Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution [Archive]

View Full Version : Turkey Recalls Ambassador Over Genocide Resolution

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2007, 21:17

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/11/us.turkey.armenians/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,301221,00.html

ANKARA, Turkey — Turkey ordered its ambassador in Washington to return to Turkey for consultations over a U.S. House panel's approval of a bill describing the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide, a Foreign Ministry spokesman said Thursday.

So, is it worth risking US relations with Turkey which are crucial to the progress of the Iraq War to make sure the Armenian Genocide isn't lost in history?

FactionHeir

10-11-2007, 21:22

I'd say so, yes.

Relations may be more or less useful for the 'war', but there are other nations in the region too which are US vassals.

Besides, wouldn't it be ... hypocritical to not denounce a genocide just because you want to be in someone's good will? Denounce terror and genocide and those who do not support you, but your friends can do all that and get away with it?

Of course that would be nothing new.
So what's next? Darfur is not a genocide?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

10-11-2007, 21:28

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

PanzerJaeger

10-11-2007, 21:30

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.

FactionHeir

10-11-2007, 21:32

Its not like the current German government is responsible for the holocaust either though.

Either way, this is not about which government is responsible, but to highlight the plight of those affected and their extended families and survivors. If Turkey feels not directly responsible, then they shouldn't make a fuss about it.

The Wizard

10-11-2007, 21:34

That's the weird part. Neither the Turkish Republic nor its founders had anything to do with the genocide (unlike the German state which is the legal successor to the German Reich; mind you we're talking legalities here, if we're talking practical matters it's something different), but it's the Turkish Republic that is so virulently denying it was a genocide in the first place, allowing the Armenian state (rightfully so after that) to demand an apology.

The question here is how far are the Turks willing to go. If they cut off U.S. air supplies they're risking a whole lot -- their position in the NATO and their supply of fresh craft for their air fleet. I don't think they'll try stuff like that; in a bluffing game it's big ol' Uncle Sam that's got the cards.

AntiochusIII

10-11-2007, 22:25

They are not responsible, but they deny it at all costs.Probably they thought some illusory "national pride" is at stake. :dizzy2:

Bah, nationalists.

Samurai Waki

10-11-2007, 22:26

I think the Turk's refuse it on a matter of pride (not that this is necessarily a bad thing) as it can be argued the the Armenians weren't exactly peaches to begin with either. I don't condone mass killings of any kind, (der) but I'm of the belief that this was an armed uprising handled very very incorrectly, not a genocide.

Proletariat

10-11-2007, 23:32

As much as I love a smack in the chops to the freakishly nationalistic state Turkey, this was just stupid pandering to Armenian constituents by US Senators like Pelosi (I'm sure there were Republicans doing the same). Every living Secretary of State signed a letter to the House saying this was stupid.

The Wizard

10-11-2007, 23:45

Hey, this was a predetermined mass murder perpetrated by the Ottoman military, commanded by Enver Pasha, as the main act in the Ottoman part in a period of major and incredibly bloody violence between Muslims (Turks, Kurds, Laz) and Christians (Armenians, Assyrians, Russians) in the Eastern part of what remained of the Ottoman empire, bordering Russia. The Armenians and their Russian buddies did plenty of killing too (this is where the official Turkish view on things is correct), just that they didn't resort to forcing thousands upon thousands of people to walk halfway across the Middle East without food or water.

Besides that, Congress has adapted resolutions like this before. The only consideration that can (and should) play is: is it worth doing the right thing (recognizing the existence of a genocide on Armenians, with the anecdote that the Armenians weren't exactly lambs for the slaughter either) if that can lead to your men and women trying to do their life-threatening job somewhere getting in big, big trouble? Considering it's unlikely the Turks can stare Washington down, I'd say yes.

IrishArmenian

10-12-2007, 00:08

I have to post but I don't really want to say too much, I'm far too biased.

We're all brothers: Armenians, Georgians, Turks, Azeris, and we should act brotherly. I don't blame Turks for the Genocide. I don't blame the Turkish government for the Genocide. All the people who are responsible are dead. However, the denial of it is incredibly insulting and it feels like a kick while one is down.

Now, I am not going to play the innocent card, many of us were rather angry with the government at the time, especially after the Hamidian massacres. I don't endorse the retalitory acts by Armenians, but I could see why the relationship quickly took a turn for the worse.

The use of the word 'deportation' is just plain wrong for a few reasons, but chiefly, why are people burnt, shot, and stabbed for a deportation? The burning is what really gets me, that is too obvious.
I doubt the U.S. will approve of this bill because the higher ups prove time and time again that they care about one thing: power. If they do this, they sour a relationship with a powerful friend.
I don't buy this "set-back for Turkish-Armenian relations" rot. This is a step forward!
Why does the Turkish government deny the Genocide anyway? They didn't do it, the Turkish people didn't do it. It was put into action by a few crazy nationalists-- who, tragically were in extreme positions of power-- and carried out by large amounts of convicts and like minded nationalists.
I seriously do not understand the nationalism behind this. Why could someone be so naive as to think their country has done no wrong? Hell, my country has, even recently in the Azerbaijan conflict.
I am puzzled, truly confused as to why the Turkish government cannot admit it. Are they afraid the Grey Wolves will attack? Why do they continue?

Again, I'm really biased, but I would like to read potential answers to the questions posed.

Louis VI the Fat

10-12-2007, 00:13

You too, eh? Quite a déjà vu (French in Armenia 'genocide' row).

Tribesman

10-12-2007, 00:52

Bad timing eh , a day after cross border shelling and a week before a vote on invasion .

IrishArmenian

10-12-2007, 02:24

Yes, really. And they think we work with the PKK! I support the idea of a Kurdish nation in Northern Iraq, but I will not tolerate terrorism or the killing of innocents. I really hope that with this we can join Georgia in being supported by the US rather than Russia. Georgia really came out of the USSR firing on all cylinders, which I truly do admire-- although they didn't have to deal with a devastating earthquake and some stupid conflict caused by nationalism and a lack of truly caring leaders.
Why the cynicism? We're human but we're not evil.

I apologize, I seem to display the Armenian stereotype of being a political one-trick horse. We're not actually like that, but I don't really think that the crowd here at the .Org is the closeminded generalisation favoring group.

KukriKhan

10-12-2007, 04:14

Bad timing eh , a day after cross border shelling and a week before a vote on invasion .

Yes, indeed. If Turkey, further emboldened by anger at the US resolution, launches anti-PKK attacks into northern Iraq, what leg has the US to stand on if Iran does the same, to respond to their PKK cross-border attacks? Repel Iran, but not Turkey? Or repel both Iran and a NATO ally? Or stand there crying "stop"?

And, as a side note, if we're gonna offocially deplore genocides (a term not coined until 1943), how soon will we see the resolution deploring the genocide of native americans?

Husar

10-12-2007, 07:13

Irish Armenian, I like to hear your opinion and to me (ok, I don't really know a lot about the topic :sweatdrop: ) you don't sound very biased. Maybe biased towards peace and understanding. :2thumbsup:

That said, I don't know what's so bad about acknowledging the bad things someone else has done, is it just because he happened to be born inside the same national borders? :inquisitive:

I don't know why the US even thinks about how to look upon this but then big organizations always want to say something about events that hardly have anything to do with them.
Guess it's to show support for the armenian community as some said.

Tribesman

10-12-2007, 07:29

Samurai Waki

10-12-2007, 08:27

I just don't believe the USA has any right to call the Turkish-Armenian Situation a Genocide, if we can't even fess up to our own.

HoreTore

10-12-2007, 22:25

I don't support the idea that governments are to decide history.

That should be left to the historians. And laws constricting their research(both ways, of course) are idiotic and pointless, and serves only to poke at each other. The turks pokes at armenians by jailing people calling it a genocide, now other countries wants to poke the turks for not calling it genocide. A pointless role for a state to play.

PanzerJaeger

10-12-2007, 22:34

I just don't believe the USA has any right to call the Turkish-Armenian Situation a Genocide, if we can't even fess up to our own.

The Native American condition is very well documented and taught in public schools. I believe the government has "fessed up" to it in many ways, including financial aid and other benefits given to them.

Komutan

10-12-2007, 23:25

Now heres a thought that perhaps one of the Turkish members could ponder .
If people in Turkey campaigned against 301 which is used to cover prosecution for calling the events genocide , would they be breaching that law by their actions?

It depends on the judge. 301 has such a broad range, that in theory even saying something like "Turkish soccer team sucks" may get you in trouble:laugh4: But of course they don't exaggerate it that much. There are many people protesting 301.

I don't think the real question here is whether there was a genocide or not. The question is whether a political body has the right to make a judgement for something that has happened in history. Of course a genocide that happened 5 years ago should be discussed as you can do something about it, like bringing the ones that committed the crime to trial etc. But this has happened almost 100 years ago. None of the people responsible for it are alive. What purpose do such bills have(other than pleasing Armenian voters)? They only result in fueling the hatred between Turks and Armenians. Every time such a vote is discussed, the voice of Turkish extreme nationalists gets stronger. If this issue was not discussed by foreign countries so much, I am sure Turks would eventually accept what has happened.

Actually I hope the bill will be passed this time, so we will not hear anymore about it. But I doubt it will pass. Until now USA played both to Armenians and Turks; discussing it for Armenians sake, and then not passing it for Turks sake. It will probably continue that way.

Stig

10-12-2007, 23:32

The question here is how far are the Turks willing to go. If they cut off U.S. air supplies they're risking a whole lot -- their position in the NATO and their supply of fresh craft for their air fleet. I don't think they'll try stuff like that; in a bluffing game it's big ol' Uncle Sam that's got the cards.
That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... or don't deny it the way they do ... sure this has nothing to do with America, but most Europeans aren't as stupid as they look, they also hear with Turkey says about this now. And they might not like it.

Komutan

10-13-2007, 00:07

That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... .

No. Officially there is no such precondition for Turkey's admittance to EU, even though the European Parliament insisted that Turkey should do it.

AntiochusIII

10-13-2007, 00:51

What purpose do such bills have(other than pleasing Armenian voters)?Apart from propaganda value, not really.

I agree that a place like Congress is the most appropriate to discuss historical issues, unless there's a diplomatic agenda at work.

If this issue was not discussed by foreign countries so much, I am sure Turks would eventually accept what has happened.Oh, but that is a problem, you see, because meanwhile the Turkish government and whatever extreme nationalist scumbags within it will proceed to brainwash your nation from the roots: by whitewashing the history textbooks. The consequence of that, if successful, would be for the genocide to be forgotten forever, unacknowledged.

The activists and I suppose some historians cannot accept that, so they continue to raise the issue, even if the calm from controversy might just as well be the thing the Turkish people needs from another perspective. As long as the controversy continues no one will forget.

Samurai Waki

10-13-2007, 02:42

The Native American condition is very well documented and taught in public schools. I believe the government has "fessed up" to it in many ways, including financial aid and other benefits given to them.

Have you ever been to a reservation? These places are the dirtiest, poorest, and most crime ridden places in the USA. The Crow Indian Reservation outside of Billings qualifies as the poorest place in the USA, and just by looking at it you'll see exactly why. Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can. The very idea that the Natives Must stay in these dirt poor hovels, without guarantee of a job, or electricity, or clean water just so that they can get a Federal Aid Check every 2 months is just barely enough for them to stay, because most of them are afraid that they'll lose what little shreds of the Cultural Pride they have left if they leave... not exactly what I would call "Financial aid and benefits".

Lemur

10-13-2007, 04:20

Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can.
Um, but neither do we deny the genocide of the Native Americans. I get what you're saying -- they were treated deplorably, are treated deplorably, so the 'fessing up doesn't matter. But that's a sort of misdirection on your part.

America, as a nation, does not deny the genocide of the Native Americans. Full stop. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's enough. How much worse would it be if every American schoolchild were taught that Indians were really terrorists who vanished 'cause, um, 'cause they just kinda did.

You feel that we have not done enough to compensate the survivors of the Native American genocide? That's a legitimate point of view, but it doesn't create moral equivalence with genocide deniers.

PanzerJaeger

10-13-2007, 04:32

Have you ever been to a reservation? These places are the dirtiest, poorest, and most crime ridden places in the USA. The Crow Indian Reservation outside of Billings qualifies as the poorest place in the USA, and just by looking at it you'll see exactly why. Yeah, we were taught that we weren't be nice the Natives in School, but they don't ever tell you to what extent, you have to see it for your own eyes and you can. The very idea that the Natives Must stay in these dirt poor hovels, without guarantee of a job, or electricity, or clean water just so that they can get a Federal Aid Check every 2 months is just barely enough for them to stay, because most of them are afraid that they'll lose what little shreds of the Cultural Pride they have left if they leave... not exactly what I would call "Financial aid and benefits".

I think we're talking on two different levels.

Like Lemur said, I certainly am not arguing that the Native Americans are treated well or that the US has or is repairing the damage. Im just saying that the US government does not deny what was done to them and in fact it has become an increasingly large part of American History classes. I remember in school there was a whole chapter devoted to the treatment of the slaves, the Native Americans and the immigrant Asian workers, along with descriptions of the treatment of the Indians in other chapters.

Samurai Waki

10-13-2007, 09:46

Um, but neither do we deny the genocide of the Native Americans. I get what you're saying -- they were treated deplorably, are treated deplorably, so the 'fessing up doesn't matter. But that's a sort of misdirection on your part.

America, as a nation, does not deny the genocide of the Native Americans. Full stop. For the purposes of this discussion, I think that's enough. How much worse would it be if every American schoolchild were taught that Indians were really terrorists who vanished 'cause, um, 'cause they just kinda did.

You feel that we have not done enough to compensate the survivors of the Native American genocide? That's a legitimate point of view, but it doesn't create moral equivalence with genocide deniers.

Well... this is kind of tricky actually, because while as Americans we do not deny the genocide of Natives it doesn't actually read the same on paper; its sort of the exact opposite situation that the Turks face. Americans don't deny it, and our government doesn't either, but it's not willing to "Officially" Recognize it as a Genocide because the Federal Government feels it compensated the Natives by giving them Federal Aid and their own respective Sovereign Nations (albeit fully in control by the Federal Government). But the Reservation System while a good idea in theory, was seriously taken out of context in the 1880s-1890s, because the Government really didn't want to pay for it, nor do anything to solve the situation. after most of the population had already been massacred they just corralled them into their own neighborhoods and threw money at them, even if they never had any use for it to begin with.

