From FrontPage this morning (news links in the original):
As American Airlines Flight 11 began heading toward the North Tower of the World Trade Center, Muhammad Atta announced to the passengers: “We have some planes. Just stay quiet and you’ll be OK….Nobody move. Everything will be OK. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.”This has been the modus operandi of bullies and thugs throughout the ages: telling their victims, keep quiet, just go along, or things will go even worse for you. And of course, the only effective response to the bullying of the weak by the powerful has always been not to keep quiet, but to speak out, to resist, and thereby to draw attention to the bullying and make life as uncomfortable as possible for the bully unless and until he stops. But this, unfortunately, is a lesson that human beings have had to relearn again and again. The impulse to stay quiet, to appease, to give the bully what he wants, wasn’t invented by Neville Chamberlain in his Munich meeting with “Herr Hitler”: it is as old as human conflict itself, and is alive and well today despite the voluminous evidence that it only emboldens thugs, rather than pacifying them.
And so it played out again in recent weeks, when Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, fired the New England regional director of the ADL, Andrew H. Tarsy. Tarsy’s crime? He recognized the 1915-1918 Turkish genocide of the Armenians, and expressed his support for H.R. 106, a Congressional resolution recognizing and deploring that genocide. After encountering a storm of disapproval, Foxman rehired Tarsy and conceded that the Turkish actions were “tantamount to genocide,” but still refused to throw the ADL’s support behind H.R. 106, explaining: “We continue to firmly believe that a congressional resolution on such matters is a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians, and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel, and the United States.”
In other words, one of the main reasons why we have to keep quiet about the Armenian genocide for fear that the Turkish government, which still refuses to acknowledge that it happened, will cause trouble for the Jews remaining in Turkey. Just stay quiet and you’ll be OK. And Foxman is by no means alone. Steven M. Goldberg of the Zionist Organization of America notes that “HR 106 already has 227 co-sponsors in the House of Representatives and is supported by a majority of Jewish senators and congressmen across the nation, including Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and Reps. Henry Waxman (D-Los Angeles), Howard Berman (D-Van Nuys), Brad Sherman (D-Sherman Oaks) and Jane Harman (D-Venice). Most of the Jewish organizational establishment, however, is either waffling or desperately trying to avoid the issue. The facts are embarrassing.”Indeed they are. Outside of the Turkish government and those who want to impress it, the reality of the Armenian genocide is not in serious doubt. On December 15, 1915, the New York Times reported on a statement by Samuel T. Dutton, Secretary of the American Committee for Armenian and Syrian Relief: “of the 2 million Armenians in Turkey a year ago, at least 1 million have been killed or forced into Islam, or compelled to flee the country, or have died upon the way to exile, or are now up on the road to the deserts of Northern Arabia, or are already there.” The Times included a notorious statement by the Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II: “The way to get rid of the Armenian Question is to get rid of the Armenians.” The massacres went on for several years thereafter, and were widely reported in the American press; the Literary Digest referred in 1921 to the “systematic destruction of Christian peoples in the Near East.” A million and a half Armenians were killed between 1915 and 1923.
What can be gained by remaining silent about these atrocities? Only a new boldness by those who would emulate the Turks – as Adolf Hitler said, “Our strength lies in our intensive attacks and our barbarity...After all, who today remembers the genocide of the Armenians?” Of all organizations, the ADL, which speaks out so strongly and eloquently against Holocaust denial, should recognize this.
But fearful and shameful silence in the face of barbarity is not the province of the ADL alone. Foxman’s refusal to endorse H.R. 106 is of a piece with a much larger denial: the refusal on the part of the mainstream media and government officials to examine the jihad ideology of Islamic supremacism that helped fuel the Armenian genocide, and fuels contemporary terrorism. Much of this refusal stems from an impulse similar to Foxman’s: a desire to avoid offending Muslims, so as to keep those who are not yet radicalized from becoming so.
But this, as Muhammad Atta’s advice to the passengers of American Airlines Flight 11 makes clear, only emboldens the jihadists. Those who stay quiet and avoid unpleasant realities in hopes of thereby appeasing the violent are in for a rude awakening. Their supine response will only make bullies step up their bullying, secure in the knowledge that decent people do not have the will to stop them.
Sadly, this is happening again, with efforts to try to keep silent people who want to stand up for what is right against Islamofacist bullies.
The Turks wouldn't dare touch the Jews. They’re already in hot water over their miserable treatment of the Kurds and they are fearful of the European Union.
You can take comfort in the fact that most American Jews support the Armenians on this (especially the younger generation). It’s only a few leaders that are recalcitrant.
I've got to say as a Jew, Abraham Foxman's position is indefensible.
Mr. Foxman has been actively and rightly protesting the forthcoming beatification of World War II's Pope Pius XII (Eugenio Pacelli), who by most accounts did not condemn, refused to condemn Hitler's atrocities and the Nazi genocide. Pope Pius neither condemned Hitler by name nor did he specially condemn the Holocaust though the allies pleaded with him to issue an unequivocal statement of condemnation. Pius is known by many as the "silent Pope."
In his defense, Pius' defenders insist that condemning Hitler might have endangered Catholics in Germany and elsewhere, might have harmed Vatican - German relations and more lame, might have further endangered the Jews that were not already murdered by the Nazis. (How much more could they have been endangered?)
Foxman is pleading much the same defense vis-a-vis Muslim-Turkey's genocide: "it may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel, and the United States."
What is the difference between Foxman and Pope Pius XII? I don't see much difference.
Once again Robert you have one of the finest perceptions of the nuances of evil-lite, also known as the thin edge of the wedge, hereabouts.
Many thanks for shining the light.
I think it's a crying shame that we've become so PC that it requires an act of Congress to look into the past and say: "This was genocide, and we disapprove."
It's a stupid Resolution. It only declares what should be obvious to any functional, sane mind! I mean, the sponsors of the Resolution aren't suggesting or requesting that anything actually be done about the situation, judging by the tone of the article.
It's not like it's apt to happen again, or anything like that. Turkey is our ally, after all, and Islam is Islam.
So does this mean we can remove the Holocaust Museum from Washington, DC?
So let me see if I got this correct Mr. Foxman: there was genocide in Rwanda, there is genocide in Sudan/Darfur, there was genocide in the Balkans back when Yugoslavia broke up, there was genocide against the native Indian peoples of North, Central and South America, but not against the Armenians?
Dear Abscedere, I believe resolutions are important. Why do you think Turkey is our ally other than perhaps for strategic reasons, any more than say, Saudi Arabia is our ally?
Because you believe Turkey is our ally, therefore are you suggesting the U.S. should be mum with respect to genocide?
Well, the likes of Foxman are normal in most synagogues today. My rabbi is a great person, does well with the congregation, but is so PC she squeaks!
When will they ever learn? Probably never, unfortunately.
“Our strength lies in our intensive attacks and our barbarity...After all, who today remembers the genocide of the Armenians?”-Hitler
I was thinking of exactly that quote and then I see it in the article. Hitler said that if the Jews were eliminated that no one would care and pointed to the genocide of the Armenians. If the Nazis had won the war Hitler would have proven to be right about the genocide of the Jews. The Nazis would have got away with it and no one would have cared because they would have had even more power that had to be feared and appeased. Shame on Foxman in this matter.
