Oh, there has been conflict, of course. You just don't hear about it from CNN. Last year there was a case... a bunch of American soldiers arrive at a Turkish military base camp in Northern Iraq where they are greeted with open arms and treated as allies and guests. As greetings and smiles are being exchanged, the American officer issues a command, the American soldiers point their guns at the Turkish soldiers, take them captive, put them behind the bars in the base prison, then torture the Turkish commander to try to get him to admit to being a terrorist or some such. After a while it becomes apparent that the guy is no terrorist, and the American officer says, "well, we were told by intelligence that you guys were terrorists disguising as Turkish soldiers". And then they leave.
It was not a Turkish military base camp; it was an office building in a Kurdish city.
The Americans were not greeted with open arms; they raided the building.
The Turkish troops were not supposed to be in Iraq at all. They were operating unannounced well behind the American lines.
They soldiers were aware that they were going to arrest Turkish special forces; they had information that they were planning to assasinate a Kurdish official.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
You have to remember that the suspect is innocent unless proven without a reasonable amount of doubt that he is guilty.
This is pretty funny.
Why is it funny? The American justice system operates on the basis of innocence, not guilt. When it comes to judging other countries, however, this is reversed; people first make up their minds that the country in question is guilty, then they try to prove it.
So? This isn't a court of law in the American justice system. Different standards apply.
EDIT: And even if it was, I'm pretty sure the jury would rule in favor of the prosecution, seeing as the defense's case is a step below flimsy.
EDIT 2: And the prosecution in a criminal case always operates on the basis of guilty; it's their job to.
Yeah but does the world call it Genocide? Does the fact of the matter that France commited Genocide on many aspects of peoples lives in French Polynesia and others matter not? When France or others do it "Oh its all right! DOWN WITH THEM!" But when you ask about their actions it like "So What?"
I dare you to find a congressman who says "So what" to what happened to the Indians. They're still coming up short of calling it genocide. And it's terribly stupid. Are you saying that Turkey is being terribly stupid also, or that they're just waiting for everyone else to stop being terribly stupid so they can feel vindicated?
You need to practice what you preach before other countries will start taking you seriously regarding the matter.
Dictating massacres in history as genocides when you haven't even owned up to your own crimes makes people regard you with
Again, I am practicing what I preach. I am not in denial about what people entirely unrelated to me did hundreds of years ago. You seem to be.
I am not denying that it happened. I am denying that it was genocide.
And again, no one here is denying that what happened to the native americans was genocide. None of us are saying "they didn't know the blankets had small pox" or "we just wanted to move them to some prime real estate out in arizona" or "but they scalped us first" or, my current favorite of yours "records from that time were spotty at best." I love how we are able to piece together the Trojan War, but an event that occured less then a hundred years ago is simply to archaic for us to decipher.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Yeah but does the world call it Genocide? Does the fact of the matter that France commited Genocide on many aspects of peoples lives in French Polynesia and others matter not? When France or others do it "Oh its all right! DOWN WITH THEM!" But when you ask about their actions it like "So What?"
I dare you to find a congressman who says "So what" to what happened to the Indians. They're still coming up short of calling it genocide. And it's terribly stupid. Are you saying that Turkey is being terribly stupid also, or that they're just waiting for everyone else to stop being terribly stupid so they can feel vindicated?
You need to practice what you preach before other countries will start taking you seriously regarding the matter.
Dictating massacres in history as genocides when you haven't even owned up to your own crimes makes people regard you with
Again, I am practicing what I preach. I am not in denial about what people entirely unrelated to me did hundreds of years ago. You seem to be.
I am not denying that it happened. I am denying that it was genocide.
And again, no one here is denying that what happened to the native americans was genocide. None of us are saying "they didn't know the blankets had small pox" or "we just wanted to move them to some prime real estate out in arizona" or "but they scalped us first" or, my current favorite of yours "records from that time were spotty at best." I love how we are able to piece together the Trojan War, but an event that occured less then a hundred years ago is simply to archaic for us to decipher.
I wonder how history would have viewed it if we had stopped shipping food to Manzanar, maybe marched them all into the Mojave.
Knuckle Dragger on
Let not any one pacify his conscience by the delusion that he can do no harm if he takes no part, and forms no opinion.
- John Stuart Mill
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
The Jews they were holding just happened to slip and fall into ovens.
God, I have to remember this one next time we tell Shoa jokes.
"They were baking gingerbread men and mistakes were made."