And being a Montanan and living around some of these Neo Nazi...*bleh* Hill Folk, I can certainly tell you that to some people living around here, have to some extent a bias (though never spoken of publicly) they don't believe the Genocide ever took place, or wish they would have fully finished the job. Its really disgusting, considering some of the best friends I've ever had in my life were Natives (mostly Blackfoot and some Sioux). And these people STILL believe that the Federal Government are just trying to throw money at the problem instead of attempting to build up commerce, or put some kick in their economy so that they can live a higher standard of life (and this doesn't include Indian Casinos as most Natives believe these aren't the positive kinds of change they want).

We don't deny our own genocide. But we're unwilling to do anything in earnest to solve it 110 years later. I don't know which ones worse.

Stig

10-13-2007, 10:02

No. Officially there is no such precondition for Turkey's admittance to EU, even though the European Parliament insisted that Turkey should do it.
Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

HoreTore

10-14-2007, 07:46

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

Not really, just have them stop prosecuting people for talking about it should be enough.

Although I do suppose the french could behave like idiots and demand idiotic things...

Fragony

10-14-2007, 13:03

Believe me, if they want to join they'll have to admit it happened.

Yeah right, the only thing that stops Turkey from joining is Turkey not doing so. Who or whatever is running the EU has already decided.

Ja'chyra

10-15-2007, 12:02

Does the US government actually call what happed to the native Americans genocide or do they call it exploitation and other non committal words?

Lemur

10-15-2007, 17:42

Does the US government actually call what happed to the native Americans genocide or do they call it exploitation and other non committal words?
Unfortunately, it's a little bit complicated. The word "genocide" wasn't an accepted term until 1948, whereas the Indian Wars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Wars) were entirely over by 1895. So the legal frameworks and administrative bodies for handling the survivors were all in place well before the word "genocide" was being bandied about.

Another complicating factor is the "virgin soil epidemic" in North America. Put simply, European settlers brought some nasty pathogens with them, such as smallpox, measles, influenza, whooping cough, diphtheria, typhus, bubonic plague, cholera and scarlet fever. All of these diseases were minty-fresh to the Americas. The best estimates are that 75 to 90 percent of the deaths of Native Americans came from these pathogens. Entire tribes went extinct without any war or effort on the part of the Europeans. Does this qualify as a genocide?

And yes, there were deliberate efforts to spread disease among the natives, but the historical evidence is thin. Admittedly, people engaging in early biological warfare wouldn't be eager to document their actions, but given the morals of the time, I can't see that they would be worried about any efforts made to kill people they would have regarded as red-skinned, godless heathens, either. The only recorded incident where smallpox was deliberately spread among Native Americans was in 1763, when Sir Jeffrey Amherst ordered that blankets from the smallpox hospital be distributed among the Ohio tribes. What the British authorities did not know was that smallpox was already raging among the Ohio, so it's debatable whether Sir Jeffrey's episode of biological villainy had any effect.

Ye gods, this is a huge topic. Don't forget that the Indian Wars occurred over centuries, with many different tribes and many different Europeans battling or allying over a wide variety of causes.

I think by the 1800s, with the Europeans so entrenched and powerful, and the Native Americans so decimated and scattered, it became something very similar to genocide. A lot of politicians saw the Indians as a problem in need of solving. I can't seem to track down the exact quote, but a Civil War general was sent west to evaluate the Natives and see what could be done with them. Could they be integrated into American life? Could they be preserved? Could we co-exist or not? He wrote back a chilling letter with a line that burned itself into my brain: "If they are to survive, it will only be as a species of beggar."

That's getting close to calling for a Final Solution.

Many historians call it genocide, and the U.S. government has never disputed it. Some historians argue the accuracy of the term. Here's an example (http://www.hnn.us/articles/7302.html):

In the end, the sad fate of America's Indians represents not a crime but a tragedy, involving an irreconcilable collision of cultures and values. Despite the efforts of well-meaning people in both camps, there existed no good solution to this clash. The Indians were not prepared to give up the nomadic life of the hunter for the sedentary life of the farmer. The new Americans, convinced of their cultural and racial superiority, were unwilling to grant the original inhabitants of the continent the vast preserve of land required by the Indians’ way of life. The consequence was a conflict in which there were few heroes, but which was far from a simple tale of hapless victims and merciless aggressors. To fling the charge of genocide at an entire society serves neither the interests of the Indians nor those of history.

Personally, I think it was a genocide, if a complicated one that doesn't necessarily fit into our collective vision of total guilt on one side and total victimhood on the other. I don't know if the U.S. government has taken a particular stand on the issue, and would be grateful if anyone could dig up something official.

Louis VI the Fat

10-15-2007, 18:11

Unfortunately, it's a little bit complicated.

Personally, I think it was a genocide, if a complicated one that doesn't necessarily fit into our collective vision of total guilt on one side and total victimhood on the other. I don't know if the U.S. government has taken a particular stand on the issue, and would be grateful if anyone could dig up something official.Hoh-ho! This is our genocide. Most of the hard work was done before the end of the 18th / early 19th century.

That just to further complicate matters. ~;)

Spain, Portugal, France, the Netherlands and Britain are the first responsible for the depopulation and repopulation of the Americas. Later followed by their successor states. Was it a genocide, that is, a deliberate extermination campaign(s)? Well that is indeed very complicated, but on the whole, a quick comparison between wars in Europe fought by these states and the wars they fought in the Americas shows a clear difference: extermination, slavery and repopulation were, not unknown, but incidental and somewhat limited in Europe, but the norm in the Americas. Hence, yes, there was a clear pattern of culpable, genocidal ideology.

I don't know about the official stance, tbh. I think that in the public opinion it is not really a cause of much debate or concern. The general idea is, that France was the least genocidal of the lot. More concerned with trade and less with depopulation and resettlement. (On the continent, not in the Caribbean, mind). And that hence French colonisation has ultimately been limited to the frosty plains of the St. Lawrence river. Whereas Spanish, Portuguese and English are spoken over vast areas multiple the size of Europe. Come to think of it, I think the reluctance to genocide vast areas is somewhat deplored nowadays...

IrishArmenian

10-16-2007, 00:48

Irish Armenian, I like to hear your opinion and to me (ok, I don't really know a lot about the topic :sweatdrop: ) you don't sound very biased. Maybe biased towards peace and understanding. :2thumbsup:
Alright, you asked for it.
It is stupid that such an issue is debated by the American congress. They may be the ones who decide what to do about it, but they are politicians, not historians!
Of course its Genocide! Such an affront to human rights is generally called a genocide, yes? The American Indians, the Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies and others in World War II and many others serve as examples. Real 'repopulation attempts' include provisions, whereas Armenians were marched into the desert with absolutely nothing, shot if they stopped! Real 'repopulation attempts' do not involve gang-rape and burning at the stake. The once prosperous and esteemed Armenian population--known to some historians as 'The Jews of the Ottoman Empire' in that they were an ethnic and religious minority that held mostly financial and administrative positions--suddenly dissapeared should've raised a few eyebrows, and it did amongst many people, including many Turks, who thought of us as a productive and respectful people. All of a sudden, we were no where to be found. We couldn't've possibly fallen of the edge of the earth, so what happened? Its quite obvious when one pursues the facts.
I'm also disgusted with my wayward brothers who seek violent revenge against the Turkish people for it, though. Sure, I think that we were wronged and well, got the shaft when Armenia emerged--Lake Van and Ararat are all I ask, but I digress--but pinning this on the Turkish people or the Turkish government is simply idiotic. As I stated earlier, the Genocide was the work of nationalists and the scum of the empire, recruited from the prisons. Sure, the Turkish government has downplayed the Genocide in a rather insulting fashion, trying to cover something up that was in no way their problem, inadvertently making it their problem, but they didn't commit the Genocide. The Turkish people didn't do it, come on, many hid us from the authorities, risking their lives and the lives of their families*. That is true brotherhood! It saddens me that many of our Turkish brothers have been indoctrinated by their government, but they might be saying the same about me, so that is a pointless endeavour.
Still, people are entitled to their own opinion. The law that was put up--did they succeed?--in France really hurts the cause. That idea of making it a law would reduce France to the level of the present Turkish government, which can arrest one on the grounds of 'Insulting Turkish Identity', which is a load of rot!
The whole situation makes me excruciatingly angry. If there was admittance, compensation, we could go on living our lives as brothers, but no! Some ten-watts on both sides think that compromise for the weak. What fools! They are obviously blind to the way the world works.
I admit, some Armenians, in retaliation for the Hamidian Massacres of the late 19th century, in which hundreds of thousands of Armenians were killed, massacred some Turkish towns. Terrible! Atrocious! I am truly ashamed that they did that in the name of Armenia and the Armenian people!
What wee need is to forgive, have a coming together, and the prosper as brothers, as we should! "No!" says the nationalist, "We should punish them for their insolence!" The politicians cater to what they percieve as the masses, but if they looked to the real masses, they'd see people tired of feuding and wanting to set their differences aside. No politicans want that, though, then people actually unite, which politicans fear the most.
This is merely an issue of people thinking that through adament denial, they can rewrite history, which is absolute bollocks.
*"There is no evil without the smallest measure of good"
--Armenian proverb

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2007, 01:31

Crazed Rabbit

10-17-2007, 02:04

Seems sadly plausible to me.

Heck, seems like the most probably reason for this vote. They get to be morally righteous and kick Bush in the pants.

CR

Lemur

10-17-2007, 02:46

Plausible scenario?
Anything's possible, but this does sound a bit tinfoil-hat-esque. Remember the modern version of Occam's Razor -- never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.

Ice

10-17-2007, 02:49

KukriKhan

10-17-2007, 03:07

Maybe Turkey will just return the favor, and vote a parliamentary resolution deploring America's genocide, instead of authorizing self-defense cross-border incursions.

Then the deplore-o-meter will be back in the center.

And the coalition forces can enforce Iraq's borders, something we're obviously not very good at, home or abroad.

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 03:31

Seems a bit late and pointless to denounce it really, what purpose does it serve? How is the current Turkish government responsible.
What's the purpose? Well its so the dems and there 5th column liberal buddies can cut of the supplies to the troops they're always talking about "supporting". There was a time when citizens of the United States and their representatives wanted whats best for the country, not anymore. San Fran Nan should be tried for treason.

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 03:41

Anything's possible, but this does sound a bit tinfoil-hat-esque. Remember the modern version of Occam's Razor -- never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence.
Tinfoil hatesque? Get real, of course this is what they are doing. But who cars if it gets more of our troops killed as long as it keeps your favorite party in power right Lemur. I wish you guys and your political leaders on the left didn't "support the troops" so much.:no:

Lemur

10-17-2007, 03:44

In other words, according to our pet conspiracy theorists:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ackbar.jpg

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 03:49

In other words, according to our pet conspiracy theorists:

https://img.photobucket.com/albums/v489/Lemurmania/ackbar.jpg
Get a good laugh my friend. Its a real side splitter. I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore since over half the legislative branch is doing their best to stab you in the back and atleast have of the civilian population could give a ####. Oh I forgot, but you still support the troops right Lemur?

Lemur

10-17-2007, 04:25

Oh I forgot, but you still support the troops right Lemur?
Well, I don't accessorize with an American flag lapel pin, and my car does not have a yellow ribbon magnet on it, so I guess I must not. Really DD, it should be easy for you to pick out the anti-American traitors.

IrishArmenian

10-17-2007, 04:39

Well played, Lemur.
Anyway, it really angers me that politicians are abusing the Genocide. They're only bringing this up so Turkey doesn't invade Northern Iraq.
Big disappointment, I know! Politicians are, in fact, dirty, terrible people.

Kukri, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

KukriKhan

10-17-2007, 04:50

...Kukri, I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

I mean I think it's none of my congress's business to deplore someone else's ancient politico-military decisions, particularly when our own are equally deplorable.

And that this kind of action does nothing to address or improve the situation on the ground in the (not-ancient, but current) warzone, where young men - Turk, Kurd, Iraqi, American, and others - stand to lose their lives in greater numbers than they might have without these thoughtless, pandering, so-called resolutions.

Full disclosure: my army son is stationed near the Turk border.

Lemur

10-17-2007, 05:03

I mean I think it's none of my congress's business to deplore someone else's ancient politico-military decisions, particularly when our own are equally deplorable.
Agreed. I really wonder about these sorts of things. Truths do not need to be endorsed by law. Pi will be pi whether or not Congress votes on the matter. Note that our Constitution does not enumerate any truths, virtues or Darn Good Moral Lessons.

Next I would like a resolution declaring water to be wet, except when it's frozen. It's okay if the frozen clause comes as a rider or a second resolution.

Xiahou

10-17-2007, 10:24

Husar

10-17-2007, 11:07

I'm glad I'm not in the military anymore since over half the legislative branch is doing their best to stab you in the back and atleast have of the civilian population could give a ####.
Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend)" in the making? :laugh4:

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 13:31

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend)" in the making? :laugh4:
Its quite adorable watching you attempt to deflect your nations immorality upon myself and my country. The FACT that your ancestors (perhaps very recent ancestors, Uncle Wolfgang, Granpa Wilhelm perhaps) are the cause for not just millions, but tens of millions of lives to be snuffed out cannot be compared to my request of a fellow citizen to show a little patriotism or allegience to his country. Germany will ALWAYS be rememberd for the FACT that it caused the deaths of millions and will always be remembered as the one country that has caused the most death and destruction world wide. Maybe it doesn't read that way in your school textbooks or something. No matter how much moral deflection you attempt, it will never wash the blood off your hands. My country has the blood of the Native American, but that can also be a result of European colonilalism, which hasn't been the beacon of light for the world either has it my little self rightous European friends. So next time you little preachers of truth, justice, and the European way want to give a sermon about morality, maybe you guys should take a long look in the mirror. :yes:

Banquo's Ghost

10-17-2007, 13:43

Do I see a new "Dolchstoßlegende (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stab-in-the-back_legend)" in the making? :laugh4:

Jibes comparing a person's views to the Nazis have a tendency to provoke offense, and we all ought to know better.

A response has been posted, which I will allow to stand, in that it underlines rather eloquently the point made above - but I don't want this thread derailed any further, nor personal attacks to continue against any poster.

Husar

10-17-2007, 13:53

Dave, I've explained before that I don't see blood on my hands if my ancestors did anything wrong, neither do I blame you for what your ancestors may or may not have done to the native Americans.
Everybody is responsible for his own deeds in my view and that's why I'm not going to take the blame for what the Nazis did, I'd rather make sure it doesn't happen again.

