The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Tiglath...do YOU agree..........

Re: Tiglath...do YOU agree..........
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Saturday, September 25 2010, 15:49:39 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Tiglath wrote:
>pancho wrote:
>>...that rebellion by Christians in the Ottoman Empire first began a few centuries back?
>>
>
>Technically the rebellion actually began when the Ottomans took over the Middle East which had previously been predominantly Christian.

...youīre leaking again. Every country and empire on earth, including the Assyrian has "taken over" lands which have been "predominantly" someone elseīs...thatīs world history man, what are we doing still trying to treat the Ottomans like they INVENTED something?

>But yes I do agree that had been a history stoked by the West of Christian vs Muslim emnity.

...thank you. Had you skipped this we really would be concerned for your sanity.
>
>
>>...that Christians took sides with invading Russian armies from the earliest times and along with them committed atrocities, murder and theft and confiscation of Muslims lands etc., including the forced removal of Muslims from their homes, making refugess out of them etc?
>>
>
>More like select Christian leaders were bought off and offered homelands by the barbaric West in exchange for carving up the sick man of Europe.

...so what else is new? To be equally guilty of murder you only have to be sitting in the car whiule your pal kills someone down the street...thatīs enough to make you an accomplisce. Never in history has EVERYONE risen at once...there are always ringleaders and they always inplicate the rest of their people, whether they want to rebel or not....plenty of Southerners were anti-slavery and never raised a hand against the Union...but it made no difference...they were ALL rebels and the rules of war put all their lives on the line.
>
>
>>...that these same conditions prevailed at the start of WW I...that is, that Christian militias collected arms and banded together to fight on behalf of the Allies against their own government? (please remember that weīre not talking about irrestible WINDS or how fair or nice the government was, just that it was the LEGAL government etc. Native Americans didnīt much care for the government of the United States but that was no defense when they rebelled against it.)
>
>Before WW1 the European Empires controlled 84% of the globe and when they ran out of further places to occupy they turned on each other and carved up the sick man of Europe.

...well, do you condemn someone for not wanting to be carved up...what would you do if someone approached you with a carving knife?
>
>>
>>...that during an insurrection governments are justified in using whatever means necessary to survive...and that Turks should not be held to a higher standard than say Germans...or the British...or the Americans (putting down the South in the American Civil War wasnīt "nice" either).
>>
>
>Granted governments are allowed to put down an insurrection but they also have a responsibility to protect the vast majority who are innocent in all this and ensure that they are not murdered, raped etc.

...I donīt know where you got that from...in an insurrection where there are no rebel uniforms, how is a government supposed to tell? And, by the way, the Turks did just that...as evidenced by the fact that Christians were unmolested in other parts of the empire that were under Turkish control....Christians admit this, why canīt you?
>
>>...that the Turks have explained all this many many times and said how unfortunate it all was but that THEY did not instigate either the attacks by the Russians in the 17th century OR WW I...and that no one who advocates genocide has ever mentioned the massacres of innocent Muslims by Christian militias...not to mention the totaly illegal war waged against Turkey in the first place just because it was a "sick old man....of Europe"....with lots and lots of oil?
>>
>>...one last thing and that is that it is extrememly important who starts things....if I kill someone, itīs murder...but if someone else STARTED an attack on me, and I kill him, itīs self-defense. It seems to me that to ask that we not consider who started that war and the insurrection but only focus on what the Turks did, is so prejudiced and biased and illogical that Iīm surprised you would go that far to justify your claims. Who started what is the CORE of the issue....or a central one.
>>
>>...any agreement here?
>
>Yes but but the Turks didn't just kill the Christian in self defense they killed him and they wiped out his family and shot his dog. And while they had every right to kill the insurgents they were not justified in killing his family and dog.

...they did no such thing in the majority of the cases....the area where this kind of thing took place was confined to border lands and where Christian militias made their attacks....and this was never a discussion about dogs....but whether or not the Turks were justified in putting down a rebellion, in time of war when theyw ere being attacked by a coalition of the most powerful, industrialized nations of Christian Europe...how much more dire could the circumstances have been?

had Armenians NOT rebelled but remained loyal and fought against the common enemy instead of turning on their own neighbors, I seriously doubt there would have been ANY acts of viiolence against them....even though Christian armies and nations were attacking them. It was their rebellion, their treachery that set things in motion and under those conditions the government was justified in using whatever means necessary...weīre not talking about whatīs nice or good or even fair...weīre talking about what ALL governments have done and will continue to do....this is clearly an attempt to make the Turks out to be some sort of unnatural monsters who behaved in ways no one ever heard of before....

...sorry, that distinction still belongs to Christians whose actions necessitated the creation of a whole new word, genocide...because until that day no one had ever done or heard of such a thing. That distinction, that dishoner, belongs to the followers of Christ and not of Muhhamad.



---------------------


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9