Sweden recognizes Armenian genocide...

victor

victor

Antediluvian as Feck
Orderite
... Turkey expectedly pulls diplomatic tantrum.

Maybe it's time to stop being sensitive about the issue over there? There's apparently overwhelming evidence that it happened, so why are they being so anal about it? Because it's still going on? It wasn't the modern day Turkish government that did it, it was the Ottoman empire. Perhaps they should reconsider now that more and more countries are recognizing it. Germany has recognized the Holocaust, right? even if it could be a sensitive issue.

I guess it's a little clumsy to pass a parliament vote to recognize that it was a genocide, and some Swedish politicians have said it shouldn't be a political issue, but instead historians should decide what's what. After all, it's based on historical facts and testimonies.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62A4ZX20100311


I'd like to know more about the event and make up my own opinion. What's your take on this?
 
I thought this was a lot more... interesting.

Reuters said:
After reading this article, people also read:

* Dutch nurses: Care does not include sex

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUS...ia_ow=t0:s0:a49:g43:r1:c0.201183:b31847436:z0

"The young woman witnessed some of the man's other nurses offering him sexual gratification, the union said. When she refused to do the same, he tried to dismiss her on the grounds that she was unfit to provide care."
Click to expand...

Voting in parliament on whether something happened or not seems a tad silly. It should be left to historians to decide, yes. But if that's the argument from the Turkish ambassador, I'd like to see what Turkey would do if historians reached the consensus that what happened was indeed genocide. Throw another tantrum, or accept that shit happened a long time ago, say you're sorry and fucking get over it?

So, wanna bet the left pulled this stunt to show they won't let shit like this, from the previous century, fly before the election?
 
Look, we liked Hitler alright, but we didn't have any concentration camps. Promise!
 
hey, dont feel guilty, our president liked hitler too, but the americans ended buying us with an Ironworks, so we just turned on the "good guys" side.
 
Puokki said:
Gotta admit, the same goes on us too...
Click to expand...
You'd know better than I, but it seems to me the Finns were stuck between a rock and a hard place. Hard to blame them for going with Hitler when Stalin was trying to gobble them up.

Now we just need the Turks to return Constantinople to the Greeks. :mrgreen:
 
Hehe, yeah, that was kind of the point with letting historians decide... But the discussion I meant to start was mostly about Turkey's reactions. With the increasing (?) number of states officially recognizing the genocide, will this force an attitude change in Turkey?
 
Not really. Currently we are in the process of being taken over and being sold at lowest possible value, a classic hostile takeover scenario in other words.

If the whole charade goes on as it is planned, you will see Turkey disineigrating into bite sized chunks and going up in flames.

If someone like fundementalist Islamics manage to hijack a bit, then we might slide into an Islamic state.

Or we can go into another bloody civil war.




Compared to all the crap we are in, these idiotic political pissing contest are just meaningless. Turkey is either strong enough that these political girl slapping is meaningless or it is not, in which case any tantrum is worthless other than fellating to nationalists.
 
Dragula: Bwahahahahaha!

Oh man, sorry but that is a pipe dream. The free part I mean.

The Kurds have been staunch US supporters for a long time but since US tends to be very erratic and backstabbingly stupid with it's support, they will get burned again. If Iran has Nuclear capability at that point (Protected by MAD as N.Korea is), than it will be very hard on them.

This time US is going to use them against Iran and I don't expect it to be any better than the Gulf War era vs Iraq.

Anyway, they will have to become a US proxy as a landlocked piece of land in the middle of mountains, pretty much in the worse tactical situation as Israel (minus the sea and overseas population support and tech base.) and faced with another US backed state that is infested and Iran to the south to east, Armenians and other land locked (and russian gripped) groups in the Northeast and about 65 million + pissed off Anatolians to the west.

It boils down to old saying, be free to slave in a minimum wage job.

What is Ironic about the Kurd issue is the little fact that it is a repeat of history, this time US backed instead of UK.




Ironically this little charade is as relevant as declaring that Finland did fight alongside Nazis in WWII so they are an Axis country in parliment.
Yes it happened but Sensationalism like this is just fellatating to a voter base, a good example of short terrm politics fucking up international politics.
(Also I am still unsure why history needs to be decided by politicians.)

Unless you take into account the conditions that shaped that act, the whole issue (as it is used right now) is just a tabloid press rated junk.


(And no, I don't consider Finland is not an Axis country. It was one of the countries that were butthurt by the Allies as they bought temporary help from the Reds. Unlike the rest of the former East Block countries, they managed to stay free by their fingernails.)
 
Fun thing is the Kurds had more rights during the Osmanic rule than under Turkish "democratic" rule.
 
Boring history lesson about Turkey:
In the cold war era (until roughly 1970), unless it was a port, most of the eastern parts of Turkey were too exposed to build much of an Infastructure.
If WW3 broke out, we had no possible way to stop Russians from overrunning our eastern positions. NATO decided that they would defend the southern Mountain ranges (to protect the strategic Oil Fields) and Turk strategy was "long stretches of barren land until natural bottlenecks in mid Turkiye



So kurdish regions were not really supported by Turk goverment. (The only exception was South East parts of Turkiye, which were under Nato umbrella and had foreign troops and cash.

Then comes the 70s. With the loosening of threat (End of the World) we had our banana republic era. Free politics, graft the whole thing.

Since Kurds and other south-eastern groups were separated from the flock, they didn't have much political clout do direct the graft to east. They didn't care much either.

Meanwhile we had 2 little (Totally not US sponsored) coup d'etats that were aimed to crush leftists and communists. It DID crush the left (so well that it still hasn't managed to get back up) but on the side it also destroyed our educational system and most of the social services in the east as they were mostly staffed by idealist young people (read: potential communists!)

In the same late cold war era, US was using Kurds as Para-Military against Syria (and Iran after it fell to Islamics). Then they used them agains Iraq when it went bad but didn't support them when it was needed so Iraq pretty much run over them (Using US supplied nerve gas in a lot of places)

Then as the whole thing became a hot International Topic, US pretty much dropped the whole ops using Kurds.


Lots of trained Para-Military guys armed with good weapons (We were still using Tommy Guns and Garands at the time). Unemployed.


Iraq managed to kick them out. Iran managed to hold it's grounds. They both had experience from their wars. So Kurds followed the path of least resistance. They started taking over in Turkey.

If they had a decent political side, maybe things could be different but true to their ancestors, they pretty much acted as "the raiders from their mountain fortresses, raiding down in the plains".

So we had 30+ years of blood and war. Hate bred Hate and human nature, the mob nature had it's way.
 
As long as an international court doesn't make a conclusive decision on the issue I couldn't be bothered less about what the Swedish parliament thinks about the Armenian 'genocide'.

It is certain that people died -yes, Armenians- during the deportations however there is no proof that this was actually done to exterminate Armenians as an ethnic group.

This liberal use of the term 'genocide' seems like a poor attempt, of the white man, at clearing his own guilty conscious... and of course a cheap reason to prolong the EU-negotiations as long as possible.

cronicler where are you from (memleket nire gardas)?
 
remake said:
It is certain that people died -yes, Armenians- during the deportations however there is no proof that this was actually done to exterminate Armenians as an ethnic group.
Click to expand...

So your saying they accidently killed 1.5 million Armenians?
 
Maybe only that they weren't trying to kill them as a group, only individually, one at a time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top