International Turkey is Angry that the Massacre of 1,500,000 Armenians is Finally Being Recognized a "Genocide"

[sangreporsangre]

Lol dude, chill out man. Having a discussion about genocide denial being typically rooted in political affiliation and chauvinism is 100% on topic. Since you decided to derail it with your lowly attacks and not recognising the hypocrisy of you asking me for retractions, you're the one who's not contributing valuable points to the discussions, but quite the opposite.

Again calling me a hypocrite with nothing to back it up. Why don't you call me a Holocaust denier while you're at it? Do you actually know Chunk, does he know that you exist? Because if not, your behaviour itt is creepy as hell.

 

[tramendous]

Very moderate post. I just hope you don't stumble into the wrong mosque.

Im on a forum where posters will jump through all sorts of hoops and duck and dodge to not admit that the rohingya muslims in myanmar are being persecuted right now.

The armenian genocide was a genocide but dont throw stones from glass houses when an entire continent was subjected to genocide by the people throwing the stones.

 

[greedopl]

Seriously, I don't get that mentality either.

1) It was a hundred years ago.
2) It was carried out by a different government.

It has nothing to do with the any of the modern-day citizens of Turkey personally, but by saying that 1.5 Millions of Armenians just disappeared into thin air after they got rounded up by the Ottoman authorities, today's Turks are essentially making themself complicit to the killing by actively covering it up.

No modern-day Americans would deny that the Natives got butchered like animals back in the days, I don't know why modern-day Turks are still trying to deny something that the entire world knew the Ottoman Empire did.



Japan's whitewashing their World War II atrocities is just about the only thing I despise about Japan.

They should be working with South Korea to deter China's aggression, yet they can't even admit something as simple as the thousands upon thousands of Korean women who were rounded up and forced into sexual services with the Imperial army, one Japanese soldier after another, days after days, are literally sex slaves.

But it has everything to do with islam, so they don't wan't to loose their game in takiya - cheating or something like that.
I know I know, Japan, crusades etc. But in this particular reason it has to do with it.

 

[Arkain2K]

In Turkey, Remembrance of 1915 Mass Killings of Armenians Amid Genocide Debate
Dorian Jones | April 23, 2018

ISTANBUL — In Turkey, commemorations are being held to mark the mass killings of Armenians during World War I by Ottoman Turks. The killings, recognized as genocide by much of the international community, remains contentious, with Ankara strenuously claiming the deaths were the result of a civil war in which Turks also perished.

Turkish-Armenian groups, along with nongovernmental organizations mainly in Turkey's largest city, Istanbul, are organizing a series of events to remember the deaths.

On Tuesday, public ceremonies are planned outside some of the homes of 270 Armenian intellectuals, religious and civic leaders arrested in Istanbul on April 24, 1915. The detentions marked the start of the mass deportations and killings of Armenians across Turkey. As many as one-and-a-half million people were killed as the Ottoman Empire disintegrated, according to a version of events accepted by many historians.

Until Turkey's ruling AK Party came to power in 2002, public discussion challenging the state's official version of events was forbidden.

"There has been some tolerance by the state, they were not participating themselves, but they were allowing the commemorations, publications of books, articles and the gatherings and so on," said political scientist Cengiz Aktar. "But this progress has come to a halt, because of the very restrictive environment of free speech," Aktar added, referring to the current emergency rule, introduced after a failed 2016 coup.

Analysts say campaigners for the recognition of the killings as a genocide are focusing their attention on U.S. President Donald Trump.

"The only thing that might happen is Trump may pronounce the 'G' [genocide] word; we will see. It may happen; there are some indications Trump may pronounce it," said Aktar. "The American administration, the Senate, House of Representatives, are getting more and more nervous with Turkey; the president may come with the 'G' word tomorrow."

On April 24, U.S. presidents deliver a speech to mark the mass killings of Armenians. Last year Trump, like his recent predecessors, sidestepped using the word genocide, instead, using the Armenian phrase, "Meds Yeghern," meaning great calamity. This month, more than 100 members of the U.S. Congress wrote to Trump, calling on the president to recognize the mass killings as genocide.

U.S., Turkish relations

Turkey has angered the U.S. recently over several issues, including Syria, the imprisonment of U.S. citizens and local employees of diplomatic missions, and Ankara's deepening ties with Moscow.

