Definition of the term "Genocide"... for all the deniers out there, lets discuss!

[Tongue]

So I've been seeing a lot of "yes many Armenians were killed, deported, etc. , but it wasn't genocide" lately. I sometimes wonder if the deniers even know the meaning of the term they're so horrified to use!

-What is Genocide and how does it differ from Killing or massacre?

Genocide:
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

The critical element is the presence of an "intent to destroy", which can be either "in whole or in part", groups defined in terms of nationality, ethnicity, race or religion.

So tell me, which part of the definition contradicts what happened to Armenians in 1915?

Killing:
-To put to death.
-To deprive of life
-To put an end to; extinguish
-To destroy a vitally essential quality in

And some of the deniers prefer to use the term "massacre" instead:

Massacre:
-The act or an instance of killing a large number of humans indiscriminately and cruelly.
-The slaughter of a large number of animals.
-Informal. A severe defeat, as in a sports event.
-To kill indiscriminately and wantonly; slaughter.


Now, lets discuss. If not genocide, then what?

[1.5 million]

Unfoutunatly - most all the Turks who you are addressing this too (even ELendil - about the only denier here with any kind of a brain - even if misguided) well they don't seem to understand that what we are talking about is that innocent women and children were led away to their deaths and whole towns and villages were depopulated and that there was no fighting back and that Armenians as a people were wiped from Anatolia. They contend that it was some kind of equal fight and that Armenains just lost. Remember their sources of information repeat the lies over and over and over and they believe them. They come here and make claims about Armenians that have no real factual baisis - that somehow Ottoman Armenians were really the cause of this whole thing and that the killing was equal and such - ignoring the facts that no real historical accounts support this and that it is the Armenians who are gone from Anatolia. Anyway - my point is that as clear as the definition and the fact that the Armenian Genocide meets it is to us (and after all Lemkin came up with the word to essentially describe our situation) - as much as thins is crystal clear to anyone (non-Turkish or paid by them) - they will not get it. No chance at all really.....sorry if you were expecting truth, facts, logic etc to make a difference...

[Tongue]

It's funny how none of the Turkish members have participated in this thread. Hopefully that will change.

Basically what I want to know is: What word would they use to describe the events of 1915. If it wasn't a Genocide, why not? What would they call it? What part of the Genocide definition contradicts the events of 1915.

Anyone willing to participate in this discussion??

[elendil]

Unfoutunatly - most all the Turks who you are addressing this too (even ELendil - about the only denier here with any kind of a brain - even if misguided)

I will try to take that as a compliment, thanks...

It's funny how none of the Turkish members have participated in this thread. Hopefully that will change.

Basically what I want to know is: What word would they use to describe the events of 1915. If it wasn't a Genocide, why not? What would they call it? What part of the Genocide definition contradicts the events of 1915.

Anyone willing to participate in this discussion??

Let's see. The difference of mind is not really about Armenians as a people were exiled, murdered and massacred. Where Turkish people and Armenian people ( if you are aware I am not counting states) differ in terms of opinion in past times Armenian militia in anatolia allied itself with Russia, attacking eastern borders along with it. Where Turkish people strongly believe this since it is backed up by eye-witnesses, the Armenian people strongly oppose this and say massacres has way begun before Russian attack or there was no alliance at all. They ask naturally if babies, children or the old attacked the empire too...
I personally say that judging an action free of conditions, time and cause is simply missing an vital point in terms of judgement itself. In war especially when you are desperate you take desperate pre-cautions. Seeing Armenian gangs really hurting empire, ottoman empire took action which was to deport Armenians. The task was too great. You are, let's say it with the smallest number, moving 200000-300000 people around. Means of logistics, transit sytems are pretty weak. Your soldiers, see these people you move as betrayers,traitors and even worse they are christians which is without a doubt is a great affect in terms of ethnic-hatred. What will you do now? How will you move? Enemies are marching to your land from every side. Armenian gangs are hitting you pretty bad, alliance with Russia is felt in the battlefield strongly. So you take a desperate precaution, exile....
Tounge asked the naming of the event in 1915. It was war's tragedy I say. The war does not have to be with Armenians as a whole. Still it was war.
This is what I think honestly....

[phantom]

I will try to take that as a compliment, thanks...

