Alex Jones triggers the Young Turks

[Rozalia]

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.

 

1: Nazis let some Jews live also. They also didn't execute Jews on the spot and instead transported them around. Want to try denying the Holocaust now? Feel free, considering a lot of people in that area think Hitler did nothing wrong...

 

2: Just constant poisoning the water, again, I or anyone else don't matter when it comes to Turkey admitting their wrong doing. If I had to guess then like I said, you're Turk and are ashamed of admitting your people did something wrong. No one here wants to see you/Turkey become some sort of German cuckold, but at the very least admitting to it is something.

 

3: So the Turks were not carrying out a campaign against the Armenians and other groups now? Sad denial of the truth you back up with Turkey's propaganda spread to justify their actions. I'm just pleased that Turkey was humiliated by the eastern Europeans and lost most of their land in Europe. Had they not they would have been genocided too and we'd then have to put up with you denying their deaths also.

 

4: Oh boy. Imagine a Nazi saying that if people don't admit to this genocide that happened only in your mind grasping at straws to defend poor Turkey that then that means that Nazi Germany didn't do the Holocaust. You know you're horribly wrong and pushing something that is monumentally stupid but this white knighting for poor Turkey has to be done. Like I said, it's all a matter of shame I think and you are very ashamed indeed.

 

5: Alright then, so your attempt to avail Turkey of blame for their leaders actions is at an end then yes? Silly attempt by you. If we took that stance then no country should own up to having committed a genocide. Germany committed a genocide? Nah, that was Hitler, he was bad but Germany did nothing wrong. 

 

6: This is just sad, no one is more anti what America has been doing in the area (hyperbole but I am very much on that end of things) and you're really trying this nonsense. 

 

7: So you want me to produce where it says "America committed genocide and we are sorry for it" in books, when schools use a variety of textbooks/materials that aren't all the same across the country? In a country where states have differing views and put varying levels of importance on things? Seems to me it's that, "I'm going to ask you to produce something ridiculous and when you can't produce it then it means I was right".

 

Once again, there was no Japanese genocide. in fact type that out and you'll get the genocide Japan did (you know, the acts so bad even the Nazi present opposed them and protected people) and none on this supposed genocide on them. Here lets play your little game for a second. Germany bombed Britain during the war so Germany genocided the British, why haven't they taken responsibility? But wait! The British bombed Germany so the British genocided the Germans. Wait a second... everyone was genociding everybody with this stupid definition of yours. This is why I've been repeating false equivalencies many times now, the amount of twisting you've done to try to clear Turkey of the guilt is something I've not seen such a level of on here before. You care nothing about what happened to the Japanese that much is clear, they're just something to shield papa Turkey.

 

8: Numbers is what matters apparently now. The Armenian death toll even at 1.5 million is quite low I suppose true, so another attempt by yourself to downplay Turkey's actions. 

[Franz Von Dietrich]

-snip-

 

Sure lol, let's get right into this;

 

 "1. 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?"

 

  Firstly, it doesn't matter what you think is "okay or wrong". It gets evenly annoying to hear this common Ottoman apologist tactic on this issue concerning the Armenian genocide. Any mass-killing against a targeted group of people that was intentionally planned should be regarded as a "genocide", doesn't really matter what case, whenever it'd be the Native American or Congo or any other "well ur just as bad" tactic. No one here is also accusing the Ottoman Empire of genocide, most people here have simply pointed out a very obvious crime committed under the empire known as a; "GENOCIDE". As for the jokes, what exactly are you trying to say? Everyone is made fun of, regardless of one's background, sometimes people do it for satire. However, should we tolerate a regime in the Republic of Turkey trying to deny what's a fact? The true joke is people trying to deny the very basis of a horrible crime committed onto innocent people, which was planned extensively. History isn't about all of the positive things, it's also about learning the dark side of history, which leads to people not repeating the same mistake after seeing documents, photographs, and films of any event.

 

"2. 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."

