- This topic has 8 voices and 65 replies.
-
Posts
-
So if I kill or drive out (insert ethnic group) in one county of the three I control but not the other two that is Genocide? Is that the point you are getting at?
Yes.UN Res 260, Article 2
Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I don't see anything in that definition that it has to be the entire ethnic population of a country or countries you control (notice the bold)
As I said, I will concede the definition to you but reserve my right to disagree. In large part I think we are debating semantics. I agree that it was bad for the Armenians. I dont think it was a war crime. But we have had the war crime debate too and I think you know where I stand on that.Once again, I am more interested in finding out what actually happpened than throwing out accusations and charges.Now that i think about it, I am starting a class on Modern European History this week. I think I have my term paper topic. This thread has definitely piqued my interest in the subject.
So if I kill or drive out (insert ethnic group) in one county of the three I control but not the other two that is Genocide? Is that the point you are getting at?
Yes.UN Res 260, Article 2
Art. 2. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:(a) Killing members of the group;(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I don't see anything in that definition that it has to be the entire ethnic population of a country or countries you control (notice the bold)
I think the definition is open to interpertation. Intent is the key element here, I don't believe the intent to “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;” was there. I believe the intent was to get the rebelious population out of the area. Granted, while doing this a great many people regrettably died. But if you take your arguement to the next level, you would be saying that if the Ottoman Government treated the Armenians as a belligerent entity, and declared war on them and effectively actively kill them (which in effect is what the Armenians were doing but because they lacked a state they did it under Russian and French flags) instead of trying to get them out of the area to a place where they could not cause more problems, is better?I'm trying to keep an open mind and view the events as impartially as possible, but I just don't understand why this period is always argued as if there was only one side just killing the other almost for fun. The term genocide is very powerful and I can't just say “oh what the hell it was almost a century ago what does it matter what it's called now.” As far as I'm aware the term genocide has only been accepted for the Nazi's actions against the Jews. Therefore it's the only precedent that's why I keep going back to it for examples. But another fundemental difference was what I referred to above; it was one of the Nazi's ultimate goals to rid the German race of Jews. I'm not aware of any Jewish fifth column activity, the only anti nazi activity by the Jews was within the different resistance movements. And by nature these acts were reactionary to the actions of the Nazis. On the other hand the Ottoman governments actions were reactionary to the Armenian insurrection. No one said out of the blue “ok let's kill Armenians this year” never mind that we have lived together for almost a millenium. Am I the only one that finds this idea absurd?I'm all for apoligising for the deaths and other suffering of the Armenian people however I do not believe that the Ottoman actions should be condemned as genocide.
The killing in Rwanda in 1994 have also been termed a genocide and some have called the Sudanese governments actions against their Christian minority a genocide although I think the jury is still out on the second case. I seem to recall that some Bosnian Serbs were indicted for genocide by the UN court in the Hague as well.
The killing in Rwanda in 1994 have also been termed a genocide and some have called the Sudanese governments actions against their Christian minority a genocide although I htink the jury is still out on the second case. I seem to recall that some Bosnian Serbs were indicted for genocide by the UN court in the Hague as well.
You're right I forgot about Rwanda. I'm not sure about the Serbs though. I know some were indicted for war crimes but I don't think the civil war in Bosnia has been classifed as Genocide. I don't know enough about the situation in Sudan to comment.
I am also not sure about the latter two examples although I am certain about Rwanda.The crux of my argument is that I don't understand why we have to invent words for situations that have occurred throughout history. It seems somewhat contrived to me.The big distinction between the Nazis and medieval pogroms is the Nazis were organized on a wide scale and fairly efficient and almost successful. The people in the middle ages would have gladly killed off the Jew with little to no moral qualms had the same means been available to them as were available to the Nazis. Therefore it seems the difference is ability and not intent. Modern man just kills large groups of people better is all.
You know nothing of history, and most importantly nothing from this region. Yes, there was a Genocide against the Armenians. Yes, the Turks also tried it against Bulgaria. In the village of Batak 2000 woman and children were killed. Only my great grand mother knows how.
…. Yes, there was a Genocide against the Armenians. ….
Agreed. Apologies and latter day statements of agreement don't change the death toll. If this didn't happen then Holocaust deniers will one day win.
All Turks will pay one way or another! The deeds of their grandfathers will be bestowed upon the generations to come.I?m not their judge, but they are already suffering Mother Nature?s fury.
…don't change the death toll.
Yes, but the question we were arguing was which one of the many different death tolls?ShotGOD; wow, seriously?
I am not interested in grinding an axe. I would just like to know what happened, the perpetrators are long dead regardless. If it was genocide( a point I am not quite willing to concede), then I can understand reluctance on the part of the Turks to admit it. To me knowing the truth without ideological blinders is more important than tossing around accusations.
Just depends on which camp you are in… I'm part Greek with no great love of the Turks. :-[
I can respect that. Mind you I don't agree with it but I understand it.We haven't had the best of mutual history but it wasn't all one sided as the Greeks usually claim. I freely admit that it took me years to get over my prejudices of you guys. Both our govenments have done a lot to feed the mutual animosity but not enough to engage the other party. Oh well we're not going to solve Greco-Turkish problems over the internet :)My point of view is actually very close to Scout's. As I said I also have some Armenian in my family tree and have no animosity towards them whatsoever. I just simply don't believe that what took place can be called a genocide for the reasons stated above.
Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group.As such:Killing members of the groupCausing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the groupDeliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in partImposing measures intended to prevent births within the groupForcibly transferring children of the group to another grouphttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1701562.stm
And I am supposed to take something the UN does or says seriously? ;D ;D ;D The UN is one of the biggest mistakes America ever made. It is nothing more than the League of Nations II, too bad the post WWII American senate did not have as much sense as the post WWI senate, if they had we would not be in that worthless organization.However, let us put things into context. The events of 1915 happened long before the word genocide was invented. According to the mores of the time was it wrong? That is the crux of the original argument. The facts are not in but many are quick to throw the word genocide around. I guess nobody wants to know the truth of WHAT happened, perhaps people would rather play semantic games and try to pin down terms, than try to establish what really happened. This is not new in history either, the same type of rush to judgment happened about Nanking as well.
