141–150 of 151 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Nobody wants any person to be accountable for past sins of any state. You'd be surprised.
Could you give some specific counterexamples—teach us something—instead of that fairly unhelpful remark? Thanks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'll find the same sentiments among Russians, Moroccans, Israelis, Japanese, Serbians... The Germans may be almost unique in that they took full responsibility for the crimes their state committed.
What about Americans btw? I mean maybe they don't talk like that but they went to optional wars in Vietnam, Iraq costing millions of innocent lives. Just saying...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is what I was referring to. The Three Pashas were all military men who very much influenced the Turkish independence movement and modern Turkey itself. The genocide wasn't just limited to the World War though. A lot of significant damage happened between 1919-1923, when the Turkish were fighting for independence. And by 1918, Ataturk was already a general in the Ottoman Army.
While the Young Turks clearly had some more interest in making the empire more Turkish, before WW1 pretty much anybody in the government called themselves Ottomans, not Turks. Turk was mostly use for the poor elements. And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire.
> Mehmed Talaat Pasha (1874–1921), the Grand Vizier (prime minister) and Minister of the Interior; Ismail Enver Pasha (1881–1922), the Minister of War; and Ahmed Cemal Pasha (1872–1922), the Minister of the Navy.
I don't know about you, but their positions sound very military to me. AFAIK, they are military or quasi-military departments in every country I've visited.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Americans are rightly ridiculed for going on vacation to Europe and saying "Oh, I'm French/German/Irish/Whatever!" just for having a surname of that nationality. I don't see any point in holding those same people accountable for past state sins.
> holding those same people accountable for past state sins. Nobody wants any person to be accountable for past sins of any state. The idea is that the state itself be accountable, which is a very different thing.
Having had family killed during WWII, I know that their contemporary relatives held a grunge against Germans. Not Germany as a state, but Germans. This is very much understandable because Germans (and not Germany) killed their family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> holding those same people accountable for past state sins. Nobody wants any person to be accountable for past sins of any state. The idea is that the state itself be accountable, which is a very different thing.
By holding a state responsible, their citizens are automatically included. Having had family killed during WWII, I know that their contemporary relatives held a grunge against Germans. Not Germany as a state, but Germans. This is very much understandable because Germans (and not Germany) killed their family.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about Americans btw? I mean maybe they don't talk like that but they went to optional wars in Vietnam, Iraq costing millions of innocent lives. Just saying...
Not a lot of Americans deny the genocide of Native Americans or the slave trade, do they? You have a point, but at least the US president has admitted that the Iraq war was a mistake.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately, not. And neither Spain does, which is a shame. What is the point of your question?
France is always pontificating about "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" and all that kumbaya stuff (which are great ideas, btw), but in practice, some of what they've done in their colonies and their behavior in conflicts is questionable af. I went to an Argelian restaurant some time ago, and the guy there told me that historically, French soldiers demanded that Argelian women have sex with them, and if they refused they…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While the Young Turks clearly had some more interest in making the empire more Turkish, before WW1 pretty much anybody in the government called themselves Ottomans, not Turks. Turk was mostly use for the poor elements. And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire.
> And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire. > Mehmed Talaat Pasha (1874–1921), the Grand Vizier (prime minister) and Minister of the Interior; Ismail Enver Pasha (1881–1922), the Minister of War; and Ahmed Cemal Pasha (1872–1922), the Minister of the Navy. I don't know about you, but their positions sound very military to me. AFAIK, they are military or quasi-military department…
Minister of War and Minister of the Navy is a civilian position as well. Armies are lead by Generals, Navy by admirals, the civilian positions overseeing these institutions in the name of the civilian government.
Again, the Young Turks were in control of the whole government. Whatever their individual positions were, they are simply the government. Denying that is is simply not defensible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And they were not military men, they were the civilian government of the empire. > Mehmed Talaat Pasha (1874–1921), the Grand Vizier (prime minister) and Minister of the Interior; Ismail Enver Pasha (1881–1922), the Minister of War; and Ahmed Cemal Pasha (1872–1922), the Minister of the Navy. I don't know about you, but their positions sound very military to me. AFAIK, they are military or quasi-military department…
You are simply embracing yourself at this point. Prime minister and minister of the interior? Clearly not military positions. Minister of War and Minister of the Navy is a civilian position as well. Armies are lead by Generals, Navy by admirals, the civilian positions overseeing these institutions in the name of the civilian government. Again, the Young Turks were in control of the whole government. Whatever their in…
> Ahmed Djemal Pasha (Ottoman Turkish: احمد جمال پاشا, romanized: Ahmet Cemâl Paşa; 6 May 1872 – 21 July 1922), also known as Jamal Basha as-Saffah ("the Bloodthirsty") in the Arab world, was an Ottoman military leader and one of the Three Pashas that ruled the Ottoman Empire during World War I and carried out the Armenian Genocide.
Notice the common word in those two? Military Leader.
At this point you're just spouting rubbish by calling those positions civilian positions. Also the minister of the Interior is very much a quasi-military position in a lot of countries even today, and especially in a centralized government like the Ottoman Empire. As was the position of Prime Minister/Grand Vizier.
> In the Ottoman Empire, the Ottoman Military Tribunal convicted and sentenced to death Talaat in absentia for his role in the Armenian Genocide.
I'll leave this one as a tangent.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So why are you happy? Because I don’t care if I come from country X, atrocities all around the world have been committed, and still being committed. People have to be responsible for this suffering, we shouldn’t be able to shout “Fake News!” to everything and get away with it.
I think people need another 100 years to forget about it. It's just a toy in the hands of politicians. And now they choose to use it against Turkey. Some day this whole thing will be forgotten. Nobody living today are responsible or should be responsible for it.