Turkey warns US on Armenia genocide bill

Rockpuck thank you! You have truely made this an educational thread. I never realized all the nuances to the Kurdistan/Turkey relationship and I'm glad you're here.
I agree though that it's really quite tough to be educated on the turmoil potential there because we don't see it on the news at all.

-So, the US armed, trained and abandoned the Southern Kurds (SK).
-They support(?) the PKK Govenment, yet don't arm and train them?
-They labeled the Turks as commiters of genocide.
-They also say to the Turks "Stay behind that line!"
-They look away when Kurds cross that same line.
- etc.
I may have a few points wrong there, but anyway I see it....we're screwing EVERYBODY! By stomping Saddams toes we stomp Turkey's toes which stomps Armenian toes, which stomps Turkey's toes again, which stomps Kurdish toes etc, etc, etc.

We suck...as a world power that is.
yeesh!
Cuhail

This move by the US against Turkey really does seem to be a little bit suspicious.

It is as if the EU has asked the US to do something against Turkey, like upset them to force their hand against the Kurds in Iraq, so that the EU may have a legitimate excuse to deny entry for them into the European Union.

If Turkey retaliates against this US move, and denies them use of their bases, and cuts military ties with them, would this not add fuel to the fire for Islamic Extremists and their policies within Turkey? It would put turkey on the other side of the fence and Im pretty sure in the not too distant future, turkey may find itself added to the axis of evil.

Not only this, but I beleive the Turkish/US alliance is what has been holding Greece back from attacking Turkey in regards to the Cypress issue and getting back the land they stole with their invasion in the 70's.

I wouldnt be surprised if the Greeks are watching the goings on very closely between turkey and usa, to find an opportune moment to attack turkey.

Not only because of Cypress, but they have had disputes over islands in the Agean Sea for ages.

So this is what I see happening, The US funds and supports the PKK to destabilise Turkey and start another front. Islamicists in the meantime push their ideology and policies harder against the turkish government with waves of support from the turkish public after feeling like they've been shafted.

EU tell Greece that they have EU support in an attack on Turkey on multiple fronts, possible even using a flase-flag operation to instigate the war.

I see this spreading into the Eastern Mediterranean pretty soon.

Could be the reason why the US has changed its policy and is building a large airbase in Northern Lebanon.....makes you wonder if they foresaw this and have been preparing for others to spread the war to take attention off the USA?

reply to post by Cuhail


Could all this be done in order to destabilize the area around Russia's border? Keep them occupied?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Nancy Polosi acting on behalf of her constituency (California) ensured this time it passes (California has the nations largest ethnic Armenian population)

Doesn’t Californian law permit international class actions and suits to be filed? I know that it is in San Francisco that actions have been filed against the Vatican and certain Swiss Banks for damages incurred to mainly slave labourers during WW2. Is it likely that the American-Armenians will seek similar reparations through the US court system?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
The base population of Kurds, the vast majority, are unarmed and reside inside Turkey, which is why another resurrection of violence would be bad for everyone.

The implication being that the Turks will round these citizens up if the situation intensifies further….?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Mostly the reason why they are denied is because of 2 things.

1. Their government, which I will get to later
2. Their horrific human rights past and present problems, the Armenian slaughter was not the only ethnic cleansing by Turks, and I doubt it will be the last.

France is the only country that refuses to allow Turkey in just for the fact that they are not "Christian" enough.

Not Christian enough if we’re frank actually means not white enough to the French.

Yes they have committed human rights abuses but come on who hasn’t? What makes one nation better than another or more morally superior? The Turks do not deny the massacre of the Armenians, they do deny that it was a centrally planned action. I am inclined to believe them or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see the archives and assess all the available evidence. It may be biased but that in no way invalidates the information contained.

