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

[Islam Imamate]

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

More or less. I think the Young Turks might've been okay with Christian citizens as long as they were loyal to the Ottoman Empire. When they weren't and showed themselves to be prone to nationalist agitation they dealt with them with escalating measures until desperate times(war against major Western power + nationalist uprisings) lead to desperate measures but I don't think they planned such acts from the beginning and I don't think they imagined that they needed a homogeneous Muslim population as much as it was the fact that in practice non-Muslims were less likely to accept their program.

I find it kind of odd that they haven't acknowledged it. Kemal did his best to break with the Ottoman past and, despite sharing some similarities with them, disavowed the Young Turks IIRC so it seems like they could admit it and then just blame the political leadership of the past and emphasize the break with it that the Turkish Republic represented.

 

[Arkain2K]

Thousands march in Los Angeles for Armenian genocide recognition
Krysta Fauria | AP | April 24, 2018

Thousands of Armenian-Americans took to the streets of Los Angeles on Tuesday to commemorate the deaths of an estimated 1.5 million Armenians under the Ottoman Empire a century ago.

The demonstrations came hours after Armenian Prime Minister Serzh Sargsyan resigned following 10 days of large anti-government protests in that country.

Marchers in Los Angeles demanded that the 1.5 million deaths starting in 1915 be recognized by Turkey as genocide.

Although Armenians and many historians consider it to be genocide, Turkey — successor of the Ottoman Empire — contends those who died were victims of civil war and unrest.

Los Angeles demonstrators waved Armenian and American flags and carried signs that read "1915 never again" and "Turkish denial must end."

Marie Keshishian, an 18-year-old student at Glendale College, said all four of her great-great grandparents were killed in the genocide and that she was marching in their honor.

"I'm out here today to march for justice, to march for recognition, to march for the people — my ancestors, my great-great grandparents who lost their lives ... to hopefully get more people to recognize and accept that there was a genocide," Keshishian said.

Andrew Antaramian, a 32-year-old Pasadena attorney, said he joins in the marches every year to honor his ancestors, who fled Armenia and escaped death.

"It's important to always commemorate what our ancestors have gone through because if this is not going to occur again, we have to remind the world what our people went through," he said.

Mayor Eric Garcetti marched alongside demonstrators, saying in a speech that the genocide was "a human tragedy."

"To be a part of the human family we must accept our tragedies," Garcetti said. "And all of us will say, 'Never again.'"

City Attorney Mike Feuer told demonstrators that "today here in Los Angeles, we are all Armenians."

"Look around," he said as the crowd cheered. "You are the answer to Hitler."

Kim Kardashian West, one of the most famous Armenian-Americans in the U.S., tweeted an old photo of herself in Armenia and praised global demonstrations calling for the genocide to be recognized.

"It's so inspiring to see all Armenians united in peaceful protests making a difference," she said. "It's a historic day for Armenia."

https://www.scpr.org/news/2018/04/24/82527/armenian-americans-march-in-los-angeles-for-genoci/

 

[Judge]

More or less. I think the Young Turks might've been okay with Christian citizens as long as they were loyal to the Ottoman Empire. When they weren't and showed themselves to be prone to nationalist agitation they dealt with them with escalating measures until desperate times(war against major Western power + nationalist uprisings) lead to desperate measures but I don't think they planned such acts from the beginning and I don't think they imagined that they needed a homogeneous Muslim population as much as it was the fact that in practice non-Muslims were less likely to accept their program.

I find it kind of odd that they haven't acknowledged it. Kemal did his best to break with the Ottoman past and, despite sharing some similarities with them, disavowed the Young Turks IIRC so it seems like they could admit it and then just blame the political leadership of the past and emphasize the break with it that the Turkish Republic represented.

You mean when they took Christian male children and stole them and forced them to become muslims? Pretty sure this is what th GoT Unsullied is based on.
The unsullied had their nuts cut off. Which is pretty much what happened to the christian boys after they were forcefully converted to Islam.

