 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
 Posted - 17 Mar 2010 : 14:02:52
|
ANKARA (AFP) - Turkey's foreign ministry Friday summoned the Swedish ambassador to protest the Swedish parliament's recognition of the massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks as genocide.
Turkey quickly denounced the vote, cancelled a visit to Stockholm by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan scheduled for next week, and recalled its ambassador from Stockholm for consultations.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
Edited by - Janko on 17 Mar 2010 15:09:21 |
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2010 : 20:31:23
|
| The year 1915. The WWI there is a War between Ottoman Empire vs British Empire, France, Australia, Russia, Arabs. Every ottoman citizen as young as 15 years old went to war. Armenians Militia refused to fight, instead they sided with Russian, the ottoman army was stabbed from back by the Armenian Militia when they were fighting against Russia. Armenian militia massacre the women and children. And yes, Ottomans massacre them too. It was total massacre. Based on British, Americans (who are the enemy of Ottoman Empire at that time) charge, the event 95 years ago took place is legislated by the Swedish Parliment as genocide. That is their version of the history. Is it a genocide? That is debatable. I hope now Sweden pass the similar legislation condeming for Native American, Australia Aboriginals, Algerian, African and hundreds of other slavery, holocoust, genocide and crime against humanity for not being single out Ottoman Empire. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
 |
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2010 : 22:01:46
|
Why is it so difficult for Turkey to accept something that happened 95 years ago?
Genocide does not become less or more because of the timespan, 95 years ago, if it where then it must be easier to accept it now than it was 10, 20 or 30 years ago, but as we can see it is not. Genocide is genocide if it happened 100 years ago or last night.
What is the meaning of that reluctance?
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2010 : 22:15:40
|
But, why does it have to accept something they do not believe that is the truth, Janko? Do you personally believe if it was 'genocide'?
International politics that is. During the Accession talks between EU and Turkey, here are conditions that were dictated by EU for Turkey
- Free Market Economy
- Human Rights
- Full Democracy
- The law complaint with EU
all fair conditions.
Also
- Turkey withdraw troops from Cyprus
- Re-establish the diplomatic relationship with Armenia
- Continue to support Israel
- Put pressure on Iran
- Put presure on Russia
It is not unknown EU use this kind of pressure to get a better deal when Turkey joins EU. For example, give up, migration by Turks even Turkey is full member. It is difficult for Turkey, one they don't accept it, second, they do not want this as negotiating disadvantage during negotiation.
Armenia has long demand that part of today's Kurdistan belongs to Armenia. The issue is very complex. Have some reading, but I can provide you my perspective.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 17 Mar 2010 22:27:20 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2010 : 22:29:52
|
quote:
Genocide does not become less or more because of the timespan, 95 years ago,
The time matters. Can you compare the genocide in Rwanda. We all watch on TV, we see it with our eyes. The event that happened 95 years ago was based on the account of British Empire. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 22:09:27
|
You mean seeing is believing that if you do not see then it did not happen, is that what you mean, help me understand. |
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 18 Mar 2010 : 22:52:09
|
The historians are biased. The story of Armenian massacre was told by the British Empire who was the enemy of Ottoman Empire when the mother of all world wars were happening. What would I accept of their version of account as absolute truth? It is not matter of believe or not Janko. There are several versions of history depends on who you are talking. You can't legislate the history. Legislating history is done only totalitarian regimes where the government legistlate and make the history, official history. OK. Here is what it does not make sense. The swedish vote is passed by one vote margin. The proposal could have failed too. So, one vote decided what the history is going to be.
And why would British Empire and Swedish Parliement does not vote on Native American Holocoust. Because the version of that history not good for them?
The geneocide in Rwanda is current, we all see it. There was a legal process. There were witnesses, and actually, there was a trial. We write the history together. It is a criminal process and end of the criminal process, we write the history together. There are different concepts here. There are different angles here, from legislation (politics), criminal point of view. |
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 18 Mar 2010 23:03:14 |
|
|
|
kayjatta
2978 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 05:51:38
|
It wasn't only Sweden, U.S. Congress also passed a similar legislation recognizing the "Armenian genocide" recently. And if I recalled correctly, Turkey briefly recalled its ambassador from Washington also...
