Biden Recognizes Armenian genocide

[blackhawk]

crisis

View attachment 483897

It's only a "crisis" because:

• Biden is President.
• They aren't all being held/hidden on the Mexican side, like under TR☭MP.

Because tens of thousnads are showing up.
We do not have the facilities or personal to house our process them.
There are kids in cages.
Many are being released into the U.S. without being tested for covid.
Drug smugglers and human traffickers are using and abusing these kids..
It is not just unaccompanied minors at the border.
The border patrol and other agencys who are tasked with dealing with this are being overwhelmed.
This in part is why it is a crisis as I said before.

 

[ekrem]

Bernard Lewis, eminent Middle East historian at Princeton, dies at 101

Princeton University scholar Bernard Lewis, one of the world's foremost historians of Islam and the Middle East, died May 19. He was the Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies, Emeritus.

www.princeton.edu

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Wow. The only president in my lifetime who came close to recognizing the genocide was reagan.

Past presidents said they would but they didn't and I didn't think that Biden would be any different.

Biden proved me wrong.

Finally a president who at least recognizes it happened. Hopefully all presidents from Biden forward will recognize it for what it was.

A GENOCIDE.

Biden recognizes Armenian genocide

Why is Joe " you ain't black" Biden helping Caucasians? That's racist!

 

[Sunni Man]

Next up on the Biden / Harris administration agenda.
They plan to settle the age old question:, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg"? ....

 

[blackhawk]

Next up on the Biden / Harris administration agenda.
They plan to settle the age old question:, "Which came first, the chicken or the egg"? ....

The chicken.

 

[basquebromance]

a president is supposed to change the terms of a debate. that's long overdue in the case of the armenian genocide, my friends.

God bless America, God bless Armenia, God bless Turkey...let's make world peace!

 

[Rocko]

Fuck Turkey

 

[basquebromance]

the LA Times reports:

Linda Khachek, a Goleta resident who is the descendant of survivors, agrees that there’s something comforting about the prospect of naming the horrors. “We’ve been an oppressed people, persecuted for hundreds of years, and I think for somebody to acknowledge that pain is really meaningful,” Khachek said. “It’s not going to give us closure per se, but it’s a great first step.”

 

[Rocko]

 

[Chillicothe]

It's OK that Biden did this.
Genocide by any other name is still bad juju.

So world scholars have long concluded this was a genocidal impulse by Turkey to rid themselves of an ethnic minority they did not trust. Ain't the first time such motivations have been acted upon. Likely not the last.

But the thing is, it WAS genocide.
Numbers range widely ....but 600,000 to 1.4 million.....is a lot of corpses.
The credible accounts are horrible.

Call it what it was. Let Turkey own it. Live with it.

All participants and likely most every survivor able to remember it is now dead. So impactful justice to them ain't gonna happen....for them, or against them.

But, for the generations who were spawned by the survivors .... it's a good thing. It 'legitimizes' the grievances of the Armenian people...survivors, offspring, and culture.

By the way, now that this is in the news, it was interesting to read all the nuances that have come to play in this matter....for generations.

Various wars created changing alliances, enemies then are friends later, then maybe enemies again. Not to mention the pragmatism of of a friend in need is a friend in deed.
Kurds participated in the genocide.
But we needed Kurds to fight Saddam, to fight ISIS.
Kurds helped the Turks kill the Armenians.
Now the Turks wanna kill the Kurds.

Nothing ever stays the same.
But genocide is genocide.
No matter what you call it, or when you decided to call it that.

IMHO

 

[zaangalewa]

... The Crusades were most definitely a genocide.

Absolutelly not. You have to be careful with all the information in this context. The people in the middle ages loved overstatements as "to wade in the blood of the enemies" for example. To kill every day dozends of enemies with the little finger of the left hand was a totally normal job for them. What's real and what's fantasy or deterrence is often difficult to say. And the name "crusades" was used to justify what was not justifyable: a war on religious reasons. Practically "crusade" is only another word for "djihad". Christians learned to do so from the Muslims.

