The time period is when the modern Turkish state was born. If it was blemished by a genocide, the national creation myths of modern Turkey would take a huge hit and they can't let that happen. Admitting the genocide would weaken their national identity, and they rely on flag-waving too much, especially under a nationalist dictator.
Armenian Genocide (?)
- Thread starter Janissary1453
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
#1, must be
politicians that believe to universal rights > initiating a court to be conducted within valuable framework > competent and valuable lawyers & historians > official document analysis = identifying the situation, protecting the right and preventing future losses > better law/justice for all.
#2, the pupular way
politians > policy of instability > to decide on its own without operating the expected process when it deems appropriate for the benefit > court without valuable framework under universal politic weight > lawyers explaining results.
If you really one a better/valuable world. There is clear & valuable process that all have to follow.
All massacres and wars are bad, never acceptable. To prevent these, it is good to identify the past and create a precious world where everyone can tidy up. If you believe there is something? Go & follow valuable process. Make the world better for all.
politicians that believe to universal rights > initiating a court to be conducted within valuable framework > competent and valuable lawyers & historians > official document analysis = identifying the situation, protecting the right and preventing future losses > better law/justice for all.
here just one exampler historian from Turkey, and Turkish archives are open as always at Turkey; if the correct process is desired to be carried out:
en.wikipedia.org
İlber Ortaylı - Wikipedia
#2, the pupular way
politians > policy of instability > to decide on its own without operating the expected process when it deems appropriate for the benefit > court without valuable framework under universal politic weight > lawyers explaining results.
If you really one a better/valuable world. There is clear & valuable process that all have to follow.
All massacres and wars are bad, never acceptable. To prevent these, it is good to identify the past and create a precious world where everyone can tidy up. If you believe there is something? Go & follow valuable process. Make the world better for all.
The historian you've cited here is a known genocide denier who has little academic credibility outside Turkey and, apparently, Russia, where he's received some manner of award from Putin. Not exactly the hallmarks of a "competent and valuable historian".
Do you think Erdogan believes in universal rights?
He's just one historican from Turkey. There is more & i believe he has many different kind of awards. Please stop looking from a side. Look how valuable process can be executed.
There should be many armanien historicans too. Just let them be in a valuable process with their archives like all others'.
I think EU and US was believing that he is a believer. EU & US helped Erdogan/Akp(party) a lot at first years of goverment.
After years, US went into some interests. After a while, Erdogan became like unwanted leader at the eyes of US..
I dont know if Erdogan is believing universal rights, but he is a good politican. I mean he is as good as US at managing politics.... (btw i hate politics that only care interest)
Today, after years, i hope that Erdogan believes universal rights.. At least he better believe now, for himself/his part/his country & the world..
So did David Irving.
@dijiTurk correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that it isn't even legal in Turkey to admit that the Armenian genocide happened. How can we be expected to trust Turkish historians' objectivity on this when they can't even operate in their country unless they support the official government position?
I dont know him. And, holocaust is clearly an historical savagery/massacre. When its so clear, idk how he is a denier. A valuable process needed in court(thesis antithesis synthesis) to weed out the lies..
Btw you can check this page:
History of the Jews in Turkey - Wikipedia
@MadVader my historical knowledge is very poor. Just be sure the armenian side's historicans bring their all arguments with documents in a valuable court.
Probably yes, its not legal to tell that argument, because turkish historicans say that they have documentation(that from all historical sources from that years) for refusing genocide arguments, and they(historicans) want to go open court.
I believe armenian side also says "there is no geniocide" argument is not legal to admit, too.
That's why i say, a righteous/universal/valuable court must take all argument, and close the case at the side of truth for all the world.
I can say that there are 4 kind of believers releated with the armenian genocide argument as i see:
1- Ppl that think: there is no genocide
2- Ppl that think: there is genocide
3- Ppl that think: in the war environment, bad events took place on both sides.
4- Marginal minority/animals that think: hitler was innocent & there is no genocide
etc
All we need is a valuable universal court system that all arguments & documents will be exucuted inside in law.
We need to identify it if there is a genocide or not, and also we need to guard rights as much as we can, and we need to prevent future genocides/war crimes etc. Starting from education system at countries; we must improve systems.. Truth must be found, lesson must be learnt for all cases at all over the world. These is my approach in the subject.
And, if u ask my idea, #2 or #3 may be the truth. Idk.(i just know history is full of dark events at all contenents). I want to see truth as well. But only valuable court(not just court) can bring it right to the surface.
Also, dont forget, there is not only armanien genocide arguments. There is also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre Khojaly massacre. There is also Frence's / US's / bla bla bla... massacres. If historicans wants help stoping conflicts at the worlds/giving rights backto oppressed peoples/making future better ; then valuble courts should see all cases, from all countries; so all(world) can see truth, and take the lesson for a valuable future together. (some arguments may be wrong, a valuable courts/lawyers/historicans/documantation must be there to see argument's situation).
