• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?


  • Total voters
    37
if you deny it in switzerland they will arrest you .Google it too.

this thread belongs to the ME forum....

Don't care about Switzerland.

The subject is the Ottoman Empire and their very real genocide against the Armenians... We can add Assyrians and Ottoman Greeks to the atrocities.

800px-Armenian_Genocide_Map-en.svg.jpg
 
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.



LOL dictionaries? Seriously, only legal decisions from various jurisdictions should be used, especially those from international courts.. not dictionaries.. seriously, might as well use a cornflakes box definition then.



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.

The international legal definition of genocide - Prevent Genocide International
"Article II: In the present Convention, 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.

The Genocide Convention in International Law — United States Holocaust Memorial Museum
Background
In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly voted unanimously to create the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (external link). Recognizing that “at all periods of history genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity” and that international cooperation was needed “to liberate mankind from this odious scourge,” the Convention criminalized certain acts committed with the intent to destroy ethnic, national, racial, or religious groups.
 
No. First off the refugees were not in the US, but in the area. LOL 800k refugees in the US.. yea right... especially during those racist times. They form most of the present Armenian population today. Secondly it was not only scholars, but also official records for the most part. Official census records and religious records.

Okay, so there aren't refugees. But what does that have to do with whether it was a genocide?

That is a very broad definition of genocide and a very dangerous one. Pretty much any war of conquest between nations falls under this description.

One that fits every single genocide but not every war. If there is a policy to destroy a group of people culturally and not economic and cultural subjugation, it's a genocide.

And that is what is disputed... the numbers. Was there a forced deportation of disloyal Armenians by the Ottomans during the last years of Empire.. yes. Did many die, most likely, but the accusations include more people than officially registered or estimated, and THAT means the claim is a bit iffy to say the least.

But lets be clear, there was an organised attempt of ethnic cleansing that cost the lives of many thousands of people and no one is denying this... not even the Turks themselves. The issue is labelling it as a genocide.. a term associated with the Jewish holocaust, and that is the point. People, especially politicians, are trying to link acts of mass murder by political opponents to the acts of the Nazi´s.. and thereby tainting them forever as "modern Nazi's". It is one of the reasons that the US officially denies that the treatment of the native American Indians was genocide.

Yes, but what is the relevance of the numbers to whether it's a genocide or not? There is no association between genocide and the holocaust. There is however an acknowledgement that the holocaust was in fact a genocide. One of many that have occurred throughout time. I don't read about the Armenian Genocide and think "Oh man! Just like the nazis! That's not anachronistic!"
 
Then there is a hell of a lot of genocide going on... basically any war.

Well, in my opinion, what differentiates Genocide from war is that the sole and main reason for it is to kill a people of one or more ethnic groups because they are inferior or "don't belong" there.

Other wars are fought for many other reasons like aggression, territory disputes, land, resources, terrorism, wealth, etc, etc. which may have that component in it, but not the main reason... or one the main reasons.
 
It is interesting to see which persecutions members of this forum focus on - and which ones they ignore. The fixation seems to single out USA allies to attack and ignore all that adversarial. There is a constant drum of hatred of the USA and our allies that is escalating.
 
Okay, so there aren't refugees. But what does that have to do with whether it was a genocide?

Eh? There were refugees.. why would you say there was not?

One that fits every single genocide but not every war. If there is a policy to destroy a group of people culturally and not economic and cultural subjugation, it's a genocide.

If there is a policy sure, but prove it. Was there a policy in Bosnia? No. Was there a policy under Saddam against the Kurds? No. Was there a policy to destroy the Armenians by the Ottomans? No.. deport them, yes, kill them off.. no.

Yes, but what is the relevance of the numbers to whether it's a genocide or not? There is no association between genocide and the holocaust. There is however an acknowledgement that the holocaust was in fact a genocide. One of many that have occurred throughout time. I don't read about the Armenian Genocide and think "Oh man! Just like the nazis! That's not anachronistic!"

Numbers matter. Killing a few thousand out of millions aint genocide. Killing 30+% of a total population well then we are getting to the genocide part. As for no association between genocide and the holocaust... say what? The holocaust is the standard of what genocide is.
 
And again this definition is a serious problem, because then pretty much any war is genocide. For example the American invasion of Iraq.. genocide, because it targeted a political group.

I misssed where a political group is covered?
And Iraq was not Genocide.
Show me the intent.
 
Well, in my opinion, what differentiates Genocide from war is that the sole and main reason for it is to kill a people of one or more ethnic groups because they are inferior or "don't belong" there.

Again that argument can be made of any war.

