Alex Jones triggers the Young Turks

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Nuking Japan was not genocide.

 

Then neither was what happened to the Armenians.

[Beatrix]

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.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

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.

 

Oh oh oh, let's do this.

 

Was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 

-Intentional? Yes

-Systematic? Yes

-Killing and Elimination? Yes, literally obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians with force with no equal.

-Ethnic, national, racial or religious group? Yes, let's stick with the Japanese national group.

 

So you just told us it was genocide.

 

Now let's to a similar apologetics for the Ottoman Empire:

 

"The deportation of the Armenians had nothing to do with any of those. The Armenian guerrillas were attacking the Ottoman army and the Turkish and Kurdish civilians in the region. so Ottoman Empire just wanted to relocate the Armenians so that they couldn't do these. This was essential to win the war against Russia in the Caucasus region, and to survive in World War I in general (spoiler alert: The Ottoman Empire lost despite this fact, and lost 90% of its territories). This had nothing to do with their culture, or what god they believed in, it was just moving people who killed Turkish soldiers and civilians to other areas where they couldn't do so. This is evidenced by hundreds of thousands of Armenians in the West being left as is and not being forcefully moved. It wasn't a systematic killing and elimination of them."

 

Please show us proof of these vast concentration/extermination camps. The rest of the atrocities you mention are not much worse then disintegrating hundreds of thousands instantly into their atomic particles, or letting them die a prolonged death thanks to radiation.

[Beatrix]

Oh oh oh, let's do this.

 

Was the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki

 

-Intentional? Yes

-Systematic? Yes

-Killing and Elimination? Yes, literally obliterating hundreds of thousands of civilians with force with no equal.

-Ethnic, national, racial or religious group? Yes, let's stick with the Japanese national group.

 

So you just told us it was genocide.

 

 

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:

 

 

Dear Prime Minister Erdogan:

 

       We are writing you this open letter in response to your call for an “impartial study by historians†concerning the fate  of the Armenian people in the Ottoman Empire during World War I.

 

       We represent the major body of scholars who study  genocide in North America and Europe. We are concerned that in  calling for an impartial  study of the Armenian Genocide  you may not be fully aware of the  extent of the scholarly and intellectual record on the Armenian Genocide and how this event conforms to the definition of the United Nations Genocide Convention.  We want to underscore that it is not just Armenians who are affirming the Armenian Genocide but it is the overwhelming opinion of scholars who study genocide: hundreds of independent scholars, who have no affiliations with governments, and whose work spans many countries and nationalities and the course of decades. The scholarly evidence reveals the following:

 

       On April 24, 1915, under cover of World War I, the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire began a systematic genocide of its Armenian citizens – an unarmed Christian minority population. More than a million Armenians were exterminated through direct killing, starvation, torture, and forced death marches. The rest of the Armenian population fled into permanent exile. Thus an ancient civilization was expunged from its homeland of 2,500 years.

 

       The Armenian Genocide was the most well-known human rights issue of its time and was reported regularly in newspapers across the United States and Europe. The Armenian Genocide is abundantly documented by thousands of official records of the United States and nations around the world including Turkey’s wartime allies Germany, Austria and Hungary,  by Ottoman court-martial records, by eyewitness accounts of missionaries and diplomats, by the testimony of survivors, and by decades of historical scholarship.

 

       The Armenian Genocide is corroborated by the international scholarly, legal, and human rights community:

       1) Polish jurist Raphael Lemkin, when he coined the term genocide in 1944, cited the Turkish extermination of the Armenians and the Nazi extermination of the Jews as defining examples of what he meant by genocide.

       2) The killings of the Armenians is genocide as defined by the 1948  United Nations  Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

       3)  In 1997 the International Association of Genocide Scholars,  an organization of the world’s foremost experts on genocide, unanimously passed a formal resolution affirming the Armenian Genocide.

       4) 126 leading scholars of the Holocaust including Elie Wiesel  and Yehuda Bauer placed a statement in the New York Times in June 2000 declaring the “incontestable fact of the Armenian Genocide†and urging western democracies to acknowledge it.

       5) The Institute on the Holocaust and Genocide (Jerusalem), and the Institute for the Study of Genocide (NYC) have  affirmed the historical fact of the Armenian Genocide.

       6) Leading texts in the international law of genocide such as William A. Schabas’s Genocide in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2000) cite the Armenian Genocide as a precursor to the Holocaust and as a precedent for the law on crimes against humanity.

 

       We  note that there may be differing  interpretations of genocide—how and why the Armenian Genocide happened, but to deny its factual and moral  reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history. 

 

       We would also note that scholars who advise your government and who are affiliated in other ways with your state-controlled institutions are not impartial. Such  so-called “scholars†work to serve the agenda  of historical and moral obfuscation when they advise you and the Turkish Parliament on how to deny the Armenian Genocide. In preventing a conference on the Armenian Genocide from taking place at Bogacizi University in Istanbul on May 25, your government revealed its aversion to academic and intellectual freedom—a fundamental  condition of democratic society.       

 

We believe that it is clearly in the interest of the Turkish people and their future as a proud and equal participants in international, democratic discourse to acknowledge the responsibility of a previous government for the genocide of the Armenian people, just as the German government and people have done in the case of the Holocaust.

 

Approved Unanimously at the  Sixth biennial meeting of

THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GENOCIDE SCHOLARS (IAGS)

June 7, 2005, Boca Raton, Florida

 

 

 

 

And;

 

 

 

Please show us proof of these vast concentration/extermination camps. The rest of the atrocities you mention are not much worse then disintegrating hundreds of thousands instantly into their atomic particles, or letting them die a prolonged death thanks to radiation.

 

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. 

[Rozalia]

No matter how much you play with words, you cannot hide your hypocrisy Rozalia. You are claiming that I am an Armenian Genocide denier. Even that sentence assumes that the events are without doubt a genocide, and I am denying some factual truth. You are mistaken. Firstly, I do not deny that hundreds of thousands of Armenians have perished. Neither do I claim that this was something that should have been done, or claim that the perpetrators deserved nothing less than execution. However, when you start throwing around concepts like "genocide", I take an issue.

 

Killing and deporting the Armenians, however "justified" it could be in a time of war where the Armenians had backstabbed the Turks, siding with Russians and attacking Turkish villages and civilians, constituted at least ethnic cleansing. However, your insistence on calling it a genocide whereas you do not call other similar acts of brutality not genocides implies that what happened to the Armenians was (1) on the level of the actual Holocaust (2) worse than all the events I counted. That is patently false, and that is what I am challenging.

 

You attempt to show as if I am as unreasonable as claiming Holocaust was OK. While, being a fascist, you might have approved of the genocide of the Jews and others, what Nazi Germany pulled and what Ottoman Empire tried to do are extremely different. For one, the Ottoman Empire had nowhere near the capabilities or the organization of Nazi Germany. The bulk of the Armenian deaths were a result of forcing the Armenians to relocate, and exposing them to the elements. If you had even a small inkling of knowledge of history, you would know that attrition due to diseases and cold killed more soldiers than the enemy in that age and in the extremely harsh climates of Eastern Anatolia. For those who don't know, Eastern Anatolia has mountains as tall as 5/7ths of Mount Everest in Himalayas. Armenians, being forced to move, died in droves to diseases, hunger, and cold.

 

The rest of the deaths were due to Kurdish militias and robbers killing and looting the Armenians. The Ottoman leaders at that time told the Kurds that they would turn a blind eye if the Kurds murdered the Armenians and took their stuff. And Kurds being Kurds did exactly that.

 

Now, these are horrible things. But if you are going to claim that this is on the level of Nazi Concentration Camps where they were trying to devise ways to kill people efficiently, and somehow worse than nuking 200k people in the blink of an eye, then you are just being either dishonest, or have zero common sense and act according to a set of ethics I cannot fathom.

 

Also, thanks once again for showing your ignorance of history: Turkey lost World War 1 and was reduced to a fraction of Anatolia. Turks lost against the Russians, and all the Entente countries. Just look for the map of the Sevres treaty I posted before. Turkey lost perhaps 90% of its territory between 1914-1918, and 1915 was a response to Armenians siding with the Russians, resulting in the defeat of Sarikamis where 100,000 Turkish soldiers perished. I am not counting the civilian casualties due to Armenians giving as good as they got against Turkish civilians (which is never mentioned in the West because Muslims are bugs whereas Armenians, being Christians, are valuable human beings).

 

"I acknowledge and accept that Turkey committed the terrible act of ethnic cleansing on the Armenian people"

 

I won't call it genocide unless the rest of mankind calls the other events and countless more I mentioned genocide, because that would imply it was worse than those events, but it is not. If you claim I am a genocide denier, then I claim you are a denier of many other genocides many of which I believe were much worse and unjustifiable than the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians.

 

 

I am claiming? You say as such yourself. You'll admit to the genocide... but only if we agree with you that Turkey should be cleared of any wrong doing as they were fully justified apparently, what a farce. 

 

Already answered your talk of betrayal before, it's the same sort of thin gthe Nazis used but it had a bit more to it yes. The Armenians fought back at times, they were after all purposely dealt with harshly and provoked into rebellion, but you'll leave that part out of it. No, the big bad Armenians just decided they were going to cause trouble one day. However let me see what this stabbing consisted off... oh this appears to be it. 

 

 

Before entering the war, the Ottoman government had sent representatives to the Armenian congress at Erzurum to persuade Ottoman Armenians to facilitate its conquest of Transcaucasia by inciting an insurrection of Russian Armenians against the Russian army in the event a Caucasus front was opened

 

On 24 December 1914, Minister of War Enver Pasha implemented a plan to encircle and destroy the Russian Caucasus Army at Sarikamish in order to regain territories lost to Russia after the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–78. Enver Pasha's forces were routed in the battle, and almost completely destroyed. Returning to Constantinople, Enver Pasha publicly blamed his defeat on Armenians in the region having actively sided with the Russians.[38]:200

 

On 25 February 1915, the Ottoman General Staff released the War Minister Enver Pasha's Directive 8682 on "Increased security and precautions" to all military units calling for the removal of all ethnic Armenians serving in the Ottoman forces from their posts and for their demobilization. They were assigned to the unarmed Labour battalions (Turkish: amele taburlari). The directive accused the Armenian Patriarchate of releasing State secrets to the Russians. Enver Pasha explained this decision as "out of fear that they would collaborate with the Russians".[51] Traditionally, the Ottoman Army only drafted non-Muslim males between the ages of 20 and 45 into the regular army. The younger (15–20) and older (45–60) non-Muslim soldiers had always been used as logistical support through the labour battalions. Before February, some of the Armenian recruits were utilized as labourers (hamals), though they would ultimately be executed.[52]

 

Transferring Armenian conscripts from active combat to passive, unarmed logistic sections was an important precursor to the subsequent genocide. As reported in The Memoirs of Naim Bey, the execution of the Armenians in these battalions was part of a premeditated strategy of the CUP. Many of these Armenian recruits were executed by local Turkish gangs.[38]:178

 

On 19 April 1915, Jevdet Bey demanded that the city of Van immediately furnish him 4,000 soldiers under the pretext of conscription. However, it was clear to the Armenian population that his goal was to massacre the able-bodied men of Van so that there would be no defenders. Jevdet Bey had already used his official writ in nearby villages, ostensibly to search for arms, but in fact to initiate wholesale massacres.[38]:202 The Armenians offered five hundred soldiers and exemption money for the rest in order to buy time, but Jevdet Bey accused the Armenians of "rebellion" and asserted his determination to "crush" it at any cost. "If the rebels fire a single shot", he declared, "I shall kill every Christian man, woman, and" (pointing to his knee) "every child, up to here".[53]:205

 

The next day, 20 April 1915, the siege of Van began when an Armenian woman was harassed, and the two Armenian men who came to her aid were killed by Ottoman soldiers. The Armenian defenders protected the 30,000 residents and 15,000 refugees living in an area of roughly one square kilometer of the Armenian Quarter and suburb of Aigestan with 1,500 ablebodied riflemen who were supplied with 300 rifles and 1,000 pistols and antique weapons. The conflict lasted until General Yudenich of Russia came to their rescue.[54]

 

Reports of the conflict reached then United States Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire Henry Morgenthau, Sr. from Aleppo and Van, prompting him to raise the issue in person with Talaat and Enver. As he quoted to them the testimonies of his consulate officials, they justified the deportations as necessary to the conduct of the war, suggesting that complicity of the Armenians of Van with the Russian forces that had taken the city justified the persecution of all ethnic Armenians.

 

You know Turks cause some issues in Germany where there is a significant number. Shall Germany deport all of them? According to your logic I'd even think they could go so far as to kill them all, wait sorry my mistake, deport them but kill most of them while doing it. In short you're repeating Turkish propaganda used to justify their vile acts. It's difficult to say it's Nazi tactics when it seems Turkish tactics is more appropriate perhaps. 

Oh and those children, women, and old folk who were marched to their death and beaten, raped, and shot? Totally deserved it, yes. 

 

You just cannot resist trying to poison the well can you? What would it matter in the context of the conversation if I were a fascist? It's irrelevant.

 

The Kurds who the Turks had ordered to do such things, love it. If I order someone to hurt someone I'm free from blame, thats how the world works. 

 

Here you go again, trying to make the Turks the victims in a genocide they committed though lets remember that wasn't the only genocide they committed... but I'm sure you excuse that too. Yes we're all picking on you because you're a Turk/Muslim, not because outside Turkey even the blind can see the blindingly obvious or anything. It's wrong anyway as you know full well most people on here support the Kurds who are... uh... Christian yes, they're all Christians fighting the likes of ISIS and... some other guys. 

 

"I acknowledge and accept that Turkey committed the terrible act of ethnic cleansing on the Armenian people"

 

(referring to genocide) Then neither was what happened to the Armenians.

 

You are a Armenian genocide denier in your own words and before you accuse me of accusing you I've given you plenty of opportunities and you cannot resist downplaying, excusing, justifying it all.

 

So why do this? It religion? It Nationalism? Or just some sort of shame as a Turk? Well I doubt we will ever know the motivation, but if you are a Turk you should not be ashamed of your people/countries past, you must face up to it and then overcome it. I certainly wouldn't want the Turks to start acting like many of the Germans who feel so guilty they've become essentially suicidal as a people, their penance they think. Acknowledging, accepting that it happened, and then trying to mend bridges... that is what you have to do to move forward. No point holding on to these old hatreds... of course I am aware that isn't exactly a popular thing to do in Turkey. 

[WISD0MTREE]

the turks dindu nuffin

Wow, these journalists must have absolutely nothing to do during a war. 

 

From the New York Times website: 

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02E0D6113FE633A25752C1A9679C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C03E6DB1338E633A25757C2A9639C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9F02E4D91038E633A25751C1A9619C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9900E3DF133FE233A2575AC2A9619C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=980CE4DE133FE233A25757C0A96E9C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9503EFDB1239E333A25755C2A9669D946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B03E6D71539E333A25753C2A96E9C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B02E1DD133FE233A25756C2A96E9C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C0DE0DF1239E333A25752C2A96F9C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9B00E0DB133FE233A25756C2A96F9C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C0CE3D71138E633A2575AC2A96F9C946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E02EFDB1431E733A05753C1A9669D946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9502E4DB1239E333A25751C2A9669D946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D07E6D71739E233A25751C1A9649D946496D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9B01E4D9153BE233A25755C0A9649C946796D6CF&legacy=true

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9502E4DB1239E333A25751C2A9669D946496D6CF 

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A02E2DF123AE633A25751C1A9679D946796D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9804E5D81438EE32A25752C0A9679C946696D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9E04E2D9153FE432A25753C3A96F9C946696D6CF

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9803EFD81E39E13ABC4C52DFB2668382609EDE

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D07E0D61E39E13ABC4953DFB0668382609EDE

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A02E2DF123AE633A25751C1A9679D946796D6CF

 

From .edu or .gov sites: 

http://chgs.umn.edu/histories/armenian/mnNews/pdf/DuluthTribune13Sept1915.pdf

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1919-07-27/ed-1/seq-56.pdf

http://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/lccn/sn83030214/1919-07-13/ed-1/seq-58.pdf

https://umdearborn.edu/dept/armenian/bts/JANUARYArmenianGenocideArticleCRIMESOFTURKISHMISRULE.pdf

 

And one from the Red Cross because my cousin passed his TB test to volunteer today: 

http://www.armenews.com/IMG/The_Red_Cross_March_1918.pdf

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Strawman at its finest.. 

 

What a funny post. You gave me a definition of genocide, and it turns out nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki fits right into that definition. This is not called a strawman, dear, this is called applying logic to a definition you yourself provided. It is not my fault that you chose a very broad definition of genocide. With that definition, anything can be classified as genocide.

 

Now, dear, why do you ignore how your arguments were turned right against you when you claimed nuking Japan was not a genocide? Any argument you can find to defend nuking Japan would apply equally well if not better in the case of what happened to the Armenians.

 

I won't deal with the rest of your post, which is basically "NANANA I CANNOT HEAR YOU, HERE IS WHAT ARMENIANS HAVE WRITTEN, NANANA!"

