Barack Obama will not label 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide

President Barack Obama will once again stop short of calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide, prompting anger and disappointment from those who have been pushing him to fulfill a campaign promise and use the politically fraught term on the 100th anniversary of the killings this week.

Officials decided against it after opposition from some at the State Department and the Pentagon.

After more than a week of internal debate, top administration officials discussed the final decision with Armenian-American leaders Tuesday before making it public.

Barack Obama will not label 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide

Obama's stance comes right after the Pope's claim few days ago that coined turkish massacre against armenian's as a genocide. Whether is as a result of strong turkish lobying (as some analysts say) or political manoeuvrings considering the importance of Turkey in the region in the light of the conflict and not wanting to "piss off" Erdogan, again history is the one that suffers and is being changed to fit the agendas and the will of the puppet masters.

Meanwhile millions of armenians who died from the hands of turkish soldiers are rolling in their grave for some justice.

More sources

www.cnn.com...

www.huffingtonpost.com...

Turkey Lobbies Obama on Armenian 'Genocide'

ISTANBUL—

Ankara is becoming increasingly concerned about whether U.S. President Barack Obama will follow Pope Francis and the EU parliament in using the word "genocide" on the 100th anniversary (April 24) of the start of the mass killings of Armenians. A senior Turkish official warns that political and military steps will be taken if the word "genocide" is used.

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu was dispatched to Washington to meet with his U.S. counterpart John Kerry to lobby against President Obama using the word "genocide" in his annual address on the mass killings of Armenians during World War I.

www.voanews.com...

a reply to: Telos

It might be a personal vendetta against the Kardashians.

a reply to: Telos

I will not label Barack Obama as the POTUS.

a reply to: Telos

LOL - Obama, you are indeed a bloody Turkey.

Still does not change the FACT that it was genocide.....so, him NOT saying it simply reinforces the reality that it occurred.

A dark chapter in Turkeys history.

Obama seems to follow a 'if it seems like the right thing to do, do the opposite' rule of thumb.

Perhaps someone can educate me and tell me why it even matters what Obama calls it.

Call it genocide, murder..whatever. It's only a label. It does not change the fact that people were killed.

Why get caught up in the political "symbolism"?

originally posted by: introvert
Perhaps someone can educate me and tell me why it even matters what Obama calls it.

Call it genocide, murder..whatever. It's only a label. It does not change the fact that people were killed.

Why get caught up in the political "symbolism"?

What if Obama had said: there was no genocide against jewish people...Would have still been a label to you and us being caught in a political "symbolism" ?

originally posted by: introvert
Perhaps someone can educate me and tell me why it even matters what Obama calls it.

Because he's not being "politically correct" and apparently people are offended... (Of course, they HATE political correctness and think it's ruining the country, but when it's something they have an interest in, they're all over him about it!)

Call it genocide, murder..whatever. It's only a label. It does not change the fact that people were killed.

Why get caught up in the political "symbolism"?

Exactly.

originally posted by: introvert
Perhaps someone can educate me and tell me why it even matters what Obama calls it.

Call it genocide, murder..whatever. It's only a label. It does not change the fact that people were killed.

Why get caught up in the political "symbolism"?

Because it gives people something to kick Obama with. Has any previous American president ever referred to it as genocide? Has any other leader of a country (obviously with the exception of Armenia) done so? Actually, apart from the Pope, who else has? None of that matters though, any chance to post something negative about Obama..........

Does anyone think it would make waves if Obama came out and said that what the Nazis did in the 1940's was not genocide?
What would it matter if he did?

a reply to: introvert

Why? Because when it comes to teaching your children truth and history (Truthfully) not having it labelled as a genocide means it might not see a child's text book. Which means MANY US children will be taught lies (Or just one more).

a reply to: Telos

Calculated insult or diplomatic failure, I am getting less and less surprised by the pattern emerging.

originally posted by: introvert
Perhaps someone can educate me and tell me why it even matters what Obama calls it.