 

[all caps]

 

[danny23]

 

[Islam Imamate]

You mean when they took Christian male children and stole them and forced them to become muslims? Pretty sure this is what th GoT Unsullied is based on.
The unsullied had their nuts cut off. Which is pretty much what happened to the christian boys after they were forcefully converted to Islam.

Uh no that's not what I mean, I'm talking about something completely different. The Ottoman Empire had already moved past that kind of thing by WWI.

 

[danny23]

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.

You're deluded if you think they wanted to be under Turkish rule. Ottoman Empire was the most oppressive and backwards empire of all time.
Which country wants to be willingly colonised?

During the war the locals welcomed the British. They gave them a free pass, hiding places and helped in many ways. Historical accounts prove this.


Also, you're again very deluded if you assume the Arabs would've gained independence peacefully.
Historical evidence points towards every single Ottoman independence war being met with fierce opposition by the ruling Turks.
There would've been a long, bloody civil war in the whole region and then a number of atrocities, massacres and genocides done by the Turks against the Arabs and all other groups. Who knows, maybe the borders would've been drawn worse than today.

The Arabs were lucky the British didn't abandon them and they're far better off today or else they would've met the same fate of genocide as the Armenians. The right thing happened.

 

[Islam Imamate]

You're deluded if you think they wanted to be under Turkish rule. Ottoman Empire was the most oppressive and backwards empire of all time.
Which country wants to be willingly colonised?

You're overselling Ottoman oppression, at least in the Arab lands. Its not that the Arabs loved living under Turkish rule but they could tolerate it so long as they had some level of autonomy which they traditionally did.

They have an old saying, "better the oppression of the Turks than the justice of the Bedouins". Which is to say, they appreciated whatever law and order the Ottomans brought with them and disillusionment with the empire grew primarily in the face of its apparent weakness relative to the other powers which left the Middle East vulnerable to colonization.

During the war the locals welcomed the British. They gave them a free pass, hiding places and helped in many ways. Historical accounts prove this.

The Arabs also welcomed the Ottomans twice, when Selim I conquered them in 1517 and then again when Selim III expelled the French with the British. Like I said, the Hashemites revolted so obviously the populations and elites aligned with them were going to be pro-British. But that's only part of the story.

I know you English might want to fancy yourselves the saviors of the Arabs but the fact remains that far more Arabs fought for the Ottomans than against them and 30% of the officers in the Ottoman army were Arabs. The Arabs even made up most of the first wave of Ottoman forces that fought at Gallipoli under Kemal.

Also, you're again very deluded if you assume the Arabs would've gained independence peacefully.
Historical evidence points towards every single Ottoman independence war being met with fierce opposition by the ruling Turks.
There would've been a long, bloody civil war in the whole region and then a number of atrocities, massacres and genocides done by the Turks against the Arabs and all other groups. Who knows, maybe the borders would've been drawn worse than today.

The Arabs were lucky the British didn't abandon them and they're far better off today or else they would've met the same fate of genocide as the Armenians. The right thing happened.

I didn't say they would get independence peacefully, though I think it would've been possible if the Ottoman state was sufficiently weakened. But what I did say was that they'd get it organically, meaning they'd have to fight for it themselves and thus draw their own borders instead of having outsiders irrationally draw them which would lead to fewer tensions in the long run.

Just look at the example of the Turkish Republic, they fought and liberated themselves and are far better off than their neighbors who remained in the protectorates. For all the talk about Ottoman oppression the Europeans managed to fuck up the region far worse with only a few decades of control over it. In the end, would the Arabs have revolted if they had the privilege of hindsight and knew the British were going to betray them and renege on their agreement? I doubt it.

 

[danny23]

You're overselling Ottoman oppression, at least in the Arab lands. Its not that the Arabs loved living under Turkish rule but they could tolerate it so long as they had some level of autonomy which they traditionally did.

They have an old saying, "better the oppression of the Turks than the justice of the Bedouins". Which is to say, they appreciated whatever law and order the Ottomans brought with them and disillusionment with the empire grew primarily in the face of its apparent weakness relative to the other powers which left the Middle East vulnerable to colonization.