Last edited:
There is also Assyrian genocide and ethnic cleansing of Greeks, yes.
I'm OK with carrying all arguments to universal/valuable court. If you have arguments go for it. Lets see the truth.
But, are you sure you want that? Will you do same thing for all arguments?
&
What will you do if the truth is applying the argument positively(genocide is there)?
&
Do you bring arguments to court for goodness of humanity/preventing futurewar crimes?
Joe?
The Holocaust is "clearly an historical massacre" because western society and pop culture has fully accepted that it happened following a concerted effort by the entirety of European intelligentsia to document every part of the Nazi regime. The vast majority of people haven't read any of the sources or anything, but accept the consensus. It's just like how most people have no real proof the earth isn't flat, they just trust the consensus enough.
You could argue that this is an unreliable way for determining the truth, but for the most part this is how consensus works, not via academic debate. Anyone who says the earth is flat or that x genocide didn't happen is automatically discredited, no need for a debate at all. Nobody should have to live in a society where we have to constantly argue with insane ideas, especially not from people who clearly don't care about evidence and are defending something for personal reasons.
The consensus on the Armenian genocide is that it happened and it was a genocide. The perpetrators, victims and survivors are all dead, so there is nobody to prosecute or exonerate, meaning court would just be a formality, and gigaturk nationalists (i.e the only people on earth who still deny the genocide) wouldn't care anyway. The only thing left is to treat genocide deniers like flat earthers and automatically discredit them so their ideas don't spread.
I dont think turkish historicans want to show fake documents to court(or only documents from ottomans etc[if i didnt get wrong, they say they searched all related sources, and want to prove that in court that there is no genoice ]). Let the historicans work? Let the court work? This is not a earth is flat case. Offical documents should be there. Also, i believe Holocaust because i can see/listen clear photos, documents etc from news/documentry etc. Just let the court(where all arguments & documents meets and executes in law) work for the truth. And, tell that turkish historicans liar offically, if their arguments are based on lies?
Btw, you can also answer the questions i asked to Joe. Like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre . What do you do for this one? Same approach with "going court" or "yes there is a genocide" ?
Whataboutism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre
Armenian genocide - Wikipedia
Are you really trying to compare these two events? Also, it's not like the rest of the world is not recognizing that that episode happened. Armenians are denying it the same wait the Turkish government denies the genocide, but they are called out on it. The scale of the two events is obviously not the same though. This is a poor attempt at whataboutism.
Edit: ok @Zombie Warrior, you clearly actually are a ninja warrior
Nice to hear that.Also, no one denies that the Khojaly massacre occured, as well as other massacres committed by the Azerbaijani forces on Armenian civilians during that war. However, both Turkey and Azerbaijan deny the Armenian genocide.Whataboutism - Wikipedia
If you say there is genocide in any country/people at history, let the valuable court process work. & Also, let all argument owners use this way to reach truth.
And also, dont forget, after reaching truth there should be positive acts for all.
I think we are in same point, if you fine with this approach.
Im not comparing. i'm asking that what will you do for both of the massacres? They both war crime, amounts of course important but, both same. What will you do? Will you act for both? And, there is more massacres at world. Will you act for them too? I hope your answer same for all; acting positively for a better future.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre
Armenian genocide - Wikipedia
Are you really trying to compare these two events? Also, it's not like the rest of the world is not recognizing that that episode happened. Armenians are denying it the same wait the Turkish government denies the genocide, but they are called out on it. The scale of the two events is obviously not the same though. This is a poor attempt at whataboutism.
Edit: ok @Zombie Warrior, you clearly actually are a ninja warrior
I only say that universal&valuable court needed. Then, let all arguments go there. And if you see somewhere genocide; act positively/do something for all. If you dont see genocide; act positively again.
*acting positive: not willing conflicts, but peace: so, starting from education; do something to help ppl & prevent future crimes.
Last edited:
They are not even remotely the same. No more than an individual committing a single omicide is the same as the Khojali massacre. Come on now. But yes, of course both are to be condemned. As others have said there's not much to be done about the Armenian genocide since it was so long ago. The only thing anyone here is asking is for the denial around it to stop. You'd think that would be easier when there's nothing to be lost in admitting that it happened but apparently not.
So, you have a way to make that argument admitted by offically within a universal court. Why dont u want to use it? Turkey seems willing at it?
And, i also wonder if Armenia admits Khojali. Idk.
So basically your argument is:
Alright then. For a moment I thought you might be interested in a good faith conversation on this but I see that I was mistaken, carry on.
If you dont want to find truth at court(which is valuable for all), or if you onlywant to focus on one argument(which can be truth or not) > then you are also doing same.So basically your argument is:
Alright then. For a moment I thought you might be interested in a good faith conversation on this but I see that I was mistaken, carry on.
I hope you can understand that horse goggles preventing all's goodness, and you cant find good solutions to problems just as supposed to be in modern days.
Similar threads
- Poll