It was a genocide but was it centrally planned or was it the culmination of generations of ethnic tensions and suppression. I see no point in labels, not if they simply serve to increase wider hostilites, our priority should be to the living and to the majority. We cannot please everyone all of the time. What purpose does it really serve other that to permit recourse through Californian courts - does the US really want to see this snowballing through its court systems for future generations?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
This comes from Turkeys government.. it is the only government of its kind as far as I know.. It has its standing somewhat democratic government. Then it has its military government. The military leaders can, at any time, dissolve the Turkish government and re-build it. If the social leaders of Turkey stray the wrong direction, the military puts it back on track. While this is actually a good thing in some ways, as all things have a benefit, when it comes to compassion no military is a fit ruler.

As you point out, sounds like a good idea but in practice it gets a little touchy. It has proved very effective though and the army have dissolved numerous governments since the system was introduced. The military are particularly tetchy about Islam slipping into politics as can be seen with the outcry that was caused when it was found that the newly elected Presidents wife favoured a scarf (shock horror). When I visited Istanbul I found the military presence a shock at first, but you get used to it, it is peripheral. As a rule the people are cultured, educated and benevolent, and like most of us no reflection of their governance. There is extreme poverty, but nothing that long term investment in rural development wouldn’t alleviate.

Originally posted by Rockpuck
It was one of the largest ethnic cleansing recorded in the 20th century, the total dead is unknown. The fact that no one knows about it is one thing, the descendants know what happened, they know Turkey raped their people then the Soviets had the ability to subject these people when they where weak, and not until 1992 was Armenia freed from the soviet power. They simply want recognition, if you read the history of Armenia, and its people you will see they are accustomed to being pillaged by neighbors.

I do not doubt that they have suffered and I agree with you in principle but look at it objectively for a moment. The Armenians suffered, but it was the first genocide of the twentieth century and regardless of numbers each of those deaths has meaning and value. They are dead and nothing will bring them back. People are dying and suffering right now, that should be our priority. Will recognition prevent further suffering or cause more?

Originally posted by Rockpuck
As France would say, they have enough impoverished Muslims in their country. The only major portion of Turks in Europe is in Germany, where Soviets moved them in to do labor work. If Turkey was included Turks would flock to many EU member states, perhaps they are not ready to absorb the shock that would cause local populations.

Yes and no – have you seen the statistics at how many Eastern Europeans have flocked to the UK, guess where the ‘impoverished muslims’ would end up too…no doubt with a helping hand from the French along the way???!!! So many Poles have come to the UK that they are suffering a trades shortage and wages are going up there and down here….talk about a f’up. Anyhoo – in the UK we love cheap labour and if the Turks were able to supply that the British Capitalists would be up for it – they don’t have to live here after all, hence no concern in the social impact. The UK is fit to burst. We knew that the inclusion of Eastern Europe would create this influx but the need of the Capitalist for cheap labour outweighed all other concerns.

It is the fact that the Turks are a) not white and b) muslim – in no particular order, that really prohibit their inclusion in Europe. Everything else is just excuses and window dressing.

Another step-up in tensions between Turkey/Kurdistan as well as Turkey/Iraq/U.S.

Turkey/Iraq campaign-Yahoo News

ANKARA, Turkey - With Turkish-U.S. relations strained, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said Friday that Turkey would not be deterred by the diplomatic consequences if it decides to stage a cross-border offensive into Iraq against Kurdish rebels.

Man, this is stepping up fast! I know it wasn't really in the forefront before, but, the more I see, the more I worry what's unfolding!

Cuhail

(Edit for spelling)

[edit on 10/12/2007 by Cuhail]

reply to post by Cuhail

So, the US armed, trained and abandoned the Southern Kurds (SK).

They did not abandon per say, They will continue to protect Kurds, they just gave them a sense of hope and shot it down.. the ONLY reason Kurdistan is not an independent state is because America told them NO. And they listened, because they honestly do like us, there was even rumors that there was a group who wanted to seek America for statehood lol.

But either way, we had the No Fly Zone over Kurdish lands for a while, and we set them up away from the rest of Iraq, we armed them, we funded them now the rest is politics.

They support(?) the PKK Govenment, yet don't arm and train them?