That said, AFAIK the Dolchstoßlegende was used by the Nazis but originated from royalists in the german army after WW1, I'm sorry if I sounded like you were a Nazi, that wasn't my intention, I just wanted to point out that your view sounds like a conspiracy theory.

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 15:02

I just wanted to point out that your view sounds like a conspiracy theory.
But how can it be simply consiracy. Nancy sees the same intelligence reports and gets same reports from the State department and would know EXACTLY what this would do with our relations with Turkey. Would Churchill have preasured Parliament to vote on a resolution stating that the US commited genocide agains the native American in 1943? This is a strategic political move made by the democrats in order to cause the supply chain to their own troops to be cut off. This is sickening and even moresickening that many of my fellow citizens are defending this act of treachery. This is a calculated move plain and simple and one would have to be completely blind or of complete disregard for the well being of their fellow citizen on the battle field not to see this. For those on this message board who are United States citizens and do not condemn this act, you are just as guilty and should be ashamed that you would allow your political views out weigh the well being of those in harms way. Shame....

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 15:14

Well it appears that the military is trying to compensate with the treachery of those that sent them to Iraq in the first place (before i get 50 responses of "Its Bush's War!!!" remember Hillary and most dems gave Bushy the authorization to go into Iraq).
http://breitbart.com/print.php?id=071016180553.cg5j9c9x&show_article=1&catnum=3

Oh and as I'm posting this, it appears that the Turkish government are voting on whether or not to invade northern Iraq at this hour. Unbelievable....:no:

Ironside

10-17-2007, 16:15

One US political pundit has opined that the recent foray by Congress into a condemnation of the Armenian genocide (our 2nd or 3rd thereof) was done to:

1. Piss off Turkey so that

2. Turkey would invade and hammer the Kurdish militant/terrorists and thereby

3. Screw up Iraq and the fledgling successes of the last few months therein allowing the

4. Democrat party to keep hammering Bush and undercut ANY chance of him claiming success in Iraq because the key thing to do is harm G. W. Bush.

Thoughts? Plausible scenario?

Why is a key thing to hammer G.W. "president with lowest ratings ever" Bush? He's pretty much politically dead nowadays from what I've understood. Anyone competent enough to pull this off would be looking at least onto the next election.

You can probably run something in the lines of pushing a withdrawal before the next election or getting the situation so bad that it's blatantly obvious that retreat is the only practical option, if you want to find a conspiracy theory though.

Tinfoil hatesque? Get real, of course this is what they are doing. But who cars if it gets more of our troops killed as long as it keeps your favorite party in power right Lemur. I wish you guys and your political leaders on the left didn't "support the troops" so much. :no:

You mean like the support the troops have gotten from Bush & company? :no: The Iraqi war and aftermatch have been a political game since day one, with Americans and Iraqis paying for it with thier blood. And US taxpayers paying the money.

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 16:23

You mean like the support the troops have gotten from Bush & company? :no: The Iraqi war and aftermatch have been a political game since day one, with Americans and Iraqis paying for it with thier blood. And US taxpayers paying the money.
Again, the democrats are as much to blame for this. They voted FOR this. They have an obligation to truelly support the troops, not attept to get their supply lines cut. I can't believe that for a bunch of Total War armchair generals posting here can't see the obvious strategic move that the dems are making. If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.:wall:

Lemur

10-17-2007, 17:04

The plot thickens. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7049348.stm) Also looks like some of the Congressional Dems are waking up to the possible consequences of this empty vote.

Although a Congressional committee has supported the motion, its chances of passing a full vote appear to be waning.

Key Democrats in the US House of Representatives have joined Republicans to warn that US strategic interests could be damaged by the largely symbolic resolution.

Husar

10-17-2007, 17:23

Lemur

10-17-2007, 17:38

There we go, but what I don't understand that well is why Turkey is necessary for supplies? Can't they just deliver the supplies directly to Iraq?
At the moment the majority of our supplies transship Turkey. Certainly we could route things in other ways, but it would be inconvenient and troublesome to do so.

On the other hand, if Turkey were to attempt to prevent us from using their ports and airfields for shipping, this would be seen as a direct provocation, just short of declaring war. It's hard to picture the Turks denying FedEx and the U.S. military air rights unless they intended to begin open military conflict with the U.S.A.

Don't forget that Turkey believed we would never invade Iraq unless we could do so with a northern front, which is why they denied us the option of moving troops in from the north at the last minute. They believed they could veto the second Iraq war, and they were wrong.

Open hostilities between Turkey and the U.S.A. would be a disaster for both of us, no matter what extremist politicians may say when pandering to their base. Which isn't to say it can't happen, eh? Just ask Gary Busey and Billy Zane (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valley_of_the_Wolves_Iraq).

drone

10-17-2007, 17:40

There we go, but what I don't understand that well is why Turkey is necessary for supplies? Can't they just deliver the supplies directly to Iraq?
Iraq has ports and airports for such deliveries or are they somehow not able to use them for supply shipments? I understand a lot of the US Air Force is stationed in Turkey as the planes would probably be targeted by mortars etc if stationed in Iraq, but supplies?
Air space. Iraq has a small coastline, accessible through the Persian Gulf only. To get there from the West, slow freighters would need to take the Med/Suez route around the Arabian penisula, or go around Africa. Either one would also need to go past the Strait of Hormuz, under Iranian missiles. To fly in supplies without Turkish permission, we would need to fly through Syrian, Iranian, Jordanian, or Saudi airspace. Permission to fly US arms through any of those would be unlikely, at best.

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 17:44

extremist politicians
You mean Nancy and Reid are extremists? Aren't they the leaders of the Congress and the Senate? Can you possibly understand the significance of this? And who are these "key" democrats stated in the article? It must be getting hard on the arms carrying so much water for your boys and girls in Congress huh Lemur....

Ironside

10-17-2007, 18:00

Again, the democrats are as much to blame for this. They voted FOR this. They have an obligation to truelly support the troops, not attept to get their supply lines cut.

I would say that the one creating the bandwagon needs more blame than the ones jumping on it (that's still bad though).

I can't believe that for a bunch of Total War armchair generals posting here can't see the obvious strategic move that the dems are making.

There's more than one way to move in supplies, so I doubt that the troops will suffer supply depletion. It will probably cost more though.

If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.:wall:

Point is, you did never pay enough to win and the limited resources where wasted thanks to general screw-ups on a lot of stages.

So now you can choose into either massivly increase resources (a polictical suecide and won't go thruogh congress as both parties will shut that down).

Or continue as now in a nice quagmire (where even with greater success militarily, the harder political part is still left. Applies for the first option as well).

Or cut and run. With the effects that will mean (a definite reputation loss, a possible increase for imported terrorism (for short to medium term), poor days of being an Iraqi, better days of being in US military, etc, etc.

Lovely choises aren't they?

The big question though is if keeping the current situation is supporting the troops?

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 18:07

Lemur

10-17-2007, 18:15

DevDave, the situation between Turkey and the U.S.A. is worrysome, and bears watching, but I'm not understanding the basis for your increasingly shrill and hysterical comments. And what sort of sense does it make to declare "my country and its citizens are no longer worthy of protection" in the middle of a thread where you're accusing others of being unpatriotic, back-stabbing surrender monkeys?

Ease up on the freak-out, friend.

Drone, wouldn't a total denial of airspace be seen as a pretty extreme measure at this point? Especially given the security relationship between Israel, Turkey and the U.S.A.?

Ironside

10-17-2007, 18:37

So Ironside, it makes more sense to make a difficult situation more difficult for the troops by alienating an allie and having them cut off the main supply line? Do you not understand that most supplies come out of Turkey for the troops? I'm so thankful I'm no longer in the military, my country and its citizens are no longer worthy of protection and neither is the rest of the world. The rest of the world is only happy when the US signs the check and sits silent. I hope that we pull back every troop in every country AND cut all foriegn aid. That is what needs to be done. We'll see how long it takes for all hell to break loose. I just hope I live that long to see it.

Depends on goal and aviable resources. If you consider the best move is to change policy, while not being able to change policy, then the other option is to force a policy change in another way. Forcing the supplies to take another way is a (severe) annoyance, but not a vital blow.
Do you agree that if you would consider Iraq as a lost cause in either case, forcing a faster retreat would be actually caring about the troops dieing needlessly?
If you still think that you can win, it's another matter, but when did people decide something based on someone elses view?

This is pure speculation btw DD. The factual reasons can be more politically stupid, a mark, a more advanced plan etc.

Devastatin Dave

10-17-2007, 18:56

DevDave, the situation between Turkey and the U.S.A. is worrysome, and bears watching, but I'm not understanding the basis for your increasingly shrill and hysterical comments. And what sort of sense does it make to declare "my country and its citizens are no longer worthy of protection" in the middle of a thread where you're accusing others of being unpatriotic, back-stabbing surrender monkeys?

Ease up on the freak-out, friend.

A.?
I'm just very very PISSED about this and how the media and many on your side of the political spectrum refuse to connect the dots on this.

Lemur

10-17-2007, 19:28

Look, if the genocide vote was, in fact, a conspiracy to push Turkey into invading Iraq, then Democratic lawmakers would be pleased with Turkey's new belligerence, correct? And they would push the vote through regardless, since a new war would be their aim.

In fact, the opposite is happening (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/washington/17cnd-cong.html?ei=5065&en=20af3ab48140086a&ex=1193198400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print).

Worried about antagonizing Turkish leaders, House members from both parties have begun to withdraw their support from a resolution supported by the Democratic leadership that would condemn as genocide the mass killings of Armenians nearly a century ago.

Almost a dozen lawmakers had shifted against the measure over the last 24 hours, accelerating a sudden exodus that has cast deep doubt over the measure’s prospects.

I hate to repeat myself, but never ascribe to conspiracy that which can be explained by incompetence. Large conspiracies are difficult to coordinate and almost impossible to conceal. Groups of people behaving stupidly, however, are as common as dirt.

DevDave, I have never said that I thought the genocide resolution was a good idea (in fact, I have stated the opposite). All I have argued was that lack of planning and brains was a more likely explanation than a plot to destroy America. If this makes me Nancy Pelosi's secret cabin boy in your eyes, then what's to say? Much like your chosen political party, you are defining your circle of friends in ever-diminishing radii.

drone

10-17-2007, 20:38

Drone, wouldn't a total denial of airspace be seen as a pretty extreme measure at this point? Especially given the security relationship between Israel, Turkey and the U.S.A.?
Extreme, yes. I'm sure they would allow wounded/KIA flights back to Germany. But closing the border on the ground and disallowing flights with military supplies or airborne sorties into Iraq would not be beyond the realm of imagination.

For those of you that think this would not be that big of a deal, go to GoogleMaps and look at Iraq and the surrounding area. Combine the political boundaries with the political realities, and the current effort would be in a world of hurt.

I don't think the Democrats are smart enough or organized enough to deliberately sabotage Bush (and the troops) through this measure. And don't forget, we are talking about the House of Representatives, not exactly the most savvy individuals when it comes to foreign affairs. All they see are potential votes, not long-term ramifications.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-17-2007, 20:53

Good to see our lawmakers back-pedaling a bit and trying to reassert SOME modicum of rationality.

My read on Turkey -- based on articles provided during other discussions in this forum -- is that Turkey is dead-gum serious about this issue and view themselves as having exercised a lot of forbearance already in not having gone into Kurdish Iraq with heavy firepower already. Turks appear to have a strong sense of national identity and to be very touchy about the events of 1918-1919.

U.S. lawmaker's have this wonderful ability to operate in a bubble at times -- and they're NOT members of the executive branch with layers of cut-outs etc. Get them inside the Beltway and they start to mentally implode.

Tribesman

10-17-2007, 21:28

My read on Turkey -- based on articles provided during other discussions in this forum -- is that Turkey is dead-gum serious about this issue and view themselves as having exercised a lot of forbearance already in not having gone into Kurdish Iraq with heavy firepower already.

Yep they had cut down on scale and frequency of their crossborder raids , they stayed relatively mute when the Iraqi/Kurdish assembly threatened a terror campaign within Turkey itself , they repeatedly appealed to both the coilition and Iraqi government to take action ...yet nothing .
Its no wonder the Turkish assembly passed the vote , it is exactly the result that they said would be inevitable before the American led invasion and the reason they opposed that invasion .

I'm just very very PISSED about this and how the media and many on your side of the political spectrum refuse to connect the dots on this.
Connect the dots Dave , you supported the fiasco that led to this .:dizzy2:

If I'm paying the bill I want to win, not leave my guys with their ####s in the wind with no suplly line.
Well duh .... you should have thought of that back in 2003 .

Kralizec

10-17-2007, 23:12

Oh and as I'm posting this, it appears that the Turkish government are voting on whether or not to invade northern Iraq at this hour. Unbelievable....

That issue has been on for a while, before the whole "genocide resolution" thing. I imagine that at this point the Turkish government will be less reluctant to attack the Kurds in north Iraq, since a similar resolution might be proposed and passed should that eventuality occur.

Komutan

10-17-2007, 23:34

That issue has been on for a while, before the whole "genocide resolution" thing. I imagine that at this point the Turkish government will be less reluctant to attack the Kurds in north Iraq, since a similar resolution might be proposed and passed should that eventuality occur.

The two issues are only slightly linked. For Turkey, PKK is a much more serious problem than the genocide bill. No matter what USA does about the genocide, Turkey will not tolerate PKK attacking from northern Iraq.

IrishArmenian

10-19-2007, 05:01

I'm just hoping that:
1) The Turkish military does conduct a fair, just search for PKK members, but I expect nothing less, as the Turkish Soldiers I've met are rather professional. However, searching for terrorists is never pretty.
2) People shut up about us housing the PKK!
3) That the past is acknowledged, there is a coming together and that we get on with this. Politicians have no value of human life!

Brenus

10-19-2007, 07:51

I was under a Turkish Operation against the PKK, just after Restore Hope and Provide Comfort operations. I remember the F4- Phantom bombing the village near Erbil… I remember evacuating the dangerous 70 years old women terrorist with few bullets in her chest, the man talking about the Special Forces killing his son and his sheep… This was a terror campaign, but because it is done by soldiers, it is not a terrorist attack? How long the Kurds should tolerate the Turkish attack from the south of Turkey?
I can still heard the noise, the terror when 2 planes just aligned the village I was working in rebuilding a Rural Health Centre, the black smoke from the planes, the population coming around me like if, as a foreigner, I could protect them… My thought as I believed that my time was coming… Why they didn’t attack, I never know…

“The Turkish military does conduct a fair, just search for PKK members, but I expect nothing less, as the Turkish Soldiers I've met are rather professional. However, searching for terrorists is never pretty” How do you do that in bombing campaign, air strikes and heavy bombardments?

