Announcement

**phantom** · 10-24-2005, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by 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.

Neddy, there are many others who are interested in reading your response to Fadix' post. So if you actually have a rational response to further explain your position, then I for one, would be interested in reading it. Most recently you tried to explain away Lemkin's coining of the term and his view that the Armenian Genocide was a primary example by arguing that the Armenian Genocide was not a primary example but just an incidental example. Fadi has just shown, at least in my mind, that the Armenian Genocide was a much bigger variable in Lemkin's definition than even being a "primary" example. I would be interested in what you have to say, if anything, about these new facts.

**phantom** · 10-24-2005, 11:13 AM

Neddy,

I don't think there's any reason for you to be threatened by Fadix. I've also read his posts, and although he can sometimes appear confrontational, he does not cut and paste from other people's writings. He may cut and paste from his own old writings, but at least they're his own writings and thoughts. As for your accusation that he isn't bringing anything new to the discussion, I think it is because you have not introduced anything that is new to this issue. Your arguments regarding the UN and Lemkin are old. Your point that the Armenian Genocide was merely incidental to Lemkin's work is wrong, and Lemkin's writings, some of which Fadix has quoted, prove that. The man was clearly deeply interested in what happened to the Armenians, and so far, you have not provided anything that would counter what Lemkin's own words show us.

Regarding the UN's position, I understand your point. It appears as if the UN has not officially taken a position on this issue. Does that mean that they won't in the future or that it is even improbable that they will in the future? If we analyze what has been said and done by the UN in the past, as Fadix and Neutral have pointed out to you, I think it would be reasonable to assume that the UN will eventually take an official position on this issue and will recognize that the events of 1915 do fit within the definition of Genocide given under the UN Convention. This is what most historians have said; this is what Lemkin thought, and this is what the main body that was commissioned to study Genocides within the UN has said. So why are you so confident that the UN will not eventually make an official declaration acknowledging this fact?

As for your argument that Lemkin was 15 when the Genocide happened so he could not possibly know whether or not it was a Genocide is, I'm sorry, but that is a laughable argument. That means that my Jewish friend who's grandparents survived the Holocaust could not know that there was a Holocaust since he wasn't even born yet. The evidence, which all revisionists have baselessly tried to characterize as "distorted" has always shown that what happened to the Armenians was a Genocide. A thirty-three year old Lemkin was just as likely to learn this fact in 1933 as I am today.

Finally, you repeatedly say that your point is not to prove that a Genocide did not take place. Yet you characterize all of the evidence studied by Lemkin and all of the historians before him and all of the historians after him as "distorted documents and propaganda fuelled media reports". Do you know what it was that Lemkin specifically studied, or is this merely a sweeping generalization? To me it just merely sounds like a lazy, slothful generalization, which suggests that your point is not to show that the UN convention can't apply to the Armenian case, but to prove that there was no Genocide. I'm not saying that you are a lazy and slothful person, only that in this case you have made a sweeping generalization without showing us that you have done the requisite research to know whether there is any support for your characterization of Lemkin's and all other historians' sources of information regarding the Armenian Genocide.

**imported_Fadix** · 10-24-2005, 03:26 PM

As I predicted, the never ending defence mechanism. I like it, there is nothing new there, throw mud and wish that some will stick. It would be nice if you could give examples of those stuff I have provided that you have read more about, if it happens that they are in the web, I will be glad to provide, what is NOT on the web about those references. Some sites have copied my own materials, I can�t help it, or they appear after I did post them.

Am I fixated on a series of text? Well, if people stop regurgitating the same stuff over and over again, maybe I will stop doing that. I do have a collection of works that you probably don�t even know the existence of, and including from Turkish scholars, and no, I am not talking about Akcam or Bertkay, but others, I have just recently emailed two of them to Phantom.

Lastly, before answering your trash, I�d like to comment about a thing.

�Your comments and statements are empty, vague and misguided...and I hope they change for your own and your peoples cause betterment.�

My comments are on the images of the posts that have generated them; also, I don�t like being dumped in a population. I don�t see what is the point of fingering me by using terms such as �your people,� you don�t even know me, you don�t even know why I am countering BS, fabrication and lies. Also, my tone has been the same when fighting any revisionists of war crimes, including the Holocaust and other crimes, not so long ago; I was countering a revisionist of the Cambodian auto-genocide, with, again, references that are not googled.

