The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

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

Re: The Crux of the Turkish Genocide Debate.
Posted by Tiglath (Guest) - Tuesday, September 14 2010, 14:17:10 (UTC)
from 123.2.151.230 - 123-2-151-230.static.dsl.dodo.com.au Australia - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

>...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.

### But as I have attempted to show the Turks were not just acting to put down an insurrection. They were purifying and homogenising their empire in the same fashion as the barbaric European empires had done previously. And just like German communists, gypsies, roma people and the handicapped were victims of the Nazi purification of the 1,000 year Third Empire (Reich) so too were the Syriacs, Chaldeans, Yezidis, Shabaks victims of the Ottoman Empire's purification of its homeland. None of these ggroups unlike the Greeks, Armenians and Assyrians rebelled against the Ottoman empire but were also victims of deportations, massacres and Islamisation policies.

>>
>>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 that is the UN definition which is what I am using to base my definition on. As I said earlier no one is disputing that the Holocaust what be a 10 on the genocidemeter which is why it was not only genocide ....it was given its own term, the Holocaust.
Also would you define the forced removal of children from their parents (part e) genocide? How about the US led sanctions of Iraq?



>
>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.

### Another thing we both agree on. Asking a nation like Australia who was responsible for enforcing the blockade that killed 700,000 Iraq children and an invasion/occupation that killed another 700,000 innocent Iraqis while ingoring their treatrment of the indigenous Aborigines during the 70s to recognise a genocie that was committed 95 yeras ago is equivalent to asking dracula to recognise that a vampire bat sucked your grandfather's blood a century ago!


>
>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?

### They didn't just attack the people that rebelled they attacked Syriacs, Chaldeans and even people they considered pagans such as the Shabaks and the Yezidis. The Ottoman Empire was homeogenising its nation state on one religion, one language and one culture. All impurities would be removed via deportation or massacre.

>>
>>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.

### Granted nows not a good time with the US empire looking for any pretext to invade Middle Eastern nation states and securing a ring of bases around the world's energy reserves. But what's so hard about them eventually acknowledging that they were responsible for genocide and seeking reconciliation and forgiveness with their neigbours?

>>>...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.

>>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.

### You are absolutely right. Under the Ottoman empire on average minorities were better off even if there was a periodic pogrom or massacre. Christians, Jews, Yezidis, Shabaks, were tolerated at least.
BUT it was only when the winds of nationalism blew through the Middle East that the minorities chose to seek independence and the Ottoman empire chose to purify and homogonise its empire.
So you see genocide is not an Islamic or a Christian issue but rather a result of an empire issue.

>>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.


### Yes but look at the dates. Are you saying that these two sources from two separate churches over 90 years ago are a Church conspiracy? I can understand the CofE manufacturing some of its history such as the Jesus sent Abghar a letter myth but the loss of so many innocents during WW1 is attested by multiple sources, Armenian, Assyrian and Greeks, who rebelled and Syriacs, Chaldean Yezidis and Shabaks who didn't rebel.

I also realise that the seyfocenter is a European government sponsored propaganda site designed to enforce the framework of orientalism and justify the Euroepan G8 members who participate in the US banker's control of Middle Eastern black gold reserves. But the fact that these two sources appeared on seyfocenter doesn't make them any less relevant.



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


The full topic:



Content-length: 15340
Content-type: application/x-www-form-urlencoded
Accept: image/jpeg, application/x-ms-application, image/gif, application/xaml+xml, image/pjpeg, application/x-ms-xbap, applicati...
Accept-language: en-AU
Connection: Keep-Alive
Cookie: *hidded*
Host: www.insideassyria.com
Pragma: no-cache
Referer: http://www.insideassyria.com/rkvsf5/rkvsf_core.php?Re_The_Crux_of_the_Turkish_Genocide_Debate-1OVc.2AJw.QUOTE
User-agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.1; Trident/4.0; FunWebProducts; SLCC2; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.5....



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9