 

  No, it was an Ottoman Empire creation that didn't even have facilities to sustain the necessities to live. If you look at the very basic definition of a concentration camp it states; "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution" which later turn out to be true in the Armenian case. I mean, you try being starved then marched out to die in a death march in the Syrian desert. Also, I didn't imply nor hint that the Armenians are innocent of any atrocities they may have committed (implying they did cause some lol?) I simply stood by the issue which we are discussing.

 

"3. 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."

 

I think you ignored the part where I stated "maybe it wasn't planned as a genocide at first, but it later developed into one". Maybe broad for you, but not for others. It's not really hard to establish a "deliberation" when this particular perpetrator was a Islamic regime that openly hoped to establish a "only muslim" society. 

 

"4. 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."

 

Both are the same? Mass killing is mass killing, targeting a specific group of people, and furthermore stealing their property, while denying them the very basis of human rights, forcing them to work as slaves (let's not forget the armenian conscripts in the ottoman empire army who were forced to work then later died from executions)/ The list literally goes on and on. Ethnic cleansing is a term meant to generally underplay horrible events such as this by trying to make it seem small and insignificant. However, one can argue how ethnic cleansing is one of the major steps in genocide.

 

"5. 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"

 

Disregarding it as a genocide is ignoring the significance of the event, especially in this case. Secondly, I didn't say you were calling it a "good" thing, I merely stated how it shouldn't be seen as an incentive to dismiss this from being a "genocide". Yeah, I know it may be a whole different level in the west, but it doesn't justify Turkey's unwillingness to accept its past darkening event as a genocide. Do I agree people should be locked up for denying events that are a genocide? No, I didn't suggest a proposal to counter widespread unwillingness to accept such said events. Your final sentence is sorta hilarious. Basically, you just used a out of proportion to try and prove your point (which we weren't even debating about lol). Secondly, any bill concerning that type of legislation being passed is doubtful and unimaginable, especially in a country very patriotic on most of its wars lol. 

 

"6. Yeah, yeah, the evil Turk. I gotcha."

 

Am I racist bigot too? No, for one I made that statement for two reasons: 

 

1. You're a apologist

2. I made observance earlier on how you easily dismiss certain articles and webpages that pertain to the genocide.

Edited July 24, 2016 by Krustev Gunther

[Kemal Ergenekon]

-snip-

 

Now we have entered the phase where in answer to every strand of the discussion that you are losing, you are putting flimsy arguments as if they are even valid. We had come to this point before Rozalia, and you had not admitted defeat gracefully, so I will just leave it there.

 

You were whining about how nuking Japan and 1915 were "a false equivalence", yet you are unabashedly trying to downplay the fact the Armenian population in the West (constituting 50%) being untouched (because they were *in the West* and could not help the Russians there, so why would the triumvirate touch them -- unless their primary motivation was not deporting the Armenians from the east but killing all Armenians and thus genocide) by telling me about how Nazi Germany spared a token few Jews. What a load of utter BS. What percentage of Jews were untouched? Did they no look for Jews in all the countries they conquered as well? You were talking about false equivalences and this gets the crown.

 

Don't bother replying BTW; this is where I conclude you are defeated and grasping at straws, and the discussion would go nowhere once you leave your sanity behind.

 

You are a Japanese Genocide Denier Rozalia, You should be ashamed of defending the sins of your bloodthirsty country. "Noted you down on my Deniers list." xdxd.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

  Firstly, it doesn't matter what you think is "okay or wrong". It gets evenly annoying to hear this common Ottoman apologist tactic on this issue concerning the Armenian genocide. Any mass-killing against a targeted group of people that was intentionally planned should be regarded as a "genocide", doesn't really matter what case, whenever it'd be the Native American or Congo or any other "well ur just as bad" tactic. No one here is also accusing the Ottoman Empire of genocide, most people here have simply pointed out a very obvious crime committed under the empire known as a; "GENOCIDE". As for the jokes, what exactly are you trying to say? Everyone is made fun of, regardless of one's background, sometimes people do it for satire. However, should we tolerate a regime in the Republic of Turkey trying to deny what's a fact? The true joke is people trying to deny the very basis of a horrible crime committed onto innocent people, which was planned extensively. History isn't about all of the positive things, it's also about learning the dark side of history, which leads to people not repeating the same mistake after seeing documents, photographs, and films of any event.

