Heres one for us to try to explain. I keep reading media piece after media piece that calls the Armenian Genocide "alleged" etc. The most common one is "Armenians claim that Turkey orchestrated a "genocide", while Turks argue both sides lost innocents in WW1".
What is the criteria to be a writer for a paper these days? A pulse shouldn't be enough... How come these "professionals" don't have to go do any real research on this subject?
This is extremely troubling to me, so I decided to start this thread, this challenge...
Find me one media piece on the Armenian Genocide that contains any (let alone all) of the following information:
1. The fact that the word Genocide itself was coined with the Armenian Genocide as the primary example. The details of the Armenian Genocide are exactly what drove Raphael Lemkin to the decision that a word other than "massacre", "slaughter" or "ethnic cleansing" was needed to describe this SPECIFIC event.
2. The fact that it was a genocide is claimed not only by Armenians themselves but most historians, including the International Association of Genocide scholars...
3. The fact that it was a genocide is claimed not only by Armenians themselves but Turkeys WW1 ally Germany, and the group they duped into carrying out much of their genocidal plans - the Kurds.
4. The archives of the US, Austria, Germany, France and Britain all contain proof that the event was a centrally planned Genocide.
Why the hell isn't any of this mentioned in professional media? What the hell is wrong with these people. Who wants to take a stab?
What is the criteria to be a writer for a paper these days? A pulse shouldn't be enough... How come these "professionals" don't have to go do any real research on this subject?
This is extremely troubling to me, so I decided to start this thread, this challenge...
Find me one media piece on the Armenian Genocide that contains any (let alone all) of the following information:
1. The fact that the word Genocide itself was coined with the Armenian Genocide as the primary example. The details of the Armenian Genocide are exactly what drove Raphael Lemkin to the decision that a word other than "massacre", "slaughter" or "ethnic cleansing" was needed to describe this SPECIFIC event.
2. The fact that it was a genocide is claimed not only by Armenians themselves but most historians, including the International Association of Genocide scholars...
3. The fact that it was a genocide is claimed not only by Armenians themselves but Turkeys WW1 ally Germany, and the group they duped into carrying out much of their genocidal plans - the Kurds.
4. The archives of the US, Austria, Germany, France and Britain all contain proof that the event was a centrally planned Genocide.
Why the hell isn't any of this mentioned in professional media? What the hell is wrong with these people. Who wants to take a stab?
Comment