire..all falling Empires do this. But you piss on the real genocides through out history by calling what happened to the Armenian population a genocide. Mass murder and crimes against humanity, but it aint genocide.


Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

PeteEU said:

Was no genocide...mass death and killing of supposed rebels and their families sure, but genocide no.

How do we know this? The Armenian quarter in Istanbul. If there was a genocide or attempted, then one would expect that the Armenians in the capital of the Ottoman Empire would have been among the first to be driven out and killed. And yet there was a considerable Armenian population during and after the so called genocide. By all accounts the population of Armenians in Istanbul did not change much during the period. Hell today there is over 150k in Istanbul. So how can it be an organised purge of a population (the definition of genocide) if a significant important part was left virtually untouched?

That does not mean that the Ottomans did not commit atrocities during the last years of Empire..all falling Empires do this. But you piss on the real genocides through out history by calling what happened to the Armenian population a genocide. Mass murder and crimes against humanity, but it aint genocide.


Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

It's a numbers game and when we speak (as here) of (at least) a million victims, the term "genocide" is pretty close.

That most of it took place in Eastern Anatolia diminished nothing in that.

Fact remains that the Turkish government of the time systematically organized it all and Istanbul today holds between 50 - 70,000 Armenians at most (estimates vary), not 150 k and certainly not anything like before the extermination campaign got under way.

The higher figure also corresponds to the overall figure of Turkish Armenians today, down from the over 2 million of 1914.

Saying that this wasn't a genocide in view of not all Armenians of Turkey being accounted for at the time is like saying the Jewish holocaust never occurred on account of some Jews having escaped.

The genocide here incidentally started out with Armenian intellectuals and community leaders from Istanbul being deported Eastwards (to later be murdered), followed by the first wave of either murdering all able-bodied males, then to be followed in the second wave of "death-marching" women, children and the elderly and infirm into the Syrian desert, often by slaughtering them on the way.

If anything means pissing on this genocide, it's the narrative that you try to offer.

Chagos said:

It's a numbers game and when we speak (as here) of (at least) a million victims, the term "genocide" is pretty close.

That most of it took place in Eastern Anatolia diminished nothing in that.

Fact remains that the Turkish government of the time systematically organized it all and Istanbul today holds between 50 - 70,000 Armenians at most (estimates vary), not 150 k and certainly not anything like before the extermination campaign got under way.

Click to expand...

So you dont find it odd, that in a supposed genocide, the Ottomans left 10s of thousands Armenians in their own capital? And the estimates are 50 to 170k in Istanbul today.

The higher figure also corresponds to the overall figure of Turkish Armenians today, down from the over 2 million of 1914.

Click to expand...

Nope. The population numbers are highly disputed.. which is one of the problems.

Saying that this wasn't a genocide in view of not all Armenians of Turkey being accounted for at the time is like saying the Jewish holocaust never occurred on account of some Jews having escaped.

Click to expand...

Bull****. The Jewish genocide was exactly that.. a genocide. There were not many Jews left in Berlin or many places in Germany.

The genocide here incidentally started out with Armenian intellectuals and community leaders from Istanbul being deported Eastwards (to later be murdered), followed by the first wave of either murdering all able-bodied males, then to be followed in the second wave of "death-marching" women, children and the elderly and infirm into the Syrian desert, often by slaughtering them on the way.

Click to expand...

And yet the Armenian religious leaders and 10s of thousands were left in place...And no I am not disputing what you have claimed, just pointing out the issues with it.

If anything means pissing on this genocide, it's the narrative that you try to offer.

Click to expand...

Disagree. For me genocide is the worst thing any country or organisation can do. Calling mass murders for genocide lessens the impact of the word genocide. We have already screwed up the "Terrorist" label big time, and we should not do that to genocide.

As I have said, what the Ottomans did was horrible even for the times.. somewhat. The problem is that many of the accusations come from suspect sources and have very little proof. Just look at the debate on how many Armenians there were in the Ottoman Empire and where they were.

What you have to ask yourself is why are people dragging up this horrible time in history.. 100 years after the fact.. ?

And the next question is.. if we say this was a genocide, and hence lowering the bar on what a genocide is.. what other mass killings in history can be called genocide? How about what the British Empire did in India or South Africa?

PeteEU said:

So you dont find it odd, that in a supposed genocide, the Ottomans left 10s of thousands Armenians in their own capital? And the estimates are 50 to 170k in Istanbul today.



Nope. The population numbers are highly disputed.. which is one of the problems.



Bull****. The Jewish genocide was exactly that.. a genocide. There were not many Jews left in Berlin or many places in Germany.



And yet the Armenian religious leaders and 10s of thousands were left in place...And no I am not disputing what you have claimed, just pointing out the issues with it.



Disagree. For me genocide is the worst thing any country or organisation can do. Calling mass murders for genocide lessens the impact of the word genocide. We have already screwed up the "Terrorist" label big time, and we should not do that to genocide.