"Compared to years past, Turkey's ability to influence Congress [against using the word genocide] has been vastly diminished, that is certainly true," said analyst Sinan Ulgen, a visiting scholar of Brussels-based Carnegie Europe.

Ulgen suggests Ankara will be banking on Trump's sensitivity toward Turkey.

"There is a sizable constituency on the part of the executive, including President Trump, who believes in and understands the value of Turkey," he said. "So, there are certainly efforts that want to re-establish a sense of balance and direction to the bilateral relationship."

If Trump were to use the word genocide, observers suggest Erdogan will seize on the occasion to whip up nationalist sentiment and anti-Americanism as Turkey prepares for presidential and general elections in June.

Ankara, however, is likely to be more concerned by any move by Congress to legislate the recognition of an Armenian genocide.

"The Congress resolution is much more binding than a presidential statement," said political scientist Aktar. "Ankara will be more concerned and irritated, and up until now Congress never passed a resolution. But with the anti-Turkish feelings, it may pass; there is something rumored to be in the pipeline, but not now."

Growing recognition

In recent years, growing numbers of countries have recognized the Armenian mass killings as a genocide. Given the growing tide of recognition, experts suggest Ankara's reaction has become more restrained.

"The Dutch parliament recently passed an [Armenian genocide] resolution; all we saw were a couple of strong words and nothing else," said international relations expert Soli Ozel of Istanbul's Kadir Has University.

"Turkey's government has decided that it is better to keep calm rather than raise hell every single time something important or unimportant happens. It may very well be the same as with the Americans; but, the American acceptance of a genocide is significantly more important than any other country," Ozel added.

If Congress recognized the Armenian killings as genocide, experts suggest the move could open the door to numerous legal cases against Turkey by relatives of those killed. Genocide does not have a legal statute of limitations. Even though Ankara lost many of its allies in Washington, it may still retain some support.

"The Turkish side tried to keep relations with the Jewish or pro-Israeli lobbies pretty good," Ozel said. "Every time the president [Erdogan] visited the United States, he made sure that he met with the Jewish organizations, so maybe they are on board, and if they are on board, you have a fighting chance."

https://www.voanews.com/a/turkey-remembrance-mass-killing-armenians-genocide-debate/4361180.html

 

[danny23]

Of course it was a genocide. Even the Nazis were inspired by the Ottoman Turks which led them to do the Holocaust. Like the Nazis, the Ottoman Turks before them were looking to wipe out entire races of people, to the last person. Thankfully, they didn't succeed.

While they're on that, Turkey should recognise the Greeks and Assyrian genocides they committed in the same period.
What a shameful history they have.

 

[original doom]

Of course it was a genocide. Even the Nazis were inspired by the Ottoman Turks which led them to do the Holocaust. Like the Nazis, the Ottoman Turks before them were looking to wipe out entire races of people, to the last person. Thankfully, they didn't succeed.

While they're on that, Turkey should recognise the Greeks and Assyrian genocides they committed in the same period.
What a shameful history they have.

...

 

[danny23]

How many Greeks died ?

You mean systematically killed.


Around 750,000 Greek and 300,000 Assyrian people, in addition to the 1.5 million Armenians. There was also the forced famine of Mount Lebanon.

It's was genocides conducted by Ottoman Turks with their Kurdish minions of their minorities in the same period of 1915-1923.
After the Ottoman's humiliations in WW1 they directed their rage at their Christian minorities, very much like the Nazis.

After this was done, the Turkish state started killing Kurds as well, but this wasn't a genocide but more to crush rebellions which happen to this day.

 

[Black Helicopters]

You mean systematically killed.


Around 750,000 Greek and 300,000 Assyrian people, in addition to the 1.5 million Armenians. There was also the forced famine of Mount Lebanon.

It's was genocides conducted by Ottoman Turks with their Kurdish minions of their minorities in the same period of 1915-1923.
After the Ottoman's humiliations in WW1 they directed their rage at their Christian minorities, very much like the Nazis.

After this was done, the Turkish state started killing Kurds as well, but this wasn't a genocide but more to crush rebellions which happen to this day.

From what I read it wasn’t a rage against Christians but a plan from The Young Turks to emulate Europeans states at the time that had one ethnic group/religion

They believed to be a modern prosperous nation they can only have one group living in their country and that a state with rebellious Christians would not work. They thought no one would care if they genocided the Armenians because they are doing it for the greater good for the Turks/Muslims

 

[deadshot138]

Isn’t this event the entire reason System of a Down was a band?