Other wars are fought for many other reasons like aggression, territory disputes, land, resources, terrorism, wealth, etc, etc. which may have that component in it, but not the main reason... or one the main reasons.

Take territory disputes.. done because one side does not like the other side being in a certain place. Genocide?

And you cant say in this case of the Armenians that the intent was to kill them all off, simply because of the amount of Armenians left after the fact in the once Ottoman Empire. That there could be over 100k Armenians in the capital of the Ottoman Empire in 1921 kinda shows that. Drive them into exile sure, but that aint genocide..if it was, then the west committed genocide against the German people after WW2 when they took Prussia from Germany and forced millions of Germans to leave their historical home land and many died on the process.

That is why I say we have to be careful in using the "Genocide" claim, since it can be used against anyone. The formation of Israel? Genocide against Palestinians. Would you accept that? It aint no different than what happened to the Armenians.
 
I misssed where a political group is covered?
And Iraq was not Genocide.
Show me the intent.

My bad, meant ethnic group, Iraqi or tribal groups or even religious minorities.

As for intent, come on.. the whole country is based on tribes and Saddams tribe was the most powerful. The US went in there to destroy their power base .. that is intent.

The argument can be made for this and any war. Take what Saudi is doing in Yemen.. targeting a single tribe or ethnic group. Genocide? The whole sunni vs shia... genocide? How about Northern Ireland?
 
Eh? There were refugees.. why would you say there was not?

I'm not saying there weren't any. I'm asking you what the relevance of there being refugees has to whether it was a genocide. There were millions of refugees from Sudan and Rwanda. There is very little doubt there was a genocide in either of those places.

If there is a policy sure, but prove it.

Well, it started with laws regarding deportation:

On 29 May 1915, the CUP Central Committee passed the Temporary Law of Deportation ("Tehcir Law"), giving the Ottoman government and military authorization to deport anyone it "sensed" as a threat to national security.[22]:186–8

Evidence that the Pashas had a role in coordinating the daily massacres:

Historian Hans-Lukas Kieser states that, from the statements of Talaat Pasha[40] it is clear that the officials were aware that the deportation order was genocidal.[41] Another historian Taner Akçam states that the telegrams show that the overall coordination of the genocide was taken over by Talaat Pasha.[42]

Confiscation of their property:

Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Tehcir Law brought some measures regarding the property of the deportees, but during September a new law was proposed. By means of the "Abandoned Properties" Law (Law Concerning Property, Dept's and Assets Left Behind Deported Persons, also referred as the "Temporary Law on Expropriation and Confiscation"), the Ottoman government took possession of all "abandoned" Armenian goods and properties. Ottoman parliamentary representative Ahmed Riza protested this legislation:

Was there a policy in Bosnia? No. Was there a policy under Saddam against the Kurds? No. Was there a policy to destroy the Armenians by the Ottomans? No.. deport them, yes, kill them off.. no.

You're muddying the water and it's starting to become clear that you don't actually believe there was a genocide. It was just a bunch of people sent to march, sent to concentration camps, with their property confiscated and with the probability of death being sky high, all of which was supported by the Ottoman Empire through various laws. Nope, that's not a genocide according to you.

Numbers matter. Killing a few thousand out of millions aint genocide. Killing 30+% of a total population well then we are getting to the genocide part. As for no association between genocide and the holocaust... say what? The holocaust is the standard of what genocide is.

A few thousand weren't killed though. You have 1.5 million people dead according to the overwhelming majority of sources.
 
My bad, meant ethnic group, Iraqi or tribal groups or even religious minorities.

As for intent, come on.. the whole country is based on tribes and Saddams tribe was the most powerful. The US went in there to destroy their power base .. that is intent.

The argument can be made for this and any war. Take what Saudi is doing in Yemen.. targeting a single tribe or ethnic group. Genocide? The whole sunni vs shia... genocide? How about Northern Ireland?

Nope - The Sunni are 1 a minority - 2 guilty of Genocide against the Kurds to start with - 3 - we were lied to.
But no genocide.
 
My question to you is: Did the Ottoman Empire Commit Genocide Against the Armenians?

Technically no, though in practical terms, yes.

Genoicide is defined as an attempt to kill an entire group of people. As such, genocides have been rare (holocaust, Rwanda). The Turks attempted to kill any armenians living in certain areas which were deemed to be disloyal or potentially disloyal- and the Turks had a blanket definition of disloyalty that included every Armenian in those areas.

But, Armenians living in the capital and other parts of western Turkey were not killed, or even detained. Thus, what the Turks did was technially not an attempt to kill all Armenians- just the real or perceived disloyal ones (which was a very large number).
 