Komutan

10-19-2007, 14:18

IrishArmenian

10-19-2007, 15:55

Brenus, I had never heard first hand accounts. That's terrible!
Komutan, civillians shouldn't die! Don't write it off as an inevitability of war! These are human lives! Don't you get it?

Brenus

10-19-2007, 18:07

There is a difference between action and reaction. You can't say for example, that the Allies were to blame for invading Germany in 1945.Yes, action and reaction: So an outlaw attack a bank so the police bomb and slaughter his home village…
If you (well, the Turkish government) considers the PKK as a terrorist organisation, they should act like against a mafia, a group of outlaw… Because in speaking of a KURDISH separatist organisation the Turks just recognise the fact that they are nor Turks or Iraqis…
We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…
Nazi Germany was a criminal state which invaded all its neighbours. If Hitler would have been a gang of Germans attacking villages in Poland, Czechoslovakia or France to support his claim of a united German Population, the different polices would have done with him, like in 1933.

I don't doubt that civilians die when Turkey attacks PKK. But such things are inevitable in war. Maybe all wars can be considered terrorism. So, you admit the Kurds have right to retaliate again the Turkish occupiers and the inevitable –according to your statement- collateral damage on Turkish civilians?

Banquo's Ghost

10-19-2007, 18:41

[B]We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…

Most of our countries have to be careful when throwing our rocks from the safety of our glass houses.

Surely the atrocities perpetrated in Algeria against civilian "supporters" of those "terrorists" fit neatly into this category? And perhaps we shouldn't mention the Legion's current participation with the wickedness in the Central African Republic in support of Bozize?

:inquisitive:

Komutan

10-19-2007, 18:56

So an outlaw attack a bank so the police bomb and slaughter his home village…
If you (well, the Turkish government) considers the PKK as a terrorist organisation, they should act like against a mafia, a group of outlaw… Because in speaking of a KURDISH separatist organisation the Turks just recognise the fact that they are nor Turks or Iraqis…
We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…
Nazi Germany was a criminal state which invaded all its neighbours. If Hitler would have been a gang of Germans attacking villages in Poland, Czechoslovakia or France to support his claim of a united German Population, the different polices would have done with him, like in 1933.

PKK is of course not as powerful as Nazi Germany. But neither is it comparable to an outlaw or a gang, easily taken care of by the police.

So, you admit the Kurds have right to retaliate again the Turkish occupiers and the inevitable –according to your statement- collateral damage on Turkish civilians?

PKK does not have access to heavy weapons like aircrafts and artillery and therefore uses infantry weapons. Such weapons are more selective than bombs and won't do any collateral damage if they are not directly targeting civilians.

But anyway, I think whether PKK is a terrorist organisation or not is very irrelevant at this point. If you want, be my guest and call them a non-terrorist organisation attacking Turkey. This still gives Turkey a very justified reason to strike back.

Samurai Waki

10-19-2007, 19:39

The PKK is a separatist movement as far as I've researched and surmised. They're fighting a war of Independence, but not of Patience. Had the PKK never risen, I'm almost sure by now the Kurds would have already had a semi autonomous state.

Brenus

10-20-2007, 18:08

Banquo's Ghost

10-20-2007, 19:17

“Surely the atrocities perpetrated in Algeria against civilian "supporters" of those "terrorists" fit neatly into this category? Yes it fits. And France got a UN problem to deal with when French Air Forces bombed a Tunisia village sheltering Algerian terrorists who put bombs in light streets etc… It was wrong to torture, kill and deported populations under the pretext of “war against terror”.
But we speak here of a war between 1954 and 1963… So, is it something allowed nowadays?:inquisitive:

OK, dismissed as ancient history. Noted.

“And perhaps we shouldn't mention the Legion's current participation with the wickedness in the Central African Republic in support of Bozize?” Why? Does the Legion participate in burning villages, in a systematic campaign of punishment of civilian population and practising a campaign of “terre brulée”? If so, can you provide information?

If you wish. Try reading through this report (http://news.independent.co.uk/world/africa/article3030349.ece). Now, you may well argue that there is little evidence of direct atrocities by the French forces, but in my book enablers are as guilty as the actual perpetrators.

Inside France's secret war

For 40 years, the French government has been fighting a secret war in Africa, hidden not only from its people, but from the world. It has led the French to slaughter democrats, install dictator after dictator – and to fund and fuel the most vicious genocide since the Nazis. Today, this war is so violent that thousands are fleeing across the border from the Central African Republic into Darfur – seeking sanctuary in the world's most notorious killing fields

By Johann Hari in Birao, Central African Republic
Published: 05 October 2007

I first heard whispers of this war in March, when newspapers reported in passing that the French military was bombing the remote city of Birao, in the far north-east of the CAR. Why were French soldiers fighting there, thousands of miles from home? Why had they been intervening in Central Africa this way for so many decades? I could find no answers here – so I decided to travel there, into the belly of France's forgotten war.

On the battlefield - Birao

I am standing now on its latest battlefield, looking out over abandoned mud streets streaked with ash. The city of Birao is empty and echoing, for the first time in 200 years. All around are miles of burned and abandoned homes, with the odd starved child scampering through the wreckage. What were all these buildings? On one faded green sign it says Ministry of Justice, on a structure reduced to a charcoal husk. In the market square, the people who have returned are selling a few scarce supplies – rice and manioc, the local yeasty staple food – and talking quietly. At the edges of the town, there are African soldiers armed and trained by the French, lolling behind sandbags, with machine guns jutting nervously at passers-by. They are singing weary nationalist anthems and dreaming of home.

To get here, you have to travel for eight hours on a weekly UN flight that carries eight passengers at most, and then ride on the back of a rusting flat-top truck for an hour along ravaged and broken roads. It is hard to know when you have arrived, because you are greeted only by emptiness and silence. What has happened here? Sitting amid the mud and dust and sorrow, I find Mahmoud, one of the 10 per cent of Birao's residents who have returned to the rubble.

He is a thin-faced 45-year-old farmer, and explains, in a low, slow voice, how his home town came to this. "I woke up for morning prayers on 4 March and there was gunfire everywhere. We were very frightened so we stayed in the house and hoped it would stop. But then in the early afternoon my brother's children came running to our house, screaming and crying. They told us the Forcés Armées Centrafricanes [Faca – the army trained and equipped by the French, on behalf of their friendly neighbourhood strongman, President François Bozize] had gone into their house. They wouldn't calm down and explain. So I ran there, and I saw my brother on the floor outside, dead. His wife explained they had forced their way in and rounded him up, along with three men who lived nearby. They took them out on to the street and shot them one by one in the head."

Mahmoud's friend, Idris, lived nearby, and feared he, too, would be shot. He says now: "We could see the villages burning and the children were screaming and really scared, so we ran two kilometres out into the jungle. From there we could see our whole city on fire. We fled along the river and stayed out there. We ate fish, but there weren't many. Some days we couldn't catch anything and we starved. The children were so terrified. Still, when they hear a loud noise, they think there are guns coming and they start shaking." Idris looks off into the distance and continues: "On the fourth day, we saw the French planes come. They each had six rockets that they fired. The explosions were loud. We don't know what they were targeting, or why. Then the French soldiers arrived." A military truck filled with French soldiers rumbles by not long after, its tanned troops wearing designer sunglasses and a "why am I here?" anxiety.

As Mahmoud and Idris talk it gets dark, and a suffocating blackness and silence falls on the city. There is no electricity and no moonlight. They explain in this blackness that the French-backed troops began firing and the French military began bombing in March for one reason: the desperate locals had begun to rise up against President Bozize, because he had done nothing for them. People here were tired of the fact that "there are no schools, no hospitals, and no roads". "We are completely isolated," they explain. "When it rains, we are cut off from the world because the roads turn to mud. We have nothing. All the rebels were asking was for government help." As I stumble around Birao, I hear this every time: the rebels were simply begging for government help for the hungry, abandoned people. Even the bemused French soldiers and the Bozize lackeys sent to the area admit this privately. Yet the French response was with bombs against the rebels' pick-up points. Why? What is there here that they want?

I look out towards the jungle and realise many of Birao's residents are still hiding out there, risking the wild beasts. In the similarly burned-out areas in the north-west, I drive out into the jungle with Unicef and find these clusters of starving families scattered everywhere. In one cleared patch, I find a group of four men with their wives and mothers, clearing an area of ground with their bare hands where they will try to plant peanuts. They are living in handmade huts and set traps to catch mice to eat. Ariette Nulguhom is cradling her eight-month-old grandson with his distended little belly and praying he will survive another night. She tells me: "He's been sick for a long time. We tried to get him to a nurse but there aren't any. We think it is malaria but there is no medicine here. We don't know what will happen... We are all weak and feverish. We're exhausted because we work all day, every day. I have not eaten for days now." When they left behind their houses, they left behind access to clean water, electricity, and medicine. When the Faca burned those homes, they burned away the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries for these families, too.

This is a forgotten corner of a forgotten country. Birao lies and dies in the far north-east of the Central African Republic. CAR itself has a population of just 3.8 million, spread across a territory bigger than Britain's, landlocked at the exact geographical heart of Africa. It is the least-reported country on earth. Even the fact that 212,000 people have been driven out of their homes in this war doesn't register on the global radar. In Birao, I realise I am too close to the immediate horror to find the deeper explanations for this war. I only begin to uncover the origins of this story when I stumble across a very rare find in the CAR – an old man.

A country of children - Paoua

In the CAR, you have beaten the odds if you live to be 42. There are times when this seems like a country of children, swarming around with guns and hardened laughs, without an adult in sight. So when I see Zolo Bartholemew limping past the wreckage of another burned-out town – this time in the distant north-west, outside the city of Paoua – he seems like a mirage. He has no teeth and a creased face, and when I ask, he does not know his age. But he remembers. He remembers the tail-end of the first time the French were here – and why.

"I watched my parents forced to work in the fields when I was a child," he says in Sango, the local language. "When they got tired, they were whipped and beaten and made to go faster. It was constantly like this." The French flag was first hoisted in the heart of Africa on 3 October 1880, seizing the right bank of the Congo for the cause of Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité – for the white man. The territory was swiftly divided up between French corporations, who were given the right effectively to enslave the people, like Zolo's parents, and force them to harvest its rubber. This rubber was processed into car tyres for sale in Paris and London and New York. A French missionary called Father Daigre described what he saw: " It is common to meet long files of prisoners, naked and in a pitiful state, being dragged along by a rope round their necks. They are famished, sick, and fall down like flies. The really ill and the little children are left in the villages to die of starvation. The people least affected often killed the dying, for food."

Zolo nods when I mention this. "When the whites were here, we suffered even more," he says. "They forced us to work. We were slaves."

One horrified French administrator wrote in the 1920s that the locals reacted to being enslaved by the corporations by becoming "a troglodyte, subsisting wretchedly on roots until he starves to death, rather than accept these terrible burdens". Areas that had "only a few months ago been rich, populous and firmly established in large villages" became, he wrote, "wasteland, sown with dilapidated villages and deserted plantations".

But in the 1950s, men like Zolo rose and refused to be enslaved. "We followed Boganda," he says. Barthélemy Boganda was born in a Central African village near here in 1910, and, as a child, he saw his mother beaten to death by the guards in charge of gathering rubber for a French corporation. He rose steadily through the Catholic priesthood, married a French woman, and, quite suddenly, became the leader of the CAR's pro-democracy movement. He would begin his speeches to the French by introducing himself as the son of a polygamous cannibal, and then lecture them on the values of the French Revolution with a fluency that left them stunned and shamed. He crafted a vision of a democratic Africa beyond tribe, beyond race and beyond colonialism. He was passionate about the need for a plurality of political parties, a free press, and human rights. He rhapsodised about his vision of a United States of Africa, linking together the countries of Central Africa into a USA Mk II.

"And they killed him," Zolo says, shaking his head and kicking at the earth beneath his feet. On 29 March 1959, not long after the French era of direct rule had ended, President Boganda's plane was blasted out of the air. The French press reported that there had been "suspicious materials " found in the remains of the fuselage – but on the orders of the French government, the local investigation was abandoned. The French installed the dictator David Dacko in his place. He swiftly shut down Boganda's democratic reforms, brought back many French corporations, and reintroduced their old system of forced labour, rebranding it "village work". French rule over the CAR – the whippings Zolo remembers – did not end with "independence". It simply mutated, into a new and slippery form, and it is at the root of the current war.

But the clues to this lie far to the west, in the capital city. " Nothing happens in this country without somebody pulling a lever in Paris," a taxi driver tells me as I leave to travel to Bangui at the bottom of the country, driving through clouds of red-dust and past swarms of street-children. I have an appointment with an underground figure in the opposition to keep.

A tortured president - Bangui

Bangui looks like a city that rose with a heave from the jungle a century ago, and has been sighing back into it ever since. Every building appears to be rusting away, and great eruptions of vegetation are shoving the homes and shops aside, reaching for the sky. On corner after corner there are huge, hideous caricature-statues of black people, showing them as thick-lipped and kinky-haired, giving the city the ambience of a Ku Klux Klan garage sale.

Every few hours, the power supply dies, and the city stammers to a halt. People dawdle in the streets, playing cards and wiping away their sweat with the back of their wrists. It is during one of these blackouts that I arrive at the office of a leader of the opposition with a delegation from the British campaigning group Waging Peace. His office is above a parade of shops, and it is a simple room filled with African carvings and pictures of past and faded glories. He walks towards us in a green suit, and – although he does not say it – we all know he is taking a huge risk by meeting us secretly like this. Last year, 40 political figures who criticised the government of President Bozize were tossed into jail and tortured. " They tried to kill my son. They are trying to assassinate me," he says, with a matter-of-fact shrug. He gives the long, horrible details. I cannot repeat them here because they would identify him – and become a death sentence.

"The country is in a dire situation," he says. "We have been described by the magazine Foreign Policy as one of the worst failed states in the world, after Iraq and Afghanistan." He says the CAR is now " a total and ferocious dictatorship" under the absolute command of Bozize. The roots of the wars in the north-east and north-west are, he says, simple. "Local people in these regions are rebelling against the government, because the government provides them with nothing. There are no services. There aren't even roads. So the rebels rise up to get attention – and the government retaliates by rampaging through the area, killing civillians and burning homes."