Now, coming to the trash. You copy past, without even knowing what you are talking about. Do you even know what the UN is and how it works? I REPEAT, the UN proper is represented by members from various countries, and then, there are more �professional� structures like the sub-committee, which tries to be apolitical unlike the UN general structure that permanent member-countries generally have a veto. It is true, that countries within the UN, did not take position, and that is because the report was considered outside of UN jurisdiction(thanks to Turkey, and Ataov team that, overrepresented and lacking respect to the assembly, were barking furiously), and was relayed to the Sub-Committee that was more used to vote to take act of the reports(as it generally happens).

Following the special study that was lunched by the ECOSOC(within the U.N.) in late 60s, which William A. Schabas considers as a �dormant instruments�(�Genocide in International Law: The Crimes of Crimes� p. 464) in 1971, Nicodeme Ruhashyankiko was made special reporter, in 1973, the Armenian genocide was included in the official UN report that was meant to clarify the Genocide convention and give it stronger basis, but thanks to Turkey and a Pakistani lawyer, a member of the Sub-Commission, closely working with a Turkish diplomat, the Armenian reference was deleted by Ruhashyankiko, and the final report of 1978 did not contain it. Schabas writes: �Only one member of the Sub-Commission defended Ruhashyankiko on the Armenian omission.� p. 465 The only member is the Pakistani lawyer in question (Of course, Mr. Ataov omit those important points in his work covering the whole affair). The Armenian genocide was long accepted in the UN dormant report of May 28, 1948(on the Armenians), which was published as one of the records that was to give birth to the Genocide Convention few months later.

The UN knows exactly what went in 1986, a French court when it had to take the cases into consideration during Lewis trial, also knew, why the report was cut to form two different propositions,(I guess you ignored that too, since it seems google say nothing about that) and how Turkey sabotaged, what was to become the ONLY complete definition and application of the notion of genocide, and the only that really came to define Lemkin studies on genocide. An impressing report of 200 pages. Turkey and its �team�(without mentioning that the moron Ataov was present there), literally sabotaged THE MOST important study on Genocide by the UN, with all the resources used, that Turkey made �worthless.�

While Ataov poop in his book that the reference to the Armenian genocide was considered problematic, for supposed lack of �proof,� the fact of the matter is that, Turkey lobbied and distributed various tracks and used a member of the Sub-committee to hand over, a so-called ambiguity over it. They refused to accept the overwhelming majority, when all beside one member at the sub-committee were accepting an inclusion of the Armenian cases. Since we are at it, this is one of the reasons why many jurisdictions recognize the report as an official UN endorsed one, including the French Court that judged Bernard Lewis. Because the Armenian reference was removed in 1978 because of Turkeys repeated disturbance refusing to let it go, with aggressive tones and lobbying within the UN, and this omission was NOT ENDORSED by the official members, that wanted it back, which finally was re-inserted, which resulted from Turkeys part to what, I�d do better to not describes, since it shows how immature the Turkish government is. The resolution was forced to pass as �it takes note,� but every members in the U.N., knows that only Turkey, and Azerbaijan� refuse this qualification. Prof. Alfred De Zaya, who was a secretary of the United Nations Human Rights Committee has written a report on the Armenian genocide and the United Nations Convention on Genocide.

The cases is settled, the Armenian genocide in fact, is recognized by the UN Sub-committee, and has already been used by a court as a UN official document.

And finally, Neddy farts about Lemkin, Neddy claims that Lemkin started with what happened in 1933.

Of course Needy relativise Lemkins words, saying how this doesn�t show anything. But let see what he had to say, once he decided to become a lawyer about his research regarding the killing of the Armenians, in his quest to work on the prevention of such crimes.

�In Lwov University, where I enrolled for the study of law, I discussed...with my professor. They invoked the argument about sovereignty of states. "But sovereignty of states," I answered, "implies conducting an independent foreign and internal policy, building of schools, construction of roads, in brief, all types of activity directed towards the welfare of people. Sovereignty," I argued, "cannot be conceived of as the right to kill millions of innocent people." From the manuscript autobiography of Raphael Lemkin� (chapter 1, page 26, deposited at the New York Public Library, Main Branch)

Here something new I bring on the web, while I already referred to this conversation, I never quoted what he really said, now I do. Let see if Neddy will claim this coming from the web too.

Not only, one of the reasons why Lemkin became a lawyer was because of what happened to the Armenians, but also, during first studies on war crimes, the Armenian cases was his main subject of research.

I guess, Phantom will understand why I won�t answer Neddy poops about the reports about the Armenian massacres being war propaganda. I have already placed those claims to rest, and playing this ball game again with an idiot((Neddy) as in ignorant) will be a total waste of time.

Having said all this, I finally quit.

