Page 1 of 1
Posted on February 21 at 2:38 p.m.
The 1985 statement in the NYT signed by the illustrious 69 scholars of Ottoman history, referred to by Mr. Kirikovali, never uses the phrase "civil war within a world war". Mr. Kirikovali should be more careful with his use of quotation marks to avoid creating his own version of the truth as he goes along. Besides that, civil war implies two more or less equal forces within the same nation contending with each other for control over the central government. The strife between Turks and Armenians was never even close to that. In most cases it was the result of generations of intolerable oppression of the tiny Armenian minority by the Turkish/Ottoman government. You can't make a "civil war" out of that.
On Armenian or Turk Claims 'Genocider'?
Posted on February 21 at 8:12 a.m.
"Neither group represents the entirety of humankind or possess a monopoly on truth". Neither does the ECHR.Please see:https://www.facebook.com/haik.petross...
Posted on February 12 at 9:09 a.m.
ulugen, genocide is not ONLY a narrow legal term, much as you would like it to be. It is also a very important political and HISTORICAL term, essential to the writing and understanding of modern history. If you wish to denounce its every use outside of what you consider to be its proper limits you have a big job ahead of you! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFPch5...
On Armenian Genocide Not Legally Founded
Posted on February 10 at 6:50 p.m.
ulugen, I am not dancing around anything. Genocide did not come into existence with the Convention in 1948. The Convention, as its preamble makes clear and as I tried to get you to understand, is based on the recognition that genocide has occurred throughout human history (something you waltzed away from for some reason). That being so, the Convention is based on and codifies the features of genocide as it was recognized in history by the framers at the time of writing. If they had said, "We can't find genocide where someone wasn't prosecuted for it" we wouldn't have had a Genocide Convention.
First there is a crime, then the criminal is sought. If the criminal is not sought, arrested and brought to justice, the crime remains a crime. In the case of the 1915 genocide, though the perpetrators are dead and gone and cannot be tried, Turkey bears state responsibility for their acts in perpetuity and must come clean, especially since it has recently used every opportunity to identify with its Ottoman past.
Another mistake you make: your cartoon version of who and what diasporan Armenians are: supposedly all ARFers, "peddling their souls for money". Besides being the vilest possible insult, this is utterly false and can only be the result of profound ignorance of the reality of the Armenian community. There are many strains of thought among Armenians, not just the ARF (Tashnag) one. But no Armenian will question that Armenians and Armenia were subjected to a genocide of unprecedented scale and savagery in 1915 and most will go on struggling for its just recognition until they don't have a dime in their pockets.
Posted on February 10 at 12:36 p.m.
Ken Volok [Feb. 10 at 11:38], you said it all in two short, eloquent sentences. Thank you.
Posted on February 8 at 6:21 a.m.
The incompetence of the Ottoman Tribunal consisted mainly in its abject failure to ensure the lawful punishment of the leading war criminals it found guilty, which then opened up the field for thesystematic denialism of which "ulugen" and "Kirikovali" are the latest exponents.
Posted on February 5 at 7:48 p.m.
'Holocaust was tried in a court of law, the Nuremberg Trials (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurember...). The alleged "Armenian genocide" was never established in any court ', says ulugen. This is nonsense. The word Holocaust never comes up in the Nuremberg trials. The Nazi war criminals were tried for exactly that: war crimes and crimes against humanity. The same way Talat Pasha was found guilty and sentenced to death by Turkish courts in 1919 for the mass murder of Armenians. Both the Holocaust and the genocide of the Armenians took place before the Genocide Convention was instituted. But anyone with an ounce of reasoning and acquaintance with history recognizes them as genocides.
Posted on February 3 at 12:11 p.m.
The preamble to the Genocide Convention states: "Genocide has inflicted great losses on humanity at all periods of history".The genocide of the Armenians is precisely one of the genocides indicated by this statement. It is foundational to the very concept, as Raphael Lemkin made abundantly clear. This has since been verified and reiterated by the overwhelming consensus of contemporary historians who specialize in genocide, a consensus which, if repudiated, would make a laughing stock of the entire field. Trying to limit the meaning and application of the word genocide to recent legal proceedings is, of course, a convenient escape hatch for those wishing to erase history and rewrite it as a grandiose myth in which truth is no longer discernible.