Let's see. The difference of mind is not really about Armenians as a people were exiled, murdered and massacred. Where Turkish people and Armenian people ( if you are aware I am not counting states) differ in terms of opinion in past times Armenian militia in anatolia allied itself with Russia, attacking eastern borders along with it. Where Turkish people strongly believe this since it is backed up by eye-witnesses, the Armenian people strongly oppose this and say massacres has way begun before Russian attack or there was no alliance at all. They ask naturally if babies, children or the old attacked the empire too...
I personally say that judging an action free of conditions, time and cause is simply missing an vital point in terms of judgement itself. In war especially when you are desperate you take desperate pre-cautions. Seeing Armenian gangs really hurting empire, ottoman empire took action which was to deport Armenians. The task was too great. You are, let's say it with the smallest number, moving 200000-300000 people around. Means of logistics, transit sytems are pretty weak. Your soldiers, see these people you move as betrayers,traitors and even worse they are christians which is without a doubt is a great affect in terms of ethnic-hatred. What will you do now? How will you move? Enemies are marching to your land from every side. Armenian gangs are hitting you pretty bad, alliance with Russia is felt in the battlefield strongly. So you take a desperate precaution, exile....
Tounge asked the naming of the event in 1915. It was war's tragedy I say. The war does not have to be with Armenians as a whole. Still it was war.
This is what I think honestly....

Elendil, there are a couple of issues that arise from your opinion. If you don't mind, I'd like to discuss them.

1. You say that Armenians were deported. This suggests that they were sent to another country, since that is what deportation is. But as you know, Armenians were not sent out of the Ottoman Empire. In fact, they were not allowed outside of the Ottoman Empire. If they had been allowed to leave, many more of them would have survived. Instead, they were kept under tight control and marched to various spots in the dessert within the OE, isn't that correct?

2. Your opinion appears to be that the Ottoman authorities didn't intend for these "deportees" to die en route. Is that correct? If so, do you think that this was a realistic or rational expectation? Is it realistic to assume that women, children, and elderly can survive a march on foot in the summer through 100s and 1000s of miles of desserts without food or water to a destination where there is no preparation to sustain life? Were the Ottoman leaders that stupid you think?

3. Let's assume that you are right and Armenians were fighting against the Ottomans on the Russian front. Why then force Armenians from all of Anatolia out, and not just the ones in the villages near the Russian front? Furthermore, why not just force the men out until the war was over, why also force the women and children?

4. If this was a temporary "deportation" to safegaurd the country during war, then why were the survivors not allowed to move back into their homes after the war?

5. Why is it that the Turkish education system since the early 1930s to today teaches virtually nothing about the inhabitants of Anatolia before the foundation of Turkey in 1923 if what happened to these indigenous peoples was an innocent deportation?

6. Why is there so much documented material from both Turkish, German and Austrian sources that describes an extermination plan? (See www.armenocide.de for German national archival material relating to the Armenians).

7. Why have the vast majority of Holocaust and Genocide scholars come to the conclusion that it was a Genocide, if it wasn't? Do you honestly believe that there is some sort of Western conspiracy against Turkey?

[elendil]

I will answer them as best as I can

1-) It is correct. The deportions ofcurse stayed in Empire itself, while the main problem with the Armenian gangs was alliance with other countries, it would be pretty unwise to send such an amount of population out of your borders where they can be easily influenced by imperial powers even further.
It goes withouth question however many would survive if they had been allowed out of the empire.
2-) My opinion ofcourse is a little bit different. By all means I think, they did not give a damn what would happen to Armenian people. Since if they were on the march, they could not organize thus they would not pose a threat. Ottoman leaders were not stupid, but simply to say pretty much cornered at those times.
Which leads you to make desperate moves..
3-) Because people dont forget. Regardless of who is right or wrong when a husband, a son is killed in battlefield someone will lament, someone will hate. That someone will pass this hatred to the next generation. Even more so, for a people such as Armenians who were trying to build their own country, to gain their freedom. So women and children were also deported. ( I am not defending its ethics by the way)
4-) Refer to third answer....
5-) That would be because Turkey state is based on Turkish nationality which emposes the doctrine "regardless of ethnic roots individuals that live in Turkey are Turks". Thus minorities living in anatolia are discarded.
6-) That would be evaulating the action alone free of condition, cause
7-) This western conspiracy is not about Turkey. It is about middle-east and oil.. Since Turkey is also a part of middle-east we are also within the conspiracy. But every country conspires against each other, it is normal..
As to genocide scholars...

The sons and daughters of a continent who caused two world wars in just one century, countless of genocides which are not adressed yet ( France in Morrocco, England in its dominions, Belgium in kongo ), can not and will not lecture me about humanity regardless of how humane, loving they show themselves to be.....

