Barack Obama will not label 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide

And what kind of military action would be taken?

a reply to: Telos

You're using a faulty logic my friend.

I think my logic is quite straight forward. Let's pretend Obama did use the term "genocide". What happens next? What changes after the words are spoken?

You did avoid a simple question I asked you, what if what happened to Jewish people during WWII is not called genocide anymore? What would happen? And you skipped the answer to that.

I avoided the question because, at first, thought it was irrelevant, but I see that it is actually a great way to illustrate my point. So let's ask the question again:

what if what happened to Jewish people during WWII is not called genocide anymore? What would happen?

Nothing. Nothing would happen. The world would still know horrible things happened during the Holocaust and history would remember it for what it was...no matter the term used to describe it.

My point in all of this is to illustrate the fact that we are arguing over the word used by the US president to describe these atrocities, instead of focusing on making sure we do not let history repeat itself.

You asked me to prove who other than Obama has spoken about armenin genocide and I brought Reagan as an example, including his speech.

Perhaps you have me confused with another member. I don't believe I requested anything of the sort.

I used your example of Reagan and his approach towards the issue after he made that statement to highlight the reason Obama may be reluctant to call it genocide. Politically speaking, there is no advantage in doing so and it may even be harmful in the long run.

This entire discussion seems disingenuous because it focuses on a term, the politics behind it, and does nothing to highlight the horrors of what occurred to the Armenians.

Turkish Professor says there was a genocide

Fatma Muge Cocek, professor of sociology and women’s studies, University of Michigan, told Here & Now’s Robin Young about the social and political backdrop that led to killing of Armenians during the Ottoman Post-War era, and why she now uses the term genocide to describe the killings.

Here are the highlights from the interviews.



On whether religious differences made Armenians a target?

“Religion is one factor that impacts the way in which society itself is structured because non-Muslims in the Ottoman Empire lived under a system called the millet system, where they had pretty much self governance, but no access to arms and armaments, and in turn had to pay also a special poll tax. And because of that, especially because of the fact that there was no intermarriage, one can say that they existed in Ottoman society, but they were not fully integrated into Ottoman society. And probably was a more important factor than religion alone.”...

www.xthinks.org...

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Telos

You're using a faulty logic my friend.

I think my logic is quite straight forward. Let's pretend Obama did use the term "genocide". What happens next? What changes after the words are spoken?

You did avoid a simple question I asked you, what if what happened to Jewish people during WWII is not called genocide anymore? What would happen? And you skipped the answer to that.

I avoided the question because, at first, thought it was irrelevant, but I see that it is actually a great way to illustrate my point. So let's ask the question again:

what if what happened to Jewish people during WWII is not called genocide anymore? What would happen?

Nothing. Nothing would happen. The world would still know horrible things happened during the Holocaust and history would remember it for what it was...no matter the term used to describe it.

My point in all of this is to illustrate the fact that we are arguing over the word used by the US president to describe these atrocities, instead of focusing on making sure we do not let history repeat itself.

You asked me to prove who other than Obama has spoken about armenin genocide and I brought Reagan as an example, including his speech.

Perhaps you have me confused with another member. I don't believe I requested anything of the sort.

I used your example of Reagan and his approach towards the issue after he made that statement to highlight the reason Obama may be reluctant to call it genocide. Politically speaking, there is no advantage in doing so and it may even be harmful in the long run.

This entire discussion seems disingenuous because it focuses on a term, the politics behind it, and does nothing to highlight the horrors of what occurred to the Armenians.

To me the whole reply looks like a words play. If what I brought here in the regard of why a genocide should be called as such, wasn't enough than the whole debate gets down to logical fallacy against rationality. Wasn't this the reason of why this thread was opened. And I do agree in one thing, we should focus in the fact that this things don't happen again and we never let that repeat. How we do that? By starting using the right terms and naming things with what they deserve to be named.

worst president ever. he is literally just a mouthpiece.

a reply to: Telos

Gutless.

Kind of difficult to label what Turkey did as genocide without first acknowledging the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the current genocide in Africa.

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"?

Well then maybe we should just stop acknowledging slavery in America's pasts. Or maybe we should just sweep the entire Atlantic Slave Trade under the rug.

Maybe we should just not acknowledge the KKK as a hate organization.


Doesn't sound so good now does it?


In the space of one year, the Ottomans butchered 5 times as many people that came to the United States from Africa in nearly 350. This is a huge deal. Obama not acknowledging it only confirms what we already know anyway. He is more interested in appeasing and catering to Muslims than anything else.

originally posted by: LowTechRedneck
Kind of difficult to label what Turkey did as genocide without first acknowledging the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the current genocide in Africa.

Awesome logic! Let's not acknowledge on genocide because another genocide happened! What's your name man? We need someone like you with your wisdom and mindset on the ballot in 2016!!!

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: butcherguy

Ok, and the president using the term "genocide" for something that occurred during WW1 changes that or helps somehow?

I'm still failing to see the purpose, other than purely political.

See my first post.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Telos

Obama is not denying anything! He's choosing his own words and, as a world leader, I think he should be allowed to do that.

You mean he's appeasing and catering the Muslims because he is a Muslim apologist?

He wants what 'official' scientists (aka scientists with a Liberal/Progressive agenda) to be taken into account when it comes to environmental impact, isn't it a bit hypocritical to not want that for 2 million innocents that were slaughtered? Hell, scholars and historians have more proof that this was a genocide that Obama's shill environmental scientists have that the worlds gonna end because of man-made climate change.

