Octopus Overlords

Scuzz wrote:Regardless.....the statement was at best a slap in the face to all Armenians.....at worst a possible racist remark...

Or maybe you're just being overly sensitive and trying to derail the discussion. One thing I appreciate about this forum is how everyone says what they really think rather than worry about whether or not each statement is politically correct. Besides, Turkish citizens might well regard your own statements as a slap in their face...

By sheer coincidence I just finished reading Lord Kinross's "The Ottoman Centuries" a couple of weeks ago and while he pulls no punches in telling the history of the Ottoman Empire, and describes earlier violence against Armenians (in the late 19th century) in detail, he devotes only two sentences to the genocide of Armenians during the first World War: "The British failure at Gallipoli gave a breathing space to the Young Turk triumvirate, leaving it free to pursue, without external interference, a premeditated internal policy for the final elimination of the Armenian race. Their proximity to the Russians on the Caucasus front furnished a convenient pretext for their persecution, on a scale far exceeding the atrocities of Abdul Hamid, through the deportation and massacre of one million Armenians, more than half of whom perished."

It seemed to me that he was definitely tip-toeing around the issue while still including it in his book. Why this has become such a big deal to the people of Turkey (many of whom probably honestly believe it to be the work of Armenian propagandists) is beyond me but it seems that a resolution could have been passed that named only the Ottoman Empire and had no mention of Turkey, though I'm sure the Turks would still be pissed.

But the overriding fact is that Turkey, if for no other reason than it's location, is a very important ally to the US and I can certainly understand the argument of those who say "Why pull the scab off such an old wound and why now?" We've allowed the Japanese to be unrepentant about their role in WWII in order to appease them so why couldn't we do the same with the Turks? Every Armenian and all those familiar with Turkey's history already knows they are guilty as hell. Why pass an "official resolution" that is only going to seem like a poke in the eye to an important ally?

P.S. My boss is Armenian (a rarity here in Alabama) and while he's a staunch conservative who nornally hates everything the Democrats do, he strongly backed this resolution. It was weird for both of us to hear him compliment Democrats...

Apollo wrote:

Scuzz wrote:Regardless.....the statement was at best a slap in the face to all Armenians.....at worst a possible racist remark...

Or maybe you're just being overly sensitive and trying to derail the discussion. One thing I appreciate about this forum is how everyone says what they really think rather than worry about whether or not each statement is politically correct. Besides, Turkish citizens might well regard your own statements as a slap in their face...

I have no dog in this race, but even I thought "what the hell did she mean by that?". It is pretty clearly an attempt to disparage if not Armenians in general, than at least those supporting the resolution, or the resolution itself. Actually, I have no idea what she could possibly have meant by it. It is meaningless if the statement is taken at face value.

A slap in turkish faces? While no one wants to cause undue diplomatic hardship, these are a people, or at least a country, that by their very actions deny acceptance of any wrongdoing in the matter.

Not to use the holocaust again, because I don't believe there are parallels except at the grossest of levels, we wouldn't be worrying about hurting the feelings of Germans if they were in complete denial with regard to their own atrocities.

I have little patience for those who deny their own history, especially the ugly parts. We're not talking about making reparations, or even shaming a country. We're talking about acknowledging what happened was wrong, and by doing so, hopefully helps to prevent anything of similar nature from happening in the future.

When a judge asks for a full account/disclosure of a crime from the defendant after accepting a plea bargain (assuming they do this. All my law education is from TV ) there is reason behind the request/condition.

While I don't particularly want to hurt any Turkish feelings, they are not my primary concern in this conversation.

Scuzz wrote:Regardless.....the statement was at best a slap in the face to all Armenians.....at worst a possible racist remark....

I think you're being highly oversensitive but I'll leave it at that.

LawBeefaroni wrote:

Scuzz wrote:Regardless.....the statement was at best a slap in the face to all Armenians.....at worst a possible racist remark....

I think you're being highly oversensitive but I'll leave it at that.

I just feel the remark if made about other ethinic groups (i.e. jews or blacks) would have been considered racist, or at least not PC. Not knowing your wife I don't know what she may have truly meant by the remark.

And perhaps, having grown up around the Armenian culture more than most I am more sensitive to them.

Apollo wrote:But the overriding fact is that Turkey, if for no other reason than it's location, is a very important ally to the US and I can certainly understand the argument of those who say "Why pull the scab off such an old wound and why now?" We've allowed the Japanese to be unrepentant about their role in WWII in order to appease them so why couldn't we do the same with the Turks? Every Armenian and all those familiar with Turkey's history already knows they are guilty as hell. Why pass an "official resolution" that is only going to seem like a poke in the eye to an important ally?

