Beatrix

>I meant to say only 2 countries dispute it, the rest either recognize it or don't. No other country dispute this. Most Western countries recognize it, and the rest are going to in the future because all of the academics are pushing for it, because there's an unanimous academic consensus >posted shit load of sources, still claimed I use no sources >posted earlier evidence that there's consensus >"I just posted something from wikipedia" aight, so here's some things from wikipedia about the academic consensus; That 'meta analysis' isn't a meta analysis. It's actually "consensus" or agreement with a certain statement, that says that the Nagasaki bombing was uncalled for at best, or genocidal at worst. For some reason, you thought it reads - "the nagasaki bombing was genocidal" instead. That's not how you check for consensus, but whatever. I'm not sure why I'm debating this, so far I have provided evidence(that you ignored) for; 1. The atrocities of the Ottomans, intenful killing and genocide 2. The academic consensus on the Armenian genocide 3. The fact that Nagasaki isn't considered a genocide by anyone, even if historians agree that "at worst", aka, the most extreme definition of 'genocide', it could be included there 4. The historical context of the Armenian genocide

I actually don't have to prove anything to you, because I'm not a historian, nor do I think I can actually articulate a post detailed enough to prove this to you on this platform. I've already said this and cited my sources. The Armenian genocide is only second to the Holocaust in how much it has been researched and studied in the academic community, and earlier I provided earlier numerous books, articles and web pages detailing everything you need to know about the backround of the Armenian genocide, the genocide itself, and anything in between. Like I've said, the consensus amongst academics is clear and not debated at all. I don't want to discard Turkish academics as bias, though it's fairly clear that many Turkish academics aren't really providing any solid arguments in the field and are generally disregarded as such. Historians that try to defend, obscure, or lessen the Armenian genocide are the logical equivalent of creationist biologists within the biologist academy. You're the one disputing the vast scientific community, and thus I believe the burden of proof is actually on you. "You are challenging "systematic" and "intentional". To challenge "intentional" you claim that (1) the US didn't want to eliminate Japanese culture (2) the US didn't systematically try to eradicate them from the earth. Now, we have no proof of intent in either direction, but we know that if you wanted to eradicate the Japanese from the face of the earth, nuking and firebombing their cities would be the quickest path to do so with the technology available. Now, I could use that fact to create a narrative to back my allegations of "intentional". As for systematic, I am not going to delve into an argument of semantics. War is the systematic elimination of the opponents. When you apply it to civilians, it's still systematic. But I don't think this is the real issue, so let's stick with intentions for now." Like I've said before, your statement that there isn't evidence either way is untrue. There IS infact evidence for the Turkish intentions and there is infact COUNTER-evidence for the US intentions. So no, you didn't actually say anything worth of value in the "intentional" department. Regarding the systematic, I actually disagree with you. Semantics is precisely what you're abusing to prove your point, which is why I said you're strawmaning. If a soldier, in war, does something absurd - say, take off his clothes, starts dancing in the middle of the battlefield, and then shoots himself in the head - that's not systematic suicide even though he was operating within the millitary scope as part of it. It's not even suicide if he didn't intend to shoot himself. If a commander commands that same soldier to kill himself, that doesn't make it systematic either, even though it operates within the smaller scope of the millitary(soldiers need to listen to their commanders). Nuking Japan is similar in the sense that just because it belongs within the millitaristic system doesn't make nuking a systematic operation within the context. Furthermore, you fail to see the logical connections between the words and try to divide them apart as though they're independent. "Systematic killing" isn't just "Systematic" and "killing", it's precisely a system for killing. The same is said about all other words regarding the definition of genocide; intentional action to systematically eliminate an ethnic, national, racial or religious group. Intentional systematic is not the same as just systematic, systematically eliminate is not the same as eliminate, and neither are the same as intentional systematic elimination. Wait, wait, wait, wait. Wait. Where is your proof? You wrote a goddamn narrative that you didn't allow me to write in the case of the US. You are claiming so and so had this intent, but you need proof. And actually you have zero proof of " to kill Armenians, and Christians for that matter, to create a "pure" Islamic and Turkish state." If this were the case, why were the Armenians in the west, which constituted 50% of the population untouched. Why were the Greeks untouched? Why did this evil Ottoman Empire who wanted to eradicate non-Muslims let these non-Muslims become congressmen in the Ottoman parliament? Here is a list (https://tr.wikipedia...busları_listesi ), and you will see just as many non-Muslims (Gayrimuslim) as Muslims. along with many Armenian names. Basically your constructed narrative holds no water. Any rational person with access to this information will conclude that the stated intent of the Ottoman Empire to deport the Armenians because they were aiding the Russians as more likely than your Islamophobia and Orientalism fueled paranoia. Gosh, Kemal. You're being absurd. Genocide isn't a one-time-full-on thing that happens within a day, it's a process which rapidly expands. Just like Jews weren't killed straight away in the holocaust. The Turks decided to go with the Armenians and surely after they went after the Greeks and Assyrians. Saying they were untouched is disgusting - 450,000 to 750,000 greeks were killed in the Greek genocide, and even 150,000-300,000 Assyrians in the Assyrian genocide. The Turks didn't just "deport" Armenians, they took them on death marches without food or water and let them die, they took their belongings, raped, and killed them en masse. "Citations, citations... "Although bombings do not meet the definition of genocide, some consider that this definition is too strict, and these bombings do represent a genocide.[109][110] For example, University of Chicago historian Bruce Cumings states there is a consensus among historians to Martin Sherwin's statement "the Nagasaki bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst".[111]" I provided a direct citation to the consensus among historians regarding the event. Where is your meta-study citation?" lol. Did you read what I've said? Read what you posted and let me repost what I've said; That's basically the, *cough*, "meta study" you provided. Also, I've given you my citations in earlier comments. Not to mention that the mere fact that there are only 2 countries that deny the Armenian genocide(One of them being Turkey, and one of them being Azerbaijan), and only 2 countries that don't recognize it officially(Israel and the US, even though 48 states in the US recognize it officially, the US as a whole doesn't, and both of these are for political reasons and not academic ones), is enough evidence to show that the vast amount of consensus is that the Armenian genocide, is, infact, a genocide. I mean, really. The statement you quoted literally says "ALTHOUGHT BOMBINGS DO NOT MEET THE DEFINITION OF GENOCIDE, SOME consider that this definition is too strict". And what is the evidence for that? That YOU provided? A historian, ONE historian, said there is a consensus about the statement "the Nagaski bomb was gratuitous at best and genocidal at worst" and for some reason you decided that this agreement with this abstract statement means historians agree that Nagasaki was a genocide? Really? If you look at the citations in that article, you'll notice they are all linked together anyways. This is more a point of thought or argument, it's meant for debate, it doesn't actually mean that there is a consensus. No, because an organization declaring something to have been illegal has nothing to do with genocide, its terms, and whether they're right or not. They have nothing to do with this discussion. You're really out of arguments when the best you could provide is taking things literally. I was exaggerating to make a point - the vast majority of academics within the field think X. When you hear someone say "took you forever" do you think they actually mean forever? I'm not even sure why you are arguing when I've literally provided like 5 different links regarding the Armenian genocide and its consensus earlier.

