Armenian Genocide (?)

Currently Viewing (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Do you believe?

  • Yes

    Votes: 184 63.0%
  • No

    Votes: 108 37.0%

  • Total voters
    292

Yabloko

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Turks don't have a spectacular track record of being nice with their neighbours and respecting human rights. Not hard to imagine why people get a bit suspicious of a few million civilian 'war casualties'.
 

ancalimon

Baron
M&BWBNWWF&S
Best answers
0
Turks don't have a spectacular track record of being nice with their neighbours and respecting human rights. Not hard to imagine why people get a bit suspicious of a few million civilian 'war casualties'.
A few million Armenians did not exist in the first place... Also there were much more dead Turkish civilians.
Also, I do not agree that Turks were worse than their neighbors or Europeans regarding human rights.

Your rhetoric is the same as Trump during the Charlottesville rally. It doesn't work here or in this case.
Armenians in Armenia believe that Turks are worse than animals. They are not even aware that their country a few years ago committed genocide against Turks in Karabağ. How can I expect them to apologize for the things their ancestors did?
 

Zombie Warrior

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
A few million Armenians did not exist in the first place...
The Turkish government itself, the denier-in-chief, puts the death toll at around 300,000.[63] This number, however, is based on the Ottoman census, which was known to be highly inaccurate, generally undercounting populations severely, especially those of ethnic and religious minorities. Populations of non-Muslims often were not re-counted for decades.[64] The Armenian church, which had the benefit of being able to collate all records of births and deaths within the Armenian community, gave a figure of 1,914,620 in 1914, although the church failed to assess populations in significant parts of western Turkey.[65]

It should also be noted that in 1844, the Ottoman Armenian population was given as 2.4 million, and a reliable historian at the time (Ubicini) said that number was almost certainly too low, by a significant amount.[66] In 1878, after the war, the same census gave the population as 3 million.[67]

(...)

we are left with a figure of at least 2.7-2.8 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1914 from the later data.
ancalimon said:
Also there were much more dead Turkish civilians.
Turkish historians have taken to exhuming the mass graves of dead Armenians slaughtered in the genocide and portraying these as corpses of Muslims in order to pretend the perpetrators of the genocide were in fact its victims.[27]
ancalimon said:
Armenians in Armenia believe that Turks are worse than animals. They are not even aware that their country a few years ago committed genocide against Turks in Karabağ. How can I expect them to apologize for the things their ancestors did?
Why should we expect them to apologize exactly? Where does that apology thing come from? The word is on the lips of every Turkish denialist, yet it doesn't make sense. Also, this here, what you are doing, is called a red herring by the way.
 
Last edited:

Count Delinard

Lord of Uxkhal
Global Moderator
WBNWVC
Best answers
0
I don't think anyone cares about Turkey apologizing at this point, the world just wants Turkey to finally officially say "yes, it happened". The denial went on for so long that it's incredibly cringy already, Turkey would relieve a lot of pressure by just admitting it and getting on with life.
 

Yabloko

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Also, I do not agree that Turks were worse than their neighbors or Europeans regarding human rights.
I won't say europeans were a shining beacon of human rights, but if you look at the last 1000 years of history it's not difficult to say that turkish peoples have in general been categorically poor neighbours. Armenians are wrong in thinking turks are worse than animals, but they've been given plenty of reasons to think as much.
 

Emil

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
A few million Armenians did not exist in the first place... Also there were much more dead Turkish civilians.
Also, I do not agree that Turks were worse than their neighbors or Europeans regarding human rights.
The brain gymnastics you're forcing me to go through in order to comprehend how ignorant a person can be, and the red herrings your post contain in attempt to sidetrack the topic at hand... I had to go look at your previous posts to be able to understand whether your post is satirical or not.

You previosuly argued that Armenians were well-respected and rich in Turkey prior to the genocide. Sure, Jews were well-respected and rich in Germany prior to the Nazi regime. Still, we all know what happened during the Kristallnacht, and the atrocities that took place during the holocaust.
Your own words prove that there was and could've been an anti-Armenian sentiment in Turkey prior to the deportations, massacres and so forth.
Armenians in Armenia believe that Turks are worse than animals. They are not even aware that their country a few years ago committed genocide against Turks in Karabağ. How can I expect them to apologize for the things their ancestors did?
You just generalized the inhabitants of an entire country. That's what you just did. My tip for you is to act above, not below others.
They committed genocide against Turks in Karabağ? Really, this is all I found, unless you're going to suggest that Erdogan is more trustworthy.
 

Yabloko

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
"Our strength consists in our speed and in our brutality. Genghis Khan led millions of women and children to slaughter – with premeditation and a happy heart. History sees in him solely the founder of a state. It's a matter of indifference to me what a weak western European civilization will say about me. I have issued the command – and I'll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my death-head formation in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish derivation and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

Not to invoke Godwin's law, guess when and who made that speech? The Armenian genocide has certainly been known and alluded to for a long while, it's not a recent development.
 