 

[Son of Jamin]

In 1914, 20% of the people in Turkey were Christians, 13 years later, only 5,5%.

 

[Nooob]

Around 750,000 Greek and 300,000 Assyrian people, in addition to the 1.5 million Armenians. After this was done, the Turkish state started killing Kurds as well, but this wasn't a genocide but more to crush rebellions which happen to this day.

I can understand why people have incredible biased views toward the Turks because of their religion and their histories with Eastern Europe but come on, there's a reason behind all of this. 21 pages but no reason given?

Do you every ask yourself why is it that Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece have generally low Muslim population as opposed to other Balkan countries (Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia) that were all under the Ottoman empire for 600 years?

The answer is all in the Balkan wars that took place in the mid 19th century to World War I. There was a huge population exchange and expulsion of Muslim Slavs and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe and the Levant through a series of negotiation and contracts between Constantinople and Belgrade after they succeeded seceding from the Empire.

Many of them also had to flee previously because of the Russo-Turkish wars in which atrocities at both sides led to huge population movements. Since you only mentioned Greece, the majority of the Muslim population was also expuled during the wars of national expansions and the population exchange of 1923.

As for Armenia, they were supporting the Russian empire who was at war with the Ottomans at that time. Turkey wanted to change their demographics and move them to the South in order to cut their connection with the Russian territories which resulted into a series of punishments (executions, starvation and famines etc) for their support to the Russian empire.

For the Kurds, you can blame Britain and France for dividing the Middle East (see Sykes-Picot) and handing regions to certain ethnic groups.

TLDR: The Balkan wars and Russo-Turkish wars resulted into a series of atrocities, genocides, population exchanges and expulsions of ethnic groups from both sides.

It is nothing like the US or Nazi Germany where they exterminated natives and Jews for no reason. It was a huge war in Eastern Europe between 4 powers (Ottoman, Russia, Britain and France) and Balkan rebels fighting to secede from the Empire.

 

[danny23]

I can understand why people have incredible biased views toward the Turks because of their religion and their histories with Eastern Europe but come on, there's a reason behind all of this. 21 pages but no reason given?

Do you every ask yourself why is it that Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece have generally low Muslim population as opposed to other Balkan countries (Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia) that were all under the Ottoman empire for 600 years?

The answer is all in the Balkan wars that took place in the mid 19th century to World War I. There was a huge population exchange and expulsion of Muslims and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe and the Levant through a series of negotiation and contracts between Constantinople and Belgrade after they succeeded seceding from the Empire.

Many of them also had to flee previously because of the Russo-Turkish wars in which atrocities at both sides led to huge population movements. Since you only mentioned Greece, the majority of the Muslim population was also expuled during the wars of national expansions and the population exchange of 1923.

As for Armenia, they were supporting the Russian empire who was at war with the Ottomans that time. Turkey wanted to change their demographics and move them to the South in order to cut their connection with the Russian territories which resulted into a series of punishments (executions, starvation and famines etc) for their support to the Russian empire.

For the Kurds, you can blame Britain and France for dividing the Middle East (see Sykes-Picot) and handing regions to certain ethnic groups.

TLDR: The Balkan wars and Russo-Turkish wars resulted into a series of atrocities, genocides, population exchanges and expulsions of ethnic groups from both religion.

I'm well aware of that, and everything said.
When we're talking about the Balkans, those countries were right to expel Turks who were their colonisers and treated them like 3rd class citizens. It'd be natural to have resentment after centuries of oppression, and no longer wanting to be associated by such people. Those lands were inhabited by the majority ruled by an extremely oppressive minority.


I take my hat off to you for at least not denying the genocide(s). But nothing justifies it. If you think otherwise then the Holocaust is justified for you as well.


The Arabs helped us out to take down the Ottoman Empire. Now they're oil rich, progressive and aligned with the West. I'm sure they don't regret it. They would be worse off if they under backwards Turkish imperialism.

 

[Seaside]

In 1914, 20% of the people in Turkey were Christians, 13 years later, only 5,5%.

and today less than 1% or about 1%. Political islam is the unavoidable result of islam it just keeps happening everywhere the numbers become large enough. Eventually the non musllism or sometimes even muslims (shiites) are pushed out or die. That why on principle i support anyone fighting against that so yeah go Israel! and go armenia! nearly surrounded they are. go cyprus to!