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: LowTechRedneck
Kind of difficult to label what Turkey did as genocide without first acknowledging the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the current genocide in Africa.

Awesome logic! Let's not acknowledge on genocide because another genocide happened! What's your name man? We need someone like you with your wisdom and mindset on the ballot in 2016!!!

Step back son, your breath stinks.


My point was that politically, it is difficult and disingenious to go labeling something from a century ago as genocide while ignoring a genocide in your own country and more importantly ignoring genocide happening right now. There is genocide happening right now and has been for years in Africa (maybe more than one) and potentially in both the Middle East and North Korea, yet the focus is on a label for atrocities a century old while ignoring the current reality. Let's focus on ending the current genocide(s) and worry about labels & symbolic gestures that may anger a key strategic ally in any attempt to end said current genocide(s). Once we deal with those pressing issues, then we can take a look at the past.

This does not shock me, there is still no official acknowledgement from the Western governments that what happened during and after (also possibly before) WW2 to the German people, was genocide, plain and simple. Will the attacks by Western powers on Libya, Syria and Iraq be considered genocide, considering they made absolutely no attempt at least in Syria and Libya, to protect the civilian population and maintain law and order, to me that is genocide...Even Hitler, protected the civilian population of countries, with the obvious exceptions and maintained law and order...There is genocide going on throughout Africa as we speak, but nobody says anything...Genocide is a term that the elite throw around to further objectives in their globalist agenda, if it fits then that is fine, if there is no real point to it or it doesn't fit, then it gets brushed under the carpet, regardless of figures. Everything is political, I've come to realise this all too well in my job.

originally posted by: LowTechRedneck

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: LowTechRedneck
Kind of difficult to label what Turkey did as genocide without first acknowledging the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the current genocide in Africa.

Awesome logic! Let's not acknowledge on genocide because another genocide happened! What's your name man? We need someone like you with your wisdom and mindset on the ballot in 2016!!!

Step back son, your breath stinks.


My point was that politically, it is difficult and disingenious to go labeling something from a century ago as genocide while ignoring a genocide in your own country and more importantly ignoring genocide happening right now. There is genocide happening right now and has been for years in Africa (maybe more than one) and potentially in both the Middle East and North Korea, yet the focus is on a label for atrocities a century old while ignoring the current reality. Let's focus on ending the current genocide(s) and worry about labels & symbolic gestures that may anger a key strategic ally in any attempt to end said current genocide(s). Once we deal with those pressing issues, then we can take a look at the past.

And the point I'm trying to make is that this is just another example of Obama doing absolutely everything in his power to appease and Cater to Murderous Muslims. Libs like to mention that it's still ok to tell me how racist I am because I'm white because there are still people alive who were directly affected by the civil rights movement. Well guess what, there are people still alive today who lived through that genocide, some people's parents and grandparents. But here you are telling them their deaths didn't mean as much because by God, other have been genocided too! We don't have to remember every genocide in recent human memory every time we wish to pay our respects, that would be impractical.

And as for your nonsense about Obama not acknowledging Native American attrocities?
nativevotewa.wordpress.com...

That took me five seconds to Google, and it was the top of the list.

And I also never once said that we shouldn't try stopping current genocides. But that ties into what I said earlier. We don't have to acknowledge every time genocide has occured to remember a specific genocide.... Everyone knows it's bad and that we are fighting against it. These rememberances are the only semblance of justice and acknowledgement. That the victims get.

a reply to: Telos

Hmmmm
Last I checked Armenia was not a US state

Obama was the the Armenian president?

So who cares.

Why is it a US problem?

Let Turkey and Armenia call it what they want.

originally posted by: JourneymanWelder
worst president ever. he is literally just a mouthpiece.

Every president ever.

a reply to: Telos

Oh hey this thread is about third and final anti-Christ

Weeeee

Are we surprised he is a bad man

originally posted by: chuck258

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"?

Well then maybe we should just stop acknowledging slavery in America's pasts. Or maybe we should just sweep the entire Atlantic Slave Trade under the rug.

Maybe we should just not acknowledge the KKK as a hate organization.


Doesn't sound so good now does it?


In the space of one year, the Ottomans butchered 5 times as many people that came to the United States from Africa in nearly 350. This is a huge deal. Obama not acknowledging it only confirms what we already know anyway. He is more interested in appeasing and catering to Muslims than anything else.

I think you may be missing the point.

Obama is acknowledging the atrocities that took place, but hesitates to use the term "genocide" because of the political consequences that may occur.

No one is failing to acknowledge what happened.

I will tell you why Obama didn't say it was a genocide.

Years ago a very powerful Jewish rabbi was speaking at the University of Michigan Q and A session, when I was a student there.

The Detroit area has a very large population of Armenian people.

A very good friend of mine, who is Armenian asked the Rabbi why he thought the "Armenian genocide" was having a very hard time being recognized.

The answer was simple and direct, and I heard it myself. "if the Armenian genocide is recognized it would diminish the Jewish genocide/holocaust in WWII".

I have to tell you we both looked at each other and just shook our heads in amazement, but at least we got the direct truth. lol

Jewish lobbyist's are a very powerful force in DC

originally posted by: LowTechRedneck
Kind of difficult to label what Turkey did as genocide without first acknowledging the genocide committed against the Native Americans and the current genocide in Africa.

I agree, but see where that gets you in a room filled with warmongers.

War is genocide. But only genocide is a crime…

Link to article