Pope angers Turkey by discussing "Armenian Genocide"

Infinite Chaos · Apr 12, 2015

Turkey has recalled its envoy to the Vatican after Pope Francis described the mass killing of Armenians under Ottoman rule in WW1 as "genocide".Turkey has reacted with anger to the comment made by the Pope at a service in Rome earlier on Sunday.
Armenia and many historians say up to 1.5 million people were killed by Ottoman forces in 1915.
But Turkey has always disputed that figure and said the deaths were part of a civil conflict triggered by WW1. Link.

Turkey has recalled its ambassador to the Vatican but this is now something nearly 100 years ago that won't go away till faces up to this and owns what it did to 1.5 million Armenians

PeteEU · Apr 12, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Turkey has recalled its ambassador to the Vatican but this is now something nearly 100 years ago that won't go away till faces up to this and owns what it did to 1.5 million Armenians

The 1.5 million is highly disputed considering several census numbers before 1915 only put the Armenian population at 1 million or so and the number of Armenian's after the fact was established by international organisations to be over 800k.

The only fact we do know, is that there was an oprising in the end days of the Ottoman Empire and it was put down harshly by the Ottomans.. many died on both sides.

And lets be brutally frank here, the Catholic Church should not be throwing stones when living in a glass house themselves...

Infinite Chaos · Apr 12, 2015

PeteEU said:
-- The only fact we do know, is that there was an oprising in the end days of the Ottoman Empire and it was put down harshly by the Ottomans.. many died on both sides.

Agreed but the numbers of Armenians killed was higher. You may not agree the genocide claim but there are many who do.

PeteEU said:
--And lets be brutally frank here, the Catholic Church should not be throwing stones when living in a glass house themselves...

True, but that fallacy means the Catholic church can never comment on anything?

PeteEU · Apr 12, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Agreed but the numbers of Armenians killed was higher.

Yes we agree on this.

You may not agree the genocide claim but there are many who do.

Yes and the original claim was politically based and it is still to this date. Sadly the word genocide is being plastered on any atrocity these days, that someone can kill a few people and be accused of genocide. Bosnia comes to mind. And since there is such a sigmata involved with the word genocide (as there should be), then accusing someone or some country of it has to be based on actual facts and not political wishful thinking.

True, but that fallacy means the Catholic church can never comment on anything?

Of course not, but has the Catholic Church admitted that it was involved in genocide as well? Not that I am aware off..

Infinite Chaos · Apr 12, 2015

PeteEU said:
-- Yes and the original claim was politically based and it is still to this date.

So what are your figures and sources? Who are the experts you are basing your very low estimates on?

PeteEU said:
-- Sadly the word genocide is being plastered on any atrocity these days, that someone can kill a few people and be accused of genocide. Bosnia comes to mind.

You're familiar with the definition of the word "genocide?" Give me a rough idea of what you count as a "few" and what you count as enough to qualify as genocide please?

PeteEU said:
-- Of course not, but has the Catholic Church admitted that it was involved in genocide as well? Not that I am aware off..

Then you need to read more.

PeteEU · Apr 12, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
So what are your figures and sources? Who are the experts you are basing your very low estimates on?

Historical data from the Armenians themselves to the Ottoman Empire census over to the US State Department and League of Nations. The 1.5 million accusation is basically based of propaganda media reports of the time, and not actual facts.

You're familiar with the definition of the word "genocide?" Give me a rough idea of what you count as a "few" and what you count as enough to qualify as genocide please?

That is the problem... the definition. Now the most wide accepted is "the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group."

Now looking at the information we have about the supposed genocide of the Armenians, then certain aspects dont fit. For example, "systematic", must mean all across the Empire no? Well that did not happen, as Armenians to this day still live in many parts of modern Turkey. All.. did not happen see previous comment. Significant part.. well that is the question. Lack of information here critical and basically makes it possible to push the idea of a genocide.

Another problem is that quite a few Armenians fought with the Ottomans in WW1... and the accusation is that these deaths are also counted as part of the "genocide". Basically it is one big mess and the accusations are purely based on a political agenda.. an agenda trying to hurt the present day Turkey by linking it to a genocide, despite Turkey and the Ottomans always admitting that a large number of its citizens including Armenians died in a civil war during the time period. But it is politically better to call it genocide than civil war or even ethnic cleansing...

