Turkey's challenge to the Armenians

[Hovik]

Neddy, I am doing my best to understand why you are harping on your idea that the UN doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide. Two things need to be addressed and I will do so below...

Hi everyone,

Neutral,

I am not saying it was or it wasn't genocide. You simply need to read my post with a little more care to understand my point. You need to differentiate the difference between the act of or the carrying out of genocide AND the term 'genocide' as defined and applied by the UN.

The current shape and form of the application and definition of the term 'genocide' within the UN parameters, it appears to be technically impossible to accuse the Turks of 'genocide'. This is all I'm saying. Unless there is some very well hidden fine print or clause that I've yet to find within the convention, it is a total dead end to pursue this matter on this platform.

ISSUE: DOES THE UN RECOGNIZE THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?

First off, Phantom has made two extremely good points already in the forum that seem to have gone ignored by you as I do not see a rebuttal in your responses after Phantoms post (correct me if I am wrong). Here is a quote from Phantom in this thread about 5-10 posts before your post that I am responding to.

Moreover, the term Genocide was invented by Jewish attorney Raphael Lemkin, who was a survivor of the Holocaust. In 1944 while working for the U.S. War Dept. he coined the term Genocide, and gave the Armenians as a prime example of what he meant by that term. His thesis and definition of the term was eventually codified into the U.N. definition. So, as you can see, even the man who invented the word believed that the Armenian experience was a prime example of Genocide.

I don't know why such a fact continues to go ignored by many Turkish members of this forum. The fact is that the UN Genocide Convention was adopted on the basis that the "Armenian Genocide" was the PRIMARY EXAMPLE of the terminology. That fact alone pretty much destroys ANY case made by anyone that the UN doesn't recognize the Armenian Genocide. Just as the Armenian Genocide and details of execution were a model by which Hitler planned and justified his destruction of the Jews, it is also the model by which the word Genocide itself was coined. I should also note (and it has been discussed elsewhere in the forum) that prior to the UN Genocide Convention was adopted with specific reference to the Armenian Genocide the tragedy was referred to in Newspaper headlines around the world as the Armenian Holocaust - and since Jews have adopted the word and tried to make it unique to their tragedy and demonize others from using "their word". If you wish to read more about Lemkins study of the Armenian Genocide, his drafting of the Convention, and his struggle to have it adopted, read "A Problem from Hell: America and the Age of Genocide by Harvard professor Samantha Power.

So, I think unless you feel you have a significant reason to debate this further we can all conclude that because the UN adopted its convention with the Armenian Genocide as the primary example, it has recognized the Armenian Genocide. (All other forms ie. the Sub-committee on Human Rights Documentation that recognizes it, etc are only further evidence of this - but I don't think even they are needed to prove the point)

ISSUE: DOES THE UN GENOCIDE CONVENTION APPLY RETROACTIVELY?

You have stated that you don't believe that the UN Genocide convention applies retroactively. However, unless I am making a grave miscalculation, wasn't the Genocide of the Jews ending about 3 years prior to the adoption of the UN Genocide Convention? So anyone who considers this event a Genocide (ie. the civilized world) is wrong? Otherwise it would be, and IS applied retroactively. Again, Lemkin highlighted the Armenian Genocide as his main example when he was working on this long before Hitler began exterminating Jews. Once Lemkin's own family was subjected to Nazi slaughter in a campain based on the Armenian Genocide his passion and determination to use the Jewish case as a secondary, more 'current' and more pressing example of Genocide was solidified.

Both the Armenian and Jewish Genocides predate the UN Genocide Convention. Because the UN recognizes the Jewish case as Genocide it therefore applies retroactively, covering the case of the Armenian Genocide. Does anyone have a ligitimate arguement to this?

As for elusive term 'adamlar isi biliyor' means something to the tune of 'they know how to play the game', and yes it is in Turkish.
I too struggled initially with Cosmos' post but have understood what he's saying. In short he's saying that the Americans know how to deal with this situation with their past with the Indigenous Indians. He is saying that the Yanks commit the crime, make a movie, bombard the media accepting everything. They do all this but they beat everyone else to it. In essence, they take responsibility and make the admission before anyone else gets the chance and they hide under the umbrella of being forthright, diplomatic & transparent therefore creating a platform whereby they feel less inclined to take critisism because they've already come clean .

