To All the Denialists Here

[Tongue]

Why does the subject always get changed? The original post is about the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" recognizing and confirming the "Armenian Genocide". 4 posts later.. the subject is changed to if there was a genocide committed by France or Russia.. and still, no reply to the original post. Nice strategy.

[HayerMiacek]

Why does the subject always get changed? The original post is about the "International Association of Genocide Scholars" recognizing and confirming the "Armenian Genocide". 4 posts later.. the subject is changed to if there was a genocide committed by France or Russia.. and still, no reply to the original post. Nice strategy.

it is one of their "strategies", changing topics when they see something that they can not answer to

[imported_Hellektor]

Diagnosis of the Psychosis: Symptom I They change the subject

it is one of their "strategies", changing topics when they see something that they can not answer to

It's the Symptom I of the Armenian Genocide deniers' forum (mis)behavior

[kerkuk_kurdista]

It's the Symptom I of the Armenian Genocide deniers' forum (mis)behavior

Thats true, and they do not only do this with the Armenian Genocide, but on many other cases. I have never discussed a Turk that didn't swear, curse or changed the subject when was talking why couldn't the Kurds get an independent state.

[Aytug]

Because Kurds have not got their independence for ages. Turkey is not only for Turks. In Turkey, lots of ethnical groups lived and they all have Turkey. Turks,Kurds,Armenians,Greeks living in Turkey have to work for Turkey. Because the Kurds you talked about is living with the taxes of all Turkish people

If you try to declare independence - just like nowadays- you will made Turkey and independent side weaker and you came to a point that you can easily ride out by the big countries. You will become the toy of emperalist nations. That is why you musn't declare independence..Tamam?

[Kharpert]

You will become the toy of emperalist nations.

What imperialist nations are you talking about? This isn't the 1800s.

[Aytug]

I talk about neo-colonism. The objectives of US for example, is completed by the Kurds in Iraq. Can you deny that? Barzani gets command from the US. Just like that, the Kurds living in Turkey wanted to used by other emperialist nations for the requests from Turkey during its EU joinment..

Is Turkey independent? Is Iraq? Is Greece? Or Bulgaria? I don't think so...

Because emperialism/capitalism hang on to them..

[HayerMiacek]

imperialistic ideals are gone a long time ago, well except Russia

Now days world politics is driven by energy, economy and geo-politics

Yes, you are right, nobody wants Turkey in the EU, so the European nations are going to use Kurds, Armenian Question, Cyprus issue or whatever they can get their hands on to keep Turkey out of the EU, it is all politics my friend, not imperialism

[Kharpert]

I can so deny it.

The reasons for the United States entering Iraq are numerous and ambiguous, but there's one basic truth about the war on Iraq: it was a mistake and a failure. However, whatever the reasons the U.S. invaded Iraq, whether it be for oil or for any other reason, Kurds were not and still are not of high importance to the United States. As of right now, the United States is having the most trouble with the shi'ite insurgents. They are having trouble with Iran, who is most probably helping out those insurgents. The United States doesn't care if Kurdistan exists or not (and if they did care, they would be AGAINST it. After all, they have stronger diplomatic ties to Turkey and they are trying to make a more stable Iraq).

Europe keeping Turkey out of the EU is opposite of imperialism because they are denying an annexation.

Turkey, Greece, and Bulgaria are all independent. Iraq barely exists.

[Vogelgrippe]

Hmm, is that right? Well, why don't you look at it a little more closely:

In the official explanation of the resolution, the text actually does use the word “genocide,” and describes in great detail the atrocities committed against the Armenians by the Young Turk regime. Furthermore, the resolution uses various other words that are the equivalents of genocide, such as “mass murder, extermination or annihilation, and destruction.” It states that “numerous independent historians, parliaments, and international organizations designate the expulsion and destruction of the Armenians as a genocide [Volkermord].” The resolution also estimates the number of those killed in the genocide as “more than a million,” according to “independent calculations.” It acknowledges that the German Reich, as the chief ally of the Ottoman Empire during WW1, was deeply involved in the mass murder of Armenians.

Also, if it wasn't such a big deal, then why did the Turkish government make such a big deal out of it when the resolution was passed? Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul described the resolution as “irresponsible, dismaying, and wounding.” Prime Minister Erdogan referred to it as “wrong and ugly.” He said that history would put the German leaders to shame. This undiplomatic name-calling further antagonized the Germans. A spokesman for the German government said he disagreed with Erdogan’s characterization, saying that the resolution was “balanced.” The Turkish and German exchange of words following the passage of the resolution generated more articles on this issue. Thanks to Turkish demonstrations and protests in both Ankara and Berlin, the international media continued to provide extensive coverage of the fall-out from the resolution on the Armenian Genocide.

As prominent Turkish commentator Mehmet Ali Birand wrote in the Turkish Daily News: “The Armenian genocide allegations are being approved by a new parliament every passing day. The trap we are in is closing on us. One day we will see, we are left alone by ourselves. All Western parliaments will accept the genocide and will be applying pressure on their governments. The recent development in the German parliament is just a typical example of this. Let’s not see this as a stab in the back. Armenians have dominated the international arena to such an extent that the governments no longer feel the need to resist them.”

Sounds like a Genocide resolution to me!

Oh yes, that is right! The resolution nowhere says it was 'Volkermord / Genocide', and if there is an 'explanation of the resolution' as you claim, I sincerely do not know what it is, or anything about it. Moreover, when the resolution mentions the works of Johannes Lepsius and Franz Werfel, who had reported about the attrocities committed on Armenians, it uses the words 'Vertreibungen und Massaker' / 'deportations and massacres' (p.2)

The reaction of Turkish politicians and columnists to this resolution (even though it doesn't contain the 'g' word) is the most normal and expected thing, because they wanted to have the resolution canceled or shelved completely. In another country where the Turkish lobby is less strong, they would probably take the wording of the same resolution as semi-victory.(As you correctly observed, many politicians and columnists like Birand acknowledged Armenians' superior political lobbies in all other countries). But in Germany, Turkish government felt that they could have done better against the Armenian lobbies, and were simply disappointed.

By the same token, I have to return the question to you. If all the wordings of the German resolution add up to mean genocide, then why are you guys so furious when George W. Bush uses almost identical words, but refrains from using the 'G' word? Or are you the only expert who knows which sequence of words & expressions equals to genocide (even though the word itself is not used), and which ones do not?