The problem with the bully/victim paradigm regarding global terror, is that the left can only see the world in terms of social groups and attributing to them haves vs have-nots status.
Therefore, Mohammad Atta becomes a victim of American imperialism, Jewish occupation or even as a patsy for a government conspiracy to blow up the twin towers.
Because muslims are ethnically non-white or non-jewish and muslim countries are thought of as poor or "third world," the left projects bully status onto America and Israel because it fits with the Marxist folklore they have adopted.
The Armenian genocide, the Pakistani occupation of Kashmir, and the jihad in Thailand are often overlooked by the left, because both sides of each of these conflicts appear to be poor, dark-skinned social groups. There is no clear bully because neither side is comprised of white capitalists or Jews. To have a clear opinion would confuse them.
Mr. Foxman once said, as quoted in the ADL's newsletter c. 1989, that to be prolife was to be anti-Semitic. Why? Simple: because (said he) most Jews are pro-choice. Therefore, the prolife movement is only a cloak for anti-semites.
I kid you not.
So, it's only logical that recognizing the genocidal behavior of Muslims against Christians is bad for Jews. That would mean that it is in essence anti-semitic to recognize the Armenian genocide, I guess. Oh the chutzpah.
Mr. Foxman once said, as quoted in the ADL's newsletter c. 1989, that to be prolife was to be anti-Semitic. Why? Simple: because (said he) most Jews are pro-choice. Therefore, the prolife movement is only a cloak for anti-semites.
There you go. That explains why he goes to bat for islam. Most Jews are left of center, vote Democrat, so he naturally sees those who are cognizant of the jihad to be anti-semetic. If you were to take a poll of Jews in America as to whether islam is a threat to the West, I think the vast majority would say No, just as the vast majority vote Democrat, regardless of income, or regardless of the traditional differences between GOP/DEM foreign policies towards Israel.
Mr. Foxman once said, as quoted in the ADL's newsletter c. 1989, that to be prolife was to be anti-Semitic. Why? Simple: because (said he) most Jews are pro-choice. Therefore, the prolife movement is only a cloak for anti-semites.
There you go. That explains why he goes to bat for islam. Most Jews are left of center, vote Democrat, so he naturally sees those who are cognizant of the jihad to be anti-semetic. If you were to take a poll of Jews in America as to whether islam is a threat to the West, I think the vast majority would say No, just as the vast majority vote Democrat, regardless of income, or regardless of the traditional differences between GOP/DEM foreign policies towards Israel.
Christian Republic wrote: "Mr. Foxman once said, as quoted in the ADL's newsletter c. 1989, that to be prolife was to be anti-Semitic. Why? Simple: because (said he) most Jews are pro-choice. Therefore, the prolife movement is only a cloak for anti-semites."
I'm not denying the truth of this rumor. Do you have a source? I would like to confirm it. Can you document this?
In other words, one of the main reasons why we have to keep quiet about the Armenian genocide for fear that the Turkish government, which still refuses to acknowledge that it happened, will cause trouble for the Jews remaining in Turkey.
......................................
There's another sad irony to this story.
During the Holocaust, the main victims, were, no doubt, the Jews of Europe. But they were not the only victims. Such widely disparate groups as Gypsies, homosexuals, small Christian sects like Jehova's Witnesses, Communists, pacifists, Catholics, the insane, and the developmentally and physically disabled were all targeted to a greater or lesser extent. For example, up to two million Gypsies are thought to have been killed.
The situation during the Armenian genocide was similar. The Armenians were the primary victims. The period of genocide lasted roughly 1890 to 1920, spanning the last years of the Ottoman Empire and the early years of "modern" Turkey. The violence waxed and waned during this period. Greeks and Nestorian Christians were also targeted--there were massacres of Greeks in the 1920s. Also targetted were the Kurds. They were in an odd position--on the one hand, they were some of the most vicious persecutors of the Armenians (partly because their territory overlapped with that of the Armenians, and thus many Kurds saw liquidating the Armenians as a good way to grab land), yet at the same time Kurds themselves were often persecuted and killed during this period because they were perceived as being insiufficiently loyal to the Ottoman Empire, or later, as insufficiently "Turkish".
Another victim group during this period, however, were the Jews themselves. This may not rise to the level of genocide, but many Jews were killed or had their property confiscated during the general "Turkey for the Turks" frenzy. Many fled to Europe, America or Palestine.
As an American of Jewish heritage, I am mortified by Abraham Foxman's cowardice, especially since the ADL is a major Jewish advocacy organization.
I am reminded of the apocryphal story of the two Jews who were ordered by the Nazis to dig their own graves. The first Jew whispered to the other that there was only one guard, and he could be subdued if the shovels the Jews were using could be used as bludgeons, and the two could attempt an escape into the forest. "Please, Avram," pleaded the second Jew, "don't make trouble."
I guess Mr. Foxman would agree with the second Jew.
Not riling up the Nazis worked real well.
Let's try it again.
MASSACRE, YES. GENOCIDE, NO.
I don't want to defend everything Mr. Foxman says, does, or his manner of doing, but in this case he is closer to the mark than Mr. Spencer.
The Armenians were at war with the Turks, who thought nothing of deliberately inflicting massive collateral damage to subdue whatever was left of the enemy population. In the absence of war, or if they chose to be allies, there would have been no reason to kill them.
By contrast, Jews were NOT at war with Germany, but were loyal citizens who, had they not been persecuted, probably would have fought for Germany as many had in WWI. There was no reason to kill Jews, except to exterminate ALL of them. There was no intention to subdue, because they already were. Germany wasn't eliminating a potential foe, but destroying a part of itself.
Those are the main differences, no war with Jews and an intent to kill every last one even if destroyed Germany. Whenever massacres have occurred before or since, they have been against real or potential enemies. The fact that Jews were patriotic Germans means the Holocaust was a totally different phenomenon than any other massacre. The fact that Hitler wanted every Jew killed for no reason except an irrational hatred that caused Germany great harm means that, too.
Conflating the Holocaust with other massacres is merely an attempted to mask it's uniqueness in human history.
In short, this is one of the VERY few times Robert Spencer is wrong.
Yonason,
You wrote that Jews were loyal to Germany. But in Mein Kampf Hitler accuses them of disloyalty .In fact Hitler specifically blames the Jews for Germany's defeat in WWI in Mein Kampf.You write that they were subdued. If your logic is correct then why does Hitler point to Jews as being in control of the economy, media and cultural life too ,in his opinion?It is clear that the people responsible for the Holocaust did not think at all like what you are alleging.In fact the evry opposite!
Please read thoroughly before making such statements about the Holocaust and Armenians. You are trying to insinuate that the Armenians deserved race extermination but the Jews did not. The selective attribution of the term genocide like what you are doing is a form of bigoted hatred.Very lame..
Coming from a Jew with experience in what genocide does to people and populations. Thank you.
Yonason,
You wrote that Jews were loyal to Germany. But in Mein Kampf Hitler accuses them of disloyalty .In fact Hitler specifically blames the Jews for Germany's defeat in WWI in Mein Kampf.You write that they were subdued. If your logic is correct then why does Hitler point to Jews as being in control of the economy, media and cultural life too ,in his opinion?It is clear that the people responsible for the Holocaust did not think at all like what you are alleging.In fact the very opposite!