Neddy, you had me up until you said that American media "accepts everything" (with regards to the Genocide of American Indians) wether you agree or were just speculating as to what cosmos meant either way it is wrong. The United States hardly accepts its guilt in the Genocide of American Indians, and the issue is disgustingly still being "debated" and "denied". They have made their films sure, but they are far from the reality of what happened, they have made the perpetrators appear to have hearts and feelings, and even apparently soft sides. Of course when it comes time to make a film about what colonial americans dealt with during the revolutionary war - "The Patroit" demonizes the red coats to the fullest extent. Now this is not to say that the Americans weren't peaceful people, and the British weren't brutal. However, I believe in telling the facts like they are in all cases, even those in which your collective shares guilt - but those in Hollywood making the few films on the subject of the Native American Genocide are trying to avoid upsetting the higher-ups or perhaps the redneck, die-hard, good-ole-boys who would be up in arms in a second if a film maker tried to assert that their grand-pappies' atrocities towards "injuns" amounted to Genocide. Anyway, I don't think anyone can come up with any sort of compelling proof that media, or anyone else for that matter, has stepped up and accepted the Genocide of Native Americans. No responsibility has been taken or admission been made in that regard.

Hovik, you make an interesting point about Turkey not recognising the events even though they aren't the perpetrators. I've not much knowledge on this aspect of the topic. Do you have any information regarding the potential liability that Turkey may carry, if any, in the event it recognises the events as a 'genocide'? I don't mean just financially to the victims but in other ways on a wider variety of levels? Any contributions would be greatly appreciated.

Well it is a big question asked by historians around the world. If Turkey didn't commit the crime, why is there such a pride complex? Especially because Turks are constantly discussing and advertising the contrast between Ottomans and the Ottoman Empire, and Turks and the Rep. of Turkey. It simply doesn't add up.

What liability may Turkey carry? Well that is a difficult question to answer because everybody has something different to say about it. Some Armenians say we simply want recognition, others say an apology, others say land reparations, others say financial restitution, and the list goes on. If you use this sites search utility you should be able to find the text of an interview with Kocharian in which he specifically states the expectations of the Republic of Armenia and I don't recall our President demanding anything but recogniton. (someone please paste the link for neddy if you can). Also, if you are interested in what I have to say about the topic please view the following thread, and particularly the following post:

http://www.armeniangenocide.com/forum/showpost.php?p=775&postcount=10

http://www.armeniangenocide.com/forum/showthread.php?t=365

To Hovik and/or Tongue as the moderators of this forum,

I fully support forums such as this one. I personally don't know the answer to 'the question'. But I'm very much in favour of a good intelligent, impartial analysis of the data we have before us to help one another in the quest for a mutual position and understanding. This coming to a mutual position is essentially the real objective that should be sought by politicians, diplomats and the poeples in question. This may sound idealistic but one thing I'm sure of is that imposing one's position on the other by way of threats, political menouvering and legal BS is not ever going to get a outcome that is going to be sincere and from the heart.

Glad you appreciate and support the forum, we are happy to have you. I too believe in the importance of a dialogue between average people like you and I on both sides of the ring. I am not quite sure what you mean by your last sentence, but I should say this: If Armenians limited themselves over the last 90 years to only establishing a dialogue, Turkish denial will have prevailed. We are taking action in all relevant arenas, and this is not only the right thing to do, but what must be done.

Getting to the question that I really would like to pose to you two is: Which recognition do you want, the one that is legally binding and not believed in the hearts OR the one that is legally not so ridgid but definitely believed in the hearts?

Interesting question. Simple Answer: Niether.
Explanation: You have assumed there are only two options, both of which are extremes and major trade-offs. I believe it should be both legally binding and heartfelt. I do not however believe it should be imposed on Turkey. Even if 100 years down the road Turkey wishes to be the only remaining country in the world that does not recognize the Armenian Genocide, so be it. When it has reached a level of maturity in which a country can address its past, I believe it will do so in a heartfelt manner, and will be a proud and honorable enough nation to deal with the legal ramifications if any.

Another set of questions I'd also like to ask is why is it you believe that on a forum/website that is to my understanding dedicated to the discussion of the Armenain Genocide, how come there is soo much content to the ridiculing, generalising and simply insulting
Islam, Turks as a race and the Republic of Turkey? Anyone with any real intellect will know that Islam is a peaceful religion and it is the actions of ignorant humans that need to be blamed for the wrongdoings.
Turks as a race being marginalised as almost having a 'nasty gene' is also absurd, this is the thinking of cavemen, not of a civilised and rational person. Or do you disagree?

