German recognition of Armentian genocide

[GMDino]

(06-06-2016, 08:34 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Genocide is genocide. But I do agree with your sentiment because the Nazi's 'final solution' took genocide to an extreme calculated level never seen before nor after. 

I admit I didn't know anything about this so I did a search and found this:

Quote:The Armenian Genocide[11] (Armenian: Հայոց ցեղասպանություն Hayots tseghaspanutyun),[note 3] also known as the Armenian Holocaust,[12] the Armenian Massacres and, traditionally by Armenians, as Medz Yeghern (Armenian: Մեծ Եղեռն, "Great Crime"),[13] was the Ottoman government's systematic extermination of its minority Armenian subjects inside their historic homeland, which lies within the present-day Republic of Turkey. The number of victims is estimated at between 800,000 and 1.5 million.[14][15] 


...


Turkey, the successor state of the Ottoman Empire, denies the word genocide as an accurate term for the mass killings of Armenians that began under Ottoman rule in 1915. It has in recent years been faced with repeated calls to recognize them as genocide.[27] To date, 29 countries have officially recognized the mass killings as genocide,[28] a view which is shared by most genocide scholars and historians.[29][30][31]

[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide#cite_note-Frey2009-34][/url]

"The Great Crime" is a wonderful phrase.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-06-2016, 08:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: The Muslims are at fault for apologizing?

Maybe Islam should stop being a part of genocide after genocide ....   Armenian and the holocaust.  

And let's not forget this has all started when they tried to exterminate the Christians in the crusades.

[*jason*]

(06-06-2016, 06:39 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: If Turkey were to acknowledge that the march to the sea and the murder of so many was genocide, it would be, not just a step but 10,000 steps towards a better relationship between the Nation of Islam and the rest of the world. I can't find the correct words, I hope you understand what I'm saying.

By Turkey, a Muslim nation which is more secular than all the others I believe, to come out and say that what happened was wrong and should never happen again, would bring Turkey even more support by the rest of the non Muslim world. Turkey and the people of Turkey would gain even more respect by me which may not seem like a lot but I'm positive there are others out there who would show respect like me.

As for the United States, I can see why we haven't acknowledged this as genocide since Turkey is in such a strategic place in the world and we have an airbase there...I think we do or used to anyway. Turkey is smack dab in the middle of pretty much everything. We can reach the Middle East, Europe and Western Asia with ease from Turkey.

As for the UK? Simply because of the US and the UK is our closest ally and friend in the world.

This is only my opinion

There is a base in Incirlik Turkey. I was born there.

[Griever]

(06-06-2016, 06:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Nice to see.    

Armenian genocide was fueled by Muslims.  

Given an overwhelming majority of the deaths were Christians.

i guess they wanted some kind of payback for the Crusades

[StLucieBengal]

(06-07-2016, 10:03 AM)Griever Wrote: i guess they wanted some kind of payback for the Crusades

The Muslims started the crusades. They only have themselves to blame. 

[Belsnickel]

So it's interesting how vitriolic things are becoming between Turkey and Germany over this. Definitely something to keep an eye on.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2016, 03:29 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So it's interesting how vitriolic things are becoming between Turkey and Germany over this. Definitely something to keep an eye on.

Agreed.   Also turkey is trying to enter the EU.  

[Belsnickel]

(06-09-2016, 04:59 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Agreed.   Also turkey is trying to enter the EU.  

They've spoiled those chances. The UK was already against it and if they stay in the EU they can hold that door closed pretty well. If Brexit goes through, Germany will certainly shut the door in the faces of Turkey on that deal with the mood they've put them in.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-09-2016, 05:11 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: They've spoiled those chances. The UK was already against it and if they stay in the EU they can hold that door closed pretty well. If Brexit goes through, Germany will certainly shut the door in the faces of Turkey on that deal with the mood they've put them in.

Actually if Brexit wins I think turkey is a shoe in....  They will want to strengthen and look like the EU is wanted.     The issues they are going to have is the other nations who will want a ref on the EU if Brexit wins.  

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/09/how-brexit-could-lead-to-other-eu-countries-following-the-uk-out/

Good article on that subject

[Bengalzona]

(06-07-2016, 05:26 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The Muslims started the crusades. They only have themselves to blame. 

Yeah.

Some Muslim dude named "Pope" or something like that.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-10-2016, 03:57 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: Yeah.

Some Muslim dude named "Pope" or something like that.

