Posted on 04/25/2006 8:07:22 PM PDT by x5452
Bush Says 'Tragedy' not 'Genocide' for 1915 Events
By Cihan News Agency, Washington
Published: Tuesday, April 25, 2006
zaman.com
US President George W. Bush has describe the incidents that took place in 1915 as “a tragedy”, in the message he prepared for the 91st anniversary of the so-called Armenian genocide allegations.
The White House announcement reads that the events were a tragedy for mankind and should never be forgotten. Bush, overlooking the demands of the Armenian Diaspora, did not term the incidents as “genocide.”
The event is a source of pain for all Armenians, the. President acknowledged, and Americans feel deeply for this page in history.
Bush invited all parties to take part in dialogue and determine common understanding, and he praised the parties in both Turkey and Armenia who examine the happenings of 1915 impartially, accurately and sensitively.
The Armenian Diaspora alleges a genocide occurred, Armenians were forced to leave their home in 1915; Turkey, on the contrary, refutes these allegations and advocates the deaths were caused by difficult road and weather conditions during the migration.
May be wrong, but I believe the world "genocide" was coined by a man in the mid-1940's in reference to this specific event, the Armenian massacres.
Personally, I chafe a bit at the double standard here; anyone these days who denies the Holocaust is hit with the "racist/bigot" tag, but it is OK to deny the Armenian massacre?
That being said, many politicians seem to tiptoe around China's atrocious rights record as well. Perhaps this is just the way things are now.
In addition to Bernard Lewis, another conservative historian disputing the genocide claim is Guenter Lewy.
http://www.meforum.org/article/748
very interesting, thank you.
If nothing was done to stop the actions, yes. The West bears some responsibility, just like if you know your brother is getting beaten up and you stand on the sidelines.
If you could do something, yet do nothing, you bear some responsibility.
This isn't a grey situation. Muslims massacured Christians.
You either come out on the side of Christianity or Satan. Its fairly simple.
I think at the relavant times the West had more pressing concerns than "standing on the sidelines"
One of my favorite "liberal" movies is Twilight's Last Gleaaming Where escaped convicts have control of a ICBM and are threatening to launch against the SovUn unless they are paid ONE MILLION DOllORS - oh. and the American Governent adnits it has been lying about the Vietnam War to the American People.
Puzzled American President: "Why would he demand we admit to something we aren't doing?"
Aide: "er wll actually Mr President, We are lying to the American Peoiple"
Annoyed President: "That's outrageous. We must rectify that immediately. The Truth must be told!"
Everybody: Yes. Mr President"
Me: "Guys, Nuclear weapon in hands of unstable criminals. MAD. Armageddon. Prioreties, People"
(But I like the ending)
Germany was (and is) part of the West.
The Holocaust was perpetrated by the elected government of an "enlightened", supposedly Christian nation.
That is why there is such insistence on learning the lessons of the Holocaust and the mantra to never forget.
Oh darn. I was just coming around to the view that you could tell the good guys from the bad guys by asking "Christian or Muslim?"
Forcing people to march into the desert without food or water was just a little misunderstanding.
>> OK, then humans are either rocks or plants. <<
Well, since that comment wasn't Einstein, it must be Shakespeare or Chaucer!
"I became convinced that standard Armenian line was as much propaganda as the Turkish line."
My Armenian grandmother was in the "death march" at the age of 5. Most of her relatives were killed by the Turks, though some had escaped. She helplessly watched her grandmother slowly die of thirst in the death march. She begged the Turkish soldiers for water for her grandmother but was refused and forced at gun point to keep marching -- at the age of 5. The only reason my grandmother lived was because she was taken as a slave by a Turk.
My Armenian grandfather's entire family also were killed in the genocide. The only reason he lived was because, his being the youngest of 10 young children, his parents were at least able to get him out of the country just in time to save him. As a result, he was the only member of his entire extended family who lived.
Don't be fooled. The "propaganda" is entirely from the Turks. Always has been.
The British had troops fighting in the Ottoman Empire during WWI. They could have just as easily intervened on the Armenians side.
Millions of starved and murdered Christians, no problem, let them die. Ottoman genocide wasn't limited merely to Armenians because the Greeks and Syriacs were targeted too for extinction.
A lot of the older Arab population in the U.S. is Christian, meaning those who came here prior to the 1920s. They came here to escape the genocide and murderous policies of the Turks. Greece invaded Turkey unsuccessfully at the end of the war, in part, to liberate their Greek Christian brethren from the Ottoman yoke.
You are lucky FR doesn't place bias against Armenians in the same category as bias against Jews.
As your story shows, the Armenians build their case on emotion and demonization, the Turks on willful ignorance.
Both sides engage in propoganda for their own reasons, emotion and denial, but the truth lies in between.
"As your story shows, the Armenians build their case on emotion and demonization, the Turks on willful ignorance."
It appears you think there was just a "little bit of genocide" going on for various reasons, surely not just because they were the infidel.
But, whatever, your mind's obviously made up, regardless of any facts.
By the way, the word you seem to love to use is spelled "propaganda."
If you read my posts you know I carefully considered the facts and analysis from different viewpoints.
I think you resemble your remark.
Thank you for the spelling correction -- I never did study Latin.
If you carefully considered the facts, you wouldn't hold the viewpoint that you hold.
But judging by your remarks, I'm sure that you probably considered the analysis of some so-called "experts."
Yes, that's a good description of Peter Balakian, a "so-called expert". He wrote a book about it and goes around spouting Armenian propAganda and is sometimes quoted as an 'expert'. Well-meaning fellow, but it doesn't help your case to wildly exaggerate. Maybe if I hadn't had other sources I would have bought what he was selling, but thankfully I'm a critical thinker and was in a course that wasn't pushing one ahistorical viewpoint.
Now Bernard Lewis, and a retired US colonel (an expert on Turkey), and a variety of source material -- that's a good basis for forming a sound opinion.
Many Muslims also believe the Holocaust was "wildly exaggerated." Are you a Muslim, by any chance?
People who deny the Armenian Genocide, who were never there themselves of course and ignore the witnesses and survivors who were, are really a waste of time. So this is my last post to you.
So it would have been that simple. No other considerations Just "intervened on the Armenians side" into the heart of the Ottoman Empire. Why didn't anyone think of that?
hey here's a thought. Why couln't the Greeks have intervened to save their Orthodox co-religionits?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.