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, 2:02:19 (UTC)
from *** - *** - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Tiglath wrote:
>>2. That in wartime, when faced with rebellion from within (regardless of how noble-sounding the rebellion such as "we just want our freedom"..or, "all we want is our own country"...or, "we are just expressing normal national aspirations" etc), rebellion which amounts to treason, armed insurrection aided by the enemy, and ssedition, every nation on earth has the right and duty to defend its borders and citizenry from all hostile forces ESPECIALY those from within its own ranks.
>
>
>And this is where you and I will have to differ.
>The Turks were not defending their homeland during WW1. They were defending their colonies and maintaining their empire.

..now who´s quibbling? You said I was when I said the Turks did not indulge in anything ear what the Nazis did...to you it was all the same...a genocide is a genocide...and now you give yourself the right to decide what constitures defending your country...you say it was their EMPIRE and their COLONIES they were defending...so what? What makes defense of ones empire...and remember now the definition of "indigenous" you brought us from the UN...the Ottomasn occupied their colonies and empire for more than 400 years, ergo, they were the indifenous people of ALL those territories...but even if that was not the case...it is up to them what is to be defended and what is not....the United States will defend Alaska, even though it was one of the last to join its EMPIRE.

...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?


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.
>
>They were the "sick man of Europe" competing against the other European empires who were eyeing their colonies such as Iraq. As a result they followed in the footsteps of the other nationalists by purifying their nation state through one language, one religion and one culture.

...as I said, the mistake the Muslim world made was to be too tolerant for too long...the United States embarked on this buisness of a "melting pot"much earlier, with the same intention and goal...plus which the Turks had already seen how foreign missionaries entered their land with impunity and without permission to evangelize and demonize Islam and Muhammad...they made no secret of the fact that they were going to re-energize the Nesortians to once again become evangelists atnd attack Islam....the Turks had every reason to fear the Euros, who used the excuse that they were just protecting Christrians, as an excuse to meddle and also threaten and subvert....they had real reason to fear these first intrusions,,,,look what happened to them.

...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.
>
>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.

..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?



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


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9