I wholeheartedly agree. We may all have been guilty of this at one time or another, but it is not acceptable.

And as Hovik stated in his post above, Turkey is not the accused in question. And I do understand the point that the denial almost makes u equally wrong on a legal and moral standpoint. Why is there so much 'airing of dirty laundry' with respect to the shortcomings and problems Turkey may have internally as a nation, not just old news but current events? Is this exposing of other nations imperfections equally administered to every other nation that does not recognise the genocide?
The negative feeling, slander, spiteful feeling, denialist mentality, spitting the dribble of Gvt's like lambs etc etc etc that many Armenians are accusing the many Turks of doing seems equally to be problem of many Armenians alike. It's like the saying that goes 'the kettle calling the pot black'.

Neddy, we seem to agree that Turkey is not responsible for the Genocide. However, it is responsible for nearly a century of denial, and it is fully responsibly for that. Now, truely openminded Turks are coming out of the woodwork in Turkey, and this will continue to unfold. It is a big country though and the denial machine hasn't shown any signs of slowing down. I don't think anyone here would argue that it is just attributable to the Turkish Government. It's far deeper than that. The majority of Turkish society is in a denialist coccoon woven by successive executive administrations. The issues that are discussed in this forum, the news articles that are posted, are the items I assume you are referring to. These are a key to the society in question. The every day current events within Turkey are highly indicative of the societal mentality as a whole. They are essential for us to read and learn about, they are essential for us to discuss so that we may better understand that which feeds denial. We don't make the current events, we simply post and discuss them.

There is a very well known fact in the study of human behaviour about those who are constantly critisising others for their imperfections and faults. It is commonly attributed to the low self esteem of the party making the constant critisism therefore resorting to this kind of behaviour to somehow increase their own standing. But this is only the trickery of ones own mind, not the reality.

cheers

Well you are obviously new to this forum. Plenty of self-critical evaluation goes on in here on a constant basis. Take some time to browse the threads and I assure you will come across some suprising material. Armenia has more than its share of problems and I for one, am not afraid to discuss them.

Regards

[phantom]

Thank you Gavur, and very very well said Hovik.

[neddy]

Hi everyone,

Neutral,
I am no linguist or historian and I do not have a suggestion on what it should be called. I genuinely don't. Good luck with your research, looking forward to you sharing it with us all.

Phantom,
I am going to agree to disagree with you on the UN topic. There are many bodies and workings of a large organisation like the UN. Letters, documents, agenda items, discussions carry a freedom of speach inside it's own fences, meaning anyone can say anything they desire.This does not equate to the official position of the organisation. But it is silly to think that within this single organistion there can be different official positions. This is impossible and illogical. This is why they have official spokespeople voicing official positions of the organisation as a single entity. I find this impossible to dispute.

I've never actually looked into Rwanda or Cambodia Im sorry.

You wrote 'I disagree. The UN isn't saying that it wasn't Genocide at all, rather it is keeping quiet on the topic, as most cowardly bodies tend to do.' My dear friend, you are either not paying attention or you are not paying attention. Let me requote "A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide.' They are saying something, there is no silence. It's loud and clear. Don't look at it and not see it, it is there before your eyes. A statement so simple does not require any interpretation or opinion.

You then proceed to question the credibility of the UN. This is the same body that would be the jewell in the crown of recognitions for Armenians?This is the same body you were quoting to further your argument a tad earlier?This is pretty hypocritical.

The difference in the term 'genocide' that I was trying to highlight, obviously not successfully....one is a term as defined by the UN for their own workings that must be applied concluding the successful meeting of criterias. The other is a verb.

'Just curious, are you a lawyer specializing in international criminal law?'. No Im not, Im a network and comms engineer specialising in Cisco.

You keep writing about the brilliant minds and how theyre gonna find a crack and a loophole etc etc. These at the moment are nothing more that 'could've beens and should've beens'. I don't believe they carry much worth in building an argument upon, but possibly useful during a casual general discussion. As it stands, it appears clearly to not be a retrospective law. Generally speaking, there is no grey area about what definition it holds when something is said not to be retrospective law. Can this be changed? Im sure it can be. Put the challenge in, win the vote, make your ammendment and its done!