Call it genocide, murder..whatever. It's only a label. It does not change the fact that people were killed.

Why get caught up in the political "symbolism"?

"What difference – at this point, what difference does it make?"

-Hillary Rodham Clinton

originally posted by: uncommitted
Has any other leader of a country (obviously with the exception of Armenia) done so?

Yes, Reagan.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: introvert
Perhaps someone can educate me and tell me why it even matters what Obama calls it.

Call it genocide, murder..whatever. It's only a label. It does not change the fact that people were killed.

Why get caught up in the political "symbolism"?

What if Obama had said: there was no genocide against jewish people...Would have still been a label to you and us being caught in a political "symbolism" ?

Does it matter if it's called genocide, holocaust or any other term for that matter? It does not change the fact that the killings took place.

Why are we more focused on what term to use instead of working to ensure that something like this doesn't happen in the future?

We are more interested in the "symbolism" instead of the horrible act itself.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: introvert
Perhaps someone can educate me and tell me why it even matters what Obama calls it.

Because he's not being "politically correct" and apparently people are offended... (Of course, they HATE political correctness and think it's ruining the country, but when it's something they have an interest in, they're all over him about it!)

Call it genocide, murder..whatever. It's only a label. It does not change the fact that people were killed.

Why get caught up in the political "symbolism"?

Exactly.

Condemning a lie and denial of truth is not politician correctness. Is fighting for the truth. History doesn't recognize PC or other mechanisms of manipulations. History recognizes only facts.

a reply to: Telos

President Barack Obama will once again stop short of calling the 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide, prompting anger and disappointment from those who have been pushing him to fulfill a campaign promise and use the politically fraught term on the 100th anniversary of the killings this week.

Well Turkey is an ally after all. Besides, the US government is guilty of a few genocides itself.

But they're okay, they are called wars.

Indian massacres and fire bombings of German and Japan cities (let alone nukes) buried deep in the closet.

originally posted by: introvert

Does it matter if it's called genocide, holocaust or any other term for that matter? It does not change the fact that the killings took place.

Why are we more focused on what term to use instead of working to ensure that something like this doesn't happen in the future?

We are more interested in the "symbolism" instead of the horrible act itself.

Not that I coined the term but I'll try to reply to your comment (actually many thanks for bringing it up because way to many people don't understand the concept) by quoting someone expert in the field. By denying the right name that's what we do:

Denial has a profoundly negative impact on everyone concerned.

Denial harms the victims and their survivors.

That is what the Turkish government today is doing to Armenians around the world. Elie Wiesel has repeatedly called Turkey’s denial a double killing, as it strives to kill the memory of the event. We believe the US government should not be party to efforts to kill the memory of a historical fact as profound and important as the genocide of the Armenians, which Hitler used as an example in his plan to exterminate the Jews.

Around the world, victims of genocide ask first for recognition of the crime committed against them. It is as essential to healing as closing an open wound. Without such healing, scars harden into hatred that cripples the victim and cries out for revenge.

Denial harms the perpetrators and their successors.

Denial harms the bystanders

The above is a snippet from The Cost of Denial, By Dr. Gregory Stanton President, International Association of Genocide Scholars President, Genocide Watch

here is the full material: www.genocidewatch.org...

originally posted by: butcherguy
Does anyone think it would make waves if Obama came out and said that what the Nazis did in the 1940's was not genocide?

But he's not making a claim that the Armenian situation WASN'T genocide. Does it matter if he calls it an "atrocity" or "mass murder" or "massacre" or "slaughter"?

People are being manipulated and offended by the use of a WORD. Armenia wants him to use a word and Turkey doesn't want him to use a word. It's so silly!

It's like when Obama didn't say "Radical Islam" and just said "Radicals". People lost their minds. We have to learn not to be so manipulated by this political crap. IMO.