Then you need to read more.

Pft had forgotten about that... that is how memorable it was and heart felt.

Medusa · Apr 12, 2015

muslim jew hater catholic bigoted vatican never seems to be sincere .....pedophilic haters

MMC · Apr 12, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Turkey has recalled its ambassador to the Vatican but this is now something nearly 100 years ago that won't go away till faces up to this and owns what it did to 1.5 million Armenians

Great minds and all IC.

Turkey also called the Vatican Envoy to have a chit chat before this move. Erdogan wasn't to happy with the Pope's private comments on Turkey and its genocide. Naturally going public it is a concern for them.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/inter...ughter-armenians-genocide.html#post1064520233

CRUE CAB · Apr 12, 2015

Medusa said:
muslim jew hater catholic bigoted vatican never seems to be sincere .....pedophilic haters

What?

Apocalypse · Apr 12, 2015

PeteEU said:
Historical data from the Armenians themselves to the Ottoman Empire census over to the US State Department and League of Nations. The 1.5 million accusation is basically based of propaganda media reports of the time, and not actual facts.

That is the problem... the definition. Now the most wide accepted is "the systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group."

Now looking at the information we have about the supposed genocide of the Armenians, then certain aspects dont fit. For example, "systematic", must mean all across the Empire no? Well that did not happen, as Armenians to this day still live in many parts of modern Turkey. All.. did not happen see previous comment. Significant part.. well that is the question. Lack of information here critical and basically makes it possible to push the idea of a genocide.

Another problem is that quite a few Armenians fought with the Ottomans in WW1... and the accusation is that these deaths are also counted as part of the "genocide". Basically it is one big mess and the accusations are purely based on a political agenda.. an agenda trying to hurt the present day Turkey by linking it to a genocide, despite Turkey and the Ottomans always admitting that a large number of its citizens including Armenians died in a civil war during the time period. But it is politically better to call it genocide than civil war or even ethnic cleansing...

Pft had forgotten about that... that is how memorable it was and heart felt.

The differing estimations of casualties vary from 600,000 to 1.5 million.
I agree that the 1.5 million estimation is probably exaggerated, but clearly the 600,000 estimation isn't true either.
Most historians place the death toll above 1,000,000.

Death toll aside, there is no lack in documentations for the systematic execution of the Armenian people by the Turkish authorities.
These mass executions include the burning of 5,000 Armenians from a single village at one time, gassing an entire school of Armenian children at another, mass shootings, etc.
In fact just like during the Holocaust Nazi Germany had executed Gypsies, gays and others - and not just Jews - so were other minorities executed by the Turks during the Armenian genocide, mainly Greeks and Assyrians.

There is no doubt that the Armenian genocide was just that - a genocide.
In fact the person who coined the very term in 1944 was inspired to do so by the Armenian genocide.
The worst thing here is not that the Turks are not recognizing their own action, it is the absence of justice in not charging even the masterminds of these atrocities, and perhaps even more importantly the lack of any decisive reaction to their actions from the international community at the time that in some way had strengthened the belief among the leadership of Nazi Germany regarding the predicted lack of reaction from the international community to that which it would commit twenty years later.

Medusa · Apr 12, 2015

CRUE CAB said:
What?

what I said

joG · Apr 12, 2015

PeteEU said:
The 1.5 million is highly disputed considering several census numbers before 1915 only put the Armenian population at 1 million or so and the number of Armenian's after the fact was established by international organisations to be over 800k.

The only fact we do know, is that there was an oprising in the end days of the Ottoman Empire and it was put down harshly by the Ottomans.. many died on both sides.

And lets be brutally frank here, the Catholic Church should not be throwing stones when living in a glass house themselves...

That is what I would expect to hear from Denmark and would put it down as willful thinking of the anti Catholic European.

joG · Apr 12, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
Turkey has recalled its ambassador to the Vatican but this is now something nearly 100 years ago that won't go away till faces up to this and owns what it did to 1.5 million Armenians

I have never understood why not stand to the one you kill? After a given time it is certainly better and even after a shorter period it is better to clear the air and pay the dues. Look at Germany and Greece. Was it really better to keep kicking the can down the road and build germany's ecoeconomy on funds withheld from your victims? Of course you are richer.....