 

[ObamaPhoneLady]

President Obama Breaking Promise and Refuses to Acknowledge the Armenian Genocide,
Called a "National Disgrace" and "Betrayal of the Truth" by Armenian-Americans
By Stoyan Zaimov
April 23, 2015

Armenian-American activists have said that it's a "national disgrace" and a "betrayal" that President Barack Obama is refusing to describe the 1915 massacre of close to 1.5 million Armenian Christians at the hands of the Ottoman Empire as a genocide, despite previously promising to do so.

The LA Times reported that White House officials have made clear the president will not use the word genocide when he commemorates the deaths on Friday, which marks the 100th anniversary of the massacres.

"The president's surrender represents a national disgrace," said Aram S. Hamparian, executive director of the Washington-based Armenian National Committee of America. "It is a betrayal of the truth, and it is a betrayal of trust."

Turkey, which formed after the Ottoman Empire disintegrated in 1923, has put pressure on world leaders not to describe the events of 1915 as a genocide. While most Western historians recognize the ethnic and religious cleansing, which included mass deportation, and starvation and killing of Armenians, most of whom were Christians, the Turkish government has attempted to frame the many deaths as a result of World War I-related clashes.

Obama pledged while running for president in 2008 that he will not shy away from using the term, and said: "As president, I will recognize the Armenian genocide."

Obama even criticized former President George W. Bush for failing to do so.

"Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence," Obama said in 2008.

"The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy."

The White House has reportedly explained, however, that it does not want to sour its relations with Turkey, a fellow NATO-member.

U.S. politicians such as Rep. Adam B. Schiff, D-Burbank, have also led the charge to have the government recognize the genocide of Armenians, and said that he was "deeply disappointed" with Obama's decision.

"How long must the victims and their families wait before our nation has the courage to confront Turkey with the truth about the murderous past of the Ottoman Empire? If not this president, who spoke so eloquently and passionately about recognition in the past, whom? If not after 100 years, when?" Schiff said in a statement.


http://www.christianpost.com/news/o...tional-disgrace-betrayal-by-activists-138061/

Why was this guy such a fucking weirdo? He always chose the weirdest hills to die on.

 

[Black Helicopters]

I can understand why people have incredible biased views toward the Turks because of their religion and their histories with Eastern Europe but come on, there's a reason behind all of this. 21 pages but no reason given?

Do you every ask yourself why is it that Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Macedonia and Greece have generally low Muslim population as opposed to other Balkan countries (Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia) that were all under the Ottoman empire for 600 years?

The answer is all in the Balkan wars that took place in the mid 19th century to World War I. There was a huge population exchange and expulsion of Muslim Slavs and Orthodox Christians in Eastern Europe and the Levant through a series of negotiation and contracts between Constantinople and Belgrade after they succeeded seceding from the Empire.

Many of them also had to flee previously because of the Russo-Turkish wars in which atrocities at both sides led to huge population movements. Since you only mentioned Greece, the majority of the Muslim population was also expuled during the wars of national expansions and the population exchange of 1923.

As for Armenia, they were supporting the Russian empire who was at war with the Ottomans at that time. Turkey wanted to change their demographics and move them to the South in order to cut their connection with the Russian territories which resulted into a series of punishments (executions, starvation and famines etc) for their support to the Russian empire.

For the Kurds, you can blame Britain and France for dividing the Middle East (see Sykes-Picot) and handing regions to certain ethnic groups.

TLDR: The Balkan wars and Russo-Turkish wars resulted into a series of atrocities, genocides, population exchanges and expulsions of ethnic groups from both sides.

It is nothing like the US or Nazi Germany where they exterminated natives and Jews for no reason. It was a huge war in Eastern Europe between 4 powers (Ottoman, Russia, Britain and France) and Balkan rebels fighting to secede from the Empire.

You're talking about shit that happened decades before the genocide and extended to groups such as Greeks and Assyrians who AFAIK did not rebel or do anything wrong.

Fact of the matter is that the Turks didn't see a place for Christians in their new state and genocide was their choice.

 

[godking]

I'm well aware of that, and everything said.
When we're talking about the Balkans, those countries were right to expel Turks who were their colonisers and treated them like 3rd class citizens. It'd be natural to have resentment after centuries of oppression, and no longer wanting to be associated by such people. Those lands were inhabited by the majority ruled by an extremely oppressive minority.


