Armenian Genocide Bill 2007

[MosJan]

man that's an azery FairyTale, don't take everything you see on the WeB for granted

[Anonymouse]

man that's an azery FairyTale, don't take everything you see on the WeB for granted

 

I never claimed I believe in it. But certainly when you have Human Rights Watch and Markar Melkonian's references how does one dismiss those?

 

As I said, if it is true, then it would suck. It certainly would give ammo to your garden variety Turkoid.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Anonymouse

[Anonymouse]

This article is is in this week's TIME, p. 26, commentary section. I didn't really realize that it's the actual TIME when I posted the above a couple of days ago from the magazine's web (honestly, I didn't think they'd publish it) but today when I got the magazine I was pleasantly surprised. I'm looking forward to the letters from readers.

 

And politicians are concerned with how this will supposedly impact America's presence in Iraq, namely that 70% of cargo, etc., pass through Turkey.

 

Who cares? It was an illegal war to begin with and it was lost the moment the first shot was fired. America should have pulled out a long time ago and this may add an impetus for that, so this supposed idea of 'we need Turkey for the war effort in Iraq' notion will fade into nothingness.

[Error 404]

So what do you propose?

 

Invade turkey?!?

 

What is your point again? Tell us please a better way to have turkey to recognize Armenian Genocide!

[Louise]

This article is is in this week's TIME, p. 26, commentary section. I didn't really realize that it's the actual TIME when I posted the above a couple of days ago from the magazine's web (honestly, I didn't think they'd publish it) but today when I got the magazine I was pleasantly surprised. I'm looking forward to the letters from readers.

----------------------

 

I like very much Samantha Power. Samantha Power once said that the U.S. policy toward genocide had been very imperfect and needed reorientation, less opportunism, and greater vigor.

[DominO123]

The Globe and Mail (Canada)

October 19, 2007 Friday

 

The world still hangs on every U.S. word;

 

Here's the question for Americans: Since when is it wrong to speak

out against genocide?

 

by IRSHAD MANJI

Pg. A23

 

Now playing on Capitol Hill: a political drama over whether Turkey

deserves denunciation for its mass deportation and slaughter of

Armenians starting in 1915, otherwise known as genocide.

 

Initiated by the House foreign-affairs committee, this symbolic vote

has sparked more than symbolic anger from the White House - and from

the Turkish government itself. The Bush administration insists that

now is not the time to be offending Turkey, which borders Iraq and

provides the United States with key access routes in its war on

terror.

 

The timing of this resolution should raise questions, all the more so

because of who initiated it: Democrats. They are the gang for whom

success in today's Iraq, not slaughter in yesterday's Turkey, is the

signal issue in America. HBO's Bill Maher nailed that point when he

quipped, "This is why the voters gave control of the House to the

Democrats. To send a stern message to the Ottoman Empire."

 

Still, there is at least one key reason to recognize the Armenian

genocide now, and it relates directly to America's implosion in Iraq:

Democracy has been redefined not just in the Middle East but also in

the United States. These days, American politicians must pay

attention to "voters" who live well beyond their shores.

 

As House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has put it, "Some of what harms our

troops relate to values - Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, torture. Our troops

are well served when we declare who we are as a country, and we

declare it to the rest of the world."

 

Hers is a subtle argument about the need for the United States to

reclaim the moral high ground on human rights. It might be too subtle

for most Americans, who, let's face it, have little concern for what

may or may not have happened countless miles away more than three

generations ago.

 

But Ms. Pelosi's argument is not meant for Americans. It is intended

for an international audience.

 

America remains the only country in the world with a universal

constituency. Its domestic politics often has a profound effect in

every corner of the Earth, from determining immigration flows and

investment patterns to handing leaders and their heirs the excuses

they crave to blur the lines between God and government.

 

The same cannot be said of domestic politics in modern, multicultural

entrepôts such as India, Britain or China. Nor do domestic politics

in feisty, fiery states such as Iran and Israel set precedents for

the rest of us. Not yet anyway.

 

No wonder so much of the world seethes that only Americans can vote

for the next president of the United States. I hear it from young

Muslims whenever I travel to Europe. And it is not just Muslims who

express a sense of disenfranchisement. Last week in this newspaper,

columnist Jeffrey Simpson suggested that Al Gore would be president

if people outside the United States could cast ballots.

 

How many countries enjoy a reach so long and far that non-citizens

would care enough to want a say in its leader - or journalists would

care enough to speculate how the rest of the world would vote?

 

America's universal constituency is what House Democrats are

acknowledging through a resolution to condemn the Armenian genocide.

 

Doubtless, I am about to be accused of naiveté. Left-wing critics

will sniff that this condemnation is a pretext to milk campaign

contributions from Jewish Holocaust survivors who, like the Armenian

genocide survivors, are dying off.

 

Right-wing detractors will sneer that this move is meant to undermine

the war on terror by alienating a crucial ally. Indeed, many House

Democrats have begun wavering on the anti-genocide measure because of

Turkey's threat to block its borders to U.S. war planners if the vote

passes. By yesterday, it seemed unlikely the vote would happen at

all.

 

The question for Americans ought to be: Since when is it wrong to

speak out against genocide, however many years have elapsed? People

of good conscience continue raising their voices against slavery in

the United States well after abolition. Are they reckless or sinister

for offending many Americans? Is offence a reason to stop

remembering?

 

Here is the question for Turks: Why should your history be immune to

America's judgment when, according to surveys of global attitudes

about the U.S., you as a nation are among the most anti-American

(read: judgmental) in all of the Muslim world?

