The Inside Assyria Discussion Forum #5

=> Re: Jews in Turkey During WW I

Re: Jews in Turkey During WW I
Posted by pancho (Moderator) - Saturday, September 25 2010, 11:55:47 (UTC)
from *** - *** Mexico - Windows NT - Internet Explorer
Website:
Website title:

Tiglath wrote:
>Firstly there could be no genocide without a homogenous modern nation state.
>
>So the pogroms and mon massacres that took place before WW1 could not have been considered genoicde of course.

...oh come ON! This topic, being almost pre-intellectual, that is the prejudice being implanted at an age when oneīs mind is not developed enough to sense the fraud, is getting in the way of your usual sharp clarity...what the hell difference does it make if there is a nation state or not to THOSE MURDERED? A group is still a group....a government is still a government...besides which DURING WW I there still wasnīt a "homogenous" modern nation state, according to this latest blub of yours, remember? That was supposedly the whole reason for the "genocide" to bring ABOUT such a modern whatever....it wasnīt in existence YET...so why call what the Turks did a genocide when they are accused of having engaged in genocide to CREATE this modern blah blah blah....pardon me but your sophistry is showing.
>
>But when the Young Turks took over they renamed, and rebranded the new Turkish state and instituted a deliberate policy of homogenisation through one language, one culture and one religion.

...then why are there still CHRISTIANS, JEWS, AZERIS, HOTTENTOTS, HUMPBACK WHALES, DWARFS, and LEFT-HANDED GYPSIES etc all speaking their languages and coing to their churches? If they failed at homogenization and failed at genocide and lost the war, just how "deliberate" were they?

..besides which, this re-branding and attempt at homogenization is not an indication that there was genocide....genocide is SPECIFIC, or at least it was until Christian revisionists set about watering it down enough to include HOMOGENIZATION. Nazi Christians were NOT trying to homogenize Jews...they did NOT want them integrated and blended and mixed and made one with Christians...on the contrary, they wanted them DEAD...they went to great pains to SEPARATE a Jew from a Christian spouse, they did not try to mix the two but DIVIDE them...they did not excuse someone who had 5% Jewish blood...hell no, they killed him TOO! Trying to mix and blend people together is NOT achieved by GENOCIDE.

...honestly, your church did some number on you! But donīt give up hope....once this poison is out and flushed down the toilet where it belongs youīll be cured and your admirable faculties restored.
>
>The majority of the Ottoman citizens culturaly conformed to the homogenisation policy and continued as loyal Turkish citizens. A portion that objected and were on the periphery of the empire were in some cases deported like the Jews and Greeks who later returned as allied soldiers to attack the Turks. The Armenians and Assyrians however rebeled and in some cases such as the attack on Simko's village by the Assyrians even purified their Muslim neighbours through genocide.

...no you donīt. You donīt get to damn the Turks by throwing a few assyrians under the bus...now you have assyrians using genocide on their neighbors....this word will soon mean nothing but what everyone wants it to mean...this is dangerously close to Hannaīs claim that "we have our own dictionary".

..the Armenians and Chridstians in general were rebelling way before any attempt at homogenization...they first started doing it in the 17th century when Russian Christian armies invaded Persia and then Turkey...itīs in Dr Josephīs book and any number of other books on Russia...the Christians sided with their co-religionists, they were armed by the Russians and took part in mass murders of innocent Muslims, wiping out thousands of Muslim villages, forcing the population out and taking over their homes and lands...and theyīve been ever ready to do the same whenever a Christian nation attacked...this all started well before the Young Turks or WW I.
>
>However the new Turkish nation state as a whole took extreme measures in putting down the rebellion on the periphery of the empire and starvation, isolated massacres along with deportations and death marches resulted in many deaths on both sides, with the stromnger Turkish side prevailing of course.

...it prevailed? You call losing the war and being stripped of all the lands you possessed for hundreds of years "prevailing"? At least you dropped the word "genocide" from that paragraph...like we agreed from the beginning: there were mass murders etc. BUT they were not brought on by a Turkish desire to homogenize but rather by the fact that citizens were in open rebellion etc. When you put down an insurrection you are not engaged in "mass-murder"...you are putting DOWN a rebellion. When you are at war, you are not engaged in mass-murder although masses of people get MURDERED. This is the way the world, not Hanna, defines these things.

Mass murder occurs when you turn on innocent people who have done nothing to deserve it, they have not declared war on you, they have rebelled...that is different...thatīs the reason rebels are executed outright but soldiers are not...not if you follow the rules...thatīs why Washington would have been hanged, without trial, and not made a prisoner of war had he been caught.

The Armenians were in REBELLION..it was an INSURRECTION in which they began, they began, not the Turks, by killing innocent Muslims...lots and lots of them. For the legal government to put down such an insurrection, even if in the courseof it masses and masses of rebels are killed is NOT mass-murder.

How the hell do you expect insurrections to be put down? Do you know of any government anywhere in history whose leaders would have said, when confronted with an armed rebellion, "better let them have their way cause we donīt want to kill anyone"...do you know of any? Then why expect the Turks to do what no one else ever did or would do?

Of COURSE Armenians were killed...were they to be rewarded for taking up arms and killing innocent Turks?
>
>Those Christians and Jews in Istanbul were culturaly homogenised as they could not be used by the allies as a fifth column. Even loyal citizens such as the Jews with no external co-religionist empires providing support were targetd through deportation.

...your information doesnīt square with the post above....and how you know the Jews of wherever were "homogenized" is beyond me....give me sources for these statements....we have entered territory that is rough on you and a severe challenge to your normal good sense and clear thinking...it seems to me youīre too dedicated to proving this point: that the Turks started it, that the Turkīs attempt to "homogenize", which had nothing to do with anything with Christians attempts to steal his empire, was the root cause of it all..itīs what "forced the Armenians to rebel"...like the Nazis say Jews brought on the Holocaust by THEIR "rebellion". In the case of the Jews therew as no rebellion...but in the case of the Turks there was a rebellion by Armenians who took advantage of the impending war as a good time to intensify their actions....you yourself admit that the Greeks and Bulgarians etc. ahd "liberated" themselves...how did they do it? By REBELLION..it wasnīt granted to them...in their case they succeeded, the Armenians initially failed in their rebellion....but it was rebellion and the Turks tried to stop it, as they had tried to stop the Greeks etc. Nothing new or odd or strange in that...except in this case you all are trying to blame the Turks for trying to put down rbellions...making it THEIR fault!
>
>So you see there is evidence of a clear pattern of assimilation of their nation state. In most cases this was a cultural policy homogenising the new Turkish state but at its extreme - in cases of rebellion and external Christian support - it deteriated into massacre, deportation and strvation.

...but NOT because the Turks chose this path...they had no choice when faced with REBELLION! When the South rebelled against the Union, more Americans were killed than all those killed in every other war the nation has had, or had before...it is in the nature of rebellions that, if they are to be resisted, people get KILLED and they go HUNGRY and diseases run RAMPANT...why the hell are you all making such an exception in the case of Turkey? Why must Turkey have done something no other nation on earth has ever done and would never do? Why?

...when rebels fail THEY are blamed...not the nation which tries to preserve itself. If, as we all know, Christians had been living in peace in Turkey, what was their motive to rebel? Was it ill treatment? It STILL doesnīt matter under international law...under those laws by which all nations abide.

..youīre big beef, your great point, is that the Turks acted mean when putting down a rebellion....so?

Were the rebels KIND?



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


The full topic:



***



Powered by RedKernel V.S. Forum 1.2.b9