The PKK is a quasi terrorist political group, they are the terrorist arm of the Kurds. The Kurdish government is not associated in any way with the PKK, and generally do not approve of their methods, the only thing in common is a goal for an independant Kurdistan.

They labeled the Turks as commiters of genocide.

We did, apparently, the Kurds have always thought that though. It is true.. I mean, the Turks slaughtered Armenians, the whole issue is why drag skeletons out of the closet for no reason?

They also say to the Turks "Stay behind that line!"

If Turkey destabilized the Northern half of the country and Kurdistan defenses gave way and a rush of Sunnis came in for revenge .. oh I do believe America would be in a fierce state of anger! Imagine this, Turkey does that, it would take an estimated 25,000 troops to secure the region and restabalize it .. right now we have no troops there, if its defenses fell Sunnis (and Shia) would rape the town in Kurdistan .. every day they stop terrorist at their borders, which are walls of concrete, steal and many machine guns.

They look away when Kurds cross that same line.

The world couldnt care less when a PKK activist ohhh .. say.. blows up a fuel depot at Istanbul's international airport........ Yes, the world has a double standard, the PKK get away with terrorism just as the Palestinians and the Basque party of Spain .. they have a "cause" so to say, and so the world turns a blind eye. The Kurdish government though, is not the ones ordering the attacks.

we're screwing EVERYBODY!

Domino effect.

Not only this, but I beleive the Turkish/US alliance is what has been holding Greece back from attacking Turkey in regards to the Cypress issue and getting back the land they stole with their invasion in the 70's.

Greece vrs Turkey.

I think Turkey would whip Greece's ass on that one. Greece has no intention of fighting over Cypress, maybe for many other reasons they would fight, but not over Cypress (at least all out war) .. I believe Greek fighters still patrol the Turkish / Greek borders though, not at all friendly, but its more then a American alliance keeping both sides back.

Not only because of Cypress, but they have had disputes over islands in the Agean Sea for ages.

This is true. And if what you mean is Turkey gets involved in Iraq and America acts, Greece fights while Turkey isn't looking... I could see that as being a smart military move but boy.. what an international incident that would be!

So this is what I see happening, The US funds and supports the PKK to destabilise Turkey and start another front. Islamicists in the meantime push their ideology and policies harder against the turkish government with waves of support from the turkish public after feeling like they've been shafted.

I don't think the US "funds" the PKK .. but then again its suspected the US helped out the IRA against its greatest ally, anything with America is possible. The Turkish military however will never bend to the demands of Islamic Fundamentalist, odd as it is, they sort of keep Turkey secular as it is, in a way.

EU tell Greece that they have EU support in an attack on Turkey on multiple fronts, possible even using a flase-flag operation to instigate the war.

Greece may be in the EU

And Turkey may not be..

But Turkey IS in the NATO alliance......

And it also happens to have the second largest standing military in NATO .. second to America .. why would NATO attack a NATO ally if attacking a NATO member is declaring war on ALL NATO nations?!??!?!?

Could be the reason why the US has changed its policy and is building a large airbase in Northern Lebanon.....makes you wonder if they foresaw this and have been preparing for others to spread the war to take attention off the USA?

I don't think so. If anything, the only aspect of the American government purposefully trying to destabilize the region would be the Democratic Party. They are the ones passing this resolution after all. But I think it is still just a PR stunt gone sour, and eventually America wont pass the resolution and Turkey will go back, mumbling obscenities to its self, and all will be back to normal.

Could all this be done in order to destabilize the area around Russia's border? Keep them occupied?

The old Soviet Bloc has enough problems and dysfunctions of its own, it needs no help.

Just look at Georgia for that. and the border nations like Lithuania who have turned pro American/West

Kilgore --

I know nothing of Californian law, I live in Ohio.. but I imagine it was a political push to get the entire government of America to pressure Turkey into admitting fault. Even if it was a hundred some years ago. Its kinda asking Germany now to say sorry to Jews.

The implication being that the Turks will round these citizens up if the situation intensifies further….?

No, it means in any case of rebellion the Turks tend to just shoot who stands in their way.