**Tongue** · 10-25-2005, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by neddy

Hi everyone,

I came here with the view of being open minded as I do not carry a net position on this matter (hard to believe but true), and still have yet to make one that is mine. I have however made a realisation. I am in the wrong place in search of what I am looking for. It was silly of me looking for impartiality amongst crowds of people who have already made up their minds. Im beginning a journey with people who have already concluded their trip.

Ok, here are some things I haven't made up my mind about yet.
-Whether or not to go to big bear for winter break.
-To rescue another dog from the shelter.
-How many units to register for next semester...
Okay I hope you got the idea.

Saying you've already made up your mind about the Armenian genocide is like saying, you've already made up your mind about the WWII and believe it happened. Or the Hiroshima bombing. Or whether America REALLY was under the Great Depression from 1892 to 1933. You see how absurd those questions sound? About the genocide, there is a view the majority of the world holds and there is one of Turkey for compensation reasons (and please dont tell me Azerbaijan holds the same position

). We had a Turkish member who believed "The Armenian genocide is an international lie"... Can you see how funny that sounds? How can a lie get to be international and the truth only believed by one nation?? Something's definitely wrong with that. There is more than enough evidence and proof for a reasonable being to accept the genocide. I can't talk on behalf of anyone else, but I've lost 3 family members in the genocide. So the genocide is actually very personal to me... not only have I read about it, but I've also heard about from my own great grandmother. The genocide happened 90 years ago and there are tremendous amount of books and eyewitness stories available on it. It is ridiculous to say people have made up their minds about it. My university history professor last semester mentioned the genocide briefly when going through WWI and said it's funny how regardless of all the evidence there is, Turkey still denies it and the United States remains neutral in order not to damage their relations. He showed us an article in New York Times from 1916 on the genocide of the Armenians and said then I suppose it was the aliens who were doing the genocide. And no, my professor wasn't Armenian hehe.

**phantom** · 10-26-2005, 12:24 AM

Neddy,

You say that you have come with an open mind and that you do not have a net position on the matter of the Genocide, but having read your posts, I find that hard to believe. I'm not sure if you have fooled yourself into believing that you have an open mind or that you are trying to fool us, but one thing is for sure, you have come here with the net position that Genocide has not been proved. None of the documents, eyewitness accounts, the fact that there are almost no Armenians left in Anatolia where they had lived for almost 3 millenia until 1915, has apparently been enough for you, because you call all of this evidence "war propoganda." Apparently, this "war propoganda" has been enough to convince most of the world's genocide and holocaust academics and specialists to conclude that it was a Genocide, but not enough to convince you with your open mind. What evidence exactly do you need to be finally convinced as these experts are convinced? What is it that you are looking for in your journey?

You say that it can't be a done deal, because there is still debate as evidenced by our discussion with you. But that is not the case. Look around for a debate on whether or not it happened among academics, and you will find no debate among the scholars other than McCarthy and a few Turkish-paid cohorts. Everyone else has already moved passed that question. Now the research is evolving into the whys, hows, comparisons with other genocides, development of patterns, psychological impacts, etc. If you can't see that, your mind is anything but open.

The debate is only with Turks like you who have not yet caught up to the rest of the academic establishment. I respect your curiosity, and I applaud you for embarking on a journey of discovery if that is in fact what you are doing. But just for your own awareness, and I speak only for myself, you have given the impression that you are not here to learn, but to teach what you think is the truth. Your last post is about as preachy as I've ever read. But to be even more specific, my impression is based in part on your generalizations of the evidence without bothering to look at any specific items and your jumping to conclusions about the UN's position without taking into account the evolving nature, role and determinations of the UN. As an example, you tried to teach us that Lemkin's view of the Armenian case was merely incidental, and when presented with Lemkin's own words that showed otherwise, you ignored them. If you were an open-minded seeker of knowledge, I would expect your view on Lemkin would be more fluid and that you would at least consider the possibility that you were wrong about him.

As for your opinion that there must be a compromise, any compromise that does not include Turkey's acceptance of the historical fact that it was a Genocide is not a compromise worth making. A Turkey that is not repentant, a Turkey that refuses to acknowledge what it did, a Turkey that teaches its youth that Armenians deserved what they got because they were backstabbers, will never be a neighbor that Armenia can trust. With a Turkey like that, there will always be the threat of another Genocide. You must understand that. So any compromise that lets Turkey off the hook is a compromise that will leave Armenia forever vulnerable. I'd rather hold out for a real reconciliation, and it's in Armenia's best interest to do so. And if you think that Armenia needs reconciliation with Turkey to prosper, you are wrong. Go to Yerevan today, and you'll see how far Armenia has come even with a dual blockade by Turkey and its ugly stepchild Azerbaijan. Would it be better for Armenians and Turks if there was a true reconciliation; of course. But like I said, I think most Armenians and Armenia would rather hold out for a true reconciliation rather than a half-hearted one made for geopolitical expediency.