I'm not saying there weren't any. I'm asking you what the relevance of there being refugees has to whether it was a genocide. There were millions of refugees from Sudan and Rwanda. There is very little doubt there was a genocide in either of those places.



Well, it started with laws regarding deportation:



Evidence that the Pashas had a role in coordinating the daily massacres:



Confiscation of their property:

Armenian Genocide - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia





You're muddying the water and it's starting to become clear that you don't actually believe there was a genocide. It was just a bunch of people sent to march, sent to concentration camps, with their property confiscated and with the probability of death being sky high, all of which was supported by the Ottoman Empire through various laws. Nope, that's not a genocide according to you.



A few thousand weren't killed though. You have 1.5 million people dead according to the overwhelming majority of sources.

what kind of sources are they ?
 
It is interesting to see which persecutions members of this forum focus on - and which ones they ignore. The fixation seems to single out USA allies to attack and ignore all that adversarial. There is a constant drum of hatred of the USA and our allies that is escalating.

Thank you for the like, Medusa. I suppose this poll is to call upon you to defend your country. That get's old, doesn't it? :roll:

This poll is not about anything currently topical in the USA or significantly anywhere in the world.
 
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?

Of course the US government doesn't recognise it, it doesn't even recognise its own.
 
Would it acceptable for me to start a separate poll about every alleged genocide and major persecution that occurred in the world over the last 100 years?

The government of the Ottoman empire no longer exists. Hasn't existed for a very long time. Of M.E. Muslim dominated countries Turkey TODAY is one of the most liberal and tolerant of all - probably THE most intolerant and diverse.

But hey, let's not ask if intensely oppressive theocratic Muslim dictatorships persecuted (genocided) non-Muslims or other people. Let's focus on the least oppressive Muslim country and search for anything in their past to condemn to generate hatred against another of the USA's allies.

What about the UK? Did they "persecute" the people of India? How about a poll on that?
 
Thank you for the like, Medusa. I suppose this poll is to call upon you to defend your country. That get's old, doesn't it? :roll:

This poll is not about anything currently topical in the USA or significantly anywhere in the world.
:mrgreen:
I like demso .I am glad this thread wasnt started by a turkey hater bigot :mrgreen:
I always feel sorry for anyone who suffered but I am fed up with ignorance and hate.I started such a thread in the past and got thread banned
 
what kind of sources are they ?

Ones that Turks tend to dismiss because they don't fit their national narrative. Few nations outside of Germany have accepted that they took part in a genocide.
 
Ones that Turks tend to dismiss because they don't fit their national narrative. Few nations outside of Germany have accepted that they took part in a genocide.

YES ,Where are those sources ?
 
Ones that Turks tend to dismiss because they don't fit their national narrative. Few nations outside of Germany have accepted that they took part in a genocide.

Has China ever "accepted that they took part in genocide?" I do believe the US government does not accept the word "genocide" in relation to Native Americans and many if not most Americans will deny it was a government mandated "genocide."

When India was divided between Muslims and Hindus, there definitely was genocide. But neither national authority had ordered it nor could they stop it.

Turkey disputes two things:
1. That there was an order from the national government to kill all Armenians. Rather, this was localized. That appears largely true.
2. That there was a lot of killing going on by everyone and in war and revolution or imminent war and revolution context.

Was the terrorism by the KKK actions by the American government? In the past it certainly was widespread. And the national government did little to stop it. Most countries - particularly in the past - didn't have all-control federal authority of regions, states or even townships.

Proving a genocide occurred does not mean the national government ordered it.
 
Last edited:
Ones that Turks tend to dismiss because they don't fit their national narrative. Few nations outside of Germany have accepted that they took part in a genocide.

Including the US and Britain.
 
YES ,Where are those sources ?

They're in the link I posted. Unless you see "citation needed", they're all in the link that I posted.
 
Has China ever "accepted that they took part in genocide?" I do believe the US government does not accept the word "genocide" in relation to Native Americans and many if not most Americans will deny it was a government mandated "genocide."

When India was divided between Muslims and Hindus, there definitely was genocide. But neither national authority had ordered it nor could they stop it.

Turkey disputes two things:
1. That there was an order from the national government to kill all Armenians. Rather, this was localized. That appears largely true.
2. That there was a lot of killing going on by everyone and in war and revolution or imminent war and revolution context.

What the terrorism by the KKK actions by the American government? In the past it certainly was widespread.

Proving a genocide occurred does not mean the national government ordered it.

There is nothing localized about 1.5 million people who were killed through marches and concentration camps.
 
There is nothing localized about 1.5 million people who were killed through marches and concentration camps.

Are you referring to the Trail of Tears and reservations?
 
Back
Top Bottom