snip

Kemal, if person A kills person B, for no reason, that is simply murder. If person A kills person B, only because person B is black/homosexual/Armenian/whatever, that is murder but it's also recognized as a hate crime. If in the first incident person B coincidently happens to be black/homosexual/Armenian that doesn't make it a hate crime. Genocide is somewhat similar. The US obliterated people but it had nothnig to do with Japan itself, they didn't want to eliminate their culture, and they didn't systematically try to eradicate them from the earth. I'm not sure what your definition of "systematic" is, but just because something belongs in a meta-system doesn't make it systematic. You basically contradict yourself in the premise itself. The US nuked Japan to shorten the war - that is exactly the opposite of what genocide means. When your country/government excersices genocide - it doesn't want to end the war, it wants to eliminate you, not as a person - as a people. If that isn't clear enough - it all boils down to intent. The intent of the US was to end the war, "try out" their weapons, prevent invasion, and a million other motives, I'm sure you can give a million reasons. However, none of these, NONE, were with the intent to kill Japanese because they were Japanese. The intent of the Turks was to kill Armenians, and Christians for that matter, to create a "pure" Islamic and Turkish state. They took their property, held them in mass camps, took them on death marches where they weren't clothed or fed, shot them into pits, massacared them, and raped countless people. Basically nearly no one disagrees with the nuking being not a genocide, but according to one guy, most historians agree with an abstract statement made by another guy. Also, just because a mega-small minority think that the genocide definition 'may be too strict' doesn't mean it is, nor does it make it officially too strict, nor does it mean that extending that definition is the official definition. Of course, some organization claiming the bombings were illegal under some law is also ridiculous as it has nothing to do with this statement. Here are the bottom facts; 99.9 repeating percent agree that the Amrenian genocide, was, infact, a genocide 99.9 repeating percent agree that Nagasaki was not a 'genocide' in its current form, excluding those that think the definition 'may be' too strict. Of course, the definition of genocide isn't exactly debated,and most of its definitions, even unpopular ones, still require all of the state above.

