|
Post by uz on Jan 23, 2012 18:26:53 GMT -5
The French Senate has approved a controversial bill that makes it a criminal offence to deny that genocide was committed by Ottoman Turks against Armenians during World War I.Armenia says up to 1.5 million people died in 1915-16 as the Ottoman empire split. Turkey rejects the term genocide and says the number was much smaller.- The BBC's correspondent in Istanbul, Jonathan Head, says stronger Turkish measures could include the withdrawal of ambassadors and creating more barriers to French businesses in Turkey.- The Turkish embassy in Paris warned that if President Sarkozy approved the bill, the damage done to relations between the two countries would be permanent."France is in the process of losing a strategic partner," Turkish embassy spokesman, Engin Solakoglu, told AFP news agency. - Armenia described the vote as "historic"."This day will be written in gold not only in the history of friendship between the Armenian and French peoples, but also in the annals of the history of the protection of human rights worldwide," said Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, in a statement carried by AFP - Turkish officials acknowledge that atrocities were committed but argue that there was no systematic attempt to destroy the Armenian people - and that many innocent Muslim Turks also died in the turmoil of the events, in the middle of World War I.The current bill means that anyone denying the deaths were genocide would face a jail term and a fine of 45,000 euros (£29,000; $58,000).www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16677986a slippery slope...
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jan 24, 2012 15:18:13 GMT -5
There is good news related to this:
France wont be able to play the Armenian card against Turkey anymore.
There is bad news too:
The relations will deteriorate between two countries on various aspects.
The relations between France and Azerbaijan will also degrade in tandem.
Thus, this bill is not going to pave ways for some reconciliation process amongst Turkey, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 15:26:31 GMT -5
whether the genocide happened or not is irrelevant. The law is an attack against freedom of expression and speeche. They're trying to tell us how to think and control it with false feelings of guilt by using law, so labels such as ' criminal, denier, anti democracy can be used against people.
|
|
|
Post by bowandarrow on Jan 24, 2012 15:41:27 GMT -5
The French Senate has approved a controversial bill that makes it a criminal offence to deny that genocide was committed by Ottoman Turks against Armenians during World War I.Armenia says up to 1.5 million people died in 1915-16 as the Ottoman empire split. Turkey rejects the term genocide and says the number was much smaller.- The BBC's correspondent in Istanbul, Jonathan Head, says stronger Turkish measures could include the withdrawal of ambassadors and creating more barriers to French businesses in Turkey.- The Turkish embassy in Paris warned that if President Sarkozy approved the bill, the damage done to relations between the two countries would be permanent."France is in the process of losing a strategic partner," Turkish embassy spokesman, Engin Solakoglu, told AFP news agency. - Armenia described the vote as "historic"."This day will be written in gold not only in the history of friendship between the Armenian and French peoples, but also in the annals of the history of the protection of human rights worldwide," said Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian, in a statement carried by AFP - Turkish officials acknowledge that atrocities were committed but argue that there was no systematic attempt to destroy the Armenian people - and that many innocent Muslim Turks also died in the turmoil of the events, in the middle of World War I.The current bill means that anyone denying the deaths were genocide would face a jail term and a fine of 45,000 euros (£29,000; $58,000).www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-16677986a slippery slope... Turkey doesn't say the casualties and/or deaths were alot less, they say ''it did not happen'' in those words. Well, I can tell you what happened. The Armenians ( at least the ones who could escape ) fled to the Levant, some went to Lebanon some went to Syria. This is along with all the Baltic ethnicies who became Turkish. This is also why the French Mandates came, to split up the Levant. When Djemal Pasha ( the infamous ) took over, they genocided the Armenians who lived in Syria and Lebanon. Along with all the other ethnicities that were not Sunni Muslim Turkish. When the Ottoman Empire collapsed in 1923, the French took over and Armenians were granted rights to stay.
|
|
|
Post by Vizier of Oz on Jan 24, 2012 15:47:43 GMT -5
whether the genocide happened or not is irrelevant. The law is an attack against freedom of expression and speeche. They're trying to tell us how to think and control it with false feelings of guilt by using law, so labels such as ' criminal, denier, anti democracy can be used against people. For sure it is an attempt to criminalize certain perceptions on historical matters, precisely on the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Holocaust is recognized internationally, so no problem about it. However, going back in history and picking only one ordeal that happened prior to 1948 might place severe impact on international relations.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 17:21:24 GMT -5
whether the genocide happened or not is irrelevant. The law is an attack against freedom of expression and speeche. They're trying to tell us how to think and control it with false feelings of guilt by using law, so labels such as ' criminal, denier, anti democracy can be used against people. For sure it is an attempt to criminalize certain perceptions on historical matters, precisely on the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Holocaust is recognized internationally, so no problem about it. However, going back in history and picking only one ordeal that happened prior to 1948 might place severe impact on international relations. I am not a denier of the holocaust in WWII, my grandfather was kidnapped and sent to a concentration camp for 9 months, he would've been dead if he didn't espcape and I wouldn't have been born. YET... I still do not think it is right to criminalise people who deny this ever happened. If we're going to this length what's to stop us from going further? We're coming really close to an era where it's going to be hard to justifiably challenge public opinions. Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic-cleansing", along with "freedom" and "democracy" are talismanic-words used to manipulate the actual term and have the individual draw up their own image of what they mean, most of the time they're wrong. Someone who knows nothing about what happened in Sebrenica (for example) will comment and pretend to feel sorry for the "victims" and call for justice against the pepertrators. Why? b/c this is how we've been conditioned to react. Instead of questioning the whole event, we skip that part (assuming the media has done the questioning for us) and agree with the conclusions the masses come up with. This is more of an attack on hummanity as it is an attack on Turkey. They disguise this law as some sort of hummanitarian effort, "for the victims" as they say... when in reality it's an attack against free-thinking/speech/expression. Instead of broadening our minds we are closing in... giving little room for real-free-thinkers to explore.