I take my hat off to you for at least not denying the genocide(s). But nothing justifies it. If you think otherwise then the Holocaust is justified for you as well.


The Arabs helped us out to take down the Ottoman Empire. Now they're oil rich, progressive and aligned with the West. I'm sure they don't regret it. They would be worse off if they under backwards Turkish imperialism.

They are not "progressive" and certainly not compared to modern day Turkey.

They are for the most part tribalistic desert bandits who have never really had to change because they are oil rich.

Being rich and being progressive are two different things.

 

[danny23]

They are not "progressive" and certainly not compared to modern day Turkey.

They are for the most part tribalistic desert bandits who have never really had to change because they are oil rich.

Being rich and being progressive are two different things.

Oh, I meant progressive in terms of economic development and not socially. If they were under Turkey all that oil wealth would be diverted towards Istanbul instead.

Now these oil rich Arab countries have pro-western dictators. Let's be honest, we don't give a flying fuck how socially progressive these countries are as long as they do our bidding.

 

[Islam Imamate]

From what I read it wasn’t a rage against Christians but a plan from The Young Turks to emulate Europeans states at the time that had one ethnic group/religion

They believed to be a modern prosperous nation they can only have one group living in their country and that a state with rebellious Christians would not work. They thought no one would care if they genocided the Armenians because they are doing it for the greater good for the Turks/Muslims

I see it a bit differently. The Young Turks wanted to created a vision of Ottomanism, centralized control across the empire founded theoretically on a united civic(though in practice heavily Turkish) identity. And that was in order to replicate the ideas of citizenship and nationalism prevalent in Europe.

But the problem was the subjects had their own ideas. The Muslim Arabs were mostly okay with remaining within the empire and what little resistance there was to this was among those who just preferred to return to the more decentralized system of the past where local actors had more influence. In their case only a few dissidents had to be purged.

But the Christian subjects had less in common with their Turkish overlords and had budding nationalist movements of their own in response to the European example. So its not the The Young Turks hated Christians, they were relatively secular and had no problems, theoretically at least, with Christians as long as they were loyal subjects of the empire. But the populations with strong nationalist movements were a threat to the empire and could not be tolerated and then you get a feedback loop of nationalist sentiment leading to repression which fuels nationalist sentiment until the entire population of that nation becomes suspect.

So it wasn't Islam vs Christianity, it was the outcome of two competing visions of nationalism. Religion played a part in that it overlapped with the nationalist divide but in and of itself it wasn't the root cause.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The Arabs helped us out to take down the Ottoman Empire. Now they're oil rich, progressive and aligned with the West. I'm sure they don't regret it. They would be worse off if they under backwards Turkish imperialism.

Only some Arabs did, namely the Hashemite clan, but most Arabs were okay with remaining in the empire and I think the Arabs would've been better off remaining under the Turks than getting colonized by the French and British. The latter divided the region up irrationally in a way that is still causing problems. If the Arabs remained united under Turkish rule they could've resisted it on their own terms and drawn boundaries that were more organic over time.

 

[Black Helicopters]

I see it a bit differently. The Young Turks wanted to created a vision of Ottomanism, centralized control across the empire founded theoretically on a united civic(though in practice heavily Turkish) identity. And that was in order to replicate the ideas of citizenship and nationalism prevalent in Europe.

But the problem was the subjects had their own ideas. The Muslim Arabs were mostly okay with remaining within the empire and what little resistance there was to this was among those who just preferred to return to the more decentralized system of the past where local actors had more influence. In their case only a few dissidents had to be purged.

But the Christian subjects had less in common with their Turkish overlords and had budding nationalist movements of their own in response to the European example. So its not the The Young Turks hated Christians, they were relatively secular and had no problems, theoretically at least, with Christians as long as they were loyal subjects of the empire. But the populations with strong nationalist movements were a threat to the empire and could not be tolerated and then you get a feedback loop of nationalist sentiment leading to repression which fuels nationalist sentiment until the entire population of that nation becomes suspect.

So it wasn't Islam vs Christianity, it was the outcome of two competing visions of nationalism. Religion played a part in that it overlapped with the nationalist divide but in and of itself it wasn't the root cause.

are you adding to my post? Because we’re not really disagreeing here