Genocide is not illegal if it's against your minority? ICC would like to have a word with your nationalist detergent producer.
Armenian Genocide (?)
- Thread starter Janissary1453
- Start date
Users who are viewing this thread
RecursiveHarmony
It simply states a case happens locally should be settled in local courts. It certainly can be abused like your question implies, but i'm not the one who decides which way principles of laws should evolve. It's the result of hundreds of years of interactions between states. One or more countries to meddling with another one's internal affairs isn't a good thing unless there is an international agreement that allows it.
Are you talking about international laws and agreements a century ago? Because I'm pretty sure the current ones allow "meddling" in your internal mass murder shenanigans. But @BenKenobi would know better.
It's a brand new take on Turkish apologism though, "it was legal, **** off world".
RecursiveHarmony
Which part of it says it's legal exactly? I'm just saying it cannot be judged properly. Could you stop with you strawmans, pleaseAre you talking about international laws and agreements a century ago? Because I'm pretty sure the current ones allow "meddling" in your internal mass murder shenanigans. But @BenKenobi would know better.
It's a brand new take on Turkish apologism though, "it was legal, **** off world".
Your actual claim was that it was not internationally illegal (I translated that to "legal", because that's what it is).Which part of it says it's legal exactly? I'm just saying it cannot be judged properly. Could you stop with you strawmans, please
This can be easily translated to "not illegal under international law, but theoretically questionable under Turkish law, although practically we know the local courts staffed by Turks would dismiss it, so practically legal".
It is a fair interpretation and not a strawman.
Every time I see Turks defending this, I'm more disappointed in them.
We've been discussing whether it happened or not. Not so much if it was legal. The Geneva conventions didn't exist then (on protection of civilians).
Since everyone directly involved are dead it's mainly a historical discussion, not a legal one.
Since the genocide was orchestrated by authorities it obviously wasn't illegal at the time.
Saying the legality can't be established is a weird way of avoiding the topic.
Since everyone directly involved are dead it's mainly a historical discussion, not a legal one.
Since the genocide was orchestrated by authorities it obviously wasn't illegal at the time.
Saying the legality can't be established is a weird way of avoiding the topic.
Last edited:
RecursiveHarmony
As i said in the actual conclusion.
I'm just saying they should be presumed innocent. They may or may not be guilty. It's not about it's a crime or not nationally or internationally. It a basic principle of law.
This kind of stuff made me write first comment.
The words 'genocide', 'apologism' (also words like 'denial' and 'denier') bothers me.
The '-cide' makes it sound like a crime like homicide. To call someone a genocider, i think they should be convicted in a court. Also, the term genocide consists of multiple types of crimes and requires intent. The 'Tahcir Law' is about, basically, moving some Armenians to the northern sections of the Syria and bring them back when the region is stable. It has some questionable clauses, but not enough to call it a genocide orchestration. It sounds like Bush orchastrated 9/11 claims, you know, more of a conspiracy theory rather than a good argument.
The words 'apologism', 'denial', and 'denier' implies misintent to me. They sound like the person who is accused of doing know what they're doing is wrong and intentionally doing it cause they are dicks. I honestly think 'Armenian Genocide argument' is ill-formed, invalid and fueled by Armenian nationalist ideas. I also don't like the verb 'deny' when it's used similarly in religious conversations. Non-religious people are referred as deniers like they believe god exists but intentionally refuse it's existence.
I already explained that abusable part as
In the third statement, i mentioned victor's justice. That's the reason why Nazis are punished and USA can get away with nuking Japan twice and invading Iraq when they don't have nukes. Sometimes you can't declare someone guilty without overpowering them. It's not fair, and i don't like it either but it's what it is.
I have similar thoughts about Euro-fellows (people from Europe, America, Canada etc).
Adorno started good, but last two sentences, especially the word 'avoiding' made me lose hope.
Even with the Holocaust, the most blatant and well documented genocide in history, it is still up for debate whether even the highest authorities really planned from the start to exterminate people. You could write a history book about how hitler never intended to mass exterminate populations while still calling it a genocide.
Pentagathoos
Squire
Hmmm I'm pretty sure Hitler's plans for genocide were fairly clear from the outset, at least when it came to Slavs:
"There is only one task: Germanization through the introduction of Germans [to the area] and to treat the original inhabitants like Indians. … I intend to stay this course with ice-cold determination. I feel myself to be the executor of the will of History. What people think of me at present is all of no consequence. Never have I heard a German who has bread to eat express concern that the ground where the grain was grown had to be conquered by the sword. We eat Canadian wheat and never think of the Indians."
