Thursday, April 21, 2005
Highlights of the day (Special Feature: Dan vs Jarrod)
If asked?!?!?!?!?!?!?! But I thought it was all about "never again" and "the duty of the Jewish people to speak out against genocide".
Meanwhile in Germany, as reported by Berliner Zeitung:
BERLIN. Der Bundestag wird heute einen Antrag der CDU/CSU-Fraktion beraten, in dem das Parlament aufgefordert wird, der Vertreibung und Ermordung von 1,5 Millionen Armeniern durch die Türken zu gedenken. Der Begriff Genozid wird in dem Text allerdings vermieden. Trotzdem hatten fast alle türkischen Vereine in Berlin die geplante Parlamentsdebatte kritisiert.
Rough translation: The Bundestag will today discuss a resolution sponsored by the Christian Democratic Union, which addresses the issue of the deportation and massacres of 1.5 million Armenians by the Turks. The term genocide is avoided in the text. Nevertheless, nearly all Turkish associations in Berlin have criticised the parliamentary debate.
But that's not about it. While I was reading through the comments at Blogrel, I "met" a Jarrod who lives in Germany. Apparently, he has decided he wants an ... "intelligent debate" on ... the Armenian Genocide. Indeed, I am not surprised. The political climate, after all, encourages such arguments, because they help to lead the battle for the de-legitimisation of the factual and well-documented Armenian Genocide.
Jarrod tries to be logical (I mourn the loss of logic - the future of humanity does not look bright) and poses the question, "With the Ottoman empire falling apart, having lost a great deal of land over the 40 years before WWI and on the brink of losing WWI, does it make sense that they would suddenly decide for a “Final Solution” or genocide against a people they long lived completely peacefully with? Out of the blue?"
Well, going by your "facts" and your sense of "making sense", the answer would be, no. But such hatred that leads to genocide (or massacres or "so-called genocides", if you prefer to call it that) does not make sense either, don't you think? That does not mean it does not happen, does it? Moreover, you will have to do slightly better than that with your "facts". The premise of your argument is actually false to begin with, which means that your conclusions, even if valid, stand no chance of being sound. I will clarify. The Turks did not live peacefully with the Armenians. I recommend that you look into the racist and even *gasp* murderous policies of the Ottoman Empire against its Armenian citizens. Things like double taxation and if you will excuse my bluntness (as it might offend your pro-"intelligent debating" self) massacres (long before WWI).
Mr. Jarrod then says, "Aren’t the events rather heavy handed tactics by a regime scared of losing power than anything remotely racist?"
Of course. Because the deportation, murder, and forced conversion of all Armenian citizens of Turkey [but not of Muslim Turks or Kurds] is about "a regime scared of losing power than anything remotely racist". Yup. And can you imagine how scary a foetus in an Armenian woman's belly is?! Poor regime. Must've been really scared. :-(
But then Mr. Jarrod concludes, "Massacre Yes. Genocide No."
Dare I cite (or will I be accused of being anti-Turkish and *gasp* anti-Semitic [for taking away the "uniqueness" of "The Holocaust"] if I do that?) Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide?
Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
The Armenians went through ... definitely not (a) [too inhumane to have happened], definitely not (b) [hmm?], most certainly not (c) [and I don't even know why I was thinking about the long marches in deserts, one of them being Der el Zor, where human remains are still being found], unthinkable to argue that they went through (d) [cutting a woman's belly and pulling out the foetus being the most humane act in the world] , and of course, not (e) either [because it makes no sense that the Turkish government would have done that!]
To end this entry - despite the title (Dan vs Jarrod), I would like to add that I refuse to debate this, either intelligently or non-intelligently. I am not in the least interested in debating the facts of the Armenian Genocide. That is for you to read about, and not for me to prove. So if anyone can prove that the evidence of the Armenian Genocide are fake, all the more power to you. Until then, I would say that you should not hide behind “let’s have an intelligent debate”, because I am not about to take the bait.