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I am claiming? You say as such yourself. You'll admit to the genocide... but only if we agree with you that Turkey should be cleared of any wrong doing as they were fully justified apparently, what a farce. 

 

Factually incorrect. Turkey is not cleared of any wrong doing. However, Turkey is not alone in the long list of countries who have committed genocide according to your broad definition. That list contains the United States of America for sure. Sorry pal, that's the truth.

 

Already answered your talk of betrayal before, it's the same sort of thin gthe Nazis used but it had a bit more to it yes. The Armenians fought back at times, they were after all purposely dealt with harshly and provoked into rebellion, but you'll leave that part out of it. No, the big bad Armenians just decided they were going to cause trouble one day. However let me see what this stabbing consisted off... oh this appears to be it. 

 

Did I say anything about whether the Armenians were justified in backing the Russians? Nope, I did not. I presented as a fact that Armenians did indeed fight against the country, and attack Turkish civilians, though, which is a fact. Now, I don't know what happens in lalaland, but any country responds to such an uprising with force. The Ottoman Empire did so as well.

 

You know Turks cause some issues in Germany where there is a significant number. Shall Germany deport all of them? According to your logic I'd even think they could go so far as to kill them all, wait sorry my mistake, deport them but kill most of them while doing it. In short you're repeating Turkish propaganda used to justify their vile acts. It's difficult to say it's Nazi tactics when it seems Turkish tactics is more appropriate perhaps. 

Oh and those children, women, and old folk who were marched to their death and beaten, raped, and shot? Totally deserved it, yes. 

 

Who said they deserved it? I totally agree that it is a humanitarian disgrace. However, it is not genocide. If it is genocide, nuking Japan is also genocide, along many other atrocities committed in history by various countries. 

 

You just cannot resist trying to poison the well can you? What would it matter in the context of the conversation if I were a fascist? It's irrelevant.

 

It is relevant in that you are backing the Armenian Genocide narrative just because you hate Turks, because they are Eastern and largely Muslims.

 

The Kurds who the Turks had ordered to do such things, love it. If I order someone to hurt someone I'm free from blame, thats how the world works. 

 

Nope, no one said the triumvirate or their servants were without blame. On the contrary, I have already stated that their punishment should have been nothing short of execution. Foiled again.

 

Here you go again, trying to make the Turks the victims in a genocide they committed though lets remember that wasn't the only genocide they committed... but I'm sure you excuse that too. Yes we're all picking on you because you're a Turk/Muslim, not because outside Turkey even the blind can see the blindingly obvious or anything. It's wrong anyway as you know full well most people on here support the Kurds who are... uh... Christian yes, they're all Christians fighting the likes of ISIS and... some other guys. 

 

Your bones for Kurds is due to Kurds being the footsoldiers of the US in the region against ISIS, and against Saddam back in the day. No wonder you like your mercenaries more.

 

You are a Armenian genocide denier in your own words and before you accuse me of accusing you I've given you plenty of opportunities and you cannot resist downplaying, excusing, justifying it all.

 

I am not downplaying anything. I said that if you accept nuking Japan was genocide, then I would agree that what Armenians went through is genocide. But you cannot do so, because you are a hypocrite. 

 

So why do this? It religion? It Nationalism? Or just some sort of shame as a Turk? Well I doubt we will ever know the motivation, but if you are a Turk you should not be ashamed of your people/countries past, you must face up to it and then overcome it. I certainly wouldn't want the Turks to start acting like many of the Germans who feel so guilty they've become essentially suicidal as a people, their penance they think. Acknowledging, accepting that it happened, and then trying to mend bridges... that is what you have to do to move forward. No point holding on to these old hatreds... of course I am aware that isn't exactly a popular thing to do in Turkey. 

 

I am not ashamed of my country's past, as I see myself as an individual not tied to any greater group. In fact, I would not give a rat's ass about Turkey if I was not identifiable as ethnically Turkish, However, whenever I mention that I am a Turk to someone, I am confronted with the lies Armenian Genocide lobbyists feed the Western media and public. So, I have to care, because apparently people who know of my ethnic origin think I am to blame somehow. So I only care about Armenian Genocide because of the racism of Westerners who cannot comprehend that events that happened 100 years ago should have zero bearing on humans today.

 

My replies are bolded. I hope you start reading what I type instead of lying. Many of your statements were factually incorrect.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

lots of links that show the ethnic cleansing happened

 

No shit, Sherlock. No one claims it didn't happen. My claim is that it is not a genocide moreso than nuking Japan (we will go with that example instead of other candidates because that's the one annoys Americans the most, xdxd).

[Kemal Ergenekon]

But the nuking of Japan arguably saved millions of Japanese lives and hundreds of thousands of allied lives (mainly Americans) and the populace was warned numerous times.

In fact, even after the second bomb was dropped there was an attempted coup against the emperor (something completely unheard of) by junior military officers to continue the war.

I don't think you understand the fanaticism the Japanese people held during that time. If we hadn't nuked them, some cities would have literally fought to the last man, and have the women and children commit suicide. 

 

That's a very flimsy argument. Then, I can similarly argue that deporting the Armenians arguably saved millions of Turkish lives. This is not a stretch of logic, because the Armenians were attacking Turkish civilians just as good as they got, and they supported Russians. And we know being invaded by Russians is not a very enjoyable process. The moment you start getting into such "greater good" calculus based on hypotheticals, you deviate from objective analysis. I know about Japans situation, and I do not see killing 200k Japanese civilians in the blink of an eye as an ethically acceptable tradeoff for American SOLDIER lives saved. Obliterating cities is a "war crime". It is total war. It is genocide. Calling it genocide does not make it better than the alternatives. But it IS genocide.

Now the firebombing of Japan... That, was technically a genocide.

 

I don't see how that's different than Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both kill Japanese civilians and wreck cities, no?

[Rozalia]

1: Factually incorrect. Turkey is not cleared of any wrong doing. However, Turkey is not alone in the long list of countries who have committed genocide according to your broad definition. That list contains the United States of America for sure. Sorry pal, that's the truth.

 

2: Did I say anything about whether the Armenians were justified in backing the Russians? Nope, I did not. I presented as a fact that Armenians did indeed fight against the country, and attack Turkish civilians, though, which is a fact. Now, I don't know what happens in lalaland, but any country responds to such an uprising with force. The Ottoman Empire did so as well.

 

3: Who said they deserved it? I totally agree that it is a humanitarian disgrace. However, it is not genocide. If it is genocide, nuking Japan is also genocide, along many other atrocities committed in history by various countries. 

 

4: It is relevant in that you are backing the Armenian Genocide narrative just because you hate Turks, because they are Eastern and largely Muslims.

 

5: Nope, no one said the triumvirate or their servants were without blame. On the contrary, I have already stated that their punishment should have been nothing short of execution. Foiled again.

 

6: Your bones for Kurds is due to Kurds being the footsoldiers of the US in the region against ISIS, and against Saddam back in the day. No wonder you like your mercenaries more.

 

7: I am not downplaying anything. I said that if you accept nuking Japan was genocide, then I would agree that what Armenians went through is genocide. But you cannot do so, because you are a hypocrite. 

 

8: I am not ashamed of my country's past, as I see myself as an individual not tied to any greater group. In fact, I would not give a rat's ass about Turkey if I was not identifiable as ethnically Turkish, However, whenever I mention that I am a Turk to someone, I am confronted with the lies Armenian Genocide lobbyists feed the Western media and public. So, I have to care, because apparently people who know of my ethnic origin think I am to blame somehow. So I only care about Armenian Genocide because of the racism of Westerners who cannot comprehend that events that happened 100 years ago should have zero bearing on humans today.

 

1: Misconstrued. I never said Turkey was cleared of any wrong doings or anything. What I said was for you to admit to the truth we'd have to coddle you and agree that Turkey did no real bad thing. Considering your statements that was shown to be fully accurate. You'll admit to bad actions on Turkey's part... but only if we recognise that others did bad things too (that lessens it?) and that the Armenians bloody deserved it yeah. Turkish propaganda used to justify the killings told us so.

 

2: No actually. When the Irish opposed Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s he entered Ireland and killed entire towns and bring the Island under control which then lead to expulsions and a famine that wiped out 20-40% of the Irish people. When the Irish opposed again in the 1900s Britain's response wasn't to to put whole towns to death. The Irish were a people often suffering from genocide, sad stuff. Point is that no you cannot justify things like that. It was not the 1600s or the 1200s or some other date. In fact I'd say Turkey's situation is a much worse one, Cromwell at the very least did not incite the Irish so he could hammer them. The Turks purposely incited the Armenians so they could carry out these sort of crimes in response.

 

3: Your false equivalency fools no one. Neither does your attempt to cast the Turks as the victims for that matter.