German Tour Guide: "And this is the room with the poison gas vents. Allright, I know it's a bit tight, but I'm sure we can all fit. Ok, now, you can see the vents up there."
Jewish Tour Group: /murmurs appreciatively
German Tour Guide: "Um, how about I get the lights for you guys so you can see better. Excuse me. Juts let me through, the switch is right outside."
...
"SHIT! Wrong Swtich! SHIT! SHIT!"
German Co-worker: "Again man? Geez man, go make some fucking labels for those switches or something."
I find that laughing about the Jewish Holocoust and what my Grandfather went through in such a manner to be highly idiotic. Please stop these stupid jokes. What the Jewish people went through is no laughing matter.
I find that humor is an excellent way to deal with the Holocaust, actually.
My class' trip to Poland was practically a non-stop open-mic night, unless you were one of the stupid fuckers who draped themselves in the Israeli flag all the time.
Again, I don't get the joke with Poland. Someone please explain? Pretty please?
I find that laughing about the Jewish Holocoust and what my Grandfather went through in such a manner to be highly idiotic. Please stop these stupid jokes. What the Jewish people went through is no laughing matter.
Every matter is a laughing matter. Pretty much every horrible tragedy has been made fun of. I don't see why the Holocaust should be considered special.
Plus, we're actually laughing at the absurd idea that it was unintentional. Which brings us back to the whole idea that this Armenian "thing" only accidentally cause the death of millions.
I find that humor is an excellent way to deal with the Holocaust, actually.
My class' trip to Poland was practically a non-stop open-mic night, unless you were one of the stupid fuckers who draped themselves in the Israeli flag all the time.
Again, I don't get the joke with Poland. Someone please explain? Pretty please?
It's from Family Guy.
Ash, half my grandfathers family was killed in the Holocaust. yes, it isn't funny, yet humor is an acceptable way to deal with tragedy. Also, it wasn't only Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Refusing to recognize the suffering of gypsies, homosexuals, blacks, and the handicapped is more offensive in my mind.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
I am more than happy if you or anyone else wants to start a thread on the culpability of the Settler states and their colonisers, but till that point in time, this thread is about the Ottoman genocide attempt on the Armenian people.
I am more than happy if you or anyone else wants to start a thread on the culpability of the Settler states and their colonisers, but till that point in time, this thread is about the Ottoman genocide attempt on the Armenian people.
It wasn't actually an attempt. They succeeded. You don't have to kill ALL of them for it to be a genocide. Just a good chunk of them. Someone linked the relavant part of the UN law earlier, but it says "in whole, or in part".
Sorry, I said "attempt" in a vague attempt to placate. Do not worry, I think it was genocide too, and unless someone can cite a good body of non Turkish sources that posit a credible counter I think I'll keep believing that. Its not that I'm anti Turkish, its just that I don't think people have the ability to write freely about such topics there, in the serious, academic sense.
So, ege, straight up. Did the Ottoman Empire commit genocide against the Armeninans?
The actions of the Ottoman Empire caused the deaths of about a million Armenians.
I don't accept that it was genocide, due to my belief - based my own research - that the intent was not to annihilate the population. In some outlier cases it may have been, but the official state policy never was "exterminate the Armenians" unlike it was with Germany and the Jews.
You have to remember that the suspect is innocent unless proven without a reasonable amount of doubt that he is guilty. Poor record-keeping practices during that era makes it difficult to reduce that doubt below the necessary threshold. Until proof appears that points conclusively at the Ottoman government's - rather than a relatively few rebellious army officers' - sole intent at destroying the Armenians, I will personally never accept that it was genocide.
1) Trials at the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rawanda have established that you don't need a "final solution" style plan for something to be genocide. If one general/commander/political leader commits recognized human rights abuses with the intent of destroying an ethic/religious group, he is guilty of genocide. There doesn't need to be a widely established state policy of extermination. On the scale of genocides, the Holocaust exists at one very extreme end. The idea that you need to have trains taking people to furnaces for something to be a genocide is a common misconception.
2) Presumptions of innocence, etc, only apply to individuals. No individuals are currently on trial. State sovereignty means that the US can call whatever the fuck it wants a genocide - whether that's a wise move or not is another issue entirely.
Zsetrek on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
edited October 2007
I thought this thread was going to be ege dominated...Zsetrek is a million times correct. I'm sure Ege hates Orhan Pamuk, too.
Anyways. It should be noted that the genocide event does NOT reflect on those individuals who had nothing to do with it whatsoever who happened to live in Turkey at the time or who were descended from the like.
It is, however, important to acknowledge history so that it can be learned from.
Falsified histories, like 90% of pre-college American History classes, are very very damaging to the whole planet, because it effects how people vote, and how their government can wield its power.
It would, frankly, be a very good thing for Turkey in the long run if they just accepted the past so they could move on to making sure that kind of mentality never crops up ever again.
"That between 1 million and 1.5 million Armenians were brutally and systematically massacred starting in 1915 in a deliberate genocidal campaign is a matter of simple historical record. If you really want to deepen and broaden awareness of that historical record, you should support the establishment of the Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial in Washington, D.C. But to pass a declarative resolution in the House of Representatives in the middle of a war in which we are inordinately dependent on Turkey is the height of irresponsibility.
The atrocities happened 90 years ago. Not a single living Turk under the age of 102 is in any way culpable. Even Mesrob Mutafyan, patriarch of the Armenian community in Turkey, has stated that his community is opposed to the resolution, correctly calling it the result of domestic American politics. "
And:
"Pelosi says: “Genocide still exists, and we saw it in Rwanda; we see it now in Darfur.” Precisely. And what exactly is she doing about Darfur? Nothing. Pronouncing yourself on a genocide committed 90 years ago by an empire that no longer exists is Pelosi’s demonstration of seriousness about existing, ongoing genocide?
Indeed, the Democratic party she’s leading in the House has been trying for months to force a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq that could very well lead to genocidal civil war. This prospect has apparently not deterred her in the least.
“Friends don’t let friends commit crimes against humanity,” explained Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that passed the Armenian genocide resolution. This must rank among the most stupid statements ever uttered by a member of Congress, admittedly a very high bar.
Does Smith know anything about the history of the Armenian genocide? Of the role played by Henry Morgenthau? As U.S. ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, Morgenthau tried desperately to intervene on behalf of the Armenians. It was his consular officials deep within Turkey who (together with missionaries) brought out news of the genocide. And it was Morgenthau who helped tell the world about it in his writings. Near East Relief, the U.S. charity strongly backed by President Wilson and the Congress, raised and distributed an astonishing $117 million in food, clothing and other vital assistance that, wrote historian Howard Sachar, “quite literally kept an entire nation alive.”
So much for the U.S. letting friends commit crimes against humanity. And at the time, the Ottomans were not friends. They were an enemy power in World War I, allied with Germany. Now the Turks are indeed friends, giving us indispensable logistical help in our war against today’s premier perpetrators of crimes against humanity — al Qaeda in Iraq and Afghanistan. Friends don’t gratuitously antagonize friends who are helping fight the world’s foremost war criminals.
Finally:
So why has Pelosi been so committed to bringing this resolution to the floor? (At least until a revolt within her party and the prospect of defeat caused her to waver.) Because she is deeply unserious about foreign policy. This little stunt gets added to the ledger: first, her visit to Syria, which did nothing but give legitimacy to Bashar al-Assad, who continues to be engaged in the systematic murder of pro-Western Lebanese members of parliament; then, her letter to Costa Rica’s ambassador, just nine days before a national referendum, aiding and abetting opponents of a very important free-trade agreement with the United States.
Is the Armenian resolution her way of unconsciously sabotaging the U.S. war effort, after she had failed to stop it by more direct means? I leave that question to psychiatry. Instead, I fall back on Krauthammer’s razor (with apologies to Occam): In explaining any puzzling Washington phenomenon, always choose stupidity over conspiracy, incompetence over cunning. Anything else gives them too much credit.
There's a reason why I broke-down the article and bolded what I felt were salient points.
-How is it just to hold someone responsible for the sins of their fathers? That leads to a never ending cycle of guilt, anger, violence, and stupid blood feuds that have screwed-up the world as a whole.
The Turks who did this and the Ottoman goverment that perpetuated it are all dead and gone.
-How does this demonstrate a serious desire to halt genocide? Voting on something that happened 90 years ago by an Empire that no longer exists by people who are no longer alive while doing.....nothing about genocide you yoursef claim is ongoing?
It's an empty, useless, feel-good, symbolic gesture.
-We already *did* something about this and declared it as such by helping the Armenians while waging war on those who perpetuated the genocide, the Ottoman Empire, OUR ENEMIES, during WW1.
-Finally, this is so indicitive as to what Congress has degenerated into as of late. Wasting time on petty measures that accomplish nothing while there are serious, life-threatening, and economy ruining problems (Social Security going bankrupt, the Forever War in Iraq, nuclear proliferation, the "thuggification" and "skankification" of our children) that are way more important that scolding other nations for their past sins.
It's actually arrogant to do so, in a way. We've made plenty of moronic decisions ourselves, let's worry more about fixing those!
EDIT: And by fixing a problem, I mean fixing it; not creating more bloated, wasteful, government programs that make the problem worse, but done anyway to make people feel less guilty.
“Friends don’t let friends commit crimes against humanity,†explained Rep. Chris Smith (R., N.J.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee that passed the Armenian genocide resolution. This must rank among the most stupid statements ever uttered by a member of Congress, admittedly a very high bar.
There's a reason why I broke-down the article and bolded what I felt were salient points.
-How is it just to hold someone responsible for the sins of their fathers? That leads to a never ending cycle of guilt, anger, violence, and stupid blood feuds that have screwed-up the world as a whole.
The Turks who did this and the Ottoman goverment that perpetuated it are all dead and gone.
The ones who are denying it are alive and well and dictating Turkey policy.
-How does this demonstrate a serious desire to halt genocide? Voting on something that happened 90 years ago by an Empire that no longer exists by people who are no longer alive while doing.....nothing about genocide you yoursef claim is ongoing?
It's an empty, useless, feel-good, symbolic gesture.
Yes, confirming that genocide can and does happen, and that it can't be whitewashed from history by wishful thinking and threats should FEEL GOOD.
-We already *did* something about this and declared it as such by helping the Armenians while waging war on those who perpetuated the genocide, the Ottoman Empire, OUR ENEMIES, during WW1.
We helped the Armenian's, did we? Really? At what point did the U.S. have anything to do with Turkey one way or another during WW1? Yeah, they were our enemies, but the only ones who should "feel good" about their actions in Turkey should be the Australians. They're practically the only ones who fucking did anything, and that was basically just being sacrificed by the British.
-Finally, this is so indicitive as to what Congress has degenerated into as of late. Wasting time on petty measures that accomplish nothing while there are serious, life-threatening, and economy ruining problems (Social Security going bankrupt, the Forever War in Iraq, nuclear proliferation, the "thuggification" and "skankification" of our children) that are way more important that scolding other nations for their past sins.
Yeah, you know what, this is what congress wastes their time on now. you know why? Because when they try to do something real, like, I don't know... provide health care for Children, it gets vetoed and the fucking Pubs are too partisan to help overturn the fucking thing. So yeah, now congress has resorted to trying to pass shit they think they can get done, if you want to blame anyone, blame the monkey in the Oval Office.
It's actually arrogant to do so, in a way. We've made plenty of moronic decisions ourselves, let's worry more about fixing those!
EDIT: And by fixing a problem, I mean fixing it; not creating more bloated, wasteful, government programs that make the problem worse, but done anyway to make people feel less guilty.
[/quote]
Yes, the U.S. has made a number of moronic decisions... but allowing countries to get away with mislabeling and mischaracterising the slaughter of millions of people is morally reprehensible.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Totally agree with Sentry about there being a value in just labeling the Genocide as what it is. I can't imagine the frustration I would feel if the Holocaust wasn't as widely recognized as it is.
Also saying Congress should deal with Darfur first is silly. Helping Darfur is several orders of magnitude harder, both in amount of resources required and getting it through a vote. This is saying that there's no point in thinking about Health Care for a couple of million of American children, when there are tens if not hundreds of millions living in much worse conditions in third-world countries world-wide.
I find that laughing about the Jewish Holocoust and what my Grandfather went through in such a manner to be highly idiotic. Please stop these stupid jokes. What the Jewish people went through is no laughing matter.
Every matter is a laughing matter. Pretty much every horrible tragedy has been made fun of. I don't see why the Holocaust should be considered special.
It's all a matter of context and usage.
Racist jokes are funny when racism itself is the joke, because of absurdity. Racist jokes are not funny when the joke is about how awful a race is.
Holocaust jokes have popularity among Jews themselves. The first Holocaust jokes, honestly, probably came directly from the camps, if not the ghettos.
To laugh at a tragedy is wrong, but to use a tragedy to make you laugh is not.
Totally agree with Sentry about there being a value in just labeling the Genocide as what it is. I can't imagine the frustration I would feel if the Holocaust wasn't as widely recognized as it is.
Also saying Congress should deal with Darfur first is silly. Helping Darfur is several orders of magnitude harder, both in amount of resources required and getting it through a vote. This is saying that there's no point in thinking about Health Care for a couple of million of American children, when there are tens if not hundreds of millions living in much worse conditions in third-world countries world-wide.
Just to play devil's advocate, while dealing with Darfur may be tougher, it also will have an actual effect.
The Armenian genocide should indeedbe recognized as such, but even if it officially is, that doesn't change at all what happened, where as by using the effort and resources going in to the Aremian thing in order to help Darfur instead, we actually CAN change the outcome of what happens.
I find that humor is an excellent way to deal with the Holocaust, actually.
My class' trip to Poland was practically a non-stop open-mic night, unless you were one of the stupid fuckers who draped themselves in the Israeli flag all the time.
Again, I don't get the joke with Poland. Someone please explain? Pretty please?
If you don't mind my asking, where did you go to school, and how long ago was this?
Posts
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/07/06/turkey.us/index.html
Some other things to note:
It was not a Turkish military base camp; it was an office building in a Kurdish city.
The Americans were not greeted with open arms; they raided the building.
The Turkish troops were not supposed to be in Iraq at all. They were operating unannounced well behind the American lines.
They soldiers were aware that they were going to arrest Turkish special forces; they had information that they were planning to assasinate a Kurdish official.
- John Stuart Mill
EDIT: And even if it was, I'm pretty sure the jury would rule in favor of the prosecution, seeing as the defense's case is a step below flimsy.
EDIT 2: And the prosecution in a criminal case always operates on the basis of guilty; it's their job to.
And again, no one here is denying that what happened to the native americans was genocide. None of us are saying "they didn't know the blankets had small pox" or "we just wanted to move them to some prime real estate out in arizona" or "but they scalped us first" or, my current favorite of yours "records from that time were spotty at best." I love how we are able to piece together the Trojan War, but an event that occured less then a hundred years ago is simply to archaic for us to decipher.
God, I have to remember this one next time we tell Shoa jokes.
"They were baking gingerbread men and mistakes were made."
- John Stuart Mill
Holy shit guys, that's fucking funny.
Gods help me, but I don't get it.
German Tour Guide: "And this is the room with the poison gas vents. Allright, I know it's a bit tight, but I'm sure we can all fit. Ok, now, you can see the vents up there."
Jewish Tour Group: /murmurs appreciatively
German Tour Guide: "Um, how about I get the lights for you guys so you can see better. Excuse me. Juts let me through, the switch is right outside."
...
"SHIT! Wrong Swtich! SHIT! SHIT!"
German Co-worker: "Again man? Geez man, go make some fucking labels for those switches or something."
PS - Please don't infract me.
My class' trip to Poland was practically a non-stop open-mic night, unless you were one of the stupid fuckers who draped themselves in the Israeli flag all the time.
Again, I don't get the joke with Poland. Someone please explain? Pretty please?
Every matter is a laughing matter. Pretty much every horrible tragedy has been made fun of. I don't see why the Holocaust should be considered special.
It's from Family Guy.
Ash, half my grandfathers family was killed in the Holocaust. yes, it isn't funny, yet humor is an acceptable way to deal with tragedy. Also, it wasn't only Jews who were killed in the Holocaust. Refusing to recognize the suffering of gypsies, homosexuals, blacks, and the handicapped is more offensive in my mind.
Oh, makes sense then. Is it the episode with the German tour guide? On the bus?
Yes.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoID=2018182565
I wonder what he's supposed to be saying in German at the end.
It wasn't actually an attempt. They succeeded. You don't have to kill ALL of them for it to be a genocide. Just a good chunk of them. Someone linked the relavant part of the UN law earlier, but it says "in whole, or in part".
1) Trials at the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rawanda have established that you don't need a "final solution" style plan for something to be genocide. If one general/commander/political leader commits recognized human rights abuses with the intent of destroying an ethic/religious group, he is guilty of genocide. There doesn't need to be a widely established state policy of extermination. On the scale of genocides, the Holocaust exists at one very extreme end. The idea that you need to have trains taking people to furnaces for something to be a genocide is a common misconception.
2) Presumptions of innocence, etc, only apply to individuals. No individuals are currently on trial. State sovereignty means that the US can call whatever the fuck it wants a genocide - whether that's a wise move or not is another issue entirely.
It is, however, important to acknowledge history so that it can be learned from.
Falsified histories, like 90% of pre-college American History classes, are very very damaging to the whole planet, because it effects how people vote, and how their government can wield its power.
It would, frankly, be a very good thing for Turkey in the long run if they just accepted the past so they could move on to making sure that kind of mentality never crops up ever again.
Sie werden sich hinsetzen! Sie werden ruhig sein! Sie werden nicht beleidigen Deutschland!
You will sit down! You will shut up! You will not insult Germany!
My spelling might be off, it's been a while.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzZkYzNjNmViOWFlZTgxMWIyN2I3YTZhYzZiOTllMzg=
Few highlights:
And:
Finally:
Few quotes bolded for emphasis.
Margaret Thatcher
The Nation
See how this works?
Then again, I guess pointing out to ege what genocide is wasn't in the OP either.
There's a reason why I broke-down the article and bolded what I felt were salient points.
-How is it just to hold someone responsible for the sins of their fathers? That leads to a never ending cycle of guilt, anger, violence, and stupid blood feuds that have screwed-up the world as a whole.
The Turks who did this and the Ottoman goverment that perpetuated it are all dead and gone.
-How does this demonstrate a serious desire to halt genocide? Voting on something that happened 90 years ago by an Empire that no longer exists by people who are no longer alive while doing.....nothing about genocide you yoursef claim is ongoing?
It's an empty, useless, feel-good, symbolic gesture.
-We already *did* something about this and declared it as such by helping the Armenians while waging war on those who perpetuated the genocide, the Ottoman Empire, OUR ENEMIES, during WW1.
-Finally, this is so indicitive as to what Congress has degenerated into as of late. Wasting time on petty measures that accomplish nothing while there are serious, life-threatening, and economy ruining problems (Social Security going bankrupt, the Forever War in Iraq, nuclear proliferation, the "thuggification" and "skankification" of our children) that are way more important that scolding other nations for their past sins.
It's actually arrogant to do so, in a way. We've made plenty of moronic decisions ourselves, let's worry more about fixing those!
EDIT: And by fixing a problem, I mean fixing it; not creating more bloated, wasteful, government programs that make the problem worse, but done anyway to make people feel less guilty.
Margaret Thatcher
I think there's an "R" in there. ;-)
Margaret Thatcher
The ones who are denying it are alive and well and dictating Turkey policy.
Yes, confirming that genocide can and does happen, and that it can't be whitewashed from history by wishful thinking and threats should FEEL GOOD.
We helped the Armenian's, did we? Really? At what point did the U.S. have anything to do with Turkey one way or another during WW1? Yeah, they were our enemies, but the only ones who should "feel good" about their actions in Turkey should be the Australians. They're practically the only ones who fucking did anything, and that was basically just being sacrificed by the British.
Yeah, you know what, this is what congress wastes their time on now. you know why? Because when they try to do something real, like, I don't know... provide health care for Children, it gets vetoed and the fucking Pubs are too partisan to help overturn the fucking thing. So yeah, now congress has resorted to trying to pass shit they think they can get done, if you want to blame anyone, blame the monkey in the Oval Office.
[/quote]
Yes, the U.S. has made a number of moronic decisions... but allowing countries to get away with mislabeling and mischaracterising the slaughter of millions of people is morally reprehensible.
Also saying Congress should deal with Darfur first is silly. Helping Darfur is several orders of magnitude harder, both in amount of resources required and getting it through a vote. This is saying that there's no point in thinking about Health Care for a couple of million of American children, when there are tens if not hundreds of millions living in much worse conditions in third-world countries world-wide.
It's all a matter of context and usage.
Racist jokes are funny when racism itself is the joke, because of absurdity. Racist jokes are not funny when the joke is about how awful a race is.
Holocaust jokes have popularity among Jews themselves. The first Holocaust jokes, honestly, probably came directly from the camps, if not the ghettos.
To laugh at a tragedy is wrong, but to use a tragedy to make you laugh is not.
Just to play devil's advocate, while dealing with Darfur may be tougher, it also will have an actual effect.
The Armenian genocide should indeedbe recognized as such, but even if it officially is, that doesn't change at all what happened, where as by using the effort and resources going in to the Aremian thing in order to help Darfur instead, we actually CAN change the outcome of what happens.
If you don't mind my asking, where did you go to school, and how long ago was this?
Also, which camps did you visit?