Obama put it quite well:

I also share with Armenian Americans – so many of whom are descended from genocide survivors - a principled commitment to commemorating and ending genocide. That starts with acknowledging the tragic instances of genocide in world history. As a U.S. Senator, I have stood with the Armenian American community in calling for Turkey's acknowledgement of the Armenian Genocide. Two years ago, I criticized the Secretary of State for the firing of U.S. Ambassador to Armenia, John Evans, after he properly used the term "genocide" to describe Turkey's slaughter of thousands of Armenians starting in 1915. I shared with Secretary Rice my firmly held conviction that the Armenian Genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy. As a senator, I strongly support passage of the Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.Res.106 and S.Res.106), and as President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide.

Genocide, sadly, persists to this day, and threatens our common security and common humanity. Tragically, we are witnessing in Sudan many of the same brutal tactics - displacement, starvation, and mass slaughter - that were used by the Ottoman authorities against defenseless Armenians back in 1915. I have visited Darfurian refugee camps, pushed for the deployment of a robust multinational force for Darfur, and urged divestment from companies doing business in Sudan. America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.

Then again, that was just candidate/Senator Obama, who was obviously unaware of the relationship between the U.S. and Turkey or that referring to genocide as genocide may offend the Turks (which trumps daft notions like "principled commitment").

But, to be fair, Obama was in a no-win situation. I'm not sure why he commented on such things as a candidate but he could hardly have been expected to say "Yes, I believe that the Genocide of Armenians was a terrible tragedy and such events must be avoided in the future but Turkey's unwillingness to accept criticism on the matter combined with the importance of Turkey as an ally, particularly in view of the fact that the US now faces two ongoing wars in the Middle East, mean that this is an issue which cannot be allowed to come between our nations"...

Sure, it would have been the truth, but it would have pissed off both the Turks and the Armenians. Let's face it: The last thing Americans today want to here from their politicians is The Truth...

I personally would like to see someone make him eat his words. Not because of my opinion of the specifics of the situation, but because it is so obviously a flip flop of position. One was a principled stance. The other is doing what is practical. I'm pretty tired of this from politicians. He should have kept his mouth shut rather than lie about what the realities of the situation dictate. Now he just appears to be a douche bag.

GreenGoo wrote:I personally would like to see someone make him eat his words. Not because of my opinion of the specifics of the situation, but because it is so obviously a flip flop of position. One was a principled stance. The other is doing what is practical. I'm pretty tired of this from politicians. He should have kept his mouth shut rather than lie about what the realities of the situation dictate. Now he just appears to be a douche bag.

I agree to a large extent. I've always felt that one of Obama's strengths was his pragmatic approach to government. So why speak out about such things when you are a candidate knowing that you are going to have to eat your words later (if you get elected President)?

Of course almost every Presidential candidate falls into this same trap while campaigning, so I'm willing to cut Obama a bit of slack on the issue...

Well it comes back to being accountable for your campaign promises, or general appearance of having principles at all.

Usually there is some wiggle room and spin that can confuse the situation. In this case it is pretty clearly a straight up reverse. And considering all the principled reasons he gave for his previous position, to abandon his position means he has abandoned his principles (for at least in this specific case). Not ideal.

America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian Genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that President.




ya think maybe that is why the "Armenian lobby" tried to get this passed again.....

Again, I say the mistake he made was as a candidate, not as President. For a President to allow something that happened a century ago to come between us and a key ally is just folly. I would think differently if the Turks had carried out other genocides over the last century, but this was an isolated incident that happened under a different government.

I'm sure we could piss of the Japanese by insisting they apologize for atrocities committed during WWII, or the Chinese by passing a resolution condemning the Cultural Revolution of the late 1960's, or the Australians for eradicating the native people of Tasmania in the later 19th century, etc. etc. but why? It is far more important, IMHO, for our nations to work together today in a constructive manner and prevent such happenings in the future than it is to piss off our allies and trade partners for no practical reason.

I would think differently if the Turks had carried out other genocides over the last century, but this was an isolated incident that happened under a different government.




so the Germans only did it once under the Nazi's.........no big deal.

Scuzz wrote:I would think differently if the Turks had carried out other genocides over the last century, but this was an isolated incident that happened under a different government.




so the Germans only did it once under the Nazi's.........no big deal.