 

As I said before many times, justice and ethics do not happen in a vacuum. If I am going to choose to apply the definition of genocide to an event in the history, I would need to see where this term has been used and not used, and decide accordingly. I am looking at the human history, and see atrocities like nuking of Japan, firebombing of Tokyo, bombing of Dresden, etc. These atrocities all fit into the very broad definition provided: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation." But none of these events are considered genocide. Only Holocaust, what happened in Serbia, and a few African countries make it into the internationally recognized lists. If this is the rubric, I deny that 1915 can be called genocide. And all the other events do matter, because genocide is a classification that applies to historical events, and to reach the conclusion that something is a genocide or not, I have to look at how that classification is applied elsewhere since the definition provided above is extremely weak by itself -- any death of large number of people would constitute a genocide by that weak definition, but this is not what we see in practice. And yes, calling it correctly as genocide or not matters, because it affects people's lives. This is not a "tactic" as you unapologetically belittle. If you cannot empathize with people who feel persecuted because of the hatred generated against their ethnicity due to the vast campaign to blame them of genocide, then that's your problem as a human being. 

 

  No, it was an Ottoman Empire creation that didn't even have facilities to sustain the necessities to live. If you look at the very basic definition of a concentration camp it states; "a place where large numbers of people, especially political prisoners or members of persecuted minorities, are deliberately imprisoned in a relatively small area with inadequate facilities, sometimes to provide forced labor or to await mass execution" which later turn out to be true in the Armenian case. I mean, you try being starved then marched out to die in a death march in the Syrian desert. Also, I didn't imply nor hint that the Armenians are innocent of any atrocities they may have committed (implying they did cause some lol?) I simply stood by the issue which we are discussing.

 

False, the etymology of the concentration camp derives directly from Nazi Germany, and applying it to the Ottoman case is a simple anachronism and pushing it too hard. You can say "concentration camp like environments" existed. But if we ask you the percentage of Armenian population who were imprisoned here and for how long, you won't be able to answer it satisfactorily.

 

I think you ignored the part where I stated "maybe it wasn't planned as a genocide at first, but it later developed into one". Maybe broad for you, but not for others. It's not really hard to establish a "deliberation" when this particular perpetrator was a Islamic regime that openly hoped to establish a "only muslim" society. 

 

Dude, you need proof of this. You cannot make wild accusations and think you are somehow correct. In the Nazi Germany case, the Nazi party literally told everyone their intentions clearly and openly. So deliberation is easily established. Not so in the 1915 case. Now, there are some people above claiming nuking Japan was to end the war without more bloodshed. But where is proof? If I adopt your accusative stance, then I can say "but the Truman administration wanted to wipe the Japanese off the face of the world, so they nuked two cities and bombed Tokyo to the ground, killing nearly half a million." What is to stop me from doing that by your logic?

 

Both are the same? Mass killing is mass killing, targeting a specific group of people, and furthermore stealing their property, while denying them the very basis of human rights, forcing them to work as slaves (let's not forget the armenian conscripts in the ottoman empire army who were forced to work then later died from executions)/ The list literally goes on and on. Ethnic cleansing is a term meant to generally underplay horrible events such as this by trying to make it seem small and insignificant. However, one can argue how ethnic cleansing is one of the major steps in genocide.

 

I don't get it, are you accepting that both are the same, or are you coming up with additional excuses as to why 1915 was worse than nuking (if it were possible) the Armenians. I would personally prefer to have lost my property rather than be obliterated into my atomic particles, or die of radiation poisoning. Are you really claiming those Japanese had it better than the Armenians?