So who is this Francois Bozize, and why are the French supporting him with batallions and bombs? I telephone the vast presidential palace to meet the man who stares out from behind a smartly-trimmed moustache in the pictures hanging on every wall, and the President's press officer eventually gets back to me. "Call me back, I am running out of credit on my mobile phone," he snaps. Then he promises a meeting with the President, but finds mysterious "complications" that lead him to cancel every time. There are rumours across Bangui that Bozize is becoming ever-more paranoid and locked down, employing food tasters to check for poison before every meal and refusing to meet strangers. So I look instead to the few scraps of independent journalism that survive here for clues as to who this French love-child really is.

Le Citoyen is distributed on rough photocopied paper every day and sold on street corners for a few pennies – but it is one of the bastions of Central Africa's remaining freedoms. Its editor Maka Obossokotte has a neat grey beard, square cheekbones, and balls of steel. He has been jailed for criticising the President and his cronies more than once, but he insists I quote him on-the-record and by name. "In jail, you were given rotten fish to eat. I got gout. The toilets..." he shakes his head. "It is hell." He says he knows now that "it is very likely somebody from the presidential clan will kill me... Every morning when I wake up, I think there are three beds I could end up in tonight. Back here at home, the hospital, or the morgue." But he says: "I will not be afraid. It is when you are afraid that you lose."

Sitting in a delicious cloud of smoke, puffing away on high-tar cigarettes, Maka talks me through the President's biography. He was born in nearby Gabon, the son of a police officer from the CAR. He wasn't smart at school, but he managed to get a coveted job as bodyguard to Jean-Bedel Bokassa, one of the vicious dictators flattered and fawned over by the French. Bokassa was famously mad, declaring himself "Emperor of the CAR", eating the leader of the opposition, and opening fire on a group of children who were protesting for help to buy their school uniforms. Bozize carried Bokassa's cane and his bag, and, Maka explains: "It was through watching him that Bozize got his taste for power." The "Emperor" promoted him to the rank of general.

After a while, Bokassa's foaming madness made him an unreliable servant of the French, so they backed a coup against him. Bozize left to study at the Ecole Spécial Militaire de Saint-Cyr in France, and returned only to stage a farcical coup attempt of his own. In 1982, he seized control of one of the national radio stations and announced that he was now President. Everybody laughed; Bozize fled. A few years later he was deported back to Bangui to be punished. "They tortured him," Maka says. "They pissed in his mouth, they broke his ribs, they really mistreated him for three years."

Eventually, they let him go back to France for medical treatment – and the French government swiftly began to build him up as an alternative president, in case their current pick became too disobedient and got ideas of his own. From being a poor man, Bozize suddenly had the money to run a huge presidential campaign. He ran, and he lost. So in October 2002, he paid for a vast private mercenary army (you might wonder – with whose money?) to invade the CAR from neighbouring Chad, depose the sitting president and install himself as the supreme ruler. Since then, he has "won" a disputed election he arranged for himself and bathed in French approbation.

"France sees the CAR as a colony," Maka says. "The presidents are selected by France, not elected by the people. The presidents do not serve the interests of this country; they serve the interests of France." He lists the French corporations who use the CAR as a base to grab Central African resources. This French behaviour is, he reasons, at the root of the wars currently ripping apart the north of the country. Whoever becomes president knows his power flows down from Paris, not up from the people – so he has no incentive to build support by developing the country. Rebellions become inevitable, and the president crushes them with the house-burnings and French bombs I learned about in Birao.

"The country will only be able to develop when France stops putting in place these dictators and the people choose," Maka adds, stubbing out his cigarette into an overflowing ashtray. "The CAR will only progress when the president is scared of his people, not the French."

Into rebel country - Bossangoa

I am driving now through the skin-sizzling heat of Bossangoa, the home-town of Bozize – and the last outpost of his power before you stumble into bandit-and-rebel territory. The Marie Celeste villages stretch for miles once more. Silence. Walls eaten by fire. Dead towns. In the houses there are smashed pots, abandoned as their residents fled Bozize's marauding murderers. I find a stray shoe sitting alone in one. In another village, the bell that calls children to school is still hanging from a tree, forgotten. On the blackboard is the final lesson, still there: a map of the CAR in chalk.

But then, after an hour of driving beyond Bossangoa into the jungle, there are signs of life. In yet another burned village, there are 20 young men, all sweat and Kalashnikovs. We pull up, and realise we are in an unexpected rebel camp. The boys' leader strolls toward us – an elder, at the age of 24 – and shakes our hands. He explains they are part of the rebel Army for the Restoration of the Republic and Democracy (French acronym APRD), who have taken this area. His "troops" are dressed oddly. One is swearing ski glasses and a ski hat, in a place as far from a ski slope as any on earth. Another is wearing nothing but bright red swimming trunks, and half a dozen strings of bullets around his neck. He is wearing a single woman's flip-flop, silver and glittering in the sun.

They explain they are not allowed to make statements – only their leader can do that – but they are eager to have their photographs taken. As soon as I agree, they contort themselves into wild poses. They stick bullets in their mouths, flex their muscles and screw their faces into a fake rage, like they are recreating a Rambo poster. The baby-faced soldier in the corner, they tell me casually, is 13. They look like teenagers on any street corner anywhere in the world, playing at being rebels. Except these are real rebels, with real guns. A 13-year-old with a gun is a comic sight – until he points it towards you and smiles strangely.

Why, I ask, did you join the rebellion? "Bozize killed my father, my mother and my brother," their leader steps forward to say, in a low voice. He peels up his vest and shows an angry scar where he says he was bayoneted. "They thought I was dead, so they left me." I ask what the rebels want. "We want peace, we want schools, we want roads," the leader says. Most of them nod. Do you want power? "That's up to God. We want roads and schools."

With that, we drive away, and they cheerfully wave their guns in our direction. I follow the trail of burned homes up to Paoua, a town at the top of the north-west – and I am sitting now on a bench with the man who ordered so many to be torched. A lieutenant of the Garde Présidentiel (GP) is chewing gum in the sun, behind barbed wire and sleeping security guards. The GP is the jagged spike of the country's military accountable only to President Bozize – his own private militia. When you see them approach on the streets, with their wild eyes and ready guns, pulses surge and spines stiffen. In the market-square in Paoua, a GP "officer" put a gun to the head of a Médecins sans Frontières doctor and told him: " We will do what they did in Rwanda." And I am making small talk with one of its bosses.

He is wearing long shining purple robes and a white fez, and he tells us haltingly that he will be interviewed, yes, but we cannot use his name. He is young – 33 – with hunched shoulders. His bodyguard is a muscled ripple of anxiety, and he watches every move we make, as if ready to pounce. So, lieutenant, why do you think people join the rebels and fight against you? He makes eye contact only with his bodyguard. "I don't know." Chew, chew. Why do you think people are so scared of the GP here? " There have been a few undisciplined elements, but we have dealt with them." Chew, chew, chew. So it is only undisciplined soldiers who burn all these thousands upon thousands of homes? You don't order them to? "If they burn homes, we deal with them." How have you dealt with them? "We use discipline." He stops leaning and sits up. Really? How many people have you disciplined? When? His bodyguard doesn't like this question; he glares at me. "I had an officer who went to the market when he was not supposed to. I disciplined him." That's it? "We have disciplined."

That's not what people in the villages say, I comment. They are terrified. " Show me the villages. I will show you how we have done good." After we drive away from his compound, we meet up with two pale, disturbed workers from the Italian charity Coopi. They explain that as the lieutenant was assuring us his forces are disciplined, a GP officer drove up on a motorbike and waved a gun in their faces.

At every one of these scenes, the question keeps coming back: why? Why are the French providing military support and training for these militia? The French government says it is in the CAR because it signed a military agreement back in the 1970s to protect the country from external aggression. The rebellions in the north are, they say, supported by Sudan – so this counts. Mes amis, we are protecting a democratically elected President from a tyrannical and genocidal neighbour.

But I couldn't find anyone in the CAR – not a single person, not even the most pro-French – who thought Sudan had anything to do with the rebels. So I arrange to meet up in Bangui with Louise Roland-Gosselin, an Anglo-French director of the group Waging Peace, who has been studying the Central African Republic. "The policies here in the CAR are part of a much bigger approach by France towards Africa," she says. "We call this system 'Franceafrique', and it was set up by Charles de Gaulle to replace the former colonial system. There is clear continuity from the imperial system to the present day."

The motives for this war are, Roland-Gosselin says, drenched in dollars and euros and uranium. "The overarching goal is to take African resources and funnel them towards French corporations," she says. "The CAR itself is a base from which the French can access resources all over Africa. That is why it is so important. They use it to keep the oil flowing to French companies in Chad, the resources flowing from Congo, and so on. And of course, the country itself has valuable resources. CAR has a lot of uranium, which the French badly need because they are so dependent on nuclear power. At the moment they get their uranium from Niger, but the CAR is their back-up plan." So this is, in part, a war for nuclear power? " Yes, but also a lot of this money has been funnelled, through corruption, straight back into the French political process. Say somebody needs a road built here in the CAR. The French government will insist on a French company – and the French company back home donates a lot to the 'right' French political party."

This neo-imperial war reached its psychotic apogee in 1994, when the French government used the CAR as a base to fund and fuel the Rwandan genocide, the most bloody since the death of Adolf Hitler. Vincent Mounie is a leading figure in Sur Vie, a French organisation monitoring its government's actions in Africa. He explains: "The French were totally complicit in the genocide. There were French troops there before, during and after the genocide, backing the most extreme Hutu forces as they murdered the Tutsis. You know the identity cards that divided the Rwandan population into Hutus and Tutsis in preparation for the slaughter? They were printed in Paris."

The French military base in Bangui had to be abandoned in 1996 after it was burned down by enraged locals, tired of the French ramming tyrants down their national gullet. Today the old base is overgrown, and the French military has shifted to new camps in Birao. But I stare at it now. The French planes that backed the Rwandan holocaust left from here.

President François Mitterrand began his career supporting one genocidal force, and he ended it supporting another. As a young man he rose through the ranks of the Hitler-hugging Vichy regime, only quitting and joining the Resistance when it became obvious the democrats would win. He then became nominally a Socialist and, finally, President – when at last genocide entered his life again. The French government had long seen the Hutu nationalists in Rwanda as Their Men, the people most friendly to French demands for military and corporate access. So when, starting in 1989, the Tutsi refugees who had been driven out decades before started to demand their right to return to their homes, the French were furious. Mitterrand saw this Tutsi rights movement as a creation of the CIA, designed to displace a pro-French regime and replace it with a buddy of Uncle Sam. His own aides told him there was no evidence of a link to the CIA – but he refused to listen. He announced that the Tutsis were a "Khmer Noir" , an evil anti-French force, and began to rapidly build up the Hutu Power forces to fight back.

In just four years, starting in 1990, the French buffed up the Hutu nationalist military forces in Rwanda from 10,000 to more than 40,000. The moderate forces within Rwanda began desperately trying to broker a power-sharing agreement between the two sides, "And the French government deliberately destroyed any attempt at a peace deal," Mounie says. Then the hacking up of Tutsi men, women and children began. Mitterrand extended bigger loans to the Hutus, which they used to buy more weapons and ammunition. He publicly mocked anyone who talked about a Hutu-led genocide.

Then, when the international outrage became so great even Mitterrand could not ignore it, the French announced they would send in a military force to stop the killing. "It was France's last lie, and the most cruel," Mounie adds. "Even at this point, Mitterrand's real aim was to recapture Kigali and restore the Hutus to power." In Birao today, many of the soldiers patrolling the city are veterans of this "rescue operation". I am sipping sweet tea in one of the local bigwig's ramshackle houses when a group of local soldiers on patrol arrive. They are working-class men from the Paris and Lyons banlieues, and in the course of the small talk, they admit that they were in Rwanda – and they are still traumatised by what they were ordered to do by Mitterrand and his men. " Children would bring us the severed heads of their parents and scream for help," one says, "but our orders were not to help them."

A year after the holocaust ended, Mitterrand told an aide: "Nobody in France cares about the genocide." These disturbed soldiers, sitting in the waning sunlight, show the old cynic was wrong, at least, about that.

Mother, do not beat us - Bangui

In the red-dusted heart of Bangui, there is a rusting, collapsing metaphor for this war – and where it is going. On one side of the road is the vast stadium the French government built for Bokassa in the 1970s, so he could crown himself Emperor of Central Africa and Lord of All He Surveyed. It is falling down now, a dangerous wreck. Opposite, there is a gleaming new sports stadium with plush seating and marble floors. It was built by the Chinese. France is only one slice of this new great game, this global scramble for Africa's resources. Every swaggering world power – the US, Britain, China – is grabbing Africa's remaining riches now, shunting aside democracy and human rights to get to them. But even the Chinese dictators remember to toss some of the loose change from the riches they have pillaged to Bangui. The French have long since given up even on that. They come only with bullets and bombs.

As I prepare to leave the CAR, I am told by senior French and African sources that Paris could be getting ready to ditch President Bozize. Like a string of Central African dictators before him, he has been tugging too hard on the French leash, imagining he is the independent ruler of an independent country. He has decided to nationalise some of the energy companies operating here, including the French mega-corporations Total and ELF. " If he wants the French to crush his rebellions and keep him in power, he has to do what they say," my source says. Bozize is trying to deal with this pre-emptively, by offering the rebel leaders a place in his cabinet. As I drive past his presidential palace for the last time, I wonder if the paranoia that kept me from meeting him was justified all along.

But as my plane finally propels me away from this place, one CAR voice – angry, crazed – seems to follow me. In the jungles around Paoua, I was taken to the entrance to a remote burned-out village to meet Laurent Djim-Woei, the spokesman for the rebels in the north-west. He is a man talked about in awe by his followers – and his enemies.

A group of young men greeted us. They were carrying spears alongside their ski hats and scars. Silently, they beckoned us to follow them through more charcoal villages and dense foliage and beyond. Eventually we reached a clearing. Laurent was dressed in stained combat gear. He had a big smile that was marred by the absence of almost all his teeth. There were three cellphones hanging from his neck. He led an inspection of his rag-tag forces for our benefit, getting them to stand to attention and yelling hoarse orders at them in Sango. Then Laurent told us to sit down and embarked on a rambling, barely comprehensible lecture.

There were only a few of us in a silent jungle, but he looked beyond us and boomed, like he was addressing a stadium full of supporters. The CAR needs " a guard dog" to "bark about justice" and not "the kind of dog that leads you, which we have had in the past", he said. It is the first of a string of odd metaphors. I kept trying to draw him back to specifics: what does he want? He would only use abstract nouns – justice, peace – but then occasionally he voiced his grievances succinctly, before they were doused in metaphor and burned into incomprehensibility again: " Bozize is burning our villages. A country shouldn't burn its own country's villages. It is like a mother and a child, a mother does not burn her child, it would be madness." His eyes danced nervously around the jungle as we spoke, as if he was waiting for a raid.

