Genocide

[Jos]

Re: Genocide

Secondly, a joint committee of Turkish and Armenian participants, chosen and approved by BOTH governments, WAS established in 2002 to take this issue to an international court. The Turkish Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC) put together their cases, and presented everything they had to the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ). After investigating the evidence, the ICTJ concluded that the events of 1915 fit the definition of genocide.

http://www.armenian-genocide.org/files/ICTJ_Memorandum.pdf

Immediately after this, Turkey disassociated themselves from TARC, and stated that the ICTJ's findings meant nothing, they don't know what they're talking about. Well if it meant nothing.....why did you agree to this in the first place? How many times are we going to play this game? Till someone finally tells you something you want to hear?

Dear Crimson, you appear to be very selective with your TARC story. The truth is that it was TARC was disbanded in September 2002 primarily due to vociferous Armenian opposition, originating from the the diaspora. The reason was vaguely due to the following finding:

"ALTHOUGH THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO
STATE OR INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED
PRIOR TO JANUARY 12, 1951, THE TERM "GENOCIDE", AS DEFINED IN
THE CONVENTION, MAY BE APPLIED TO DESCRIBE SUCH EVENTS."

Effectively confirming that although the events of 1915 can be classified as 'genocide', there's no legal basis for retrospectively claiming any compensation. And frankly nothing has changed today that will alter this conclusion. In other words, Turks will have to come to terms with recognizing the events as genocide and Armenians will have to come to terms with the reality that there will be no reparations.

[Crimson Glow]

Re: Genocide

Not being selective at all. That is not the reason TARC was disband. The opposition from Armenians AND Turks, both within their respective countries, AND in their respective diaspora, was in full swing ever since the idea of TARC was even introduced. Both governments received a lot of scrutiny from their people when they heard such a committee was forming.

Now, as far as that statement goes, if genocidal events prior to 1951 cannot command any kind of reparations, why are Switzerland and Germany STILL paying compensation to the Jews for a genocide that happened prior to 1951? The word itself was created to describe what happened to the Jews and Armenians. Call it a genocide, call it a war crime (as it was called when the Nuremberg Trials were conducted, since the UNGA hadn't even adapted a resolution making genocide an international crime till 1946). The point still remains that international crimes against humanity were committed that have gone unpunished for almost a century, and that's just not acceptable. If Turkey truly believed that there would be no legal grounds for reparations, they wouldn't still be fighting hand, tooth and nail to deny the genocide.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Genocide

Crimson provided solid points. Here is my take:

"ALTHOUGH THE GENOCIDE CONVENTION DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO
STATE OR INDIVIDUAL LIABILITY FOR EVENTS WHICH OCCURRED
PRIOR TO JANUARY 12, 1951, THE TERM "GENOCIDE", AS DEFINED IN
THE CONVENTION, MAY BE APPLIED TO DESCRIBE SUCH EVENTS."

Even IF we accept that the Genocide Convention doesn't give this authority (tell that to the J ews), other agreements do. You're disregarding the International Military Tribunals of Constantinople in 1919 which found the Turkish government guilty of exterminating the Armenians. The fact that the modern Turkish Republic upon its foundation was composed of the same individuals who perpetrated the genocide, tells us a great deal about the illegitimacy of the Turkish state, and its direct continuation (without interruption) from the Ottoman Empire, which was found guilty on all counts.

Also, the Treaty of Sevres outlines what the reparations are. It is the only legitimate and official document that delineates the Turkish-Armenian border. The Treaty of Sevres also states that Turkey must pay monetary compensation to the newly-created Armenian state. So, all of our compensations and reparations were legitimized by the Treaty of Sevres, and no subsequent agreement has legally overridden it.

[Jos]

Re: Genocide

Not being selective at all. That is not the reason TARC was disband. The opposition from Armenians AND Turks, both within their respective countries, AND in their respective diaspora, was in full swing ever since the idea of TARC was even introduced. Both governments received a lot of scrutiny from their people when they heard such a committee was forming.

Now, as far as that statement goes, if genocidal events prior to 1951 cannot command any kind of reparations, why are Switzerland and Germany STILL paying compensation to the Jews for a genocide that happened prior to 1951? The word itself was created to describe what happened to the Jews and Armenians. Call it a genocide, call it a war crime (as it was called when the Nuremberg Trials were conducted, since the UNGA hadn't even adapted a resolution making genocide an international crime till 1946). The point still remains that international crimes against humanity were committed that have gone unpunished for almost a century, and that's just not acceptable. If Turkey truly believed that there would be no legal grounds for reparations, they wouldn't still be fighting hand, tooth and nail to deny the genocide.

