White House warns against Armenia resolution

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

It gets more damning given the rather poor Turkish-Armenian relations. Those buggers have had the border closed for years and there's plenty of mutual hatred.

[Pablo Sanchez]

I don’t even understand why the Turks are so upset, they can’t just fucking distance themselves from a monarchy that was torn apart at the end of WW1 and replaced by the modern Turkish state?

Sultan Mehmed V was effectively under house arrest during WWI while the Young Turk clique ran the government, so ultimate responsibility for the ethnic cleansing campaign against the Armenians rested with the Young Turks and not with the monarchy. Atatürk and many of his closest allies in the foundation of the Republic of Turkey came up out of that very movement. So it is actually rather important for the Turkish government to deny the Armenian Genocide.

Yay for representative democracy. What kind of other shit have they pulled that their approval ratings are so low?

Low approval ratings from Republican voters are a given for this Congress, and the Democratic voters are pissed because their party isn't doing enough to stop Bush, or even slow him down. Personally, I'm in the disapproval column for that very reason.

[Thanas]

Regarding the genocide issue - the turkish officials are on record to saying to the german general staff and High command in Turkey that they intended it to be a campaign of ethnic cleansing and at least factored in (read: some wanted the extermination, the others didn't care) the extermination of the Armenian race within their borders.

[Civil War Man]

Yeah, it was genocide. This resolution doesn't really do anything other than stir up shit, though, considering how long after the fact it came.

But if Turkey really wanted to get back at the US, they could always pass a resolution calling the US government's treatment of the native Americans genocide.

[K. A. Pital]

But if Turkey really wanted to get back at the US, they could always pass a resolution calling the US government's treatment of the native Americans genocide.

Their government is currently shifting towards islamism, isn't it? Perhaps some of the hostility roots lie there?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

But if Turkey really wanted to get back at the US, they could always pass a resolution calling the US government's treatment of the native Americans genocide.

Their government is currently shifting towards islamism, isn't it? Perhaps some of the hostility roots lie there?

No, nationalism. It "insults turkishness". There are laws for that.

[K. A. Pital]

No, nationalism

Ah, understood. I'm not a big fan of either anyway. Turkey can whine about that as much as they want to.

[Elfdart]

Now that I've thought about it, if this resolution causes the Turks to bar US troops and equipment from using Turkish airspace or territory to resupply the war in Iraq, and if that's as bad as the war whores make it out to be...

Maybe Congress will have actually done something to stop this goddamned war! Maybe we can piss off a bunch of Turkish militarists and stop the war at the same time. I'm willing to do my part: Hey Turks -IN YOUR FEZ!.

Maybe the Dems in Congress aren't a pathetic bunch of cowardly jackoffs, but shrewd politicians!

Oh what am I thinking?

[Adrian Laguna]

Hey Turks -IN YOUR FEZ!.

As much as I appreciate such a beautiful pun, I must point out that The Great Turk banned the fez.

Maybe the Dems in Congress aren't a pathetic bunch of cowardly jackoffs, but shrewd politicians!

That would be quite the sight to see, wouldn't it?

[The Yosemite Bear]

So just how much does Japan have to give to the war on tarrah, to get the "Rape of Nanking" and "Comfort Women" burried for a while?

[Kanastrous]

What's Japanese for la la la we can't hear you...?

In 1993 the Japanese government apologized to 'Comfort Women' in the Kono Statement. Although subsequently Japanese politicians have weaseled back and forth. Even after making it official they seem to have some real trouble facing up to what was done.

Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama Apologized for atrocities including the Rape of Nanking in 1995.

They'll probably continue apologizing periodically, for a while to come.

[The Yosemite Bear]

or how long before china tries to buy a gag order on the free tibet folks. Now when Britania withdraws from Iraq, will the gassings in Iraq under Churchhill be commentable?

[Kanastrous]

Now when Britania withdraws from Iraq, will the gassings in Iraq under Churchhill be commentable?

How does the one follow from the other...?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I don't know what it is about the subject of the Armenian Genocide that turns so many otherwise intelligent people into such drooling fucktards. I've been over this in three different threads that I can remember (not counting this one). It's fairly simple. Words have meanings. Genocide (as described by Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term) is defined as the effort to exterminate a racial or ethnic group (this was written back when people described Jews as a "race"). The Genocide Convention describes it in legal terms:

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.

