Armenian Genocide Through H.R. 106, Clinton, Obama, Edwards

House of Foreign Affairs Committee OKs Armenian Measure!

On October 10, the House of Foreign Affairs Committee's 27-21 vote is OKing the recognition of the World War I civil unrest and turmoil that Armenians suffered as a genocide, something that happened 92 years ago. The committee fails to recognize the Ottoman civilians that were killed by Armenians during their rebellions and atrocities committed by the Armenian rebels, before 1915.

For some reason millions of tax dollars of American citizens are going to these politicians so they can argue and debate a historical event 92 years ago about a nation that has been in NATO for 52 years and been a key US ally for decades, especially during the Cuban Missile Crisis and Iraq and Afghanistan invasions.

Politician's job is to ensure that everyone's rights are fully represented and their needs are expressed to the leaders of the nation. Their job is not to investigate history, they are not even historians!

What benefit will there be of recognizing the Armenian Genocide through H.R. 106 (House Resolution)? What will change? Let's make a list:
1) Armenian-Americans will rejoice (as they already did on Wednesday night).
2) Turks and Europeans who do not believe in the Armenian Genocide around the world will be angered and start talking badly about the United States and about Armenians.
3) It will damage the Armenian-Turkish relationship even more than it already is. Making the temptation of invading Armenia (since Armenia illegally invaded Azerbaijan in 1992, and occupied 20% of their lands and massacred many civilians) more plausible. Is this what Armenians and Americans want? More wars?
4) The Turkish government will shut down all American air-bases in Turkey which delivers 70% of supplies to American troops.
5) The Turkish government will now be able to completely justify their invasion of Iraq that they had been planning for years, in order to stop the PKK terrorists that have made bases in Northern Iraq, which the Americans have no man-power to stop. This could possibly mean that more American troops will die as there will be new fronts to the Iraqi war, and quite possibly, more Arab countries might start wars, destabilizing the middle east even further!

6) Turks in Turkey and around the world will organize a boycott of American goods as they did when French passed a similar resolution. American businesses will loose billions of dollars and the United States may suffer severe blows to it's economy. In addition to the cost of changing supply routes for the government to continue supplying US troops in Iraq there will be many business losses.
7) Possible recognition of numerous events that the United States Army has been involved in as "genocides". Such as the Native Indians, the Japanese, the Vietnamese, and the Iraqis, all of which have had wars where the US invading troops have created atrocities even if it wasn't state sponsored. What comes around goes around!

Now if any of the items on this list are truly worth the trouble, then please go ahead and ask your representative to vote YES for H.R. 106, if you think H.R. 106 is the silly propaganda that it really is, then tell all your representatives immediately to VOTE NO for H.R. 106. If you are going to tell your representative to vote YES, then you are not a true American, and have ulterior motives and racist notions towards Turks.

In World War I, many Armenians died and suffered, this is very true, Turkish estimates of death toll of Armenians is around 300,000, considering the Armenian population during World War I was about 1.6 million, there couldn't have been a genocide of 1.5 million Armenians. In addition, there were no orders or evidence of a state sponsored genocide. However, many people forget that hundreds of thousands of Turkish civilians were killed by well-armed and Russian supported Armenian rebels and soldiers during World War I that were seeking Armenian Independence!

In fact, the only evidence Armenians have against Turks about the Armenian Genocide is a few propaganda books written during World War I by the British propaganda agencies (in order to win against the central powers) that were later proven to be simply propaganda.

If you do believe in the Armenian Genocide that is your choice, eventually evidence and historians will clear up this dark history and make sure the truth comes out. However, voting on it in Congress will not change history and will not provide any closure or any beneficial outcome to anyone who suffered through World War I. This will only damage Turkey and America, while the Armenians rejoice.

H.R. 106 Effects and Motive Analysis (What sponsors of H.R. 106 are hiding!)

To pretend H. Res. 106 is about condemning 'another government from another time' and has nothing to do with the Turkey or Turks of today is disingenuous to say the least.

Anyone with any knowledge about this issue knows that recognizing Armenian genocide claims is tied to LAND RESTITUTION CLAIMS.