The Arabs also welcomed the Ottomans twice, when Selim I conquered them in 1517 and then again when Selim III expelled the French with the British. Like I said, the Hashemites revolted so obviously the populations and elites aligned with them were going to be pro-British. But that's only part of the story.

I know you English might want to fancy yourselves the saviors of the Arabs but the fact remains that far more Arabs fought for the Ottomans than against them and 30% of the officers in the Ottoman army were Arabs. The Arabs even made up most of the first wave of Ottoman forces that fought at Gallipoli under Kemal.

I didn't say they would get independence peacefully, though I think it would've been possible if the Ottoman state was sufficiently weakened. But what I did say was that they'd get it organically, meaning they'd have to fight for it themselves and thus draw their own borders instead of having outsiders irrationally draw them which would lead to fewer tensions in the long run.

Just look at the example of the Turkish Republic, they fought and liberated themselves and are far better off than their neighbors who remained in the protectorates. For all the talk about Ottoman oppression the Europeans managed to fuck up the region far worse with only a few decades of control over it. In the end, would the Arabs have revolted if they had the privilege of hindsight and knew the British were going to betray them and renege on their agreement? I doubt it.

They still would've revolted. After WW2 there was the decolonization period where the rise of nationalism meant countries wanted self-government rather than being controlled by foreign elites.
This would've been the Cold War scenario where sides would be supported by the West and Communists.

And I'll repeat myself again, history is stacked against you when you assume Turkey would've let them have independence without much trouble, especially the resource rich Gulf states and the Islam's most holiest cities. Turkey would've used the same brutality as they used against the Greeks and Serbs during their war of independence, go read on that if you doubt it.

Keeping that in mind there would've been a huge civil war across the region for land grabs and resources. What we're seeing right now in Syria and Iraq except 10 times bloodier being spread across the whole Middle East.

So yeah, this was avoided thanks our intervention when we united the Arabs against their Turkish rulers. From historical accounts, the local civilians population were supportive of Britain. They welcomed them as liberators in every city that was captured by Britain. It would've been impossible for Britain to win the Middle East campaign without local support. They were met with absolute zero resistance so it refutes everything you said.
Arab soldiers fighting for Ottomans is meaningless as even Greek and Armenian soldiers fought for the Ottomans.
A small amount of soldiers fighting(likely for monetary reasons only) isn't reflective of what the vast majority of the population wanted and that's why a larger number took up arms against them.
What they were hoping for though, was complete independence - no Turkish and British rule. But instead they got colonized by us which didn't go too well for them.



The biggest mistake we made was not having clearly defined borders of Israel and Palestine. We messed up there but owed Jews a lot, and when it got tough we were off like a bird. Now the Jews are committing a genocide of Palestinians.
Even without Israel though the Arabs still would've found a reason to fight among each other.

 

[Islam Imamate]

They still would've revolted. After WW2 there was the decolonization period where the rise of nationalism meant countries wanted self-government rather than being controlled by foreign elites.
This would've been the Cold War scenario where sides would be supported by the West and Communists.

And I'll repeat myself again, history is stacked against you when you assume Turkey would've let them have independence without much trouble, especially the resource rich Gulf states and the Islam's most holiest cities. Turkey would've used the same brutality as they used against the Greeks and Serbs during their war of independence, go read on that if you doubt it.

I'm not denying the possibility of revolt, in fact its precisely because of that that I think they would've been better off. If they revolted it would mean they would establish nationalist movements and these would've primarily limited themselves to the territories and populations in which they had legitimacy and would lead to more organic borders suited to the populations within them.

Of course it wouldn't be completely neat and you'd still have different countries with competing claims against one another and tensions and whatnot. But the region might've been spared the horrors wrought by the legacy of European colonial rule.

Sure, the Turks would resist with everything they have but they didn't have much, not compared to the other imperial powers, and they already had their asses handed to them twice by an Arab army before so it could happen again.