|
|
|
Post by bowandarrow on Jan 24, 2012 18:04:41 GMT -5
For sure it is an attempt to criminalize certain perceptions on historical matters, precisely on the Holocaust and the Armenian Genocide. Holocaust is recognized internationally, so no problem about it. However, going back in history and picking only one ordeal that happened prior to 1948 might place severe impact on international relations. I am not a denier of the holocaust in WWII, my grandfather was kidnapped and sent to a concentration camp for 9 months, he would've been dead if he didn't espcape and I wouldn't have been born. YET... I still do not think it is right to criminalise people who deny this ever happened. If we're going to this length what's to stop us from going further? We're coming really close to an era where it's going to be hard to justifiably challenge public opinions. Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic-cleansing", along with "freedom" and "democracy" are talismanic-words used to manipulate the actual term and have the individual draw up their own image of what they mean, most of the time they're wrong. Someone who knows nothing about what happened in Sebrenica (for example) will comment and pretend to feel sorry for the "victims" and call for justice against the pepertrators. Why? b/c this is how we've been conditioned to react. Instead of questioning the whole event, we skip that part (assuming the media has done the questioning for us) and agree with the conclusions the masses come up with. This is more of an attack on hummanity as it is an attack on Turkey. They disguise this law as some sort of hummanitarian effort, "for the victims" as they say... when in reality it's an attack against free-thinking/speech/expression. Instead of broadening our minds we are closing in... giving little room for real-free-thinkers to explore. Why the hell would they detain your Grandfather, you're not a Yid are you?
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 18:17:04 GMT -5
I am not a denier of the holocaust in WWII, my grandfather was kidnapped and sent to a concentration camp for 9 months, he would've been dead if he didn't espcape and I wouldn't have been born. YET... I still do not think it is right to criminalise people who deny this ever happened. If we're going to this length what's to stop us from going further? We're coming really close to an era where it's going to be hard to justifiably challenge public opinions. Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic-cleansing", along with "freedom" and "democracy" are talismanic-words used to manipulate the actual term and have the individual draw up their own image of what they mean, most of the time they're wrong. Someone who knows nothing about what happened in Sebrenica (for example) will comment and pretend to feel sorry for the "victims" and call for justice against the pepertrators. Why? b/c this is how we've been conditioned to react. Instead of questioning the whole event, we skip that part (assuming the media has done the questioning for us) and agree with the conclusions the masses come up with. This is more of an attack on hummanity as it is an attack on Turkey. They disguise this law as some sort of hummanitarian effort, "for the victims" as they say... when in reality it's an attack against free-thinking/speech/expression. Instead of broadening our minds we are closing in... giving little room for real-free-thinkers to explore. Why the hell would they detain your Grandfather, you're not a Yid are you? They detained him because he was the enemy, he fought against the Germans and it was during battle they ambushed him and a few others. Jews were not the only ones being sent to concentration camps. Slavs were sent there too.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Jan 24, 2012 21:34:00 GMT -5
What should we feel about civilians being slaughtered by Serbian troops? Tell us, please.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 21:38:30 GMT -5
What should we feel about civilians being slaughtered by Serbian troops? Tell us, please. Someone who knows nothing about what happened in Sebrenica (for example) will comment and pretend to feel sorry for the "victims" and call for justice against the pepertrators. when they themsevles aren't even sure what happened.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Jan 24, 2012 21:46:29 GMT -5
What should we feel about civilians being slaughtered by Serbian troops? Tell us, please. Someone who knows nothing about what happened in Sebrenica (for example) will comment and pretend to feel sorry for the "victims" and call for justice against the pepertrators. when they themsevles aren't even sure what happened. For sure, if someone knows "nothing" about something, they have no way of acquiring an emotional stand on the subject. So those who have an emotional stand on a certain subject must also know something about it. Therefore, those who feel sorry for what transpired in Srebenica are basing that on something they know. I don't know what you know about Srebenica, but seeing that you misspelled the name of the city twice in a row, I'm betting that it's not much. That would be consistent with my argument, namely that if you don't have much information on a subject, you cannot become emotionally involved.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 21:49:07 GMT -5
So you have an emotional stance on the "Srebrenica massacre"? Most emotional people feel as if they must have stances, so that's understood.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Jan 24, 2012 21:57:38 GMT -5
I have an emotional stance on everything that involves the slaughtering of civilians, at least in more modern times. But Srebenica is not something that I tend to think about very often. To say that one has an emotional stance on something is not equal as saying that the person is "emotional", although I tend to believe that most humans are emotional--psychopaths being the exception.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 22:01:08 GMT -5
Also, what you're implying as knowing, is not really knowing. Just b/c someone heard it off the news doesn't mean they know what happened. I am not saying it never happened, nor am I saying that it did happen. I don't think it matters it's long gone now anyway. General Lewis MacKenzie, the former commander of UN peacekeepers in Bosnia, courted controversy two years ago by questioning the numbers killed at Srebrenica in 1995.
