The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: The Crux of the Turkish Genocide Debate.

Re: The Crux of the Turkish Genocide Debate.
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Monday, September 13 2010, 14:25:57 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

>
>The Young Tukrs were but one group within the entire Ottoman empire who managed to control and rule it based on tribute and taxes. It was nationalism that stirred the minorities to overthrow their rulers and dseel independence.

...of course it was...and they had every right...as Native Americans had every right, by treaty no less, to demand a return of their lands, their "nation". No one is disputing that...I´m not saying people have to behave and accept their conquerors...far from it. But I´m realistic enough to know that what works for some nations must work for all. Every nation and empire on earth has tried to expand its borders and that meant conquering and subduing other people, free people (though one could quibble about just how free those people were to begin with)...that isn´t the argument. But, once you grant the right of rebellion, you have to grant the right of putting down rebellion...no matter how much we may not like the end result, we really can´t deny that it happens and that all nations condone it. What we´re arguing here is not freedom vs subjugation but rather the risks rebels run.....if they succeed they are heroes, if they fail they are hanged....but that isn´t even the argument...the Turks did not commit genocide, they acted to put down insurrection, rebellion, sedition and treason...it doesn´t matter how much the Armenians deserved their freedom...we are not talking about justice but LAW...and international law allows, and constitutions demand, that a legal government fight against any acts of treason but especially when attacked from within by its own citizenry in the pay of others...and most especially in time of war. To you, the Armenians were justified and the Assyrians just followed along...to me the same may hold true, but I´m not going to sever my own frontal lobes by insisting that a government ought not to mind such a thing, or that if it does, it should be very nice in how it goes about combating such treasonous acts.
>
>Also according to the Un definition of genocide;
>"Article II: 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.

...that is ridiculous. It completely waters-down the true horror and nature of genocide which should be the DETERMINED effort by GOVERNMENTS to do away with a group...mob violence should not count.

...if "killing members of a group", which sounds so innocent, is the equivalent of what the Nazis did then the UN has to do its homework. The United States disproportionately kills poor Blacks over poor whites...is the criminal justice system engaged in genocide? If it is then every member of every group ever killed was a genocide...not even a mention of government-sponsored murders? Seems to me the UN is trying to lift the censure against the Nazi Christians...for if everything is genocide then nothing is genocide...it´s all just "killing".

But even so, even if you and the UN want to claim that killing the members of ANY group is gencoide, and even if in that case, everyone is committing genocide..then genocide isn´t such a bad thing, is it? I mean if every nation commits genocide, including the Israelis, then why is everyone focusing on the Turks alone? If we conclude that the Turks DID commit genocide, by this defintion, then so did everyone else and until everyone else stands so accused and apologizes and makes reparations then leave the Turks alone...be fair and just.

But even so....if what the Turks did to defend their nation is genocide...what were they to do if ONE group decided on such a treasonous course? Because the law of nations still allows a government to defend itself...is it that governments´fault that ONE GROUP attacked it? Are they NOT supposed to defend themselves because they might be accused of killing members of ONE GROUP? That´s risiculous...and it does nothing to change the facts..n¿and the facts were that people, one group or several, from within the country were attacking it and the goernment had every right to fight back...after all, had the Armenians won, wouldn´t THEY have been guilty of "killing members of one group" too?

What the Turks did was attack those "members of one group" who were attacking THEM...what were they supposed to do?..."Gee, we´d love to fight back and defend ourselves but we better not because we´re being agttacked by "members of one group". Does that make any sense to you?
>
>This means that Australia as far back as the 70s when I was brpn was committing genocide.
>
>>...the fact, the relevant fact is that people legally subject to their own government, not the Allies, accepted pay and weapons to kill their fellow-citizens...they were all part of the Ottoma Empiure as every Apacheis part of the American Empire and they can no more take money and arms from Libya to attack the United States than can the Armenians and other Christians take weapons and money from the Brits to attack Turkey...ALL of Turkey or any part of it...the Turks took the lands of other peoples...as every nation and empire on earth has done, including the Assyrian Empire...do you think Ashurbanipal or Lincoln, would hesitate to attack anyone who threatened any part of their empires?
>>
>
>The ancient Assyrians only made examples of the ring leaders and relocated captives to the periphery of the empire.