 

Disregarding it as a genocide is ignoring the significance of the event, especially in this case. Secondly, I didn't say you were calling it a "good" thing, I merely stated how it shouldn't be seen as an incentive to dismiss this from being a "genocide". Yeah, I know it may be a whole different level in the west, but it doesn't justify Turkey's unwillingness to accept its past darkening event as a genocide. Do I agree people should be locked up for denying events that are a genocide? No, I didn't suggest a proposal to counter widespread unwillingness to accept such said events. Your final sentence is sorta hilarious. Basically, you just used a out of proportion to try and prove your point (which we weren't even debating about lol). Secondly, any bill concerning that type of legislation being passed is doubtful and unimaginable, especially in a country very patriotic on most of its wars lol. 

 

Now we move into your subjective territory. Not calling it genocide does not reduce the significance of the event for me. What matters is that it is remembered, and not repeated; not the terminology that satisfies the Armenian nationalists or Western people who want to bash non-Western countries at every opportunity due to their Orientalist streak. Face it: These countries cannot blame other countries of not facing their history without facing them themselves. Which they don't. Which makes their accusations laughable. When they cease being hypocrites, the people in Turkey who think 1915 was a horrible thing will pressure the government into accepting it as genocide. But since none of the other countries hold themselves to the standards they flaunt about as if they were the pinnacle of virtue, we Turks will continue to deny that the events constituted "genocide" when no other country accepts their genocides as genocides. Jesus freaking Christ, are we reading the same thread? Do you not see how pathetically the nuking of Japan is justified above? You will whine "it doesn't matter." You don't get to pick what matters for our decision process when it is our decision to call it a genocide or not, friend. And it matters to the Turks. They don't want their country to be "convicted", when the "laws" are not applied equally to other countries. If 10 out of a group of 20 are guilty and only 1 is called out for that, that's what we call an incorrect application of a justice criterion. Which the genocide status is, as there are international obligations associated. 

 

Am I racist bigot too? No, for one I made that statement for two reasons: 

 

1. You're a apologist

2. I made observance earlier on how you easily dismiss certain articles and webpages that pertain to the genocide.

 

I wouldn't call you a racist bigot without observing the rest of your posts, but you sure act like one in this context.

 

Do you accept the nuking of Japan as genocide? If not, you are an apologist and a Denier (capital "D" !@#$ yeah).

[WISD0MTREE]

No shit, Sherlock. No one claims it didn't happen. 

Some people completely deny the Holocaust occurring and that is way more documented. Just throwing that out there so we can agree that something happened... 

 

Including selling girls as slaves. 

[Clarke]

There is no logic to be found arguing with someone from an obvious bias that isn't going to change no matter what truth is presented but I guess it informs the message to more intelligent people who didn't know. It is still cringing to watch. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

There is no logic to be found arguing with someone from an obvious bias that isn't going to change no matter what truth is presented but I guess it informs the message to more intelligent people who didn't know. It is still cringing to watch. 

 

Yeah, those who claim that nuking Japan was necessary and not a war crime sicken me as well.

[Clarke]

Yeah, those who claim that nuking Japan was necessary and not a war crime sicken me as well.

Well that really how we know you're bias, you're comparing a world war stalemate situation with the genocide of innocent people for no reason other than to get rid of them. Don't worry I don't expect to find any logic from you, its funny with you pretending to be right. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Well that really how we know you're bias, you're comparing a world war stalemate situation with the genocide of innocent people for no reason other than to get rid of them. Don't worry I don't expect to find any logic from you, its funny with you pretending to be right. 

 

It's just your hypocrisy that's funny. Your claim is false, in that the aim was to relocate the Armenians, so they they didn't kill non-Armenian civilians and aid the Russian army. On the other hand the nukes were thrown at cities chock full of civilians, knowing very well that it would kill them all, in order to sign peace a little bit earlier in a war the US had already won.

[Clarke]

It's just your hypocrisy that's funny. Your claim is false, in that the aim was to relocate the Armenians, so they they didn't kill non-Armenian civilians and aid the Russian army. On the other hand the nukes were thrown at cities chock full of civilians, knowing very well that it would kill them all, in order to sign peace a little bit earlier in a war the US had already won.