Not Christian enough if we’re frank actually means not white enough to the French.

Something like that.

Yes they have committed human rights abuses but come on who hasn’t? What makes one nation better than another or more morally superior? The Turks do not deny the massacre of the Armenians, they do deny that it was a centrally planned action. I am inclined to believe them or at least give them the benefit of the doubt. Let’s see the archives and assess all the available evidence. It may be biased but that in no way invalidates the information contained.

As for the EU, they still consider Turkey to violate human rights, mostly to ethnic Armenians and Kurds in the East. Kurdish problem is the front line issue though. Also many social and political reforms will be needed, as the EU says anyways.

It was a genocide but was it centrally planned or was it the culmination of generations of ethnic tensions and suppression.

Both.

As you point out, sounds like a good idea but in practice it gets a little touchy. It has proved very effective though and the army have dissolved numerous governments since the system was introduced.

In theory it is a good idea, in a way, but all problems have flaws. I would love the chance to actually go to Turkey, Istanbul especially. For the Turks, i see their government as a cultural thing, in the West, if the cultural norms differ we demonize their entire people and system.. if it works it works, why mess with it?

People are dying and suffering right now, that should be our priority. Will recognition prevent further suffering or cause more?

I agree.

Yes and no – have you seen the statistics at how many Eastern Europeans have flocked to the UK, guess where the ‘impoverished muslims’ would end up too…no doubt with a helping hand from the French along the way???!!

Which is France's central argument. Many other states like Germany, Britain, Ireland agree but would never have the balls to say such a politically incorrect thing to say. They leave that to the French.

If so many Pols went West, just imagine where they Turks will go .. eventually Europe would collapse under the weight of shifting to many populations to fast. Maybe in the future when Eastern Europe is settled down, Turkey can join, though I doubt it.

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)

OK... I'm going to admit to skimming the thread, but I did want to go back to this very post to make this point.

What does it matter to the US so long after the fact?

I don't think there's much debating whether or not it occurred, and undoubtedly it was an awful thing. But why now? Why is it necessary to condemn it now?

Certainly isn't going to be helpful to alienate a regional *ally* when we are trying to clean up a mess we made on their doorstep. Add to that the fact that we desperately want Turkey to stay within it's own borders while dealing with the Kurds, and all this resolution does is make it easier for Turkey to say "Balls! We're going to do what we want"

I agree with your question, why now?

Why isnt the US chasing and condemning other nations for their attrocities?

One major one which was worse than the "holocaust" of WW2 was the fabricated famine of Ukraine of 1932-33 where between 6-7 million people starved to death by the Communist's taking absolutely everything from Ukranian farms to feed the Russians and not leaving anything for Ukranians to eat.

www.loc.gov...

The dreadful famine that engulfed Ukraine, the northern Caucasus, and the lower Volga River area in 1932-1933 was the result of Joseph Stalin's policy of forced collectivization. The heaviest losses occurred in Ukraine, which had been the most productive agricultural area of the Soviet Union. Stalin was determined to crush all vestiges of Ukrainian nationalism. Thus, the famine was accompanied by a devastating purge of the Ukrainian intelligentsia and the Ukrainian Communist party itself. The famine broke the peasants' will to resist collectivization and left Ukraine politically, socially, and psychologically traumatized.

The death toll from the 1932-33 famine in Ukraine has been estimated between six million and seven million. According to a Soviet author, "Before they died, people often lost their senses and ceased to be human beings." Yet one of Stalin's lieutenants in Ukraine stated in 1933 that the famine was a great success. It showed the peasants "who is the master here. It cost millions of lives, but the collective farm system is here to stay."..

How about Rwanda'n genocide? 800,000 deaths
www.historyplace.com...

Beginning on April 6, 1994, and for the next hundred days, up to 800,000 Tutsis were killed by Hutu militia using clubs and machetes, with as many as 10,000 killed each day.

Cambodian Genocide? 2,000,000 deaths!
www.historyplace.com...

An attempt by Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot to form a Communist peasant farming society resulted in the deaths of 25 percent of the country's population from starvation, overwork and executions.

