Quote:
|
Originally Posted by August
While they're at it the US Congress ought to pass a bill denouncing Italy for the things Roman legions did in Gaul.
|
when Germany still is linked to the Third Reich and the Holocaust, and the genocide of the Hereros in today's Namibia (short before first WW), and Japan still is linked to the brutality of their occupation of China, and the second WW, and Britain still is remineded of certain acts of comparing brutality during the colonial age, just to mention three examples, then it is only fair deal that Turkey is expected to face it's dark spots in history as well. Even more so when considering that Armenians are still opressed today, are discriminated, and as a people still are massively handicapped as a result from those atrocities and removals.
The comparison of Rome and the Gauls I refuse to buy for that reason. america has strategic and military interests in Turkey, and that is the only reason the WH tries to fight against that justified classification of the Armenian killings as genocide.
for comparable reasons, in the UN many massmurderings happening that would fulfill the criteria of the anti-genocide convention of the UN from 1948 are refused to be called genocide, becasue the charta makes it obilgatory that the international community has to take appropriate reaction to intervene in genocides being carried out. Since many are not willing to engage in a given example of genocide, or have interests they give higher priorities than a genocide happening, they refuse to call a genocide as "genocide".
Which means that all Western nations clearly make a difference between genocides they condemn - and genocides that they accept.
Oh yeah, our moral example is so shining and clear.