even they did this, it is not hard to find at least a small part of them.
and can you say me the reason why we should kill aermenians, after they had lived hundreds of years in our land?
this genocide idea has came up in 1995. why they shutted up for years, and started crying suddenly?
and can you say me the reason why we should kill aermenians, after they had lived hundreds of years in our land?
this genocide idea has came up in 1995. why they shutted up for years, and started crying suddenly?
Last edited by Ottomania (2006-11-26 00:52:01)
The United States archives contain an interesting document sent to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921 by Mr. R.C. Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington. The message was as follows: “I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty’s Government against the Turks.”
They also stated the following: “No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties.” This statement was made also by none other than the legal advisers in London of His Majesty’s Government.
They also stated the following: “No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties.” This statement was made also by none other than the legal advisers in London of His Majesty’s Government.
Some persons think it did happen.Ottomania wrote:
The United States archives contain an interesting document sent to Lord Curzon on 13 July 1921 by Mr. R.C. Craigie, the British Ambassador in Washington. The message was as follows: “I regret to state that there is nothing that may be used as evidence against the Turkish detainees in Malta. There are no events that may constitute adequate proofs. The said reports do not appear to contain even circumstantial evidence that could be useful to reinforce the information held by His Majesty’s Government against the Turks.”
They also stated the following: “No statements were hitherto received from the witnesses to the effect that the indictments intended against the detainees are correct. Likewise it does not need to be restated that finding witnesses after so long a time is highly doubtful in a remote country like Armenia which is accessible only with great difficulties.” This statement was made also by none other than the legal advisers in London of His Majesty’s Government.
There is a general agreement among Western historians that the Armenian Genocide did happen. The International Association of Genocide Scholars (the major body of scholars who study genocide in North America and Europe), for instance, formally recognize the event and consider it to be undeniable. Some consider denial to be a form of hate speech or/and historical revisionism. Some Turkish intellectuals also support the genocide thesis despite opposition from Turkish nationalists; these include Ragıp Zarakolu, Ali Ertem, Taner Akçam, Halil Berktay, Fatma Müge Göcek and Dr. Fikret Adanır. In 1994, Turkish authors Ayşe Nur Zarakolu, Ragıp Zarakolu and Emirhan Oğuz were prosecuted for translating a French text, "The Armenians: story of a genocide", which had been banned in Turkey. In 2004, five hundred Turkish intellectuals protested a new high-school history curriculum which ordered teachers to denounce to students "the unfounded allegations" of the Armenians.
Even Hitler knew about it.
After achieving total power in Germany, Hitler decided to conquer Poland in 1939 and told his generals: "Thus for the time being I have sent to the East only my 'Death's Head Units' with the orders to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the vital space that we need. Who still talks nowadays about the Armenians?"
Last edited by sergeriver (2006-11-26 04:44:38)
Im interested, has anyone ever read about wheter there is "number of killed persons" required for Genocide?
I doubt anyone would proclaime a genocide for, lets say, 3000 dead.
And topic starter should remove the sentence about the origin of the word genocide. Seems like most people just read it and skip the definition of genocide. Ive seen alot of "you have to want to kill an ENTIRE race for it to be a genocide you noob" comments. You confused them with that Geno... Cide...
I doubt anyone would proclaime a genocide for, lets say, 3000 dead.
And topic starter should remove the sentence about the origin of the word genocide. Seems like most people just read it and skip the definition of genocide. Ive seen alot of "you have to want to kill an ENTIRE race for it to be a genocide you noob" comments. You confused them with that Geno... Cide...
sergeriver wrote:
Why don't you learn from Germans, they don't deny the Holocaust. You should do the same with the Armenian Genocide, show more respect for those people, you are not guilty anyway and nobody is accusing you for this.Ottomania wrote:
this people didnt killed by turks, some of them killed because they were rich and attacked by other groups,cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:
Still genocide.
some because of hungry, and some because of disaster. at least it is not 1.5 million!
It is there just for educational purposes, and if they stop reading there, they are the noobs and I don't mind being called noob by a noob. That was a lot of use of the noob word. Lol. You took your time to read the definition according to the UN, and you understood the real meaning of Genocide. If other persons don't bother to read it, they can call me a noob.zeidmaan wrote:
Im interested, has anyone ever read about wheter there is "number of killed persons" required for Genocide?