So how about it Mr Bush? Do you have the Balls to criticize the Russian aswell for their past misdemeanors? C'mon, I dare you to call Mr Putin up and classify the Russians as genocidal based upon historical facts!

You criticize when it suits you and your puppet master agenda's but not when there is a real risk to the peace, huh?


Who's going to invade Zimbabwe and Burma to instill the peace and fight for democracy, that has led to who knows how many deaths?

Bush aint got the balls and neither has the UN, so do we just sit back and watch the rivers and sand turn red with the blood of freedom fighters, while our leaders sit in their pretty offices and decide whther a nation has enough natural resources to justify "bombing them with democracy" ?

The world sinks further and further down the gutter's of life as the years tick by. we progress technologically and medically, but somehow cant use the same intelligence to uphold and progress moral and humane values.

Get me too damn upset thinking about this sh#t !

One point of order...

The White House did not initiate the condemnation. That has come from Congress.

Hi/
Great post and very relevant to what is happening .......

I will not make any political statement, as I do not understand politics anyway!
Here are past threads on similar circumstances.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and there's a prophecy written early century by various Prophets and Saints....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and also another prophecy relating to now or soon to be...

www.abovetopsecret.com...

and here is some religious stuff on the matter.....

ON THE HISTORY OF THE FUTURE:
FOR THE PEACE OF THE WHOLE WORLD 1917-2007

'Try to reason with love and you will lose your reason.'
French Proverb


As 2007 begins, many nations are in torment. Iraq explodes in civil war after the hanging of its monstrous ex-dictator. Afghanistan in turmoil. Somalia in anarchy. The Middle East always divided, with the continuing ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by the Israeli State. The Lebanon in collapse. The Sudan in blood. The Congo in tatters. Nations with nuclear capabilities. Islamic Terrorism. Worries about energy supplies and climate change. There is fear in the world.

The fact is that the world has not known peace since 1914. Yet before that, between 1815 and 1914, historians speak of a century of peace in Europe. How and why then was that peace lost in 1914? And why did two European Wars become World Wars? What is this mystery?

article here

Originally posted by Rockpuck
reply to post by Firestorm_

 

Sounds an awful lot like Imperial Japan at the time of the Mukden Incident (the spark that started the army's invasion of Manchuria without the civil government's authorization and, ultimately, the Second World War).

No two incidents are ever the same, after you calculate the economic, social, cultural and various other influences.

Of course not, my contention was simply that ambitious generals and impotent bureaucrats don't do well for global stability.

Here's another question: what are the odds of political infighting between the PKK and other elements of the militant Kurdish nationalists?

Very great actually... The PKK IS NOT the formal political party of the only established Kurdish government Southern Kurdistan) .. Because of the different ideologies and the fact that the government backed by the US will not support the PKK terrorist actions, you could see a huge rift of the Kurdish peoples.

Now, whether or not that will happen will decide upon how far the SK gov. will help the Turks to destroy PKK members in its territory.

As of now, the US has absolutely failed the SK government, and as thus, the government is slowly building up resentment to the Americans....

We freed them, we armed them, we supplied them, then, when they where strong enough to stand alone we abandoned them.

Why don't we see Kurdistan on CNN, FOX, NBC, ...... because it will entice revolution. We gave them an answer to their cause and abandoned them. Yes. The PKK could even gain political power in SK and use its force to combat Turkey. That would be the worse case scenario. Turkey, as it stands, as an army of some 1.2 million members, the second strongest in the NATO alliance and could put down a to early Kurdish resistance. Kurdistans army NOW could hurt Turkey but never win, if the PKK wins to much support for its cause it will be a disaster, and perhaps that what Turkey wants.

Now this sounds an awful lot like the Punt/Somaliland government.

From what I've read of Southern Kurdistan's geography, it's not much different from Afghanistan or Chechnya in terms of the difficulty a modern army would have in invading it. Turkey would win yes but it would be painful for everyone.

Hi/
I would like to submit another article on the Armenian Genocide....