 

4: The easy response is to state that you're only pushing so hard against this because you're a Turk, but I don't need to as that'd be going down to your level. If I hate Turks or not is quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. 

 

5: Just another shield for Turkey the country is what that is. If you can throw them under the bus then I'm afraid Turkey owns it also, thats how things work I'm afraid. 

 

6: I opposed the Iraq war, the Libyan intervention, the attempted one in Syria, and all the other garbage so sorry, no. If you wonder why people support them it'd have something to do with being an oppressed people for a long time and fighting ISIS while Turkey plays the part of the scumbag and attacks them and aids ISIS. Perhaps that isn't Turkey's fault either? It's all big bad America's fault too? Sure, screw America on that also, what now?

 

7: No, what you did was you provided a bunch of incidents of varying degrees. After seeing that only the nuking of Japan one would work as the rest would be easily recognised as genocides, you brought forth a false equivalency and proclaim that anyone who doesn't accept your false equivalency as true is a hypocrite, and if they're a hypocrite then everything they've said against poor Turkey is wrong too. That is the thought process. If that hadn't initially worked you would have just got some other mass killing and then asked everyone to see that as a genocide too. "Hey guyz, an American bomb killed 50 Iraqis, thats a lot of people, genocide yeah?"

 

8: Armenian Genocide lobbyists, that well known powerful group. In actuality Turkey is the powerful one and only through their influence has it taken so long for genocides (this goes beyond just the Armenians) to be recognised, but no, the big bad Armenians are the bad guys, Turkey is the poor victim.

 

To be clear on this, no one confronted you on this when you said you were Turkish. Someone posted it as Cenk infamously is a progressive who takes such a position (I'm not putting took as he didn't actually change his position, merely rephrased it to sound nicer). You engaged and we went from there but there is no Turkish hate involved. 

 

I just told you that you aren't to blame, thats the German cuck way. You're obviously not to blame, but Turkey as a country (including yourself) has to recognise it's misdeeds, simple as that. That doesn't demean you, it doesn't make you lesser in some manner, it doesn't damage Turkey, on the contrary I'd say it would come off as positive. 

 

When we have a country like Turkey that denies it's genocides and has been carrying out a campaign on a minority group within it's borders... yes, what happened 100 years ago becomes concerning. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

1: Misconstrued. I never said Turkey was cleared of any wrong doings or anything. What I said was for you to admit to the truth we'd have to coddle you and agree that Turkey did no real bad thing. Considering your statements that was shown to be fully accurate. You'll admit to bad actions on Turkey's part... but only if we recognise that others did bad things too (that lessens it?) and that the Armenians bloody deserved it yeah. Turkish propaganda used to justify the killings told us so.

 

2: No actually. When the Irish opposed Oliver Cromwell in the 1600s he entered Ireland and killed entire towns and bring the Island under control which then lead to expulsions and a famine that wiped out 20-40% of the Irish people. When the Irish opposed again in the 1900s Britain's response wasn't to to put whole towns to death. The Irish were a people often suffering from genocide, sad stuff. Point is that no you cannot justify things like that. It was not the 1600s or the 1200s or some other date. In fact I'd say Turkey's situation is a much worse one, Cromwell at the very least did not incite the Irish so he could hammer them. The Turks purposely incited the Armenians so they could carry out these sort of crimes in response.

 

3: Your false equivalency fools no one. Neither does your attempt to cast the Turks as the victims for that matter.

 

4: The easy response is to state that you're only pushing so hard against this because you're a Turk, but I don't need to as that'd be going down to your level. If I hate Turks or not is quite irrelevant to the matter at hand. 

 

5: Just another shield for Turkey the country is what that is. If you can throw them under the bus then I'm afraid Turkey owns it also, thats how things work I'm afraid. 

 

6: I opposed the Iraq war, the Libyan intervention, the attempted one in Syria, and all the other garbage so sorry, no. If you wonder why people support them it'd have something to do with being an oppressed people for a long time and fighting ISIS while Turkey plays the part of the scumbag and attacks them and aids ISIS. Perhaps that isn't Turkey's fault either? It's all big bad America's fault too? Sure, screw America on that also, what now?

 

7: No, what you did was you provided a bunch of incidents of varying degrees. After seeing that only the nuking of Japan one would work as the rest would be easily recognised as genocides, you brought forth a false equivalency and proclaim that anyone who doesn't accept your false equivalency as true is a hypocrite, and if they're a hypocrite then everything they've said against poor Turkey is wrong too. That is the thought process. If that hadn't initially worked you would have just got some other mass killing and then asked everyone to see that as a genocide too. "Hey guyz, an American bomb killed 50 Iraqis, thats a lot of people, genocide yeah?"

 

8: Armenian Genocide lobbyists, that well known powerful group. In actuality Turkey is the powerful one and only through their influence has it taken so long for genocides (this goes beyond just the Armenians) to be recognised, but no, the big bad Armenians are the bad guys, Turkey is the poor victim.

 

To be clear on this, no one confronted you on this when you said you were Turkish. Someone posted it as Cenk infamously is a progressive who takes such a position (I'm not putting took as he didn't actually change his position, merely rephrased it to sound nicer). You engaged and we went from there but there is no Turkish hate involved. 

 

I just told you that you aren't to blame, thats the German cuck way. You're obviously not to blame, but Turkey as a country (including yourself) has to recognise it's misdeeds, simple as that. That doesn't demean you, it doesn't make you lesser in some manner, it doesn't damage Turkey, on the contrary I'd say it would come off as positive. 

 

When we have a country like Turkey that denies it's genocides and has been carrying out a campaign on a minority group within it's borders... yes, what happened 100 years ago becomes concerning. 

 

 

1) You are really suffering from comprehension problems, Rozalia. I did not say you said Turkey was cleared of any wrong doing. I did not say Turkey was cleared of any wrong doing either. You said that I implied Turkey was cleared of any wrong doing. I did not. You were wrong. Now you are not wrong, but confused. 

 

The government of Turkey and many collaborators did unspeakable things. Its evil is not lessened by other atrocities committed in the world. But recognizing those and not singling out what happened in Turkey as the only genocide that happened beyond the Holocaust is complete BS. Other countries committed equivalent crimes, if not worse. United States of America included.

 

The way I see it, Americans and Europeans condemning Turkey for the Armenian genocide is like a group of thieves and murderers accusing someone else out of their group of being a murderer. Are they correct? Yeah, I guess so. Do they have any ground to stand on without acknowledging their own murders? Hell no. That's what we folks call hypocrisy.

 

2) I did not justify anything pal. You are still confused. I am not saying that the government at the time was right. I am saying that if you are going to call Turkey out for genocide, then call other countries for their shit as well. You gave a nice example from Great Britain, which is sadly not the only atrocity they committed. Do you see anyone forcing themselves into studio's of British media people, and asking them whether they are an Irish Genocide Denier? No? Do foreigners ask you about the Japanese Genocide when you tell them you are an American? No? Wow, I wonder why that's the case. Maybe it's because of all the lobbying efforts by the Armenians just to badmouth Turkish people in general for what happened a century ago. As if the Turks today are still culpable. Ridiculous.

 

3) This is not a false equivalence. Americans did murder 200,000 Japanese civilians. Whitewash it all you like, but it was one of the greatest atrocities mankind has ever witnessed. And it is genocide by the definitions you apply to call what happened in 1915 a genocide.

 

4) It's true that I am pushing so hard because ethnically I am a Turk. This is because the actions of the Armenian lobby have real life consequences for me. Turks everywhere in the west are constantly trolled by Armenian Genocide lobbyists. Do you think that's enjoyable? You of all people, who condemn SJWs whenever you can, should find that intolerable. But consistency and Rozalia are very distant concepts, I know.

 

5) Oh my god. Now you are going to say that an action by one individual in a group makes the whole group accountable including future generations? Am I understanding you correctly, pal?

 

6) Words are wind. Tell me why you like Kurds more than Turks, then. A shame that they were the ones who did most of the murdering, raping and pillaging.

 

7) No, I am focusing now on the nuking of Japan because that's the one most people on the forum can relate to. I don't think what happened in Belgium or the native Americans, etc etc are any better. I have already answered your false claim about the appropriateness of the particular example.

 

8) If Turkey was the stronger party, you wouldn't be hysterically concerned about what happened in 1915 because you wouldn't have heard about that particular atrocity in the long list of atrocities committed by humans in the 20th century and before. Would it make it into top 100? I guess so. Top 10? Impossible. Yet it is the most well-known "genocide" after the Holocaust. This inappropriately high popularity owes to the tremendous efforts of the Armenian lobby. It is also quite effective because Westerners are always ready to hate Muslims, and Turks in particular, who made Europeans live in fear for centuries.