The result? Generations of Armenian victims of the "genocide" could begin to receive diplomatic and political favors around the world, while some of the Turkish perpetrators like their counterparts in Rwanda, Bosnia, and Germany could face a hostile political and legal world environment and probably get indicted to the ICC... 
Other countries and International organizations that recognize the "Armenian genocide" include:
1. the International Association of Genocide Scholars
2. In ternational Center for Transitional Justice
3. U.N. Human Rights Commission
4. Several Nobel Laureates
5. Quebec (since 2001)
6. Canada (since 2004)
7. France
8. Germany
9. Switzerland
10. Ukraine
11. Russia
12. Lebanon
13. venezuela
14. Spain
15. Australia
16. and many more others...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/05/turkey-us-vote-armenian-genocide |
Edited by - kayjatta on 19 Mar 2010 06:23:51 |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 07:43:55
|
Kayjatta
No Kayjatta, you are wrong. US did not pass the legislation yet. It is passed by the senate commission the legislation may or may not voted in the senate. And also Kayjatta, you forget Ontario, Nunavut, Alaska, Florida, California, Nashville, Texas, New South Wales, Tasmania, San Francisco City Council, Gunjur and Tanji village councel. Also, Animal Lover association as well.
The perpetrators of the crime should be caught and punish. I completely agree. They are now probably 150 years old.
BTW Kayjatta. Following countries, including Gambia did not feel the same way. How do you explain that? No country or no association have authority to make any charge for 'genocide'. Since 1948, no one has taken anyone to the court even though, the potential responsible were living in 1948 when the convention took effect. Now it has been 62 years, still no legal process was started.
Have you even read the convention?
These countries making decleration violates the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. The convention clearly states that, the persons needs to be trialed in the international court and that is the only authority to make such verdict. Without the court decision, no authority can make charge.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
Japan
China
United Kingdom
Italy
Brazil
India
Mexico
South Korea
Turkey
Indonesia
Poland
Saudi Arabia
Austria
Norway
Republic of China (Taiwan)
Iran
Denmark
Thailand
Finland
Colombia
United Arab Emirates
Ireland
Portugal
Hong Kong
Malaysia
Czech Republic
Egypt
Pakistan
Nigeria
Singapore
Romania
Philippines
Chile
Algeria
Peru
Hungary
Kuwait
New Zealand
Kazakhstan
Qatar
Bangladesh
Vietnam
Morocco
Slovakia
Iraq
Angola
Croatia
Libya
Ecuador
Cuba
Syria
Sudan
Oman
Slovenia
Belarus
Luxembourg
Bulgaria
Dominican Republic
Azerbaijan
Serbia
Sri Lanka
Tunisia
Guatemala
Lithuania
Ethiopia
Uruguay
Turkmenistan
Uzbekistan
Kenya
North Korea
Burma
Yemen
Panama
Latvia
Trinidad and Tobago
Côte d'Ivoire
Jordan
El Salvador
Tanzania
Cameroon
Macau
Bahrain
Estonia
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Uganda
Ghana
Brunei
Honduras
Paraguay
Afghanistan
Senegal
Nepal
Zambia
Jamaica
Iceland
Albania
Equatorial Guinea
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Georgia
Gabon
Cambodia
Botswana
Mozambique
Mauritius
Namibia
Madagascar
Macedonia
Mali
Armenia
Republic of the Congo
Papua New Guinea
Burkina Faso
Malta
The Bahamas
Chad
Haiti
West Bank and Gaza
Benin
Nicaragua
French Polynesia
Laos
Moldova
Niger
Jersey
Rwanda
Liechtenstein
Malawi
Kyrgyzstan
Tajikistan
Montenegro
Guinea
Mongolia
Barbados
Zimbabwe
New Caledonia
Mauritania
Kosovo
Suriname
Fiji
Swaziland
Guam
Togo
Guernsey
Somalia
Isle of Man
Faroe Islands
Aruba
Sierra Leone
Greenland
Central African Republic
Cape Verde
Eritrea
Lesotho
Bhutan
Burundi
Belize
Guyana
Antigua and Barbuda
British Virgin Islands
Djibouti
Gibraltar
San Marino
Saint Lucia
Liberia
Maldives
The Gambia
Grenada
Solomon Islands
Seychelles
Northern Mariana Islands
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
East Timor
Samoa
Vanuatu
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Comoros
American Samoa
Guinea-Bissau
Dominica
Tonga
Micronesia
São Tomé and Príncipe
Cook Islands
Palau
Marshall Islands
Kiribati
Anguilla
Tuvalu
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 19 Mar 2010 16:00:59 |
|
|
|
Momodou
Denmark
11829 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 12:40:29
|
The number of countries/Organisations condemning this genocide is insignificant. You seem to be denying that this happened by making the topic trivial. Genocide should not be condoned.