One can sunmarise the genocide of the Armenian nation by giving the figure of 300.000 dead during the reign of Sultan Abdul Hamid and 1.500.000 killed during World War I (encyclopedia LAROUSSE). Countless others were crippled or listed aa missing. The Turkish State used every criminal method in order to complete this genocide : Oppression, hunger, thirst, walking without stop, murder, rape, fire, cold, heat, sword. Everything that could exterminate this innocent people whose only crime was their Armenian Nationality, was used by the barbarian Turks. We are not referring to those Armenians who were killed fighting the Turks in the battle-fields during their revolution, but to the non-combatants, auch as women, children, the sick and the old who perished during this period.
[/quote
There are also pictures here
helen

Originally posted by Rockpuck
Greece vrs Turkey.

I think Turkey would whip Greece's ass on that one. Greece has no intention of fighting over Cypress, maybe for many other reasons they would fight, but not over Cypress (at least all out war) .. I believe Greek fighters still patrol the Turkish / Greek borders though, not at all friendly, but its more then a American alliance keeping both sides back.

Indeed.

I don't think the US "funds" the PKK .. but then again its suspected the US helped out the IRA against its greatest ally, anything with America is possible. The Turkish military however will never bend to the demands of Islamic Fundamentalist, odd as it is, they sort of keep Turkey secular as it is, in a way.

I doubt the US government would officially fund a leftist, Catholic organisation with links to FARC and Libya.
I'd say the military is less of a secular institution and more of one that revers Ataturk's secularism to a point nearing emperor worship.

Greece may be in the EU

And Turkey may not be..

But Turkey IS in the NATO alliance......

And it also happens to have the second largest standing military in NATO .. second to America .. why would NATO attack a NATO ally if attacking a NATO member is declaring war on ALL NATO nations?!??!?!?

Indeed. That's one Balkan conflict I see the rest of NATO avoiding like the plauge.

I hope people know that when the government says Armenian genocide, they are talking about Armenians, Assyrians and Greeks. This was a well documented tragedy. Approximatly 2/3 of the Assyrians were wiped out
during this tragedy. After that, in 1932 the Assyrians got massacred, approximatly 3000 people were killed.
Assyrians and Armenians are both in a diaspora now, they need all the help they can get. Their numbers are dwindling with time, they are spread all across the world.
I myself am an Assyrian, my great grandmother told me many stories about these attrocities before she passed away. Denouncing this genocide,
because the president wants to stay on Turkeys good side, personally I believe is very unfair. Their country did what they did, they should not deny that.
my 2 cents

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I know nothing of Californian law, I live in Ohio.. but I imagine it was a political push to get the entire government of America to pressure Turkey into admitting fault. Even if it was a hundred some years ago. Its kinda asking Germany now to say sorry to Jews.

If it is only about apologies then surely some facility can be put in place that creates limits on criminal, territorial and financial culpability. I do not see why the children and grandchildren should continue to pay the price of their antecedents sins. I personally feel that we cannot move forward from the 20th century until we actually admit the whys and wherefores of the many, many genocides that took place in the world. Turkey was preparing to release its archive on the matter, they were preparing to discuss it, they do not deny that it happened… Was there really any need to force the issue when in reality Turkey was slowly but surely doing the right thing?

As much as I can sympathise with the Armenians, I also wish people would stop seeking to appease the sensibilities of the minority instead of dealing with the myriad of issues – like the war and suffering that has continued unabatted since the ‘war to end all wars’ (excuse me but bollocks!) and for a millennia before that, that effect every person on the planet. If we are going to live in the past then let’s at least try and learn from it….

Originally posted by Rockpuck
I would love the chance to actually go to Turkey, Istanbul especially. For the Turks, i see their government as a cultural thing, in the West, if the cultural norms differ we demonize their entire people and system.. if it works it works, why mess with it?

