Can you say me, if that definition is accepted how would they discern a war from a genocide? Mass killlings? Ok they are in every war. Turkey lost 250.000 people in the independent war. Then according to this definition it is a mass killing. Should we claim to consider it as a genocide?
Thats why I said I wont take this definition as a true definition but the general definition. Otherwise,as I said,you cant discern a war from a genocide. |
|
Again, the definition of "genocide" according to Raphael Lemkin, the man who invented the word:
"Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups."
The definition of "genocide" according to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG):
"...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: Killing members of the group; Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
The definition of "genocide" according to the American Heritage Dictionary:
"The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."
Again, I tell you mass killings in and of themselves to do not equal genocide. It's as clear as day within all those definitions. The distinction lies in the intentions of those doing the killing. The aim in killing so many people has to be to eliminate that group. Casualties resulting from war do not equal genocide by themselves! I have admitted that if one accepts the Turkish version of history, the deaths of Armenians between 1915 and 1917 do not equal genocide. In turn, you should be able to admit that if one accepts the Armenian version of history, the Ottoman government was clearly guilty of genocide. The question is who to believe.
As for the French, they did not commit genocide because they never intended to exterminate the Algerian people. The goal was to maintain rule over them, not kill them all. I do not say that to lessen the impact of France's crimes, but because it's fact. The estimated total population of Algeria in 1954 was 8.7 million. Most experts think that the French killed somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people. Remember too that France was just becoming a nuclear power at the time. If the French government had simply desired to kill all the Algerians, they had ample means to try and do so.
The international scholars ![Stick out tongue [:P]](/emoticons/emotion-4.gif) who are they? who have discuessed the matter and reached to a compromise? Look at that. You cannot find any commision which consist Turkish scholars. So it is nonsense to say, international scholars beleieve that Turkish scholars lie. How can you know it without even listening them? There has never been an impartial commisison to discuss the matter,so far. So how can you define it so obvious. |
|
I've already explained it. You're essentially just asking me to repeat myself. The names of every organization and scholar who recoginzes that Turkey committed genocide would simply be too great to name. It would be must easier to list the very few who disagree. As for the study of the event itself, what would another commission accomplish? All the experts who've researched the allegations have already come to a conclusion. It's now a consensus. And it's not like Turkey hasn't actively been promoting its version of history. International experts have already heard Turkey's version of events and dismissed them as an intentional cover-up. Turkish scholars' arguments are seen as a desperate attempt to re-write history, and no longer taken seriously. They're no longer included in discussions of this piece of history, because they've proven that they are unable or unwilling to look at the evidence objectively.
| Do you know what the problem is?The problem is though you say the stubbornness of the Turkish government , you seem much more stubborn. Because you are stuck the truth of so called international scholars(who are they?where do you know they say only the truth) , you cant see anything else and what the more is you dont even want to hear anything against it. Thats why we can not reach to a compromise. |
|
History is not a compromise. And I think I've demonstrated just by continuing this debate that I am willing to at least listen to arguments against the genocide.
| And the more of the problem is, you cant approach to the matter as history. You consider it as scientific fact It is nonsense. It is history. It is always ambigious. |
|
I don't consider it scientific fact, but if it's a question of believing either the consensus opinion of international scholars, or the opinion of the country accused of committing the atrocity, I think it's clear which side most reasonable people would expect to be more trustworthy.
It is the problem I have mentioned . These are your words and if you look back a bit you can see many similar statements.Is this the true apprach to history? Have you seen it? Have you experienced them? How do you know Where do you know How can you be so certain? As I said , that is the problem. You should first question. Thats how you can find.
You cannot tell history as telling a film that you watched last night to a friend. Thats it. So pleasedont get stuck the same things over and over again. |
|
Why do you hold me to standards that you yourself have not been upholding in this debate? You have also stated things as fact while providing no reference or source for your information. You're sure going back a ways with that quote about the Sultan, and I already responded to your accusations shortly after you made them. You stated just as matter-of-factly that those events didn't happen, as I did that they did indeed happen.
| And how is this exeggerated? According the Armenian sources the toll was 600.000 once. then it has become 800.000. then now it is said that 1.500.000. |
|
See, you state this as fact while providing no source. Why should I believe you, if you won't believe me?
| If you look at the the1968 publication of Britannica and todays publication, you will see that in the 1968 publication it is 600.000 written. But today it is 1.500.000 written. Has it increased from 1968 to 2006 or are there some who want to magnify it? |
|
Sorry, I don't have a copy of the 1968
Encyclopaedia Britannica (and I doubt you do as well). Anyway, I can give you a reason why it might have changed the figure over time (other than simply better research). During the Cold War Turkey was a strategic ally of NATO against the Soviet Union. Great care was taken not to upset the Turks, because Western countries did not want it's government to fall to a communist revolution. Today, Turkey is still a strategic ally of the United States and other NATO countries in the Middle East. This is why many governments have chosen not to pressure Turkey to admit to genocide, nor taken measures to officially recognize it their own country.