- Joined
- Nov 11, 2013
- Messages
- 33,522
- Reaction score
- 10,826
- Location
- Between Athens and Jerusalem
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
She gave an honest reply. Got a problem with that?
Just that its not based in fact.
She gave an honest reply. Got a problem with that?
Lol, the victorious British? You mean a British scholar of Armenian origin whose academic career has revolved around studying exactly what happened during the genocide.
Just that its not based in fact.
You're claiming there is no anti-Jew sentiment in Turkey??? Do you really think that?
70 scholars with NO interest in the findings or prejudice claim there was no Armenian genocide. Asserted policies do not make a genocide. There was no genocide. There were atrocities and on a large scale. But not just against Armenians.
On May 19, 1985, The New York Times and The Washington Post ran an advertisement in which a group of 69 American historians called on Congress not to adopt the resolution on the Armenian Genocide.[86] Bernard Lewis, a prominent historian of Islam at Princeton, was among them and so the case was named after him.[86][87] [88] The advertisement was paid for by the Committee of the Turkish Associations.[86] Another important signee was Heath Lowry, the director of the Institute of Turkish Studies at Georgetown.[89] Both Lewis and Lowry have been included among the key deniers of the Armenian Genocide.[90][91] According to Roger W. Smith, Eric Markusen and Robert Jay Lifton, Lowry was also advising on how to prevent mention of the Armenian Genocide in scholarly works, and was discovered ghost writing for the Turkish ambassador in Washington on issues regarding the Embassy's denial of the Armenian Genocide.[92] The Armenian Assembly of America found that many or most of the 69 academics apparently benefited directly or indirectly from Turkish government research grants.[93][94] According to Yair Auron, an Israeli historian, scholar and expert specializing in Genocide studies and racism, this advertisement is a good example of one of many Turkish attempts to influence academia, a project on which Turkey spends enormous funds.[95]
In October 2000, when the House of Representatives of the US was to discuss the resolution on the Armenian Genocide, Turkish politician Şükrü Elekdağ admitted that the statement had become useless because none of the original signatories besides Justin McCarthy would agree to sign a new, similar declaration.[SUP][98][/SUP][SUP][99][/SUP]
Armenian Genocide denial - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Would you like to try this again? So what do we have? NONE of the people who originally signed that document agreed to sign it again. Most of them were paid for by the Turkish government. A Turkish politician admitted that it was useless to try and rehash the matter because there was no support for it anymore except for one person. And you're calling into question a guy because he's a British Armenian? You're a desperate revisionist.
No I'm not.
Did you answer whether you are Armenians? I can't recall.
My exploration of documents and records relating to the Ottoman Sultan was that initially he was ordering that Armenians be relocated to Jordan, Libya and other areas away from the front and not to Armenian - anticipating they would become military adversaries. That prediction was very accurate.
As it was clear the empire and war was lost, and with Armenians on a mass scale - both as tens of thousands of non-uniformed insurgents and 150,000 strong as soldiers - I don't doubt the Sultan decreed kill all Armenians. Yet in context that also does not equate to a genocide, only that the increasingly irrelevant Sultan wanted one.
Hitler wanted all Germans to die if the war lost. Japan's military took a fight-to-the-last Japanese attitude too. So then I can claim that Germany engaged in genocide against Germans and Japan engaged in genocide against the Japanese because their defeated leaders wanted everyone to die with them?
People want the word "genocide" attached to the atrocities ONLY by one side in a horrific war - that occurred because the West and Russia wanted Ottoman territory and knew the Ottoman Empire couldn't possibly survive. To this day, to various degrees, Western powers and Russia control most of the old Ottoman Empire for colonial, imperialistic and economic reasons.
You declare all that irrelevant. I say it is what is more relevant, including in relation to Armenian civilian deaths. You want to accuse 1 boogie man - the Sultan - like people blame one boogie man - Hitler. But it isn't that simplistic or easily written off in my opinion. It is in yours.
So... given your opinion since the Sultan is dead, there is exactly no relevancy in the slightest possible and hasn't been for nearly 100 years. I see these matters as relevant and topic to this day. It could be argued that the conflicts generated by WWI have never been concluded - only highly reduced - and that now they roaring back because it was not just about the Ottomans, but about the Muslims under attack by the West and Russia to take control of them, their land and their natural resources.
The battle, that war, is still being fought as I post this - though YOU see NO relevancy whatsoever.