Its your opinion the US had already won the war and peace was going to get signed, that doesn't mean it was true. You're using a belief to justify an alternative had no real basis. 

I'm confused by your first sentence, doesn't really make anything in relation to what I said and doesn't seem to have a point. Its rather pointless just talking about the Armenian Genocide, Turkey also committed genocide against Greeks living in Turkey. 

Edited July 24, 2016 by Lightning

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Its your opinion the US had already won the war and peace was going to get signed, that doesn't mean it was true. You're using a belief to justify an alternative had no real basis. 

I'm confused by your first sentence, doesn't really make anything in relation to what I said and doesn't seem to have a point. Its rather pointless just talking about the Armenian Genocide, Turkey also committed genocide against Greeks living in Turkey. 

 

It's not an "opinion", the difference of manpower, industrial base, weaponry, etc. made it obvious that the US had already won the war. The only remaining question was how costly the end would be. You can ask this to any military person worth his salt and get the same answer.

 

WTF, what's with Greeks now.

 

Here, have some good reading: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html

Edited July 25, 2016 by Kemal Ergenekon

[WISD0MTREE]

WTF, what's with Greeks now.

 

Here, have some good reading: http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v16/v16n3p-4_weber.html

So you are suggesting that we should have continued placing sea mines around Japan in an attempt to stop all resources (including food) from going in and potentially starving the nation? 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

So you are suggesting that we should have continued placing sea mines around Japan in an attempt to stop all resources (including food) from going in and potentially starving the nation? 

 

No, I would suggest negotiating something other than unconditional surrender. Given that the Soviets had declared war at that point, they would cave in if offered an agreeable surrender.

Or, you know, just nuke an uninhabited area to show what you can do, and they would cave in by the same logic that you claim they did after the nukes.

[WISD0MTREE]

No, I would suggest negotiating something other than unconditional surrender. Given that the Soviets had declared war at that point, they would cave in if offered an agreeable surrender.

Or, you know, just nuke an uninhabited area to show what you can do, and they would cave in by the same logic that you claim they did after the nukes.

First off, the Soviets didn't declare war until August 9th. Hiroshima was on the 6th. 

 

The Allies wanted an unconditional surrender to strip the Axis powers of any military power. Remember that this was the second world war and Japan was the aggressor. 

"But America stopped exporting oil to Japan!!1!"

Yes we did... After they invaded Manchuria and killed many people at the Nanking Massacre. 

 

How about I quote FDR so you can see his intentions? 

"unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the German populace, nor the Italian or Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy in Germany, Italy, and Japan which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other people."

 

In addition, America didn't the USSR to invade. Think post-war. Germany was going to be divided with the Soviets having a nice portion. Tensions between the US and USSR were already increasing. Britain was already laying out plans for Operation Unthinkable. 

---

 

That's an odd conclusion, considering that they didn't cave in after we nuked a city. 

 

---

Unrelated - Why does YouTube recommend John Denver whenever I reply to your posts? It's the only time it happens. 

[Kemal Ergenekon]

First off, the Soviets didn't declare war until August 9th. Hiroshima was on the 6th. 

 

The Allies wanted an unconditional surrender to strip the Axis powers of any military power. Remember that this was the second world war and Japan was the aggressor. 

"But America stopped exporting oil to Japan!!1!"

Yes we did... After they invaded Manchuria and killed many people at the Nanking Massacre. 

 

How about I quote FDR so you can see his intentions? 

"unconditional surrender means not the destruction of the German populace, nor the Italian or Japanese populace, but does mean the destruction of a philosophy in Germany, Italy, and Japan which is based on the conquest and subjugation of other people."

 

In addition, America didn't the USSR to invade. Think post-war. Germany was going to be divided with the Soviets having a nice portion. Tensions between the US and USSR were already increasing. Britain was already laying out plans for Operation Unthinkable. 

---

 

That's an odd conclusion, considering that they didn't cave in after we nuked a city. 

 

---

Unrelated - Why does YouTube recommend John Denver whenever I reply to your posts? It's the only time it happens. 

 

Yes, the Soviets declared after the nuke. I just gave you a scenario about how it could go about without nuking 200k civilians. Many historians claim that the Soviet declaration had more to do with the surrender compared to the effect of the nukes. Which might actually be true given that the firebombing of Tokyo had already happened with no surrender.

 

Putting words into my mouth again, and underlining that Japan was the aggressor -> completely unrelated to how the war could have ended without more bloodshed.

 

Yes, America didn't want the USSR to invade. I don't see how it's related.

 

You didn't give enough time to cave in after the first nuke. But even if what you said is correct, then it shows that the nukes actually did not help the situation at all, and 200k civilians were murdered in vain.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

John Denver: xdxd, probably unrelated to me.

[Sketchy]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't genocide. Doesn't really matter whether or not it was justified, it doesn't fit the definition.

 

America didn't bomb them because of their culture, race, or nationality, they bombed them because they were at war. Their goal was to win the war, not exterminate them.

 

And your argument that "one bomb in an uninhabited area would have been enough" is kind of debunked when the previous Tokyo Bombing raids killed just as many if not more people, and after the nukes dropped they still continued the war.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

-snip-

 

Arguing with you is pointless at this point. In your eyes, everyone is a profound hypocrite for their governments not owning up to their past mistakes, while somehow that justifies the Republic of Turkey continue denial of the Armenian Genocide. IT was deliberate planning to intentionally wipe out a populace in their native homeland, yet arguing that the "Western Armenians" weren't really "affected" (yeah even though their native homeland is literally is near the caucasus region and eastern turkey) doesn't really justify the Turkish Republic actions in trying to obviously underplay the Armenian Genocide, while trying to just leave it as a simple "ethnic cleansing". You keep trying to throw off poorly done examples, usually over exaggerated, to try and dodge the topic at hand. The Turkish regime to this day, still refuses to hand over all documents related to the Armenian Genocide, while only giving cherry-picked documents to try and prove how this was only "ethnic cleansing" (still resulted in large amount of deaths of armenians lol)

 

Aside from that, you try to give your own "narrative" of how the Turkish state shouldn't have to own up to its past mistakes (which is a result of being a "successor" to the ottoman empire". You try implying that I'm suggesting there should be laws to criminalize the denial of the Armenian Genocide, yet I didn't. However, you went onto say how Turk's will somehow be victims of jokes and bullying? I'll reiterate this again "history isn't all about the positive aspects, but also learning from past horrible mistakes". The Germans sure were able to move forward from their horrible past, while at the same time openly admitting that their previous incarnation of Germany was responsible for deaths of many innocent Jews, Slavs, Gypsies, and ect.

 

I wasn't looking to debate about Japan, and will not address it, it doesn't justify Turkey of it's past mistakes. Furthermore, you're right, I don't get to pick what's a genocide or not a genocide, it is by fact and definition a Genocide. You'll continue to underplay the Armenian Genocide, which you as an individual can do, but other scholars, governments, or people in general won't. Also, I wish to address this "other government's aren't recognizing their past!". Firstly, to reiterate what you said, " You don't get to pick what matters for our decision process when it is our decision to call it a genocide or not, friend.", woah, hypocrite, who are you to call something a genocide!!! 

 

You can try playing this negationist historical revisionist attitude, but it's getting old and worn out as a common argument rebuttal. 

 

As you stated to Rozallia earlier; "don't even bother replying". I don't wish to argue with someone who argue with these circular scenarios and exaggerated examples. You're an apologist, the Armenian Genocide is a genocide. Accept it or not, it's fruitless debating with you

 

However, I'll leave a nice quote from our good friends, Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund;

 

"When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no "Armenian" or "Turkish" side of the "question, " any more than there is a "Jewish" or a "German" side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any "dialogue" with Turkish deniers highly problematic."