 

Your clarification is unconvincing. People who target Cenk did so because of the undue attention paid to what happened in 1915. I already talked about why this is so popular. You carried this piece of laughable news to the forums, thinking it important. So if you didn't do this because you care so much about the Armenian Genocide, why did you find it worthy of sharing? Because Cenk is a Turk? Or a progressive? I don't think he is a Muslim. What exactly?

 

I think Turkey should do more to recognize what happened in 1915 and find a middle way with Armenia. But I doubt it is going to happen. However Turkey officially recognizing it as genocide would require transfer of money and land to Armenia, and there is no chance that's going to happen.

 

I would be the first to criticize what Turkey is doing today. But the Western media cares very little about the plight of secular Turks today, as opposed to Armenians a century ago. Again, this brings us to a very old debate about how the Westerners value Christians more than Muslims.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Again, nuking Japan is not a genocide. It was an act of war. Against a hostile nation. In an attempt to end a war. Which it did.

 

Let me get this clear: You claim that destroying the civilian population of an enemy country in hundreds of thousands when it is avoidable, cannot be called genocide, because it's war and anything goes in war?

[----]

While the topic has drifted towards the very serious matter of genocide, which I hardly wish to denigrate or make light of, I will pose this somewhat rhetorical question.

 

I speak very generally, so please excuse some inevitable inaccuracy.

Just imagine what that region would have looked like if the English had been less obstinate against Russian expansion. It is quite likely that there would not have been a Crimean War, or Russia would have emerged victorious from that war. In all liklihood we would be speaking of «Tsar'grad» (ТÑарьград) and a Russian Bosporus. I somehow think that many of the present Middle Eastern tensions would not exist in such an arrangement. Any opinions (besides those of Turkish nationalists)?

[----]

Let me get this clear: You claim that destroying the civilian population of an enemy country in hundreds of thousands when it is avoidable, cannot be called genocide, because it's war and anything goes in war?

As somebody who has studied genocide in an academic setting, I can propose some sort of answer. Wartime civilian deaths (deliberate) as part of a larger plan, such as bringing about the surrender of said population's leadership, indicate a goal other than elimination. Civilian deaths with no apparent tactical value (including subjugation), cannot be presumed to possess an aim other than purely the elimination of said population. This is not a moral criteria or any attempt to exonerate the 'tactical' killing of civilian populations in wartime, but merely a legal distinction brought up in genocide studies.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Klemens Hawicki

[Rozalia]

1) You are really suffering from comprehension problems, Rozalia. I did not say you said Turkey was cleared of any wrong doing. I did not say Turkey was cleared of any wrong doing either. You said that I implied Turkey was cleared of any wrong doing. I did not. You were wrong. Now you are not wrong, but confused. 

 

The government of Turkey and many collaborators did unspeakable things. Its evil is not lessened by other atrocities committed in the world. But recognizing those and not singling out what happened in Turkey as the only genocide that happened beyond the Holocaust is complete BS. Other countries committed equivalent crimes, if not worse. United States of America included.

 

The way I see it, Americans and Europeans condemning Turkey for the Armenian genocide is like a group of thieves and murderers accusing someone else out of their group of being a murderer. Are they correct? Yeah, I guess so. Do they have any ground to stand on without acknowledging their own murders? Hell no. That's what we folks call hypocrisy.

 

2) I did not justify anything pal. You are still confused. I am not saying that the government at the time was right. I am saying that if you are going to call Turkey out for genocide, then call other countries for their shit as well. You gave a nice example from Great Britain, which is sadly not the only atrocity they committed. Do you see anyone forcing themselves into studio's of British media people, and asking them whether they are an Irish Genocide Denier? No? Do foreigners ask you about the Japanese Genocide when you tell them you are an American? No? Wow, I wonder why that's the case. Maybe it's because of all the lobbying efforts by the Armenians just to badmouth Turkish people in general for what happened a century ago. As if the Turks today are still culpable. Ridiculous.

 

3) This is not a false equivalence. Americans did murder 200,000 Japanese civilians. Whitewash it all you like, but it was one of the greatest atrocities mankind has ever witnessed. And it is genocide by the definitions you apply to call what happened in 1915 a genocide.

 

4) It's true that I am pushing so hard because ethnically I am a Turk. This is because the actions of the Armenian lobby have real life consequences for me. Turks everywhere in the west are constantly trolled by Armenian Genocide lobbyists. Do you think that's enjoyable? You of all people, who condemn SJWs whenever you can, should find that intolerable. But consistency and Rozalia are very distant concepts, I know.

 

5) Oh my god. Now you are going to say that an action by one individual in a group makes the whole group accountable including future generations? Am I understanding you correctly, pal?

 

6) Words are wind. Tell me why you like Kurds more than Turks, then. A shame that they were the ones who did most of the murdering, raping and pillaging.

 

7) No, I am focusing now on the nuking of Japan because that's the one most people on the forum can relate to. I don't think what happened in Belgium or the native Americans, etc etc are any better. I have already answered your false claim about the appropriateness of the particular example.

 

8) If Turkey was the stronger party, you wouldn't be hysterically concerned about what happened in 1915 because you wouldn't have heard about that particular atrocity in the long list of atrocities committed by humans in the 20th century and before. Would it make it into top 100? I guess so. Top 10? Impossible. Yet it is the most well-known "genocide" after the Holocaust. This inappropriately high popularity owes to the tremendous efforts of the Armenian lobby. It is also quite effective because Westerners are always ready to hate Muslims, and Turks in particular, who made Europeans live in fear for centuries.

 

Your clarification is unconvincing. People who target Cenk did so because of the undue attention paid to what happened in 1915. I already talked about why this is so popular. You carried this piece of laughable news to the forums, thinking it important. So if you didn't do this because you care so much about the Armenian Genocide, why did you find it worthy of sharing? Because Cenk is a Turk? Or a progressive? I don't think he is a Muslim. What exactly?

 

I think Turkey should do more to recognize what happened in 1915 and find a middle way with Armenia. But I doubt it is going to happen. However Turkey officially recognizing it as genocide would require transfer of money and land to Armenia, and there is no chance that's going to happen.

 

I would be the first to criticize what Turkey is doing today. But the Western media cares very little about the plight of secular Turks today, as opposed to Armenians a century ago. Again, this brings us to a very old debate about how the Westerners value Christians more than Muslims.

 

 

1: Accusing me of compression problems when you've thrown that up is ironic. What I actually said (third time now) was that to get you to admit to some semblance of guilt on Turkey's part would be to agree that all your little defenses and excuses are legitimate. If we we in essence clear Turkey of wrong doing as there is a sea of difference between genocide and "Turkey did some half-way bad stuff but hey it was justified". 

 

"I did a bad thing mommy but that boy did a bad thing too". That was what you just said summed up. 

 

2: Again, not matching the reality that the only reason it wasn't recognised sooner and by more nations was because of Turkey's influence. As for culpability, it isn't that Turks today are responsible, it's that they like yourself deny it (and you like good old Cenk are a denier as your excuses don't wash sorry).

 

3: A war time act against another heavily militaristic nation with the goal of getting a peace treaty signed == a mass killing of a minority after heavily oppressing the minority and provoking them into opposing them so they could achieve their goal of wiping out Armenian presence in the country. Those two things are not equivalents. The goals were drastically different, there simply being a large amount of deaths present does not mean all scenarios equal each other.

 

4: I don't understand if you really held the attitude you exposed it would matter so much to you then. Some guy mentions Armenian genocide? I'd just say, yeah it was horrible thing that happened and I hope with time more will acknowledge it and we can move onward from it and become friends with the Armenians. It's not rocket science what the correct and proper path to go down on that issue is. You could still take issue with the numbers if you like, perhaps you'd shoot for 1 million instead, whatever. Your problem is not the lowering of the numbers you did at the start, but that it wasn't a genocide (which makes you a denier even if you admit some killing happened). 

Why do you think everyone hits Cenk with that? To troll a Turk? No, it's because denying it puts him (and you) on ridiculously weak ground. 

 

5: These were not random men, leaders no? 

 

6: Here we go. That sort of talk just doesn't work, it's propaganda. Are the Kurds faultless, no. However one party is clearly in the stronger position and the aggressor provoking matters. Just like they did with the Armenians they've been doing very ugly things, in this case the big one being aiding ISIS against the Kurds. No one likes a bully and most don't fall for the "bully is actually the victim" trick.

 

7: No, as I said it only works with that one. Native Americans and Congo (when someone learns of it) are not things that get denied. Japan being nuked being a genocide? Thats a very uncommon position so it works for your purposes.