PeteEU · Apr 12, 2015

Apocalypse said:
The differing estimations of casualties vary from 600,000 to 1.5 million.
I agree that the 1.5 million estimation is probably exaggerated, but clearly the 600,000 estimation isn't true either.
Most historians place the death toll above 1,000,000.

Those historians seem to base it on media reports and "official allied" reports and dont take into account census data from various organisations and the Ottoman Empire it self... both before and after. They also dont take into account that after the fact that the Armenian population of Constantinople was over 100k... now that is a piss poor genocide if you dont "clear out" your capital city at the time.

Death toll aside, there is no lack in documentations for the systematic execution of the Armenian people by the Turkish authorities.
These mass executions include the burning of 5,000 Armenians from a single village at one time, gassing an entire school of Armenian children at another, mass shootings, etc.

Well yes and no. Some of the documentation is suspect, other documentation is not. But it was a civil war... **** happens. Look at your own civil war.. the Confederate prison at Andersonville and elsewhere can be considered concentration camps by any standard... but it was civil war no? The burning of Atlanta was a war crime, and targeted a minority no? It was civil war.

In fact just like during the Holocaust Nazi Germany had executed Gypsies, gays and others - and not just Jews - so were other minorities executed by the Turks during the Armenian genocide, mainly Greeks and Assyrians.

Because they also rose up against the Ottomans. I mean the reason that the Greeks were kicked out of what is Turkey today, in a clear ethnic cleansing, was that they revolted. It is never so simple.

There is no doubt that the Armenian genocide was just that - a genocide.

No, there is no doubt that a lot of people died in a civil war, and yes groups and ethnic minorities were targeted, but that is what happens in civil wars. Calling it genocide is questionable when compared to others like the Holocaust. It demeans the word genocide and frankly the victims of real genocide.

The worst thing here is not that the Turks are not recognizing their own action,

They have recognized their actions. They did it while it was still an Ottoman Empire and certainly when it became a republic of Turkey.

it is the absence of justice in not charging even the masterminds of these atrocities,

well considering the state of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, then it is not that shocking. What is shocking, is how the allies were complicit in this lack of justice.. funny how people forget that part. They had many of the masterminds of the genocide behind bars, but they were released in a prisoner exchange..

and perhaps even more importantly the lack of any decisive reaction to their actions from the international community at the time that in some way had strengthened the belief among the leadership of Nazi Germany regarding the predicted lack of reaction from the international community to that which it would commit twenty years later.

Decisive action how so? Even Atturk said it was a shameful action and condemned it.

Like it or not it is the use of the word Genocide that is the issue... hell call it selective ethnic cleansing during a civil war and I doubt the turks will object to that.. but calling it genocide links it to the holocaust and in no way was the magnitude any where near that, especially when you consider than other ethnic groups and turks also died in the many many thousands during the civil war.

TheDemSocialist · Apr 12, 2015

Well Turkey is gonna be pissed, the majority of the world is already on board with this being described as genocide.

spud_meister · Apr 12, 2015

Medusa said:
muslim jew hater catholic bigoted vatican never seems to be sincere .....pedophilic haters

I know right! What sort of spiritual leader ****s a child.....?

Apocalypse · Apr 13, 2015

PeteEU said:
Those historians seem to base it on media reports and "official allied" reports and dont take into account census data from various organisations and the Ottoman Empire it self... both before and after. They also dont take into account that after the fact that the Armenian population of Constantinople was over 100k... now that is a piss poor genocide if you dont "clear out" your capital city at the time.

I've seen nothing to suggest that these historians are basing their estimations on media reports.
Germany had direct involvement with the Ottoman empire during the massacres and German estimations vary between 1.2 million and 1.5 million.
The very Turkish census places the casualties at about 850k.

Well yes and no. Some of the documentation is suspect, other documentation is not. But it was a civil war... **** happens. Look at your own civil war.. the Confederate prison at Andersonville and elsewhere can be considered concentration camps by any standard... but it was civil war no? The burning of Atlanta was a war crime, and targeted a minority no? It was civil war.