Edited July 25, 2016 by Krustev Gunther

[Kemal Ergenekon]

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't genocide. Doesn't really matter whether or not it was justified, it doesn't fit the definition.

 

America didn't bomb them because of their culture, race, or nationality, they bombed them because they were at war. Their goal was to win the war, not exterminate them.

 

And your argument that "one bomb in an uninhabited area would have been enough" is kind of debunked when the previous Tokyo Bombing raids killed just as many if not more people, and after the nukes dropped they still continued the war.

 

You seem to have missed it. It fits the definition: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

 

It was deliberate. It was killing a large group of people. They all belonged to the Japanese nation.

 

You cannot prove that. If we go ahead and accept that, then I can claim the Ottoman Empire didn't lead to the deaths of the Armenians because of their culture, race or nationality, but because they were attacking the Turkish army and civilians in the East and aiding the Russians against the Ottomans in WW1. We have already discussed that.

 

Then the whole argument that nuking Japan made peace possible is also debunked, which would imply the nukings were just gratuitous killings and genocide by the US. 

[Buorhann]

I don't necessarily agree that nuking Japan was a genocide attempt (otherwise a lot more would've happened afterwards), but keep in mind - America did hold Japanese/Germans in their own camps.  Granted they weren't death camps, but certainly targeted their own Japanese citizens and moved them into other locations away from society.

 

It is a debatable point.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

-snip-

 

Beyond all your self-righteousness, you are still unable to prove how it was  "deliberate planning to intentionally wipe out Armenians", when in fact no Armenians in the West were targeted. If it were about the Armenians, they would be targeted. Hitler did not focus on Jews in a particular area; he went for all. Your attempts to ignore the Japanese example are laughable. So is your inability to come up with arguments beyond "but we should look at it in isolation!" What a joke! Do judges look at all cases in isolation, with only the law, and no precedents. No! They look at the laws, which are generally vague, and then look at all the precedents to see how they should apply that vague law. In this case, nothing but the Holocaust, and a few horrible events in Africa are called genocide, whereas nuking and bombing civilian cities, Stalin's gulags, Belgian Congo, Ireland under GB are not. With such precedents, only ethnic nationalists who hate Turks for different reasons can claim that 1915 is a genocide whereas others are not. Oh, you are bothered by my accusation of an ethnic nationalist intention behind your actions? You shouldn't be! After all, you do the same for me and all the Ottomans back in 1915 whose thoughts and deliberations you cannot document but still lie about.

 

It's good that the discussion is at an end. I don't particularly enjoy exchanging words with a Japanese Genocide Denier, and an ethnic nationalist who hates Turkish people for who they are.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I don't necessarily agree that nuking Japan was a genocide attempt (otherwise a lot more would've happened afterwards), but keep in mind - America did hold Japanese/Germans in their own camps.  Granted they weren't death camps, but certainly targeted their own Japanese citizens and moved them into other locations away from society.

 

It is a debatable point.

 

Yes, I haven't opened that can of worms, but there are very strange things there. Did you know the patents of German inventors were seized by the government (because they were Germans and Germans were the enemy) and then cancelled, where the invention plans were sent to American companies to be used as they saw fit? This is directly seizing property, and from inventors at that. People who came to the US and contributed to its scientific knowledge, but had the misfortune of being an enemy ethnically.

[Franz Von Dietrich]

Beyond all your self-righteousness, you are still unable to prove how it was  "deliberate planning to intentionally wipe out Armenians", when in fact no Armenians in the West were targeted. If it were about the Armenians, they would be targeted. Hitler did not focus on Jews in a particular area; he went for all. Your attempts to ignore the Japanese example are laughable. So is your inability to come up with arguments beyond "but we should look at it in isolation!" What a joke! Do judges look at all cases in isolation, with only the law, and no precedents. No! They look at the laws, which are generally vague, and then look at all the precedents to see how they should apply that vague law. In this case, nothing but the Holocaust, and a few horrible events in Africa are called genocide, whereas nuking and bombing civilian cities, Stalin's gulags, Belgian Congo, Ireland under GB are not. With such precedents, only ethnic nationalists who hate Turks for different reasons can claim that 1915 is a genocide whereas others are not. Oh, you are bothered by my accusation of an ethnic nationalist intention behind your actions? You shouldn't be! After all, you do the same for me and all the Ottomans back in 1915 whose thoughts and deliberations you cannot document but still lie about.