I doubt anyone would proclaime a genocide for, lets say, 3000 dead.
And topic starter should remove the sentence about the origin of the word genocide. Seems like most people just read it and skip the definition of genocide. Ive seen alot of "you have to want to kill an ENTIRE race for it to be a genocide you noob" comments. You confused them with that Geno... Cide...
this is going to nowhere.
we will never accept this lie. forever.
off topic.
we will never accept this lie. forever.
off topic.
While many Americans have trouble accepting reality, it would appear Turks have even more of a problem with this.Ottomania wrote:
this is going to nowhere.
we will never accept this lie. forever.
off topic.
Of course, what else should I expect from a country that treats Kurds like animals. You'd probably execute all of them if you were given the chance.
no. we saved lots of kurds from saddam by accepting them to our country. but they wanted to create kurdistan and started terrorism. thats the problem. look at our history. we always be fair to other cultures.Turquoise wrote:
While many Americans have trouble accepting reality, it would appear Turks have even more of a problem with this.Ottomania wrote:
this is going to nowhere.
we will never accept this lie. forever.
off topic.
Of course, what else should I expect from a country that treats Kurds like animals. You'd probably execute all of them if you were given the chance.
Last edited by Ottomania (2006-11-27 04:11:48)
Fair? *Cough* O RLY? *Cough*Ottomania wrote:
no. we saved lots of kurds from saddam by accepting them to our country. but they wanted to create kurdistan and started terrorism. thats the problem. look at our history. we always be fair to other cultures.Turquoise wrote:
While many Americans have trouble accepting reality, it would appear Turks have even more of a problem with this.Ottomania wrote:
this is going to nowhere.
we will never accept this lie. forever.
off topic.
Of course, what else should I expect from a country that treats Kurds like animals. You'd probably execute all of them if you were given the chance.
Then what were you guys doing all the way up to Albania?
Ottoman-German? 1914. Ring a bell?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OMG funny shitOttomania wrote:
no. we saved lots of kurds from saddam by accepting them to our country. but they wanted to create kurdistan and started terrorism. thats the problem. look at our history. we always be fair to other cultures.
Keep posting dude! You just made my day!
ƒ³
Historians believe the total casualty rate for WWII (civilian and military) were 50,000,000+ (this includes 6m jews, 20m Russians, 1m japanese and 450,000 Americans.
Lets not have another world war please...
Lets not have another world war please...
Of course there is no number, its the moral implications of the act that make it genocide. Or, in the case of the UNs definition, the intent to kill off an ethinic group.zeidmaan wrote:
Im interested, has anyone ever read about wheter there is "number of killed persons" required for Genocide?
I doubt anyone would proclaime a genocide for, lets say, 3000 dead.
Why do you think the killing of 3000 people can't be called a genocide? Isn't 3000 just about what was killed at the WTC?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
"I saw bullets hitting a woman's head and her brain coming out, I saw a pregnant woman shot and killed."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_ … ddam_trial
Oh why oh why would we want to take Saddam out of power?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_ … ddam_trial
Oh why oh why would we want to take Saddam out of power?
Last edited by usmarine2007 (2006-11-27 07:22:38)
If the US is so worried about the welfare of the world, why dosen't it invade Somalia and feed the people? And who's talking about Saddam?usmarine2007 wrote:
"I saw bullets hitting a woman's head and her brain coming out, I saw a pregnant woman shot and killed."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_ … ddam_trial
Oh why oh why would we want to take Saddam out of power?
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
We did try to help in Somalia, Clinton failed.EVieira wrote:
If the US is so worried about the welfare of the world, why dosen't it invade Somalia and feed the people?usmarine2007 wrote:
"I saw bullets hitting a woman's head and her brain coming out, I saw a pregnant woman shot and killed."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_ … ddam_trial
Oh why oh why would we want to take Saddam out of power?
And who's talking about Saddam?
What do you mean who is talking about Saddam? This post is about genocide and he is in a genocide trial.
And who is saying anything against that?usmarine2007 wrote:
We did try to help in Somalia, Clinton failed.EVieira wrote:
If the US is so worried about the welfare of the world, why dosen't it invade Somalia and feed the people?usmarine2007 wrote:
"I saw bullets hitting a woman's head and her brain coming out, I saw a pregnant woman shot and killed."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061127/ap_ … ddam_trial
Oh why oh why would we want to take Saddam out of power?