...I like the "only"...it seems we can apologize for whom we want and condemn those we don´t like. Whatever they did, they denied freedom and choice to those whom they conquered...and worse if they rebelled...as they had every right to do, just as those people had to rebel.

Assyrian soldiers were also tasked with caring for and providing for these new citizens with explicit warnings in cuneiform to the general in charge that he would forfeit his life if harm befell them. This is in stark contrast to the Ottomans and their treatment of captives.

...no, not if you read more...after the war several soldiers and officers were tried for crimes they committed way beyond what was ordered by any official...and there were many directives which threateedn soldiers with punishment if they exceeded their orders....that simply is not true.
>
>>
>>Having lost the Greek sector to the Greeks earlier they were determined not to allow the Armenian and Assyrioan minorities also follow suit.
>>
>>..of course...as is their right by every international law...we have to apply the same laws...not change the rules just because Muslims are involved with Christians...and the Christians lose.
>
>What I'm trying to say is that men have a tendency to be free and as a result they will naturally seek independence.


...and what I´m saying is that nations, which are made of a bunch of people, have not only a natural tendencey to want to maintain law and order and keep their borders intact and keep attackers from entering, with the help of traitors from within, but also the solemn and sworn duty to do so.

During the age of empires when europeans had defined their nation states and sought distant colonies the nationalism sickness spread tpo the Middle east and roused us to seek our freedom as well.

...of course...freedom can be a disease and everyone has a right to suffer its effects and enjoy its benefits...but nations have an equal right to enjoy peace and tranquility and the rule of law.
>
>>...and on top of all that the Christian world is trying to pin a genocide on them!!! When THEY are the past masters at committing genocides, especially against other Christians.
>
>Of that we both agree. Let's also remember that genocide is the eventual result of hyper-nationalism crossing with a Darwinian "survival of the fittest" Eugenics policy that sough to purify the homeland. No one did it better than the Germans in WW2 and it is no coincidence that it was the same Germans who were the propaganda arm of the Ottomans helping them "purify" their homeland.

...the Sultan never trusted the Germans...but he had to have ONE ally against the other Christian nations. The motiveof the Turk was completely different from that of the Nazi....the Turk had already seen Western Christianity enter his lands, had heard them saying they were on a DIVINE mission to rid his people of their evilreligion, to free them from that impostor Muhammad...there was no secret of what the West planned to do to the Turks...under those circumstances the Turks could do little less than look for the slightest evidence that their own Christian citizens were being seduced...and they had to act swiftly and decisively...because as we can see, they lost in the end.
>
>
>>>
>>>We can also use the same argument to state that the Iraqi and Afghan freedom fighters who today continue to resist US aggression are in fact also being treasonous in attempting to liberate their homelands. Or will you opinion of them change once they have actually kicked out the US invaders?
>>
>>...this is quite different...there is no government in Iraq or Afganhistan except a puppet of the United States'...this is hardly the same....we are not talking about how popular or kind a government is, just whether, by international law, it is the LEGAL government...there is no legal government in Iraq or Afghabnistan...we know that because they must be propped up by foreigners, while the government of Turkey was being ATTACKED by foreigners.
>
>Although I would agree with you the majority in the Western world would disagree. Might makes right afterall.