 

8: Calm down now, it's not exactly a shock if people have heard of genocides. I knew of Congo and that is certainly much well known for example, no lobby involved, I have however looked at the killings that went on in Turkey of Armenians, Greeks, Turks, and other groups. 

 

??? Uh, please go back to the front page and refresh yourself. This thread had nothing to do with Armenia, it was Alex Jones triggering them (nothing related to Armenia either). It was Donald Trump (the poster here) who mentioned it, you responded, and then I responded. My intention in the OP was simply to show a video of Cenk being triggered, and also show that piece of garbage Jimmy Dore spitting in Jone's face. 

 

I am aware of the money and land thing but thats an excuse and you know it. Look south to Israel who will with time consume the entire territory I'm sure. They going to give land back? Not a chance. Turkey can very easily do the same. Anyway I'd actually say you're right to not want to have that land given up, but not wanting that doesn't mean you have to deny this matter.

 

I've talked many times about such things so I'm not someone to be hitting with that.

[WISD0MTREE]

As somebody who has studied genocide in an academic setting, I can propose some sort of answer. Wartime civilian deaths (deliberate) as part of a larger plan, such as bringing about the surrender of said population's leadership, indicate a goal other than elimination. Civilian deaths with no apparent tactical value (including subjugation), cannot be presumed to possess an aim other than purely the elimination of said population. This is not a moral criteria or any attempt to exonerate the 'tactical' killing of civilian populations in wartime, but merely a legal distinction brought up in genocide studies.

Out of curiosity, did you happen to read On Limited Nuclear War in the 21st Century by Jeffrey Larson and Kerry Kartchner? 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

As somebody who has studied genocide in an academic setting, I can propose some sort of answer. Wartime civilian deaths (deliberate) as part of a larger plan, such as bringing about the surrender of said population's leadership, indicate a goal other than elimination. Civilian deaths with no apparent tactical value (including subjugation), cannot be presumed to possess an aim other than purely the elimination of said population. This is not a moral criteria or any attempt to exonerate the 'tactical' killing of civilian populations in wartime, but merely a legal distinction brought up in genocide studies.

 

Then wartime civilian deaths (deliberate) as part of a larger plan to prevent guerrilla activities by the Armenians also indicate a goal other than elimination. You guys are just making this too easy.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Yes and no.

Nagasaki and Hiroshima were not purely civilian targets. They were industrial powerhouses that were bombed frequently in the past. Hiroshima was also home to a large military garrison (of which was annihilated). The Japanese had already shown their willingness to tell civilians things that would cause mass-suicides (as seen as Okinawa) and in fact they had made plans to utilize civilians as basically suicide squads. While of course bombing the two cities was avoidable, so too was invading all those other islands in the Pacific. I mean, I'm sure it would've worked out just fine if we just launched an immediate naval invasion of the Home Islands?

While I abhor the loss of civilian lives, it undeniably saved millions.

 

On to the genocide bit.

Genocide is the deliberate and systematic killing of a people. Killing them because of a nationality, ethnicity, race, or religious belief.

Like the gassing of the Kurds by Saddam or the extermination of the Jews by Hitler (or more accurately Himmler as he devised the plans).

The nuking of the two cities in Japan wasn't unprovoked. It wasn't without warning (the Le-May leaflets. The Truman leaflets were dropped AFTER the bombs were.. so I guess it only counts for Nagasaki)

It wasn't without hesitation and serious moral considerations.

It was in a war between two combatants. And we already know of all the evil, evil things the Japanese Empire did. 

Also what he said.

 

I know you do not want to admit that you are wrong, but your contradictions and flimsy arguments are really not helping the situation.

 

Recall that you said you would consider Tokyo firebombings a genocide, but the nukes not a genocide. By the logic in your current post, Tokyo firebombings would not be a genocide as well. Thus you contradict yourself. But let's carry on.

 

Now you are resorting to a fusillade of excuses as to why nuking whole cities is justified. Let's stop for a second and appreciate what a beautiful human being you are. Now it's time to dissect them one by one.

 

"Not purely civilian targets" -> This is certainly not an excuse. If the aim was to destroy the military installations or the industrial capacity, the US possessed weapons that could do these without obliterating all the civilians in these cities. By your logic, one would be justified in nuking the whole enemy country just because there is industrial capacity and military bases allover the country. Only a genocidal maniac would find this argument convincing. Also keep in mind that to sign a peace agreement, you do not need to destroy all military installations or industrial capacity of an enemy country. They help, but are not necessary.

 

"The Japanese were suicidal and willing to fight to the last person" -> Oh bother. So you had to kill all civilians in advance to break their resolve? Maybe, you know, the US could sign a peace agreement with agreeable terms, as opposed to demanding total surrender of Japan, followed by complete demilitarization and purposeful deindustrialization of the country? Or not rape Japanese women after assuming control? Japan, at that point in time, had already lost the war. People claiming that Japan would never accept any kind of peace agreement are delusional. They were on the brink of collapse, no matter how supposedly motivated their citizens were to die fighting. And this logic would still not excuse the second nuke, since the first should have been enough to break the resolve.

 

"While I abhor the loss of civilian lives, it undeniably saved millions." -> This is exactly the kind of subjective counterfactuals that I am talking about. There is nothing undeniable about your claim. It's pure speculation, and should have zero place in rational debate. This is not a fact, but a claim invented by the American government which decided to test out their new toy on 200,000 poor civilians. Japan had lost the war, they just weren't accepting it. It wouldn't take much to bring them to the peace table if the terms were amenable enough. And saving soldier lives at the cost of civilian lives cannot be justified in my eyes. That can of course be justified by American nationalists who view American soldier lives above Japanese civilian lives. I abhor such people.

 

At the end of the day, despite all these excuses, it was still a war crime and a genocide. Killing 200,000 civilians to win a war is not very different from killing 300,000 Armenians in order to win another war. Same bullshit, different !@#$, so to speak.

 

"The nuking of the two cities in Japan wasn't unprovoked. "

 

Neither was what the Ottoman Empire did against the Armenians unprovoked. It was disgusting, it was a crime, and it was ethnic cleansing. But they had their rationale. Just like how you justify the nuking by claiming American soldier lives are more valuable than Japanese civilian lives, the triumvirate decided that Turkish soldier and civilian lives were more valuable than Armenian civilian lives. So they forcefully relocated them, causing countless deaths due to famine, dehydration, cold and diseases; as well as siccing the Kurds on them and not protecting their rights as subjects of the Empire. Their rationale, however, had the same disgusting nationalist apologizm as your defense of the nukings here.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Then wartime civilian deaths (deliberate) as part of a larger plan to prevent guerrilla activities by the Armenians also indicate a goal other than elimination. You guys are just making this too easy.

When you say, "guerrilla activities by Armenians", are you referencing to the Armenian Fedayi or just unorganized militias?

[Kemal Ergenekon]

1: Accusing me of compression problems when you've thrown that up is ironic. What I actually said (third time now) was that to get you to admit to some semblance of guilt on Turkey's part would be to agree that all your little defenses and excuses are legitimate. If we we in essence clear Turkey of wrong doing as there is a sea of difference between genocide and "Turkey did some half-way bad stuff but hey it was justified". 

 

"I did a bad thing mommy but that boy did a bad thing too". That was what you just said summed up. 

 

2: Again, not matching the reality that the only reason it wasn't recognised sooner and by more nations was because of Turkey's influence. As for culpability, it isn't that Turks today are responsible, it's that they like yourself deny it (and you like good old Cenk are a denier as your excuses don't wash sorry).

 

3: A war time act against another heavily militaristic nation with the goal of getting a peace treaty signed == a mass killing of a minority after heavily oppressing the minority and provoking them into opposing them so they could achieve their goal of wiping out Armenian presence in the country. Those two things are not equivalents. The goals were drastically different, there simply being a large amount of deaths present does not mean all scenarios equal each other.

 

4: I don't understand if you really held the attitude you exposed it would matter so much to you then. Some guy mentions Armenian genocide? I'd just say, yeah it was horrible thing that happened and I hope with time more will acknowledge it and we can move onward from it and become friends with the Armenians. It's not rocket science what the correct and proper path to go down on that issue is. You could still take issue with the numbers if you like, perhaps you'd shoot for 1 million instead, whatever. Your problem is not the lowering of the numbers you did at the start, but that it wasn't a genocide (which makes you a denier even if you admit some killing happened). 

Why do you think everyone hits Cenk with that? To troll a Turk? No, it's because denying it puts him (and you) on ridiculously weak ground. 

 

5: These were not random men, leaders no? 