 

Irshad Manji, author of

The Trouble with Islam Today and senior fellow with the

European Foundation for

Democracy, is writing a book

about the need for moral courage in an age of self-censorship.

www.muslim-refusenik.com

 

[Anonymouse]

So what do you propose?

 

Invade turkey?!?

 

What is your point again? Tell us please a better way to have turkey to recognize Armenian Genocide!

 

Passing resolutions will not get Turkey to recognize the genocide. That is my point.

[AVO]

Eventually when rest of the world recognizes it and only Turkey denies it, It will not matter whether Turkey recognizes it or not.

[Louise]

Eventually when rest of the world recognizes it and only Turkey denies it, It will not matter whether Turkey recognizes it or not.

----------------------

 

Turkey will negociate with Bush: "I'll recognize the genocide and you will let me brush away

the Kurds in Irak"

[Louise]

----------------------

 

Turkey will negociate with Bush: "I'll recognize the genocide and you will let me brush away

the Kurds in Irak"

 

[Error 404]

Eventually when rest of the world recognizes it and only Turkey denies it, It will not matter whether Turkey recognizes it or not.

 

It's that simple.

[MosJan]

Turkish extremists destroyed and burned Armenian café in Brussels

22.10.2007 17:49 GMT+04:00 Print version Send to mail In Russian In Armenian

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Last night some 200 people, belonging to Gray Wolves extreme movement, destroyed and set to fire the Jardin de Babylone café owned by an Iraqi Armenian in the neighborhood Saint-Josse-Ten-Noode of Brussels.

 

A little before in the evening the hooligans had pulled out then burned the American flag which was hanging on the frontage of the U.S. Embassy.

 

Mehmet Koksal, a Belgian journalist of Turkish origin, who filmed the scene, was severely beaten by the extremists howling hostile and insulting the U.S. slogans.

 

This demonstration would have a direct relation to the Turkish-Kurdish confrontation that has claimed lives of 12 Turkish soldiers are 23 Kurdish rebels.

 

As a PanARMENIAN.Net came to know from the European Armenian Federation, some 20 people were in the café at that moment. None of them was hurt. However, a policeman, who was at the site, is reported to be injured.

 

[MosJan]

Kosntantin Zatulin: Armenian resolution is a test for U.S. democracy

22.10.2007 14:50 GMT+04:00 Print version Send to mail In Russian In Armenian

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian Genocide resolution is a proper test for American democracy. It will uncover priorities of the United States – good relations with Turkey or historical truth, Russian State Duma member, Konstantin Zatulin told a news conference in Yerevan October 21.

 

Adoption of the resolution in the full House will be dragged out unless Turkey breaks into northern Iraq, according to him.

 

“If Turkey risks relations with the U.S., the latter can pass the resolution in response,” he noted.

 

Reminding that several Representatives have recalled their signatures, Zatulin said the Congress will not recognize the Armenian Genocide.

 

“Various trends are clashing in Turkey but the principle “we don’t confess and don’t recognize” is dominating. All this generates a serious political crisis,” Mr Zatulin said.

 

Zatulin described Turkey’s threats to intrude into Iraq as “realistic bluff proceeding from cynical but competent policy,” IA Regnum reports.

 

[Aratta-Kingdom]

'Anonymouse'

1."That is the wrong argument to make."

 

You call it a wrong argument simply because it kills your argument?

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

2."No one has claimed that the Germans will commit another genocide."

 

I said another blood bastard -he can be from Germany or turkey. Makes no difference.

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

3."That is not the point. The argument that I am arguing against, the argument which is often raised, which you now seem to be running away from, is that education on genocides or this or that, will help prevent others from taking place."

 

 

 

Education on genocides? When did I speak about education on genocides?

 

What said the following:

 

"1. Genocide is a crime against mankind. A bill like this will force all the other bloody bastards to think twice before committing similar crimes."

 

 

 

 

Tell me, which one of us is now running away from the argument? Is it me or you?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

4."And since, that has not been the case, and nor have you provided any evidence to the contrary other than blanket assertions of the way it should be, such argument fails."

 

 

So you are saying if the bill was to pass 30 years ago, the 'turkish pig ozal' still would have threaten the armenians by saying 'We gonna remind the armenians the lessons of 1915?'. Are you out of your mind?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

5."As far as the massacres in Sumgait, Shushi, etc., yes I have heard and read about those. Tragic they were, but that proves precisely my point, that such massacres will still occur despite such resolutions or educations passing. Furthermore, it doesn't look too good for us Armenians either when we engage in similar pursuits.

 

Khojaly Massacre"

 

 

The armenians have lost close to 2 million people because of the turks from turkey and azerbaijan, and by throwing that khojaly crat into an argument you hope to creat a couterbalance? What the hell is wrong with you man? Just before the Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad, Shushi massacres, and right before what ozal said, another turkish pig from azerbaijan named elchibey made a similar comment by saying 'we gonna hang armenians in the streets of baku". Why have you chosen to ignore the words to ozal and elchibey? Once again, are you saying these bloody bastards could have make such comments if the AG was recognized by the international community?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

6."But beyond that, you have merely asserted (yet again) a blanket assertion that there is a difference between questioning and denying without offering any evidence of this."

 

 

When the jews(including rabbis) attented a seminar organized by the president of Iran, they had a right to question the events that happened during WWII. The president of Iran and Justin McCharty, on the other hand, are two sorry ass revisionists who can be in the same room with these individuals and deny the truth. Once again, raising a question and denying the truth are two different things.