[phantom]

I will answer them as best as I can

1-) It is correct. The deportions ofcurse stayed in Empire itself, while the main problem with the Armenian gangs was alliance with other countries, it would be pretty unwise to send such an amount of population out of your borders where they can be easily influenced by imperial powers even further.
It goes withouth question however many would survive if they had been allowed out of the empire.
2-) My opinion ofcourse is a little bit different. By all means I think, they did not give a damn what would happen to Armenian people. Since if they were on the march, they could not organize thus they would not pose a threat. Ottoman leaders were not stupid, but simply to say pretty much cornered at those times.
Which leads you to make desperate moves..
3-) Because people dont forget. Regardless of who is right or wrong when a husband, a son is killed in battlefield someone will lament, someone will hate. That someone will pass this hatred to the next generation. Even more so, for a people such as Armenians who were trying to build their own country, to gain their freedom. So women and children were also deported. ( I am not defending its ethics by the way)
4-) Refer to third answer....
5-) That would be because Turkey state is based on Turkish nationality which emposes the doctrine "regardless of ethnic roots individuals that live in Turkey are Turks". Thus minorities living in anatolia are discarded.
6-) That would be evaulating the action alone free of condition, cause
7-) This western conspiracy is not about Turkey. It is about middle-east and oil.. Since Turkey is also a part of middle-east we are also within the conspiracy. But every country conspires against each other, it is normal..
As to genocide scholars...

The sons and daughters of a continent who caused two world wars in just one century, countless of genocides which are not adressed yet ( France in Morrocco, England in its dominions, Belgium in kongo ), can not and will not lecture me about humanity regardless of how humane, loving they show themselves to be.....

My analysis of your reply brings me to the following inescapable conclusion. You don't actually deny that a Genocide took place. But you think that it was a Genocide that was justified, because of war conditions, etc. This is the only logical conclusion that can be gathered from your reply. Here's why. You admit that the conditions under which the Armenian civilians, mostly women and children, were marched would obviously lead to death and that there were no preparations made for their survival at their end destination, and that the Ottoman authorities understood this but didn't care. I base this from your following quote: "By all means I think, they did not give a damn what would happen to Armenian people. Since if they were on the march, they could not organize thus they would not pose a threat. Ottoman leaders were not stupid, but simply to say pretty much cornered at those times." This alone, my friend, amounts to Genocide. The perpetrators knew that what they were doing would lead to the death of most, if not all, of the Armenian population of Anatolia. Next, you basically say that all Armenians from all over Anatolia, and not just the ones near the Russian front, had to be "deported", because those left behind would plot their revenge, even their children had to be removed, because hatred would be sewed in them too for what was happening to them. Plus, they couldn't be allowed out of the country, because then they might survive and take their revenge. All of this boils down to they all had to be killed. Read the definition of Genocide, and you'll see that all of the elements you have described amount to Genocide. So, again, your reply admits that it was a Genocide, but one that was somehow justified.

Furthermore, you won't take advice from the vast majority of Genocide scholars who conclude that it was a Genocide, because some of them are French and English and those countries are guilty of Genocide themselves. Somehow you make the giant leap that because a country may have committed Genocide, historians and academics from that country today cannot be objective and scientific. Do you think that is a logical and rational way of thinking? If so, what about the scholars from Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, and even Turkey then? What "logical" excuse do you have against all of them?

[elendil]

First of all I have always said that Armenians were massacred, exiled by Ottoman goverment. It is by all means laying in sunlight. However as I said

I personally say that judging an action free of conditions, time and cause is simply missing an vital point in terms of judgement itself

That is why I dont name it genocide. Therefore your analysis to a point is correct, but I differ in evaluating of the issue according to time,place, condition trio while you are judging the action alone. This is not justifying the issue as you name it, but seeing the issue as a whole.

All of this boils down to they all had to be killed

It boils down to in order to get security, you have to nullify the means of attacking, the means to organize. This takes many forms. Turkification, killing as you name it, leaving them to their destiny, leading them to Syria, Iraq, Iran where they would be away from fronts.
There are many ways aside from killing but still some Armenians were killed by Ottoman army ofcourse.

Furthermore, you won't take advice from the vast majority of Genocide scholars who conclude that it was a Genocide, because some of them are French and English and those countries are guilty of Genocide themselves. Somehow you make the giant leap that because a country may have committed Genocide, historians and academics from that country today cannot be objective and scientific. Do you think that is a logical and rational way of thinking? If so, what about the scholars from Israel, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, and even Turkey then? What "logical" excuse do you have against all of them?

