Turkey warns US on Armenia genocide bill

Turkey warns US on Armenia genocide bill

news.yahoo.com

ANKARA, Turkey - Turkey's president warned the U.S. government Tuesday that their longtime ties will be harmed if Congress passes a resolution putting the genocide label on the mass killings of ethnic Armenians in Ottoman Turk lands during World War I.

(visit the link for the full news article)

What does this mean in the long run? Honestly, what does it matter to Turkey so long after the fact? It WAS a very turbulent time in the regions history and chaos reigns in such situations.
But, what of Armenia's claims to it being "organized" enough to be Genocide.

What do you all think?

Cuhail

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

It was clearly a genocide, and now the fact is the Assyrians and Armenians do not have a place to call their own. Those nations now are small in number and scattered around the globe. If the Nazi's were tried and punished for murdering Jews, then why not the same for the Turks?

reply to post by Equinox99


What about Americans vs Natives?
What we did the the natives of these lands was very clearly genocide.
How far back do you want the finger pointing game to continue?

See, that's what great about ATS! BOTH sides of the coin have been raised.

-Why shouldn't it be recorded! It IS Genocide after all...

and

-Add it to the long list of human failure! We'll just do it again.

But what about the core threat? Relations being stretched and the whole France bit? France acknowledged it as genocide and Turkey stopped all military ties with them. Now I know we have interests militarily in Turkey. Will the U.S. fold and pass it off for those ties?

That's more what I'm asking

Cuhail

hmmm there is a country caled `Armenia` surely this could be the home of aremenians now would it....


and to call this `genocide` then fine - i call the attempted extermination of blacks in the 1930`s>1950`s USA genocide

much more recent.

Originally posted by BitRaiser
reply to post by Equinox99

 

What about Americans vs Natives?
What we did the the natives of these lands was very clearly genocide.
How far back do you want the finger pointing game to continue?

So you're suggesting the Armenians should be allowed to run casinos in Turkey?

I for one would have no problem trading the Washington government for a reestablished New Etocha. Though they might have some issues with the Creek Indians who lived in North Georgia before the Cherokee came in.

Originally posted by Cuhail
-Why shouldn't it be recorded! It IS Genocide after all...

and

-Add it to the long list of human failure! We'll just do it again.

But what about the core threat? Relations being stretched and the whole France bit? France acknowledged it as genocide and Turkey stopped all military ties with them. Now I know we have interests militarily in Turkey. Will the U.S. fold and pass it off for those ties?

Interestingly it was just in the news a couple of weeks ago that the Turkish government were preparing its archives for public release, including documentation relating to the massacre of the Armenian christians. Rather than wait for this information to be made public, and allowing historians for the first time to consider ALL the available information some within the US have decided to start bandying about labels.

It certainly makes me wonder what this group of people hopes to acheive other than the spread of acrimony. Turkey is a very powerful ally and historically an effective buffer to be utilised in the isolation and control of the Soviet, more modernly, as a buffer between Europe and the Middle East, both geographically and ideologically.

Turkey it seems is not concerned about the massacre of Armenias being discussed merely in that it not be called a genocide. France has fallen foul and actually introduced laws that make it illegal to "Deny" the "Armenian Genocide", just as many countries have with the Jewish genocide. As there are no living survivors of the Armenian genocides one wonders who benefits from the re-classification. None of the perpetrators are living either, so no prosecutions. Recognition is one thing, but labelling for the sake of labelling seems somewhat over-zealous especially if it is going to further exaccerbate stretched relations.

The real issue seems to be the Turks desire to enter Iraq. They have been reporting problems on their south-east border for a long time now. It is held on the Iraqi side by Kurds. Turkey wants to be able to go over the border and arrest rebels. Whether the Turks are being wholly honest about their intentions or not, this would not be a good idea. It is an understatement to say that these two peoples do not get along and it could get very ugly. The situation does need to be resolved but not by Turkey going in. Despite repeated complaints by Turkey nothing has been done to resolve the matter.

While Turkey is an important ally the US want the Kurds on side too, they have that region of Iraq 'under control'. So which is more important, relations with the Kurds or with the Turks? It depends on the eventual goal. Who would benefit and who would suffer if Turkey should down trade links with the US? President Bush seems to favour Turkey, but there seems to be substantial opposition. I think that it is definately a situation to watch, it could have major implications on Turkeys attempts to join Europe, they know that they have to be on best behaviour to be even thought of.

Though the massacres of Armenians can be called a genocide, it seems an inopportune moment for the US to push the matter. I cannot help but wonder if those people pressing for its 'official' recognition are keen to either raise hostilities within Turkey or deflect attention from something else.

It'll be interesting what their archives reveal and how quickly information is poo-poohed. The Nazis afterall have been found not to be responsible for some of the massacres committed during their reign of Europe, perhaps the same can be said occurred in Turkey. Maybe the Turks are not the only ones who should shoulder responsibility.....?? If so, the release of documentary information may represent a threat and a desire to prevent that information from being released. Just a thought.

So what constitutes to be a genocide now?

Article 2 of the CPPCG defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

Wiki

2/3 of a nation was wiped out, and now they are living in a diaspora. Oh, but wait who cares, this is modern times. So if someone killed your great grand parents, it was a vicious massacre, you would not want justice? Those peoples lands were taken, the women in some villages were raped, innocent children murdered, they were relocated to the Syrian Desert which killed many during the walk.
So if a Nazi war criminal is sentenced after about 50 years, if the Jewish holocaust is being noticed then why not notice every other genocide?
Oh wait I know why, Israel runs the United States. So now you have this genocide, and the killers are not persecuted.
George Bush is a hypocrite and a coward, he would rather fight the war that should not exist, then help the small population left from these people.