 

6: Here we go. That sort of talk just doesn't work, it's propaganda. Are the Kurds faultless, no. However one party is clearly in the stronger position and the aggressor provoking matters. Just like they did with the Armenians they've been doing very ugly things, in this case the big one being aiding ISIS against the Kurds. No one likes a bully and most don't fall for the "bully is actually the victim" trick.

 

7: No, as I said it only works with that one. Native Americans and Congo (when someone learns of it) are not things that get denied. Japan being nuked being a genocide? Thats a very uncommon position so it works for your purposes.

 

8: Calm down now, it's not exactly a shock if people have heard of genocides. I knew of Congo and that is certainly much well known for example, no lobby involved, I have however looked at the killings that went on in Turkey of Armenians, Greeks, Turks, and other groups. 

 

??? Uh, please go back to the front page and refresh yourself. This thread had nothing to do with Armenia, it was Alex Jones triggering them (nothing related to Armenia either). It was Donald Trump (the poster here) who mentioned it, you responded, and then I responded. My intention in the OP was simply to show a video of Cenk being triggered, and also show that piece of garbage Jimmy Dore spitting in Jone's face. 

 

I am aware of the money and land thing but thats an excuse and you know it. Look south to Israel who will with time consume the entire territory I'm sure. They going to give land back? Not a chance. Turkey can very easily do the same. Anyway I'd actually say you're right to not want to have that land given up, but not wanting that doesn't mean you have to deny this matter.

 

I've talked many times about such things so I'm not someone to be hitting with that.

 

1) That's exactly what you are doing in the case of nuking Japan. "We nuked the Japs but the Japs were evil too!" - This is exactly what you and Floof Floof are saying, just see the post above. So you are a hypocrite again. I really cannot follow how your mind got stuck somewhere so much so that you cannot understand simple sentences anymore.

 

2) You are accusing me of being a "denier". As I have already mentioned, this is laughable. I am calling you a denier of the Japanese Genocide as well. What are we going to do? At least I am consistent, in that I am saying either both are genocides or both are not. You apply a lax set of standards when the issue is with your country, but stricter standards when you consider Turkey, a country you don't like. This is what we call double standards and hypocrisy, my friend. You are inconsistent.

 

3) The goals were to win a war, and the cost paid was civilian deaths. I can find an equivalent of any excuse you can marshal for the Japanese Genocide that would apply to the Armenian case. You are being deliberately obtuse here, as if I claimed A = B. No, A =/= B, but f(A) = f( where f(.) is what matters regarding genocide status. We applied the rubric someone posted above, and the Japanese Genocide fit every single word in the definition of genocide provided.

 

4) Just as you sanctimoniously attempt to lecture me on what to do ("be a good boy and accept our version of the truth!"), you deny the Japanese Genocide yourself. You defend the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with a nuclear weapon was "OK", because the US needed it to have an advantage in the war they were waging. You put yourself on "ridiculously weak ground" to borrow your own words.

 

5) They were leaders, yes. Your point?

 

6) You are really clueless about the Kurdish situation I guess. Let's talk about it in another thread. You still did not explain your boner for the Kurds.

 

7) Are you real, bro? Native American genocide is openly denied in the US. It's called "massacre" and whatever, but it is never called genocide by the majority of the people and the academics. Let's try it out: Do you accept that the citizens of the United States committed a genocide against Native Americans? Yes? No? New excuses? "We needed the land"?

 

8) If we ranked all atrocities in the 20th century by death toll, Armenian Genocide would not rank up in top 10. But it's the second-most well known genocide. The amount of advertising this topic gets is immense. There are whole special fellowships given to History students who work on pro-Armenia Armenian Genocide studies. Money spent on lobbying is similarly very high. Average Americans usually fail to point where they are on a map, but most have heard of the Armenian Genocide. You cannot deny how well-known it is compared to its death toll.

When you say, "guerrilla activities by Armenians", are you referencing to the Armenian Fedayi or just unorganized militias?

 

I am referencing all violent attacks by Armenians against non-Armenian civilians and Ottoman soldiers.

[Rozalia]

1) That's exactly what you are doing in the case of nuking Japan. "We nuked the Japs but the Japs were evil too!" - This is exactly what you and Floof Floof are saying, just see the post above. So you are a hypocrite again. I really cannot follow how your mind got stuck somewhere so much so that you cannot understand simple sentences anymore.

 

2) You are accusing me of being a "denier". As I have already mentioned, this is laughable. I am calling you a denier of the Japanese Genocide as well. What are we going to do? At least I am consistent, in that I am saying either both are genocides or both are not. You apply a lax set of standards when the issue is with your country, but stricter standards when you consider Turkey, a country you don't like. This is what we call double standards and hypocrisy, my friend. You are inconsistent.

 

3) The goals were to win a war, and the cost paid was civilian deaths. I can find an equivalent of any excuse you can marshal for the Japanese Genocide that would apply to the Armenian case. You are being deliberately obtuse here, as if I claimed A = B. No, A =/= B, but f(A) = f( where f(.) is what matters regarding genocide status. We applied the rubric someone posted above, and the Japanese Genocide fit every single word in the definition of genocide provided.

 

4) Just as you sanctimoniously attempt to lecture me on what to do ("be a good boy and accept our version of the truth!"), you deny the Japanese Genocide yourself. You defend the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians with a nuclear weapon was "OK", because the US needed it to have an advantage in the war they were waging. You put yourself on "ridiculously weak ground" to borrow your own words.

 

5) They were leaders, yes. Your point?

 

6) You are really clueless about the Kurdish situation I guess. Let's talk about it in another thread. You still did not explain your boner for the Kurds.

 

7) Are you real, bro? Native American genocide is openly denied in the US. It's called "massacre" and whatever, but it is never called genocide by the majority of the people and the academics. Let's try it out: Do you accept that the citizens of the United States committed a genocide against Native Americans? Yes? No? New excuses? "We needed the land"?

 

8) If we ranked all atrocities in the 20th century by death toll, Armenian Genocide would not rank up in top 10. But it's the second-most well known genocide. The amount of advertising this topic gets is immense. There are whole special fellowships given to History students who work on pro-Armenia Armenian Genocide studies. Money spent on lobbying is similarly very high. Average Americans usually fail to point where they are on a map, but most have heard of the Armenian Genocide. You cannot deny how well-known it is compared to its death toll.

 

 

1: It's not a matter of evil. It's a matter of circumstances and goal. You will find no one telling you America's goal was to wipe out the Japanese people in Japan. Turkey wiping out Armenians in Turkey however? Yes. If we judged everything that involved a lot of deaths as a genocide regardless of intent then the word would have no meaning. ISIS footsoldier mows down 80 Franks, ISIS just genocided the Franks! Nah.

 

2: ??? You have admitted to being a denier several times now, still you persist with this nonsense that I have accused you. There was no Japanese genocide for reasons that have been laid out to you quite clearly and you have refused to accept as you're attempting to bring about a false equivalence between that and Turkey's genociding so you can say "If you don't recognise one then you're wrong on the other". First that makes no logical sense and second it's irrelevant to yourself and what you think. I've told you to separate all that guff and just state your belief and you've made clear that you deny the genocide. As I told you many times already, if people were here denying the Holocaust your point would still be irrelevant. 

 

3: No, people have already told you the difference in the goals. The goal in Japan was not wiping out a people in a country, while in Turkey it was. It is as simple as that. 

 

4: Again, this false equivalency is the base for your whole argument, it's virtually all you have. If we don't accept this made up genocide of yours that outside the big time anti-nuke crowd no one accepts then nothing we've said matters. Again, it doesn't work like that. What I have said or done is irrelevant to the matter of you denying a genocide. 

 

5: So they represented the country yes?

 

6: "Boners" hehehe. I'll admit something, Turks denying genocide as they are known to do isn't exactly endearing. Not sure why it's such a mystery to you why Turkey isn't supported... oh wait it's all Islamophobia right. We're supporting those stanch Christians the Kurds. 

 

7: Yes. Native Americans is a wide group and not all events were genocidial but overall it was a campaign of genocide if we have to sum it up in a simple yes or no. Oh and no, them fighting back here and there doesn't justify it.

 

8: ??? Not sure what the point of that is. The sinking of the Titanic is extremely well known also... and? Numbers have nothing to do if something sticks in people's minds. Stalin and Mao killed far more than Hitler and their crimes aren't as well known, in fact Mao still has plenty of people who'll defend such things while Hitler? Not so much.  

[Franz Von Dietrich]

-snip-

 

I don't know why you have this mentality of "if the other governments don't recognize their genocides why should we?", but I don't see it as a justification in denying Armenians were a victim of a genocide. Ethnic cleansing is just a whitewash term for referencing to genocides in a somehow positive way.