Imagine if China passed a resolution condemning the US for genocide of Native Americans in the 19th century, and then every yahoo in the country screamed for us to sever diplomatic relations over the insult (since, of course, all we actually did was "move them around a bit"), what would be positive about that result? Do you think the world would be a safer place? Do you think future genocides would be more or less likely? How would such an action contribute to international cooperation in preventing future genocides around the world?

I think there are many countries who discuss and describe the slaughter of NA natives during the colonization of the continent. Whether they label it a genocide or not I have no idea.

Since the US, for the most part, recognizes it's failings with regard to native americans, as well as the enslavement and treatment of africans, I would hope the nation wouldn't lose their collective minds if someone officially put a label on them.

I think if a government and people accept responsibility for a country's actions, then labels aren't as important. The Turks want to pretend it never happened, that no atrocities besides the "normal" atrocities of war occurred. That's not ok. If you don't accept responsibility for your actions, you can't learn from them and certainly aren't suitably remorseful.

It's the same thing with a 5 year old. Except in this case it's an entire nation. And instead of breaking a window, they've slaughtered thousands upon thousands of people based on their ethnicity. There's a big reason that we make children apologize for their wrongdoing, instead of remaining defiant. I don't see this being much different.

GreenGoo wrote: It's the same thing with a 5 year old. Except in this case it's an entire nation. And instead of breaking a window, they've slaughtered thousands upon thousands of people based on their ethnicity. There's a big reason that we make children apologize for their wrongdoing, instead of remaining defiant. I don't see this being much different.

I do see your point and I do sympathize. My only point is that our relationships with our allies should trump any empty political action that is only going to severely damage our relations. After all, when was the last time we chose to condemn the actions of an ally with an act of congress over events that happened a century before? And while overlooking an act of genocide might seem irresponsible, we did the same with the Japanese (as opposed to the Germans) at the end of WWII. The Japanese have not committed any further atrocities against innocents despite the fact that they have not officially owned up to the massacres in China and elsewhere during the war.

Furthermore, damaging our ties with Turkey only lessens our influence with that country. We already have concerns about the way the Turks deal with the Kurdish people. Is severing diplomatic ties going to increase or decrease our influence with the Turkish government on behalf of the Kurds?

I believe that singling Turkey out for criticism of an action that happened nearly a century ago is to pursue an ideologically driven foreign policy that will ultimately lessen our influence and thus our ability to prevent such actions in the future. Just look at the damage the US did to it's international relations under the ideological foreign policy of the Bush Administration...

Apollo wrote:And while overlooking an act of genocide might seem irresponsible, we did the same with the Japanese (as opposed to the Germans) at the end of WWII. The Japanese have not committed any further atrocities against innocents despite the fact that they have not officially owned up to the massacres in China and elsewhere during the war.

Japanese War Apologies:

15 August 1995. Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. "During a certain period in the not-too-distant past, Japan, through its colonial rule and aggression, caused tremendous damage and suffering to the people of many countries, particularly those of Asia. In the hope that no such mistake will be made in the future, I regard, in a spirit of humanity, these irrefutable facts of history, and express here once again my feelings of deep remorse and state my heartfelt apology" (Statement by Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama 'On the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the war's end').

26 November 1998. Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi. "Both sides believe that squarely facing the past and correctly understanding history are the important foundation for further developing relations between Japan and China. The Japanese side observes the 1972 Joint Communique of the Government of Japan and the Government of the People's Republic of China and the 15 August 1995 Statement by former Prime Minister Tomiichi Murayama. The Japanese side is keenly conscious of the responsibility for the serious distress and damage that Japan caused to the Chinese people through its aggression against China during a certain period in the past and expressed deep remorse for this. The Chinese side hopes that the Japanese side will learn lessons from the history and adhere to the path of peace and development. Based on this, both sides will develop long-standing relations of friendship" (Japan-China Joint Declaration On Building a Partnership of Friendship and Cooperation for Peace and Development).

Based on that page, it seems like they've apologized an awful lot over the last six decades.

Imagine if China passed a resolution condemning the US for genocide of Native Americans in the 19th century,


I think most people in this country wouldn't have a problem with that and I would imagine somewhere our government has apologized for it.......

Isgrimnur, you are correct but look at the dates on those statements!

And besides, the Japanese public as a whole still clings to a somewhat different view of history.