Here is some info on the topic: Frequently Asked Questions about the Armenian Genocide |
A clear conscience fears no accusation - proverb from Sierra Leone |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 19 Mar 2010 : 13:05:26
|
Momodou
I am not sure if anyone is condoning the 'genocide' here. The question if whether it is qualfied as genocide or not. How unfair you are! Or you sincerly believe the armenian charges. Thanks for the website by the Armenian National Institute. In order to balance, let me provide this.
Armenian Allegations
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 19 Mar 2010 13:06:52 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 01:21:01
|
A Wiseman once said; he whose house is not clean can not complain about the dirt in a friend’s house.
A man who died 1000 years ago is not more dead then the one who died a minute ago no does his life worth less.
What is it then, hence you disagree that it is genocide, forget about the organizations, tell us your position as a cultivated turk.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 02:41:25
|
Janko. You are not answering my questions and you are not stating your position. But you ask me about mine. I was very eager to share my opinion with you. I wish you do the same.
quote:
A Wiseman once said; he whose house is not clean can not complain about the dirt in a friend’s house.
That is great. So, what I understand here that those who recognize this as so-called-genocide, do not have any resolution for Native American Holocoust for example. Is 'how i relate it' agreeable to you? I have asked you this before. Historically, there are crimes-against humanity, but this genocide business became a tool for politics. I am asking you if you can see a hidden agenda for those who commit crime in the history but they apply their principles only when it serves their interests. I mean why Sweden did not pass any resolution for Native Holocoust.
quote:
A man who died 1000 years ago is not more dead then the one who died a minute ago no does his life worth less.
You are focusing on the timing. Here is how I address to your focus.
Janko. Look at the issue from different perspectives. We are looking from different angles that may be the reason we are not having consensus on this. First, see it from the 'criminology' perspective. When you look at from the criminology perspective, here is my position.
The reason I gave Rwanda, Bosnia example, which you did not appreciated is about totally about judiciary reasons.
When Rwanda and Bosnia happened, ‘seeing is believing’ as you put that way. That is correct. It is all about seeing and believing. If you look at the link above about Genocide Convention, the convention focus on the ‘persons’ and ‘international court of Justice’ to recognize if the crime is genocide or not.
After Second World War, there were Nurnberg Trials for Jewish Holocaust. All the responsible perpetrators were on the trial personal or their behalf. In fact, those you run were caught in other countries.
The judicial process when you look at the Genocide convention is defined for those who commit the crime. Genocide is the name of crime which was determined by the court, currently International Court of Justice is the institution for this. The crime will be based on the court decision.
This event happened in 1915. Armenia has not brought this to any court, or they did not initiate any process defined in the Genocide Convention. In fact, Turkey has asked Armenia officially to go to court and mediation; Armenia has refused that, because the courts will not verdict this as a crime. This was 95 years ago. The nationalist of the party called Ittihat and Terraki members who committed to murders are not living anymore. The crime was under Ottoman Empire. The new country Turkish Republic has been established in 1923 after the independent war victory against UK, France and Italy. And the the information was based on UK and American sources.
So, when you look at from this perspective, declaration of Genocide is not valid by sweden. This can only be declared by a court which Armenia is refusing to initiate the process.
In terms of Political Perspective, this is used by West against Turkey, a rising empire. Holocoust is being effectivly use by Israel for their political propoganda. Turkey is the 15th largest country in the world. Second biggest army in NATO, 9th or 10th strongest army with 80 Million Population, with one of the highest GDP growth. It has tremendous jeo-political importance that has link to other Turkish republic, Islamic world and now negotiating the entry to EU. There are almost 50 chapters they negotiate with the EU. Each chapter had detail negotiations. Most chapters are about the standards, regulations. EU also want to put pressure on Turkey to give up some of the advantages. For example, free labor movement, giving up their voting rights based on the population. EU is pushing for limiting freedom of labour movement only for Turkey if the accession materialized. Consider Turkey’s population is growing much faster than other EU countries. In 2050, The Turkish population will equate approx 30 % of EU population. That means in the parliament or EU commission, 30 of political power will belong to Turkey. They are offering Turkey not be in legislative/executive branch but they will be part of all other EU institutions.
EU using all their power to curb what Turkey will get from EU when they join. From Cyprus to Armenia, since negotiations started, they bring all the political issues as a ‘black mail’ politics. That is politics. And this recent vote is part of it.
From the historical and humanity angle, I understand your position. You feel bad about the Armenians who were killed and died. But History is not written as legislation. It is on the books and people debate about it. You read about hear it from me and others, you judge it. But you can not legislate the history. That is wrong. I have a question for you. There is a law in Europe, if you deny holocaust, you commit a crime. I mean if you declare that holocaust did not happen, you go to prison. Do you agree that? Legislating the history. I am not taking away from you to have opinion, believe whatever you want to believe in the history. Don’t get me wrong, my critics is ‘official history’. You can believe whatever you want about this tragedy.
Here is my perspective in terms of history.
Ottoman Empire was at the war of WWI between 1914 - 1918. Prior to that, there was Balkan War and Libyan war. And the tragedy happened in 1915. Ottoman fight against, UK, Russia, France, Italy, Arabs and every citizen were called to army. Armenians refused. In fact, they became militia and back stub Ottoman Army. It is called sarikamis tragedy, thousands of Ottoman soldiers died from freezing when they were fighting against Russians as Armenian militias attack them from behind.
As Armenians men did not go to army. When war started, they attacked the women and children as they had no defense because their husbands, fathers and brothers were fighting against foreign army. Ottoman army with the revenge mentality, they did kill Armenians. And they also force many to migrate to Syria. Many died during the journey.
Here is my judgment. It is a tragedy and I condemn the killing. However, when I consider the war, the circumstances, the treason and their violent act toward Ottoman civilians, as much as I never support violence, I do not believe it was systematic and planned killing. No question, the people in the area, Kurds and Ottoman army cause lots of causality. And it is a black mark in the history of Ottoman Empire. However, there were extraordinary circumstances. There was no economic motivation like the Native American or Slavery which were crime against humanity for economic interests. Ottoman were fighting for their survival.
Ottoman had great success, they beat the UK and Australia in the battle of Gallipoli. They stand against Arabs. They even hold the russians despite the armenians back stabbing. But they lost the war when Germany lost, not only war, they lost the empire, ottoman empire which had lived 600 years, once it was the superpower.
So I expect you address my questions and points.
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 20 Mar 2010 04:49:05 |
|
|
|
Janko
Gambia
1267 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 14:02:11
|
Turkey threatens to expel 100,000 Armenians
Turkey's prime minister has threatened to deport 100,000 Armenian migrants, amid renewed tensions over Turkish mass killings of Armenians in World War I.
Recent resolutions in the US and Sweden have called the killings "genocide".