In this context Indian means Native Americans. It seems pretty clear that Hitler always intended to wipe out as much of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe as he considered necessary to ensure the success of his Lebensraum policy. It's amazing how many people managed not to take his words seriously right up until the point where he actual started implementing this bull****.
"There is only one task: Germanization through the introduction of Germans [to the area] and to treat the original inhabitants like Indians. … I intend to stay this course with ice-cold determination. I feel myself to be the executor of the will of History. What people think of me at present is all of no consequence. Never have I heard a German who has bread to eat express concern that the ground where the grain was grown had to be conquered by the sword. We eat Canadian wheat and never think of the Indians."
In this context Indian means Native Americans. It seems pretty clear that Hitler always intended to wipe out as much of the Slavic population of Eastern Europe as he considered necessary to ensure the success of his Lebensraum policy. It's amazing how many people managed not to take his words seriously right up until the point where he actual started implementing this bull****.
@RecursiveHarmony as a general rule, I'd say you can safely assume you are doing something wrong when your line of thought leads you to defending Hitler .
I do not understand this need y'all have of refusing to admit wrongdoings of your ancestors. It's not like anyone is personally blaming you, you were not there. Also, I think you are missing Adorno's point. Did the facts happen or not? How many Armenians died in the process? Everything else is just semantics.
. I do not understand this need y'all have of refusing to admit wrongdoings of your ancestors. It's not like anyone is personally blaming you, you were not there. Also, I think you are missing Adorno's point. Did the facts happen or not? How many Armenians died in the process? Everything else is just semantics.
RecursiveHarmony
I was writing a long, detailed response to your post, but unfortunately it got lost during some surfing between pages, so i'll summarize it out of sheer laziness@RecursiveHarmony as a general rule, I'd say you can safely assume you are doing something wrong when your line of thought leads you to defending Hitler
I do not understand this need y'all have of refusing to admit wrongdoings of your ancestors. It's not like anyone is personally blaming you, you were not there. Also, I think you are missing Adorno's point. Did the facts happen or not? How many Armenians died in the process? Everything else is just semantics.
- This is a discussion about Ethics and Law, not History.
- Holocoust and genocide claims of Armenians are not similar in terms of intent, scale, content.
- Nobody is refusing to admit wrongdoings of their ancestors. I believe in some accusations, don't believe in the others. I simply don't like package deals. I also believe ancestors of the Armenian fellows did some horrible things to our ancestors too. They don't seem to 'admit' those horrible stuff too. I don't see them getting the same reaction.
- Semantics are really important.
- And **** Hitler
Him not getting a fair trial doesn't mean his blatantly racist bull**** like Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour is ok.
Wrong, that is not what this topic is about. You derailed it because it's easier to defend the genocide that way. The topic is "Did it happen". It's about historical facts, not about ethics or law.
Says who? Also, for your information, before the term genocide existed, the armenian genocide was also called a Holocaust. For someone obsessed with semantics like yourself, it should be relevant no? I would love to see you squeeze yourself out of that one.
That is simply untrue. Not only there are several examples of turks in this thread who flat out refuse to admit such things, but it is illegal to acknowledge the genocide in turkey because it insults turkishness.
You are being very ambiguous. What is it in "did it happen" that's part of a package deal?
Probably because it was self defence. If you threaten to kill me and put me in a situation where I cannot avoid you trying to act on that, I may also choose to kill you before you do.
No, semantics are not important at all in this discussion. It's a red herring which is commonly brought up to deviate the debate towards being about what a genocide is rather than if it happened, which is not constructive and it constantly brings about the derailment of the topic. If anything, it's very incredibly really super extremely unimportant.
Last edited:
@Zombie Warrior 's post is spot on, as usual, but I would just like to add this: what you are doing right there is whataboutism. Whataboutism attempts to deflect attention from your faction or party or whatever it is that you are trying to protect by pointing out that someone else too did something wrong at some point. The natural conclusion of that argument is that everyone is evil, everything is **** and therefore we shouldn't even try to do something to make people accountable for their actions. It is a pretty standard propagandistic tool used by authoritarians (Putin absolutely loves to do it), and ultimately if you think that way you *are* being apologetic towards the holocaust as well, whether you are aware of it or not.
RecursiveHarmony
I wrote a couple posts here and all of them has attracted some weird hostility. @Zombie Warrior Congratulations! You deserved a report for being the most unnecessarily aggressive one. (flamebaiting)
First post of the discussion.