Check out some of these links:

China angry over Japanese textbooks:
BBC News 4/11/2005:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4432535.stm

Or this brief one on how Japanese attitudes about WWII were formed:
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_ ... 35944.html" target="_blank
There are dozens of others like this one, but I'm just trying to substantiate my point, not document it in detail.

Also, check this Wikipedia entry on "Historical Revisionism" out: The section on Japanese War Crimes is conveniently listed right after "Turkey and Armenian Genocide"...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_revisionism_(negationism" target="_blank)

Not long ago a Japanese minister was forced to resign for stating that the atomic bombs dropped on Japan were an inevitable action that helped shorten the war, flying in the face of the official Japanese stance that there was no justification for dropping the bombs:http://www.buzzle.com/articles/143744.html

So, while you are correct in stating that the government has officially apologized, it took decades for this to occur. Compare this to the response by the German people to their activities during WWII. Furthermore, the Japanese people as a whole have not all bought into the "Japan was wrong and should be sorry" line of reasoning. It is these attitudes to which I was referring.

Ultimately, however, your point was that the government had issued an official apology of which I was not aware, so I stand corrected on that point. I do hope you see my point as well...

I have no doubt that there is some disparity over it all, but that's to be expected from any country. I'm glad you concede the point that I directly addressed. As for this one:

Apollo wrote:So, while you are correct in stating that the government has officially apologized, it took decades for this to occur.

My same link wrote: 1957. Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke. "We view with deep regret the vexation we caused to the people of Burma in the war just passed. In a desire to atone, if only partially, for the pain suffered, Japan is prepared to meet fully and with goodwill its obligations for war reparations. The Japan of today is not the Japan of the past, but, as its Constitution indicates, is a peace-loving nation."

1957. Prime Minister Kishi Nobusuke. "It is my official duty, and my personal desire, to express to you and through you to the people of Australia, our heartfelt sorrow for what occurred in the war."

...is twelve years not soon enough?

http://www.centurychina.com/wiihist/njmassac/nmjapv.htm" target="_blank

The Nanjing Massacre came into focus again when an interview with Shintaro Ishihara, the most popular contemporary writer in Japan and the most flamboyant member of the Diet, was published in the October issue of Playboy Magazine. In the interview, Ishihara declared that the Nanjing Massacre never occurred, and that "it is a story made up by the Chinese, ... it is a lie". On November 10th, 1990, during a protest by Chinese Americans against the Japanese actions in Diao-Yu-Tai Island, the Deputy Japanese Consul in Houston maintained that according to Japanese sources, "the Nanjing Massacre never occurred."

In 1994, the Japanese justice Minister and Army Chief of Staff, Shigeto Nagano, insisted claims of Japan atrocities were all fabrications.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1214/p04s01-woap.html" target="_blank

Satoru Mizushima, the director of "The Truth of Nanjing," a soon-to-be-released film supported by such politicians as conservative Tokyo Gov. Shintaro Ishihara, echoes Kase, who served as a special adviser to two past prime ministers. Nanjing, he says, was a "fabrication, a campaign of Communist China."

In March, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe denied the military's involvement in wartime sexual slavery, triggering an international uproar. In June, some 100 lawmakers of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party said that the number of those killed by Japanese troops during the Nanjing Massacre was closer to 20,000. Former Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's repeated visits to Yasukuni Shrine, where 14 war criminals are memorialized with the rest of Japan's war dead, infuriated China and Korea, as have textbooks that experts say whitewash atrocities.

http://www2.biglobe.ne.jp/~remnant/nankingm.htm" target="_blank

The Nanking Massacre was a fabrication and false propaganda. The above-mentioned theory is not a discourse of Japanese ultra-nationalists. If we are loyal to historical facts, we should abandon the Nanking Massacre story. The activities of the Japanese military in Nanking were in accordance with international law and were humane. The Nanking Massacre was a false accusation, and the Japanese have the right to prove their innocence.

None of these are the official position of the Japanese government. Finding dissenting opinions from governmental members in Japan is, I'm sure, no different from finding people supporting the birther movement in our own.

Time for the centenary recognition.

Members of the Israeli and global Armenian community on Friday marked the 100th anniversary of the start of the Armenian genocide, in which an estimated 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of soldiers of the Ottoman Empire.
...
The annual commemorations mark the day when the mass killings started with the rounding up of some 250 Armenian intellectuals. An estimated 1.5 million died in subsequent massacres, deportations and forced marches that began in 1915 as Ottoman officials worried that the Christian Armenians would side with Russia, its enemy in World War I.

Turkey denies the deaths constituted genocide, saying the toll has been inflated and that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest. On the eve of the centennial, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan insisted that his nation's ancestors never committed genocide.
...
Russian President Vladimir Putin, French President Francois Hollande and other dignitaries assembled Friday morning at the Tsitsernakaberd memorial complex in Yerevan, the capital of Armenia.

Two Israeli Knesset members were present at the commemoration ceremony.
...
Russian President Vladimir Putin used his speech to warn of the dangers of nationalism as well as "Russophobia" in a clear dig at the West-leaning government in Ukraine.
...
Armenian President Serge Sarkisian expressed hope that recent steps to recognize the massacre as genocide will help "dispel the darkness of 100 years of denial."

Commemorations were also held in Beirut, home to an estimated 150,000 Armenians, Tehran, and Berlin, drawing tens of thousands of Armenians and local supporters.

In Berlin, German President Joachim Gauck described the killings as genocide at a nondenominational service organized by Germany's main churches — marking a shift in the country's stance after officials previously avoided the term.

In Syria a square in the capital Damascus was renamed Armenian Genocide Victims' Square.

Of course, the president is still not on board with the 'g' word.

And it's also the seventh year in a row President Barack Obama has broken his promise to use the word "genocide" to describe the atrocity.
...
And now, as was the case with Bush, Obama regards Turkey -- the only Muslim majority country in NATO -- as a more crucial ally than Armenia. Turkey has the second-largest military in NATO, behind only the U.S., and is a crucial ally when it comes to Syria, ISIS, Iran and other Middle East issues.
...
In her Pulitzer Prize-winning book about genocide, Obama's current Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power hammered U.S. policy makers for not acknowledging or acting to stop such atrocities.

"No U.S. president has ever made genocide prevention a priority, and no U.S. president has ever suffered politically for his indifference to its occurrence. It is thus no coincidence that genocide rages on," she wrote.

Germany

The German parliament has passed a symbolic resolution recognizing the 1915 massacre of Armenians by Ottoman forces as a "genocide."

The resolution was passed with a "striking majority" said President of the German Bundestag Norbert Lammert, with only one politician voting against it and one abstaining.
...
Turkey has now recalled its ambassador to Germany, in response to the resolution.

Turkey's Deputy Prime Minister Numan Kurtulmus tweeted: "It is a historic mistake for the German Parliament to accept some 'distorted and unfounded' allegations as 'genocide.'
...
Germany's resolution is likely to place a strain on relations between Berlin and Ankara, and follows a recent migrant deal between Turkey and the European Union, in which Germany plays a central role.
...
When France passed legislation recognizing the Armenian genocide in 2011, Turkey promptly recalled its ambassador to the country and froze military cooperation between the countries.

The ambassador returned the following year, and the election of French President Francois Hollande in 2012 helped usher in a new era of cooperation between the countries.
...
As of last year, more than 20 countries around the world have officially recognized the killings of 1915 as a genocide, according to the Armenian National Assembly. These include France, Canada and Russia.

Among the countries which do not call the atrocities a genocide are the United States and Britain.
...
While a U.N. subcommittee called the killings genocide in 1985, current U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon declines to use the term.

In April, Pope Francis referred to the massacre as "the first genocide of the 20th century" -- a claim which Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan described as "nonsense," recalling his country's ambassador to the Vatican.

In 2014 Erdogan offered his condolences for the mass killings, which he said had "inhumane consequences" -- though the Turkish leader stopped short of using the term "genocide."

Armenian clergy men and activists hold up signs saying "thank-you" after the vote.

Germany knows a genocide when they see one.

El Guapo wrote:Germany knows a genocide when they see one.

Yeah, I wouldn't think they have the luxury of prevaricating on this topic. And good for them.

Why is a Sith Lord wearing a cross?

Fitzy wrote:Why is a Sith Lord wearing a cross?

Is it a cross or one of those new-fangled First Order lightsaber hilts?

Fitzy wrote:Why is a Sith Lord wearing a cross?

Hiding in plain sight.

Trump continues the tradition of not calling it a genocide.

Today, we remember and honor the memory of those who suffered during the Meds Yeghern, one of the worst mass atrocities of the 20th century. Beginning in 1915, one and a half million Armenians were deported, massacred, or marched to their deaths in the final years of the Ottoman Empire. I join the Armenian community in America and around the world in mourning the loss of innocent lives and the suffering endured by so many.