 

It's good that the discussion is at an end. I don't particularly enjoy exchanging words with a Japanese Genocide Denier, and an ethnic nationalist who hates Turkish people for who they are.

Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund;

 

"When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no "Armenian" or "Turkish" side of the "question, " any more than there is a "Jewish" or a "German" side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any "dialogue" with Turkish deniers highly problematic."  [2]

 

I don't hate Turks, plenty Turk's work for me, they really love me, trust me. Maybe dishonest Kemal stop spreading slanderous lies?? (i'm joking, don't take this trump parody serious pls).

Edited July 25, 2016 by Krustev Gunther

[Sketchy]

 

You seem to have missed it. It fits the definition: "the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation."

 

It was deliberate. It was killing a large group of people. They all belonged to the Japanese nation.

 

You cannot prove that. If we go ahead and accept that, then I can claim the Ottoman Empire didn't lead to the deaths of the Armenians because of their culture, race or nationality, but because they were attacking the Turkish army and civilians in the East and aiding the Russians against the Ottomans in WW1. We have already discussed that.

 

Then the whole argument that nuking Japan made peace possible is also debunked, which would imply the nukings were just gratuitous killings and genocide by the US. 

 

 

That definition is a little vague. The part it's missing is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group".

 

I never claimed that nuking japan made peace possible, I claimed, in response to your original claim, that that was the intent, and nothing you have said has proven otherwise. If you want to sling accusations around the burden of proving them lies with you. I'm not defending the action because frankly it was an act of mass murder, but it wasn't genocide.

 

Your stretching the term to fit your argument. I'm not arguing with you on the morality of the bombings of Japan, because frankly I don't care, I'm not American and as far as I'm concerned it was a horrible atrocity. I was arguing with your loose use of the word "genocide". Because it wasn't an act of genocide.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

 

Torben Jorgensen and Matthias Bjornlund;

 

"When it comes to the historical reality of the Armenian genocide, there is no "Armenian" or "Turkish" side of the "question, " any more than there is a "Jewish" or a "German" side of the historical reality of the Holocaust: There is a scientific side, and an unscientific side acknowledgment or denial. In the case of the denial of the Armenian genocide, it is even founded on a massive effort of falsification, distortion, cleansing of archives, and direct threats initiated or supported by the Turkish state, making any "dialogue" with Turkish deniers highly problematic."  [2]

 

I don't hate Turks, plenty Turk's work for me, they really love me, trust me. Maybe dishonest Kemal stop spreading slanderous lies?? (i'm joking, don't take this trump parody serious pls).

 

 

Why, two can play that game. Read http://content.lib.utah.edu/cdm/ref/collection/upcat/id/1158The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, by Guenter Lewy.

 

"In 1994 the well-known Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis was taken to court in France and charged by the plaintiff with causing "grievous prejudice to truthful memory" because he denied the accusation of genocide." I hope you know who he is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Lewis

 

"Yet these results surely do not prove that the Ottoman government—ultimately responsible for all of these conditions—sought and intentionally caused the death of its own civilian population, of its own soldiers, and of its prisoners of war. The Turkish wartime government may deserve to be severely rebuked for its corruption and bungling misrule as well as for indifference to the suffering of its population during World War I. The Young Turk regime may be subject to special moral censure or condemnation on account of its treatment of its Christian minorities. Yet all this does not prove that this regime intended to annihilate the Armenian community. A large death toll, no matter how reprehensible, is not proof of a premeditated plan of extermination."

 

The academic world is divided on the issue, and most of them find the attempts by the Armenians to politicize the question quite troubling since it encourages horrible historiography backed with zero evidence.