Ironywatch: Turks condemn condemnation of Armenian Genocide by condeming Armenians

...which excuse the Armenian Genocide? Should we write off the Holocaust in the same way? After all, there's the West Bank, and lots of things were happening in WWII, you remember.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh.

So in discussions of Palestine and Israel, one should implicitly take the word of otheadp and CheskiChips above yours because, as you know well, they actually live there. Nothing like living among a people to see with such clarity.

Thanks for the clarification.

:shrug:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

counte, perhaps we could discuss the war in another thread, if you'd like. I'm interested in your perspective. Or via PM if that's better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Excuse me, but my priorities have nothing to do with it. And your crude restructuring of my larger points is just that, a crude restructuring. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I think the Turks probably care more about being lumped in with Nazis -- and what that means -- than they do reparations and such, but yes, reparations and such do play SOME role in their protests. And rightfully so.

So you get to ask the questions and answer them too? How nice.

Comparisons to the holocaust do not stand up on a number of fronts. There was not, for starters, an industrial machine created for the specific purpose of destroying a race.

No, nor am I arguing it didn't happen, which apparently you still cannot grasp. What I am arguing is that official condemnations of what happened that are based on little more than political opportunism and bias, are wrong. What's more they are dangerous, as they disrupt and undermine real political progress in the region.

I've said nothing of the like. Read the above.

I'd be the first to admit the Turks have some serious soul-searching to do on this issue and need to begin to admit to themselves what happened. But I also think the worst circumstance for that to happen in is one in which they are put on the defensive, demonized and labeled -- and all for spurious political reasons.

As I already mentioned, AKP was taking positive steps toward Armenia. More recently, Turks began restoring Armenian churches near Van and changing the historical descriptions of them. These are positive steps. Substantive steps. Empty condemnations in far away places for campaign finance are not.

So this isn't about demonization, but apparently you are incapable of reading through an entire line of thought, because you're more interested in condemning? Okay. I mean, that is, you must have missed, just a few words later, when I wrote: "None of this, of course, undoes what the Turks did -- or somehow makes it okay. But it does give a context for what the larger issue today is, and those larger issues seem ignored time and again in favor of another, more convenient focus."

So are you interested in honesty? Or is self-righteousness more important?

 

Oh, self-righteousness, naturally.

That's why I asked you about Nagorno Karabagh, and why you feel that modern events are either being ignored or even trump the Armenian Genocide. If you have something on this issue, let's hear and discuss. I ignored your accusation of my "biased stance" and being "disproportionately anti-Turk".

Still, doesn't your first statement conflict in spirit with

How do you propose to have an unbiased stance if you also propose that the incident be swept under the rug in preference to...what, then?

So are you interested in honesty? Like I said, I asked for an alternate thread on the Turk stance, or some further discussion about Nagorno Karabagh, which you seem to cite as a reason that the discussion is anti-Turk, or that you seem to feel invalidates mention of the Armenian Genocide.

So, in simpler language: ok, how? Fair enough for you?

 

If you don't want to be accused of something, then try reading all of what I write, not just particular passages that allow you to stereotype me.

The fact you are asking shows the events are being ignored.

People are being oppressed, moved and killed in that region right now and I doubt most of the posters in this site, the same ones on their high moral horses, even know where the region is on a map. Perhaps if all the time and energy wasted on 1915 were applied to the current conflict, a resolution might be more likely?

I'm not proposing sweeping it under the rug. Seriously, can you fucking read? I wrote: I'd be the first to admit the Turks have some serious soul-searching to do on this issue and need to begin to admit to themselves what happened. But I also think the worst circumstance for that to happen in is one in which they are put on the defensive, demonized and labeled -- and all for spurious political reasons.

I've made the case. Apparently, you cannot follow it. I've said the Turks need to deal with what happened, but that unrelated parties castigating them is hardly the best way to make that happen. I've said people don't really know the history of what they're talking about or why the Turks are loathe to be seen as caving to the Armenians (look up ASALA). I've said people are ignoring the political axes being ground and ignoring that focusing on 1915 is, in fact, harming Turks and Armenians alive today, because it's derailed the peace process there.

