denying the armenian genocide is now a crime

[Bwaho]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6043730.stm

The bill sponsored by the opposition Socialist party provides for a year in jail and a 45,000-euro (£30,000) fine

But French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin distanced himself from the bill.

It is "not a good thing to legislate on issues of history and of memory," he said

Turkey called the decision a "serious blow" to relations with France. It has already threatened economic sanctions.

so does this mean you'll get imprisoned for denying the murders done under Stalin and Pol Pot next?

[Last Roman]

One of the few times I'm glad America doesn't follow European policies.

[moonlapse]

i think such stuff should be left for historians to discuss


and:


I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

cheers

[Visna]

In Turkey it has always been a crime to refer to the (have to choose my words carefully these days ) extremely large number of Armenians who mysteriouly died or chose to live elsewhere at the hands of the Turks as "a genocide".
Don't know what's worst. Imposing laws making it illegal to even mention the events, or imposing laws that makes it illegal to deny the events.
Wonder if it will pass. Anyone know much about French politics?

[danzig]

Opposite end of the idiot scale of Turkey's nonsense...imo armenian genocide is a fact and denying it is wrong but laws like this can stifle debate. Both Turkey and French politicans have their heads too far up their butt. In a note of irony Orhan Pamuk recieved Nobel prize for literature a man attacked in Turkey by nationalists because he has the courage to openly say genocide did indeed happen. I wonder what is it about Turkey and their openly hostile response to even *suggesting* genocide? There is this guy who is in my mmorpg guild (we are a guild who have played various games, from EQ1,EQ2, WoW, Daoc etc) known him now for quite a few years he is from Turkey and lives there and topic came up once and he instantly went defensive and then hostile on the subject...it was quite out of character for him and couldnt understand his response, needless to say the topic was dropped and never mentioned again. I wonder how common an attitude that is in Turkey?

[JANOSIK007]

In Turkey it has always been a crime to refer to the (have to choose my words carefully these days ) extremely large number of Armenians who mysteriouly died or chose to live elsewhere at the hands of the Turks as "a genocide".
Don't know what's worst. Imposing laws making it illegal to even mention the events, or imposing laws that makes it illegal to deny the events.

Well, if it did (and it did) happen, the latter is better. Though some of you may see it as a disillusioned policy, I say let's have more of it. World needs to exert pressure on Turkey so that it finally gives justice and recongition to its victims.

[Last Roman]

I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. - Voltaire

cheers

oh man



Guess the French forgot about their enlightened past

[danzig]

oh man

Guess the French forgot about their enlightened past

And far too many people in the WORLD have forgotten the genius wisdom of Voltaire, he is probably rolling in his grave not just for this but for the general climate thru out the world from PC, to riots over cartoons etc.

[MaximiIian]

And far too many people in the WORLD have forgotten the genius wisdom of Voltaire.

Eh. Some of what he said was smart, genius perhaps. However, he was vocal racist and antisemite. Two things above all which disgust me. So, with Voltaire, I am somewhat divided.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Waste of time.

[Ummon]

The French are desperately trying to defend themselves from Islamic violence without defending themselves from Islam, and without scrapping their multiculti postmodern policies of the past. Impossible, though funny.

[k995]

The French are desperately trying to defend themselves from Islamic violence without defending themselves from Islam, and without scrapping their multiculti postmodern policies of the past. Impossible, though funny.

Nonsense first turks are a very small minority of the muslims in france and second muslims themselves are also a very small minority in france.

[Crimson Scythe]

Nonsense first turks are a very small minority of the muslims in france and second muslims themselves are also a very small minority in france.

Actually the number of Turks in France is about the same as the number of Armenians (400-450,000). They're just not nearly as influential.

I've actually been debating whether to weigh in on this particular issue, given its controversial nature, and my fear of not being able to keep a clear head, as I am Turkish (though born and raised in Canada for the most part).

Firstly, many Turks are now critical of their government's position of complete denial of the events of 1915. Especially the younger generation that has had to deal with the accusations of the diaspora Armenians (like myself). In an effort to address these accusations, many younger Turks are looking into their past and trying to figure out why the Armenians are so angry about something that happened so long ago. But the problem is that they aren't simply taking the Armenians' word for it either, and are trying to use common sense and logic, rather than shrill propaganda (or I guess counter-propaganda). If you listen to the diaspora's claims exclusively, which many here seem to have done, it's easy to be convinced that they have a point. However, I'll bet that very few of you have actually looked into the details of the issue, which paint a much less clear cut picture of the events of 1915.

A lot of Turks accept that there were many Armenian deaths during the First World War, and most are saddened by the events. What they object to is being accused of an organized campaign to wipe them out, and worse have been convicted of the crime without being tried. Having studied the issue at some length (I have minors in both International Relations and History), I'm irritated by the nonsense that is constantly being thrown around concerning this issue. I can accept that there were many Armenian deaths, but I dispute both the number AND the genocidal intent. Most governments of the time agree that the Armenian population in 1915 was somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6 million. Given that there were about 800,000 survivors scattered across Syria, Lebanon, southern Anatolia and present-day Armenia, one can reason that there were probably about 700,000 dead (based on an original population of 1.5 million, which is the average agreed on by French, British, and Russian sources). This is very far off from the 1.5 million claimed by Armenian 'genocide' supporters, which is based off an original 1915 population of 2.2 million, which is ONLY used by Armenian sources, in whose interest it is to inflate casualty numbers. It doesn't make sense for the Ottomans to have miscounted the number of Armenians in the Empire by almost a million people, especially since it is in their interests to keep a good record for tax and conscription purposes. Also, an error of missing a million people is an atrocious one, given that the population of the empire was only about 13 million at that time.

As for the intent, it just doesn't make sense. Why were the eastern Armenians attacked while the Istanbul Armenians weren't? If genocide was the intent, wouldn't it have been easier to round up the ones closest to the centre of government power? Second, why were they marched to Syria and Lebanon? If the Ottomans wanted to be rid of the Armenians, why didn't they simply drive them across the Ottoman-Russian border? Why march them DEEPER into the empire instead of out of it? Third, why were they marched at all? Why not just shoot them where they stood, en masse, instead of marching them in columns across the country? Especially since these columns had to be guarded by troops who would probably have been better used against the Russians or the British?

Finally, I say this: if the Armenian diaspora can prove that a genocide did take place beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to an impartial jury, then I'll accept it. The crimes of the Nazis were exposed at Nuremburg for all to see. A similar tribunal was attempted on Malta by the British military, where many Ottoman officials were held after the war. All were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. If the Armenian diaspora wants some justice, I suggest that they look at the Ottomans' own military tribunals that put their own officials on trial for mistreating the Armenians. They even executed the worst offenders.

Ok, let the flaming begin.

[therussian]

I'll try and answer some of these quickly.

As for the intent, it just doesn't make sense. Why were the eastern Armenians attacked while the Istanbul Armenians weren't? If genocide was the intent, wouldn't it have been easier to round up the ones closest to the centre of government power?

Actually they were. April 24 1915 (the official Armenian day of remembrance) was the beginning of the inprisonment and execution of many Armenian intellectuals in Constantinople, including priests, doctors, lawyers and politicians.

Second, why were they marched to Syria and Lebanon? If the Ottomans wanted to be rid of the Armenians, why didn't they simply drive them across the Ottoman-Russian border? Why march them DEEPER into the empire instead of out of it?

To answer this, I'm going to have to go on the assumption that the Turks wanted the Armenians dead. If they wanted to kill them, why send them to Russia where they could be freed and most likely used by the Russian Army as troops to invade the Ottoman Empire? I don't think the Young Turks would have risked it.

Third, why were they marched at all? Why not just shoot them where they stood, en masse, instead of marching them in columns across the country? Especially since these columns had to be guarded by troops who would probably have been better used against the Russians or the British?

Because by executing them with firearms etc would be even more clearly seen as genocide, no? By marching the Armenians through the Ottoman Empire they made it seem as if they were 'relocating' them to safer parts of the Empire, away from the war fronts where they could 'cause trouble'.

Finally, I say this: if the Armenian diaspora can prove that a genocide did take place beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to an impartial jury, then I'll accept it. The crimes of the Nazis were exposed at Nuremburg for all to see. A similar tribunal was attempted on Malta by the British military, where many Ottoman officials were held after the war. All were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. If the Armenian diaspora wants some justice, I suggest that they look at the Ottomans' own military tribunals that put their own officials on trial for mistreating the Armenians. They even executed the worst offenders.

When was this again? I'm pretty sure they didn't execute Jamal, Enver and Talat Pasha, did they?

Ok, let the flaming begin.

Let's not. Flaming is the bane of civilised discussion.

[Tom Paine]

To answer this, I'm going to have to go on the assumption that the Turks wanted the Armenians dead. If they wanted to kill them, why send them to Russia where they could be freed and most likely used by the Russian Army as troops to invade the Ottoman Empire? I don't think the Young Turks would have risked it.

Before I say anything I'd like to make it clear I'm undecided on all this.

Isn't this somewhat specious? Surely you are herein saying that the intent to kill them all is proved by and a proof of, effectively, intent to kill them all? You are assuming intent to kill without actually bringing forth any evidence that such an assertion has accuracy and is valid.

[Crimson Scythe]

I'll try and answer some of these quickly.

Actually they were. April 24 1915 (the official Armenian day of remembrance) was the beginning of the inprisonment and execution of many Armenian intellectuals in Constantinople, including priests, doctors, lawyers and politicians.

What about the thousands of other Armenians living in Istanbul, including the leader of the Armenian Orthodox Church? Rounding up and executing some Armenian activists, while ill-advised and barely justifiable, is a far cry from an organized effort to wipe out the Armenians as a people.

To answer this, I'm going to have to go on the assumption that the Turks wanted the Armenians dead. If they wanted to kill them, why send them to Russia where they could be freed and most likely used by the Russian Army as troops to invade the Ottoman Empire? I don't think the Young Turks would have risked it.

It's that very assumption that Turks object to. Their desire to kill all the Armenians is assumed and not determined by analysis. Naturally, the rest of the arguments fit the hypothesis. A badly formed hypothesis leads to a false conclusion, as any academic will tell you. Did you ever consider that maybe the Ottomans DIDN'T want to KILL all the Armenians, but merely move them away from where they could be tempted to betray the Ottomans? You're assuming that the intent existed without any proof.

But to address the point: as trench warfare granted the defenders massive advantages over the attackers, the Armenians being on the side of the Russians was probably less of a concern. If you know where your enemy is, you can defend against his attacks by concentrating your own forces. When the enemy (presumed enemy) is everywhere, however, your forces are spread thin by trying to defend all your territories, which reduces your ability to defend successfully.

Because by executing them with firearms etc would be even more clearly seen as genocide, no? By marching the Armenians through the Ottoman Empire they made it seem as if they were 'relocating' them to safer parts of the Empire, away from the war fronts where they could 'cause trouble'.

Again, you're assuming that genocide was the intent without any justification. Try considering that maybe the result of the deportations wasn't what was intended. This is called 'being objective'.

When was this again? I'm pretty sure they didn't execute Jamal, Enver and Talat Pasha, did they?

When was what? The Ottoman tribunals or the Malta tribunals? Anyhow, all three fled to Germany after the war ended, and later fled to other countries. Cemal and Enver were in the Soviet Union and beyond the reach of both Allied and Ottoman officials after WWI. Talat was assasinated in Berlin by an Armenian in 1921, before he was brought to trial. Cemal was also assasinated in 1922, in Georgia, also by an Armenian. Cemal was also sentenced to death in absentia by an Ottoman military tribunal for atrocities committed during WWI. Enver was killed leading a cavalry charge against Soviet forces in Tajikistan in 1922, before he could be tried. I believe that takes care of all three leaders of the Triumvirate of the CUP; all were killed before they could be extradited to Istanbul, and one was sentenced for the very crimes the Turks are accused of committing. Can't exactly try and execute a dead man, can you?

[Shatterer]

If the Ottomans wanted to be rid of the Armenians, why didn't they simply drive them across the Ottoman-Russian border? Why march them DEEPER into the empire instead of out of it?

Because if they're out of the empire, they'd obviously fight against the Ottomans. By stripping them of everything they have and containing them within the empire, they're no longer a threat.

[k995]

Actually the number of Turks in France is about the same as the number of Armenians (400-450,000). They're just not nearly as influential.

Nonsense, there are about 350 000 inhabitants in france who have the turkisch nationality so that includes largely the armenians/kurds . Part of them are born and raised in france.

I've actually been debating whether to weigh in on this particular issue, given its controversial nature, and my fear of not being able to keep a clear head, as I am Turkish (though born and raised in Canada for the most part).

Firstly, many Turks are now critical of their government's position of complete denial of the events of 1915. Especially the younger generation that has had to deal with the accusations of the diaspora Armenians (like myself). In an effort to address these accusations, many younger Turks are looking into their past and trying to figure out why the Armenians are so angry about something that happened so long ago. But the problem is that they aren't simply taking the Armenians' word for it either, and are trying to use common sense and logic, rather than shrill propaganda (or I guess counter-propaganda). If you listen to the diaspora's claims exclusively, which many here seem to have done, it's easy to be convinced that they have a point. However, I'll bet that very few of you have actually looked into the details of the issue, which paint a much less clear cut picture of the events of 1915.

Why are they so angry what happened so long ago, becuase in part it is still happening today with the kurds and other in turkey and because they turksich gouv and most turks keeps denying it.

A lot of Turks accept that there were many Armenian deaths during the First World War, and most are saddened by the events. What they object to is being accused of an organized campaign to wipe them out, and worse have been convicted of the crime without being tried. Having studied the issue at some length (I have minors in both International Relations and History), I'm irritated by the nonsense that is constantly being thrown around concerning this issue. I can accept that there were many Armenian deaths, but I dispute both the number AND the genocidal intent. Most governments of the time agree that the Armenian population in 1915 was somewhere between 1.2 and 1.6 million. Given that there were about 800,000 survivors scattered across Syria, Lebanon, southern Anatolia and present-day Armenia, one can reason that there were probably about 700,000 dead (based on an original population of 1.5 million, which is the average agreed on by French, British, and Russian sources). This is very far off from the 1.5 million claimed by Armenian 'genocide' supporters, which is based off an original 1915 population of 2.2 million, which is ONLY used by Armenian sources, in whose interest it is to inflate casualty numbers. It doesn't make sense for the Ottomans to have miscounted the number of Armenians in the Empire by almost a million people, especially since it is in their interests to keep a good record for tax and conscription purposes. Also, an error of missing a million people is an atrocious one, given that the population of the empire was only about 13 million at that time.

Not quit, you forget the time period and the methods of census. The census was incomplkete so the number is a minimum of 1,5million, second it was in the best intrest to keep the armanian influence small. What best way to let them believe that they are a very small minority? Nobody else had the means to do a census.

As for the intent, it just doesn't make sense. Why were the eastern Armenians attacked while the Istanbul Armenians weren't? If genocide was the intent, wouldn't it have been easier to round up the ones closest to the centre of government power?

No, you dont want to broadcast you are doint a genocide, taking out the weaker population in area's you know are fulle of armenians is the easy thing to do, taking them out in crowded citys is a whole lot different. The nazi's didnt succeed in that and they had a whole lot more and better means then the turks.

Second, why were they marched to Syria and Lebanon? If the Ottomans wanted to be rid of the Armenians, why didn't they simply drive them across the Ottoman-Russian border? Why march them DEEPER into the empire instead of out of it?

Becase putting them over the border creates a foreign army, killing them inside your country doesnt, and you can easily hide the casulties.

Third, why were they marched at all? Why not just shoot them where they stood, en masse, instead of marching them in columns across the country? Especially since these columns had to be guarded by troops who would probably have been better used against the Russians or the British?

Because you can deny any genocide? Genocide? No just relocation. Shooting them all gives you no room for denial.

Finally, I say this: if the Armenian diaspora can prove that a genocide did take place beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law to an impartial jury, then I'll accept it. The crimes of the Nazis were exposed at Nuremburg for all to see. A similar tribunal was attempted on Malta by the British military, where many Ottoman officials were held after the war. All were acquitted due to a lack of evidence. If the Armenian diaspora wants some justice, I suggest that they look at the Ottomans' own military tribunals that put their own officials on trial for mistreating the Armenians. They even executed the worst offenders.

Of course they ahd no evidence, alle evidence was in turkey. Germany was occupied by the allies and all records wee handed over to the allies.

Germany anno 1940's was comparable to turkey 1910's.

[white-wolf]

Not quit, you forget the time period and the methods of census. The census was incomplkete so the number is a minimum of 1,5million, second it was in the best intrest to keep the armanian influence small. What best way to let them believe that they are a very small minority? Nobody else had the means to do a census.

Of course they ahd no evidence, alle evidence was in turkey. Germany was occupied by the allies and all records wee handed over to the allies.

Germany anno 1940's was comparable to turkey 1910's.

- Can I add that some of Ottoman officials and managers of Cencus office were Armenian origin?

- Can I remind you that after WW1 the regions where Armenians relocated were English and French control namely Lebanon, Syria?

- Can I add that after WW1, capital of Ottoman empire, Istanbul under English and French occupation. They had full access the Ottoman archives and documents including war documents. The English had most of the officials who accused of Armenian genocide under arrest at Malta and there were tribunals for this officials. And what was the result of this Malta tribunals? Nothing... They were released.

Note : Unlike the Germans we beat the occupiers back.

[over-man]

I hate political correctness.