Recep Tayyip Erdogan told the BBC that of 170,000 Armenians living in Turkey "70,000 are Turkish citizens".
"We are turning a blind eye to the remaining 100,000... Tomorrow, I may tell these 100,000 to go back to their country, if it becomes necessary."
Thousands of Armenians, many of them women, work illegally in Turkey. Most do low-skilled jobs such as cleaning....
The above is the reaction of the Turkish prime minister to the Swedish parliament’s recognition of the Armenian genocide. Was he reacting to the Armenian claim or the Swedish parliament’s recognition? Now, if he where reacting to the Swedish parliament’s decision why should that go over on the Armenian population now living in Turkey. So with your logic that is an overreaction, after all it happened 95 years ago and the Armenians living in turkey today did nothing to influence the Swedish parliament’s decision?
Secondly, every law, notion or principle is not absolute or complete at its inception, it develops and changes with time because nothing is complete the court may start by prosecuting individuals for such crimes but gradually include nations.
So, by your logic the question of “reparation” is invalid because the present Americans are not directly responsible for slavery which took place a long time ago.
|
Clean your house before pointing a finger ... Never be moved by delirious Well-wishers in their ecstasy |
|
|
|
turk
USA
3356 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2010 : 19:28:19
|
Well, it is not overreaction. I support that decision. There are Turkish Citizen who live in Armenia. Noone saying these people will be expelled. However, there are illegal immigrants from Armenia come to Turkey recently illegally. Turkey tolarate them. Well, instead of expel, the world should be deportation as they are illegal immigrants. They are not refugee. Currently Turkey and Armenia does not have diplomatic relations and the border is close. The reason is that Armenia still (in their constitution) claims that part of the eastern Turkey belongs to them. They do not recognize the borders. So, why would Turkey do any favor to a country and their citizens that still officially do not recongize the border. There is a Kars agreement between Turkey and Russia after the First World War for the border. Armenia after independence from Soviet Union decided not to recognize this agreement/border. Also Armenia today occupied the 25 percent of another Turkish state Azerbaijan. That is another condition for Turkey for Armenia to open a border, they need to withdraw their troops from Azarbaijan. The land Armenians are asking has been part of Ottoman State/Selcuk State for 600+300 years.
quote:
Secondly, every law, notion or principle is not absolute or complete at its inception, it develops and changes with time because nothing is complete the court may start by prosecuting individuals for such crimes but gradually include nations.
Which law process are you talking about?
And how reparation can be compared to this? With the slavery there is a obvious victim. African-Americans. Ottoman has suffered from the tragic event. If there was a 'guilty', Armenia should have taken Turkey to court. They don't. Armenians fight with Ottomans, they sided with the enemy while they were Ottoman Citizens. And they lost their gamble. They attack muslim population in the region Kurds, Turks. If they want to take what they believe theirs, they will have to fight for it. They were as guilty as Ottoman State. There was a war, the first world war, the mother of all wars. And Ottoman Empire has already lost the war and lost most of its land. Millions people died. At the end of war, they lost their empire. And they establish a new state after their fight against British, France and Italy. And there is an International Agreement of Lausanne that defines the borders of today's turkey. Turkey had to pay the debt they over from ottoman empire. They recongized minorities religious and cultural rights with the treaty. The treaty was confirmed by the Soviet, UK, France, USA, Italy and other victories nations. Now, Armenia now wants the piece of land, why should Turkey give the land?
|
diaspora! Too many Chiefs and Very Few Indians.
Halifa Salah: PDOIS is however realistic. It is fully aware that the Gambian voters are yet to reach a level of political consciousness that they rely on to vote on the basis of Principles, policies and programmes and practices. |
Edited by - turk on 20 Mar 2010 23:25:04 |
|
|
|
Karamba
United Kingdom
3820 Posts |
Posted - 21 Mar 2010 : 22:39:00
|
What is Genocide and what is not Genocide? Is there anything hiding under the carpet?
Questions not Statement please, just in case anybody is kind enough responding. |
Karamba |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