 

"Stereotype you"? Eh? Am I trying to stereotype modern Turks?

OK, so let's have a discussion about it. I've asked several times now. If you're too busy, say so.

Look, it's really simple: either they own up to it, or they cry - as you're doing here - "oh, but WWI was really hard and everyone's being mean to us in the present day and so on" and avoid the issue. If you want to put a "but" in there, then add something to the but instead of jumping up and down on a rickety soapbox and weeping. "Spurious political reasons", my ass. 'Those who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it' mean anything to you?

Well, here's the thing: unrelated parties are always involved. Maybe you've heard of a body called the UN. If the Turkish ego is so damned fragile that owning up to the past is going to break them - and we're talking about a nation that made it illegal to talk about the issue, which is hardly egalitarian - then tough. It happened. Deal with it.

Or maybe just bury it under another hundred years of denial, which is probably the plan. Maybe people would respect Turks in general more - if this is your talking point - if the Turkish government just came out and admitted what happened.

Have you gone retarded in time and space? Why do you think there's an ASALA? What in the hell does it have to do with the Armenian Genocide other than demanding reparations? Do you have any ability to join two thoughts together except in apologetics? Liberalization and expanded freedoms is fine, but not under Turkey's say-so on truth and justice.

 

You've been presumptive from post one, you've mislabeled my positions and ridiculed my easy-to-read statements -- all because I am not falling all over myself to join you at the 'condemn the Turks alter.' We get more of the same in your latest offering. . .

What's to talk about? You're a prime participant in a thread about "irony" and yet you're either unaware or uninterested that the very same people who are complaining about ethnic cleansing in 1915 -- and that's more what I would call it -- are practicing it themselves in 2010.

Again, why the hyperbolic prose that is offered up as a stunt to belittle me and my position, which you've repackaged (inaccurately)? You claim to be interested in talking, then you behave like an ass. The two don't correlate.

Is that really why you think the California congressman is interested in this issue? Because he thinks more killing is in the offing unless the US passes a piece of paper across some desks? If he care about Turks or Armenians and peace, he would have flown to those soccer matches and tried to broker a deal between them last year. Guess what? He didn't.

You know who did?

Hillary Clinton. Yep. I give her a lot of credit. She put in a lot of time on the issue and helped get the two countries talking and on the right path. Too bad that progress was torpedoed by you and the piece of paper brigade...

And you're missing a point I am making. I don't think the Turks would have such an issue "dealing" with it if they were allowed to deal with in a context that was more their own. IE one that is not confrontational and engineered for dubious political purposes abroad. I also think they'd be more willing to deal with it if people weren't so keen to lump them in with the Nazis, something that Josef Stalin has thus far even managed to avoid...

People in the West have hated and disrespected the Turks for centuries, which is probably why Turks are so testy. Lumping them in with Nazis is hardly going to change the trend. If anything, it accelerates it by adding more fuel to the already burning fire.

I know why there's an ASALA. I also know it killed Turkish diplomats and bombed buildings full of innocents for years and no one said peep about it in Europe or California or anywhere else. Apparently, you are ready and willing to join that mum brigade. So who's the real apologist here? I'm not excusing what the Turks did at all. Are you excusing ASALA?

 

lets for the sake of argument accept counts proposition that the armenian genocide wasn't a genocide and merely turkey getting rid of a group of people that would interfere with what they wanted in the area. Now whats is another incident that was also done like this, Kaytn forest in world war 2. if thats your lesser morality your just better off admiting gencode and improving relations

 

I'm putting nothing on anything. I am simply reporting the position of the Turks. Turkey lives in constant fear of outside attack and of losing territory (it's called the Sevres complex). Part of that manifests in the Armenia issue, in that the Turks worry that if they accept the genocide, they will legally bound to compensate victims with money -- and perhaps even land. You and I might not like it, but it's a very real political consideration, and there is plenty of basis for the Turks' concerns.