...yes, as long as there is the mioght to back this illegal government it will remain in place...but remove the might and you´ll see how quickly it will collapse.
>
>>
>>..every people on earth have the right and, as the US Constitution says, the DUTY to rise up against an oppresvive government...that doesn not mean you will be greeted as a liberator by that government...you will be a rebel, a revolutionary, you will be committing sedition and treason and if they catch your ass they are entitled to hang you, at the least...but, should you win you will be a hero and acclaimed throughout history, unless you´re Fidel Castro...this is the risk you take....this is the risk the Armenians and others took...and they lost and they knew full well what the penalty would be...that´s the way it goes in life.
>>
>>You have a right to rebel and the government you rebel against has an equal right to kill you for doing it. Did I really have to explain this?
>>
>>..one more thing and I´m sure you´re not going to pulla Bet-Shlmon, but couldyou respond to the point that Christians in major cities were left unmolested, free to work, free to run their businesses and free to worship?
>>
>>...does this not strike you as odd when there is a GENOCIDE taking place?
>
>From my research this was not the case.
>Not only were Christians such as Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians killed but it did not matter whether they were from the CofE or from the Chaldean or Syriac churches.
>
>In addition even Yezidis and Shabaks were targeted and slaughtered by the thousands. You see it was a purification of the Ottoman empire.
>

...did you answer my question? Are you saying that the Turks went after ALL the Christians in the nation? And what is your time-frame...when did this cleansing and purifying take place? Was it before the Euro missionaries entered the country and set up fortress-"schools" or well before?

...you still have not addressed the fact that the Ottoman Empire was the ONE place on earth where Muslim, Christian and Jews lived side by side in more harmoney than Christian ever lived next to Christian...that Charistians, where they rules, killed every Muslim and periodically every Jew....so that if one day a "purification" all of a sudden happened, in other words, if one day the Turk all of a sudden began to behave as the Christians always had, something drastic must have happened to the Turk to force him to change his centuries-old traditions...what was it? Turns out it was an insidiously innocent-appearing "mission" by Western Christians who entered his lands illegally and soon had their respective government interferring in order to "defend those poor Christians surrounded by Muslims". That was the beginning and the Tyurk was right in fearing it and fearing what would come next.

...so, this kind of thing was not natural or tradition with the Turks...but it is with those now clamoring that the Turk too must be as guilty as they are.
>
>
>Source: http://www.seyfocenter.com/index.php?sid=2&aID=36
>
>Van and Diyarbakir provinces had the highest number of victims with 80,000 and 63,000 killed, respectively. Going to more detailed investigations, the Syrian Orthodox Church specified the killing of 90,313 believers including 154 of its priests and 7 bishops and the destruction of 156 church buildings.[2] The Chaldeans reported the loss of 6 bishops, 50 priests and 50,000 of its faithful.[3] The Nestorians were so decimated and dispersed that they never managed to present any detailed figures.

...to me, it matters a great deal where these figured come, who compiled them and how...if they come from any Christian sources, or American or Europoean diplomatic sources, then I´m sorry...I no longer believe in every aluminum tube that´s presented to me. In this case, where bigotry runs rampant I want to know where these figures come from...but even so, when faced with an armed insurrection, paid for and sponsored by the very people attacking them, the Turks had every right to act, and even over react...that´s just the way it goes...but, since tnhey had never tried to cleanse their relam of Christians before, I think some better explanation or accusation than "they just wanted to get rid of Christians all of a sudden" is required. They had a few hundred years to do it...why the sudden rush?
>
>
>[2] Memorandum presented by Syrian Orthodox Archbishop of Syria Severius A. Barsaum on April 2, 1920 printed in Sébastien de Courtois,. The Forgotten Genocide. Eastern Christians, The Last Arameans. (Piscataway, N.J.: Gorgias Press 2004), 237-239.
>[3] Emmanuel Thomas to Pope Benoit V July 6, 1919 Vatican Arcives, Archivo Segreto, AA.EE.SS. 1919 rubr. 12 fasc.1.

...bishops and reverends and popes and priests tell children they are going to hell...they tell them they will live on a cloud forever when they die...please, this is a serious discussion, on my part at least.



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


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9