Im sorry to dissapoint you, but no I do not have any intentions at all in asking about the potential liabilities. I am not fishing for anything to attack either. I simply don't know anything about it and was hoping to be enriched by anything you guys may have on this topic. You did touch on land concessions, I don't think this will ever happen personally.

You make several points about the greater task at hand as Armenians you feel you have inherited in spreading the word, and so you should. However I still disagree on a few points about the position you take on 'airing dirty laundry' about Turkey, but don't feel they are of huge importance to pursue a discussion.

As to your final question to me...I personally don't know the ramifications for Turkey. Technically speaking there doesn't seem to be any. I can only think of 3 reasons why they wouldn't: 1) they don't believe it happened, 2)they don't want to believe it happened or 3)pride and/or denial to protect their own repuation or interests. There may be others but Im sure they will dance around the above 3. Do I perceive any benefits? Sure I do. If genocide did take place and they can admit and/or recognise..the benefits are many. It will allow real history to be unearthed and taught. It will allow closure for all parties. It will allow the two peoples to move forward and create a foundation for its peoples and nations to prospour with one another in the future. More importantly, the potential for a peaceful neighbour that all nations should strive for. There are numerous benefits, too many to mention.

[neddy]

Hi again,

Hovik,

I haven't ignored any posts, just haven't gotten to every entry made as it is difficult. I will respond. I have looked at many documents regarding Lemkin and his works. Yes, the events pertaining to the Armenians was used as part of his studies and coining of the word. There were dozens of other instances in history that were also studied in the long evolution of the coining of the word. From my readings of multiple documents, not just the single one you're referring to by Prof. Powers it does not paint such a picture that you may like to portray. I've not been able to see where the Armenian incident was the PRIMARY EXAMPLE as you put it. The killings and mistreatment of his on people was the driving force. He intensified his cause with the commencement of Hitlers rise to power in 1933. Only then did he recall memories of news articles pertaining to the incidents of 1915.The loss of 49 family members was also a huge motivator. Ive not been able to read any extracts regarding the inception of the word in by the UN so I stand to be corrected on this matter. Just at a glance however, showing the Armenian incidents as the primary example seems a bit of self flattery.

No, you have not made any miscalculations regarding the dates. You have a valid point. One that I hope we all can look into and get to the bottom of.

As I said with Phantoms post, we will agree to disagree as it stands. Just as much as you think many Turks are 'ignoring' certain points. You too are it seems. Who in their right mind would say 'Because the UN recognizes the Jewish case as Genocide it therefore applies retroactively, covering the case of the Armenian Genocide. Does anyone have a ligitimate arguement to this?' when you have a quote like "A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide.'And yes, I do have a legitimate argument to this, and so too does the official Spokesman for the UN. How can anyone be so blind or deny such a clear and precise statement. All you are showing is a position of indirect implications and statements that may be seen as this way or that way depending on what suits you. What Im quoting is very direct, precise, crystal clear and not to mention...from the horses mouth.

As for Cosmos' post. None of it is my opinion, I was merely explaining to all what my understanding of his comments were as there seemed to be much confusion.

Read your attached posts re liability, I think your view is a very realistic, honourable and sound view. Whatever the outcome one day between the two peoples, all I hope is that it is one embraced and agreed upon wholeheartedly by all.

Thanks for your acknowldgement and appreciation of my presence and contributions.

FYI, I'm not averse to Turkey accepting anything. I do understand why you would come to this conclusion but for whatever it counts, I really don't have an aversity. I don't have a great stake in the outcome either way other than a stain on my heritage. And who doesn't have one of those.

[neutral]

Neddy.

I don't think you understood what I asked! Because you claim to be a Turk and I was under the impression that all Turks have a little Bump on the back of their head between their neck and the part of the back of the head where the eye brows are level to. I wanted you to feel the around the back of your head to confirm whether or not Turks have this trait.

[phantom]

FYI, I'm not averse to Turkey accepting anything. I do understand why you would come to this conclusion but for whatever it counts, I really don't have an aversity. I don't have a great stake in the outcome either way other than a stain on my heritage. And who doesn't have one of those.

Neddy, I will address the rest of your post later. But just quickly I want to say that you already have a great stain on your heritage, and it isn't because your ancestors committed Genocide, but because the Turkish government still denies. It is only with acknowledgment and normalization of relations will that stain be cleansed. Think of acknowledgment as a trip to the hamam.