How about you try to deal with what I say and not repackage it so you can ridicule it? I did not say you had to "respect" anything, but you have to deal with their politics, because those politics are part of the overall equation. What you and others in this thread are doing are completely ignoring the politics of one part in a two-part equation. No doubt it feels great to shout and moan and castigate one side, but that attitude isn't really going to get you anywhere with the other party, whose cooperation you need if you want to resolve this issue.

That's just not true. The Turks wanted the Armenians out of Turkey. Period. They did not want to exterminate them. The historical analogy, if there is one, would be something like the Trail of Tears in the US, not the German attempt to enact a Final Solution.

Again, quit projecting views on me, and deal with what I say.

Turkey agreed to setup a joint commission with the Armenians to assess the issue. Did you even know that? But that push, along with everything else, was derailed by the frivolous resolutions in the US.

That you scoff at the issue shows your ignorance of the region and the powers there. The issue is sufficiently important to the Armenians that it was raised by their government during their talks with the Turks. The Greeks also complain about a tiny monastery off the coast of Istanbul being closed at a state to state level. Maybe you need to read some more on this subject before you start making judgments?

 

That is astoundingly incorrect. None the less, carry on.

I started the thread, actually.

OK: where? When? Can we have some information? Is it ASALA again, after their twenty year hiatus?

Because asking me can you read? is really not at all belittling.

Wrong.

That is true of your position, and not mine. I asked you for some clarification of the circumstances, and you chose personal assault. Not my problem.

So what? You have to visit someplace to give a damn about their issues? Talk about non sequitur.

HAW! I am now directly responsible (partially anyway) for the destruction of the Turk-Armenian peace initiative.

This would be like me accusing you of perpetuating the Turkish-Armenian conflict. Are you?

No, I'm not missing it at all. I just disagree with the proposition. Admit genocide but only on your terms? To hell with that. It's enormously disrespectful to those who actually died in the Genocide. Here's an idea: how about contrition?

Might have something to do with that holy war they had going against us for hundreds of years, but who's counting? Why is it that only we must respect Turkish dignity? Are you saying Turkish society can't do the same?

Not at all: I appreciate the Armenian-Turkish history in the region far more now that I've looked some of it up. And, I'm not particularly impressed with what's been done to the Armenians: in fact, as I've read about it, I've found myself taking the Armenian's side. Forgetting, of course, the actual fact of the Genocide itself. As context of my own: for years, too, the Turks have been busily suppressing Armenians. And no one said peep about it in Europe or California or anywhere else. Apparently, you are ready and willing to join that mum brigade.

You, seemingly, unless you can lay out some specifics as to why we should dilute our condemnation of the horrors of the past with those - far slighter, and seemingly responsorial - of the present.

You've stated that you want to apply some - seemingly spurious - context to it. I've asked: why? Apparently, that offends you. It's a mystery as to why.

Well, shouldn't we discuss the actions of ASALA in the context of the Genocide? You tell me.

Or perhaps you could get the bug out of your ass and come to grips with the fact that I wasn't attacking you.

 

Nagorno Karabh. I've said it about a dozen times.

Well, you clearly can't comprehend. You've misstated my position and accused of my positions I've never taken. I've documented that, bolded it in fact.

Speaking of, talk about lack of reading comprehension. My point was much larger than your inaccurate re-phrasing. My point was that he doesn't give a damn about peace in the region, because if he did, he would be doing less of what he is doing and more of what Clinton was. It had nothing to do with visitations, though one does wonder if he's ever spoken to a Turk...

You are partially responsible. You're imposing yourself on the relations of two nations about an issue that has little or nothing to do with you. And in the process, and through your ignorance, you have become part of a vocal majority that seems to have derailed a positive political process.