"France is the mother of Central Africa, and we are the child," he said, oddly picking up the old racist metaphor and making it his own. " The French must now change sides and support us, not Bozize. The French are our parents, we want them to be good parents." This is a sentiment that kept cropping up in the rubble of France's interventions – an appeal to the French to suddenly become a benevolent mother, acting on the side of good, despite all the evidence. France and the CAR are, it strikes me at last, locked in a sick embrace. The French crave the riches offered by this lush, hungry patch of Africa, and the people of Central Africa pine for a deus ex machina to enter stage right and resolve their internal disputes with raw force.

Looking into the far distance, Laurent cries: "We say to France: 'Mother, we are your child, you must love us like a mother should. Do not beat us.'" In the jungle, his voice echoes for miles, until it dies, unheard.

Brenus

10-20-2007, 23:26

“OK, dismissed as ancient history. Noted.” Not dismissed, known and I still don’t see why it should allow others to commit the same atrocities…

Now I read the article: Quite interesting.
A long passage on the colonial past that nobody denied described as if something new (just buy a good books on the French Colonial Past in Maspero Editions, and you will have almost all of it, from the forced labour, the enrolment in the army, deportations, tortures of the Colonial Powers). But OK.

I learnt a lot: “the identity cards that divided the Rwandan population into Hutus and Tutsis in preparation for the slaughter? They were printed in Paris." THAT is a proof… First to print ID cards is a preparation of genocide (I understand now why my English friends are reluctant to get one) and the fact they were printed in Paris is a sure evidence of the French involvement. Only the good journalist doesn’t tell why the genocide would help France to get uranium and petrol…
Never mind don’t bother with this…
And more “There were French troops there before, during and after the genocide”. True after, but not track of these troops before and during. No proof at all, no regiments identification, not figures…
“when the French government used the CAR as a base to fund and fuel the Rwandan genocide”: Not I can’t believe the French could easily do that (well, a genocide I have doubts today) but I wanted some knowledge from where, who to whom… Even the kind of Secret Founds from the whatever went to Caiman Islands and went in the pockets of Mr XXX. Nothing concrete here.

“For 40 years, the French government has been fighting a secret war in Africa,”: GorvernmentS. I supposed the author ignored the political background in France. In 40 years France had 2 Republics and a lot of Governments. But all agree to genocide. No problem. Bad French… Oooops, sorry we are not informed… Médecins Sans Frontiers, Médecins du Monde go every where (even in Afghanistan during the Soviet War) but NOT a word about this one…

“French soldiers rumbles by not long after, its tanned troops wearing designer sunglasses” That is the legionnaires. Tanned and wearing DESIGNER sunglasses. Well, they are French Army so it has to be design… French chic... They are so vain.:no:

“So in October 2002, he paid for a vast private mercenary army (you might wonder – with whose money?”): I know, the French. The good thing is I pay my taxes in England… I finance the bomb on Iraq...:oops:

“Yes, but also a lot of this money has been funnelled, through corruption, straight back into the French political process. Say somebody needs a road built here in the CAR. The French government will insist on a French company – and the French company back home donates a lot to the 'right' French political party." And no French media dare to report that… To busy about Sarkozy’s divorce, that is it. Even the extreme-left publications, not A word… Corruption, I am telling you…:beam:

“President François Mitterrand began his career supporting one genocidal force, and he ended it supporting another. As a young man he rose through the ranks of the Hitler-hugging Vichy regime, only quitting and joining the Resistance when it became obvious the democrats would win. He then became nominally a Socialist and, finally, President – when at last genocide entered his life again”:
Definitely a very well informed journalist this one…
The only problem is Mitterand did join the Pétinist regime then join the Résistance. And he did it even before Genral juin (winner of the Carigliano Battle in Italy) and General de Lattre de Tassigny (1st French Army).
He became the most junior minister at in the Gouvernement Provisoire of the General de Gaulle. That is hardly to rise through the rank of the Hitler bla bla…
Footnote: One of the greatest heroes of the French Resistance, who died under the tortures of the Gestapo, Jean Moulin, was a prefect of Pétain.

By the way, during the genocide in Rwanda, it was cohabitation. The Prime Minister was in charge. So, the guilty one was Edouard Balladur. But don’t let small details like facts to disturb a good story…

A year after the holocaust ended, Mitterrand told an aide: "Nobody in France cares about the genocide." When to whom, reported by whom?

“in my book enablers are as guilty as the actual perpetrators” In mine as well, don’t worry. But here I saw no evidence, just a complete succession of clichés, past mixed with opinions, nothing really concrete.

I spoke with nurses who worked in Rwanda and Burundi. My own sister worked in refugees camps in Kenya. None of them never report or spoke of things like that. And none of them would have shut-up if they would have known something, or heard something.
I remember these rumours about French planes coming with munitions and weapons in Kigali. However, it was always somebody who heard somebody who spoke with somebody who had a cousin…

Is this Johan Hari is the one supporting the UK intervention in Iraq, because he believed what the Bush and Blair were saying?
I like him as a columnist but my opinion as a journalist really dropped…

IrishArmenian

10-20-2007, 23:43

The main problem for Turkey the large amount of land it controls, with non-Turkish ethnic groups having historical and cultural claims to many regions.
But no, they set the might makes right rule into action and it will never stop.
The violence would stop with small partitioning of land.

Tribesman

10-21-2007, 00:32

The violence would stop with small partitioning of land.
Would it ? Like Israel/Palestine , Yugoslavia , India/Pakistan , Syria/Lebanon , Ireland , Sudan , Somalia , Ethiopia , Eritrea .
There are lots of different Kurdish groups , they make lots of different territorial claims , some still want the full 1920s claim which is a very extensive bit of territory .
A small partitioning of land will please some but will not please them all . Those that are not pleased tend to carry on with the violence , plus of course other people will not be happy with the partition and will use violence to get the bit of land they have lost back .

Komutan

10-21-2007, 01:00

So it gives a very justified reason to the Kurds (not only the PKK) to strike back… It will be never ended.

…

No, it does not give them any reason. PKK attacks Turkey with the purpose of splitting part of her territory. Turkey goes to northern Iraq to destroy PKK camps, not to capture northern Iraq.

IrishArmenian

10-21-2007, 05:22

Would it ? Like Israel/Palestine , Yugoslavia , India/Pakistan , Syria/Lebanon , Ireland , Sudan , Somalia , Ethiopia , Eritrea .
There are lots of different Kurdish groups , they make lots of different territorial claims , some still want the full 1920s claim which is a very extensive bit of territory .
A small partitioning of land will please some but will not please them all . Those that are not pleased tend to carry on with the violence , plus of course other people will not be happy with the partition and will use violence to get the bit of land they have lost back .
Okay, I misposted (?).
I doubt the PKK would keep attack as fervently if they were given land.
Look at the ASALA and the ASP! They have not made an attack in years!
The fact that it pleases the majority should be reason enough.
Ethnic terrorists can only be truly stopped by their own people.

Komutan

10-21-2007, 08:34

I doubt the PKK would keep attack as fervently if they were given land.
Look at the ASALA and the ASP! They have not made an attack in years!

ASALA?

Of course ASALA did not make an attack in years, as it does not exist anymore.

Besides, the territory it wanted(part of Turkey) was not given.

Tribesman

10-21-2007, 10:05

I doubt the PKK would keep attack as fervently if they were given land.
Look at the ASALA and the ASP! They have not made an attack in years!
The fact that it pleases the majority should be reason enough.
Ethnic terrorists can only be truly stopped by their own people.
OK . the problem with that approach in this particular situation is that they are alledgedly operating in another countries territory , alledgedly with some assistance from other Kurdish groups from that territory and other territories who each have various claims .
Turkey expanding its current millitary presence and strikes in Iraq is only addressing one part of the issue and one part of the problem .
What is needed for any territorial agreement to have any affect is to get all countries and all groups involved to form an agreement together, since the groups have a tendancy to fight each other over their differing views of what they want and the countries have very differing views on what they are willing to give that prospect is a long long way away yet .

Banquo's Ghost

10-21-2007, 10:23

Brenus, your rebuttals read much like the Turkish responses to accusations about their conduct in the Kurdish areas. Denial and disparaging remarks about the reporting. Fair enough, I have derailed this thread enough already.

My point is not to defend the Turkish responses against the PKK and Kurds, but to challenge claims put forward in posts like this:

We had terrorist action from so-called Ethnic minorities. I don’t remember the Foreign Legion starting to burn the villages supported by the attack helicopters, or burning crops and killing livestock… A police operation has as aim to bring outlaws in court…

I agree with the last sentence, of course. Nonetheless, many other countries, including yours, have taken brutal counter-measures against insurgencies. It is hard for us to point fingers and look aghast when our own actions belie our words.

Husar

10-21-2007, 11:54

I agree with the last sentence, of course. Nonetheless, many other countries, including yours, have taken brutal counter-measures against insurgencies. It is hard for us to point fingers and look aghast when our own actions belie our words.
I'm going to throw in Kant here.

As a human everybody is allowed to point fingers in what you describe as long as his/her very own actions do not belie it. As a citizen, that may be a different matter, you have to differentiate between Brenus the human and Brenus the french citizen, though as he defended his government's actions I guess he is posing as a french citizen here, so go ahead. ~D

Brenus

10-21-2007, 12:38

“Nonetheless, many other countries, including yours, have taken brutal counter-measures against insurgencies.” Yes, France did. Still interesting in what Johan Hari described is what the French Army allegedly does is not against French Citizens. It is in a foreign country in a typical post-colonial (or even fully colonial) period.
My point was that the Turkish government doesn’t treat (so considered) his Kurdish Citizens are Turk. In bombing Iraqis Kurds in reaction of what a Turkism Kurds did is a plain acceptation that Kurds are one nation… Like the French in Algeria recongnised in practising torture and deportation that Algeri was de-facto an other country...

“It is hard for us to point fingers and look aghast when our own actions belie our words.”
Nope, I don’t support at any cost my country. French chains are chains and not good. However, when I read an article I except to have information and fact, not what an old man, woman, kid or whoever point of view without question.
I had friends in the Foreign Legion (long time ago…) and I know the French African Policy is well, policy. See Chad, Central Africa, Congo, Djibouti etc. Dirty operations were conduct and are still done. However I need facts before to have a judgement and this article gives none. Rwanda and Burundi were never a French Colonies for ex. So why to compare with Central Africa which was? Claiming that the French are responsible for all genocides without a beginning of a proof is not enough for me…
I am sorry; I don’t trust any more journalists. I saw what they did in former-Yugoslavia.:furious3:

LeftEyeNine

10-22-2007, 11:37

Ho-ho it's Geno-mas. Welcome me. :san_smiley:

You people already know my point of view about the Armenian Issue. It's an issue to me, emerged and aided by the big brothers always looking have a noose and thus hold of a developing young country which they obviously wished never existed. (I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder)

As long as IrishArmenian and other Diaspora Armenians will keep on underestimating what they had done for a START (514.000 death toll; as a reminder), I doubt anything compromisable will come out of this. But, hey now they have lobbies all around (which is hugely our mistake: we are dumbasses too lazy to foresee a snowball forming into an avalanche; as a reminder), and since Turkish Foreign Affairs is managed something like a zoo or döner kebab restaurant and while Turkey is economically dependant to foreign resources, why not push it in governmental aspects ? :daisy:

Nobody cares about the French and the Russians provoking and arming the Armenian rebels (once called milleti-i sadıka="the loyal nation"; as a reminder), but since we have massacred each other and have got ourselves a neverending conflict, the French cities can be filled with Armenian "Genocide" Memorial Statues or whatsoever. ALL HAIL THE PUPPETMASTAH! THEY DEMOCRACY SO HARD THAT THEY CAN SCREW THEIR IMMIGRANTS WHILE ERECTING MEMORIALS FOR THEIR COMMITMENT IN A NEVERLAND GENOCIDE ! "ADMIT IT, DOG" ! HUZZAH ! CAN YOU HEAR THE DEMOCRACY JINGLE? HUZZAH!

I'm tired and pissed of it. USA is to blame, France is to blame, Russia is to blame, Great Britain is to blame for this. Being seriously great people as Turkey Armenians as far as I know, now that the imperialist puppetmasters have pulled the strings so well that I'm getting so frustrated to see that we are being torn apart from those nice people, who have wholeheartedly accepted Turkish identity just as how every people over there in US accept to be an American. I still remember Levon Panos Dabagyan, a Turkey Armenian historian, calling for the re-unity among ourselves, calling himself a Turkish soldier in a battle against Armenia, if it could ever happen. I have been told that, there was a banner hung up in the coastal roads of Yeniköy, Istanbul, saying that: "As Turkish Armenians we have felt and will be feeling the pride of living under this flag on these lands - Armanlı Family".

What can Pelosi or what can YOU know about what had happened and how it feels for us by reading news or getting the mighty contribution of super-accurate websites ? While Mesrob Mutafyan, the Patriarch of Turkey Armenians, declares the necessity of the Turkey Armenians to be held out of this resolution mess, openly expressing their will to prevent it, why the hell are those imperialist, so-called humanist masters of divide & manage v2.0 policy in this?

Briefly, why do you hate us so much?

The Turkey Armenians could use ways of armed rebellion as a terrorist organization, but they do not anymore. ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983. (Strangely PKK performs its first terrorist action in 1984. ^^) Why? Because it could not find "soil to take root", from the ethnic group it was meant for. It was because, the Turkey Armenians did not want it.

So, again, why do you try to tear me off from my brothers so hard ?

I'll never touch the PKK issue here, 'cause I'm truly biased about Kurds and I never intend to violate The Org 's beautiful order (once/any more).

Hint:

ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983. (Strangely PKK performs its first terrorist action in 1984. ^^) Why? Because it could not find "soil to take root", from the ethnic group it was meant for. It was because, the Turkey Armenians did not want it.