Yabloko

Sergeant Knight at Arms
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Hitler would've been fairly well acquainted with the events that transpired considering that one of his close associates, Erwin von Scheubner-Richter, worked at Erzurum at the onset of WWI and documented with certain disgust whatever happened in eastern Turkey.
 

Zombie Warrior

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
@Lyceria
The Turkish government criminalized freedom of speech on the matter, so facts are completely out of the window else you get to prison:
In fact, a Turk, in Turkey, can even be arrested for acknowledging that one took place (a strange inversion of laws that criminalize Holocaust denial). This falls under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which makes it a crime to "insult Turkishness" (regardless of whether it's true).[7] Prosecutors brought such a case in 2005 against writer Orhan Pamuk, who later won the Nobel Prize in Literature.
The Turkish government actively alters and forge evidence.
The Turkish government and its supporters have gone to great lengths to deceive the public on the matter of the CUP genocides, especially that of the Armenians. They have forged evidence and attempted to discredit legitimate evidence as worthless, even going so far as to redefine genocide in the process. They have used numerous red herrings and distractions and inflated and conjured up imaginary bogeymen such as the "Armenian gangs", Turkish stories of whose alleged mass atrocities against Muslims amount to an Anatolian version of the blood libel, applied to their own personal hated, marginalized, and persecuted minority on whom blame must be shifted. In recent years, they have even turned to presenting the genocide as "Islamophobic", recruiting Islamic extremists to do a significant portion of their arguing for them.[77] They have made up an alternative history in which they have committed no genocide or colonialism, despite the fact that Turkish settlement in Anatolia is solely the product of a millennium-long colonialist policy by the Turks themselves.[78]There is no limit to the deceitfulness of Turkish revisionists.

Imma play the presumption of innocence card here.
Not applicable since:
A) This is not a legal context.
B) There is proof of wrongdoings.
C) Current Turks and Kurds are not held responsible for these crimes.
 

Zombie Warrior

Sergeant Knight
Best answers
0
@Lyceria
Rational Wiki said:
Deceit is a term denoting the misrepresentation of the truth.

Deceit can be used for many purposes, some more innocent, some more destructive. Lying, or explicit misrepresentation, is a subset of deceit.

Some forms of deceit may be unintentional or the result of a logical fallacy, and don't necessarily mean the speaker intends to deceive
Lyceria said:
What proof is, is subjective in this case then.
You cannot simply decide that a fact is subjective because you don't agree with it.

Although some laws could indeed be bad or used for bad, I do agree with "insulting Turkishness" being a crime.
Whether you agree or not with that law, the fact of the matter is: saying anything contradictory to the state's stance is illegal. Therefore, you will not find Turkish sources which are in opposition to government's stance unless you go underground. Also, the Turkish government actively doctors the evidence, so Turkish reporters and writers mostly only have those sources and altered evidence to work with.

In comparison then, Germany would lack freedom of speech too; you can't be a nazi, I am pretty sure.
Red herring. Not an argument. Whether Germany lacks freedom of speech or not is not related to the reliability of Turkish sources or the Armenian genocide.

Sarkozy wanted to make denying the Armenian genocide a crime, but failed, due to freedom of speech laws.
Red herring. Not an argument. Whether France would restrain freedom of speech or not is not related to the reliability of Turkish sources or the Armenian genocide.

Why is it now so bad if Turkey wants to prevent people from undermining the nation?
Because it comes at the cost of the truth. Truth should prevail. But that is not the case. Also, I'd argue that denying the Armenian genocide is doing more harm than good to Turkey. Denying the truth is, in some way, undermining the nation; it undermines its credibility and it antagonizes geopolitical neighbours. But I digress, whether or not Turkey is undermined by the truth is of no relation to the establishment of the truth about the genocide and going towards that path will simply derail the topic.
 

Adorno

Bedroom Assassin
Duke
WBNWM&BVC
Best answers
0
... Germany would lack freedom of speech too; you can't be a nazi, I am pretty sure.
Supporting a genocidal ideology striving towards a universal, dystopian, Orwellian dance macabre is a whole different level of debasement than calling Atatürk a *insert insult* e.g.
 

Emil

Squire
M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Best answers
0
Me, when the President of Turkey calls for a cooperation of nations multiple times to analyze archives but Armenia and the West do not move a single muscle apart from to say "Armenian Genocide Happened":
Me, when the President of Turkey calls for help from EU and NATO at the same time unleashing thousands of refugees onto Greek borders as well as continuing the illegitimate invasion of Syria. The reason? - He want legitimacy for his political agenda in his own country. You'd be naive if you think words mean more than action. Fact is the action that was taken by the Turkish regime was to make it illegal to agree to the atrocities against Armenians. Input the saying; ''action speaks louder than words'' here.
 
Last edited: