It was clearly a genocide, and now the fact is the Assyrians and Armenians do not have a place to call their own. Those nations now are small in number and scattered around the globe. If the Nazi's were tried and punished for murdering Jews, then why not the same for the Turks?

See, that's what great about ATS! BOTH sides of the coin have been raised.

-Why shouldn't it be recorded! It IS Genocide after all...

and

-Add it to the long list of human failure! We'll just do it again.

But what about the core threat? Relations being stretched and the whole France bit? France acknowledged it as genocide and Turkey stopped all military ties with them. Now I know we have interests militarily in Turkey. Will the U.S. fold and pass it off for those ties?

That's more what I'm asking

Cuhail

hmmm there is a country caled `Armenia` surely this could be the home of aremenians now would it....


and to call this `genocide` then fine - i call the attempted extermination of blacks in the 1930`s>1950`s USA genocide

much more recent.

Originally posted by Cuhail
-Why shouldn't it be recorded! It IS Genocide after all...

and

-Add it to the long list of human failure! We'll just do it again.

But what about the core threat? Relations being stretched and the whole France bit? France acknowledged it as genocide and Turkey stopped all military ties with them. Now I know we have interests militarily in Turkey. Will the U.S. fold and pass it off for those ties?

Interestingly it was just in the news a couple of weeks ago that the Turkish government were preparing its archives for public release, including documentation relating to the massacre of the Armenian christians. Rather than wait for this information to be made public, and allowing historians for the first time to consider ALL the available information some within the US have decided to start bandying about labels.

It certainly makes me wonder what this group of people hopes to acheive other than the spread of acrimony. Turkey is a very powerful ally and historically an effective buffer to be utilised in the isolation and control of the Soviet, more modernly, as a buffer between Europe and the Middle East, both geographically and ideologically.

Turkey it seems is not concerned about the massacre of Armenias being discussed merely in that it not be called a genocide. France has fallen foul and actually introduced laws that make it illegal to "Deny" the "Armenian Genocide", just as many countries have with the Jewish genocide. As there are no living survivors of the Armenian genocides one wonders who benefits from the re-classification. None of the perpetrators are living either, so no prosecutions. Recognition is one thing, but labelling for the sake of labelling seems somewhat over-zealous especially if it is going to further exaccerbate stretched relations.

The real issue seems to be the Turks desire to enter Iraq. They have been reporting problems on their south-east border for a long time now. It is held on the Iraqi side by Kurds. Turkey wants to be able to go over the border and arrest rebels. Whether the Turks are being wholly honest about their intentions or not, this would not be a good idea. It is an understatement to say that these two peoples do not get along and it could get very ugly. The situation does need to be resolved but not by Turkey going in. Despite repeated complaints by Turkey nothing has been done to resolve the matter.

While Turkey is an important ally the US want the Kurds on side too, they have that region of Iraq 'under control'. So which is more important, relations with the Kurds or with the Turks? It depends on the eventual goal. Who would benefit and who would suffer if Turkey should down trade links with the US? President Bush seems to favour Turkey, but there seems to be substantial opposition. I think that it is definately a situation to watch, it could have major implications on Turkeys attempts to join Europe, they know that they have to be on best behaviour to be even thought of.

Though the massacres of Armenians can be called a genocide, it seems an inopportune moment for the US to push the matter. I cannot help but wonder if those people pressing for its 'official' recognition are keen to either raise hostilities within Turkey or deflect attention from something else.

It'll be interesting what their archives reveal and how quickly information is poo-poohed. The Nazis afterall have been found not to be responsible for some of the massacres committed during their reign of Europe, perhaps the same can be said occurred in Turkey. Maybe the Turks are not the only ones who should shoulder responsibility.....?? If so, the release of documentary information may represent a threat and a desire to prevent that information from being released. Just a thought.

And the Genocide of the Indians in the USA - that was caused by the whiteman the invaders who came to there land to kill, rape, burn and pillage.

This is way deeper than what is being represented.

First, the Turks and Armernians to this day can't stand eachother. Why? Because the Armenians claim that they were mass killed, which the Turks feverishly deny. The Turks in return claim that the armenians massacred a bunch of Turks, which the armenians deny.

They hate eachother plain and simple.

But to have a US president lobby to not grant an obvious genocide because of their war on terror relationship with Turkey, it is disgusting. And unfortuanely I am not surprised. This adminstration has ZERO heart of compassion for outsiders.

How about we call it a Holocaust then if Genocide doesn't fit. Nope, it looks like the Jews have sole ownership of that word.

Bush & Comp

AAC

While some politicians take it seriously, this seems to me to be posturing on both sides. It reminds me of a couple of roosters circling each other and spreading wings and talking trash. In a bit, both go their way, each feeling like it won the encounter.

But, the manipulators have a reasoning in this. The US wants Turkey to stop crossing the border after Kurds, Turkish leaders can't be seen to cave in to these demands, or they lose respect at home. So GW and the Congress play good cop/bad cop with this label. When we back down on the label, letting Turkey "win", they feel so happy that they let the US deal with the Kurds.

It just seems like a game, over nothing big except a word, that can be used to gain what is wanted in the first place by the leaders on both sides.

I just don't see much coming of this.

Edit for fat finger spelling errors.

[edit on 10-10-2007 by NGC2736]

Bush cant be happy with Turkey at all. Just before the Iraq war was to start they made a political move to be more Islamic in nature and did not allow our 4th army division to invade Iraq from their territory and in turn caused us not to have enough troops there to control the looting chaos that started after Baghdad fell among other problems that having more troops would have solved.
I think G.W. has been letting the Kurds aggravate Turkey as a little pay back.

Thanks for the post masqua. And good link too.

What's odd is I recieved a U2U from another member relating on how they have followed certain predictions concerning Turkey having problems with Russia in the not-too-distant future. Problems arising militarily between Russia and Turkey. Now, I've summed up the U2U crudely and there was much more to it, but, has there been increased tension between Russia and Turkey lately? I don't follow predictions too much, but, the implications the U2U made could easily happen.

Cuhail