And who's talking about Saddam?
What do you mean who is talking about Saddam? This post is about genocide and he is in a genocide trial.
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
What are you talking about?EVieira wrote:
And who is saying anything against that?usmarine2007 wrote:
We did try to help in Somalia, Clinton failed.EVieira wrote:
If the US is so worried about the welfare of the world, why dosen't it invade Somalia and feed the people?
And who's talking about Saddam?
What do you mean who is talking about Saddam? This post is about genocide and he is in a genocide trial.
I think Saddam was in a trial for crimes agains the humanity, but not for Genocide.usmarine2007 wrote:
What are you talking about?EVieira wrote:
And who is saying anything against that?usmarine2007 wrote:
We did try to help in Somalia, Clinton failed.
What do you mean who is talking about Saddam? This post is about genocide and he is in a genocide trial.
Not up to me what to call it, but "group testified Monday in the former dictator's genocide trial"sergeriver wrote:
I think Saddam was in a trial for crimes agains the humanity, but not for Genocide.usmarine2007 wrote:
What are you talking about?EVieira wrote:
And who is saying anything against that?
Well he was a piece of shit dictator, so I don't care how they call it.usmarine2007 wrote:
Not up to me what to call it, but "group testified Monday in the former dictator's genocide trial"sergeriver wrote:
I think Saddam was in a trial for crimes agains the humanity, but not for Genocide.usmarine2007 wrote:
What are you talking about?
I was wrong to say "I doubt that anyone..." because I ment the UN.EVieira wrote:
Of course there is no number, its the moral implications of the act that make it genocide. Or, in the case of the UNs definition, the intent to kill off an ethinic group.zeidmaan wrote:
Im interested, has anyone ever read about wheter there is "number of killed persons" required for Genocide?
I doubt anyone would proclaime a genocide for, lets say, 3000 dead.
Why do you think the killing of 3000 people can't be called a genocide? Isn't 3000 just about what was killed at the WTC?
Im saying this because the UN is always very reluctant to proclaime something a genocide. Im from Bosnia and I remember all the debates...
You have probably all heard about the mass killings in a small town called Srebrenica. Well it was (officialy) established beyond doubt that the massacre at Srebrenica was an act of genocide after a ICTY court rulling in 2004. That is 9 years after the war. And the Death Toll was said to be 8000 and because of that it was questioned wheter it was a genocide or not. So it took around 8 years of courts and civil lawsuits etc.
Thats why Im wondering about the "numbers". And im not asking IF its a genocide but If its officialy a genocide.
Last edited by zeidmaan (2006-11-27 13:17:06)
Answering your question, if there's a killing of 8000 persons of a group of 10000 you can call that a Genocide, while if there's a killing of 200.000 people of a group of 10 million you can call that a mass killing.zeidmaan wrote:
I was wrong to say "I doubt that anyone..." because I ment the UN.EVieira wrote:
Of course there is no number, its the moral implications of the act that make it genocide. Or, in the case of the UNs definition, the intent to kill off an ethinic group.zeidmaan wrote:
Im interested, has anyone ever read about wheter there is "number of killed persons" required for Genocide?
I doubt anyone would proclaime a genocide for, lets say, 3000 dead.
Why do you think the killing of 3000 people can't be called a genocide? Isn't 3000 just about what was killed at the WTC?
Im saying this because the UN is always very reluctant to proclaime something a genocide. Im from Bosnia and I remember all the debates...
You have probably all heard about the mass killings in a small town called Srebrenica. Well it was (officialy) established beyond doubt that the massacre at Srebrenica was an act of genocide after a ICTY court rulling in 2004. That is 9 years after the war. And the Death Toll was said to be 8000 and because of that it was questioned wheter it was a genocide or not. So it took around 8 years of courts and civil lawsuits etc.
Thats why Im wondering about the "numbers". And im not asking IF its a genocide but If its officialy a genocide.
continue laughing.oug wrote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OMG funny shitOttomania wrote:
no. we saved lots of kurds from saddam by accepting them to our country. but they wanted to create kurdistan and started terrorism. thats the problem. look at our history. we always be fair to other cultures.
Keep posting dude! You just made my day!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Kurtulu%C5%9F
we help our enemy even after 19 years they attacked our land and ruined eveything, and we saved lots of them from dying because of starving.
please refrain from your bad thoughts and go learn some history.