Crimson, I don't proclaim myself to be a history or legal expert but "reparations vs compensation" should be distinguished as it appears to be used interchangeably. Germany never paid reparations out of WW2 (in contrast to WW1), but they did and continue to pay compensation to Israel and holocaust survivors as a result of Accords agreed between them. But these are political in nature and a moral obligation imposed by Germany upon itself that are not legally obligatory as far as I'm aware.

As reparations are generally legally enforceable, I doubt there's even an international body that could impose this on Turkey.

[Jos]

Re: Genocide

Crimson provided solid points. Here is my take:



Even IF we accept that the Genocide Convention doesn't give this authority (tell that to the J ews), other agreements do. You're disregarding the International Military Tribunals of Constantinople in 1919 which found the Turkish government guilty of exterminating the Armenians. The fact that the modern Turkish Republic upon its foundation was composed of the same individuals who perpetrated the genocide, tells us a great deal about the illegitimacy of the Turkish state, and its direct continuation (without interruption) from the Ottoman Empire, which was found guilty on all counts.

Also, the Treaty of Sevres outlines what the reparations are. It is the only legitimate and official document that delineates the Turkish-Armenian border. The Treaty of Sevres also states that Turkey must pay monetary compensation to the newly-created Armenian state. So, all of our compensations and reparations were legitimized by the Treaty of Sevres, and no subsequent agreement has legally overridden it.

I can appreciate the appeal of the Treaty of Sevres for Armenians claiming reparations and delineating the boarder but that treaty is well and truly defunct now. With the signing of the treaty of Lusanne it has become nothing more than an abstract historical document. The Lusanne Treaty effectively broke the link between the Ottoman empire and the modern day republic of Turkey.

So who now will recognize it, let alone enforce it? And even if it were enforced, how could it be implemented?

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Genocide

Likewise, I can appreciate the appeal of the Treaty of Lausanne for Turks who want to disregard the valid and legally-binding Treaty of Sevres. However, there are a few facts about the Treaty of Lausanne which makes it invalid as far as Armenia's boundary with Turkey is concerned:

1. Armenia was not a signatory to the Treaty of Lausanne.

2. The Republic of Turkey was not a recognized entity at the time of the signing.

3. Turkey has broken the treaty on numerous occasions, most notably the state-sponsored discrimination against its minorities.

4. The word "Armenia" is nowhere to be found in the Treaty of Lausanne, nor is there a defined border between Turkey and Armenia outlined in the treaty.


The last point is probably the most important. This is because of a clause contained in the Treaty of Lausanne which reads as follows:

The frontiers described by the present Treaty are traced on the one-in-a-million maps attached to the present Treaty. In case of divergence between the text and the map, the text will prevail. [See Introduction.]

There is a clear divergence between the map of Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne and the text for the definition of its eastern border with Armenia. This is because the text does not mention Armenia, nor does it define its border with Turkey, thus the text and map do not match. Therefore, legally, this border must be defined by the most recent agreement which defines this border. This agreement happens to be the Treaty of Sevres.

[Joseph]

Re: Genocide

Likewise, I can appreciate the appeal of the Treaty of Lausanne for Turks who want to disregard the valid and legally-binding Treaty of Sevres. However, there are a few facts about the Treaty of Lausanne which makes it invalid as far as Armenia's boundary with Turkey is concerned:

1. Armenia was not a signatory to the Treaty of Lausanne.

2. The Republic of Turkey was not a recognized entity at the time of the signing.

3. Turkey has broken the treaty on numerous occasions, most notably the state-sponsored discrimination against its minorities.

4. The word "Armenia" is nowhere to be found in the Treaty of Lausanne, nor is there a defined border between Turkey and Armenia outlined in the treaty.


The last point is probably the most important. This is because of a clause contained in the Treaty of Lausanne which reads as follows:



There is a clear divergence between the map of Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne and the text for the definition of its eastern border with Armenia. This is because the text does not mention Armenia, nor does it define its border with Turkey, thus the text and map do not match. Therefore, legally, this border must be defined by the most recent agreement which defines this border. This agreement happens to be the Treaty of Sevres.

Thanks!

[Jos]

Re: Genocide

Likewise, I can appreciate the appeal of the Treaty of Lausanne for Turks who want to disregard the valid and legally-binding Treaty of Sevres. However, there are a few facts about the Treaty of Lausanne which makes it invalid as far as Armenia's boundary with Turkey is concerned:

1. Armenia was not a signatory to the Treaty of Lausanne.

2. The Republic of Turkey was not a recognized entity at the time of the signing.

3. Turkey has broken the treaty on numerous occasions, most notably the state-sponsored discrimination against its minorities.

4. The word "Armenia" is nowhere to be found in the Treaty of Lausanne, nor is there a defined border between Turkey and Armenia outlined in the treaty.


