Barack Obama will not label 1915 massacre of Armenians a genocide

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: introvert

Why? Because when it comes to teaching your children truth and history (Truthfully) not having it labelled as a genocide means it might not see a child's text book. Which means MANY US children will be taught lies (Or just one more).

That's interesting. Is there a policy among textbook publishers that any act must be labeled a genocide to qualify for inclusion in textbooks? I've never heard of such a thing.

Also, as long as children are taught about the facts surrounding this event, why would it matter what it's called? Call it genocide, a halocaust or even mass extinction. It does not, in any way, detract from the fact that people were killed.

a reply to: Telos

In the link I've posted here, this the part that got the most of my attention and might answer to some of the points are being raised in your replies. Is the part below The Cost of Denial:

The first is Classification, when we classify the world into us versus them.
The second is Symbolization, when we give names to those classifications like Jew and Aryan, Hutu and Tutsi, Turk and Armenian. Sometimes the symbols are physical, like the Nazi yellow star.
The third is Dehumanization, when perpetrators call their victims rats, or cockroaches, cancer, or disease; so eliminating them is actually seen as “cleansing” the society, rather than murder.
The fourth is Organization, when hate groups, armies, and militias organize.
The fifth is Polarization, when moderates are targeted who could stop the process, especially moderates from the perpetrators’ group.
The sixth stage is Preparation, when the perpetrators are trained and armed, victims are identified, transported and concentrated.
The seventh stage is Extermination, what we legally define as genocide, the intentional destruction, in whole or in part, of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

Obama says ‘Rwanda genocide must never happen again’

umuvugizi.wordpress.com...

800,000 people died. Horrible.

The total number of people killed as a result has been estimated at between 1 and 1.5 million. The starting date is conventionally held to be 24 April 1915, the day Ottoman authorities rounded up and arrested some 250 Armenian intellectuals and community leaders in Constantinople.

Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide is an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915. It has in recent years been faced with repeated calls to recognize them as genocide. To date, twenty-three countries have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide,[19] a view which is shared by most genocide scholars and historians.

en.wikipedia.org...

So he doesn't call it genocide. Political.

It's his perogative. I'll call it a genocide. Not too worried. Until such time that I'm not allowed to call a genocide a genocide, I'll care less what comes out of his pie-hole. He's an idiot.

a reply to: Telos

Obama is not denying anything! He's choosing his own words and, as a world leader, I think he should be allowed to do that.

originally posted by: Telos

originally posted by: uncommitted
Has any other leader of a country (obviously with the exception of Armenia) done so?

Yes, Reagan.

I'll take your word for it that Reagan read out what his scriptwriter gave him. So that's one in the last one hundred years. Is that it? So why is Obama the one you choose to call out?

Actually, I've just read that he referred to it as Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime") which apparently is how it is referred to traditionally in Armenia, so..... he's following how the country that was affected refers to it. Still a problem?

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: uncommitted


I'll take your word for it that Reagan read out what his scriptwriter gave him.

Proclamation 4838 -- Days of Remembrance of Victims of the Holocaust

April 22, 1981
By the President of the United States of America

The Congress of the United States established the United States Holocaust Memorial Council to create a living memorial to the victims of the Nazi Holocaust. Its purpose: So mankind will never lose memory of that terrible moment in time when the awful specter of death camps stained the history of our world.

When America and its allies liberated those haunting places of terror and sick destructiveness, the world came to a vivid and tragic understanding of the evil it faced in those years of the Second World War. Each of those names -- Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka and so many others -- became synonymous with horror.

The millions of deaths, the gas chambers, the inhuman crematoria, and the thousands of people who somehow survived with lifetime scars are all now part of the conscience of history.

Forever must we remember just how precious is civilization, how important is liberty, and how heroic is the human spirit.

Like the genocide of the Armenians before it, and the genocide of the Cambodians which followed it -- and like too many other such persecutions of too many other peoples -- the lessons of the Holocaust must never be forgotten.

As part of its mandate, the Holocaust Memorial Council has been directed to designate annual Days of Remembrance as a national, civic commemoration of the Holocaust, and to encourage and sponsor appropriate observances throughout the United States. This year, the national Days of Remembrance will be observed on April 26 through May 3.

Now, Therefore, I, Ronald Reagan, President of the United States of America, do hereby ask the people of the United States to observe this solemn anniversary of the liberation of the Nazi death camps, with appropriate study, prayers and commemoration, as a tribute to the spirit of freedom and justice which Americans fought so hard and well to preserve.

In Witness Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of April, in the year of our Lord nineteen hundred and eighty-one, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and fifth.

Ronald Reagan

So that's one in the last one hundred years. Is that it? So why is Obama the one you choose to call out?

I did not chose to call out on nobody. The Guardian, Reuters, CNN and other did.

a reply to: introvert

Also, as long as children are taught about the facts surrounding this event, why would it matter what it's called? Call it genocide, a halocaust or even mass extinction.

