The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Turkey Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Turks and Armenians: Kane
Godofgamblers    8/3/2006 4:28:41 AM
This thread concerns the question of whether the Genocide of Armenians took place in the Ottoman Empire after WWI.

The idea for this thread came from a discussion i had with Kane on the ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD board.

Please be advised that :

(1) I have no personal stake in this argument as I am neither Turkish nor Armenian.

(2) I have no negative feelings toward Turkey.

(3) My own country is guilty of acts of genocide and outright genocide that make the Armenian situation pale in comparison. Thus, I am taking no position of superiority over Turks or Turkey.

Since I know little about Turkish history, I would like to conduct the discussion via a series of questions, which I will ask Kane. Others are free to chime in, of course, as they wish.

Let's start!

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT
Godofgamblers    Question #1   8/3/2006 4:32:21 AM
Before we start, kane, what would you like to refer to the subject as? "Armenian Genocide", "Acts of Genocide", "Armenian Question", or another term?
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Question #1   8/3/2006 2:58:19 PM
Armenian Genocide is probably the best term. I cannot stand political correctness, so any euphemisms annoy me no end.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    RE:Question #1   8/4/2006 1:39:46 AM
I hate PC too, Roman, but I wish to hear kane's term. I wish to make a point about 'semantics'.
 
Quote    Reply

kane    RE:Question #1   8/4/2006 4:22:48 AM
Say what you want but i prefer "Armenian Problem"
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    Question #2   8/4/2006 5:52:18 AM
Obviously, it is not good for Turkey's reputation if it turns out that this could be called "Genocide". But then again... can you tell me, Kane, what the positive points would be if Turkey officially called this a Genocide by an act of Law. What positive points would there be?
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    Question #3   8/4/2006 5:54:37 AM
What is your definition of "The Armenian Problem"?
 
Quote    Reply

kane    RE:Question #2   8/4/2006 9:57:41 AM
Before answering questions i'll try to write a better explanation of what happened and i'll try to post it in 3-4 days. and can you tell me where do you live?!?!To make better timing ;)
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Question #2   8/4/2006 1:35:29 PM
No offense kane, but I can safely say ahead of time that I will not trust your version of the events even before you have actually written it! Why should I be so sceptical you ask? Well, apart from Turkish nationalism, there is also the fact that even those Turks who recognize the Armenian Genocide are restricted from publishing or otherwise spreading their opinion by Turkish law. Of course (unless you are a very brave man indeed) you are unlikely to write a version that disagrees with your government's stance on the Armenian Genocide if you could be arrested and tried for doing so!
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Turks and Armenians: Kane   8/4/2006 1:40:28 PM
"(3) My own country is guilty of acts of genocide and outright genocide that make the Armenian situation pale in comparison." May I ask, GoG, what do you mean by the difference between genocide and outright genocide?
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    RE:Question #2   8/4/2006 2:00:24 PM
"Obviously, it is not good for Turkey's reputation if it turns out that this could be called "Genocide"." I don't see why you think that? The Armenian Genocide is, outside of Turkey, generally recognized as a genocide already, so I don't think Turkey's reputation would suffer any more from this than it does already if Turkey recognized it as a genocide. The only reason some governments do not specifically refer to it as a genocide is not to 'offend' Turkey. "But then again... can you tell me, Kane, what the positive points would be if Turkey officially called this a Genocide by an act of Law. What positive points would there be?"" Most countries have some dark chapters, of varying degrees of darkness, in their respective histories. That is an unfortunate but unchangeable fact. Countries and nations, however, can change over time and in any case generations definitely change. Hence, past events can be forgiven. I personally, however, have great difficulty respecting countries that do not acknowledge their past. It is my belief that these countries are inherently dangerous, as they are apparently incapable of self-reflection and self-criticism, prefering instead to idolize themselves and blame foreigners. This is a paved road to future conflicts, or at least tensions. If Turkey recognized the Armenian Genocide, I would view it positively as a major step of dealing with the Turkey's past. Of course, the Ottoman Empire was a major colonial power, so it oppressed and slaughtered a large number of people of many nationalities, but I do believe that the Armenians suffered the most. As I already mentioned, many countries oppressed others, but most now recognize this as a stain on their past and do not try to deny it. This makes a big difference.
 
