The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Civil Disagreements 101

Civil Disagreements 101
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Wednesday, September 8 2010, 2:18:37 (UTC)
from *** - *** - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Tiglath and I have been having a few exchanges in private we decided to post for all to see….concerning the cliams of a Turkish genocide of Christians….

Tiglath:
Finally I disagree with you that the Turks didn't commit genocide, by today's terms. The Turks may not have had the systemic organised mass production type of genocide perpetuated by the Nazis and blessed by pope Pius in the Holocaust but they did commit localised pogroms and killed a lot of innocents in their bid to maintain their empire and prevent the liberation of numerous ethnicities.


Pancho:
...well see, there is the problem....this was wartime and Turkey was under attack by a coalition of Christian nations...common sense and a desire for self-preservation, which after all has to come first or what is the use of liberation, should have dictated caution on the part of all Turkish Christian subjects...instead they formed armed bands and took weapons, pay and directions from the very people attacking their nations...do you really think itīs fair to condemn a nation fighting for its life for seeking to put down, by whatever means are recognized in warfare, in order to defend itself,such a rebellion? I think itīs unrealistic and asking a bit much of the Turks to expect them to do what no other nation, espeically Christian, has ever done or will ever do....in wartime especially, traitors and collaborators know they can expect the harshest treatment..it is the unwritten law for all nations....as far as killing innocents along with the guilty...how in hell are you to tell which Christian is innocent and which is guilty? Group punishment wasnīt invented by the Turks either...Iīm not condoning any brutality anywhere...Iīm just saying letīs be fair..letīs make the same allowances for the Turks as we would for any other nation.….and remember one most important point: The Turks, rather than having a history of persecuting religious minorities, as the Christians do, are known to have afforded a safe haven for Christians and Jews for centuries...it was not their habit or tendency to commit acts that could in any way be described as pogroms or cleansings, unlike the Europeans to whom a Hollocaust was normal....so that to accuse theTurks of all of a sudden and for no good reason, after 400 years, breaking from their own past traditions and history seems to me a bit unfair and unhistorical too. Something obviously dratsic happened to change the Turkīs well known tolerance…and that was an attack by a coalition of Christian nations who managed to lure Turkish Christians, living within the empire into aiding the attackers…...you can accuse them of panic under attack, of bad decisions, of over reacting...but I donīt think itīs correct or accurate to say that they too committed genocide...because never in their history had they done such things while those accusing them have made a common practise of doing such things.

Tiglath:
The Greeks are a classic example of a minority that liberated itself with the help from foreign powers and established its own nation state complete with romanticised history.

Pancho:
...you can say that because they won...certainly every subjugated people on earth have a right to rebel against their overlords...but, if they fail, they stand condemned, not of "wanting to be free", but of sedition and treason...just as Washington would have been hanged if caught...so, power to the Greeks, for winning...but who can really blame the Turks if they had won, and exacted the kind of punishment, for rebellion, as is standard practise?...Saddam never condemned the assyrians of Iraq for wishing to be free...or to have their own country...who can blame anyone who wants these things...he condemned them for sedition and treason...just as the United States didnīt send in the FBI to put down "freedom" or "political yearnings" of the Native American movement of the 70s, it sent in the FBI to murder and imprision because the rebels committed sedition...if it works for one, it must work for all...and every nation demands the right and is extended the right to defend itself in wartime...especially when it is being attacked by Quislings from within...if caught they can expect to DESERVE hanging, by all the rules of war and treason among nations.

Tiglath:
The Armenians and the Assyrians merely followed the winds of nationalism that were blowing during this period and attempted to get their own nation states.


Pancho:
...they are the "winds of nationalism" to rebels...they are the "inner treachery of traitors" to lawful governments who have not only the right and duty to protect their nation from outside attack but even more from treason within.

Tiglath:
Unfortunately for them the Young Turks were utterly ruthless and supported by German sponsored propaganda the Turks were able to homogensie their nation state around one langugae, religion and culture. All other ethnicities, langugaes and cultures were eliminated.


Pancho:
..and no one speaks Gaul in France anymore...or Apache in the United States...there is nothing odd at all in a nation, and especially an empire, wanting a homogenized citizenry...the mistake the Turks made was allowing the millet system to last way beyond its date....other nations had long before begun the process of welding their disparate peoples together into one common bond...Muslim nations waited too long.

Tiglath:
Also the Australian government was committing gencoide, according to the Un definition, around the time I was born by removing Aboriginal children from their parents. I don't you can state that the Turks were not committing genocide. I mean on a scale of genocidometer from 1 to 10 you'd have to rank the Holocaust as a 10 the Turksih massacres of WW1 as a 5 and the Australian government removal of chidlren a 1.



Pancho:
massacres arenīt genocide, they are massacres....we have a variety of words in order to express a variety of ideas and actions, this is what makes language rich and vital....this business of smooshing ideas togather so that one word covers all is a mistake I think...it leaves people unable to recognize or appreciate subtleties...or variety...or complexity. Aprim can get by with a vocabulary of 150 words...I canīt. To me there is great and good reason why, in English, we have distinct words or phrases for….

1. genocide.
2. Hollocaust.
3. massacre.
4. crimes against humanity
5. mass murder.
6. Slaughter of the Innocents.
7. Serial killing.

...just as we have three degress of homicide, or man-slaughter, or even burns...because we recognize subtlty and complexity and this denotes a mental state able and equipped to deal with the complexities of life...Sarah Palin can get by with one word for ten things because she doesnīt see and wouldnīt understand differences, because her mind canīt handle them…and Maggieīs is even worse…and you can forget about Beth-Shlimon and the other dweebs she cuddles....a genocide is a specific action...it means something in particular...and the Turks did not commit genocide...they had no history of ever having done such a thing, on the contrary their history of tolerance hasnīt been matched anywhere( where toleration of religious minorities is concerned)...therefore to suggest that they too, as the Christians, committed an act they had never even contemplated before or shown a tendency to, is inaccurate, to my way of thinking and goes against their established history...massacres? Yes....crimes against humanity? yes...slaughter of the innocents? Hell yes ( as which nation has not?) But genocide? No...Holocaust? No.

Tiglath:
So the Turks may not have committed a Holocaust on the Assyrians but they did committ genocide.

Pancho:
I disagree...it was wartime...they were provoked (unlike the Jews who did nothing but be loyal to Germany), their Christian citizens rebelled, in wartime, and accepted weapons and money and orders from the very people attacking THEIR nation and neighbors...the Ottoman government had every precedent and law of the nations on its side when it moved against its Christian citizens...the tragedy was that the innocent paid the same price along with the guilty...but the most glaring point which proves they did NOT engage in genocide, and which you failed to mention, is that Christians living in the empireīs capital and other cities were not molested...this goes against the very definition of genocide which is, " the CONCERTED attempt by government to wipe out a specific group". There was no such attempt made to wipe out the entire group of Christians...surely in 400 years or more the Turks could have done it, if it was ever their intention...and likewise during the war they could easily have rounded up the Christians of the major cities and without marching them all over the place, simply put them in camps on the outskirts of town, as the Christians did with Jews, and killed them all...that would have been far easier and more efficient than hunting them down in remote border villages and marching them to hell and back,...so they would die.

Tiglath:
I hope that helps.

Pancho:
..it always helps to be challenged...so I hope this helps you too.



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


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9