[imported_Fadix]

Don't take that personal, but I doubt you have read beyond the internet. Lemkin, from his own texts, became a lawyer because of what happened to the Armenians, he also tried to get Turkey sign the genocide convention, also because of what happened to the Armenians. While it is true that Lemkin studied many cases, he was so convinced of the Armenian cases, that he published no documenting paper regarding it as he did with other cases, because that one, according to him was documented enough to become a part of the genocide definition, without needing to be "proved."

From Lemkin

In 1915 the Germans occupied the city of W. and the entire area. I used this time to read more history, to study and to watch whether national, religious, or racial groups are being destroyed. The truth came out only after the war. In Turkey, more than 1,200,000 Armenians were put to death for no other reason than they were Christians ... After the end of the war, some 150 Turkish war criminals were arrested and interned by the British Government on the island of Malta. The Armenians sent a delegation to the peace conference in Versailles. They were demanding justice. Then one day, the delegation read in the newspapers that all Turkish war criminals were released. I was shocked. A nation was killed and the guilty persons were set free. Why is a man punished when he kills another man? Why is the killing of a million a lesser crime than the killing of a single individual?

I identified myself more and more with the sufferings of the victims, whose numbers grew, as I continued my study of history. I understood that the function of memory is not only to register past events, but to stimulate human conscience. Soon contemporary examples of genocide followed, such as the slaughter of the Armenians in 1915. It became clear to me that the diversity of nations, religious groups and races is essential to civilization because every one of those groups has a mission to fulfill and a contribution to make in terms of culture.... I decided to become a lawyer and work for the outlawing of Genocide and for its prevention through the cooperation of nations.

A bold plan was formulated in my mind. This consisted [of] obtaining the ratification by Turkey [of the proposed UN Convention on Genocide Ed.] among the first twenty founding nations. This would be an atonement for [the] genocide of the Armenians. But how could this be achieved? . . . The Turks are proud of their republican form of government and of progressive concepts, which helped them in replacing the rule of the Ottoman Empire. The genocide convention must be put within the framework of social and international progress. I knew however that in this conversation both sides will have to avoid speaking about one thing, although it would be constantly in their minds: the Armenians.

[Source: With permission of the Rare Books and Manuscripts Division, the New York Public Library, Astor, Lenox, and Tilden Foundations.]

Letter from Lemkin to Mrs. Thelma Stevens of the Methodist Women’s council, dated July 26, 1950, in which he compares the NAZI concentration camps with the Syrian desert.

This conversation is a matter of conscience and is a test of our personal relationship to evil. I know it is very hot in July and August for our work and planning, but without becoming sentimental or trying to use colorful speech, let us not forget that the heat of this month is less unbearable to us that the heat in the ovens of Auschwitz and Dachau and more lenient than the murderous heat in the desert of Allepo which burned to death the bodies of hundreds of thousands of Christian Armenian victims of genocide in 1915.

To confirm my position, that you didn't go beyond googling, is the fact that you reffer to Farhan Haq. His statment was manipulated by revisionists, and you are yourself using this manipulation(which is indicative of dishonesty from your part). Farhan Haq was reffering to the report being transferred from the UN proper, to the sub-committee, the reason why it was transferred had more to do with the nature of the report than the reference to the Armenians, since the report itself had not only to do with the Armenians but other cases of genocide. The UN considered that such reports could have been endorsed with the sub-committee and this had more to do with UN juridictions than anything else. This is further confirmed by the fact that before the December 1948 Genocide convention, the Armenian cases was one of those studied by the UN. May 28, 1948, on which date the United Nations war crimes commission released a report concerning the mass slaughter of the Armenians in World War I, followed by, the same year, on the date of December 9, 1948, the publication of the Genocide Convention by the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights. The United Nations report released on May 28 was part of their study that permitted them to release, months later, what would become their official definition of the word genocide. Later in 1973, Turkey tried to rewrite history by trying to get a reference in one of the United Nations papers concerning the Armenian genocide deleted. Due to the intensification of these pressures, the case of the Armenian genocide was redrawn in 1978, until another extensive study was to be conducted, due to Turkey’s accusations of partiality. After eight years of extensive research was undertaken, one of the specialists that conducted this meticulous research, Benjamin Withaker, released the conclusion, which was, that the Armenian case was undeniably a case of genocide. The result was intense pressures from Turkey, forcing the United Nations to ignore the conclusion of the specialists and stop the passage of this recognition, but despite Turkish pressures, the Subcomission of Human Rights, led by the expert Carey, adopted the resolution by passing it to a vote.