As we reflect on this dark chapter of human history, we also recognize the resilience of the Armenian people. Many built new lives in the United States and made indelible contributions to our country, while cherishing memories of the historic homeland in which their ancestors established one of the great civilizations of antiquity.

We must remember atrocities to prevent them from occurring again. We welcome the efforts of Turks and Armenians to acknowledge and reckon with painful history, which is a critical step toward building a foundation for a more just and tolerant future.

Not labeling it a genocide, while morally repugnant, was at least arguably defensible in realpolitik terms when Turkey was a close ally and functioning democracy. Now that Erdogan is completing its transition into a Islamist-oriented dictatorship, it's no longer defensible even on those terms.

El Guapo wrote:Not labeling it a genocide, while morally repugnant, was at least arguably defensible in realpolitik terms when Turkey was a close ally and functioning democracy. Now that Erdogan is completing its transition into a Islamist-oriented dictatorship, it's no longer defensible even on those terms.

It's like you don't even care about Trump Towers Istanbul.

Democrats overwhelmingly passed two bills, one sanctioning Turkey for invading Syria and another recognizing the Armenian Genocide, with Omar being the only Democrat not to vote for either of them. And she gives an "All Lives Matter" explanation as to why:

A) Her support of BDS makes that statement look really self serving.

B) Hundreds of millions of indigenous people in this country were killed due to the slave trade and Native American genocide? Oy.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:20 am A) Her support of BDS makes that statement look really self serving.

B) Hundreds of millions of indigenous people in this country were killed due to the slave trade and Native American genocide? Oy.

Yeah only millions to tens of millions! That said, I don't conflate it with BDS. I think this is her taking a "stand" for the attention. I rate that at a clean 'college revolutionary scowling in the corner' on the poseur scale.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 7:33 am

pr0ner wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 6:20 am A) Her support of BDS makes that statement look really self serving.

B) Hundreds of millions of indigenous people in this country were killed due to the slave trade and Native American genocide? Oy.

Yeah only millions to tens of millions! That said, I don't conflate it with BDS. I think this is her taking a "stand" for the attention. I rate that at a clean 'college revolutionary scowling in the corner' on the poseur scale.

Except that she's in the US congress and on the foreign affairs committee. It is bullshit and suspect that she has no problems with sanctions against Israel, but not against Turkey. It's classic whataboutism.

Jag wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:14 amExcept that she's in the US congress and on the foreign affairs committee. It is bullshit and suspect that she has no problems with sanctions against Israel, but not against Turkey. It's classic whataboutism.

I don't disagree that it was bullshit whataboutism. However honest question - if someone had particular views, why couldn't someone support sanctions on one versus the other. It isn't like these are black and white binary decisions.

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:26 am

Jag wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 9:14 amExcept that she's in the US congress and on the foreign affairs committee. It is bullshit and suspect that she has no problems with sanctions against Israel, but not against Turkey. It's classic whataboutism.

I don't disagree that it was bullshit whataboutism. However honest question - if someone had particular views, why couldn't someone support sanctions on one versus the other. It isn't like these are black and white binary decisions.

I mean, you could, but you would need some sort of rationale for why. And Omar's statement is pretty incoherent. The first part "this shouldn't be part of a political cudgel" I think I get at least a little - this is taking place in the middle of a political fight, so maybe she might conclude that this is less about the genocide and more about pushing back on Turkey and Trump. BUT: (1) not sure why that's a reason not to recognize the Armenian Genocide; and (2) the rest of it makes no sense at all - it seems to amount to the conclusion that we can't address any human rights abuses without addressing all of them simultaneously.

She essentially uses the moronic defense that because the world isn't perfect we can't start fixing it unless we fix everything at once. It's the standard tactic of poser activists the world over.

hepcat wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 11:19 am She essentially uses the moronic defense that because the world isn't perfect we can't start fixing it unless we fix everything at once. It's the standard tactic of poser activists the world over.

True - after all this is a glimpse into the edge of 'cancel' culture.

My rep weighed in:

Some lawmakers, including Rep. Michael C. Burgess (R-Texas) questioned why the House was taking time to debate a nonbinding resolution dealing with atrocities committed 100 years ago when Congress had a lot left to accomplish in scant days before the end of the year, including preventing the government from shutting down when its spending authority expires Nov. 21.

“It remains unclear why we are urgently considering this resolution,” he said.

He did vote for it, though.

Your 11 Nays:

Baird
Brady
Brooks (IN)
Bucshon
Cole
Foxx (NC)
Harris
Meadows
Pence
Rogers (AL)
Thornberry