Armenia does not recognize Turkey's eastern border and considers east Turkey to be west Armenia. This is an ongoing territorial dispute to which history is just one component. THIS is one reason why Turks are reacting as angrily as they are.

Since it was founded, the Republic of Turkey has never sought an expansionist policy. It should be made abundantly clear to the Armenian Diaspora, Armenia and the U.S. Congress, that, as Ataturk once said, Turks will NOT give up one inch either.

If this was about historical truth, and not pandering to Armenian voters and contributers, then when are the Turks massacred by the Armenian militias going to be the subject of a resolution?

The genocide resolution says nothing about the 2 million Muslim and Turkic people forcibly relocated and ruthlessly massacred by Russia aided by ARMENIANS from 1820-1920. Nor does it address the horrid conditions under which Turkic and Muslim people were expelled from the Balkans.

According to ethnographic studies conducted by Professor Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, while populations the rest of the world over were increasing, due to war, massacre and ensuing famines, the population of Turkic Muslim people diminished by 5 MILLION between 1820-1923. Turks, however, do not run from one parliament to another screaming "genocide" because they understand, it was war. They do not use their dead for dishonorable means or financial gain.

This resolution also says nothing about the Azeris massacred by Armenians within the last 20 years or the U.N. Resolution calling for Armenians to return territories they've occupied in Karabakh.

If this is about historical truth, why does Armenia refuse to open its archives, as Turkey has? Why does Armenia refuse to take part in a historical commission and engage in a thorough review of these events using all available documents, as Turkey proposes? Why has this resolution not been written by historians?

Why are the views of the 69 historians who objected to the accuracy of H. Res. 106 when it first surfaced being ignored? Who in the US is a more qualified Middle Eastern Historian than Bernard Lewis? The Encyclopedia of History and Historians says nobody.

Apparently, some in Congress with large Armenian constituencies disagree, they feel they are better qualified.

Either that, or they are using despicable means that will put the lives of U.S. soldiers at great risk to get us out of Iraq (what else could the U.S. do if Incirlik is closed and the difficulty of supplying troops increased by an order of magnitude?)

Lynn Esquire

Armenian Genocide Resolution, Nancy Pelosi, and Democrats.

The Armenian Genocide Resolution (H.R. 106) was created to condemn and insult Turkey in order to promote more Turkish hatred by the outside world. This hatred will form the impetus for the next phase of their lobbying efforts when they begin putting pressure on the U.S. Congress and other nations to force Turkey to pay reparations and give land to Armenia for a genocide, not proven in a court of law, that they allege Ottoman Turks committed about a century ago. When nations reply that they cannot try an empire that does not exist anymore for reparations, Armenians will reply, "Well your country accepted this resolution on that year".

Armenians argue that since many nations in the world (22 to be exact), recognize the Armenian Genocide, that it has to be true. However, those 22 countries have large majorities of Armenian voters and donors that will do anything for politicians that want to recognize the events of 1915 as genocide.

Armenians also enjoy diverting attention of people from the facts to the Turkish government. They will say "The Turkish government lobbies ferociously to get more politicians to deny the Armenian Genocide" or "Do not let the Turkish government bully politicians into denying the genocide that is a FACT, stop their denial train." However, people will not realize that Armenian organizations who are incredibly organized and quite rich, also lobby furiously and are actually a lot more successful.

Let's see some facts and statistics of Armenian donations to our lovely politicians who are voting for the Armenian Genocide resolution and think that it's absolutely urgently necessary that we condemn the Ottoman Empire for their alleged crimes. The following are donations made by organizations of Armenians, not individual donations:

2006 Election Cycle
Total Contribution by Armenian Political Action Committees: $202,501

2006 Election Cycle
Political Candidates Receiving Contributions from
ARMENIAN AMERICAN PAC (ARMENPAC)

Total Disbursements $163,854

ARMENIAN AMERICANS LEGISLATIVE ISSUES COMMITTEE
Category
Total Receipts $15,000
Total Disbursements $16,228

ARMENIAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE PAC
Category
Total Receipts $22,090
Total Disbursements $21,078

There are definitely a lot more hundreds of thousands of dollars being donated that will help these representatives win their next elections, as long as they publicly continue to talk about the Armenian Genocide and how real it is and how awful and urgent it is that everyone knows about this 92 year old event. Especially since Armenians 92 years ago are more important than people being massacred in genocides right now in Africa.