Please read thoroughly before making such statements about the Holocaust and Armenians. You are trying to insinuate that the Armenians deserved race extermination but the Jews did not. The selective attribution of the term genocide like what you are doing is a form of bigoted hatred.Very lame..
Coming from a Jew with experience in what genocide does to people and populations. Thank you.
purplemarbles
I know very well what Hitler ACCUSES Jews of. But it's all false.
Turkey and Armenia were in a dispute over control of land. I don't know who was right and who was wrong, but they were mutual enemies. That doesn't excuse the Turks killing so many of them, but it is a different category of crime.
Many German Jews fought in WWI and some were even higly decorated. They WERE by and large patriots, and would have remained so if they had been treated as equals, in spite of what Hitler says to the contrary.
I suppose the world should in a sense be glad Hitler hated Jews, because if he hadn't we would probably all be speaking German now.
AND I DID NOT SAY, OR EVEN INSINUATE, ANYTHING ABOUT ARMENIANS "DESERVING" THE HORRIBLE THINGS THAT WERE DONE TO THEM. Just exactly what part of "massacre" leads you to such an idiotic conclusion?
Let's review:
Jews = German Patriots
Armenians = foreign enemy
Germany wanted total extermination of Jews
Turkey wanted to cripple the enemy beyond repair.
Neither are good, but what the Germans did, and tried to do, was based on pure irrational hatred while the Turks, always a cruel nation, did far more damage than was justified by the situaltion. Though superficially the same, they really are not.
A PROPAGANDA LESSON?
"After all, who today remembers the genocide of the Armenians?" -- R.S. quoting der Shickelgrubber
But Hitler spoke German, not English. So, I wondered what he said in German, and this is what I came up with.
"Wer spricht heute noch von den Armeniern?"
Which roughly means, . . .
"Who speaks today anything of the Armenians?"
(or, more loosely "Who remembers the Armaneans?")
So someone appears to have tampered with that quote, and inserted the term "genocide" into it, AFTER THE FACT. (. . . or REMOVED it?)
Here is the Armenian version . . .
"Wer redet heute noch von der Vernichtung
. . . . DARN IT! WHERE'S THE REST OF IT . . . .
See the difference in the wording?
The Armenian version uses terms associated with the Holocaust, while the probably original quote does not. So, which is the historically accurate one? I suspect it isn't the Armenian version, as we will see from the context in which it was said (see below). But then, the latter does convey the spin Armenians want to put on it. What's that called again? "FAKE BUT ACCURATE?"
Also, the context in which Hitler said that was prior to his invasion of Poland (in response to advisors who worried what the world response would be?), not directly in reference to Jews or the Holocaust. It was more like "I'll invade Poland. I'll win. The world will make a stink, but it will pass."
Could modern historians wanting to validate an Armenian "genocide" have modified the quote to bolster their cause? That certainly is more likely than Germans modifying it to protect the Turks.
We all do sloppy research at times, and, though it is not something I would expect from someone of the calabre of Rabert Spencer, he does it so rarely that I am willing to let it pass if it's corrected.
Of course, if he has a solidly realiable references .. . .? Because that's what it will take to convince me otherwise.
To the poster above :
Disloyalty is a common accusation my mass murderers. It so happens that the Sudanese Government today also accuses the Black Africans in Darfur of disloyalty to the central government. To them this is a justifiable reason for genocide by their Jindalee proxy thugs and genocidal butchers.
There is no excuse for genocide. Armenian babies and old men and women were summarily rounded up, humiliated and exterminated en mass through death marches into the desert. They were no threat were they?
Their only crime was their religion i.e. Christianity.
PURPLEMARBLES - 2nd thoughts
You say, ". . . in Mein Kampf Hitler accuses . . [Jews] . . of disloyalty .In fact Hitler specifically blames the Jews for Germany's defeat in WWI . . . If your logic is correct then why does Hitler point to Jews as being in control of the economy, media and cultural life too ,in his opinion?It is clear that the people responsible for the Holocaust did not think at all like what you are alleging.In fact the very opposite!"
So, you think Hitler's accusations were TRUE?!
My "logic" is that Hitler was irrational, and if you give credence to what he says you will be lead astray. As I said above, "Hitler wanted every Jew killed for no reason except an irrational hatred"
You say, "Please read thoroughly before making such statements about the Holocaust and Armenians."
Read what thoroughly? I did read what Robert said, and I disagreed with it because it whitewashes the enormous and obsessive commitment of time and resouces to enslave us in labor camps, and systematically exterminate those who weren't productive first and all the rest later -- as opposed to the Turks. who over-killed to weaken the enemy and drive it out of what they thought was their land. It was wrong, but it wasn't genocide. That is the way savages fight. Just look at Islam and how it spread, . . . and how they are trying to spread it yet further around the world it now.
Yonaton,
If you are an academc I can set you up with a very senior member of the IHGS . But if you are not then you will have to read it up yourself like everyone else.If you are a political Holocaust or Genocide denier then this is not the place for this discussion.
Ask Andrew Bostom yourself....Good luck in your quest.
Yonaton wrote :
"So, you think Hitler's accusations were TRUE?!"
No. But it goes toward motive for the crime(to borrow a legal phrase).The killers accused them of treason just as you accuse the Armenians-which I think is disgusting.
My dad is a Holocaust survivor from Janina , Greece . A Romaniote Jew -- for the record.
I just don't think this is the place for this if you are a denier. You have some really bizarre logic .Go ask an expert if you are sincere.
"Their only crime was their religion i.e. Christianity." -- purplemarbles
Their "crime" was living on land the Arabs want; as well as being Black, because the Arabs don't descriminate between Christian Blacks and Muslim Blacks. Arabs are racist.
Besides, they live in an oil rich region the Arabs want, so the Arabs are getting rid of them the only way they know how, mass murder. But that isn't the same as genocide. Though I guess if you didn't understand what I said above, you won't understand this, either.
You see, it's not that the Arabs want them dead. It's just that they happen to be occupying land that the Arabs want, and they have no problem killing for what they want. If there were no oil in the land, the Arabs would probably leave them alone, except to come looking for slaves which they still do.
So it's primarily racist ethnic cleansing of the land the Arabs covet. Killing Blacks is NOT the PRIME motive (but it does help that they see them as inferior), hence it is NOT genocide (even though the above author erroneously calls it that).
This is much like the Turks wanting the land of the Armenians. The Turks didn't go to kill them just because they were Armenian, but because they had something the Turks wanted and that was the only way the Turks knew of how to get and keep it.
purplemarbles
How can I be a "Holocaust denier" when I am asserting the the Holocaust was a unique crime, surpassing the others in it's evil? Since that was the trust of my argument, and you missed it, I would say it is you who needs to "read more carefully."
good night
As a Jew I am embarrassed by Foxman, as an American I am furious that the genocide against the Armenians is even an issue. It happened, period. Turks don't like it, to bad so sad. The Germans don't like it, to bad so sad. That being said, the world is as guilty of quiet then as it now in Darfur. A murmur or two, then nothing. The murder of Jews was met with a loud silence as were the "killing fields" and the massacres in Africa. It is so much easier to wring hands afterwards then to take action now.
As a Jew I am embarrassed by Foxman, as an American I am furious that the genocide against the Armenians is even an issue. It happened, period. Turks don't like it, to bad so sad. The Germans don't like it, to bad so sad. That being said, the world is as guilty of quiet then as it now in Darfur. A murmur or two, then nothing. The murder of Jews was met with a loud silence as were the "killing fields" and the massacres in Africa. It is so much easier to wring hands afterwards then to take action now.
According to dictionary.com, genocide is denoted as synonomous with massacre.
mas·sa·cre /ˈmæsəkər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mas-uh-ker] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -cred, -cring.
–noun 1. the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
—Synonyms 1, 2. carnage, extermination, butchery, genocide. 4. slay. See slaughter.
Yonason's position, as it were, is a failed attempt in semantical argumentum. On face value, it appears to differentiate the degree of the moral depravity between the historical Jewish and Armenian plights.
If I didn't know any better, which I believe I most certainly do, it also appears that yonason is using this semantical argument in an attempt to exonerate Foxman from his words and actions, or specifically in this case, his lack thereof.
Monk,
I was being sarcastic. "Turkey is our staunch ally" is what the powers-that-be keep telling the American public. Obviously, Turkey is not now nor has ever been our ally.
As for "Islam is Islam" this is what Turkey tells the world, baldly stating there is no such thing as "moderate" Islam, and that the notion of such is offensive to the Mohammedan psyche.
Sorry my sarcasm didn't translate well. I am most definitely NOT in favor of genocide. Only a madman (or woman) would be!
I just find it mind-boggling that it literally takes an act of Congress to recognize genocide (what morons!), and a Resolution to declare it as such. Worst, it seems like it takes an act of Congress to say "genocide is abhorrent" (what cowards!).
After Foxman defended and lobbied for arch-criminal fugitive Marc Rich I changed my mind about Foxman.Marc Rich was selling weapons to the Iranian Mullahs during the "hostage crisis" of 1979. He was aiding and abetting Israel's arch enemy and Foxman lobbied for this man.
To Elias Eloucard,
Once the Shah was overthrown the "death to America" and "Death to the Zionist enemy" mentality started. The Shah had banned anti-Semitism. The Iranians despised him for this.
Now, about Foxman, he is not typical of the majority of Jews in the United States. Most have universalistic principles and are humanists.They support the Armenians.In fact there is an intra-Judaic debate happening on the issue.
". . . it's not at all, "all false". Hitler feared the Jews because of Communism (which the Jews, basically, invented; Karl Marx" -- Elias Alucard
That's the common misconception, but the fact is that . . .
Even Hitler's symbols weren't original. (ibid)
"Hitler (and he was not alone in this; disliking Jews was very popular in Europe at the time, and Hitler used this) and many others throughout Europe, saw the Jews as a threat because of the revolution in Russia (of which the Jews played a very important role in). Hitler didn't want that to happen in Germany." -- Elias Alucard
That was how he spun it to play on the irrational Jew-hatred of Europeans, which is also much in evidence today. But as can be seen from John Ray's excellent material, Hitler was in essence just as much a socialist as the Marxists, except that he applied it somewhat differently. So, I repeat "It's all false," just like the Michael Moorian moonbat assertion that "Much like now in the U.S. the Jews were very influential in the media, and other high positions, and because of that, Hitler saw it as a threat." That crud is straight out of Arab and Leftist "Protocols" propaganda.
And what's that about Kosher slaughter being equivalent to animal cruelty?! Does he have any idea how bad non-Kosher slaughter is? Does he know that cruelty to animals is strictly forbidden in Jewish law? Probably not.
Elias Alucard has a lot more in common with Hitler, modern Leftists and the Arabs than he does with conservative Americans.
With friends like these, Robert, who needs enemies?
Abscedere wrote: "I was being sarcastic. "Turkey is our staunch ally" is what the powers-that-be keep telling the American public. Obviously, Turkey is not now nor has ever been our ally."
Thanks for the clarification.
EliasAlucard you wrote: "The reason why Pope Pius XII did not condemn Hitler, is because he was at the time, a very valuable ally against the Soviet Union and Communism in general; Communism was a very potential threat to all of Europe and Christendom. Say what you want about Hitler, I'm not defending his genocide on the Jews, but he was absolutely the right man for the job, as far as Communism goes, because he actually had the balls required to take on the entire Soviet Union before it was too late (i.e., before Soviet got nukes)."
Yes, I am aware of this justification that the Vatican saw Communism as the greater threat and the the lessor of the two evils. I understand in war, that there are often unlikely alliances and unfortunate alliances, e.g., the Allied -- Russian (Stalinist) alliance against the Third Reich.
Personally, I do not like allying with evil or with evil doers either politically or militarily, and I know that is an ideal. I did in the past ally politically with some unsavory sorts, I thought for a greater good. It came back to bite me later.
Nonetheless, it remains questionable to me that Communism was more of an evil than was Nazism. To the Vatican and to Pius it was. I'm not so sure.
PurpleMarbles
"My dad is a Holocaust survivor from Janina , Greece . A Romaniote Jew -- for the record."
Thanks.
Sorry, but I get carried away sometimes.
The world is trying to conceal it's hatred of Jews by pretending that they are no different. But we are. We are the world's punching bag. And the fact that the world today vilifies Israel for defending itself, and wants to give our killers a state out of the heart of our Biblical heartland so they can have more success, proves it.
But I've ranted enough.
Oh, and yes, "awake," my arguments regarding the use of the term "genocide" are semantic, and no, the distinction between systematically gathering, methodically exterminating, and diligently recording their progress was not on the same degree of evil as the others. It was profoundly more so, even as horrible as THEY were.
And for those who are attacking me based on Abe Foxman's other screwy ideas (some of which are almost as looney as Alias Alucard's) , that is why I said that "in this case" he was closer to the truth than Spencer. Did you all miss "I don't want to defend everything Mr. Foxman says, does, or his manner of doing, but in this case he is closer to the mark than Mr. Spencer."
You guys didn't see that? Didn't care? Don't understand it?
It's really a shock to see that some of you "think," and write, like Lefties. It's like I'm reading DailyKos or CommonDreams -- pretty sickening.
And I did NOT say that what the Turks did to the Armenians wasn't evil. It was. It just shouldn't be called "genocide," in my opinion, even though the de-judaized Abe-Foxman-like Jew who coined that term in 1944 (in response to what Nazis did to Jews) thought otherwise.
--------------------------------------
"it remains questionable to me that Communism was more of an evil than was Nazism. " -- Monk
Nazism was worse. (Now watch the mad rush to criticize me for "defending" Communism)
--------------------------------------
O.k., enough of punching the tarbaby for today. Bye.
Monk - Like I said, it was in the ADL newsletter c. 1989. I only remember the date because I recall where I lived when I was getting samples of that newsletter. Maybe the ADL has an archive, or would even respond to an inquiry about whether Foxman ever held, or still holds, this view. I am not making it up.
C.R., I've got a copy of ADL's "The Religious Right: The Assault on Tolerance & Pluralism in America." It's a paperback publication and in my mind a very misguided one.
The authors attack some of whom I consider to be our most solid Christian allies. I say our. I mean Israel's. ADL should stick to anti-Semitism, racism and other forms of causeless hatred, leaving the moral issues to Orthodox rabbis. The Torah condemns the shedding of innocent blood plain and simple. Abortion is wrong. Jihadist suicide bombings are wrong; evil.
Beyond that, Mr. Foxman would do well in my opinion, not advocating for the expulsion of Jews from historic Israel as he did in 2005:
http://web.israelinsider.com/Views/6000.htm
Nor should he advocate for the establishment of a a 23rd Muslim jihadist state in the strategic mountains of Israel and in Gaza, east Jerusalem, etc., as envisioned by George W. Bush.
Mr. Foxman is fine when he sticks to issues of anti-Semitism and racism, expect in this instance with the Armenian Genocide wherein he ducked. On moral issues like abortion, homosexual marriage, the land of Israel, jihad, Islam, etc., I would prefer Mr. Foxman not speak for the Jews.
EliasAlucard wrote: "They are both outdated, unnecessarily cruel methods of slaughtering animals and something mankind should put aside and leave it in the past."
I am a Jew who is not entirely certain ritual slaughter is more humane. As a struggling vegetarian, I am not overly excited about any form of slaughter though I understand eating beef is not going to go away soon.
EliasAlucard: "Oh and, by the way, aren't you going to be ignorant now and state out of nowhere that Hitler was a Catholic, like you usually do? I'm just waiting for you to repeat such a disingenuous lie."
Hitler may not have been a 'practicing' Catholic but he was a Catholic in good standing. Many high-ranking Nazis were communion-receiving Catholics, sadly. Many Catholic Bishops were dedicated Nazis. None were excommunicated by the pope. I say this as a man who has some fine pro-life Catholic friends. One of my closest Catholic friends is a convert from George W.'s and Laura's liberal church, the Methodist church, and very active in our pro-life movement. Many Catholics, I find are not entirely well-educated in the history of Vatican-Jewish relations; relations between Catholics and Jews, over the centuries, including the twentieth century and there is much apologetics out there in my opinion. Same holds true with Protestantism, Martin Luther, "The Jews and Their Lies," etc.
EliasAlucard: Of course Communism was ten times more evil than Nazism ever was. I mean, how many lives went to waste because of Communism? Over 30 million lives in the Soviet Union alone, and that's only counting the 20th century. But hey, that's no genocide either, because they weren't Jewish lives after all. Anyone who says that Communism was a "lesser evil" than Nazism, has virtually no historical or ideological understanding of either of these two Socialist ideologies.">>>>
I believe, as a state, Russia and her leaders have done some mighty evil things and continue to do some mighty evil things such as help Iran obtain nuclear capability. Russians have massively armed the Muslim-Arabs in their wars against the Jews. You seem to be saying Communism as an ideology is more evil than Nazism. I don't buy it. Communism is a failed ideology, economic and otherwise and I would not wish to live under a Communist regime but as a Jew, I might live under Communism. As a Jew I'd be murdered under Nazism. Why would I agree with you, Communism is more evil than Nazism?
EliasAlucard: "If there's any group of people in the world that should have empathy and sympathise with the Armenians in this, and support them, it should be Jews."
I do. What more do you want from me?
EliasAlucard: "But for some reason, most Jews aren't doing that. Why?"
You've not been paying close attention. Many Jews have come out against the ADL's policy of neutrality or whatever it is. It caused Foxman to fire a high ranking ADL official in Boston and due to the outcry from Jewish leaders, to re-hire the man.
EliasAlucard: "The fact that there are Jews — and politically influential Jews like Foxman — who refuse to recognize the Armenian genocide, is only causing people who in actually have nothing against Jews, and perhaps even like Jews, to slowly but surely, begin to hate Jews...Is that so difficult to understand, that Foxman is hurting your people? Any Jew who agrees with Foxman on this, is a hypocritical idiot and has lost all credibility.."
Oh this is so much nonsense. Foxman does not speak for the Jews. Your rationale reminds me of a caller on the radio here in the south a few years back during some riots in L.A. He said something to the effect, 'I used to like Negroes but these people are beginning to turn me against the Negroes; to hate the Negroes'.
I say, once a bigot, always a bigot. A bigot does not need an excuse to hate.
EliasAlucard: "Oh and by the way, this Foxman guy, is the same dude that was breaking Mel Gibson's balls over the Passion of the Christ. Perhaps he should fire himself from his job, since he is not improving relations between Jews and Christians? I mean, the guy is basically a moron and a shame for all the good Jews out there."
This is one of the very few times in my life I was on Foxman's side. Turns out Foxman was vindicated. Mel Gibson and his father Hutton are certified Jew-haters. As the saying goes: "In Vino Veritas" [In wine there is truth].
ALIAS ALUCARD
. . . says, . . .
"I am an Assyrian and I have relatives who were killed in that genocide, for completely no reason. They were told to convert to Islam, if not, leave or die."
I'm glad they were able to . . . (escape?), but . . .
1. It was not for "completely no reason," as he himself says, "convert to Islam, if not, leave or die.".
2. The only "option" given to Jews was, DIE!.
THAT is the difference I am trying to get through the boney protrusions on top of the necks of all too many here.
Oh, and forced conversions is NOT a Turkish thing. The Turks didn't run around converting people, so that could NOT have been a program of the Turkish government. Talk about shooting oneself in the foot. That's #2. And he's accusing me of bull____?
Now, on to the subject of the "Armenian Genocide" which I prefer to call the "Armenian Massacre," NOT to minimize it, but merely to indicate that it is a different kind of attrocity, not that anyone here will actually admit I said it was an attrocity.
Now, consider . . .
Auschwitz,
Belzec,
Chelmno,
Majdanek,
Sobibor,
T.II.,
Bergen-Belsen,
Buchenwald,
Dachau,
Sachsenhausen,
Treblinka,
Theresienstadt.
What were the names of some of the concentration camps Turkey maintained? And were can I get independent information on the systematic extermination of Armenians by Turks?
If I am going to be informed about this I need to know. Please supply corroberation from independent agencies, not partisan Armenian sites like those who, as I showed above, modify off-the-cuff quotations by Hitler and present them as "evidence."
Ball is in your court. Play it, or forfeit.
CORRECTION, plus
Ataturk didn't make Turkey secular until the early 1920's, so I suppose it is possible the Ottomans could have indulged in forced conversions of Armenians, even though they didn't do that to others who were permitted to live as dhimmis.
But it would be nice to have facts with solid references.
Also, there were mass exterminations of Jews in the past. LOTS of them, but only one could be called an attempted Genocide. That was when Haman (of Purim fame) wanted, as his ideological descendent, Hitler, to eliminate us all. But, even though they killed us because we were Jews, that doesn't make it genocide, except by the very broad definition of the term.
A word that means everything means nothing. So why make a special word for phenomena for which words already exist? It makes no sense.
I am NOT trying to deny the Turkish . . . (ethnic cleansing?) . . . oppression of Armenians. All I am saying is that it was NOT on a par with the Holocaust.
IF I WAIT FOR YOU PEOPLE TO GIVE ME REFERENCES . . .
I guess I have to do everything myself.
O.k., it apparently was a Jihad. (What does one expect from Muslims, anyway?)
But killing some, or even most of a population, and leaving some, as utterly attrocious as that is, is not the same as killing every last person.
As to using the term "genocide," I don't like to appaly it to other instances because it was originally coined based on what the Nazis did to Jews. But, since the Jew who coined the term chose to apply his own definition to other cases, I am technically on weak ground to press my case.
Nevertheless, as I said above, the other cases he applied it to were not unique, and other terms were already available to discribe them. So, why coin a new term for a special case, and then (mis)apply it to general subcategories which are already covered?
The whole point of broadening the definition of "genocide" to include the suffering of others is to minimize the crimes of the world against Jews, and so naturally a secular Jew who thought he could buy acceptence by doing so wouldn't hesitate to.
The worldwide jihad is not only for worldwide conquest. It's primary purpose is to destroy Israel and Jews. Islam is attacking the West in order to arouse it to assist in the destruction of Israel, it's real primary objective, with world domination a natural outcome.
By diluting the significance of the Holocaust, Robert Spencer unwittingly furthers the Islamist's cause he thinks he is fighting, and in doing so has just lost to them.
It's a subtle point that I fear is probably lost on most of you, but it's worth stating just in case someone out there is paying attention.
Jews were told to leave. In fact, Hitler even had the Madagascar plan. Yes, his intention was not to kill Jews, but to get rid of Jews by deporting them to Madagascar.
That was BEFORE the Holocaust began. Once it was underway, there was no escape, if they caught us. And there was no "genocide" until the "final solution" was initiated.
Besides, we COULDN'T leave because there was nowhere to go, BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD TAKE US!" Which is why the world wants to be able to say the Holocaust wasn't unique and other things were "genocide," because otherwise they will have to admit their complicity in it.
"1. That's not an option. Forced conversion, is not an option for an Assyrian. . . ."
Fine, but what about leaving? Where they able to? Alias' family survived, so I assume they got away, somehow. And if you chose not to convert, that's still a "choice," though not much of one, admittedly. But it isn't "genocide" which should be reserved for destroying an entire people just for who you they are, regardless of what they believe.
Here's an interesting bit about Vahkan Dadurian the "documentor" of the Armenian "genocide."
SELECTIVE KILLING IS NOT A HOLOCAUST. If he lived among them, and they knew he was Armenian, and he survived, that is NOT the same as what Hitler did! Not even close!
Another look at the Armenian case against the Turks from a seemingly reliable source.
There may have been much evil, there may have been massacres of large segments of the population. But there was no "Holocaust" and no "genocide."
There is only one pro-genocide "authority" I can find, i.e., Vahkan Dadurian, and since his "scholarship" is brought into question by reputable sources, it seems the evidence isn't as solid as it should be.; certainly nowhere near the well documented events of the Natzi horror.
In fact, combining Dadurian's admissions and other known facts, his other claims don't seem to add up.
Here's another one . . . "I swear, if this case was the other way around, and if Jews were in the role of Armenians, you, hypocrite as you are, would've claimed that it was in fact a genocide on Jews by the Turks."As I said above, that despite all the pogroms, and millions of Jews murdered (over a million in WWI alone) there were only 2 "holocaust" attempts, 2 genocides. The one planned by Haman, which failed, Thank G-D, and the one perpetrated by Hitler, Y"SH. Only those two qualify, the rest are pogroms and massacres. Evil yes, genocide, no. And your Armenian massacre falls into that category, too, so . . .
Bottom line, as far as I am aware at this point the Armenians suffered a LOT, much at the hands of the Turks, and that's terrible, but it was not a Holocaust and it should not be called genocide.
Period!
THREATS AND INTIMIDATION . . .
"See, you obviously, arrogant as you are, think the world revolves around Jews. You should knock that off. It only makes other non-Jewish groups to like you less, and it pisses people off."
"If all Jews are like you, I seriously hope everyone forgets the Holocaust. I seriously mean that. You deserve no attention. Your arrogance is beyond shame. You deserve ridicule for this"
. . . are the last resort of thugs and bullies.
So, I should agree with you about what to call the horrors Armenians went through, OR ELSE?!
And you criticize the Turks?! You are no better than you accuse them of being.
With all the posters like you here, it’s no wonder Spencer is getting accused of incitement.
COMMONSENSE
I hope you don't mind my, "making trouble?"
Regards
"Why are you being a troll by calling me "Alias"?" -- Elias
Valid complaint. Typo I didn't catch. I appologize for that one. (I think that was the only time?)
Also, I seem to have also misspelled Vahakn Dadrian as Vahkan Dadurian, btw.
"We were there BEFORE the Turks invaded the Middle East. It's our ancestral homeland, and you know it." -- Elias
Actually, I don't "know it" but unless I hear differently I'll take your word for that.
HITLER BEGAN PERSECUTING JEWS BY BANNING KOSHER SLAUGHTER
I don't know anything about Halal, nor do I have any reason to.
But as to Kosher slaughter, No Problem.
Compare that with the standard non-Kosher method, in which the animal is render un-, or semi-conscious prior to bleeding.
Here is one technique . . .
Kosher slaughter is AT LEAST as humane as any other method, but that doesn’t stop the ignorant and hateful from lying about it.
TURKS AREN'T THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE "WARTS"
Armenians have a few skeletons in their closet, too.
Oh what a sorry spectacle the ADL has become.
During WW2 their files on the NAZI supporters in the US was so good the US government used it in their espionage fight. The ADL was essentially the only US group keeping tabs on Hitlers allies in the US. The US gov't had no clue.
You could see the writing on the wall when the ADL put up large adverts in support of SS recruiter Izetbegovich during the Bosnian war.
Let's get this straight.
They had a picture of some Bosnian refugees with the sentence " we said never again we meant it" or something similar. They were making an obvious point of parralleling the Bosnian war - total war dead on ALL sides, military and civilian 100,000 - with the Holocaust - approx. 6,000,000 Jews murdered.
Not only were the ADL taking moral equivalence to new and distusting heights they were also on the same side as the Iranian VEVAK and the Muslim Brotherhood - Mujahideen . The Israelis were, of course, firm allies of the Bosnian Serbs.
And now the ADL can't bring itself to condemn Turkey.
As I said what a sad pathetic joke a once great institution has become.
The ADL is not some sort of representative organization whose leadership we get to vote on. The only people the ADL represents are the people foolish enough to be members and donate money to it. Foxman's views on any issue are usually unpredictable and he reverses himself half the time, as he did this time. Non-Jews and the media pay much more attention to the ADL than Jews do. The ADL has no influence, it has a brand.
The Holocaust and the massacres of the Armenians are not the same thing at all but the debate itself is mostly pointless. The Jews had suffered comparable massacres in the centuries before WW2.
Finally if you're going to ban Kosher and Hallal on the grounds of animal cruelty, you should simply be consistent and go vegan. I don't see that sticking an electric prod in a cow's rectum is particularly humane and it's hypocritical to argue that your method of killing and eating animals is moral while ours isn't. If you want to be humane, don't eat animals in the first place or just go back to chowing down on your burger.
IN PERSPECTIVE
On further investigation, there are even more things that don’t make sense, like . . .
(1) Why would a country (Turkey), which helped rescue Jews in WWII, commit genocide on Armenians in WWI?
And . . .
(2) How could a country (Armenia), which ethnically cleansed it’s Muslims, apparently PRIOR to what seems was the Turkish response to that, in WWI, expect us to consider it to be the only “victim”? (see, also, here)
Could it be what the Armenians did to the Muslims that Hitler was referring to when he said, "Who speaks any more about the Armenians?" referring to what they did to Muslims, rather than what the Turks did to them? That would make more sense, for a sociopath to speak from the perspective of the perpetrator rather than the victim. Is that why Armenians seem to misquote Hitler (see my "A PROPAGANDA LESSON?", above), to mask the ambiguity of the original?
Does anyone else have a problem adding this up? If not, you should be asking yourselves, “Why not?”
This fellow seems to be able to do the math.
Yonason and SultanKnish,
Obviously you're both Turkish Jews, since no other type of Jew that I've ever encountered would lie so blatantly and vehemently on behalf of those who commit Genocide.
Both of you are obviously completely ignorant on the historigraphy of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian people during the 19th and early 20th centuries. If you did, you would realize that there was no "Armenia" during either of those centuries. You would know that Armenian people lived in both the Ottoman Empire and its neighbor and enemy the Russian Empire. You would know that in each of those empires, Armenians were loyal to their country. You would know that Ottoman Armenians were so loyal to their country, that they were coined by Turks as the "Loyal Millet". You would know that the Turkish authorities did not just exterminate those few "revolutionary" Armenians that lived in the Ottoman Empire, but exterminated all Armenians from one end of the empire to the other, not excepting women, children or elderly. You would know that the Armenians lived on that land from which they were cleansed for almost 3 millenia. Thus, you (Yonason) would know that calling Armenians "foreign invaders" as you have done, is the apex of ignorance. You would know that during WWI, the Armenian population of Anatolia within 3 years went from roughlyl 2 million to roughly 200,000. You would know that Anatolia is the historic land on which Armenians had always lived, and that in a matter of 3 years, that land was virtually cleansed of all traces of Armenians. Thus, if you had any knowledge of this history whatsoever, you would know how ridiculous it is for you to argue that the Armenian Genocide is not comparable to the Holocaust. Not only that, but you would know that reknowned Holocaust scholars have, indeed, made such comparisons. Read Robert Melson's book that does just that. Until then, I suggest you stop making fools of yourselves by spewing the traditional Turkish revisionist lies, none of which are new or have any credibility.
Yonason and SultanKnish,
Obviously you're both Turkish Jews, since no other type of Jew that I've ever encountered would lie so blatantly and vehemently on behalf of those who commit Genocide.
Both of you are obviously completely ignorant on the historigraphy of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian people during the 19th and early 20th centuries. If you had done any studying on the subject, you would realize that there was no "Armenia" during either of those centuries. You would know that Armenian people lived in both the Ottoman Empire and its neighbor and enemy the Russian Empire. You would know that in each of those empires, Armenians were loyal to their country. You would know that Ottoman Armenians were so loyal to their country, that they were coined by Turks as the "Loyal Millet". You would know that the Turkish authorities did not just exterminate those few "revolutionary" Armenians that lived in the Ottoman Empire, but exterminated all Armenians from one end of the empire to the other, not excepting women, children or elderly. You would know that the Armenians lived on that land from which they were cleansed for almost 3 millenia. Thus, you (Yonason) would know that calling Armenians "foreign invaders" as you have done, is the apex of ignorance. You would know that during WWI, the Armenian population of Anatolia within 3 years went from roughlyl 2 million to roughly 200,000. You would know that Anatolia is the historic land on which Armenians had always lived, and that in a matter of 3 years, that land was virtually cleansed of all traces of Armenians. Thus, if you had any knowledge of this history whatsoever, you would know how ridiculous it is for you to argue that the Armenian Genocide is not comparable to the Holocaust. Not only that, but you would know that reknowned Holocaust scholars have, indeed, made such comparisons. Read Robert Melson's book that does just that. Until then, I suggest you stop making fools of yourselves by spewing the traditional Turkish revisionist lies, none of which are new or have any credibility.
Yonason and SultanKnish,
Obviously you're both Turkish Jews, since no other type of Jew that I've ever encountered would lie so blatantly and vehemently on behalf of those who commit Genocide.
Both of you are obviously completely ignorant on the historigraphy of the Ottoman Empire and the Armenian people during the 19th and early 20th centuries. If you had done any studying on the subject, you would realize that there was no "Armenia" during either of those centuries. You would know that Armenian people lived in both the Ottoman Empire and its neighbor and enemy the Russian Empire. You would know that in each of those empires, Armenians were loyal to their country. You would know that Ottoman Armenians were so loyal to their country, that they were coined by Turks as the "Loyal Millet". You would know that the Turkish authorities did not just exterminate those few "revolutionary" Armenians that lived in the Ottoman Empire, but exterminated all Armenians from one end of the empire to the other, not excepting women, children or elderly. You would know that the Armenians lived on that land from which they were cleansed for almost 3 millenia. Thus, you (Yonason) would know that calling Armenians "foreign invaders" as you have done, is the apex of ignorance. You would know that during WWI, the Armenian population of Anatolia within 3 years went from roughlyl 2 million to roughly 200,000. You would know that Anatolia is the historic land on which Armenians had always lived, and that in a matter of 3 years, that land was virtually cleansed of all traces of Armenians. Thus, if you had any knowledge of this history whatsoever, you would know how ridiculous it is for you to argue that the Armenian Genocide is not comparable to the Holocaust. Not only that, but you would know that reknowned Holocaust scholars have, indeed, made such comparisons. Read Robert Melson's book that does just that. Until then, I suggest you stop making fools of yourselves by spewing the traditional Turkish revisionist lies, none of which are new or have any credibility.
MINOR CORRECTION
The link in . . .
"This fellow seems to be able to do the math." . . .
. . . was to the comments section of the article I wanted to reference. Here's what it should have been . . .
"This fellow seems to be able to do the math.".
I do hope Robert Spencer rethinks his position.
Also, to "phantom" . . .
All careful thoughtful people have to do is read my posts with references vs your, and others') intimidating accusations -- including the false accusation of my being a "Turkish Jew" (I wish I were, because that would give me even more crediblity) -- and they will see that my position is the more rational one, and yours is that of the thug who is more interrested in bullying others into agreement rather than reasoning with them.
As to Sultan's Yichus, I have no idea, nor does it matter, either. What matters are facts, not emotional tirades.
GRASPING AT STRAWS
See here for debunking of the silly "loyal millet" slogan.
Where are the death camps? Where are the crematoria? Where are the propagandists? Where are the decades of hate in the schools?
They have flimsy evidence for "genocide," so they use conspiricy theorist techniques of warping anything that could lend a vague impression, then they blow it so out of proportion it's ridiculous.
Yes there was "ethnic cleansing," by both Turk and Armenian, but a Turkish "genocide" of Armenians, NO!
So far you haven't made a single point that debunks the scholarship of the vast majority of Genocide and Holocaust scholars who have concluded it was a Genocide. Instead you've cited Gunter Lewy, who also refutes the Genocide of Native Americans and of the Roma people during the Holocaust. And most recently, you cited a website that is the equivalent of Stormfront, and you think that somehow gives your old and tired arguments credibility. FYI, it does the exact opposite. If you had any credibility left after post after post from the Turkish Genocide Denial playbook, it's all gone now.