About intent, scale, and content. To summarize
- Intent: Nazis were openly racist as you can see in the law example. Ottoman cases were mostly rebellion oriented.
- Scale: Nazis were hunting Jews globally. Armenian related stuff mostly happened in Ottoman lands (mainly Eastern Anatolia) where rebellions was going on.
- Content: Basically what happened. Josef Mengele was a good example of it. What this guy was accused of doing is just ****ed up.
As you can see it's more simple and based than a delusional dictator's racism oriented manhunt.
I hope you learn how to argue with strangers respectfully.
First post of the discussion.
This thread was created by a Turk with that post.
As you can see, i can write anything. Also i explained it. The word 'genocide' comes with criminal punisment and moral judgement. When you call someone a genocider, you say that person has done some bad things and must be punished for doing those thing. 'Bad' becomes the morality part which is in the realm of Ethics. 'Punishment' becomes the unlawfullness part which is in the realm of Law. History can provide some data. It can't help with the judgement.
Says 'me'. I use 'Holocoust' cause everyone understands what i mean by that. I don't like to have another discussion about Nazi stuff in this thread. Other people come up with Nazi comparisions and i tried to explain my opinions in words they can understand.
"Did it happen" comes with "If it happened then everyone did it was criminal assholes.", ethics and laws. The argument comes with 1.8 million Armenians casualties. Agreeing with the argument implies assuming all those Armenians are unlawfully and unethically murdered. I would like to refrain from assuming something common about that amount people. That's what i call a package deal. If they can seperate the cases, i can say things more precisely.
About intent, scale, and content. To summarize
- Intent: Nazis were openly racist as you can see in the law example. Ottoman cases were mostly rebellion oriented.
- Scale: Nazis were hunting Jews globally. Armenian related stuff mostly happened in Ottoman lands (mainly Eastern Anatolia) where rebellions was going on.
- Content: Basically what happened. Josef Mengele was a good example of it. What this guy was accused of doing is just ****ed up.
As you can see it's more simple and based than a delusional dictator's racism oriented manhunt.
It's penalized under a law called 'Insulting Turkishness'. I think it's because of keeping 'people who read rationalwiki and treat Turkish people like genocide laundering maniacs' away.
Maybe some of the Turks were also innocent, and unlawfully and unethically murdered by some Armenian rebels. It creates a good reason to exclude those criminal rebels from genocide.
After all i've written if you still think semantics are not important we are simply having a difference in opinion I see no reason to discuss any further about that.
This is only part of it, and is massively oversimplified. Historians rarely debate what is or isn't a genocide because there is a fairly unambiguous and amoral definition.
If all we're talking about is the term genocide, then none of these actually matter. Even "intent" is a red herring because there is always a complete psychological barrier between the crimes and the perpetrators, and even under interrogation most of the direct perpetrators never think of themselves as genodciders.
Also I find the "armenians were killing turks though" justification frankly disgusting. I seriously don't know how you can type that and think it helps your argument.
Do you see the problem with your reasoning yet? Like at this point what you are writing is so out there that I am starting to wonder if you are just trying to mess with people.
RecursiveHarmony
@eddiemccandless Edit it with taking your reversal out of my quote or i'm gonna report it. I don't think you did it with malice, but you can't change someone's words and make him look like he said those words.
Edit:
All i wanted him to do is to correct his post like this
Do you see the problem with your reasoning yet? Like at this point what you are writing is so out there that I am starting to wonder if you are just trying to mess with people.
Not only he didn't fix his post, he also accused me of resorting to report for this incident. Such a shameless thing to do. I guess i was wrong about not assuming him acting with malice.
Edit:
All i wanted him to do is to correct his post like this
"Maybe some of the Germans were also innocent, and unlawfully and unethically murdered by some Jew rebels. It creates a good reason to exclude those criminal rebels from genocide."
Do you see the problem with your reasoning yet? Like at this point what you are writing is so out there that I am starting to wonder if you are just trying to mess with people.
Last edited:
RecursiveHarmony
I actually said this.
Here is a link of a video. Unfortunately it's in Turkish. Kazım Karabekir's daughter talking about some civilians mounted on spikes by Armenians. I think Armenians would count those guys as innocent civilians if they were killed somewhere during those events.
Don't bother reporting it, eddie is not breaking any rules. He's pretty obviously just making a point.
(A valid one too btw)
RecursiveHarmony
I'm not against him making a point, i'm against him making a point in that manner. You can't change someone's quote that way.
Similar threads
- Poll