I'm not an American Pete.
Civil war is not a fitting term for the systematic execution of Armenian, Assyrian and Greek citizens of the Ottoman empire by the Turkish authorities.
Mass executions, concentration camps and death marches against specific ethnic groups are not merely "civil war".

Because they also rose up against the Ottomans. I mean the reason that the Greeks were kicked out of what is Turkey today, in a clear ethnic cleansing, was that they revolted. It is never so simple.

The reasoning for the actions of the Turks is irrelevant to the nature of the actions themselves.

No, there is no doubt that a lot of people died in a civil war, and yes groups and ethnic minorities were targeted, but that is what happens in civil wars. Calling it genocide is questionable when compared to others like the Holocaust. It demeans the word genocide and frankly the victims of real genocide.

I think just like you do that too many acts of massacre get labeled genocide when genocide refers to something much bigger.
I disagree however that the Armenian massacres do not fit the term genocide, as the Turks indeed had a plan to get rid of the Armenian ethnic group within their nation, hence why the massacres were so systematic and hence why they've had concentration camps. That the Turks did not kill every single Armenian in the Ottoman empire is not a reason to believe that the act was not genocide, genocide does not refer only to the total extermination of a people but also to the significant reduction in their numbers through systematic mass executions in great numbers by the authorities, and the Armenian genocide is just that.
It is not demeaning to refer to these mass executions, concentration camps and death marches as genocide and as I've pointed out before the very term was coined due to the severity of the atrocities.

They have recognized their actions. They did it while it was still an Ottoman Empire and certainly when it became a republic of Turkey.

They have recognized the massacres yes, they have not however recognized that it was systematic and that it was government-directed, and when they do not recognize that then it is much worse than if they didn't even recognize the massacres at all.

well considering the state of the Ottoman Empire after WW1, then it is not that shocking. What is shocking, is how the allies were complicit in this lack of justice.. funny how people forget that part. They had many of the masterminds of the genocide behind bars, but they were released in a prisoner exchange..

Indeed it isn't shocking, and was probably expected at the time, but it represents a huge lack of justice towards the hundreds of thousands of victims.

Like it or not it is the use of the word Genocide that is the issue... hell call it selective ethnic cleansing during a civil war and I doubt the turks will object to that.. but calling it genocide links it to the holocaust and in no way was the magnitude any where near that, especially when you consider than other ethnic groups and turks also died in the many many thousands during the civil war.

The Holocaust was the biggest genocide in human history, that doesn't mean that only massacres that reach the insane level of the Holocaust - where over 10 million have been executed for who they were - deserve to be referred to as "genocide". The Armenian genocide is most definitely a genocide.

PeteEU · Apr 13, 2015

Apocalypse said:
I've seen nothing to suggest that these historians are basing their estimations on media reports.
Germany had direct involvement with the Ottoman empire during the massacres and German estimations vary between 1.2 million and 1.5 million.
The very Turkish census places the casualties at about 850k.

And the Turkish census and others place the number of Armenian's after the so called genocide at about the same number as before the so called genocide. That is why I am protesting the word "genocide" as the numbers from all sources are beyond incomplete and you can not base a such an accusation on wishful political thinking.

I'm not an American Pete.
Civil war is not a fitting term for the systematic execution of Armenian, Assyrian and Greek citizens of the Ottoman empire by the Turkish authorities.
Mass executions, concentration camps and death marches against specific ethnic groups are not merely "civil war".

Well it was a civil war, like it or not. And many civil wars have had death camps, mass executions and worse against specific peoples.

The reasoning for the actions of the Turks is irrelevant to the nature of the actions themselves.

I think just like you do that too many acts of massacre get labeled genocide when genocide refers to something much bigger.
I disagree however that the Armenian massacres do not fit the term genocide, as the Turks indeed had a plan to get rid of the Armenian ethnic group within their nation, hence why the massacres were so systematic and hence why they've had concentration camps.

Then they did a piss poor job of it considering the amount of Armenians left alive after this so called genocide.

That the Turks did not kill every single Armenian in the Ottoman empire is not a reason to believe that the act was not genocide, genocide does not refer only to the total extermination of a people but also to the significant reduction in their numbers through systematic mass executions in great numbers by the authorities, and the Armenian genocide is just that.

And that is the problem.. was there a significant reduction of the population?

It is not demeaning to refer to these mass executions, concentration camps and death marches as genocide and as I've pointed out before the very term was coined due to the severity of the atrocities.

Again there are mass executions and death marches in all civil wars in history, let alone general wars.

They have recognized the massacres yes, they have not however recognized that it was systematic and that it was government-directed, and when they do not recognize that then it is much worse than if they didn't even recognize the massacres at all.

They have recognized it all that is the problem. The amount of propaganda and bull**** over the century since has muddy the waters to say the least. I am in no way downplaying the crimes the Ottomans did, but accusing Turkey of genocide is insane.

The Holocaust was the biggest genocide in human history, that doesn't mean that only massacres that reach the insane level of the Holocaust - where over 10 million have been executed for who they were - deserve to be referred to as "genocide". The Armenian genocide is most definitely a genocide.

Actually that is even debatable. The Congo genocide had arguably more deaths, and then there is China... a genocide every decade basically for thousands of years.

Apocalypse · Apr 13, 2015

PeteEU said:
And the Turkish census and others place the number of Armenian's after the so called genocide at about the same number as before the so called genocide. That is why I am protesting the word "genocide" as the numbers from all sources are beyond incomplete and you can not base a such an accusation on wishful political thinking.

The numbers do not have to be agreed on for it to be considered a genocide.
Whether it's the Turkish census that is right that places the death toll at ~800-850k(which I strongly doubt but still), or whether it's the majority of historians who place the toll at above 1 million - it is still genocide.
There have been genocides in human history of less than 100,000 people.
I already agreed that not every massacre is a genocide, but that doesn't mean that there is a 10 million standard for the term.

Well it was a civil war, like it or not. And many civil wars have had death camps, mass executions and worse against specific peoples.

And when they did it often was genocide.
In the Syrian civil war we don't see a genocide, since it isn't a specific group of people that is being targeted by the authorities there.

Then they did a piss poor job of it considering the amount of Armenians left alive after this so called genocide.

And that is the problem.. was there a significant reduction of the population?

Around 20% of the original population was left within the territories of the Ottoman empire IIRC.
Yes, they didn't kill them all. No, that doesn't mean it's not genocide.
The Assyrian and Greek massacres were also genocides.

Again there are mass executions and death marches in all civil wars in history, let alone general wars.

I strongly disagree with this assertion.
Not every civil war ends with mass executions of specific ethnic groups and freaking death marches.
You know what a death march is? They take thousands of people from a specific ethnic group, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, round them up together and tell them to walk with no given supplies until they all or the majority of them die.

They have recognized it all that is the problem. The amount of propaganda and bull**** over the century since has muddy the waters to say the least. I am in no way downplaying the crimes the Ottomans did, but accusing Turkey of genocide is insane.

Well the majority of historians recognize it as genocide because of the tremendous amount of evidence that exists to support the recognition.
If the Turks aren't willing to recognize that it was a government-authorized plan to murder all these millions of people (if we combine the Assyrian and Greek genocides with the Armenian one) then they've done nothing.

Actually that is even debatable. The Congo genocide had arguably more deaths, and then there is China... a genocide every decade basically for thousands of years.

I wasn't talking merely in the manner of death toll, but rather as being events of pure genocide. Although the Holocaust did hold the largest of them all and even surpassed the Congo death toll. The Chinese ones don't even come close, even if we combine them which we shouldn't.

Furthermore, the deeds of Leopold II in Congo do not constitute a genocide according to most historians as there was no apparent intention to exterminate the population or the people. They are rather considered to be crimes against humanity.

Medusa · Apr 13, 2015

spud_meister said:
I know right! What sort of spiritual leader ****s a child.....?

not Dalay Lama I think

Medusa · Apr 13, 2015

mamma li turchi syndrome is still alive

PeteEU · Apr 13, 2015

Apocalypse said:
The numbers do not have to be agreed on for it to be considered a genocide.

Politically nope they dont.. and that is a problem if you ask me.