But the crusades were for example also just simple called "The Frankonian wars" (Frankonians were Germans) in the world of the Arabs, because the Normans (=Scandinavians) - who had seddled since 300 years before in France (=under Frankonians to protect them from the vikings) had conquered England in 1066. And about the same time a Turkish tribe from Asia - the Seljuks - had conquered Jerusalem and Mekka. Jerusalem was seen to be the centre of the world in those days. The Seljuks (= the Muslims) blocked Christian pilgrims to Jerusalem - and I'm quite sure they also made a lot of money with the Muslim pilgrims in Mekka. For the Christians in this time of history it was a deep shock to lose Jerusalem. Think about how Muslims would feel if they suddenly would not be able to visit Mekka any longer. So the Normans decided to conquer Jerusalem (= they decided to conquer the center of the world). This story grew to be very complex in the next some hundred years but was never a war, which tried to eliminate a population. Very "funny" is for example the role of Saladin. While in the European world Saladin was seen as a noble knight, who had won - and he had played an important role as a cultivated noble man in the European tradition - a hero, an idol - he was on the other side often scorned in the world of the Muslims, who forgot him, although he had saved them (indeed had existed also often alliances from Christians and Muslims during the Frankonian wars with the Arabs, which had started as a war of the Normans (England+France) against the influence of the Seljuks in the world of the Muslims).

 

[Utilitarian]

I oppose this move.

I don't.

I don't give a rat's ass what turkey wants or thinks.

I'm tired of our nation coddling such behavior.

Facts are facts if turkey can't deal with it, that's turkey's problem.

Why is it that other nations can and do recognize the genocide and that's ok but it's not ok for the United States to do what most other nations have done?

Most Americans have not even heard of Armenia much less knows about the genocide while people from most other nations do know about Armenians and the genocide.

What changes when the United States does what most other nations have done for decades?

The word 'genocide' wasn't even invented until after WWII and the discovery of the holocaust. It's a post-WWII concept being used to judge earlier wartime actions.

While presentism is logically problematic, it's not exactly presentist to suggest that genocide is wrong. When Turkey did what it did to Armenia, it was still considered wrong by many nations at the time. So, it can't really be seen as anachronistic or unfair to judge them.

But they also did it to the Greeks, although on a much smaller scale. And, also much smaller, Armenians did it to Turkish communities. And the Japanese did it to the Chinese. And the Koreans.

If you're suggesting that a lot of groups should own up to ethnic cleansing, I don't have a problem with that.

 

[Utilitarian]

I oppose this move.

I don't.

I don't give a rat's ass what turkey wants or thinks.

I'm tired of our nation coddling such behavior.

Facts are facts if turkey can't deal with it, that's turkey's problem.

Why is it that other nations can and do recognize the genocide and that's ok but it's not ok for the United States to do what most other nations have done?

Most Americans have not even heard of Armenia much less knows about the genocide while people from most other nations do know about Armenians and the genocide.

What changes when the United States does what most other nations have done for decades?

The word 'genocide' wasn't even invented until after WWII and the discovery of the holocaust. It's a post-WWII concept being used to judge earlier wartime actions.

once again you prove how much of an idiot you are,, when the word came about has nothing to do with the act,, and the act was that of a genocide,,,

Which wasn't a condemned practice at that time.

are you saying it was an accepted practice to kill an entire group of people??

It's happened in war throughout history.

Not every war is a genocide. You could characterize what we did to the Native Americans and the Philippines as genocides. These fit the bill because of the ethnic motivation involved.

Genocide is specific enough to make distinctions between wars, because it has a very clear definition of motivation.

The Crusades were most definitely a genocide.

Possibly. Again, just because we acknowledge one genocide, it doesn't preclude us from acknowledging others. All it takes is a logical set of criteria to define genocide with and then to apply said criteria to various wars/conflicts.