As I have said, what the Ottomans did was horrible even for the times.. somewhat. The problem is that many of the accusations come from suspect sources and have very little proof. Just look at the debate on how many Armenians there were in the Ottoman Empire and where they were.

What you have to ask yourself is why are people dragging up this horrible time in history.. 100 years after the fact.. ?

And the next question is.. if we say this was a genocide, and hence lowering the bar on what a genocide is.. what other mass killings in history can be called genocide? How about what the British Empire did in India or South Africa?

Click to expand...

During the Holocaust more than a few Jews not only survived in Germany but also served the Reich...

Why is it "lowering a bar" to call the slaughter of Armenians genocide?

Not wanting to argue a position that you clearly want to defend at all cost (no matter how foolish you look in the process), I'll nevertheless address this individual foolishness

PeteEU said:

~...................

What you have to ask yourself is why are people dragging up this horrible time in history.. 100 years after the fact.. ?

Click to expand...

which implies that if we give the time since the Jewish holocaust another 26 years, we'd better not bring it up anymore after that either.

Oborosen said:

I can imagine one youtube journalist. Who's going to be a little sour about this.

Click to expand...

Right? If the pressure gets too high he might have to change the name of his network away from being named after Turkey’s version of the Nazi party.

PeteEU said:

So you dont find it odd, that in a supposed genocide, the Ottomans left 10s of thousands Armenians in their own capital? And the estimates are 50 to 170k in Istanbul today.

Click to expand...

120,000 Jews live in Germany today. I guess that means there was no genocide going on in your book.

It's a matter of historic fact that the Armenian genocide happened just like the fact that the Roman Empire existed for that point, no one needs the UN or anyone else to confirm it.

PeteEU said:

What you have to ask yourself is why are people dragging up this horrible time in history.. 100 years after the fact.. ?

Click to expand...

I don’t know...maybe because people like you, and the Turkish government itself, denies it happpened, meaning it’s more likely to happen again because there are obviously sympathies for such actions.

PeteEU said:

Was no genocide...mass death and killing of supposed rebels and their families sure, but genocide no.

Click to expand...

The term genocide was coined to describe the Armenian slaughter.

Fishking said:

Right? If the pressure gets too high he might have to change the name of his network away from being named after Turkey’s version of the Nazi party.

Click to expand...

How many of us can just look at him and go "that's the history.. look it up..."?

PeteEU said:

So you dont find it odd, that in a supposed genocide, the Ottomans left 10s of thousands Armenians in their own capital? And the estimates are 50 to 170k in Istanbul today.



Nope. The population numbers are highly disputed.. which is one of the problems.



Bull****. The Jewish genocide was exactly that.. a genocide. There were not many Jews left in Berlin or many places in Germany.



And yet the Armenian religious leaders and 10s of thousands were left in place...And no I am not disputing what you have claimed, just pointing out the issues with it.



Disagree. For me genocide is the worst thing any country or organisation can do. Calling mass murders for genocide lessens the impact of the word genocide. We have already screwed up the "Terrorist" label big time, and we should not do that to genocide.

As I have said, what the Ottomans did was horrible even for the times.. somewhat. The problem is that many of the accusations come from suspect sources and have very little proof. Just look at the debate on how many Armenians there were in the Ottoman Empire and where they were.

What you have to ask yourself is why are people dragging up this horrible time in history.. 100 years after the fact.. ?

And the next question is.. if we say this was a genocide, and hence lowering the bar on what a genocide is.. what other mass killings in history can be called genocide? How about what the British Empire did in India or South Africa?

Click to expand...

No words, man, no words. :shock:

Oborosen said:

How many of us can just look at him and go "that's the history.. look it up..."?

Click to expand...

Wait...I thought he said "You can Google it." in his debate with Shapiro, lol.

Fishking said:

120,000 Jews live in Germany today. I guess that means there was no genocide going on in your book.

Click to expand...

A similar argument is also a mainstay of holocaust denial. Because by their logic the holocaust could not have happened because there were still Jews left.

Fishking said:

Wait...I thought he said "You can Google it." in his debate with Shapiro, lol.

Click to expand...

Part of the quote, yes. Then again the stammering and murmuring didn't help us hearing him at that point.

Fishking said:

120,000 Jews live in Germany today. I guess that means there was no genocide going on in your book.

Click to expand...

What a load of bull****. Of course there was a genocide of Jews by the Nazies, just as there was for the various American Indian populations.

My point is not to excuse the mass murder by the Ottomans, but to put it in perspective of other real genocides.

Were Armenians wiped out across the Empire? No. In fact there was a large number left untouched in the western part of the empire including the capital.

Basically in my opinion the bar for genocide is being moved here for political reasons. If this is accepted then I expect genocide accusations against the UK, France, Spain, the US and so on because they have all been involved in similar actions through out history and is that something you want?