Strawman at its finest. It's funny how the term genocide was actually coined in attempt to describe the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust and now you're trying to say it isn't genocide. I don't think it's worth the time arguing about the terms, the fact is that the Armenian genocide being a genocide isn't controversial amongst scholars and academics at all, nor anyone else who studies this. Infact, it's rather unanimous. It's arguably more unanimous than the Jewish holocaust amongst academics. Here's a small letter from the association of genocide scholars from awhile ago, as an example: And; I really shouldn't do the research for you, but here are articles and books that read detailing in excruciating detail, and examining the vast amount of evidence for the genocide; http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9678.html http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/DadrianHistory http://www.berghahnbooks.com/title.php?rowtag=GustArmenian https://books.google.co.il/books?id=xCHMFHQRNtYC&pg=PR35&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false( the Oxford Handbook of genocides) if you know French: https://books.google.co.il/books?id=h-hlBgAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y http://www.imprescriptible.fr/rhac/tome2/ This is just scratching the edge, of course.

Genocide => intentional systematic killing and elimination of an ethnic, national, racial, or religious group. The nuclear bomb had nothing to do with any of those, Japan was simply the enemy of the US because it attacked it. It had nothing to do with their culture, how they look or what god they believed in, and it wasn't a systematic killing and elimination of them. The Ottoman Empire, on the other hand, had concentration/extermination camps, deported and killed people, arrested intellectuals and slaughtered them, drowned Armenians, confiscated their property, held death marches, mass burnings and so on.

You have 9 people on vacation mode, which aren't counted in the alliance members.

Exactly. So let me reiterate - if Kemal called out the failure of the coup what makes Kemal think that Erdogan - who has all the direct information needed - was supposed to be scared of this coup? Surely, he knew he was going to win quite early on. I mean, what's more likely - the coup started and failed badly - or the coup was an evil master plan involving erdogan?

Nothing harsh here. These are the terms when your alliance consists of pixel-huggers and farms. Declaring neutrality doesn't grant immunity in this game.

This isn't my point at all. The US knew the coup will fail long before anyone of us was certain of it or knew too much information. Keep in mind, these '7 hours' is the total time from the moment of the coup until the US actually announced something. Just stop and think for a moment what the US had to do in order to be confident enough to release such a statement in a few hours - the news have to reach the proper authorities, the intelligence agencies need to be informed, they need to research what's going on exactly, by whom, what size and what forces, they have to make conclusions that are certain and direct, they had to transfer this information onwards, the administration had to decide what to do with it, and eventually release a statement. Of course, there's about a thousand more things you can insert in there. More than likely, the US knew that the coup was going to fail but waited a few hours to be certain of it before saying anything. That, of course, leads me to the actual counterargument I presented. If the US was able to have this sort of intelligence way in advance, it makes complete sense the actual person being couped against, with direct connections to all the proper millitary personnel, will know/think he's going to win very early. I mean, you're giving him a personality analysis as evidence he knew in advanced the coup was going to happen - even if he 'shit his pants' in other events, that doesn't mean not shitting his pants in this one means he knew it in advanced.

The US was pretty quick to support Erdogan as well, were they also in on it? I think if the US knows the coup will fail within a few hours, the Turkish PM would also know way beforehand.

Good luck.

GPA doesn't receive a "get out of jail free" card, just because they refuse to participate in half of the game features. That's ridiculous and so are you for defending them. They're neutral, and so they play the game they want. That doesn't mean they won't be attacked, rolled or raided. This is what the game was designed for, and just because they are an eccentricity doesn't give them any privelage over others. If anyone is the real abuser here, it's GPA. They are only neutral in the sense that they don't engage in politics, but they will still flood the market when wars happen profiting off of everyone, they will still overcome everyone in rankings, they will still take in new players that have potential to growth in other alliances, and eventually they will become so rich that they will control the Orbis economy. The daily income on some of these people from infrastructure alone amounts of tens of millions and they get absolutely no resistance. Furthermore, people can 'safely' grow in GPA and then switch to any of the other alliances without opposition, which to me doesn't seem fair at all. You can't always get what you want, and this time GPA didn't get their way.

Did you even read what he said? He didn't say you'll stop being neutral, but that you'll control the economy of the game given enough time.

All I know is there's a guy in GPA with 4k infra in one of his cities. That's insane.

Current steel price: $2,476 643077 tanks destroyed : $1,592,258,652 worth of steel. Impressive.

Could we get the infra damage done and the worth of damage in tanks, planes and ships with market prices?

You forgot Polaris. EDIT: and NAC.

Good to have you, TLF.

Assuming you would be trustworthy enough to keep your word, for how long will it stand? What stops you from, in a month, holding the same ransom? And the month after that? And afterwards?

Just let Alpha dissolve.

ITT Placentica proves again he's not actually reading any rebuttles to his claims - now or in the past.

You deserve nothing better than the response he gave you.

He said it's their loss, and you just responded with the same snarky comment about how now it's "10 pages long" as if that in itself is a retort. All of your members are suffering under the failing leadership of Alpha - you deserve nothing better.

If millitant Islam stopped oppressing their own people and longing for the destruction of the Western world, I'd understand the argument. Infact, if millitant Islam stopped being millitant and put their weapons down & stop bombing their own people I'm pretty sure we'll leave 'em alone to do their thing as such is the case in everywhere without millitant Islam and human rights.