I am quite habituated of those that pretend to have researched the matter, when the fact is, that they have googled around the web in search of revisionist materials trying to counter, like you have done in Phantoms cases.

Also, I should add that I don't wish to participate in this discussion, I just wondered what was happening in this forum, to realise that nothing changed. Regards

Hi again,

Hovik,

I haven't ignored any posts, just haven't gotten to every entry made as it is difficult. I will respond. I have looked at many documents regarding Lemkin and his works. Yes, the events pertaining to the Armenians was used as part of his studies and coining of the word. There were dozens of other instances in history that were also studied in the long evolution of the coining of the word. From my readings of multiple documents, not just the single one you're referring to by Prof. Powers it does not paint such a picture that you may like to portray. I've not been able to see where the Armenian incident was the PRIMARY EXAMPLE as you put it. The killings and mistreatment of his on people was the driving force. He intensified his cause with the commencement of Hitlers rise to power in 1933. Only then did he recall memories of news articles pertaining to the incidents of 1915.The loss of 49 family members was also a huge motivator. Ive not been able to read any extracts regarding the inception of the word in by the UN so I stand to be corrected on this matter. Just at a glance however, showing the Armenian incidents as the primary example seems a bit of self flattery.

No, you have not made any miscalculations regarding the dates. You have a valid point. One that I hope we all can look into and get to the bottom of.

As I said with Phantoms post, we will agree to disagree as it stands. Just as much as you think many Turks are 'ignoring' certain points. You too are it seems. Who in their right mind would say 'Because the UN recognizes the Jewish case as Genocide it therefore applies retroactively, covering the case of the Armenian Genocide. Does anyone have a ligitimate arguement to this?' when you have a quote like "A recent comment on the U.N. position was rendered by, U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq on October 5, 2000 when he confirmed that the U.N. has not approved or endorsed a report labeling the Armenian experience as genocide.'And yes, I do have a legitimate argument to this, and so too does the official Spokesman for the UN. How can anyone be so blind or deny such a clear and precise statement. All you are showing is a position of indirect implications and statements that may be seen as this way or that way depending on what suits you. What Im quoting is very direct, precise, crystal clear and not to mention...from the horses mouth.

As for Cosmos' post. None of it is my opinion, I was merely explaining to all what my understanding of his comments were as there seemed to be much confusion.

Read your attached posts re liability, I think your view is a very realistic, honourable and sound view. Whatever the outcome one day between the two peoples, all I hope is that it is one embraced and agreed upon wholeheartedly by all.

Thanks for your acknowldgement and appreciation of my presence and contributions.

FYI, I'm not averse to Turkey accepting anything. I do understand why you would come to this conclusion but for whatever it counts, I really don't have an aversity. I don't have a great stake in the outcome either way other than a stain on my heritage. And who doesn't have one of those.

[neddy]

Fadix,

It's comical how you have posted all that you have and then write how you don't wish to participate in this discussion. You seem to be a person of high integrity and a man of your word. I would be happy to hold you to your word. Needless to say, I don't feel any reason to bother to respond to your post.

[Hovik]

Native

An interesting article to read since we were just discussing the subject of the Native American Genocide:

http://www.armeniangenocide.com/forum/showthread.php?p=4217#post4217

[imported_Fadix]

Fadix,

It's comical how you have posted all that you have and then write how you don't wish to participate in this discussion. You seem to be a person of high integrity and a man of your word. I would be happy to hold you to your word. Needless to say, I don't feel any reason to bother to respond to your post.

I’m glad you find it comical, that is, if you really find it comical, which I doubt. Who told you that I have actually written my reply to you? I mostly copypasted what I have copypasted in various occasions from a text I wrote long ago. Revisionists are so predictable; they will regurgitate the same stuff, over and over again. And I’ll just dump what I have already written again and again to answer preprogrammed robots that have no any real identity in everything that concerns their perverted nationalism and collective psychosis. People like you, I am quite habituated to, and Phantom is becoming habituated too. Under the banner of neutrality, claiming to have researched, under the guises of intellectual neutrality trying to fool the naives.

Having said this, I shall now let you turn in your defensive mode and leave you use terms such as “comical” as a defense mechanism, that too, I am quite habituated. As for my integrity, don’t bother too much, I do care about your mental health.