Armenian genocide deniers

jonny72

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7038095.stm

Its 'disputed' so that means it may not have happened? 'Disputed' by the perpetrators of course. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Bush administration are a bunch of rats.

Hellm0

I dont think this post has a relevant title, holocaust denile is generally a term used in reference to the WW2 Jewish Holocaust.

That said, fair play to the Armenian lobbist group for keeping this alive. Genocide isnt something that should be forgotten.

themole

jonny72 wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7038095.stm

Its 'disputed' so that means it may not have happened? 'Disputed' by the perpetrators of course. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Bush administration are a bunch of rats.

Maybe you change the title to "Armenia Genocide Deniers", just a thought.

What are the facts involved in the Armenian genocide? I know of it and from what others have said that it did take place. I just don't know any facts around it.
From the article:

Ankara argues that there were massacres by both sides at the time but completely rejects the allegation that there was a state policy to kill Armenians.

Anyone know of some good sources? To prove them wrong?

Fratton Fred

If the US decides it was genocide, what does it mean in real terms?

I can appreciate that if you lost relatives in the gemocide you would want it recognised, but why is it so important the US recognises it as such?

oscarBravo

I've edited the thread title, as it was misleading.

Manic Moran

jonny72 wrote:

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Bush administration are a bunch of rats.

Why? They're not denying anything. In the quote in the first paragraph of the article you link to, they acknowledge that the killings occurred.

If the US decides it was genocide, what does it mean in real terms?

I think that's the major point. Having the US government make a statement on something which happened a century ago doesn't do a hell of a lot of practical good to the US national interest, but can do a fair bit of practical harm.

If the historians say the genocide happened, then it happened. They don't need Congress to say it did.

NTM

jonny72

Its important that history recognises it as such. The Turks desperately want to bury it, and it seems that the wider world is allowing them to do so, for political reasons.

The US is being asked to recognise this as a historical event.

jonny72

oscarBravo wrote:

I've edited the thread title, as it was misleading.

It was also known as the Armenian Holocaust but anyway.

eoin5

jonny72 wrote:

It was also known as the Armenian Holocaust but anyway.

Correct, but I think history has rewritten it as the plight of the Jews (a bit like the title of "The Gulf War" changed hands). It doesnt matter though as long as history retains how similiar the two genocides were. Interestingly the Israelis have tended not to support the Armenian cause just to retain favour with the Turks.

I think its worth mentioning that anything and everything is disputed, so if that word appears in the news its an indication to read between the lines.

metaoblivia

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/us.turkey.armenians/index.html

jonny72

Anyone want to side with Turkey over this?

Sand

Anyone want to side with Turkey over this?

Welllllllll......no. Turkey's obviously denying reality - but militant ultra-nationalism is a strong current in their culture so they dont quite have the sort of navel-gazing self hatred that more developed countries acquire. Yet.

What I will say is that the US administrations views are informed by realpolitick. They need Turkey to be somewhat friendly given the advantages that friendliness leads to, and the Turks feel insanely strongly over this issue. I doubt Bush actually denies the Armenian genocide - but he needs the Turks so he has to avoid upsetting them too much.

Either way, the genocide is long over and done with. There are genocides occuring the world over [Darfur for example?] - perhaps peoples anger and desire for action and plain speaking would be better served there? Calling a spade a spade in the Armenian case is not as useful as the same measure in the Sudan case - if Darfur was officially recognised as genocide them the UN would be forced to either intervene whatever Sudan thought, or to remove the obligation from their treaties.

Fratton Fred

Sand wrote: »

Either way, the genocide is long over and done with. There are genocides occuring the world over [Darfur for example?] - perhaps peoples anger and desire for action and plain speaking would be better served there? Calling a spade a spade in the Armenian case is not as useful as the same measure in the Sudan case - if Darfur was officially recognised as genocide them the UN would be forced to either intervene whatever Sudan thought, or to remove the obligation from their treaties.

very true.

Mick86

jonny72 wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7038095.stm

Its 'disputed' so that means it may not have happened? 'Disputed' by the perpetrators of course. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the Bush administration are a bunch of rats.

It was the Turks that murdered the Armenians not the current US administration. :rolleyes:

So the Turks are upset that the Americans are dragging up their past misdeeds. Not the first nor last country to adopt that attitude but they'll just have to get over it.

Fratton Fred

Have the Americans accepted that their own war against the native american Indains was in fact genocide, or are they still worshipping people like Sheridan?

Sand

Looks like the US is attempting to persuade the Turkish government/military not to go into northern Iraq and disrupt the one area that appears to be doing relatively well.

This of course would be easier if the Turks werent annoyed/enraged with the US for the Armenian genocide bill. Hence probably why the Bush administration was opposing said measure, and why it probably was a bad idea - no real benefit, quite a few downsides.

metaoblivia

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Have the Americans accepted that their own war against the native american Indains was in fact genocide, or are they still worshipping people like Sheridan?

:rolleyes:

I don't understand what this has to do with the Armenian genocide.

nacho libre

metaoblivia wrote: »

:rolleyes:

I don't understand what this has to do with the Armenian genocide.