Keeping that in mind there would've been a huge civil war across the region for land grabs and resources. What we're seeing right now in Syria and Iraq except 10 times bloodier being spread across the whole Middle East. So yeah, this was avoided thanks our intervention when we united the Arabs against their Turkish rulers.

I don't see how its a given that here would've been a civil war, at least not one as bloody as you're claiming here. What are you basing that on?

Sure, all of the Arab lands were unlikely to come out as one nation and there would be tensions between the new nations but the few nations that would come out probably would've been more stable in the long run that the ones we have now.

From historical accounts, the local civilians population were supportive of Britain. They welcomed them as liberators in every city that was captured by Britain. It would've been impossible for Britain to win the Middle East campaign without local support. They were met with absolute zero resistance so it refutes everything you said.
Arab soldiers fighting for Ottomans is meaningless as even Greek and Armenian soldiers fought for the Ottomans.
A small amount of soldiers fighting(likely for monetary reasons only) isn't reflective of what the vast majority of the population wanted and that's why a larger number took up arms against them.
What they were hoping for though, was complete independence - no Turkish and British rule. But instead they got colonized by us which didn't go too well for them.

It wasn't a small amount of soldiers, it was quite large as Arabs were the second largest ethnic group in the Ottoman army. Most Arabs did not take part in the revolt and more fought for the Ottomans than against them in the revolt and you keep missing that part.

It was primarily the Hashemite clan that revolted and so that included whoever among the Arabs they could influence which was far from the majority of Arabs. Look at what happened to Hashemite rule afterwards, it collapsed everywhere except Jordan. Pretending their revolt represented all the Arabs is silly.

The minority of Arabs who did revolt would not have done so just to be colonized by the British and French. Ask yourself, if deciding between British rule and continued Ottoman rule which do you think the Arab population would've preferred? You don't see nationalist revolts in the region until European colonial rule for a reason, its because the Arabs could make their peace with Turkish rule despite whatever issues they had with it. But the rule of an infidel power? That's different. Keeping the Arabs safe from European colonization was one the main reasons they could accept the Turks.

The biggest mistake we made was not having clearly defined borders of Israel and Palestine. We messed up there but owed Jews a lot, and when it got tough we were off like a bird. Now the Jews are committing a genocide of Palestinians.
Even without Israel though the Arabs still would've found a reason to fight among each other.

That's far from the biggest mistake made by the British. Virtually all the borders of the modern Middle East were drawn with precious little regard for the realities on the ground and that irresponsibility continues to plague the region.

 

[danny23]

I'm not denying the possibility of revolt, in fact its precisely because of that that I think they would've been better off. If they revolted it would mean they would establish nationalist movements and these would've primarily limited themselves to the territories and populations in which they had legitimacy and would lead to more organic borders suited to the populations within them.

Of course it wouldn't be completely neat and you'd still have different countries with competing claims against one another and tensions and whatnot. But the region might've been spared the horrors wrought by the legacy of European colonial rule.

Sure, the Turks would resist with everything they have but they didn't have much, not compared to the other imperial powers, and they already had their asses handed to them twice by an Arab army before so it could happen again.

I don't see how its a given that here would've been a civil war, at least not one as bloody as you're claiming here. What are you basing that on?

Sure, all of the Arab lands were unlikely to come out as one nation and there would be tensions between the new nations but the few nations that would come out probably would've been more stable in the long run that the ones we have now.

It wasn't a small amount of soldiers, it was quite large as Arabs were the second largest ethnic group in the Ottoman army. Most Arabs did not take part in the revolt and more fought for the Ottomans than against them in the revolt and you keep missing that part.

It was primarily the Hashemite clan that revolted and so that included whoever among the Arabs they could influence which was far from the majority of Arabs. Look at what happened to Hashemite rule afterwards, it collapsed everywhere except Jordan. Pretending their revolt represented all the Arabs is silly.

The minority of Arabs who did revolt would not have done so just to be colonized by the British and French. Ask yourself, if deciding between British rule and continued Ottoman rule which do you think the Arab population would've preferred? You don't see nationalist revolts in the region until European colonial rule for a reason, its because the Arabs could make their peace with Turkish rule despite whatever issues they had with it. But the rule of an infidel power? That's different. Keeping the Arabs safe from European colonization was one the main reasons they could accept the Turks.

That's far from the biggest mistake made by the British. Virtually all the borders of the modern Middle East were drawn with precious little regard for the realities on the ground and that irresponsibility continues to plague the region.

That's it. You keep repeating same thing in every post after I've refuted you countless number of times. You're making baseless assumptions with no substance behind them. So I'll you leave there with your stubborn ignorance.

 

[tkotom]

More or less. I think the Young Turks might've been okay with Christian citizens as long as they were loyal to the Ottoman Empire. When they weren't and showed themselves to be prone to nationalist agitation they dealt with them with escalating measures until desperate times(war against major Western power + nationalist uprisings) lead to desperate measures but I don't think they planned such acts from the beginning and I don't think they imagined that they needed a homogeneous Muslim population as much as it was the fact that in practice non-Muslims were less likely to accept their program.

I find it kind of odd that they haven't acknowledged it. Kemal did his best to break with the Ottoman past and, despite sharing some similarities with them, disavowed the Young Turks IIRC so it seems like they could admit it and then just blame the political leadership of the past and emphasize the break with it that the Turkish Republic represented.

They did it because they are Muslims and Turks who wanted to wipe out anyone who was not of their ethnicity but especially religiony. Had nothing to do with nationalist agendas.

Evident in the fact that they had their sworn enemies, the Kurds carry out large parts of it.

 

[tkotom]

Uh no that's not what I mean, I'm talking about something completely different. The Ottoman Empire had already moved past that kind of thing by WWI.

Turks are still massacring people en masse, daily. Changing your name doesn't change your identity.

 

[Islam Imamate]

That's it. You keep repeating same thing in every post after I've refuted you countless number of times. You're making baseless assumptions with no substance behind them. So I'll you leave there with your stubborn ignorance.

Lol at me making basic assumptions when I've refuted your points. Pat yourself on the back if you'd like, fine by me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

@danny23

At least answer this question, do you think the Arabs would've preferred to be colonized by the British or remain under Ottoman rule?

 

[danny23]

@danny23

At least answer this question, do you think the Arabs would've preferred to be colonized by the British or remain under Ottoman rule?

Already answered it, fam.

If you could refer my earlier posts.

Will do it again since you're such an enthusiast. The answer is neither.
It's not what they would've preferred but what actually happened. They wanted independence from the Ottomans so they sought help from the Western powers who helped them to get it. But after that when they got colonized by the West they revolted again.
My thoughts are they didn't prefer either.

 

[hitcher]

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.

Who hasn‘t heard of the legal term „justified genocide“.





Probably nobody except Turks.

 

[Alphafail]

How many Iraqis have been killed by the US?

 

[Islam Imamate]

Already answered it, fam.

If you could refer my earlier posts.

Will do it again since you're such an enthusiast. The answer is neither.
It's not what they would've preferred but what actually happened. They wanted independence from the Ottomans so they sought help from the Western powers who helped them to get it. But after that when they got colonized by the West they revolted again.
My thoughts are they didn't prefer either.

Kind of a dodge, obviously many would want independence even though only a minority joined the revolt. If they had to accept either which do you think they'd more willing to accept? Continued Turkish rule or the advent of British rule?

 

[danny23]

Kind of a dodge, obviously many would want independence even though only a minority joined the revolt. If they had to accept either which do you think they'd more willing to accept? Continued Turkish rule or the advent of British rule?

If they could see the future then, British. As history has it they already did.

We didn't have enough time to influence anything there. The rule was only 30 years sandwiched between two world wars. If you look at our former colonies where we ruled for a long time they're prosperous today while all former Ottoman colonies are doing poorly. Nice legacy huh?