I hope that you get the opportunity – I love Istanbul. When I went there we arrived by road, Istanbul has considerable urban sprawl, it is not exactly pretty, I had an incredible sense of expectation and I was starting to wonder if I was going to be disappointed. We went over a slight rise and the city appeared – and it is a jewel. I had tears in my eye, it is simply so beautiful. The Bosphurus seems to draw light to it and the whole centre of the city glistens. I can only imagine how it must have appeared to the first European Crusaders – it must have quite literally rocked their world.

Anyhoo I digress (big soft spot for Turkey in general though), very informative discussion Rockpuck, thank you.

All the best

I must admit I have not thoroughly read every post here, but this issue comes very close to me, as I am an Armenian and my grand-mother is a direct survivor of the genocide. While people might jump the gun and point to obvious bias, I have done some personal research in the past and can vouch without a doubt that the genocide that happened WAS centralized, was conducted by the Turks in a very planned and precise way.

I saw a few posts that mention that if it wasn't an important topic before why would you bring it up now. Let me say that when you have more Armenians in the diaspora than at home, getting organized is not very easy, especially for the first 30 years after the genocide. Of course, Turkish lobbies have been exerting much more pressure than the Armenian ones over the decades, but that pressure seems to have diminished. So why now? Why not now, the truth is bound to come out and the acceptance was an eventuality, especially after major countries such as France officially recognized it.

The hate between Armenians and Turkey in our current time saddens me because it is not the Turkish populations fault, their education system just crosses out that period and vaguely states "it was a chaotic time". We must understand that the fingers must be pointed towards the government who actively denies the genocide.

Why does Turkey not want to use the word genocide? Simply because accepting that fact would mean giving back some or all portions of Armenian territory conquered during WWI, as well as a very big monetary debt towards Armenians, sort of like what Germany pays Israel.

I also saw a couple of posts stating there are no survivors left. On the contrary, I myself have my grand-mother, and there are thousands of survivors who still have to live with this denial.

On last note, I would like to point out that the reason why there has been so much controversy is because the word "Genocide" did not exist during WWI. However, the man who coined the term genocide, Raphael Lemkin, created the term having the Armenian genocide in mind, calling it the first genocide of the 20th century.

Thanks for reading,
I will post more later.

Don't forget that Armenia is still technically at war with another US ally, Azerbaijan. Armenia has very good relations with Russia. Armenia sided with Russia when Russia was at war with "Turkey" (technically not Turkey yet at that point), and this is one of the main reasons why the Armenian genocide happened in the first place.


War In Nagorno Karabakh Can Start At Any Moment

reply to post by Hellmutt

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Apparently there is a real danger that a war may break out in Nagorno-Karabakh at any moment. Vice-president of the International Crisis Group Alain Deletroz warns about this possibility.[quote/]
--------------------------------------------
(My comment from here, I screwed up the quote)
DID war eventually break out? The linked post is from Jan 06. I'm not disputing you but I quoted your "any moment" opening post. Just curious. It's a good article that does indeed seem relevant to the topic here.
Thanks for the post.

Thank you all for posting. I've learned a lot!
Cuhail

[edit on 10/14/2007 by Cuhail]

Originally posted by Cuhail

DID war eventually break out? The linked post is from Jan 06.

There's still a great risk of war breaking out. The last post in that thread is from August. They are technically still at war. Azerbaijan might try to take back "their" territory from the Armenians (at any moment)...


edit to add; as can be seen i.e. in this post from July 4th 2007.

[edit on 2007/10/15 by Hellmutt]

Originally posted by Hellmutt
Armenia sided with Russia when Russia was at war with "Turkey" (technically not Turkey yet at that point), and this is one of the main reasons why the Armenian genocide happened in the first place.

This is partial information. The majority of Armenians were in the ranks of Turkish army, and fought on the front lines for many battles (They also dug trenches under the pretext of war preparations while the trenches were used for their mass burial sites: this was one of the first stages of the genocide: disable able bodied men).

The fact that a substantially lesser number of Armenians were recruited in the Russian army gave the Turks an additional excuse to continue the Armenian bloodshed.

I have read an official Turkish document that commended an Armenian general for the services he provided in the Turkish army, I will try to find this document online and post it.