Quote    Reply

Roman    Hijacked Thread - Sorry!    8/4/2006 2:03:42 PM
Well, it seems like I have hijacked the thread. I have just realized that GoG's intention was to discuss the matter with kane specifically. Hence, I will try to refrain from posting in this thread from now on, unless a question or a comment is meant directly for me. BTW: As you can see I recognize my mistakes on this thread and am taking corrective action... he, he, sorry, I just could not resist saying that. ;)
 
Quote    Reply

kane    Roman   8/4/2006 3:24:06 PM
No you didn't hijacked it.Well look,i'm not saying it wasn't a genocide because of my nationality.I believe this is an emperialist lie to weaken Turkey.Many countries slaughtered people. Americans-Indians French-Algerians Chinese-Uighur Turks Brits-well i don't know if they did but they had so many colonies.They may have done some Russians-Just before WW2 None of the above are known as "Genocide" Now look at those country names,what are they,they're super powers. Now look at Turkey and it's history.Ottomans were very large,nearly ruled over Europe.You must do somethings to weaken a super power. Roman,please don't be mad at me.I don't want people to call my countryman as "monster".And i also don't want to see this as a block that slows my country. Those other countries seem to forget their crimes. Look at France!!You call it a free a country??Did you know that it is ILLEGAL to say "there wasn't a genocide aganist Armenians".Or do you know that a Turkish professor was arrested just because he said "there is no genocide" in Switzerland. I warmed up guess i should begin.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    RE:kane   8/4/2006 7:48:48 PM
i'm in indonesia, kane. not sure of the time difference... it's probably about 8hrs... we probably won't be online at the same time, i'm afraid.
 
Quote    Reply

Godofgamblers    RE:Roman   8/4/2006 7:53:10 PM
yes, this thread has a history to it, roman. it started from a discussion in ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD. there is also a thread on this board called TITAN where the armenian question is dealt with. in TITAN, some seemed to say that there was no genocide but 'acts of genocide'. it does seem much the same, and i'd like to discuss that with kane. i note that the term is used by the US when it doesn't want to intervene in a situation. according to a UN convention, the US must intervene in genocide so the US will term something 'acts of genocide' (such as happened in Rwanda) instead of genocide to allow them to not take action. feel free to chime in on this discussion though, roman. i'm sure others will join in too soon.
 
Quote    Reply

kane    begin   8/5/2006 6:21:31 AM
Ok as a source i'll use a book called "Tarihimizle Yüzleşmek(facing our history)"by Emre Kongar.Well i looked at his history and he is a pretty succesfull professor who also has international awards. This book is about Turkish history.What we did wrong in history.Since he is a Turk his writings may not satisfy you BUT i must say that he is pretty objective. some topics in the book -Turks converted into Islam by force -Turkish Islam is different then Arabian -Ottomans could not move scientifically because of the religious pressure -Ottomans killed people because of their religious beliefs there are many other things that we made wrong,but our topic is Armenian problem Now with my little English i'll try to translate what he wrote What is "Genocide"??(this part is important learn what it means) "genos"-in latin means,"soy" in Turkish,can say nation in English "caedere"-in Greek means killing,slaughtering It must be a planned thing!!!! 1.The slaughter must be done aganist a race(or religion) as government's policy. 2.This slaughter sould happen in ever parts of the country,not just one place. 3.This slaughter must be done repeatedly not once. This word was opened to signs in 9 December 1948 by UN.Turkey signed this in 23.3.1950 It was firstly used aganist Nazi warcrimes in 2.WW courts. Nazis killed 6 million Jews systematically in camps.(by burning and gassing) The word "Genocide" was also used aganist old Yugoslavia. I'll countinue later. After i tell what happened you will decide whether it's a genocide or not!!!
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy