Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Apr '15 15:44
    For seventh year in a row, no mention of Armenian 'genocide'

    By Louis Jacobson on Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 3:38 p.m.


    On this promise, President Barack Obama is now batting zero for seven.

    During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Obama said, "Two years ago, I criticized the secretary of state for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term 'genocide' to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. … As president I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."

    We first rated this a Promise Broken six years ago, but after a reader noted that we hadn't updated our ruling since 2010 -- and that this year is the centennial of the mass killings -- we decided it was worth doing an update.

    As we've noted before, the Armenian genocide was carried out by the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923, and resulted in the deaths of 1.5 million people. The Armenian-American community calls it a "genocide," as do other world leaders, including Pope Francis. Turkey is the primary successor nation to the Ottoman Empire.

    But that term has long been controversial in Turkey, where leaders have resisted the label "genocide." Indeed, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu told CNN on the eve of the centennial that "we cannot define what happened in 1915 as a genocide."

    There's a widespread belief that presidents from both parties have avoided the use of the word because they don't want to upset Turkey -- a geopolitically significant ally of the United States and a key member of the NATO military alliance.

    On April 23, 2015, Obama released a statement on Armenian Remembrance Day. And as he has in the past, he used phrases such as "mass atrocity" and "terrible carnage," but he did not use the word "genocide." Here are excerpts:

    "Beginning in 1915, the Armenian people of the Ottoman Empire were deported, massacred, and marched to their deaths. Their culture and heritage in their ancient homeland were erased. Amid horrific violence that saw suffering on all sides, one and a half million Armenians perished. ...

    "This centennial is a solemn moment. It calls on us to reflect on the importance of historical remembrance, and the difficult but necessary work of reckoning with the past. I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view has not changed. A full, frank, and just acknowledgement of the facts is in all our interests. Peoples and nations grow stronger, and build a foundation for a more just and tolerant future, by acknowledging and reckoning with painful elements of the past. …

    "On this solemn centennial, we stand with the Armenian people in remembering that which was lost. We pledge that those who suffered will not be forgotten. And we commit ourselves to learn from this painful legacy, so that future generations may not repeat it."

    Armenian-American advocates expressed disappointment. "President Obama's surrender to Turkey represents a national disgrace. It is, very simply, a betrayal of truth, a betrayal of trust," said Ken Hachikian, the chairman of the Armenian National Committee of America, according to CNN.

    CNN quoted an "administration official" saying, "We know and respect that there are some who are hoping to hear different language this year. We understand their perspective, even as we believe that the approach we have taken in previous years remains the right one -- both for acknowledging the past, and for our ability to work with regional partners to save lives in the present."

    We rate this -- again -- a Promise Broken.
  2. 25 Apr '15 15:45 / 3 edits
    The inability of a sitting president in the US to say that Christians in Armenia endured the fist mass genocide of the 20th century is no different than sitting presidents in Iran who refuse to say the same about the Holocaust.

    They both know the historical reality of the situation, but for political reasons, refuse to embrace the truth.
  3. 25 Apr '15 16:32 / 1 edit
    In “Audacity of Hope” Obama writes: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of “The Audacity of Hope

    Well, I guess he can keep some promises. Obama is like Ted Cruz saying he will stand by Israel no matter what

    The truth be damned.
  4. 25 Apr '15 17:04
    Originally posted by whodey
    In “Audacity of Hope” Obama writes: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” The quote comes from page 261 of the paperback edition of “The Audacity of Hope

    Well, I guess he can keep some promises. Obama is like Ted Cruz saying he will stand by Israel no matter what

    The truth be damned.
    Do any liberals care? Obama is no different than any leftist you can find on this site when it comes to Muslims.
  5. 25 Apr '15 21:26
    Originally posted by whodey
    For seventh year in a row, no mention of Armenian 'genocide'

    By Louis Jacobson on Friday, April 24th, 2015 at 3:38 p.m.


    On this promise, President Barack Obama is now batting zero for seven.

    During his first presidential campaign in 2008, Obama said, "Two years ago, I criticized the secretary of state for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, ...[text shortened]... h regional partners to save lives in the present."

    We rate this -- again -- a Promise Broken.
    yes, it is sickening. the genocide of the armenian people.


    the subject you are proposing now is a different kind of sickening. it is called politics. something all heads of state do, not just obama. yes he did promise to call it a genocide. he also promised to close guantanamo bay. once in office, he found that taking the moral high ground is a luxury few seem to afford today.



    avoiding words that might upset turkey is the least of evils. turkey of today isn't the ottoman empire of 1915. saudi arabia is trampling on human rights right now. no head of state says anything about that either
  6. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    26 Apr '15 06:30 / 2 edits
    The Armenians (Eastern Orthodox) sided with the allies (the Russians in this case) and the Ottomans fought against them and tried to remove the threat. Yes, there were mass deportations and lots of people died in these. Yes, there were attrocities against civilians. However, whether it was genocide or just plain brutish behaviour (that many armies at all times have displayed) is debatable.

    Personally I would call it a genocide.
    Now, if Turkey was to do the same, they'd be sued for compensation, which is complete madness. It was a 100 years ago, it was a different nation and if I was a Turk now, I wouldn't want my tax money wasted because of geo-political cruelness that even my grandparents are too young to remember.

    What Turkey should do (although I don't if it's possible) is state that they are not responsible (and never will be) for the Ottoman genocide of the Armanians.
    Everyone will be happy that it's finally labled....

    Except, maybe, the 1.500.000 people who died back then.
  7. 26 Apr '15 10:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    The inability of a sitting president in the US to say that Christians in Armenia endured the fist mass genocide of the 20th century is no different than sitting presidents in Iran who refuse to say the same about the Holocaust.

    They both know the historical reality of the situation, but for political reasons, refuse to embrace the truth.
    Why is the religion of the victims of the Armenian genocide relevant here?
  8. 26 Apr '15 10:30
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why is the religion of the victims of the Armenian genocide relevant here?
    The Muslim Turks were afraid that the Christian Armenians would side with the Allies.
  9. 26 Apr '15 10:37 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Personally I would call it a genocide.
    Now, if Turkey was to do the same, they'd be sued for compensation, which is complete madness. It was a 100 years ago, it was a different nation and if I was a Turk now, I wouldn't want my tax money wasted because of geo-political cruelness that even my grandparents are too young to remember.

    ..[/b]
    Compensation is complete madness?

    Then there is never to be any compensation given for genocide. You either do it in all cases or none. And yes, even though the current people in power may have had nothing to do with it they are there because of what the generations before them did to put them there.

    So far the responses have been:

    1. All politicians are liars and low life scum, so who cares?
    2. Sure, it's genocide but compensation is out of the question.
    3. Why did they target Christians?

    This shows me a great deal of apathy toward the Christians slaughter, which is not really surprising to me on these forums where Christians are not held in that high of a regard. Additionally, we have one who is completely oblivious to the events that transpired, which is no accident. This is not taught to children in schools around the world, for whatever reason. Again, it shows a complete disregard for the slaughter of Christians.

    One of the reasons this genocide was of such great importance is that it seemed to be the template for future modern day genocides. Men like Hitler knew all about it and studied it carefully.

    I think that we are doomed to continue to relive history so long as it is ignored like this.
  10. 26 Apr '15 10:37
    Originally posted by whodey
    The Muslim Turks were afraid that the Christian Armenians would side with the Allies.
    So why is the religion of the victims of the Armenian genocide relevant here?
  11. 26 Apr '15 10:39
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    So why is the religion of the victims of the Armenian genocide relevant here?
    I just told you.
  12. 26 Apr '15 12:52
    Originally posted by whodey
    I just told you.
    No, you didn't. You chose to emphasize that many of the victims of the Armenian genocide were Christians. Why is this relevant?
  13. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    26 Apr '15 16:18
    Originally posted by whodey
    Compensation is complete madness?

    Then there is never to be any compensation given for genocide. You either do it in all cases or none. And yes, even though the current people in power may have had nothing to do with it they are there because of what the generations before them did to put them there.

    So far the responses have been:

    1. All politici ...[text shortened]...

    I think that we are doomed to continue to relive history so long as it is ignored like this.
    I believe in historical accuracy.
    I do not believe in these compensations.

    Screw you! I ain't paying for things the contempories of my great-grandparents did.

    Grow a bloody spine, you whining, greedy maggot.
  14. 26 Apr '15 17:14
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    I believe in historical accuracy.
    I do not believe in these compensations.

    Screw you! I ain't paying for things the contempories of my great-grandparents did.

    Grow a bloody spine, you whining, greedy maggot.
    I submit that because Woodrow Wilson and his minion ilk ignored the genocide, it helped give birth to the Holocaust.
  15. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    26 Apr '15 17:52 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I submit that because Woodrow Wilson and his minion ilk ignored the genocide, it helped give birth to the Holocaust.
    I'll submit that Wilson was the only example of subtle American diplomacy in the history of the world.
    And that France and England screwing Germany as hard as they did with the Versailles treaty, is one of the major reasons that the holocaust happened.