With respect to whether or not this was Genocide an 8th grader has enough common sense to piece together the genocidal intent knowing nothing more than the following 7 facts, all of which have been undisputably proven beyond reasonable doubt, and no historians, not even the Turkish ones dispute them:
1. Approximately 300 Armenian intelligencia and community leaders were rounded up in Istanbul on April 24, 1915, and killed. No trials, no jail, no telephone call, just death.
2. Until 1915, Anatolia/Asia Minor was the home of more than half the world's Armenian population who had lived on those lands for not just a few generations, but more than 2 1/2 millenia.
3. By 1923, there were almost no Armenians at all left in Anatolia, and virtually the only Armenians left living within the new Republic of Turkey were about 100,000 in Istanbul.
4. The Young Turks ordered the deportations, not just of revolutionary or rebellious Armenians, but all Armenians including women, children and elderly.
5. The Young Turks first eliminated most of the Armenian men by putting them in labor battalions and then killing those ones who survived the labor battalions or just killing them right away. Thus, most of the men were eliminated even before the deportations.
6. The "deportees" were deported mostly on foot for hundreds of miles with little food, water or shelter, through circuitous routes that made no sense unless the intent was exhausting them to death.
7. These people were deported to locations in the desserts of present-day Syria where there was nothing to sustain life, and no provisions had been made to sustain their life once they got there (no food, no clean water, no shelter, no clothing).
Full stop.
I believe that's all you need to know in order to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the Young Turks' knew or should have known that their actions would lead to the extermination of the Armenian population of Anatolia. Either that, or you have to conclude that the Young Turk leaders, many of whom became the founders of the Republic of Turkey, were so utterly stupid and incompetent that they could not foresee that their actions would lead to the results that we see in 1923, the elimination of virtually the entire Armenian population of Anatolia.
This is why Morgenthau said, "It is absurd for the Turkish Government to assert that it ever seriously intended to "deport the Armenians to new homes"; the treatment which was given the convoys clearly shows that extermination was the real purpose of Enver and Talaat."
"the vast majority of Genocide and Holocaust scholars" -- phantom
What "scholars?"
If there is a "majority" of a "vast number," then surely you can come up with a few names? I keep asking you guys who these "scholars" are, and for valid references to the sources of your information. You still haven't done that.
You expect me to take your word when the most valid refeneces I can find refute you? I've given refs for what I have. Where are yours?
"(5) The Young Turks first eliminated most of the Armenian men by putting them in labor battalions and then killing those ones who survived the labor battalions or just killing them right away. Thus, most of the men were eliminated even before the deportations." -- phantom
As I pointed out above, Turkey put the perpetrators of that crime on trial, found them guilty and executed them. I.E., IT WAS DONE BY ROGUE ELEMENTS NOT CARRYING OUT GOVERNMENT POLICY! I.e., NOT genocide.
Besides, there are any number of people who have suffered so, including Jews any number of times throughout our history. Only two times that I can think of can it be legitimately called genocide, the rest being massacres. Same with what the Turks did to the Armenians (and what the Armenians themselves did to the Muslims before that).
So, yes I have debunked using the term "genocide" for what happend to the Armenians, or at least my sources have.
If anything, from what I am reading it seems that what the Armenians did even worse to the Ottoman Muslims, which precipitated Turkey's drastic measures. And no one is calling that "genocide."
Better be careful, or your strategy could come back to haunt you if what you did to Muslims before really was worse.
It seems the Armenians are seeking a political advantage over Turkey, and for that reason it is necessary to have it certified by the term "genocide" so they can get "special victimhood status." If so, then that's a cynical use of the deaths of their own citizens that does nothing to honor their memory. If anything, it cheapens it.
As a Jew, what's my business in this?
IT SHOULDN'T BE ANY. This is between Armenia and Turkey.
But manipulative Armenians want to get Jews to give their stamp of approval to this nonsense. I find that offensive and underhanded, and that is why I am responding to this. You wanted Jewish opinion, you got it, but you don't like it so you get abusive. That alone say a LOT about the "legitimacy" of your claim.
You want to intimidate us into using our reputation to give credibility to your claim, and you wonder why some of us get upset?
Have you heard the one about the fellow who found a piece of quartz, took it to be appraised and then blamed the diamond merchant for it being worthless?
I got the refs below from this website (about half way down).
If they paint a true picture, then it certainly complicates matters. If the Turks saw all Armenians as the enemy because they acted like an enemy, then this is very different from the case of Jews who were not only not fighting against Germany, but who had fought for it in WWI.
**************************************************
"...ARMENIAN VOLUNTEER UNITS SERVED IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY, AND THERE WAS AGITATION FOR A HOMELAND IN AND AROUND THE ANATOLIAN CITY OF VAN..."
WILLIAM L. CLEVELAND, A HISTORY OF THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST, 1994, PP.142
"...ARMENIAN VOLUNTEERS CERTAINLY STARTED KILLING MOSLEM CIVILIANS AS SOON AS RUSSIAN TROOPS CROSSED THE OTTOMAN FRONTIER..."
DAVID NICOLLE, PH.D, THE OTTOMAN ARMY 1914-18, 1996, PP. 38
"... MOREOVER, THROUGHOUT EASTERN ANATOLIA THE TURKS WERE THREATENED BY THE INSURRECTION OF THEIR EMBITTERED ARMENIAN SUBJECTS, WHO DISRUPTED COMMUNICATIONS AND FORMED VOLUNTEER GROUPS TO HELP THE RUSSIANS. OTHERS JOINED THE RUSSIAN ARMENIAN FORCES...",
PETER MANSFIELD, A HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST, 1991, PP. 150
"...A FEW THOUSAND ARMENIANS JOINED THE RUSSIAN ARMY; THERE WERE ARMENIAN DESERTIONS FROM THE OTTOMAN ARMY AND GUERILLA ACTIVITY BEHIND THE OTTOMAN LINES...",
ERIK J. ZURCHER, TURKEY, A MODERN HISTORY, 1993, PP. 120
************************************************
It's hard to argue they were just passive "victims" when they did their share of killing.
And stop citing Morganthau. His deliberately fabricated anti-German propaganda has proven him to be an unreliable source of historical fact. Also, since the Ottomans were Germany's ally in WWI, that would make it very likely that Morganthau would lie about them, as well.
"Is it just me, or is yonason basically saying there was no Armenian genocide?" -- Elias Alucard
It's you.
You're dishonesty, and sleezy deliberate misreading of what I say speaks volumes about your cause.
I will let Guenter Lewy give the 'long answer' to your deceptive attempt to gain crediblity by casting me as a "denier."
But they cannot prove it conclusively, so they wage a campaign of getting others unfamiliar with the circumstances to respond to emotional appeals rather than have a knowledgable body properly, deliberate and carefully examine the facts to render a trustworthy verdict.
I can neither deny nor affirm it, because I don't have enough information, and apparently neither do you, to assert that the required INTENT was there. What you need are not a few isolated mis- or madeup-quotes, or the propaganda of Morgenthau or others like him.
With the Holocaust we have tons of documentation by the Nazis and others that spans decades and make it an open and shut case. With the Armenians, like with so many others suffered as much throughout history, we cannot say because we just do not know for sure.
Prove to me "INTENT" and I will acknowledge it as genocide. Till then, all I OR YOU can TRUTHFULLY say is that it was a tremendously awful consequence of war.