Because 'unpleasant event' doesn't really do it justice? Imagine if we called one event 'fun times at Auschwitz'.

Mass extinction? Really?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: Telos

Obama is not denying anything! He's choosing his own words and, as a world leader, I think he should be allowed to do that.

By not naming it for what it was is in fact denying it. Read the link I've posted please. It explains the why the connotation is so important. And because he's a world leader, what he says weighs more than others. Of course he should be allowed to do that, however that doesn't make what he says, right.

a reply to: Telos

I forgot to add the link for this:

www.horizonweekly.ca...

a reply to: Telos

I invite you to do a little research on the man you are quoting. He has a very specific agenda, which drives him to make absolutely asinine comments like the quote you provided.

I'm sure that even you can read that quote and understand how it is insulting to the intelligence and outright silly. The agenda is clear.

Also, he must not have known that Hitler did not make that statement. People attempted to insert that statement in to the official Nuremberg trial records, after the fact, but it was rejected.

That quote is used by the pro-Armenian-genocide groups, but it is completely false. They are trying to use Hitler and the holocaust in order to drum-up more support for their cause.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: introvert

Also, as long as children are taught about the facts surrounding this event, why would it matter what it's called? Call it genocide, a halocaust or even mass extinction.

Because 'unpleasant event' doesn't really do it justice? Imagine if we called one event 'fun times at Auschwitz'.

Mass extinction? Really?

My point was that we are focusing on the political nature of deciding which word to use to describe the event(s). Why? What point does it serve? Why are there lobbyists in DC pushing for the use of the word "genocide"?

Obama cannot be seen agreeing with the worlds Christian leader the Pope. The closet Muslim inside him would not allow it and neither would his Muslim advisors he surrounds himself with.

a reply to: Telos

As de Waal points out, the word itself has become so problematic and so politicized, it has aggravated Armenian-Turkish relations and other nations' relations with both.

The United States at one time did use the word genocide in reference to the Armenian experience. That changed under President Ronald Reagan, when a Turkish consul to the United States was killed by an Armenian terrorist in Reagan’s home state of California in 1982.

From then on, de Waal said, as far as Reagan was concerned, the Turks were on America’s side on the three issues that he cared about: terrorism, the Soviet Union and Israel.

“Ronald Reagan, therefore, embraced the Turks on those issues and pushed away the idea of an Armenian genocide, and that I think has set U.S. policy ever since," he said. "Even though many, many people call it a genocide, that line was drawn back in 1982, and the United States has found it very difficult to reset the policy ever since then.”

Source

So obama is a bum because he continued with the same policy towards armenia and turkey, good to see the same obama bashers with no clue as usual chime in.

Thanks guys cant wait for the next fake outrage thread

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
Obama cannot be seen agreeing with the worlds Christian leader the Pope. The closet Muslim inside him would not allow it and neither would his Muslim advisors he surrounds himself with.

Obama and the administration has acknowledged the genocide right along with the pope. They simply avoid using the term "genocide" so that relations with Turkey are not complicated. As you can see from one of my previous posts, Reagan found it wise to do the same.

I can't help wondering if he would be so reticent had it been a similar number of ethnic Africans systematically murdered by Turkey.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Telos

As de Waal points out, the word itself has become so problematic and so politicized, it has aggravated Armenian-Turkish relations and other nations' relations with both.

The United States at one time did use the word genocide in reference to the Armenian experience. That changed under President Ronald Reagan, when a Turkish consul to the United States was killed by an Armenian terrorist in Reagan’s home state of California in 1982.

From then on, de Waal said, as far as Reagan was concerned, the Turks were on America’s side on the three issues that he cared about: terrorism, the Soviet Union and Israel.

“Ronald Reagan, therefore, embraced the Turks on those issues and pushed away the idea of an Armenian genocide, and that I think has set U.S. policy ever since," he said. "Even though many, many people call it a genocide, that line was drawn back in 1982, and the United States has found it very difficult to reset the policy ever since then.”

Source

You're bringing here what de Waal says. I brought to you what Reagan said.

originally posted by: dukeofjive696969
So obama is a bum because he continued with the same policy towards armenia and turkey, good to see the same obama bashers with no clue as usual chime in.

Thanks guys cant wait for the next fake outrage thread

Yeah, sure. Evyone here has no other job but to wait for Obama to make the wrong move and bash him and his policies. Fake outrage thread? Once again, was on Reutres, the Guardian and CNN you nimrod.

a reply to: Telos

de Waal asserts that Reagan distanced himself from this issue because of the death of the Turkish consul in California and set the standard for other presidents to follow.

a reply to: Telos

Sorry where you making a point, its been the us policy since the 80s, where was the outrage then, ill wait i have all day .