- This topic has 8 voices and 65 replies.
-
Posts
-
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.
The fact that - genocide - was not created at the time of the event being studied, makes it irrelevant ?Authoritarianism didn't exist during Roman times but it is used to qualify the political system of the Empire. Let's forgive them, they didn't know how to call what they were doing ??
The fact that - genocide - was not created at the time of the event being studied, makes it irrelevant ?Authoritarianism didn't exist during Roman times but it is used to qualify the political system of the Empire. Let's forgive them, they didn't know how to call what they were doing ??
The analogy doesn't quite fit. Authoritarianism is not a crime, but genocide is. And one of the most basic principles of criminal law is that laws cannot be retroactive. Meaning a person cannot be punished for acts that were not considered to be criminal at the time of the commitment of the act.Of course I'm stating this is only in connection with the timing of the issue my comments regarding the merits are above. I don't believe that the acts should be considered as genocide even if the relevant texts were enacted prior to 1915.
Talking about the “word”, when it was created compared to what it is used today to qualify on what happened in the past.
I have previously stated that even if we accept the definition for genocide, I do not think it applies in the case of the Armenians. I explain why here: explanation. You can agree or not, but here we are talking interpretation of motive. The facts of the episode are not in dispute, just the why.
This was in the news just today:Obama avoids ?genocide? label
This was in the news just today:Obama avoids ?genocide? label
Not a surprise, I saw a piece today where the administration is banning the use of the term "Islamic radicalism" in the National Security Strategy document. Ignore the man behind the curtain indeed. CAIR likes this policy shift which makes me immediatly suspicious. Maybe if we talk nice they will stop trying to kill westerners. 8)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