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

7."Furthermore, do you actually support such anti-free speech laws? Why? If something can stand on the merits, why the need to resort to official judicial decree to hold on to such truths."

 

Do you honestly belive by throwing pre-conditioned thoughts in an argument will actually help you to gain a ground? Anti-free speech law, huh? You are full of crap.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

8."The Turkish law is the reflection of the Turkish way of life, but the French law is not? What you meant to say is, because the French law agrees with what we think, therefore it is just and noble, but the Turkish law, because it disagrees with what we say, is not."

 

 

I'm not so sure that you are in fact an armenian. But let's leave that qustion a side for now. I don't wanna give you a chance to start another trash talk by trying to escape the main points of the argument.

 

 

The turkish law is the reflection of the turkish way of life. People in turkey are assassinated for using the word genocide. The parasite hypocrats from turkey, on the other hand, who silence their own citizens for saying the word 'genocide', go to france and abuse the system which give them and the people of france a chance to freely express thier mind.

 

 

With your argument you sound like a fat doctor who eats junk food and thinks all the others do the same. You simply can't enter the personal space of the others and abuse their hospitality and patience. The french have a culture. I'ts a fact that france is a democratic country and turkey is not. It's a fact that the french are civilized and the turks are barbarians. The bastards even export violence to their host countries. What have you say about the attack on Armeian cafe in Brussel?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

9."I did not imagine Armenians to be so hostile to free speech. Apparently, we are no better than the Jews or Turks."

 

 

W W You really are full of crap

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

10."Justice is a very sublime word. It's just that it's misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied by many, including you."

 

 

If we could only have the turks to define the meaning of all the words for us... You again play with words without by trying to escape the main points of the argument. A broad generalization will no way can help you win the argument.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

11."Do you think I don't realize this?"

 

Realize what?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

12."The point is, this is irrelevant. 'Land' is subject to the same centrifugal forces of history as anything else."

 

 

Is that why the turks destroy everything under their control that is associated with the name armenia/armenian? Why have you chosen not to respond to the other argument I made that a bill like this will pun an end to cultural genocide?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

13."All history is, is a process, and a change in time. With that change, peoples, populations, cultures, empires have changed, shifted, appeared and disappeared. You cannot point to some point in the past and use it as a valid yardstick of measure, as to what the things in the present ought to be. All peoples have some claim or another to some land or another at some point in time."

 

 

Since when process has become a word in the turkish dictionary? If you have chosen to live a life of a zumbi, that's your choice. Only those with no sense of belonging would make such claims.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

14."With time, and historical change, lands and peoples change, whether by war, genocides or simply of their own accord due to population implosions or intermixing. Every person has a claim to some land. The Basques claim some lands, the American Indians claim others, the Mexicans claim theirs, the Eritreans claim theirs, we claim ours, etc. What about the Kurds and their supposed claims to land? Indeed much of what the Kurds assert is their land was actually ours. The map of what was 'Armenia' or 'Greater Armenia' etc., has changed over time. Which specific time period are you going to use as the proper measure of what are or are not our 'rightful lands'? There were populations shifts and changes.

 

 

 

With your logic, the same turks who so much wanna distance themselves from the ottomans, must not get engage defending the ottomans,...not to mention to claim ownership to what was left to they by their bloody fathers. The turks can fight to define the word genocide, they can fight to keep what was stolen from the armenians, but they must also distance themselves from the ottomas??? From the second you distance yourself from the ottomans, you will have no base to justify your existance. Today you live in the home of the armeians, tomorrow you might move to somewhere else. Let us speed up the process and send you back to mongolia. Or, if you chose to stay in the 'land' left to you by the ottomans, you must also take responsiblity by their actions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

15."Do you see how pointless this is?"

 

Get your head out of the sand. Self-manipulation might be a remedy only when you got your head in the sand.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

16."Just accept the fact that pointless resolutions and admissions by government's official organs of this being a 'genocide' is not going to get any lands back or reparations paid, if that is what we mean by the word 'justice'. "

 

In that case, let's tell the same to the turkish government to stop spending billions to fighting genocide resolutions and start to feed their hungry people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

17."That form of 'justice' is what is called vengeance, and it is never remedied unless one adopts the policy of might is right. The meek do not inherit the earth, the mighty do. So if we want justice, and we want something that was rightfully ours and taken, we have to take it. But how do we do that with our current state as a people? We cannot.

 

 

 

 

You can never know what 'that form of justice' is unless you are a genocide survival. You are detached from the reality. For some reason, those who have no children always try to teach others with how to raise their own children.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

18."The only way Armenians will ever get their justice is if they breed at astronomical rates like Mexicans do here in the southwest United States and gradually move in and spread their numbers or take it by force. That is not happening because Armenians are numerically insignificant, and Armenia itself has growth problems. Nor is it militarily capable of doing such a thing. So where does this leave these resolutions? In the dustbin of history."

 

 

LOL now you are talking about justice? Save it man. Don't preach an entire nation of people how to fight for justice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

19."When Germany was defeated, it was occupied. By virtue of occupation, all sorts of crimes and retroactive laws, treaties and obligations were imposed on Germany, as a vanquished nation. It accepted whatever terms were thrown at it, as it had no choice."

 

Say what? Retroactive laws? So you are saying the French anti-descrimination law isn't that bad after all hun

 

 

 

 

 

 

Anonymouse

20."Turkey was never occupied and never conquered. It was not subject to the same post-war treatment as Germany ever was, and consequently, it had no obligation to admit its crimes."