First of all think Europe as a whole. When the issue is Turkey or Turks generally they respond together. Since Empire went to the doors of Wien, it is
an ancient paranoia, seeing Ottoman people as an alternative to their cultural dominion. You and I know there is no such thing ofcourse. Still a stupid fear is there. For example, let's see Armenian genocide claims issue. France for example accepts that the genocide took place. But who will say Turkey must accept it? Holland, Belgium, Switzerland. All countries which have no claim in terms of strategy or politics in middle-east that resides in EU. Who gave support to PKK in EU? Germany, France. Who named them freedom fighters and gave them shelter on its soil? Belgium, Denmark, Sweden... The same goes for the judgment.

As to other scholars from other countries, by all means they have a right to search and claim, but there are also scholars who say there was no genocide.
And there will be both types of the scholars in time to come, since Turkey will fund nay-sayers and Diaspora will fund yes-sayers...

This is my "logical excuse" friend. ( I did not miss your sarcasm)

[Tongue]

I personally say that judging an action free of conditions, time and cause is simply missing an vital point in terms of judgement itself

I agree.

So you’re saying that the Ottoman Government slaughtered the Armenians because some Armenian “gangs” started to “backstab” the Ottomans. Right? Let’s say this is true. Now we need to find the cause… according to you, we don’t want to judge an action free of conditions, time, and cause. What did Armenians want and why? They wanted independence, by then, all the other minorities in Ottoman empire had gained independence except for Armenians and Arabs. There were many bloody conflicts between Turks and Arabs at that time as well, for the same reason, but I guess no one wants to mention it and Arabs were never deported or slaughtered!! Have you read about the slaughters of Sultan Abdul Hamid (now that’s what we call slaughter/massacre… not what happened in 1915). I explained this in detail in the “Turkey’s challenge to Armenians” thread. During the 1890’s, Sultan slaughtered 200-300 thousand Armenians! I won’t get into detail, but if you want me to, I will. So what I’m trying to say is, it’s not surprising that Armenians wanted independence and according to you, some started to “backstab” the Ottomans. Remember Arabs did the same.

If you think about it, there is always a cause for any genocide that takes place. However, the cause doesn’t justify it nor does it make it slaughter/massacre. I’m sure, according to Hitler, there was a reason that he decided to go after the Jews. Whatever the reason could be, the outcome is still genocide and not just a simple slaughter.

[elendil]

So you’re saying that the Ottoman Government slaughtered the Armenians because some Armenian “gangs” started to “backstab” the Ottomans. Right?

Wrong. I never used the word of backstabbing but rebelling for independence since Armenians themselves may consider the option of freedom regardless of their past acitons or the actions commited on them. I have never ever called your rebelling gangs backstabbers or anything. If they rebelled then they rebelled.

Remember Arabs did the same.

We remember Tongue, believe me we do.... This believe me is valid for a great percentage of Turkish people. Why do you think Turkey is trying hard to get in EU.

here were many bloody conflicts between Turks and Arabs at that time as well, for the same reason, but I guess no one wants to mention it and Arabs were never deported or slaughtered!!

Yes noone wants to mention it so I will mention it for you. Arabs uniting with English armies defeated the empire's army... That is why what happened to Armenians did not happen to them. Words, titles only go so far. When you are defeated in terms of military, in a place where people do not feel attached to your authority, that piece of land and people are gone. Simply Empire was not strong enough to inflict any kind of damage to Arab nation.

Noone mentions it because Ottoman Empire's identity was based on religion of Islam more that ethnicity . When the people who actually converted us to Islam betrayed the empire ( yes their act I call betrayal) identity of the empire shattered. Thus Turkish nationalism followed to fill the gap...

If you think about it, there is always a cause for any genocide that takes place. However, the cause doesn’t justify it nor does it make it slaughter/massacre. I’m sure, according to Hitler, there was a reason that he decided to go after the Jews. Whatever the reason could be, the outcome is still genocide and not just a simple slaughter.

Indeed, there is always a reason. However the point is Armenian gangs rebelled to the authority they lived under took action recieved pretty hard reaction. Where in the case of Hitler, Jews were standing doing nothing , Hitler killed them for his country's own trauma which was failure of German nation was not the fault of german people itself but Jewish minority living within Germany...
Saying

This is not justifying the issue as you name it, but seeing the issue as a whole.

I finish my post...