In response to Muslim attacks and to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims.   

Hence why I said the Muslims started the crusades.    

[Griever]

(06-10-2016, 05:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: In response to Muslim attacks and to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims.   

Hence why I said the Muslims started the crusades.    

exaggerated muslim attacks perhaps?

http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/crusades-complete-history

[StLucieBengal]

(06-10-2016, 08:25 AM)Griever Wrote: exaggerated muslim attacks perhaps?

http://www.historytoday.com/jonathan-phillips/crusades-complete-history

Muslims constantly tried to take over lands.    I know you are desperately trying to vindicate your Islamic buddies and prove Christians are the scourge of the world but it's just not the case.  

[Griever]

(06-10-2016, 01:25 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Muslims constantly tried to take over lands.    I know you are desperately trying to vindicate your Islamic buddies and prove Christians are the scourge of the world but it's just not the case.  

hey thats what the article said, not me

and muslims arent buddies

but nice try francis

[Vas Deferens]

(06-10-2016, 01:26 PM)Griever Wrote: hey thats what the article said, not me

and muslims arent buddies

but nice try francis

but he said CONSTANTLY.  that proves it!

[Griever]

true

i must have missed the part where jesus "if muslims are in my city, mount up your armies and slaughter them"

that would have been the god of the old testament, not the new testament

old testament god was a bad ass and loved him some murder and genocide

new testament god is basically french

[Vas Deferens]

Jésus needs to back out of the EU and protect his boarders.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-10-2016, 01:26 PM)Griever Wrote: hey thats what the article said, not me

and muslims arent buddies

but nice try francis

I can't copy the portion where it confirms exactly what I said ..  They had been pushing back against Muslims for decades.   

Pushing back = defending themselves 

[Bengalzona]

(06-10-2016, 05:09 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: In response to Muslim attacks and to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims.   

Hence why I said the Muslims started the crusades.    

Actually, the goal of the First Crusade was not to "take back" Jerusalem for the Christians. The primary goal of the First Crusade was to respond to a request for aid from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos against the Seljuk Turks who were encroaching upon his border from the east. Many believe Pope Urban II's personal motivation was to reunite the Eastern and Western churches, which had separated 42 years earlier, under his own control. But Urban II had an additional motivation: to wrest influence from the secular rulers (the kings and leaders in Western Europe), whose power had been growing rapidly at the end of the dark ages.

It was never an effort to "drive back fanaticism". The fact is, it created fanaticism. Pope Urban II exaggerated the threat to the Eastern Empire (the main threat to the Byzantine Empire was always the Byzantines themselves and their penchant for political infighting). Urban claim that the Muslims were ravaging the "churches of God in the Eastern regions" and had seized "the Holy City of Christ" and had "sold her into abominable slavery". The Muslims had ruled over Jerusalem for over 450 years. The period of Muslim expansion and conquest ended in 750, 300 years before the First Crusade. Pilgrimages by Catholics to holy sites in the Seljuk Empire were permitted during this time, resident Christians within the empire were considered as full citizens and Dhimmi ("protected persons"), and intermarriage between Muslims and Christians was not uncommon. This changed, understandably, after the call for the First Crusade.

Urban promised that people joining the crusade would have their punishment for sin reduced through plenary indulgences. Twenty thousand peasants joined immediately, marched into the Rhineland, and began slaughtering Jews (known as the Rhienland Massacres). The peasants eventually made their way to Constantinople where the Byzantine Emperor urged them to stay and wait for nobles from the West to arrive. Instead, they headed into Seljuk territory where they were ambushed near Nicaea. Only 3,000 survived.

Eventually, the nobles from Western Europe arrived with the main crusade force numbering approximately 100,000. They pledged to restore lost territory to the Byzantine Emperor and then marched south. They did retake lost territories, including Jerusalem where they massacred most of the inhabitants. But rather than return them to the Byzantines, they decided to settle down there themselves and set up shop. They set-up four new kingdoms: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli. The kingdoms were actually very well run, particularly considering that they were started from scratch and that support from the Western nations was infrequent and insufficient. The crusader nobles made efforts to incorporate the local Muslim populations into their kingdoms. Also, the kingdoms benefited from power struggles within the Muslim world at that time.