 

 

That's another way of saying the French law, and all the other resolutions are pointless...? If that is the case, why are the turks so hysterical about it...?

Edited October 23, 2007 by Aratta-Kingdom

[Aratta-Kingdom]

Anonymouse,

 

Killing a time with a trash talk will not force the armenians to stop fighting for jutice. For the gods sake, even the genocide didn't silence us... Haven't you learn anything so far?

 

You like it or not, the armenians have survived the genocide and they are back to fight for justice. The new generation of armenians don't think the way their fathers and grandfathers used to think. They simply understand that you can't rely on christian values while fighting the bloody turks. We will not forgive and we will not forget until the turks ask as to forgive -and until they pay for what has been done to us. For the armenains this is a fight for survival. The Armenian-renaissance has already started and with more time passing, you will see a stronger army against you. Armed with knowledge and determination, they will crash you sooner then you think.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

ANCA SPECIAL REPORT

 

Call for Justice!

The time is now to pass H.Res.106

The Genocide Resolution!

 

Tune in to hear updates about how we will win the Congressional vote for House Resolution 106, the Armenian Genocide Resolution.

 

Դիտեցէք եւ հետեւեցէք նորութիւններուն՝ թէ ինչպէս կրնանք յանգիլ ներկայացուցիչներու տան մէջ հայկական ցեղասպանութեան բանաձեւին քուէակութեան:

 

Sunday, October 21, 2007

 

5:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. (PST)

 

Horizon Television

(Or log on to www.horizonarmeniantv.com)

 

To learn more, log on to www.anca.org

 

 

 

 

Congressman Brad Sharman openly declared that the genocide bill has over 200 supporters. Those who did not sign their names as co-sponsors, did so simply because they don't wanna get phone calls from the State Department and the turks. He said we only need 15 more votes to pass the bill- but wants to get the support of a least another 30 congressman.

 

 

 

The White House, the turkish lobby with the media, the tukish government, want to discourage the citizens of United States to contact their representatives with the hope that congressmen will feel alone and will yield to pressures.

 

 

Contact your representative and show him/her your support. Don't let the revisionits to deprive you from your right of raise your voice for justice.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Aratta-Kingdom

[Aratta-Kingdom]

Why would you or others assume without any justification I am denying the genocide, as an Armenian. Seriously, you folks need to get a grip over yourselves. Why can't you accept that there are alternative opinions,

 

Nothing you say is new. In fact, the official turkish position and yousr are the same. The same wording the same tactics. Nothing new at all.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

Passing resolutions will not get Turkey to recognize the genocide. That is my point.

 

That's not what he asked. You are repeating yourself.

 

 

 

For someone who spends countless hours making arguments against the genocide resolution, you must also come forward with a proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

this is what he said:

 

 

 

"

 

So what do you propose?

 

Invade turkey?!?

 

What is your point again? Tell us please a better way to have turkey to recognize Armenian Genocide!"

[Aratta-Kingdom]

 

AZG

 

 

THE RECOGNITION OF THE GENOCIDE WILL POLITICALLY ISOLATE TURKEY

 

"The recognition of the Armenian Genocide and Conviction is an irreversible process. Turks have already conciliated with it", said the Director of the Museum-Institution of the Armenian Genocide, historian Hayk Demoyan. The step-by-step progress of the process is a question of not only material, but also psychological importance to Turkey. "Because of the recognition of the Genocide Turkey should dethrone its heroes and re-interpret the historical-scientific theories. Turkey cannot imagine a danger bigger than this one".

 

But it’s not the end, as the recognition of the Armenian Genocide by the world will isolate Turkey politically, according to the historian. The Armenian society is the victim of the Armenian Genocide, and Turks also are the victims of that Genocide: "Discovering the reality Turks get a shock; it puts them to shame. And it bisects the Turkish society and makes complexes about it. Turkish issues of the Genocide are inside Turkey, as the divided society is a serious trouble for them", underlined Hayk Demoyan.

 

According to him, the intention of Turkish armed forces to invade Iraq also comes from the bisection of Turkish society and aims at creating euphoric mood.

 

By Nana Petrosian, translated by L.H.

 

 

[Aratta-Kingdom]

 

Armenians of Jerusalem protest Israel's denial of Armenian Genocide[/b]

 

 

 

22.10.2007 http://www.panarmenian.net/news/images/ico_print.gif http://www.panarmenian.net/news/images/ico_mail.gif http://www.panarmenian.net/news/images/ico_rus.gif /PanARMENIAN.Net/ The Armenian Community of Israel held a protest action in front of the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, on Monday Oct. 22.

 

As PanARMENIAN.Net came to know from a source in Jerusalem, almost 200 Armenians were found in the Justice Square singing and chanting Armenian songs and slogans. Many journalists and news agencies had their share to capture the moment and interview protesters. The event was attended by two parliamentary officials, Yaeer Tsaban and Khayeem Oron, who both gave speeches emphasizing on the denial of the genocide by the Israeli government.