I think he means that American politicians should officialy recognise their slaughter of Native Indians as genoicide before condemning another nation for commiting genocide.
I suspect he might also mean that the only genocide worthy of special status, in recorded history, is the holocaust.
That the Armenian one should not be officially acknowledged- especially at this time when it doesn't suit the current American Goverment's interests to do so.

Hobbes

No one explains it better then the daily show.

http://www.ifilm.com/episode/18030?startsWith=2902526

Fratton Fred

nacho libre wrote: »

I think he means that American politicians should officialy recognise their slaughter of Native Indians as genoicide before condemning another nation for commiting genocide.
I suspect he might also mean that the only genocide worthy of special status, in recorded history, is the holocaust.
That the Armenian one should not be officially acknowledged- especially at this time when it doesn't suit the current American Goverment's interests to do so.

the first bit yes, I can't help but feel there is a certain amount of shedding guilt at someone else's expense here.

There are plenty other genocide's and attrocities worthy of note but for some reason they get lost in the noise. I'm not saying the Armenian one should not be recognised and I guess from an Armenians point of view the timing is not relevant, I would like to understand why, now, this has been singled out for a congressional vote.

Are there that many Armenian voters in the US?

Hobbes

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Are there that many Armenian voters in the US?

thomas.loc.gov is a great site. Excellent read if your bored. There is one recurring theme though. BS bills go through the system nearly every day like this. Asking the government to vote that "X is good" or "Y is bad". No outcome in the bill, only a statement that such things are good or bad.

I suspect some local Armenians asked for it from their senator. Or someone intentionally trying to stitch Bush up. But then his popularity is in the crapper so its not like this is going to push it over the edge.

The only reason it is being shot down now is that Turkey put the nod in that they being officially accused of murdering 1.5 million people would not be in the USA best interests.

Sand

The only reason it is being shot down now is that Turkey put the nod in that they being officially accused of murdering 1.5 million people would not be in the USA best interests.

I dont think it would be in anyones best interests for Turkey to start a border war in northern Iraq and make a less than great situation worse.

National sentiment being high, its hard for the US to persuade them to hold off whilst officially declaring them genocidal maniacs. But if Bush can help prevent the genocide bill passing then he can go to Turkey and say " You guys owe me one, I'm having to eat so much crap over this, dont pay me back by making my Iraq problems worse!" The Turkish government can probably rein in the military in that case, but not if people are already outraged over the genocide issue.

But on the other hand, who knows. Maybe the guys calling for the genocide official declaration are right. Afterall, until its officially declared, then its not a genocide. No one can call it such. Its illegal. Everyone who thinks it was is wrong.

And hey, who needs diplomacy anyway - as any rent-a-mob protestor can tell you screaming "Hey you Turkish mass murdering scumbags, please dont invade Kurdistan as a favour to us" has a fairly good chance of winning over the Turkish people.

Its called realpolitick for a reason.

gurramok

Fratton Fred wrote: »

There are plenty other genocide's and attrocities worthy of note but for some reason they get lost in the noise. I'm not saying the Armenian one should not be recognised and I guess from an Armenians point of view the timing is not relevant, I would like to understand why, now, this has been singled out for a congressional vote.

Are there that many Armenian voters in the US?

It was probably the first and biggest genocide that happened in the 20th century and was brushed aside as if it never happened, i don't blame the survivors descendents trying to get it recognised, wouldn't you?
(Also Armenian disapora in the US vote in key seats en bloc hence their influence.)

Armenians have been trying for years to get the genocide recognised by various US administrations, its not the first time a vote has occurred!

Past attempts failed because Turkey was a vital ally in the Cold War which just shows you no matter what evidence is shown, it was doomed to fail due to US self political interests nevermind the victims of the genocide.

It is interesting to note(from wikipedia) that Hitler himself quoted the Armenian episode of 1915 a few times when referring to what he would do with the Jews in his day and we know what happpened to them.

donaghs

I think the Turks try to claim that the Armenians allied with the Russians in WWI (against Turkey) and any deaths were a consequence of this. E.g. Russians and Armenians had killed Turkish civilians. I don't think this makes sense though considering the numbers of Armenians who died and the manner in which they died.

Let's not also forget the similar Assyrian Genocide.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_Genocide

Manic Moran

FWIW, it seems the bill is probably going to die in the house. According to the radio, it's losing support fast as people are realising how much practical benefit it will achieve vs practical problems.

NTM

sovtek

eoin5 wrote: »

Interestingly the Israelis have tended not to support the Armenian cause just to retain favour with the Turks.

It might have something to do with a little genocide of their own and the Turks silence on that.

mrgalway

Wikipedia has a pretty informative piece on it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

Most American right wingers don't even know where or what Armenia is (this is from trying to discuss this on another site frequented mainly by RW Republicans) and think that this is merely a Democratic trick to make Bush look bad.

Oddly enough, it was mainly the Kurds that did the actuall killing for the Turks.