 

During the years of World War 1, the Ottoman Empire passed this law called the "Tehcir Law" (I'm sure you're aware of it) giving the Ottoman government and military the right to deport anyone they sense a threat to "national security", it went even as far as allowing the confiscation of deported people's property. However, this law was later used to deport huge amount of Armenians from their native homeland, whom would later be killed in death marches, some concentration camps (not extensive, but were there), drownings, burning Armenian villages to the ground, use of poison overdoses or other chemical components, or just outright executions.

 

The definition of genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation". This event, by all means, fits the criteria to be marked down in history as a "genocide". Maybe, it wasn't suppose to be based on systematic killing of the Armenian population at first, but it later developed into mass killing targeting Armenians under the guise of "deportations".  

 

This particular event should go down in history as a "genocide", but the use of "ethnic cleansing" just underplays how tragic and horrifying this event was. Ethnic cleansing, if I may add, usually (if not always) results in mass killing of a targeted group of people. If you compare genocide and ethnic cleansing, they nearly represent the same meaning in reality, hence why several nations and people regard this specific event as a "genocide". 

 

However, back to the point of "well if other governments won't recognize their genocides why should we", is counter-productive and creates a pointless debate of dodging the main question of how this is labeled as a genocide, it shouldn't be viewed as an incentive to disregard mass killings against ethnic groups, religious affiliations, or anyone of any background at all.

 

 

I'm not posting proof as you'll probably dismiss it for some odd reason.

 

edit: I probably should've covered more of the Turkish Republic regime in the 1920's, but you get the point.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Krustev Gunther

[Kemal Ergenekon]

1: It's not a matter of evil. It's a matter of circumstances and goal. You will find no one telling you America's goal was to wipe out the Japanese people in Japan. Turkey wiping out Armenians in Turkey however? Yes. If we judged everything that involved a lot of deaths as a genocide regardless of intent then the word would have no meaning. ISIS footsoldier mows down 80 Franks, ISIS just genocided the Franks! Nah.

 

2: ??? You have admitted to being a denier several times now, still you persist with this nonsense that I have accused you. There was no Japanese genocide for reasons that have been laid out to you quite clearly and you have refused to accept as you're attempting to bring about a false equivalence between that and Turkey's genociding so you can say "If you don't recognise one then you're wrong on the other". First that makes no logical sense and second it's irrelevant to yourself and what you think. I've told you to separate all that guff and just state your belief and you've made clear that you deny the genocide. As I told you many times already, if people were here denying the Holocaust your point would still be irrelevant. 

 

3: No, people have already told you the difference in the goals. The goal in Japan was not wiping out a people in a country, while in Turkey it was. It is as simple as that. 

 

4: Again, this false equivalency is the base for your whole argument, it's virtually all you have. If we don't accept this made up genocide of yours that outside the big time anti-nuke crowd no one accepts then nothing we've said matters. Again, it doesn't work like that. What I have said or done is irrelevant to the matter of you denying a genocide. 

 

5: So they represented the country yes?

 

6: "Boners" hehehe. I'll admit something, Turks denying genocide as they are known to do isn't exactly endearing. Not sure why it's such a mystery to you why Turkey isn't supported... oh wait it's all Islamophobia right. We're supporting those stanch Christians the Kurds. 

 

7: Yes. Native Americans is a wide group and not all events were genocidial but overall it was a campaign of genocide if we have to sum it up in a simple yes or no. Oh and no, them fighting back here and there doesn't justify it.

 

8: ??? Not sure what the point of that is. The sinking of the Titanic is extremely well known also... and? Numbers have nothing to do if something sticks in people's minds. Stalin and Mao killed far more than Hitler and their crimes aren't as well known, in fact Mao still has plenty of people who'll defend such things while Hitler? Not so much.  

 

1) Patently false, provably so. If the aim of Turkey was "wiping out Armenians in Turkey", why were the Armenians in the West untouched? Why did they bother transporting Armenians to other provinces instead of just killing them? Surely, killing people on the spot is easier? Why were those who actually made it to their destinations untouched? You are clearly mistaken in your accusations here.

 

2) I see, you admit that you are a Japanese Genocide Denier. I will "note you down as such" to borrow your own words. The rest of the nonsense really doesn't make any sense.

 

3) See 1. It is patently false.

 

4) On the contrary, it is very relevant, in that I don't give a shit about someone who calls me a denier when he is not only guilty of denying another genocide, but is a hypocrite in the sense that he does not think both are equally deplorable acts. It is all the difference in the world to me. As I said before, the insistence of the West on forcing Turkey to accept the Armenian Genocide is like a gang of murderers trying to make someone they detest admit to being a murderer, whereas they act as if they were upstanding citizens. "Ethics" and "justice" don't work like that.

 

5) As much as Saddam represented Iraq, or Louis XIV represented France.

 

6) As I said, I think you like Kurds because they are your footsoldiers in the area. You won't give me your reason and avoid a straight answer, so I will go with my prior.

 

7) Cool, I expected you to vehemently deny it as you did in the case of the Japanese Genocide. Now, let's come back to your claim that it is accepted in the mainstream US. Can you tell me what is written regarding the subject in American history textbooks used in high schools?

 

8) I think it is quite relevant. I myself think that most justifications are BS anyway, so I go with raw numbers as a first approximation of how horrible an atrocity is.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I don't know why you have this mentality of "if the other governments don't recognize their genocides why should we?", but I don't see it as a justification in denying Armenians were a victim of a genocide. Ethnic cleansing is just a whitewash term for referencing to genocides in a somehow positive way.

 

Because if you want to accuse people of some wrong-doing, you have to hold yourself to the same standards. I guess accusing a country of having committed a genocide has some negative implications for the said country and its citizens, don't you think? For instance, Germany is indeed paying reparations to the Jews; and there are countless Nazi jokes being made at the expense of Germans who never lived through the Nazi period. Do you think this is OK?

 

During the years of World War 1, the Ottoman Empire passed this law called the "Tehcir Law" (I'm sure you're aware of it) giving the Ottoman government and military the right to deport anyone they sense a threat to "national security", it went even as far as allowing the confiscation of deported people's property. However, this law was later used to deport huge amount of Armenians from their native homeland, whom would later be killed in death marches, some concentration camps (not extensive, but were there), drownings, burning Armenian villages to the ground, use of poison overdoses or other chemical components, or just outright executions.

 

Yes, all of these are largely correct. "The concentration camps" were extremely rare and a later invention by the Armenians. They started calling the destinations of the deportations as "concentration camps" after the Nazis invented the actual Konzentrationslager. Your narrative also ignores how the Turks and the Kurds suffered similar atrocities at the hands of the Armenians, but by now I am used to these inexplicable omissions.

 

The definition of genocide is "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation". This event, by all means, fits the criteria to be marked down in history as a "genocide". Maybe, it wasn't suppose to be based on systematic killing of the Armenian population at first, but it later developed into mass killing targeting Armenians under the guise of "deportations". 

 

Your "maybe it wasn't supposed to be" part is crucial, though. This is exactly the defense the others are currently using to deny that nuking Japan was not a genocide. But by that logic, 1915 would also not be a genocide. The definition you give is simply (1) too broad, and (2) it is very hard to establish "deliberation" in many cases.

 

This particular event should go down in history as a "genocide", but the use of "ethnic cleansing" just underplays how tragic and horrifying this event was. Ethnic cleansing, if I may add, usually (if not always) results in mass killing of a targeted group of people. If you compare genocide and ethnic cleansing, they nearly represent the same meaning in reality, hence why several nations and people regard this specific event as a "genocide". 

 

That is quite subjective evaluation. Calling something genocide or ethnic cleansing implies there are different magnitudes of the atrocity being committed. That implies there is an ordering of these atrocities, and those called genocide are worse than those called ethnic cleansing. This necessarily brings into debate what other atrocities are called. Hence my discussion surrounding the nuking of Japan.

 

However, back to the point of "well if other governments won't recognize their genocides why should we", is counter-productive and creates a pointless debate of dodging the main question of how this is labeled as a genocide, it shouldn't be viewed as an incentive to disregard mass killings against ethnic groups, religious affiliations, or anyone of any background at all.

 

No one is saying you should disregard the events. Neither is anyone here saying that it was a good thing. I have repeatedly said that it was a horrible crime and those responsible should have been executed. However, Armenian Genocide has been elevated to a whole different level in the West. If you deny that the events were a genocide in France, you get imprisoned. Now, that's completely retarded and is an oppression of freedom of thought and freedom of expression. Just imagine if another country imprisoned Americans because they didn't accept that nuking Japan constituted a genocide.

 

I'm not posting proof as you'll probably dismiss it for some odd reason.

 

Yeah, yeah, the evil Turk. I gotcha.