Oh, please. Don't conjure up the ghosts of the died and plant them on your side of the debate. You can no more speak for them than I can. And the terms aren't mine (why is this whole debate PERSONAL for people like you). They are the Turks. You can ignore them if you like, but don't be surprised if they ignore you back.

The Turks weren't behaving any differently than the Europeans at the time. As for dignity, you've already shown you have little concern for the Turkish side. And yet you demand them to behave a way you are incapable of towards others? Some consistency would be nice.

Good for you. You took a position you didn't know that much about, looked some stuff up and found yourself agreeing more with your original position. You've got the sciforums logic down pretty damn well, I'd say...

Good job displaying your ignorance. You can go to J-store and type in "Turkey" and "human rights" and get thousands of articles on the topic. Or you could just read the State Department's recent report on Turkey (I did) to see how fucking foolish the above statement is. People have been harping about Turkey's human rights issues for a long time. I mean, not for nothing was it chosen as the setting for Midnight Express...

I've said nothing of the sort. Again with the reading comprehension...

You dodged the question. Answer it.

 

and they would be disingenuous. hell the ottoman empire contempories reffered to it as the turkish empire or turkey. to pretend that the resident of anatolia under the ottoman empire and turkey are different is bullshit.

 

They did not either. For much of the empire's history, the word "Turk" was a derogatory term applied to Anatolian peasants, which is precisely why the Allies used it in WW1; it was like calling a German a Hun. The denizens preferred to call themselves Ottomans. Not until the founding of the Republic and Ataturk's famous statement about what a thing it was to be Turkish did the worm turn on that phrase.

 

No they didn't. No wonder the Turks are reluctant to admit to indiscretions committed by some members of long gone generations, when the world would hold them accountable for the sins of the great-grandfathers.

What, they aren't allowed to hold their own opinion on historical events? Since when did you have a monopoly on truth?

 

So were Ottoman mentality (I am not saying the official Ottoman policy!) right on calling some of their subjects with " derogatory names (Turks), also were they also right on killing -or causing the deaths of- some of its other subjects (Armenians)? Above all, how does new Turkish mentality (established by Anatolian peasants) has defended this self righteousness up until now, and on what basis?

I can think of only one kind of analogy for this situation: Imagine a culture, a mentality which strictly forbids to analyse, discuss or criticize one's own family matters with strangers. So father kills people, rapes, gambles, call his own family members with derogatory names, beats them up and one day father gets soo sick that his son had to kill him for the sake of the family.

Then other people (those who are not members of the family) starts to question what father did when he was alive. And son, even being well aware of the full scale terror of his father starts to defend him! His only explanation is "because he was my father".

Obviously no one can get a sensible principle, logical conclusion or anything else out of this cycle: He was his father, that's all...

 

woo woo

So why not a link? Am I supposed to do your work for you now, too?

Actually, I've got your position nailed down quite well: you think the Genocide was inexcusable, yet want to colour the censuring thereof by the more recent past and the present. I've asked you several times to cement specifically what you think should occur, but you prefer to hike yourself up on a cross. As you will.

And my point was: who the fuck cares if he's been there? What the hell does that have to do with anything, including the validity of his actions? This is getting ridiculous.

Because the Turks and Armenians are listening to me. I see.

Oh dear! The Turks are going to ignore me? If only they'd done so much for the Armenians about 90 years ago.

And you think I'm taking this debate - or whatever it is - personally? Have you read your posts lately? You've backed yourself into some kind of absurd corner, snarling and hissing. Why?

I forget: is Vienna in Turkey or Austria?

Are you kidding? We're discussing a genocide of people who are not Turkish, here. And it's the Turk's feelings I need to worry about? How about we do this: balance up the deaths on either side, then take up a sympathetic position for each side based on the proportion of casualties that have occurred. Sound fair? I'll have my "Turkish Minute" later this evening.

I ignored the whining about my having taken come to an objective conclusion about the issue.

Tell you what: when you become remotely more concerned about the fact of the genocide than that Erdogan's moustache might quiver with indignation for a moment, I'll answer your question. Context is everything: no?