Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

[Diranakir]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Getting It Right

"The Meds Yeghern, or the Great Crime, which is the Armenian term for the genocide, began on April 24, 1915."

http://www.dailybruin.com/articles/2010/4/30/armenian-community-time-doesnt-heal-all-wounds/

[Eddo211]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

The bottom line is that the weasle Turks have many angles that they can play with the meaning of genocide and when it comes to THIS they come down with everything they got, and I mean everything. They have put the best political scientists and so called historians internally and externally that money can buy on twisting xxxx around, not to mention millions in lobby and constant threats in closing their airspace, airbase, and many lucrative defense contracts and disturbing peace talks in Middle East.
It also doesn’t help when the word genocide is thrown around recklessly these days and used on about every conflict out there just to make it look more horrifying when it doesn’t even come close to the definition.

The bottom line is that no country will recognize the AG unless it is in its national interests, so regardless of how you interpolated it or name it doesn’t really matter, the AG is a reality they all know very well...........they threatened Turkey back then and told them that they will pay dearly if they don’t stop this "race extermination" of Armenians. They want to play with words now? xxxx them all. They will be hunted forever.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

So that's what a cat chasing its own tail looks like?

The facts are:
1) "Genocide" is a legal word.
2) It is a crime according to United Nations' Convention, treaties and has been ratified by most of the legislatures of Western member states.
3) The historical definition and the legal defintion have become infused with one another.
4) The modern interpretation is wholly based according to its legal definition.
5) It imposes obligations and penalties.

Which makes you out of touch with reality because most Armenians (if not all) would strongly disagree with your attempt to delineate the term from its legal connection.

Your payment in Turkish lira is in the mail. The Turkish state thanks you for the services you have rendered to it here, and hopes you can continue with this work.

[retro]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Whilst the term "genocide" is used by the media to describe ethnic cleansing in modern confict zones, such as Rwanda and Darfur.

The longer the Turks drag this out, the worse it gets for them. As the very fact that the Turks are forced to constantly lobby against international Armenian Genocide recognition, publicises the nature of very issue that they are trying to suppress.

[Jos]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Genocide does NOT describe a type of crime. The label "crime" is a statement of opinion by a select group. Something that is a "crime" this year may not have been a "crime" the year before, and (if those that make laws have second thoughts) may not be a "crime" next year. Yet that "something" that was firstly not criminal, then criminal, and then decriminalised, will remain exactly the same act. Only the label has changed.

So that's what a cat chasing its own tail looks like?

The facts are:
1) "Genocide" is a legal word.
2) It is a crime according to United Nations' Convention, treaties and has been ratified by most of the legislatures of Western member states.
3) The historical definition and the legal defintion have become infused with one another.
4) The modern interpretation is wholly based according to its legal definition.
5) It imposes obligations and penalties.

Which makes you out of touch with reality because most Armenians (if not all) would strongly disagree with your attempt to delineate the term from its legal connection.

[Diranakir]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Making a distinction between "ethnic cleansing" and "genocide" is a highly dubious exercise. Whenever you start killing people because of their identity, that is genocidal no matter what the body count. The Turkish commanders who supervised and directed the slaughter of Armenians in the Armenian Genocide referred to it as "cleansing". Let's be clear about that.

[levon]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Thanks for the clarification Eddo jan, it does make things a little easier to understand.

Turks also say "take us to court you Armenian". In fact they are lately planning on suing the 20 countries that have recognize AG.

Of course, "take us to court" is just a ploy by Turkey to just continue their denial by dragging the court process and later claiming that other countries cannot recognize the genocide as it is still being considered in the courts.

[Eddo211]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

This might help to understand, I have trouble myself.

It is known fact that "Genocide" used to be celebrated by the perpetrators in ancient past and monuments raised for its achievements, there was no hiding it or seeing it as evil...........but now it has raised a sense of moral horror and denial by the perpetrator government.

Is it a crime?

Genocide “The word is new, the crime is ancient.” This should read: “The word is new, the phenomenon ancient,”

Turkish argument:

"The Armenian leadership openly sided with the Ottoman Empire's enemies. Ottomans used their legitimate right of self-defense. The ex post facto inculpation of the Ottoman Empire by such a resolution violates Article 1, Section 9 of the United States Constitution, because the word and the concept of 'genocide' did not exist back in 1915.

"Second, the passage of the resolution would constitute a condemnation for a crime without trial and prosecution. It will contravene the principle of due process enshrined in the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution."

Turks also say "take us to court you Armenian". In fact they are lately planning on suing the 20 countries that have recognize AG.


“crime against humanity”

is defined in terms of a number of particular acts, including murder, extermination, and deportation or forcible transfer of population, but more widely, torture, apartheid, and “other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” Any of these acts “when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population” constitutes a crime against humanity. The key category here is “civilian population,” not particular groups as indicated in the Genocide Convention; and the question of intent is different from that required under the Convention: here no specific intent is required.
Though one can differentiate “genocide” and “crimes against humanity” in important respects, the two concepts overlap in many ways. And it is much easier to prosecute actions as crimes against humanity than as genocide; the former also have a wider reach, not being restricted to crimes against particular groups named in the Convention. So where do we go from here? I leave you with the view of William Schabas, one of the foremost authorities on the international law of genocide, who states that with the increased emphasis on crimes against humanity, the international community could dispense with the Genocide Convention.

“ethnic cleansing”

is often part of the genocidal process, and the term is also a euphemism used by the perpetrator to disguise what is actually taking place. But in theory, ethnic cleansing means using violence, rape, terror, and forced deportation to drive out or remove a particular group from a common territory. The emphasis is on creating a homogenous society through fear and expulsion, not as in genocide of annihilating the group.

[levon]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

Genocide does NOT describe a type of crime. The label "crime" is a statement of opinion by a select group. Something that is a "crime" this year may not have been a "crime" the year before, and (if those that make laws have second thoughts) may not be a "crime" next year. Yet that "something" that was firstly not criminal, then criminal, and then decriminalised, will remain exactly the same act. Only the label has changed.

And, again, you are agreeing with the official Turkish viewpoint: "Genocide is a term to describe a specific type of crimes committed". What court has said that Turkey has committed this specific type of crime?

No, I'm not agreeing with the official Turkish viewpoint. Genocide is a word to describe specific types of crimes, namely, "crimes against humanity", which by their innate nature cannot be declassified to not be crimes. Yes, genocide is a legal word, however, the use of crimes in Crimes against humanity is used from a both moral and legal point of view. Genocide can be classified from both a scholarly/historical perspective and from a legal perspective. The nature of the word makes it perfectly acceptable to do both.

If murder weren't a crime 20,000 years ago, one may still look at an act, and classify it as murder, regardless of whether an official judgment has been carried out or not.

[londontsi]

Re: Medz Yeghern: Great Crime vs. Great Calamity

And, again, you are agreeing with the official Turkish viewpoint:

Then why is Turkey spending millions as well as threats to forestall Genocide recognition by Governments?

Your argument is so bizarre.