P.S. IA, your plastic "we are all brothers and sisters !!!1111" :daisy: are smelling..too plastic.. I guess that's a side effect from it coming all overseas, sorry. :2thumbsup:

Merry Geno-mas, Ho-ho ! :san_cheesy:

Edit: Please don't misunderstand certain addressings which are definitely away from you here I put by saying "you". Just to make sure. Thanks. ^^

IrishArmenian

10-23-2007, 00:53

LEN, you write as if Armenia has flourished and become a western powerhouse. That is, of course false! Why? The very nations you believe support us, the Western powers. So they can play nice with Turkey and Azerbaijan, they don't care how Armenians fare.
Why is it so hard to see that a group of people who help power in what is now Turkey committing ethnic cleansing? The problem lies in your believing that they are your forebears. That is simply not true and that prevents--pardon the generalisation--Turks and Armenians from getting back to that cordiality that existed before the Russian invasion.
That the Genocide has much to do with politics is disheartening. Apparently, politicians decide what happened in the past and what didn't. That politicians, as politicians naturally do, abuse the Genocide insults the Armenian people.
But you seem not to care at all. After all, you already have your pre-concieved notion of Armenians and babbling from someone with such a bias as to have 'Armenian' in his name has no effect on you. The reason behind why I care is because I want to show you that we can coexist peacefully, even if I'm not a Turkish Armenian, I'm an Armenian born Armenian--at the time, it was the Soviet Socialist State of Armenia. See, despite what we both may've been taught in school, the other is still a real person, a real person with morals, a real person who doesn't like arguing over such a tragic issue all the time.
Your cynicism about my believing in brotherhood amongst our people does not surprise me. Maybe you think I'm a property-hungry, greedy person who is looking at increasing my holdings as I understand is the Armenian stereotype or maybe I'm a decietful nationalist. I'm either one of those, or just a person who follows a religion based on peace, brotherhood, compassion, mercy; who developed a strong personal hate for war and who, after hearing from survivors, would never wish such a tragedy like the Genocide on anyone, regardless.
Think whatever you want, but being so calloused as to say merry Geno-mas is absoulutely despicable.
Also, you seem to be using democracy with negative connotations, which is a little odd. Care to explain why?
Lastly, the ASALA died of because Armenians in general did not want it. Do you really think that the only moral Armenians are Turkish Armenians?

Don Corleone

10-23-2007, 01:37

I have to admit, I haven't read through this thread, and I may be about to steal somebody else's views on this matter. But until the US Congress passes, and our president signs, a resolution condemning our own genocide against the Native American population, the whole thing will continue to ring pretty hollow to me.

We were practicing biological warfare 200 years ago, handing out smallpox-ridden blankets as 'peace-offerings'. I read somewhere that the United States government has never completely honored the terms of any one of the hundreds of treaties it signed with tribes over the decades. I would say that the bill's sponsors should pick up a copy of a biography of Chief Joseph, or read about the Trail of Tears, and then make a resolution that would give them some credibility. Then, once we've owned up to our own past sins, we might actually have a leg to stand on in discussing these matters with our friends in other countries.

IrishArmenian

10-23-2007, 04:44

Brenus

10-23-2007, 07:46

“USA is to blame, France is to blame, Russia is to blame, Great Britain is to blame for this.” You forget the Armenians.
To have been killed and still talking... I don't know if it was a genocid, but rejecting all bad things onthers like you are doing it is quite errr unexpected from somebody like I supposed you are...

LeftEyeNine

10-23-2007, 14:52

LEN, you write as if Armenia has flourished and become a western powerhouse. That is, of course false! Why?

Because it was Diaspora Armenians I was talking about, not Armenia. Armenia itself is more pity when it comes to comparison. More careful read next time please.

The very nations you believe support us, the Western powers. So they can play nice with Turkey and Azerbaijan, they don't care how Armenians fare.

They can play nice with everyone as far as their expediencies are go. Diaspora Armenians are another tool.

Why is it so hard to see that a group of people who help power in what is now Turkey committing ethnic cleansing? The problem lies in your believing that they are your forebears. That is simply not true and that prevents--pardon the generalisation--Turks and Armenians from getting back to that cordiality that existed before the Russian invasion.

We never did one. We killed many just as you killed many (your massacre was half in numbers, revenge is always the most ruthless)

That the Genocide has much to do with politics is disheartening. Apparently, politicians decide what happened in the past and what didn't. That politicians, as politicians naturally do, abuse the Genocide insults the Armenian people.

Good for you to notice that. But why "sleep in their cradles" then ?

But you seem not to care at all. After all, you already have your pre-concieved notion of Armenians and babbling from someone with such a bias as to have 'Armenian' in his name has no effect on you. The reason behind why I care is because I want to show you that we can coexist peacefully, even if I'm not a Turkish Armenian, I'm an Armenian born Armenian--at the time, it was the Soviet Socialist State of Armenia. See, despite what we both may've been taught in school, the other is still a real person, a real person with morals, a real person who doesn't like arguing over such a tragic issue all the time.

I reaaaally don't care about people who are fighting for their causes and following the Armenian Constitution (http://www.servat.unibe.ch/law/icl/am00000_.html)'s Preamble saying:

Recognizing as a basis the fundamental principles of Armenian statehood and the national aspirations engraved in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia

..where 12th clause of Declaration of Independence of Armenia (http://www.armeniaforeignministry.com/htms/doi.html) sets the following as a goal:

11, The Republic of Armenia stands in support of the task of achieving international recognition of the 1915 Genocide in Ottoman Turkey and Western Armenia.

No. No way I'll be accepting my massacres as a genocide and accept your massacres as "cuddly tiny killings of Turks by gangs in small numbers". Your goal is a self-legalized will of yours. No :daisy: way I can share the coexistence idea of non-Turkey Armenians under such circumstances.

Your cynicism about my believing in brotherhood amongst our people does not surprise me. Maybe you think I'm a property-hungry, greedy person who is looking at increasing my holdings as I understand is the Armenian stereotype or maybe I'm a decietful nationalist. I'm either one of those, or just a person who follows a religion based on peace, brotherhood, compassion, mercy; who developed a strong personal hate for war and who, after hearing from survivors, would never wish such a tragedy like the Genocide on anyone, regardless.

Assuming you are giving a true sight of yours right here (excluding that Geno-mas), "exceptions don't rule out the laws", should I remind you.

Think whatever you want, but being so calloused as to say merry Geno-mas is absoulutely despicable.

When it is the Genocide time of the year, it is called Geno-mas. That is quite random compared to once-a-year frequency of the Christmas. I don't find massacres funny -no I'm not that ugly. But Armenian tales sound humorous to me, and that's why I call it "Merry Geno-mas, Ho ho!".

Also, you seem to be using democracy with negative connotations, which is a little odd. Care to explain why?

Because it's also used in big brothers' hands as a non-killing super weapon to use against nations. I don't really believe in democracy while we are in a state of problems regarding internal security, economic dependence, and a government with a "hidden agenda". No it's not that I hate it. It's just I don't have faith in democracy for the time being.

Lastly, the ASALA died of because Armenians in general did not want it. Do you really think that the only moral Armenians are Turkish Armenians?

PKK finds its true base from and and through Turkey, where they also have the political extension as well. ASALA died off after taking 40 of our diplomats' lives. Because it didn't receive enough ambition from fellow Armenian-originated citizens. And as every community or gathering needs, some organization unable to fulfill the goal dissolves.

I can't really judge non-Turkey Armenians' level of morality. ASALA's dissolvement does not give a clear idea about them. (Sure extremist ones had supported ASALA in some ways, but I don't take them into consideration)

You forget the Armenians.
To have been killed and still talking... I don't know if it was a genocid, but rejecting all bad things onthers like you are doing it is quite errr unexpected from somebody like I supposed you are...

This is their self-legalized goal, why would not they talk about it ?

So while you don't know if it was genocide or not, how can you blame me doing the unexpected ? Why do you (generally) prefer deciding about things you don't have the accurate and exact information ? And while so, why are Armenians are favored about a topic "you don't know if it was a genocide or not" ?

You're raising the questions about yourselves, not me. :daisy:

Brenus

10-23-2007, 19:18

“You're raising the questions about yourselves, not me.” You lost me here… Can you explain…?:sorry:

“how can you blame me doing the unexpected” Err, sorry what unexpected?
I blame you for rejecting responsibilities on others (French, English, USA, all the world).
I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.
As I said, I never went in details BUT Hitler was referring of the Armenians slaughter, not the Turkish slaughter when asked about the possibility of the Final Solution. This leads me to suppose that it was more violence and systematic killing in one side.

“I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder” You? So YOU invaded a lot a countries my friends, slaughtering, enslaving, pillaging and raping… The Ottoman Empire was the largest and the longest Empire in Europe, Asia and Africa. And it wasn’t nice to be in an Empire at these times…:beam:
Can I remind you that England and France (not for the beauty of the Ottoman Empire’s eyes, of course) rescued Turkey in fighting in Crimea?
What happened to Turkey in the aftermath of WW1 is exactly was happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the II Reich and somehow Russia. They were the Enemies so they were dismantled... They didn’t had an Atta Turck (sp?), some got a Lenin…
So the song of the poor lonesome Turkey facing the entire world manipulated by the evil Armenian Lobby…:inquisitive:

“Briefly, why do you hate us so much?” Because raising a question about the past is Hate?

“ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983”: What? Imperialists, whoa… Normally it goes with Yankee and valets…

As a French, my history is full of civil wars (the last one being after WW2, some will say even Algerian war-because the Military Coup), for political, religious, and so-called ethnical reasons. To study them is not an insult or a tragedy. As said somewhere else, the French did their parts in slaughters others nations and themselves.:sweatdrop:

LeftEyeNine

10-28-2007, 16:12

“You're raising the questions about yourselves, not me.” You lost me here… Can you explain…?

Questions:

So while you don't know if it was genocide or not, how can you blame me doing the unexpected ? Why do you (generally) prefer deciding about things you don't have the accurate and exact information ? And while so, why are Armenians are favored about a topic "you don't know if it was a genocide or not" ?

“how can you blame me doing the unexpected” Err, sorry what unexpected?
I blame you for rejecting responsibilities on others (French, English, USA, all the world).
I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.

"If it's not a genocide you're speaking of, why do you blame me ?" I mean. While you can say it was a mutual massacre, why don't you start by suggesting the admittance of the responsibilities to both sides.

I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.

Ah, I know that piece :daisy: Here goes the Wiki entry 's Conclusion part saying:

The source of this problem appears to be that the quote allegedly comes from a speech made by Hitler, not from any written or published text. Its authenticity or otherwise thus depends on the recollections of eye-witnesses, the validity of which may be doubted, and has been doubted, by later commentators.

A large shadow of doubt is cast upon the speech by its unusually frank style: Hitler openly alludes to Operation Tannenberg, which was, at the time, a secret plan that could only be discussed between the members of the innermost circle of the party

In the absence of any means of either confirming or refuting the authenticity of the quote, and in light of the intense partisan passions surrounding both the Armenian genocide and the Holocaust, it is unlikely that this issue can ever be satisfactorily resolved.

As Hitler neither was an expert on the topic, nor had the intention to give a factual report, the relevance of the argument can be regarded as marginal.

Hitler is the Beast of genocides, he had his own foul ideas about the Jewish but sure he must have said something true about the Armenians. :dancing_steven_spielberg:

Really, regarding the conclusion of the Armenian quote above, don't you ever sniff the stink ? :daisy:

“I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder” You?

When there is a war, there is a struggle, not an "oh-wtf-I-had-done" scenario. After all that war should be the consequences of your deeds. So if I have YOU in my lands, then you are INVADERS. So purely simplistic for someone who has such experiences.

Can I remind you that England and France (not for the beauty of the Ottoman Empire’s eyes, of course) rescued Turkey in fighting in Crimea?

Aye. France was the Catholic church's leader of the world by the times while Russia was the same for the Orthodox. So agreeing with Russia to the extermination of the Ottomans would mean a bigger Russia, finally reaching the Mediterranean, and the Orthodox success and increasing influence in the Christian world. It was not about rescuing Ottoman Empire, it was about guarding the political status quo of Europe by preventing Russia from growing any bigger. I can still feel the sweet intent of the Allies. :daisy:

What happened to Turkey in the aftermath of WW1 is exactly was happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the II Reich and somehow Russia. They were the Enemies so they were dismantled...

After all, my lands were shared among all of them. The plans to liberate Armenians and the Kurds had been started to apply by creating serious conflicts among them, something ended up here today, which seems never to end. Your ancestors fight dirty, that's all about it.

They didn’t had an Atta Turck (sp?), some got a Lenin…

Well I'd really search and look up for any of the French kings (though they can be the XXVII. or whatsoever, I'd care for who he really is) to have an accurate and peaceful discussion. Just please show some respect to one of the most influential statesmen of the 21st century. I guess you'll be able to see his name correctly while googling for "armenian" "genocide".

“Briefly, why do you hate us so much?” Because raising a question about the past is Hate?

Intended to be directed at the politicians, raising such critical and sensitive HISTORICAL statements (not questions unfortunately) and melding it into the fights of vote is just ugly. It doesn't really seem so humanistic from here.

“ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983”: What? Imperialists, whoa… Normally it goes with Yankee and valets…

Sure, if the Armenians really had wanted it, it would never stop. That gives a clear idea about financing of such terrorist groups. USA is now fighting against the mullahs he had allowed to flourish to use against the Soviets, should I remind you. C'mon, it's not such an unheard method :2thumbsup:

As a French, my history is full of civil wars (the last one being after WW2, some will say even Algerian war-because the Military Coup), for political, religious, and so-called ethnical reasons. To study them is not an insult or a tragedy. As said somewhere else, the French did their parts in slaughters others nations and themselves.

As a Turkish, we generally praise ourselves for founding around 17 states up to date throughout the history. But we never care why the previous 16 had collapsed.

The Turkish did their part in what wars brought, still identifying themselves as the "army-nation", sure our victories must have brought massacre, pillage and destruction over the conquest. Sure Janissaries were sons who had been taken away from their families and so on.

However we never commited a genocide.

Lemur

10-28-2007, 17:49

We were practicing biological warfare 200 years ago, handing out smallpox-ridden blankets as 'peace-offerings'. I read somewhere that the United States government has never completely honored the terms of any one of the hundreds of treaties it signed with tribes over the decades. I would say that the bill's sponsors should pick up a copy of a biography of Chief Joseph, or read about the Trail of Tears, and then make a resolution that would give them some credibility. Then, once we've owned up to our own past sins, we might actually have a leg to stand on in discussing these matters with our friends in other countries.
Don C, I would humbly ask you to at least read this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1712252&postcount=33). I tried to lay out the entire four-hundred-year history of European/Native American conflict. FWIW, the smallpox blanket stunt was performed by the British, not the colonial authorities. And FWIW, it probably had no effect.

