Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by whitecity, Jul 10, 2009.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
They've got some cheek given they deny the "Armenian Genocide" ever occured.
"Hello Pot, this Kettle, colour check, over!"
And the events taking place in Kurdistan are presumably just a club 18-30 holiday that gets a bit rowdy?
Obviously, the word 'Turkic' is causing a few eyes to swivel in Ankara.
Turkey is to be applauded, looking to its own, further to the east.
However, just another reason (should one be necessary), that the EU should not be entertaining the thought of Turkey as an EU member.
The US doesn't seem to have admitted that the mass killings of Native Americans as they moved West was genocide, yet it was. No country is proud of a past where they are the guilty ones, yet the country still has pride and wishes to maintain it. The main cause of the denial is that they admit that their fathers/grandfathers were the perpetrators, yet feel bound to defend them; this contrasts with Germany where apparently no one's father or grandfather was related to the holocaust...As such Turkey will admit responsibility in the future, yet the Armenian genocide was a relatively short while ago and they have not been compelled to admit responsibility as they did not lose a war on it, as Germany did. I am not an expert on the Armenian genocide, indeed just a quick flick through Wikipedia formed the basis of this defense but even if they do never admit responsibility surely it is a good thing that they are at least recognising genocide for what it is.
The Turkish invaded Cyprus in recent memory, and most of that half of the island is now deserted, and before that, they killed millions of Armenians. They haven't apologised for either, which means, as a nation, they ain't sorry, and that means they don't think that it is a bad thing to kill millions of civilians brutally, which means we don't want them in the EU.
the US also refused to use the G word in relation to Rwanda 1994 in case it then generated a moral requirement to them to send troops in to stop it.
Well Britain, France, Germany, Spain, Portugal and Italy have all done similar things; much of them in the same time period, so obviously as a nation we didn't think it was a bad thing to kill civilians brutally.
Also, half of Cyprus is not deserted...have you been to northern cyprus? It has about a third the population of greek cyprus, which is appropriate given that is a third of the size - i.e not deserted at all. And you seem to have forgotten the reason for the invasion:
So...it seems that they had a reason for invading, the Greeks weren't being that nice. Look into history before you comment on the present. If Spanish nationalists attempted a coup d'etat so that they might annex Gibraltar, then I take it that you would think that was fine and not support a British intervention? The same argument goes for the Falklands War, Argentinian nationalists attempted to sieze the islands (as i'm sure you know) and Britain decided that we weren't very happy about that, thus we intervened. So from your argument you don't think that was the right thing to do either then? No I didn't think so.
If I had been a Turk in 1974 I would have wanted Cyprus invaded. What happened during EOKA was disgraceful, Back on track. Like the Chinese will give a fukc! And it will still be business as usual in trading etc. I must agree though, Ankara spouting does as an earlier poster said require a Colour Check!
Really? We tied groups of women and children together, marched them into rivers and then shot them? We drove millions into exile, and killed millions more?
When did we do that then?
You grasp of history seems to be limited, badly limited. The Armenian 'Genocide' - the word 'Genocide' should give you a clue. A word that is still denied by Turkey, despite massive amounts of evidence to the contrary.
So, what 'genocide' did France, Spain and Italy commit as a nation then? If you use your noddle, you'll fnd it was only the Turkish and the Germans who committed wholesale slaughter against defenceless civilians in their own countries.
But that's OK, let's welcome the unapologetic nation to the table of the civilised shall we. Sweep the Christian Armenians under the table, lest we upset people.
Somehow I don't see the Chinese losing too much sleep over Turkey's opinion...
Another significant event was the British policy of rounding up and isolating the Boer civilian population into concentration camps. The wives and children of Boer guerrillas were sent to these camps with poor hygiene and little food. The death and suffering of the civilians, according to many scholars, is what broke the guerrillas' will. The "pacification" theory has been repeated many times in warfare since.
So are you saying that we deliberately starved them and gave them poor hygeine so the would die?
The deaths of Boer civilians in British concentration camps was due to poor planning; lack of proper hygiene, nutrition etc. It was not a systamatic attempt at genocide. A tragedy but not an atrocity.
Of course, this makes no differance to those who died or their relatives. But it is a point that bears repeating: The British Empire was built and ran by very ruthless men(and women). But even it's worst excesses never approached that of the Nazis or Turks.
Im saying that the world over has dirty secrets, and we aren't such a shining example to the world either
but the thread is pointless, if its about some nation pointing the finger at another who has just done what the pointer did before.
Determining which historical events constitute genocide and which are merely criminal or inhuman behavior is not a clear-cut matter. Furthermore, in nearly every case where accusations of genocide have circulated, partisans of various sides have fiercely disputed the interpretation and details of the event, often to the point of promoting wildly different versions of the facts. An accusation of genocide is certainly not taken lightly and will almost always be controversial.
Separate names with a comma.