Did the Ottoman Empire do those things to the Armenians? Yes they did. Therefore they committed genocide. Case closed, no matter how much modern day Turkish jingos want to squeal like little bitches about it.

And the part I bolded, underlined, and italicized shows why it wasn't genocide. Which you never disproved the last time around, so fuck off.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Now when Britania withdraws from Iraq, will the gassings in Iraq under Churchhill be commentable?

How does the one follow from the other...?

sorry my poor spelling, I was mentioning Britan's atrocities in Iraq between the world wars, since the Brits are leaving the "Colation of the Willing" does this mean that Bush will be willing to allow them to be censured for those atrocities committed 80 years ago?

[Crown]

And the part I bolded, underlined, and italicized shows why it wasn't genocide. Which you never disproved the last time around, so fuck off.

Oh for fucks sake. Not this again; they didn't fill in form 1 section 3 paragraph 17 in the 'Evil mass murder check list'.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

And the part I bolded, underlined, and italicized shows why it wasn't genocide. Which you never disproved the last time around, so fuck off.

Oh for fucks sake. Not this again; they didn't fill in form 1 section 3 paragraph 17 in the 'Evil mass murder check list'.

And what is the big fetish that a lot of people have for calling this genocide? It was still a mass murder either way and you're just being ludicrous in demanding that we use the incorrect term for it, apparently because it makes you feel better with yourself.

[Crown]

And what is the big fetish that a lot of people have for calling this genocide? It was still a mass murder either way and you're just being ludicrous in demanding that we use the incorrect term for it, apparently because it makes you feel better with yourself.

Fucking hilarious. It was a Genocide, just like Rawanda was a Genocide, just because they [both in Rawanda and in Turkey] didn't fill in the fucking paperwork does not absolve them of the crime.

Or are you too fucking stupid to realise that?

[Crown]

Ghetto Edit :: I see where this thread is going, and fuck it, I have no intention of speaking to fucking wall again; you argue that it wasn't a Genocide becase the forms weren't filled in, I accept that there were no forms, I argue that it does not matter a rat's ass.

So, we're going to go around and around, and around and around, and around again? Or what?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ghetto Edit :: I see where this thread is going, and fuck it, I have no intention of speaking to fucking wall again; you argue that it wasn't a Genocide becase the forms weren't filled in, I accept that there were no forms, I argue that it does not matter a rat's ass.

So, we're going to go around and around, and around and around, and around again? Or what?

Crown, why are you behaving like this exactly? Why is this a big issue for anyone? It is a straightforward proposition you cannot convict someone of premeditated murder unless you have proof that there was, in fact, premeditation. The definition of genocide explicitly states that for genocide to have taken place, there must have been premeditation. There is no evidence of premeditation, therefore the act is bumped down to a crime in the heat of the moment; Murder Two in most cases. On the state level, the Ottoman Empire is guilty of mass murder, unquestionably--nobody here is trying to disagree with that, and they would be holocaust deniers if they did--but there is no evidence for any premeditation, which international law says is necessary for it to be genocide.

Now, let us ignore law for a moment and consider it as an ethical atrocity of horrific scale and scope. Certainly in demands the fullest possible condemnation in this light. But why call it genocide, I ask? Why? Genocide is a legal term, so why not just throw it out entirely when talking about this? Because if you're saying "Well, yes, it wasn't legally genocide, but I feel like calling it genocide anyway because it was so bad", then that seems like a personal preference which is scarcely reason to be worked up about.

Now, I will concede to you that the term holocaust contains no legal implications, and so if you want to call it that--though I think it doesn't truly compare to the Nazi holocaust in the gut, visceral maliciousness of their systematic industry of extermination, being more a glorified sort of mass of rapine and murder of the like practiced since Attila the Hun--I'll concede to not having grounds to complain. But the issue over the term genocide here is over the specific legal connotations of genocide. That is clearly what the House resolution is about, can we not agree on that? And if we can then I hope we can continue to discuss this until a common ground is found, because I frankly find this obsessive need to label ethnic cleansing as genocide to be somewhat disturbing. It is, as Stark observed, a buzzword with some considerable memetic power.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Marina, here in california, particularly the central valley where my dad and stepmom still live we have a very LARGE Armenian community. Trust me to some americans this is as painful and evil as the actions of Oliver Cromwell was to our Irish ancestors (though I'm German, Irish, Welsh, Scottish, & Rom as well)

[Crown]

Crown, why are you behaving like this exactly?

So, we're going to go around and around and around, again?

hy is this a big issue for anyone? It is a straightforward proposition you cannot convict someone of premeditated murder unless you have proof that there was, in fact, premeditation. The definition of genocide explicitly states that for genocide to have taken place, there must have been premeditation. There is no evidence of premeditation, therefore the act is bumped down to a crime in the heat of the moment; Murder Two in most cases. On the state level, the Ottoman Empire is guilty of mass murder, unquestionably--nobody here is trying to disagree with that, and they would be holocaust deniers if they did--but there is no evidence for any premeditation, which international law says is necessary for it to be genocide.

Let me place a scenario forward; there is a mother with an infant. This mother refuses to feed the infant and it dies, despite having the resources to provide sustanance for the child. She also has another infant. She doesn't feed that either, and it dies. She has more, and more and more and more, and always she doesn't feed them, and they all die.

Now, this mother is a perfectly intelligent human being; she understands that the babies need to eat to survive, she understands the concept of them being unable to gather food for themselves, and she knows that these babies are completely dependant upon her for food/water/medication/shelter.

Now, should this mother be charged with 'negligence' or 'murder in the first degree'.

You don't truely have to answer this question (and to be honest, I'm kind of afraid of the answer you might give), but this analogy serves to demonstrate why the Turks of that peroid were guilty of Genocide. They knew about logistics, they knew about supplies, they knew Kurds were raiding and killing the Armenians, and they knew they were in a position to correct and put a stop to it. They just didn't give a shit.

That's it, that's all that matters. Peroid. Full stop, end of sentence.

Now, let us ignore law for a moment and consider it as an ethical atrocity of horrific scale and scope. Certainly in demands the fullest possible condemnation in this light. But why call it genocide, I ask? Why? Genocide is a legal term, so why not just throw it out entirely when talking about this? Because if you're saying "Well, yes, it wasn't legally genocide, but I feel like calling it genocide anyway because it was so bad", then that seems like a personal preference which is scarcely reason to be worked up about.

Because that's what it was. See the analogy above, it was genocide by not giving a shit. The army knew what logistics was, they knew what supplies are. You argue there was no intent because there was no written piece of paper that said; kill them all. I argue that the intent is self evident; when you look at their actions.

Again, by your own definition of Genocide (in this thread not so much, but in a previous thread [IIRC] it was mentioned), we wouldn't consider Rawanda as a Genocide; despite there being clear and unrefutabl evidnece of intent, because there was no paperwork. Duchess, that is bizzare.

Now, I will concede to you that the term holocaust contains no legal implications, and so if you want to call it that

You're going to laugh now but; I would actually argue against calling it a holocaust, because the word literally means 'all burned' and well it doesn't fit the description of what happened ... I know, I'm not totally oblivious to the Nazictionary for proper word usuage.

But the issue over the term genocide here is over the specific legal connotations of genocide. That is clearly what the House resolution is about, can we not agree on that? And if we can then I hope we can continue to discuss this until a common ground is found, because I frankly find this obsessive need to label ethnic cleansing as genocide to be somewhat disturbing. It is, as Stark observed, a buzzword with some considerable memetic power.

My dear, on this issue you and I must stand as always polar opposites. I can not begin to describe the awe and respect I have for you on matters of military history, political history and current events. But on this issue, I see you as a macarbe vampire rolling around on the corpses of innocents screaming for more blood (a very unflatering and undeserving image, since I'm aware that you do acknowlege that they are guilty of a crime, but it's there, none the less). Seriously, we need to pose a moratorium on this issue because I'm pulling out what little hair I have left wondering; why doesn't she get it?

[K. A. Pital]

The definition of genocide explicitly states that for genocide to have taken place, there must have been premeditation.

If the statements of Turkish politicians provided earlier in the thread are correct, there was.

[Xisiqomelir]

re: Intent, surely it's possible for us to infer intent from the actions of the Turks at the time? One doesn't generally commit mass murder for nothing.

[Beowulf]

They knew about logistics, they knew about supplies, they knew Kurds were raiding and killing the Armenians, and they knew they were in a position to correct and put a stop to it. They just didn't give a shit.

That's it, that's all that matters. Peroid. Full stop, end of sentence.

Ah, so the US is guilty of genocide for failing to intervene in Darfur then?