Considering you're citing the admittedly revisionist claims of people paid for by the Turkish government? I think you are. Remember Joko, the guy I posted is a scholar of Armenian descent, that's what you determined was enough for him to be biased. As opposed to the many scholars you relied on which have proven financial links to the Turkish government. If you're going to depend on REVISIONIST sources to make your claims, go ahead. However, the writing is now on the wall and it's clear to everyone just what lengths you're willing to go to in order to make a case and deny the deaths of Armenians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire.
Lmao. No. You however are a revisionist. :shrug:
To claim an Armenian is the best source is absurd. Many Nazis including at the camps denied there was a genocide. AH, obviously the best proof - in your opinion anyway.
The underlined and bolded sentence is a lie and you know it too. What is clear is that the only civilian deaths you cared about then - or not - in that ongoing conflict were Armenians and no one else.
The Ottoman Empire created policies which it knew directly led to the death of hundreds of thousands. This is a fact of history like 6 million Jews were killed by the Nazis. You tried to refute it using demonstrably revisionist statements from scholars paid for by the Turkish government. You had to swallow your crow and try to move on to another subject that has little relevance to the topic at hand. You've been doing that since you came into the thread. When nobody falls for it, you move on to your next absurd claim that dismiss the facts of the matter.
Remember Joko:
1. 85% of Armenians were either killed or forcefully removed from the Ottoman Empire.
2. Their property was confiscated by the state.
3. The Ottoman government had full knowledge of the effects their policies were having and did nothing.
4. Accounts of the genocide are corroborated by observers from the period and survivors.
5. The person who coined the term 'genocide' did so after observing what the Ottoman Empire did to Armenians.
That's a genocide, joko and you're a revisionist.
:shrug:
To claim an Armenian is the best source is absurd. Many Nazis including at the camps denied there was a genocide. AH, obviously the best proof - in your opinion anyway.
The underlined and bolded sentence is a lie and you know it too. What is clear is that the only civilian deaths you cared about then - or not - in that ongoing conflict were Armenians and no one else.
Even your own numbers contradict your first claim as there were 3,000,000 Armenians in the Ottoman empire.
If you're going to start with more lies, you better give up. My claim discussed 2.3 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire. After 1922, only 15% of that initial 2.3 million remained. This was pointed out to you when you falsely claimed it the first time. Now you're doing it again and I'm not falling for it. Trying to interject more subjects into this specific issue just makes you look as desperate as you when you first started writing. Post some more revisionist crap so I can call you on it again?
The Armenians were killing Ottomans in mass numbers both as non-uniformed terrorist insurgents and as soldiers.
9,876,580 Ottoman Muslim CIVILIANS were killed (no Armenians counted in this.)
The Armenians committed GENOCIDE AGAINST 9.8 MILLIONS Turkish Civilians!- and since we count military casualties like you do, Armenians committed GENOCIDE against 12,000,000 Ottomans. TWELVE MILLION! A genocide 800% greater than the Armenian genocide.
But as a "revisionist" you DENY the OTTOMAN GENOCIDE, don't you?
Let's both have ridiculous debate. Should we go to larger type and bold?
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?
That statistic I found was 3,000,000 Armenians.
You state 100 K Armenians were left in the capital in 1921. I assume you have a link for that?
Muslims and minorities: the population of Ottoman Anatolia and the end of the empire. New York: New York University press,, by Justin McCarthy 1983
I get what you are trying to say, but i just disagree...I am able to make the distinctions, and I am sure you are too.
Territorial disputes? No, not necessarily, Genocide usually happens internally, inside a nation. Not two nations at war with each other( it can, but not--usually). Two nations having territorial disputes is not genocide... or a nation wanting more land, or desiring land.... the MAIN motivator is what makes the distinction.
Genocide usually happens in a cultural war/revolution or a scape goat.... a lot of wars do not fall under that distinction.
No again you are in error. The fact that Shia in Saudi are 2nd class citizens does not amount to genocide.
Going into Yemen again does not constitute genocide.
I provided links for you that defined Genocide, legal definitions.
Yet you stray from those.
Yes they did but since genocide wasnt a term coined during that time then the Turks might have an excuse in not calling it as one.
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?
It is a tricky question because the definition of genocide is some what tricky.
The general definition is "systematic destruction of all or a significant part of a racial, ethnic, religious or national group"
The problem here is "significant" and what is significant....
....So to the question.. no, not genocide since there is not enough factual information. But yes to mass organized murder and ethnic cleansing.