The last point is probably the most important. This is because of a clause contained in the Treaty of Lausanne which reads as follows:



There is a clear divergence between the map of Turkey in the Treaty of Lausanne and the text for the definition of its eastern border with Armenia. This is because the text does not mention Armenia, nor does it define its border with Turkey, thus the text and map do not match. Therefore, legally, this border must be defined by the most recent agreement which defines this border. This agreement happens to be the Treaty of Sevres.

1. The only conceivable reason why Armenia was not a signatory is because it didn't exist as an independent nation. You couldn't expect a nation taken over by the Soviet Red Army in 1920 to sign a treaty in 1923. That's also the most likely explanation of why the word "Armenia" is nowhere to be found in the Treaty.

2. The Treaty of Lausanne led to the international recognition of the sovereignty of the new Republic of Turkey.

3. That's hard to argue against but that in itself woudn't invalidate the treaty. But it should be noted that there were a 143 stipulations that most have been overwhelmingly abided by, even to this day.

4. Using your same argument it would be possible to claim that the Sevres Treaty is invalid because the Republic of Turkey did not exist at the time.

But more to the point how could you possibly unwind the Lausanne Treaty and implement Sevres Treaty today? Even if everyone agreed, I'm pretty sure that would be the end of Armenia as we know it. Time and demographics have almost certainly decimated any possibility of Armenia's regaining any territory aside from anything of token value.

[alpixoid]

Re: Genocide

You realize Ataturk said this AS he was slaughtering his neighbors, right? Catchy little political slogans don't mean jack shit. It's the action of politician's that matter, and Ataturk was certainly no peace lover. Again, if you didn't know much about the AG, or of the history of your ancestors, is it not possible yet again that you don't know much about your believed founder? Is it not possible yet again that you've been fed lies, and a falsified version of history when it comes to Ataturk?



if

Actually, it is still denied by the VAST majority of your society. Granted, this is the government's fault for all the bullshit they teach in school, print in the newspapers, mention on TV, etc. Regardless, the outcome is that most of Turkey today denies the genocide, and they do so quite vehemently. That includes ordinary citizens and nationalists alike.



It's not your land to give. It's our land, so no need for you to die. You should be VOLUNTARILY giving stolen lands back, like this family:

http://blogian.hayastan.com/2009/01/09/turk-gives-away-family-land-as-genocide-reparation/

Funny how you're afraid to protest about the Armenian genocide because you're afraid of getting killed, but when it comes to giving land back to its rightful owners (which is the RIGHT thing to do), you'd rather die than let it happen. I think we see your true colors here.





Relax, alpixoid. You'll have to forgive people if they're confused, because all they saw from you for 3 or 4 pages is how you DENIED the genocide. Not everyone realizes you suddenly "changed your mind".





Why? Are you lying about accepting the genocide?






Really? Different people with different ideas? Everyone is equal? Then why are you afraid of getting killed if you publicly apologize for the Armenian genocide? Why would you get thrown in JAIL if you publicly apologized for the Armenian genocide? Why are Kurds who stand up for their rights considered terrorists? Why does every Turkish scholar who says anything even slightly critical about his country's history have to leave his country due to death threats and possible imprisonment? Why does Turkey still have one of (if not THE worst) track records for human rights violations in the world?

Does that look peaceful and progressive to you? Because that sure as hell doesn't sound like progress to me. Sounds like the same shit coming from a different asshole.





The reason SOAD will never play in Turkey has nothing to do with how well their CDs sell over there. They have sold well in Turkey for years. As I said, they had planned on playing over there, but had to cancel the show because your government can't guarantee them any security, AND they were told they can't play certain songs, or say certain things (must be more of that progressive freedom of speech you think you have). See for yourself.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-8KCUJ0wa4

That's great, IF you're being sincere (which I very highly doubt). But it certainly didn't sound like you were trying to "learn". The way you stated everything looks like you were trying to teach US what happened. You were not asking us questions. You were telling us how it happened according to you/Turkish propaganda, so naturally that's going to anger people that know better. We've heard the "Turkish side" a million times.





A peaceful nation as long as we give you what you want, right? Give up AG claims, give NK back to Azerbaijan and accept the current Turkish boarders. Those are the provisions your government has asked for time and time again before they will even consider reopening boarders, or having a peaceful relationship with Armenia.





Mongols are your true ancestral heritage. Remember, your ancestors were referred to as Turks BEFORE they even left Asia. This is why your country went nuts over the Uighurs dying in China. Turks considers them the closest thing to their pure ancestry (BTW, you never did tell us how the death of 200 Uighurs is genocide. Can you elaborate on that, please?). The only reason you resemble Europeans, or Middle Easterners today is because your ancestors absorbed the cultures they invaded, raped, killed and stole from over the last 600 years, and today, try to pass off as their own.