In my opinion, the bulk of the killing was done before the United States properly existed. That's no excuse for how the U.S. behaved afterwards, but it's worth understanding.

woad&fangs

10-28-2007, 18:13

Don C, I would humbly ask you to at least read this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1712252&postcount=33). I tried to lay out the entire four-hundred-year history of European/Native American conflict. FWIW, the smallpox blanket stunt was performed by the British, not the colonial authorities. And FWIW, it probably had no effect.

In my opinion, the bulk of the killing was done before the United States properly existed. That's no excuse for how the U.S. behaved afterwards, but it's worth understanding.

And the Armenian Genocide was caused by the Ottomans and not The current Turkish government. That said, I think it is pretty pathetic how some nationalities can't accept that they have done wrong in the past. The trend in my history classes the last few years seems to have been drag up every crappy thing the US has ever done and talk exclusively about that. For example, so far this year we have learned about The Bonus Army and how crappily Hoover treated the veterans, The relocation to Concentration camps of Japanese living on the West coast, and last week we had to read some crap by Howard Zinn about how the US was only motivated to fight WW2 by economic pressure and that we only dropped the A-bomb to prevent the Russians from from having influence in post war japan. He also said that we dropped the second A-bomb to test the difference between plutonium and Uranium cores.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-29-2007, 03:29

I've begun reading up on the Armenian Genocide of 1915.

Attaturk's republic seems to have not taken much of a part in this, with most of the "genocidal" polocies attributable to the Young Turks rulership of the Ottoman empire just before it was torn apart in WW1. Armeno-Turk relations took their most negative down-turn during the administration prior to that -- the last dictator/sultan (blanking on name at moment), so it can be argued that the Young Turks government was mostly reacting to an extant crisis brought about by their predecessor.

The genocidal actions taken may or may not have been a programmatic action of the government. It is a certainty that the "transportation/forced migration" policies ended up killing many Armenians, even if that was not their ostensible intent.

I have not reached a full set of conclusions here.

Xiahou

10-29-2007, 03:46

LeftEyeNine

10-29-2007, 04:38

The genocidal actions taken may or may not have been a programmatic action of the government. It is a certainty that the "transportation/forced migration" policies ended up killing many Armenians, even if that was not their ostensible intent.

I have not reached a full set of conclusions here.

Armenians topping a million, during their enforced migration (Law of Tehcir) lost their lives unfortunately, due to the avenging of Turks and Kurds from them about the deeds of the Armenian gangs raised, armed and provocated by the Russians during their Caucasian Invasion and the French. The reasons to such a massacre also compose of the poor organization of the enforcement by the state (I wonder how they thought they could think of succeeding such transportation through those times when the army was exhausted, the state was in chaos and the folk was terribly war worn, poor and furious). Famine, epidemic and -as foretold- murders ended up with so many lives -mostly innocent- getting lost into the darkest pages of history, sticking at the Turkish nation's face as a "genocide" -which was never intended nor imposed.

Once again, God bless the innocent ones who lost their lives during these unfortunate massacres with comfort as they do deserve.

P.S. "Systematicallity" is one of the fundamental attributes of the term "genocide".

IrishArmenian

10-29-2007, 05:39

Seamus, Ataturk said something along these lines:
These left-overs from the Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule.
Obviously he was aware of the evil.
Again, I have problems with the deportation issue as burning at the stake is often quite deliberate and rarely happens on accident.
The Armenian gangs who attacked Turkish villages after the Hamidian massacres were vile, inhumane people and I know that. By learning the mistakes and crimes of the past, we can better prepare ourselves for the future, yes?
Also, why would a government, meaning to keep the people being relocated alive, choose to relocate the ethnicity in question--one not accustomed to living in the middle of the desert--into the heart of the desert with no water and no food? No one is that stupid. Even politicians know that people need food and water to live. Please explain the extreme malevolence or if you shall play the 'dumb' card, the incomprehensible idiocy that it takes to disregard such basic human necessities.

LeftEyeNine

10-29-2007, 07:38

Also, why would a government, meaning to keep the people being relocated alive, choose to relocate the ethnicity in question--one not accustomed to living in the middle of the desert--into the heart of the desert with no water and no food?

Syria was where they were being transported to -somewhere with a coastline and harbor. The conditions and the organization was sick but no one is that stupid to arrange a systematical killing while the whole state is in a condition of absolute war-weariness, poverty and social chaos and despair. Still it is a bad intention trying to see a bad intention beyond this.

Fragony

10-29-2007, 09:21

That's not really important. What matters more is the EU, if they want to be in it they will have to say the Genocide happened ... or don't deny it the way they do ... sure this has nothing to do with America, but most Europeans aren't as stupid as they look, they also hear with Turkey says about this now. And they might not like it.

Didn't stop Aybarak, a known deniar, from being in our government.

IrishArmenian

10-29-2007, 23:45

Coastal Syria? Kilikia is not far from Syria, so why would the large Armenian population disappear? They couldn't've gotten lost! We're stubborn, sometimes arrogant but we are not that stupid.
And why would a 'scenic' route through the desert be taken? Couldn't a route through much more fertile and forgiving Armenian land be much more effective and would, in fact, be easier? Obviously, great inconvenience was had on the part of the irregulars who committed the crimes they were ordered to, showing that they meant to lead the helpless masses to their deaths in the desert, after, of course, all who could resist and many who couldn't were slaughtered wholesale.

Louis VI the Fat

10-30-2007, 00:39

LEN, I agree with Brenus that I don't much care whether there was a massacre or a genocide. That is both needless semanticism, and it creates an artificial distinction between the two. Where the former is considered 'normal' collateral damage of war, and the latter an elevated status, highly coveted at that.

Don't really have a point with the above. I do have a question: do you think that it was the policy of Turkey to create an etnically monogenous state? In other words, was, if not necessarily through death, the disappearance of all Armenians from the soil of Turkey a goal?

“how can you blame me doing the unexpected” Err, sorry what unexpected?
I blame you for rejecting responsibilities on others (French, English, USA, all the world).
I don’t know if it was a genocide as a deliberate intent to kill all the Armenians as a people. What I do know is it was massacre and war crimes. And the Turks are guilty of it, and the Armenians are guilty of theirs.
As I said, I never went in details BUT Hitler was referring of the Armenians slaughter, not the Turkish slaughter when asked about the possibility of the Final Solution. This leads me to suppose that it was more violence and systematic killing in one side.

“I had the French, the English, the Italians, the Greeks and the Russians as invaders back in times; as a reminder” You? So YOU invaded a lot a countries my friends, slaughtering, enslaving, pillaging and raping… The Ottoman Empire was the largest and the longest Empire in Europe, Asia and Africa. And it wasn’t nice to be in an Empire at these times…:beam:
Can I remind you that England and France (not for the beauty of the Ottoman Empire’s eyes, of course) rescued Turkey in fighting in Crimea?
What happened to Turkey in the aftermath of WW1 is exactly was happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the II Reich and somehow Russia. They were the Enemies so they were dismantled... They didn’t had an Atta Turck (sp?), some got a Lenin…
So the song of the poor lonesome Turkey facing the entire world manipulated by the evil Armenian Lobby…:inquisitive:

“Briefly, why do you hate us so much?” Because raising a question about the past is Hate?

“ASALA, founded in Beirut fed by the imperialists to make a mess, died off by 1983”: What? Imperialists, whoa… Normally it goes with Yankee and valets…

As a French, my history is full of civil wars (the last one being after WW2, some will say even Algerian war-because the Military Coup), for political, religious, and so-called ethnical reasons. To study them is not an insult or a tragedy. As said somewhere else, the French did their parts in slaughters others nations and themselves.:sweatdrop:That is a great post!

Johann Hari:

*blahblahblah*A big 'meh' to Johann Hari here. I'm not impressed. He is right, sure enough, there is a dirty war going on. But for him to present his article with an undertone of breakthrough investigative journalism? Meh. If he had spend twenty minutes on Wikipedia he could've copy-pasted the same article together, with less inaccuracies as a bonus.

I realise that was not the point of your posting it. So yes, fair enough, lots of nations have a hard time facing up to the darker chapters of their own history. Indeed, 'he who is without sin casts the first stone'. The sin not being genocides / mass murders of your own, but the unwillingness to admit them.

(tip: for festering wounds to poke in, try Algeria, or even tired old Vichy. Nobody cares about dark Africa)

Don Corleone

10-30-2007, 21:12

Don C, I would humbly ask you to at least read this post (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=1712252&postcount=33). I tried to lay out the entire four-hundred-year history of European/Native American conflict. FWIW, the smallpox blanket stunt was performed by the British, not the colonial authorities. And FWIW, it probably had no effect.

In my opinion, the bulk of the killing was done before the United States properly existed. That's no excuse for how the U.S. behaved afterwards, but it's worth understanding.

Right, I've had a chance to go back and read more of the thread and I hear what you and Xiahou are trying to say. I'm just struck by the hypocricy of it all. Okay, perhaps the smallpox blanket incident was technically the Brittish (which in 1763, we still were). I'm not a deconstructionist when it comes to history, and I don't think its fair to judge the acts of the 18th and 19th century by the moral standards of today. But come on... we didn't know that Wounded Knee was wrong? And we knew damn well the Trail of Tears incident and what we did to the Cherokees was wrong, even at the time. And how about poor old Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce? Having seen what happened to natives forced onto reservations, they just wanted to go to Canada and leave the US altogether. But nope, that wasn't good enough for us. We had to hunt him and the rest of the Nez Perce down and kill enough of them that the survivors surrendered and were willing to accept any terms allowed.

You can say 'it was complicated' and 'atrocities were committed by both sides', and you'd be somewhat right. But there were a few watershed events that transpired that shocked the sensibilities of white America of the day, let alone people trying to indulge in collective guilt now, and they were pretty much all us against them.

Seamus Fermanagh

10-30-2007, 21:57

Early US (and European) treatment of Native Amerinds:

Things varied quite a bit.

Spanish efforts in Central America, The Carribean and much of South America were little short of horrific. While early conquistadores often made alliances with some tribes in order to secure leverage against other tribes, once the extant empires had been broken, the rest was hideous. For every missionary trying to spread the word of God, there were a dozen others trying to extract every ounce of profit. Most of the native population that did not succumb to disease were enslaved as a matter of policy. Tribes and cultures were, by design, destroyed -- ostensibly to christianize the region -- so thoroughly that (outside the Amazon) native cultures exist in only fragmentary fashion.

French efforts were a lot less intrusive. Most French Caribbean possessions had been depopulated by disease long before the French made claim. Moreover, though there were clashes, French efforts in North America were to convert the Indian groups into an informal trading network. Some degree of economic "imperialism" accompanied this, but this seemed to be a byproduct of their efforts to use North American resources. France, on the whole, was the least acquisitive and least directly damaging of the European influences.

English/Dutch/Swedish efforts on the Eastern Seaboard (latterly controlled exclusively by England) were a mixed lot. Europeans and Amerinds consistently "spoke past" one another. [e.g. The Sale of Manhattan: The Dutch thought they robbed the Indians blind by buying the Island for a few chests of trinkets, while the Indians thought they robbed the Dutch blind because they got paid for land -- which couldn't be owned like a good/possession anyway]. Most settlers in this group were more than willing to exploit the natives (the prevailing attitude was that a pre-technical people were "lesser" beings and that displacing them did no wrong) , although designs on attack/destruction of the natives were not a standard operating procedure at this point.

On the Eastern seaboard, in particular, one element that must have vexed all of the Europeans was the inconsistency of treatment. One tribe would be friendly and the next attempt to kill you -- each tribe was it's own master --and tribalism was one component of European culture that Europe was stamping out. If you couldn't be sure of treatment from one moment to the next, and were already inclined to think of them as "sub" humans anyway (not that they didn't cheerfully breed with them when opportunity presented, hmmm.....), it's an easy step to head toward pogroms as your answer. Treating them all as enemies would be psychologically simple, and humans crave such simplicity.

Brenus

10-31-2007, 16:30

“Here goes the Wiki entry 's Conclusion part saying”: I ever used Wikipedia.
And if I would, I would go for the French version, like in most of my research…

“Hitler is the Beast of genocides, he had his own foul ideas about the Jewish but sure he must have said something true about the Armenians”
I heard this kind of things before. If a bad guy says something it is wrong… Well, I think Hitler did agree on the fact that the grass was green. And, well, the grass is green.
What Hitler said, and was proven wrong again, was nobody remembered the Armenians “solution”.

“So if I have YOU in my lands, then you are INVADERS. So purely simplistic for someone who has such experiences.” Yes, no body denies this point. The French, English, Australia and others, did rage war on Turkey. BUT to blame them for what the ottoman Empire did is a little bit fetch…

“I can still feel the sweet intent of the Allies” Yep, nothing was done just for the nice and warm Ottoman Empire… It was a real politic of the time… Again, it was what I said.

“Your ancestors fight dirty, that's all about it”: Yes they did. Yours were the model of chivalry and knighthood.:laugh4:

“French kings (though they can be the XXVII. or whatsoever, I'd care for who he really is”:
No matter, I am Republican. The only King we had with the XVII in fact never existed. Louis the XVII, son of Louis XVI, never reigned. He died in the Temple prison…

Just please show some respect to one of the most influential statesmen of the 21st century” Err, 21st Century?

“Intended to be directed at the politicians, raising such critical and sensitive HISTORICAL statements (not questions unfortunately) and melding it into the fights of vote is just ugly. It doesn't really seem so humanistic from here.” I would agree on that. However, if a clear and really historical research would be possible, it will cut any possible political exploitation of this event, do you think?

Karo

11-01-2007, 01:59

LEN what source do you use for the part about the Armenian gangs. And are they supported by the turkish goverment. And you why the Turkish goverment has responsibilty because when it was formed many of the young turks joined the national republic, they got away unpunisht.

Komutan

11-01-2007, 22:12

I would agree on that. However, if a clear and really historical research would be possible, it will cut any possible political exploitation of this event, do you think?

No, it will not. The majority of the so-called historical researches about this matter are themselves results of political agendas(agendas from both sides of the debate).

Brenus

11-01-2007, 22:54

“The majority of the so-called historical researches about this matter are themselves results of political agendas(agendas from both sides of the debate)” Yes, that is why I said IF.
Somehow, History is politic, it a representation of our past.

IrishArmenian

11-02-2007, 02:28

Okay, Komutan, something from a site that is not so blunt as to call itself "The Tall Armenian Tale" or other such biased titles. That includes Turkish and Armenian historians, and if you think the Western historians are too biased towards favoring the Armenians, remember that the West did absolutely nothing while we were being raped, systematically killed, driven from our land and nearly eliminated entirely.