He took issue with the official definition of the massacre as genocide and highlighted "serious doubt" over the estimate of 8,000 Bosnian fatalities. "The math just doesn't support the scale of 8,000 killed," he wrote.
Balkans human rights activists have branded Gen MacKenzie an "outspoken Srebrenica genocide denier" and, if approved, the EU legislation could see similar comments investigated by the police or prosecuted in the courts after complaints from war crimes investigators or campaigners.(see my point about the labels? It's never about "justice" or doing good for the victims) www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1541411/EU-plans-far-reaching-genocide-denial-law.htmlThe real story behind SrebrenicaAs someone who played a modest role in some of the events preceding the massacre, perhaps a little background will provide some context. In early 1993, after my release from the Canadian Forces, I was asked to appear before a number of U.S. congressional committees dealing with Bosnia. A few months earlier, my successor in the UN Protection Force, General Philippe Morillon, had --against the advice of his UN masters -- bullied his way into Srebrenica accompanied by a tiny contingent of Canadian soldiers and told its citizens they were now under the protection of the UN. The folks at the UN in New York were furious with Gen. Morillon but, with the media on his side, they were forced to introduce the "safe haven" concept for six areas of Bosnia, including Srebrenica.- Evidence given at The Hague war crimes tribunal casts serious doubt on the figure of "up to" 8,000 Bosnian Muslims massacred. That figure includes " up to" 5,000 who have been classified as missing. More than 2,000 bodies have been recovered in and around Srebrenica, and they include v ictims of the three years of intense fighting in the area. The math just doesn't support the scale of 8,000 killed. Read his whole article. www.mail-archive.com/serbian_way@antic.org/msg00008.htmlHe has also disputed that Srebrenica ever was an UN Safe area, and argued that the demilitarization requirements imposed on both the Serb side (surrounding Srebrenica) and the Bosniak side (inside the enclave) were never fulfilled: "It didn't take long for the Bosnian Muslims to realize that the UN was in no position to live up to its promise to "protect" Srebrenica. With some help from outsiders, they began to infiltrate thousands of fighters and weapons into the safe haven. As the Bosnian Muslim fighters became better equipped and trained, they started to venture outside Srebrenica, burning Serb villages and killing their occupants before quickly withdrawing to the security provided by the UN's safe haven. These attacks reached a crescendo in 1994 and carried on into early 1995 after the Canadian infantry company that had been there for a year was replaced by a larger Dutch contingent."www.mail-archive.com/serbian_way@antic.org/msg00008.htmland he's only one example of a high-official who casts doubt on what really happened there.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 22:09:02 GMT -5
Shortly after the UN politely asked him to leave, the massacre supposedly took place. Now he's a guy that knows something.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Jan 24, 2012 22:10:14 GMT -5
Indeed, it matters. History matters greatly. It affects relations between nations and people. Now you're starting posting a bunch of citations, as if you were some kind of enlighted individual when just a few posts ago you couldn't even get the name right.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 22:11:33 GMT -5
Indeed, it matters. History matters greatly. It affects relations between nations and people. Now you're starting posting a bunch of citations, as if you were some kind of enlighted individual when just a few posts ago you couldn't even get the name right. nice stray from the point annitas... refer to the above post and do some of your own research... if this does IN FACT matter. All I am saying is that there is reason to be skeptical.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 22:14:23 GMT -5
Of course you're not going to care about the Serb victims who were (according to the former-Major General himself) slaughtered and had their villages burnt to the ground while the muslims quickly ran away back to their "safe-haven".
You have proved my point about this whole sham (what the thread is really about), and I thank you.
|
|
|
Post by Anittas on Jan 24, 2012 22:18:19 GMT -5
As I said in my previous post, "I have an emotional stance on everything that involves the slaughtering of civilians". That should compromise Serbs, too, don't you think? Also, I didn't stray from the point. You implied that whether Srebenica should constitute a massacre doesn't matter because it happened long ago. Those are your words, are they not? Indeed, that statement contradicts your own effort of disproving something that is accountable for.
|
|
|
Post by uz on Jan 24, 2012 22:21:23 GMT -5
I am saying the Srebrenica-debate doesn't matter. We're always going to have people who deny it and people who beleive in it. Neither should be punished for what they beleive is my point.
|
|