On Freedom of Speech, Rush and the Turkish viewpoint

[Scribbly]

At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.

2/3rds of them deserved it?

Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.

I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.

Wow, all 1 million, including children, engaged in this? That's pretty impressive.

Seriously. Arguing semantics at this kind of level (which is exactly what 'but the definition says...') is in incredibly poor taste. It makes it difficult to take anything else you have to say regarding Turkey and free speech seriously, to say the least.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Fine, so it's murderous ethnic cleansing, which fits the definition exactly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing

An earlier draft by the Commission of Experts described ethnic cleansing as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." (...) 'ethnic cleansing' has been carried out by means of murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property. Those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention".

Ethnic cleansing is not to be confused with genocide. These terms are not synonymous, yet the academic discourse considers both as existing in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or 'population transfer' whereas genocide is the "intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group."[3] The idea in ethnic cleansing is "to get people to move, and the means used to this end range from the legal to the semi-legal."[4] Some academics consider genocide as a subset of "murderous ethnic cleansing."[5] Thus, these concepts are different, but related, "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people."[6]

Murderous Ethnic Cleansing:
Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of them in a certain area.

Genocide:
Murdering a race or religion in order to get rid of the race or religion.


They're both considered crimes against humanity.

The difference also seems somewhat academic to me. And many academics even argue that the difference is not even that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#Study_of_the_Armenian_Genocide



So anyway, can you argue it's murderous ethnic cleansing, then? And I don't mean if you, Rat, agree with the term (because if you don't you might need to reboot your brainlogic circuits), but rather if it's allowed to argue this in Turkey?

You can debate both of those terms in Turkey currently. The current PM has practically copped to a lesser charge on the subject, but the Armenians insist on the term genocide.

ETA: The current government has, on multiple occasions called for an international team to investigate the issue claiming that if there is evidence of genocide they will accept it.

Of course, there is a lot of politicking about if they're serious or just trying to use it as a cover. However, the debate is tolerated here. (Ironically, its no longer tolerated in France.)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.

2/3rds of them deserved it?

Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.

I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.

Wow, all 1 million, including children, engaged in this? That's pretty impressive.

Seriously. Arguing semantics at this kind of level (which is exactly what 'but the definition says...') is in incredibly poor taste. It makes it difficult to take anything else you have to say regarding Turkey and free speech seriously, to say the least.

The issue here is what the EU and countries like France want Turkey to admit. They want, specifically, them to admit to the definition. Turkey refuses because the definition requires 'intent'. If instead the EU had required an admission of war crimes or ethnic cleansing, Turkey likely would have accepted the term.

Semantics are exactly what's being argued on all sides of the debate.

[Triple Zero]

well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.

on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.

or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.

on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.

or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.

I think it boils down to reparations. :-/

Anyway I'm off for the night, talk to you all tomorrow.

[Scribbly]

well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.

on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.

or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.

Voting in the EU is done by population.

Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.

France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.

on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.

or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.

Voting in the EU is done by population.

Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.

France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)

That could very well be another angle I hadn't considered.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.

2/3rds of them deserved it?

Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.

I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.

Wow, all 1 million, including children, engaged in this? That's pretty impressive.

Seriously. Arguing semantics at this kind of level (which is exactly what 'but the definition says...') is in incredibly poor taste. It makes it difficult to take anything else you have to say regarding Turkey and free speech seriously, to say the least.

Likewise.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.

on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.

or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.

Voting in the EU is done by population.

Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.

France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)

Yeah, you make a really good point.

[Phox]

well, on the one hand I think arguing the semantics is indeed in poor taste. Especially since murderous ethnic cleansing literally and figuratively bleeds over into genocide.

on the other hand, I don't quite see what's the benefit for France (and probably other EU countries) is to insist on calling it genocide versus a war crime and murderous ethnic cleansing, except for being difficult about Turkey's admission to the EU, since calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" isn't going to make people think it's less bad than genocide as the terms are synonymous enough to the average person, and it opens up the discussion of Turkey's guilt in the matter.

or is there some other war crime related reason that calling it "murderous ethnic cleansing" would somehow let Turkey off the hook in some sense? because I don't see it.

Voting in the EU is done by population.

Turkey is massive, and overwhelmingly Muslim.

France have Issues with Islam. Everyone else has Issues with a massive country joining the EU without completely signing up to the ethics of the organization (and with Islam to some extent too). If Turkey is a country willing, as a nation, to distance themselves from genocide on the sort of technicalities that Rat is doing here, do they seem like the sort of country it is going to be easy to work with when you need to bend the rules? (See: all of the bailouts at the moment)

Given what i know of French politics, (which is very little, admittedly, and I know pretty much nothing about EU politics in general), this seems to be in line with what I would expect. However, i would like to ask someone with more knowledge on the matter if it's mostly France pulling the EU around by the nose, or if other countries are as involved in the issue?

[Doktor Howl]

At the least, it has changed my view that the Armenians were a peaceful people that were killed simply because of their ethnic and religious heritage.

2/3rds of them deserved it?

Not at all. No one deserves it. However, the armenians were actively at war with the Turks, supporting a Russian invasion after engaging in Christian on Muslim violence and wiping out entire cities of Muslims. Unlike the Jews in Germany and Europe, who weren't doing anything against the government, these people had attacked government troops and local civilians multiple times... ergo not 'peaceful' and the deaths appear far more likely to be related to the military action, rather than their ethnic heritage.

I had not realized that before. I certainly hadn't realized that both sides were guilty of war crimes.

What percentage of the dead Armenians were bearing arms, and are you certain that all the affected areas were in rebellion?

[Cain]

There's also the issue of the Common Agricultural Policy (basically Turkey would bankrupt the program) and German fears over mass immigration into the country, as border controls would no longer apply to Turkish nationals.

However, the main objection is that Turkey doesn't seem very well subscribed to European political, social and ethical norms, even by the low standards at which current European major players understand them.  It's a country which has a distressing history of military coups, state-sponsored terrorism, corruption, ethnic violence and as a transit route for drugs and guns.  Letting Turkey into the EU would mean that those problems then become Europe's problems, and Europe isn't exactly good at dealing with a crisis, you might have noticed. 

[Doktor Howl]

Oh, look.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_genocide

Hamidian Massacres, 1894–96Main article: Hamidian Massacres
Since 1876, the Ottoman state had been led by Sultan Abdul Hamid II. From the beginning of the reform period after the signing of the Berlin treaty, Hamid II attempted to stall their implementation and asserted that Armenians did not make up a majority in the provinces and that Armenian reports of abuses were largely exaggerated or false. In 1890, Hamid II created a paramilitary outfit known as the Hamidiye which was made up of Kurdish irregulars who were tasked to "deal with the Armenians as they wished."[32]:40 As Ottoman officials intentionally provoked rebellions (often as a result of over-taxation) in Armenian populated towns, such as in Sasun in 1894 and Zeitun in 1895–96, these regiments were increasingly used to deal with the Armenians by way of oppression and massacre. In some instances, Armenians successfully fought off the regiments and brought the excesses to the attention of the Great Powers in 1895 who subsequently condemned the Porte.[33]:40–2

[Doktor Howl]

And watch as the brave Turks defend themselves against women and children!

Mass burningsEitan Belkind was a Nili member, who infiltrated the Ottoman army as an official. He was assigned to the headquarters of Kamal Pasha. He claims to have witnessed the burning of 5,000 Armenians.[46]:181,183

Lt. Hasan Maruf, of the Ottoman army, describes how a population of a village were taken all together, and then burned.[47] The Commander of the Third Army Vehib's 12-page affidavit, which was dated 5 December 1918, was presented in the Trabzon trial series (March 29, 1919) included in the Key Indictment,[48] reporting such a mass burning of the population of an entire village near Mush.[49] that in Bitlis, Mus and Sassoun, "The shortest method for disposing of the women and children concentrated in the various camps was to burn them." And also that "Turkish prisoners who had apparently witnessed some of these scenes were horrified and maddened at the remembering the sight. They told the Russians that the stench of the burning human flesh permeated the air for many days after."

DrowningTrabzon was the main city in Trabzon province; Oscar S. Heizer, the American consul at Trabzon, reports: "This plan did not suit Nail Bey.... Many of the children were loaded into boats and taken out to sea and thrown overboard."[50] The Italian consul of Trabzon in 1915, Giacomo Gorrini, writes: "I saw thousands of innocent women and children placed on boats which were capsized in the Black Sea."[51] The Trabzon trials reported Armenians having been drowned in the Black Sea.[52]

Hoffman Philip, the American Charge at Constantinople chargé d'affaires, writes: "Boat loads sent from Zor down the river arrived at Ana, one thirty miles away, with three fifths of passengers missing."[53]

Use of poison and drug overdosesThe psychiatrist Robert Jay Lifton writes in a parenthesis when introducing the crimes of Nazi doctors, "Perhaps Turkish doctors, in their participation in the genocide against the Armenians, come closest, as I shall later suggest."[54]

Morphine overdose: During the Trabzon trial series of the Martial court, from the sittings between March 26 and May 17, 1919, the Trabzons Health Services Inspector Dr. Ziya Fuad wrote in a report that Dr. Saib caused the death of children with the injection of morphine. The information was allegedly provided by two physicians (Drs. Ragib and Vehib), both Dr. Saib's colleagues at Trabzons Red Crescent hospital, where those atrocities were said to have been committed.[55][56]

Toxic gas: Dr. Ziya Fuad and Dr. Adnan, public health services director of Trabzon, submitted affidavits reporting cases in which two school buildings were used to organize children and send them to the mezzanine to kill them with toxic gas equipment.[57][58]

Typhoid inoculation: The Ottoman surgeon, Dr. Haydar Cemal wrote "on the order of the Chief Sanitation Office of the Third Army in January 1916, when the spread of typhus was an acute problem, innocent Armenians slated for deportation at Erzican were inoculated with the blood of typhoid fever patients without rendering that blood 'inactive'."[59][60] Jeremy Hugh Baron writes: "Individual doctors were directly involved in the massacres, having poisoned infants, killed children and issued false certificates of death from natural causes. Nazim's brother-in-law Dr. Tevfik Rushdu, Inspector-General of Health Services, organized the disposal of Armenian corpses with thousands of kilos of lime over six months; he became foreign secretary from 1925 to 1938."[61

[Doktor Howl]

Oddly enough, I was unable to find any accounts of Armenians wiping out Muslim cities.

I did, however, find the account of Smyrna, in which the Turks burned a city full of Armenians.