You have to ask why this is be dragged up again 100 years after the fact...and other mass killings/ genocides are not receiving the same treatments.

It is not like there is anyone left to punish for the actions.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

PeteEU said:

Were Armenians wiped out across the Empire?

Click to expand...

:roll: Is that your bar Pete?

Were all Jews across the continent killed? All Ukrainians? All Rwandans? All in Darfur?

Quite frankly, your exculpatory viewpoint is abhorrent.

PeteEU said:

What a load of bull****. Of course there was a genocide of Jews by the Nazies, just as there was for the various American Indian populations.

My point is not to excuse the mass murder by the Ottomans, but to put it in perspective of other real genocides.

Were Armenians wiped out across the Empire? No. In fact there was a large number left untouched in the western part of the empire including the capital.

Basically in my opinion the bar for genocide is being moved here for political reasons. If this is accepted then I expect genocide accusations against the UK, France, Spain, the US and so on because they have all been involved in similar actions through out history and is that something you want?

You have to ask why this is be dragged up again 100 years after the fact...and other mass killings/ genocides are not receiving the same treatments.

It is not like there is anyone left to punish for the actions.

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

How is the "bar for genocide being moved" when the person who invented the word used the Armenian genocide as one of his original examples?

Rogue Valley said:

:roll: Is that your bar Pete?

Were all Jews across the continent killed? All Ukrainians? All Rwandans? All in Darfur?

Quite frankly, your exculpatory viewpoint is abhorrent.

Click to expand...

So in other words, you believe that in any time there is an organised mass killing going on, then it is a genocide? So the Japanese during WW2 or Germans? How about the people of Venezuela? Or how the Christians in what is Spain now, treated Jews and Muslims after the reconquest? Genocide?

PeteEU said:

So in other words, you believe that in any time there is an organised mass killing going on, then it is a genocide? So the Japanese during WW2 or Germans? How about the people of Venezuela? Or how the Christians in what is Spain now, treated Jews and Muslims after the reconquest? Genocide?

Click to expand...

The Armenian genocide certainly fulfills most of the definitions of this list of definitions of genocide.

Fishking said:

How is the "bar for genocide being moved" when the person who invented the word used the Armenian genocide as one of his original examples?

Click to expand...

Okay what do you want... do you want a word Genocide to actually mean something? Or can we just label it on anything. By the original definition a lot of acts by a lot of countries have been genocide or attempted genocide. So what is it? Would you say the US treatment of the black population as genocide? They after all used organised methods to take children away, prevent births and so on.. all of which would be genocide according to the definition.

My point is, the more you label things as genocide, the less impact the word has. To me a genocide is the most horrible thing that can happen and should only be associated by the worst atrocities. The Armenian genocide does not meet the conditions of being a genocide along the lines of the American Indian genocide and the Jewish Genocide. Does not mean it was not horrible or a crime. Go read the conditions set down by the so called inventor of the term, and you will quickly see that you can either not for fill the conditions with this case, or that all mass killings are genocide if they meet just one of the conditions... so you have a choice....

PeteEU said:

So in other words, you believe that in any time there is an organised mass killing going on, then it is a genocide? So the Japanese during WW2 or Germans? How about the people of Venezuela? Or how the Christians in what is Spain now, treated Jews and Muslims after the reconquest? Genocide?

Click to expand...

There was not a concentrated effort to kill every single German or Japanese individual during the Second World War. There was absolutely an effort to wipe out the Armenians in large parts of the Ottoman Empire; the fact that they were murdered well away from the capital does not change the fact that they were deliberately targeted for extermination.

Uh.....what about the people of Venezuela? Are you actually dumb enough to claim sanctions on the Maduro regime are equivalent to a literal genocide?

The entire Chechen and Ingush peoples, about 496,000, were deported to Central Asia in 1944 as punishment for what Moscow called their collaboration with Nazi Germany. It is estimated that 123,000–200,000 Chechens and Ingush people were perished. The Armenians were marched out to Syria and the surrounding desert as Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire were a threat to the empire's security. Arnold J. Toynbee, an intelligence officer of the British Foreign Office during World War I, estimated a death toll of 600,000 from a population of 1,800,000 Armenians. In both cases, forced deportations killed one third of deportees.

The deportation was prepared from at least October 1943 and 19,000 officers as well as 100,000 NKVD soldiers from all over the USSR participated in this operation. The deportation encompassed their entire nations, as well as the liquidation of the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The demographic consequences of this eviction were catastrophic and far reaching: of the 496,000 Chechens and Ingush who were deported, at least a quarter perished. In total, the archive records show that over a hundred thousand people died or were killed during the round-ups and transportation, and during their early years in exile in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz SSR as well as Russian SFSR where they were sent to the many labor camps in the forced settlements. They were under administrative supervision of the NKVD officials during that entire time.

Click to expand...