| I find it quite ridicilious that a country which demands freedom of speech from Turkey can implement a law which states that anyone who says "I dont believe in this genocide" will be punished and jailed. |
|
I find that ridiculous as well. I don't believe that people ought to be punished for voicing an opinion, no matter how controversial or offensive it may be to some.
| 1)In a genocide the aim is to annihilate a nation.(Just like in Bosnia and and just like Holocaust) And in a genocide you can find loss of only one side.(For example in Bosnia you cannot find masses of Serbian graves killed by Bosnians or as for Holocaust,in Germany, you cannot find any graves in which Germans are buried who killed by Jews)Because any country who is able to make genocide is also able to protect its people from them. But in Turkey there are still scores of graves of Turkish people who were killed by Armenian mobs.(I remember that just last year a mass grave was found in which there were more than a hundred Turkish villager killed by Armenian mobs in 1915) |
|
I understand what constitutes genocide. The debate here has centered around the question of whether or not the Turkish government is lying in regard to both the manner and number of Armenian deaths in the Ottoman Empire during World War I. The view I hold is that while there have certainly been incidents in which some Armenians killed Turks during that time, they were a few isolated incidents perpetrated by a small number of reactionaries. Furthermore, I believe that the number of murdered Turks has been greatly exaggerated by the Turkish government in an effort to make it look like the violence between Armenians and Turks was mutual. In stark contrast, the Armenians killed were the victims of a systematic and efficient effort by the Ottoman government to exterminate an entire people and culture existing within their borders.
The man who coined the term "genocide", Raphael Lemkin, actually based his notion of the crime on two key events: the Armenian Genocide and the massacre of the Christian Assyrians (Arameans) in Iraq in 1933. That same year he proposed that the League of Nations take steps to make an international crime of what he initially called acts of "babarism" and "vandalism" in a presentation in Madrid. He later invented the word "genocide" as a better means of describing such crimes. His own definition of the word was as follows:
"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."
Thus, even if it hadn't been the basis for the word "genocide", the Armenian version of events would clearly fall under its definition.
| 2)Turkish public or state has never denied the scores of death of Armenians on exile way but always denied that it was a genocide. That is to say, in a genocide the main aim is to annihilate If it had been to so, they would have killed them directly instead of exiling to Syria. Werent they? On the other side, there was a war at that time come on! |
|
Yes, they know that it would be utterly ridiculous to deny that any Armenians were killed given the numerous international eyewitness accounts. As for the exile to the Syrian desert, it's the manner in which it was carried out that leads most experts to classify it as genocide. Forgetting for a second the numerous accounts of mass killings (mostly of the Armenian men) carried out just prior to the deportation, the simple fact that the Armenians were being exiled to a desert and denied basic supplies for survival indicates that the Turkish government intended it to be a death march. Add to that numerous accounts of Turkish soldiers encouraging local Turkish and Kurdish tribes to rob, rape, and murder the passing Armenians, and even taking part themselves, and the real intentions behind the exile become clear. The exile was essentially a cheap and relatively easy to kill the remaining Armenian women and children.
| 3)Mainstream idea,in most cases, dont represent the truth. Just look at France. It is a country which is based on liberty (I even remember the words of Voltaire who says I dont believe in your words but I will always defend the right of your expressing them .) I think French decision is a shame on these words and Voltaire. On the other side, though the fact is 1.500.000 Algerian killed by French soldiers, there is no country exists in the world which says French has made any genocide. Where is the truth? I think the case of French is only enough to prove that how things are exaggerated or magnified. Such a psycology or logic which restricts the freedom of speech in order to gain more vote from Armenians in the imminent election, can even write a new history and create new genocides. |
|
While I would agree that mainstream opinions do not necessarily represent the truth, that doesn't mean that they're usually wrong. Besides, I don't think that stories of the Armenian Genocide are very well-known to the general public of most countries.
As for France, I don't know why you keep focusing on that country, but I would agree that their treatment of the Algerians during their war of independence was absolutely horrid. That said, I believe that the Algerian government holds the number of dead to be around 1 million, and most independent historians place the likely number far below that. Whatever the case, hundreds of thousands of Algerians died, and that is a terrible crime. Still, it clearly does not constitute genocide. The French government was trying to maintain control of a colonial possession, not exterminate an entire population. It really isn't a valid comparison to the Armenian Genocide.
| I really appreciate my country's approach to the matter. Though all the rows on the matter, Turkish government tried to remain as reasonable as possible and PM just declared that "We are not like those who clean the dirt with dirt" regarding to a suggestion of deportation nearly 70.000 illegally employed Armenians in Turkey. Turkey is country whose unemployment rate reaches to %12. Deporting them would relieve the economy much. Wouldnt it? Anyway, but just look at the stance of Turkey and French. You will see which one is more European- though education level of public is much more higher in France. |
|
What does any of that have to do with the topic at hand?
Lets look at today. Turkey last year suggested to Armenia about gathering a group of historicians to discuss the matter. This year the same to France after these rows. But Sarkozy refused it again and said we can accept it but the historicians in the commisions shouldnt be a must.
The problem is "this row will continue so as far as it is a matter of politicians rather than historicians". I can not still understand why the only group who doesnt utter any word about the matter is historicians. What have the French politicians to do with the matter of historicians. I hope it is not a tradtion in France that politicians write history and historicians make politics. |
|
What you fail to understand is that, outside of Turkey, there simply is no real question about whether or not the purported genocide occurred. Historians have long determined it to be a clear example of genocide, and that the Turkish government is essentially trying to hide the truth. Turkey's asking for such a debate with Armenia or France is likely seen as an insult to their collective intelligence. For some perspective, what do you think the response would be if Germany wanted to debate the truth of the Holocaust with Israeli intellectuals?