 

In his speech, Mr. Oron promised to lobby the issue again and to do his utmost to call from the podium of the Knesset for the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

 

A Greek Orthodoxy official, Father Aatala, also held a speech encouraging Armenians to fight for their cause and the recognition. Also Hayr Norayar Kazazdian, an official from the Armenian Apostolic church, spoke in English, on the issue at hand. Photographs were attracted by an old lady who wore a sign reading 'I am a Survivor', and by a group of signs reading "Today's Denial is Tomorrow's Genocide'" and "Israel: Recognize the Armenian Genocide". Serop Sahagian, head figure of the community, also gave a speech about how the US Congress should recognize the genocide, since it has a great influence on other foreign governments; and how its Israel's lobbying, not Turkey's, that will stop the resolution from passing in the Congress. A Foreign Ministry official arrived in the midst of the protest and was handed a letter, by the Hay Dat representatives. The official promised to reach the letter to the Foreign Minister, and was told by Serop Sahagian to do the moral choice based on human rights, rather than follow denial for financial purposes. The Armenian Community will again reunite for the April 24 protest, which is always held front of the Turkish Embassy.

Edited October 23, 2007 by Aratta-Kingdom

[Aratta-Kingdom]

 

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/commen...0,2527425.story

 

`Who Speaks Today?'

 

With survivors dwindling, Congress must take a stand on the right side of history and declare the 1915 slaughter of Armenians genocide

By JOHN C. GERAGOSIAN October 21, 2007

 

 

 

Imagine half the population of Connecticut murdered over seven years, and hundreds of thousands more raped, beaten and driven from their homes. How long would you fight for justice for your family, friends and neighbors?

 

The Turkish government's stubborn denial has forced the Armenian people of the world to wait for 92 years.

 

I urge Congress to do the right thing and finally pass the resolution declaring the 1915 massacres of Armenians by Ottoman Turks genocide.

 

 

Why now? Because the last eyewitnesses of this barbaric genocide are almost all gone. Without these survivors, the Turkish government and its powerful and sleazy lobbyists who profit from 1.5 million dead souls will be even more emboldened. No witnesses, no genocide.

 

We must not allow the truth to go with the survivors.

 

Two Connecticut survivors died in the past year: Maritza Ohanesian, born in 1905, and Yegsa Mazadoorian, born in 1912, both of New Britain. These women, pillars of the region's Armenian American community, were small children who witnessed mass rape, deportation and murder at the hands of soldiers of the Ottoman Empire.

 

Mrs. Ohanesian, the eldest of five children, was the only survivor in her family. Mrs. Mazadoorian's obituary said: "She personally witnessed the most barbaric treatment of fellow Armenians and actually started out with her mother and two uncles in the horrible death marches in which her mother and uncles were put to death. Before her death, her mother literally gave her young daughter Yegsa away in order to save her daughter's life."

 

There are believed to be fewer than 10 genocide survivors left in our state. Who will tell their stories when they are all gone?

 

Armenians were slaughtered for no reason other than their ethnicity. For us and the rest of the Armenian diaspora, justice delayed is justice denied.

 

In a civilized world, neither ally nor foe should be given a free pass for crimes against humanity in the name of political expedience. Denial is the final act perpetuating the genocide, far more painful for the survivors and their families than the fleeting moment of embarrassment for an honest Turkish government would be.

 

Turkey claims to be a great ally of the United States, yet would threaten sanctions for passing a nonbinding resolution stating what genocide scholar Elie Weisel and others know to be the truth: The Armenian genocide happened.

 

If Turkey is indeed our friend, why should the truth threaten the security of our troops? Twenty-three other countries have passed similar resolutions. It is time for Turkey to live up to its billing as a modern democracy and allow open discussion of its history instead of punishing academics and journalists for such attempts.

 

After Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a notorious Holocaust denier, visited the United States last month, President Bush was invited to speak at an Iranian university. A National Security Council spokesman said, "President Bush looks forward to traveling to a democratic Iran, an Iran where its leaders allow freedom of speech and assembly for all of its people, and an Iran where the leaders mourn the victims of the Holocaust, not call for the destruction of Israel."

 

Sadly, the Bush administration protects a Turkish government that squelches free speech and denies the slaughter of Armenians rather than mourning the victims.

 

Acknowledging the genocide would only benefit Turkey. It would enhance Turkey's prospects for much-desired membership in the European Union. Modern Germany fares better today for having recognized the atrocities of the Holocaust.

 

Adolf Hitler used the Armenian genocide as the model for his mass killings. He pointed out: "Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

 

I speak for them, and so did Mrs. Mazadoorian and Mrs. Ohanesian.

 

John C. Geragosian, D-New Britain, is chairman of the Democratic caucus in the state House of Representatives. He is the only Armenian American member of the General Assembly and is an organizer of the annual Armenian genocide commemoration at the state Capitol.

 

[Anonymouse]

'Anonymouse'

1."That is the wrong argument to make."

 

You call it a wrong argument simply because it kills your argument?

Anonymouse

2."No one has claimed that the Germans will commit another genocide."

 

I said another blood bastard -he can be from Germany or turkey. Makes no difference.

Anonymouse

3."That is not the point. The argument that I am arguing against, the argument which is often raised, which you now seem to be running away from, is that education on genocides or this or that, will help prevent others from taking place."

Education on genocides? When did I speak about education on genocides?

 

What said the following:

 

"1. Genocide is a crime against mankind. A bill like this will force all the other bloody bastards to think twice before committing similar crimes."

Tell me, which one of us is now running away from the argument? Is it me or you?

 

Anonymouse

4."And since, that has not been the case, and nor have you provided any evidence to the contrary other than blanket assertions of the way it should be, such argument fails."

So you are saying if the bill was to pass 30 years ago, the 'turkish pig ozal' still would have threaten the armenians by saying 'We gonna remind the armenians the lessons of 1915?'. Are you out of your mind?

Anonymouse

5."As far as the massacres in Sumgait, Shushi, etc., yes I have heard and read about those. Tragic they were, but that proves precisely my point, that such massacres will still occur despite such resolutions or educations passing. Furthermore, it doesn't look too good for us Armenians either when we engage in similar pursuits.

 

I don't see why you quote every sentence when you can just quote the chunk of thought, but be that as it may, you have included here nothing new. You have merely reiterated what you stated before, and not only that, you have gone on to warp my argument and misunderstand even your own.

 

Initially, you expressed the notion that there won't be another genocide in Germany. Now, that was ambiguous. Why will there not be another genocide in Germany? Implied in your claim is that Germany has purportedly learned from its mistakes and its past and it won't repeat the same mistakes again. However, be that as it may, even if we accept that such a thing will never occur in Germany (never say never), it does not apply to other places in the world, post-WWII, and indeed there have been genocides post-WWII, and in some cases still going on.

 

The notion behind what you are advocating in bringing up the example of Germany, is that if a country accepts its past, it thereby amends itself from every committing such a horror. However, even if this may apply to Germany, it does not translate to the whole world, as history and posterity have proven and will continue to prove otherwise.

 

Therefore, the notion that a country accepts its responsibility for its crimes, be that because of resolutions passing or education (although one is implied in the other, for when you pass a resolution, you are thereby educating people on such matters, and vice versa - by educating people on such matters, you make a more fertile ground to make a case to pass a resolution), does not guarantee such things won't happen again.

 

And addressing your point about people thinking twice before committing such crimes, we have already seen instances where this has not been so. Therefore, this notion that resolutions will mitigate the potential for a genocide is unfounded. To continue to defend this indefensible position is indeed to stick our heads underground like an ostrich and pretend the world above doesn't exist. That is the unfortunate reality of our world.

 

 

 

Khojaly Massacre"

The armenians have lost close to 2 million people because of the turks from turkey and azerbaijan, and by throwing that khojaly crat into an argument you hope to creat a couterbalance? What the hell is wrong with you man? Just before the Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad, Shushi massacres, and right before what ozal said, another turkish pig from azerbaijan named elchibey made a similar comment by saying 'we gonna hang armenians in the streets of baku". Why have you chosen to ignore the words to ozal and elchibey? Once again, are you saying these bloody bastards could have make such comments if the AG was recognized by the international community?

 

I don't know why you are getting so worked up about this. I am not trying to deny or make anything negligent or marginalize anything. By merely raising that issue, I am remaining open to the possibility that it may be true and we ourselves have committed something bad. It is not a matter of "oh they killed more people and did worse things and therefore this doesn't counterbalance that." It is the idea as embodied in a principle, that you seem to be missing here. If that is true, as some sources are indicating, then how do we look?

 

Anonymouse

6."But beyond that, you have merely asserted (yet again) a blanket assertion that there is a difference between questioning and denying without offering any evidence of this."

When the jews(including rabbis) attented a seminar organized by the president of Iran, they had a right to question the events that happened during WWII. The president of Iran and Justin McCharty, on the other hand, are two sorry ass revisionists who can be in the same room with these individuals and deny the truth. Once again, raising a question and denying the truth are two different things.

 

Anonymouse

7."Furthermore, do you actually support such anti-free speech laws? Why? If something can stand on the merits, why the need to resort to official judicial decree to hold on to such truths."

 

Do you honestly belive by throwing pre-conditioned thoughts in an argument will actually help you to gain a ground? Anti-free speech law, huh? You are full of crap.

 

Because language is fungible by its nature, it is always subject to interpretation. Therefore, it is not an artform to determine that when someone who questions thereby denies. These purported distinctions may be made by you, or champions of such anti-free speech laws, but they are irrelevant. People who "question" the veracity of the gas chambers used by Nazis against the Jews, are labeled deniers. Why? This then opens a whole new question of what is or is not a holocaust or a genocide. Is history not a series of events? And in these series of events, do we not have included within it, many events, which compromise this series and make up what we, after the fact, call "genocide" or "holocaust" or "World War II" or "colonial period"? Our assignments of labels and phrases to the past are arbitrary in terms of how we divvy up the historical epochs, time periods, or events and how we combine certain things conceptually. Therefore, for purposes of understanding, education and academia, we impose, from the present, these rubrics, onto the past.

 

When someone questions the use of gas chambers in what we call the holocaust is he denying/questioning the holocaust? Or is he denying/question an event or a facet within something that we call the holocaust. When a person expresses his belief that he believes there were no gas chambers, is such a person denying the entire holocaust or just a part of the holocaust? That then all depends on what we mean by the term holocaust, just like what we mean by the term genocide.

 

The point is, as much as we may disagree with unpopular views, and no matter how much we may know them to be wrong, barring that freedom of speech and thought is wrong. People should have a right to express those views, and any laws that purport to do some mythical justice or what have you, that infringe not only upon a persons freedom of speech, but also that persons thought, are unjust and tyrannical laws, no matter what they purport to protect (in Turkey they supposedly protect Turkish identity, and the Kemalist nonsense, in France, they supposedly protect 'enlightenment' or whatever social justice thing they cook up).

 

 

Anonymouse

8."The Turkish law is the reflection of the Turkish way of life, but the French law is not? What you meant to say is, because the French law agrees with what we think, therefore it is just and noble, but the Turkish law, because it disagrees with what we say, is not."

I'm not so sure that you are in fact an armenian. But let's leave that qustion a side for now. I don't wanna give you a chance to start another trash talk by trying to escape the main points of the argument.

The turkish law is the reflection of the turkish way of life. People in turkey are assassinated for using the word genocide. The parasite hypocrats from turkey, on the other hand, who silence their own citizens for saying the word 'genocide', go to france and abuse the system which give them and the people of france a chance to freely express thier mind.

 

We know Turks are backwards, but so what? That doesn't say much about them anymore than we already know they are backwards and bloodlusting, and besides, it is irrelevant. Whether Turks ban certain forms of speech and enforce it by killing people, or whether French ban certain forms of speech and enforce it by prison terms or fines, is, irrelevant. Sure, the social harm is qualitatively different, and says alot about each society in that regard, however, the initial law which requires enforcement regardless of the methods is the real oppressor. That only occurs in societies that embrace a narrow and inward view of the world. So if the French have a culture, I understand, and they have every right to protect that culture could the bloody Turks not make the same argument? Moreover, you trying to make this arbitrary distinction that somehow the French law against free speech is okay, when the Turkish law isn't, based on only the fact that the French law happens to favor us, is silly and hypocritical.

 

With your argument you sound like a fat doctor who eats junk food and thinks all the others do the same. You simply can't enter the personal space of the others and abuse their hospitality and patience. The french have a culture. I'ts a fact that france is a democratic country and turkey is not. It's a fact that the french are civilized and the turks are barbarians. The bastards even export violence to their host countries. What have you say about the attack on Armeian cafe in Brussel?

 

Once you get personal, you lose.

 

Anonymouse

9."I did not imagine Armenians to be so hostile to free speech. Apparently, we are no better than the Jews or Turks."

W W You really are full of crap

Anonymouse

10."Justice is a very sublime word. It's just that it's misunderstood, misinterpreted, and misapplied by many, including you."

If we could only have the turks to define the meaning of all the words for us... You again play with words without by trying to escape the main points of the argument. A broad generalization will no way can help you win the argument.

Anonymouse

11."Do you think I don't realize this?"

Realize what?

Anonymouse

12."The point is, this is irrelevant. 'Land' is subject to the same centrifugal forces of history as anything else."

Is that why the turks destroy everything under their control that is associated with the name armenia/armenian? Why have you chosen not to respond to the other argument I made that a bill like this will pun an end to cultural genocide?

 

Two points:

 

(1) You keep talking about this "argument" that I am "trying to escape" and I am left wondering, just what argument are you referring to?

 

(2) If the argument you are referring to is how such a bill will end cultural genocide, then that argument was already addressed. I responded saying that this bill or any such bill, will not stop Turks or Kurds or whomever from destroying Armenian relics, and the burden is therefore upon you to show how such a bill would accomplish that, if the freaking bill is a non-binding resolution. Do you know what that means? And even if the bill was binding, and imposed sanctions let's say, do you think America or any other country is prepared to go into Turkey and enforce such an act? No! Even if America passes sanctions, the only way Turkey will even budge, is if the most important nations of the world all pass sanctions against Turkey that impose this view, and thereby Turkey has no choice but to accept. But that world is a far cry from the world we live in and it still requires the use of force. Do you see the prevailing theme here? Here is another example...

 

The reason I brought up Germany in this regard is because Germany had no choice, it was forced to accept its crimes by virtue of being vanquished and occupied after World War II. Turkey faced no such situation neither in World War I, and certainly not in World War II. Therefore, retroactive laws were created at Nuremberg and applied to Germany (it's properly called ex post facto). Germany had no option to deny its crimes and not face responsibility, because it was occupied and was forced to take certain positions by virtue of the presence of force.

 

Anonymouse

13."All history is, is a process, and a change in time. With that change, peoples, populations, cultures, empires have changed, shifted, appeared and disappeared. You cannot point to some point in the past and use it as a valid yardstick of measure, as to what the things in the present ought to be. All peoples have some claim or another to some land or another at some point in time."

Since when process has become a word in the turkish dictionary? If you have chosen to live a life of a zumbi, that's your choice. Only those with no sense of belonging would make such claims.

 

Since you did not study history, I don't expect you to understand that it's a process.

 

Anonymouse

14."With time, and historical change, lands and peoples change, whether by war, genocides or simply of their own accord due to population implosions or intermixing. Every person has a claim to some land. The Basques claim some lands, the American Indians claim others, the Mexicans claim theirs, the Eritreans claim theirs, we claim ours, etc. What about the Kurds and their supposed claims to land? Indeed much of what the Kurds assert is their land was actually ours. The map of what was 'Armenia' or 'Greater Armenia' etc., has changed over time. Which specific time period are you going to use as the proper measure of what are or are not our 'rightful lands'? There were populations shifts and changes."

 

With your logic, the same turks who so much wanna distance themselves from the ottomans, must not get engage defending the ottomans,...not to mention to claim ownership to what was left to they by their bloody fathers. The turks can fight to define the word genocide, they can fight to keep what was stolen from the armenians, but they must also distance themselves from the ottomas??? From the second you distance yourself from the ottomans, you will have no base to justify your existance. Today you live in the home of the armeians, tomorrow you might move to somewhere else. Let us speed up the process and send you back to mongolia. Or, if you chose to stay in the 'land' left to you by the ottomans, you must also take responsiblity by their actions.

 

No! You are missing the point. The Turks as a people are still the same people. The Ottoman's were just a different form of government or civilization. It is irrelevant that they distance themselves from Ottomans since they are still occupying the same lands. In addition, you are also proving how difficult it is to have claims to land because of these historic changes and processes. I no doubt believe that Armenians were deprived of their lands by virtue of extermination. However, that doesn't do anything for us. History has only recognized remedies and reparations only through violence, force and multiplication and spreading of the population, and thereby, occupation (i.e., what Kurds and Mexicans are best at doing).