The Second, Third and Fourth Crusades were all efforts to regain territories which the crusaders in the First Crusade had won, but were lost over the years. Salah ad-Din (a.k.a. Saladin, of Kurdish descent BTW) rose to power and reclaimed Jerusalem in 1187. Eventually, all of the Crusader states would fall, one-by-one. By the time the Fourth Crusade rolled around, the crusaders never even made it to the Levant. Instead, they became embroiled in Byzantine political infighting and decided to sack Constantinople and head home instead.

The Crusades were pretty much a debacle. They were an effort by the Pope to increase the strength and influence of the church by reincorporating the Eastern church and by cowing the developing nationalism in Europe. They failed on both counts. The fact the the crusaders decided to hold the former Byzantine lands they retook for themselves and the eventual sacking of Constantinople meant the end of any reconciliation between the East and West churches. The men who went on the crusades did so for personal enrichment rather than for a religious cause. They set up kingdoms that were destined to fade. They would just as soon make alliances with neighboring Muslim nations than work together for a common goal. And, as they proved in the Fourth Crusade, they would just as soon attack Christians as well as Muslims.

[Griever]

(06-10-2016, 02:43 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Actually, the goal of the First Crusade was not to "take back" Jerusalem for the Christians. The primary goal of the First Crusade was to respond to a request for aid from the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos against the Seljuk Turks who were encroaching upon his border from the east. Many believe Pope Urban II's personal motivation was to reunite the Eastern and Western churches, which had separated 42 years earlier, under his own control. But Urban II had an additional motivation: to wrest influence from the secular rulers (the kings and leaders in Western Europe), whose power had been growing rapidly at the end of the dark ages.

It was never an effort to "drive back fanaticism". The fact is, it created fanaticism. Pope Urban II exaggerated the threat to the Eastern Empire (the main threat to the Byzantine Empire was always the Byzantines themselves and their penchant for political infighting). Urban claim that the Muslims were ravaging the "churches of God in the Eastern regions" and had seized "the Holy City of Christ" and had "sold her into abominable slavery". The Muslims had ruled over Jerusalem for over 450 years. The period of Muslim expansion and conquest ended in 750, 300 years before the First Crusade. Pilgrimages by Catholics to holy sites in the Seljuk Empire were permitted during this time, resident Christians within the empire were considered as full citizens and Dhimmi ("protected persons"), and intermarriage between Muslims and Christians was not uncommon. This changed, understandably, after the call for the First Crusade.

Urban promised that people joining the crusade would have their punishment for sin reduced through plenary indulgences. Twenty thousand peasants joined immediately, marched into the Rhineland, and began slaughtering Jews (known as the Rhienland Massacres). The peasants eventually made their way to Constantinople where the Byzantine Emperor urged them to stay and wait for nobles from the West to arrive. Instead, they headed into Seljuk territory where they were ambushed near Nicaea. Only 3,000 survived.

Eventually, the nobles from Western Europe arrived with the main crusade force numbering approximately 100,000. They pledged to restore lost territory to the Byzantine Emperor and then marched south. They did retake lost territories, including Jerusalem where they massacred most of the inhabitants. But rather than return them to the Byzantines, they decided to settle down there themselves and set up shop. They set-up four new kingdoms: the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli. The kingdoms were actually very well run, particularly considering that they were started from scratch and that support from the Western nations was infrequent and insufficient. The crusader nobles made efforts to incorporate the local Muslim populations into their kingdoms. Also, the kingdoms benefited from power struggles within the Muslim world at that time.

The Second, Third and Fourth Crusades were all efforts to regain territories which the crusaders in the First Crusade had won, but were lost over the years. Salah ad-Din (a.k.a. Saladin, of Kurdish descent BTW) rose to power and reclaimed Jerusalem in 1187. Eventually, all of the Crusader states would fall, one-by-one. By the time the Fourth Crusade rolled around, the crusaders never even made it to the Levant. Instead, they became embroiled in Byzantine political infighting and decided to sack Constantinople and head home instead.

The Crusades were pretty much a debacle. They were an effort by the Pope to increase the strength and influence of the church by reincorporating the Eastern church and by cowing the developing nationalism in Europe. They failed on both counts. The fact the the crusaders decided to hold the former Byzantine lands they retook for themselves and the eventual sacking of Constantinople meant the end of any reconciliation between the East and West churches. The men who went on the crusades did so for personal enrichment rather than for a religious cause. They set up kingdoms that were destined to fade. They would just as soon make alliances with neighboring Muslim nations than work together for a common goal. And, as they proved in the Fourth Crusade, they would just as soon attack Christians as well as Muslims.

TLDR; Lucie was wrong again