**imported_Hellektor** · 10-26-2005, 04:43 PM

Same Turk Different Color Again and Again...

Originally posted by neddy

There is one more fact that makes me believe that the Armenian people will not EVER succeed in changing the position of the UN. And I do not know the reason why it is being overlooked at all. The term 'genocide' and the laws pertaining to it as defined by the UN is not a retrospective law. This means for all whom cannot comprehend this...as I understand it...it cannot be applied to anything, any event, any tragedy, any massacre etc. prior to the acceptance and inception of the word and convention in 1948. This is so very clear. Having said this, why the insistance?

This one is hiding behind a civilized mask and regurgitating the same putrid vomit...

The Holocaust happened prior to 1948, therefore according to this "polite" Turk it can not be labeled genocide either?

The effects of the Armenian Genocide are still felt. The lives of the survivors' children and grandchildren are still scarred because of the genocide. That's why, even from a legal point of view, the term can be applied retrospectively and retribution is likewise due.

Ask anyone who has studied law and they will confirm this.
They will tell you there are two types of laws, those that are written, founded, and those that are announced, concepts that are understood as a matter of principle. Crimes against humanity do not expire with time. I do not know the exact legal jargon, you do your research and you'll get your answer.
As for the native Americans, it's not the subject of our discussion and that won't put you off the hook.
It's a matter of practicality: Is it practical to pursue the causes of peoples who have been subject to genocide, say, in the time of Jesus? If it is practical then why not? Let the descendants of the victims come forward and claim their rights.

So, nobody has overlooked this and it's the Turks who have been so deeply brainwashed that they cannot see the truth, no matter how obvious.

The Armenian people had been living in their homeland for thousands of years. The earliest Sumerian recorded accounts dating almost 5000 years confirm this. Writing had not been invented before that, therefore it's hard to know exactly how the Armenian nation was formed (unlike Turkish "nationality" that started as late as 1839).
The entire Armenian nation living in the western part of Armenia, under Ottoman Tyranny, was wiped out off the face of their own land or were forcefully converted. As a result, no more Armenians live in their homeland of thousands of years. That is considered genocide, any way you define the word.

Originally posted by neddy

Im not saying for a moment that the act of 'genocide' did or didn't occur. But the UN is saying clearly that it cannot be labelled 'genocide'. Insisting on this term at a UN level is nothing more than stubborness, blindness, silliness and living in denial.

UN doesn't say that. It's your own "stubbornness, blindness, silliness and living in denial", Mr., or Ms. "civilized", that don't let you comprehend.

**deeptrust** · 10-27-2005, 09:05 AM

Oooops it's getting more strange surfing in this forum day by day. This is my second day and today I've met an 'edit' accusation to a moderator:

"I paste some offical documents but you edit them. Why are you to be afraid from truths? If you REALLY believe your truths why are you afraid??? You can answer me with your documents. I paste offical documents. Let's show everything.
Don't afraid from truths, ok?"

Hey, moderators, what's going on in this site? Everyone has rights to share a link with us, isn't it? We are talking about an event happened 90 years ago. I'm sure the heros of those days won't be happy when you win that 'genocide war' against Turkey. Please don't forget:This is not a football match between Armenia and Turkey.

At all, I really want this forum to be saved from fanaticism. (This is my second message, when I've just typed it, my previous somewhat reactive message has 5 or 6 ciritical replies. I wonder the number of replies this time very much)

**Tongue** · 10-28-2005, 10:03 AM

deeptrust, what were the posts that were edited? And how were they related to the Armenian genocide? Please explain.

PS. on your second post, you are already starting to complain about the actions of the mod. I don't believe you are here to learn, but to criticize.

**Kharpert** · 11-27-2005, 01:38 PM

anatoliandream,

To answer your first paragraph, I encourage you to keep up to date on Armenian Genocide News, Armenian Genocide archives, and an entire load of literature on the Armenian Genocide found on the very front page of this forum. Do not accuse the Armenian Genocide of being anything less until you have read every last article and assimilated every word into the fiber of your being. You will find plenty of information on mass graves there, I promise you.

I have now answered your second question, too. When Turkey accepts the Armenian Genocide, it's only fair something be given in recompense. What is given and how much is still disputed and debatable. This is not vengence. This is something called justice.

**Tongue** · 11-27-2005, 04:18 PM