 

Anonymouse

15."Do you see how pointless this is?"

 

Get your head out of the sand. Self-manipulation might be a remedy only when you got your head in the sand.

Anonymouse

16."Just accept the fact that pointless resolutions and admissions by government's official organs of this being a 'genocide' is not going to get any lands back or reparations paid, if that is what we mean by the word 'justice'. "

 

In that case, let's tell the same to the turkish government to stop spending billions to fighting genocide resolutions and start to feed their hungry people.

 

You really don't like people who don't think along your lines, do you? You seem really rattled by it. I never expressed the view that the Turkish government spends its billions for no reason, nor that such resolutions should not be made, or education about the genocide given. I have only made a point that in terms of what we define as our goals, it makes no difference.

 

Anonymouse

17."That form of 'justice' is what is called vengeance, and it is never remedied unless one adopts the policy of might is right. The meek do not inherit the earth, the mighty do. So if we want justice, and we want something that was rightfully ours and taken, we have to take it. But how do we do that with our current state as a people? We cannot.

You can never know what 'that form of justice' is unless you are a genocide survival. You are detached from the reality. For some reason, those who have no children always try to teach others with how to raise their own children.

 

This has nothing to do with growing detached or not being a survivor. I know exactly what is at stake and my grandparents were all children of people who lived through the genocide. That is irrelevant. Stop making this into a personal attack match because the only one who is dodging arguments is yourself, and in an attempt to compensate for your lack of substance and argumentative skills, the only way you can proclaim your view as somehow worthier is by saying things to the effect of, "Well, you're stupid, you're a Turk, you have your head in the sand, you are avoiding my argument, you are detached, etc." as if that somehow makes your argument any more valid. It doesn't. The flaws in your argument are glaring and I have not come here to try to make a case against the genocide, but only to be the more inquisitive, and critical Armenian, to get us to think, at least a little beyond these salivating baby steps of silly and pointless resolutions and into the big picture.

 

hagopn had a nice piece written in the history forum here, about how Armenian fixation with the genocide has deprived us of much needed schlarship and discoveries in the other areas within our history that seem to go ignored or untaught because of this genocide fixation. By no means is this a claim against the genocide, but a claim for equitable treatment and our responsibilities as Armenians. How many of our youth today speak incessantly about the genocide and remember such nice bold dates like April 24, but could not tell us anything else about Armenian history, or let's say the date of May 28, 1918, or 301 AD, etc?

 

Anonymouse

18."The only way Armenians will ever get their justice is if they breed at astronomical rates like Mexicans do here in the southwest United States and gradually move in and spread their numbers or take it by force. That is not happening because Armenians are numerically insignificant, and Armenia itself has growth problems. Nor is it militarily capable of doing such a thing. So where does this leave these resolutions? In the dustbin of history."

LOL now you are talking about justice? Save it man. Don't preach an entire nation of people how to fight for justice.

 

What do you think you are doing if not preaching little one?

 

Anonymouse

19."When Germany was defeated, it was occupied. By virtue of occupation, all sorts of crimes and retroactive laws, treaties and obligations were imposed on Germany, as a vanquished nation. It accepted whatever terms were thrown at it, as it had no choice."

 

Say what? Retroactive laws? So you are saying the French anti-descrimination law isn't that bad after all hun

 

The French law is just as bad as the Turkish law.

 

Anonymouse

20."Turkey was never occupied and never conquered. It was not subject to the same post-war treatment as Germany ever was, and consequently, it had no obligation to admit its crimes."

That's another way of saying the French law, and all the other resolutions are pointless...? If that is the case, why are the turks so hysterical about it...?

 

I don't know, I never claimed to be psychic, but I would imagine they have a vested interest in keeping everyone else under their version of events, and ignorance, but to suggest that somehow if everyone outside of Turkey believed in the genocide that somehow Turkey will accept it, is imagination at its heights.

 

[Anonymouse]

Anonymouse,

 

Killing a time with a trash talk will not force the armenians to stop fighting for jutice. For the gods sake, even the genocide didn't silence us... Haven't you learn anything so far?

 

You like it or not, the armenians have survived the genocide and they are back to fight for justice. The new generation of armenians don't think the way their fathers and grandfathers used to think. They simply understand that you can't rely on christian values while fighting the bloody turks. We will not forgive and we will not forget until the turks ask as to forgive -and until they pay for what has been done to us. For the armenains this is a fight for survival. The Armenian-renaissance has already started and with more time passing, you will see a stronger army against you. Armed with knowledge and determination, they will crash you sooner then you think.

 

This is the first time I agree with you. That portion in bold is the only part we see eye to eye. This is the method which you realize will only get us justice, but ironically, it is the method you do not endorse.

 

No one is asking to forgive or forget. You are so fixed into your paradigm after so much repetition and hearing it so much from every orifice of communication, you have mistaken me, an honest inquiring mind merely posing critical questions to us (after all do we not all, as individuals and people, need to asses where we are, from time to time and have some introspection?) as an enemy.

 

Now, go think hard about all the things I have said, and realize I have not really so much stated anything contra your position, but merely asked you to validate your position, and you seemed to get upset with me. I meant no harm, I am sincerely sorry if I did cause any anger in you.

[Lev7]

Anonymouse,

 

did you have a lonely childhood, why do you cry for attention?

[AVO]

He just wants to be loved. I don't think its working