Whether it's the Turkish census that is right that places the death toll at ~800-850k(which I strongly doubt but still), or whether it's the majority of historians who place the toll at above 1 million - it is still genocide.

Why? Many more Turks and others died in the same conflict. Is that also genocide?

I already agreed that not every massacre is a genocide, but that doesn't mean that there is a 10 million standard for the term.

I dont disagree, but to me the full or SIGNIFICANT portion of a population of a minority group has to be killed off.. and in the Armenian case it is doubtful to say the least.

Around 20% of the original population was left within the territories of the Ottoman empire IIRC.

That is the claim, but not backed up in any way with census facts or other population counting measure facts. For example, the US stated that there was over 800k Aremenian refugees in the area in 1922. That is the refugee population and is not counting the non refugee population. So how can an expected Aremenian population of 1 to 1.2 million before the genocide be part of a genocide when 80+% of the population is alive and well after the civil war?

The Assyrian and Greek massacres were also genocides.

Again that is the claim, not backed up by actual facts and figures. The Greeks actually attacked the Ottomans, so how can it be genocide?

I strongly disagree with this assertion.
Not every civil war ends with mass executions of specific ethnic groups and freaking death marches.
You know what a death march is? They take thousands of people from a specific ethnic group, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, round them up together and tell them to walk with no given supplies until they all or the majority of them die.

I know very well what a death march is and they happen quite often in war time. During WW2, the allies had several death marches and out right mass executions of Axis troops, both on the western and eastern fronts. Was that genocide? During the American civil war both union and confederate troops were marched day and night to concentration camps. After the war, Germans were forcebly removed from the old Prussia region and thousands died in the transit to what is now Germany.. genocide?

Well the majority of historians recognize it as genocide because of the tremendous amount of evidence that exists to support the recognition.
If the Turks aren't willing to recognize that it was a government-authorized plan to murder all these millions of people (if we combine the Assyrian and Greek genocides with the Armenian one) then they've done nothing.

But the Turks do recognize it and always have... what they dont recognize is the use of the word genocide.

I wasn't talking merely in the manner of death toll, but rather as being events of pure genocide. Although the Holocaust did hold the largest of them all and even surpassed the Congo death toll. The Chinese ones don't even come close, even if we combine them which we shouldn't.

So you know of all chinese genocides going back 4000 years?

Furthermore, the deeds of Leopold II in Congo do not constitute a genocide according to most historians as there was no apparent intention to exterminate the population or the people. They are rather considered to be crimes against humanity.

Medusa · Apr 13, 2015

Apocalypse said:
The numbers do not have to be agreed on for it to be considered a genocide.
Whether it's the Turkish census that is right that places the death toll at ~800-850k(which I strongly doubt but still), or whether it's the majority of historians who place the toll at above 1 million - it is still genocide.
There have been genocides in human history of less than 100,000 people.
I already agreed that not every massacre is a genocide, but that doesn't mean that there is a 10 million standard for the term.

And when they did it often was genocide.
In the Syrian civil war we don't see a genocide, since it isn't a specific group of people that is being targeted by the authorities there.

Around 20% of the original population was left within the territories of the Ottoman empire IIRC.
Yes, they didn't kill them all. No, that doesn't mean it's not genocide.
The Assyrian and Greek massacres were also genocides.

I strongly disagree with this assertion.
Not every civil war ends with mass executions of specific ethnic groups and freaking death marches.
You know what a death march is? They take thousands of people from a specific ethnic group, if not tens or hundreds of thousands, round them up together and tell them to walk with no given supplies until they all or the majority of them die.

Well the majority of historians recognize it as genocide because of the tremendous amount of evidence that exists to support the recognition.
If the Turks aren't willing to recognize that it was a government-authorized plan to murder all these millions of people (if we combine the Assyrian and Greek genocides with the Armenian one) then they've done nothing.

I wasn't talking merely in the manner of death toll, but rather as being events of pure genocide. Although the Holocaust did hold the largest of them all and even surpassed the Congo death toll. The Chinese ones don't even come close, even if we combine them which we shouldn't.

Furthermore, the deeds of Leopold II in Congo do not constitute a genocide according to most historians as there was no apparent intention to exterminate the population or the people. They are rather considered to be crimes against humanity.