Of course you're not ALL like that, but it's not just "some" ignorant villagers. It is how the majority of your citizens feel. That picture Pedro put up was right after Turkish Prime Minister Bulent Ecevit accused Israel of genocide (my....your country sure seems to be on a genocide accusation rampage lately, which is ironic considering how many millions they've slaughtered in their past). What I'm getting at is your country is ONLY tolerant and peaceful of minorities as long as they keep their mouths shut about their past, or their government doesn't rile up the hate that's still festering inside them.

This is EXACTLY how the AG happened. It was the same scenario. Most Turks didn't hate Armenians. In fact, many were friends. At the very least, they were indifferent. But there were enough people in the OE with hatred for the Armenians that as soon as the government declared them "traitors", they had the support they needed to commit a genocide. Your nation is still very much like that. They make a statement about how Israel is committing genocide, and out come all the anti-Jew and Armenian signs (why the Armenians? WTF did they have to do with what was going on in January?). If tomorrow your government declared Armenians or Jews to be traitors, I guarantee you a full blown slaughter fest would begin again. You are not ALL like that, but there are MORE than enough of you to make this possible. The "Turkey is for Turks" mentality is still very much alive amongst your nationalists, and the Deep State.





Oh believe me, if your country could see any conceivable way to take Armenia right now without stirring a world conflict up, they'd do it in a heartbeat. The problem is the world is very different today than when the AG happened. That whole region has been on the brink of war for quite a while, and is just itching for a reason to pull the trigger, and Turkey making a move on Armenia would provide that reason. If Turkey tried to take Armenia right now, Russia would get involved, and possibly Iran. If THAT happens, enemies of THOSE 2 nations would get involved, and a domino effect would ensue from there. WWIII. But don't kid yourself. The reason your government hasn't attacked yet is not because they're "peaceful", or "tolerant" of Armenia. Our nation has been a thorn in the side of Turkey for nearly 100 years, and they'd love nothing more than to see it wiped out. It's just that conditions won't permit it right now.





That will remain to be seen when Turkey will eventually have to come to grips with its past. It is an international crime, and regardless of how long ago it happened, reparations must be made. Germany had to give land to the Jews well after the Empire had dissolved. Germany and Switzerland are STILL paying out compensation to the Jews, even TODAY! Today's Germany is not the German Empire. Different people, different leaders, different ideas. So why are they still paying for the crimes of their ancestors? Because just like modern day Turkey, the money and possessions taken from the Jews helped contribute and shape modern day Germany, though it's even more significant in the case of the AG, because the Ottoman Empire was financially bankrupt by this time, and most Turks were impoverished and poor, while the Greeks and Armenians were wealthy (this was part of what fueled the hatred and desire for the genocide).

It is no different than if your father stole a car, gave it to you, and then immediately passed away. If that stolen car is ever tracked down and found, mşndyou WILL have to give it back, even though you are not the one who stole it. You may not directly be guilty of the crime of stealing the car, but you also cannot inherit something that is stolen.

Ataturk helped Turks get back their own land dont mind if there was a war once..
How do you know about how we think about the genocide..
Anatolia was the land of lots of people if everybody wanted their lands back how anybody would own Anatolia..Its ours and nobody will get it..
I am not lying about the genocide I just dont like being in examples..
I'm sorry but I wont get killed so you can get your lands back..
How can you just say it Turkish propaganda how do you know its not an Armenian propaganda...
For not asking questions isnt argument is the best way to learn?..
Death of 200 people is the start of a genocide which we put an end...
Dont be offenced but we dont want your little country and if we take it..It wont cause a WWIII because nobody gives a crap to your little country..
As for why Germany pays for their ancestors crime..Well they are just xxxxing stupid..

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Genocide

1. The only conceivable reason why Armenia was not a signatory is because it didn't exist as an independent nation. You couldn't expect a nation taken over by the Soviet Red Army in 1920 to sign a treaty in 1923. That's also the most likely explanation of why the word "Armenia" is nowhere to be found in the Treaty.

You said it yourself: Turkey was the legal successor of the Ottoman Empire-- When Turkey was founded in 1923, the legal government that it succeeded (the Ottomans), had already signed away Van, Erzerum, Trabzon, etc. Therefore Turkey, successor of this state, did not have any legal claim to those lands.


And that "nation taken over by the Soviet Red army" was the legal successor to Armenia, and legally inherits its land, just like all the other Soviet Republics... So tell me, where is the Turkish-Soviet border outlined in the Treaty of Lausanne? Again, the border is not defined, which means it legally recognizes the border fixed by the most recent treaty-- Sevres.

You must also keep in mind that the treaty of Sevres per se is not what gives Armenia a claim to its western lands-- it is the arbitral award granted by President Woodrow Wilson. His decision of the Armenian-Turkish border was legal upon him signing the arbitration award (which he did), not upon the ratification of the Treaty of Sevres.