And the Genocide of the Indians in the USA - that was caused by the whiteman the invaders who came to there land to kill, rape, burn and pillage.

This is way deeper than what is being represented.

First, the Turks and Armernians to this day can't stand eachother. Why? Because the Armenians claim that they were mass killed, which the Turks feverishly deny. The Turks in return claim that the armenians massacred a bunch of Turks, which the armenians deny.

They hate eachother plain and simple.

But to have a US president lobby to not grant an obvious genocide because of their war on terror relationship with Turkey, it is disgusting. And unfortuanely I am not surprised. This adminstration has ZERO heart of compassion for outsiders.

How about we call it a Holocaust then if Genocide doesn't fit. Nope, it looks like the Jews have sole ownership of that word.

Bush & Comp

AAC

Originally posted by AnAbsoluteCreation
But to have a US president lobby to not grant an obvious genocide because of their war on terror relationship with Turkey, it is disgusting. And unfortuanely I am not surprised. This adminstration has ZERO heart of compassion for outsiders.

Yup, looks like it's official...

www.cnn.com...

It's not genocide, it's 'enhanced population control'.

reply to post by 27jd


Great link, thank you.


@KilgoreTrout:

AWESOME POST!!! I learned a lot from your post, thank you for advancing the topic.

To those arguing the N. Americans, African-American, Jewish genocide issues-
Please can we focus on the topic I started concerning the Turkey/Armenian situation and it's history. There are a hundred threads on each of those individual topics and the arguments should be kept within their respective threads.
What I started this thread for was to learn more about the situation between Turkey and Armenia. I don't disagree with the fact that genocide has occured in North and South America, Asia, Europe, Africa and Austrailia (did I spell that wrong?). I just don't think it belongs in this discussion, thanks. Please don't feel dissed.

Towards the topic, Turkey IS a major buffer between the West and the Mid-East. True. Strained relations now could be detrimental to the logistics and supplies for our troops. Also, the recent cross-border attacks against Kurds in Iraq. Do we also turn a blind eye to that as well? All in the name of diplomacy with the more important ally?

Certainly a thought provoker.

Thanks for the posts, all,
Cuhail

While some politicians take it seriously, this seems to me to be posturing on both sides. It reminds me of a couple of roosters circling each other and spreading wings and talking trash. In a bit, both go their way, each feeling like it won the encounter.

But, the manipulators have a reasoning in this. The US wants Turkey to stop crossing the border after Kurds, Turkish leaders can't be seen to cave in to these demands, or they lose respect at home. So GW and the Congress play good cop/bad cop with this label. When we back down on the label, letting Turkey "win", they feel so happy that they let the US deal with the Kurds.

It just seems like a game, over nothing big except a word, that can be used to gain what is wanted in the first place by the leaders on both sides.

I just don't see much coming of this.

Edit for fat finger spelling errors.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by NGC2736]

Now this Now Bush

Here's the newest tidbit on the Turkey/Kurdistan shuffle.

Turkey with Kurd Sauce

Quote from source,
SIRNAK, Turkey - Turkish warplanes and helicopter gunships attacked suspected positions of Kurdish rebels near Iraq on Wednesday, a possible prelude to a cross-border operation that would likely raise tensions with Washington.

Something's building up right there man, I'm telling ya.

Cuhail

Bush cant be happy with Turkey at all. Just before the Iraq war was to start they made a political move to be more Islamic in nature and did not allow our 4th army division to invade Iraq from their territory and in turn caused us not to have enough troops there to control the looting chaos that started after Baghdad fell among other problems that having more troops would have solved.
I think G.W. has been letting the Kurds aggravate Turkey as a little pay back.

Originally posted by Cuhail


What does this mean in the long run? Honestly, what does it matter to Turkey so long after the fact? It WAS a very turbulent time in the regions history and chaos reigns in such situations.
But, what of Armenia's claims to it being "organized" enough to be Genocide.

What do you all think?

Cuhail

news.yahoo.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

A famous quote by Hitler when asked about the Jews. His reply was simple.

"No one remembers the Armenians".

reply to post by Cuhail


I think you're hitting that nail squarely on the head.

Turkish tanks ready to roll into Iraq in hunt for rebel hideouts

As renewed talk of an incursion surfaced Sean McCormack, the US State Department spokesman, said that this would not lead to a long-term, durable solution and called for Turkish cooperation with the authorities in Iraq.

Ankara may not, however, shy away from the idea of upsetting the United States at a time when the House of Representatives is preparing to pass a resolution blaming Ottoman Turkey for genocide against ethnic Armenians during the First World War.

www.timesonline.co.uk...

bolding mine

politics and war skipping gaily down the path together

edited in headline





[edit on 10/10/07 by masqua]

Thanks for the post masqua. And good link too.

What's odd is I recieved a U2U from another member relating on how they have followed certain predictions concerning Turkey having problems with Russia in the not-too-distant future. Problems arising militarily between Russia and Turkey. Now, I've summed up the U2U crudely and there was much more to it, but, has there been increased tension between Russia and Turkey lately? I don't follow predictions too much, but, the implications the U2U made could easily happen.

Cuhail