:shock:
which greek,which assyrian genocide ?
if I am not wrong ( I think I know my history better than anyone else around

)) greece ,with the help of allied powers , invaded Turkey .I wont even mention assyrians as if there is such a case
I find you smart though

Infinite Chaos · Apr 13, 2015

PeteEU said:
Historical data from the Armenians themselves to the Ottoman Empire census over to the US State Department and League of Nations. The 1.5 million accusation is basically based of propaganda media reports of the time, and not actual facts.

That's not a set of links in answer to what I asked. The League of Nations was itself the first body to recognise the genocide that you seem very strangely keen to deny?

As for the US State dept, this Washington Post article explains US reticence nicely.

-- "American presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama have walked a tightrope between the weight of historical evidence on one side, and the importance of ties to Turkey on the other. And Turkey itself has been torn over the issue of whether to call the killings “genocide,” with public figures thrown into prison or forced to flee from the country simply for uttering the word." --

PeteEU said:
-- Now looking at the information we have about the supposed genocide of the Armenians, then certain aspects dont fit.

Funny that, I asked you for the links to the information you so happily discuss but nothing doing? I can't accept your version while you fail to give me your own sources.

PeteEU said:
-- For example, "systematic", must mean all across the Empire no?

Funnily enough, "no." That's not what systematic means.

PeteEU said:
-- Pft had forgotten about that... that is how memorable it was and heart felt.

Yeah, you asked for something, I gave you a concrete example and you rubbish it. I ask you for something and I get nothing back but you continue to rubbish the opposite position.

Get the hint yet about your position?

PeteEU · Apr 14, 2015

Infinite Chaos said:
That's not a set of links in answer to what I asked. The League of Nations was itself the first body to recognise the genocide that you seem very strangely keen to deny?

Politically motivated against a defeated enemy. And I am not denying mass murder/killings.. I am denying that it constitutes genocide.. ethnic cleansing sure, but genocide. To me the use of the word genocide should only be used in the most extreme cases like the Holocaust where over 50% of the European Jewish population was killed.

As for the US State dept, this Washington Post article explains US reticence nicely.

Again this is now, not in 1922, where the US estimated there was over 800k Armenian refugees in the "region".

Funny that, I asked you for the links to the information you so happily discuss but nothing doing? I can't accept your version while you fail to give me your own sources.

Look at wikipedia, the numbers there are all sourced. My point has been all the time, that the numbers dont fit. Population numbers before and after in no way justify the claims of 1.5 million dead and can barely account for 400k dead. The systematic aspect is highly suspect, since after the fact there was still over 100k Armenian's in the capital of the Ottoman Empire.. I mean if it had been a genocide this would have been the first place to be cleansed no?

Funnily enough, "no." That's not what systematic means.

I see, but I dont agree. You can not claim systematic measures when parts of the area you control is not being touch by this systematic measures. I think the problem is that you and others see the individual cases of horrors in small geographic areas where there was a civil war and call it systematic, but ignore the whole area under Ottoman Empire control where there are plenty of places where this "systematic" measures did not happen because the civil war did not reach those areas. It is like cutting out cancer of one lung, but ignoring it in the other one.. that is not systematic.

Yeah, you asked for something, I gave you a concrete example and you rubbish it. I ask you for something and I get nothing back but you continue to rubbish the opposite position.

I did not rubbish it. I just pointed out that for an apology it is not one that has stuck in peoples minds and as your own article points out, many cultures thought it did not go far enough. But if you compare it to the amount of times Turkey/Ottomans condemned and defacto apologized for what happened during the civil war.. it dwarfs that of the Catholic Church. Ataturk called it "shameful" and blamed the Young Turks organisation.

Pope angers Turkey by discussing "Armenian Genocide"

Infinite Chaos

PeteEU

Infinite Chaos

PeteEU

Infinite Chaos

PeteEU

Medusa

MMC

CRUE CAB

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Medusa

joG

joG

PeteEU

TheDemSocialist

Gradualist

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

PeteEU

Apocalypse

DEATH TO ANTARCTICA!!!

Medusa

Medusa

PeteEU

Medusa

Infinite Chaos

PeteEU