Armenians in California have convinced the democratic representatives there, Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi to lead the charge of the Armenian Genocide Resolution H.R. 106. Their constituents are so rich and powerful, that even if Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff wanted to be honest and tell the truth about the fabricated Armenian Genocide, they would loose the next election for sure and a lot of their donors would immediately pull out. Many Armenians are so nationalistic and determined to pass these resolutions that they donate large sums of money, much more than many American citizens.

Since there aren't many Turks in their districts there is no loss for these representatives to vote for such preposterous Armenian Genocide resolutions. If Turkish relations are damaged for the wealth and gain in power of these representatives that is the administrations problem, not the representatives. However, the other constituents of Nancy Pelosi are Democrats, who oppose the Bush administration. Although Nancy Pelosi does not hate the administration or care much for it, she exploits democrats by consistently pretending to be in direct war with the administration. Yet here she is applauding and smiling for the president:


Democrats deserve better representatives who are honest about their beliefs and actually want to contribute to the Democratic ideals, not a machine that is simply after the money and votes of the majority in her district.

Why is our tax money being used to vote on the Armenian Genocide?

Since when did politicians decide history? Since when did we pay our taxes to our US government so that they can use our money and time to vote on the "Armenian Genocide" an event that happened 92+ years ago with which the debate still goes on? Perhaps we voted for Nancy Pelosi and others like her who support the Armenian Genocide so that they can send a harsh message to the Ottoman Empire government of 1915.

Since when did Armenian votes count for more than American votes? Since when did we decide events that are centuries old are more important than issues today such as the Staph infection disease that's been spreading in our schools around the country, the Iraq war, current misunderstandings with Russia, or Iran's bold remarks against Israel and the United States. We use to be a country that use to talk about how we would try our best to end poverty, unemployment, disease, and how we would explore space and find or create life on other planets. Now all we talk about is war, fighting, and recently a debated genocide.

Nancy Pelosi does not even respect Secularism which is the separation of Church and State and she is trying to fight against an ally now about a supposed genocide that the Ottomans supposedly committed 92+ years ago. It seems like this politician never went to history class, perhaps she never had an American History class, otherwise she would know that us Americans are not any more innocent than what she's condemning other countries for.

She must have forgotten that our soldiers were brought back from Vietnam because of increasing reports of American soldiers burning villages, killing Vietnamese civilians suspected of being Vietcong, and our B-52 bombers dropped 8 million tons of bombs on Vietnam from 1965 to 1973. The United States has dropped 2 atomic bombs on Japan, innocent civilians in the thousands died, but it was justified as it would save many U.S. troops. We imprisoned all Japanese-Americans in camps in order to keep them from spying on us. We enslaved Africans for centuries and even lynched many African-Americans in public. We also happened to wipe out the Native Indians, all 6 million of them, although just not overnight; though we did forcefully relocate the Cherokee Indians (many died), just like the Ottomans relocated the Armenians (many died). The difference was the Ottoman Empire was at war, the United States on the other hand, just needed more land. Considering our own record, Congress needs to drop the "Holier than thou" attitude, before other countries start passing resolutions on us! They need to understand that not everyone is innocent, and history needs to be decided by historians not by politicians.

Armenians argue that they only want this resolution to pass so that Turkey stops denying a genocide that "the whole world has accepted," which is simply false. They argue that genocide needs to be condemned whenever and where-ever it happens. Although we never see Armenians apologizing for the Azeri Genocide during 1992 where they've massacred Azerbaijani's to take back what they say is their ancient homelands. The question is, how will condemning the Ottoman Empire for the killing of Armenians, going to change anything? Is it to bring closure to the very few senior citizens still left alive from that time and place? Is it to make peace between Armenians and Turks? or Is it a precursor to gain reparations and land from Turkey for Armenia which is their ultimate dream?

The answer is C, because it will never bring closure, it will simply ignite more arguments, fighting, and horrid memories. It can't be making peace, because it only sent relations between Turkey and Armenia back centuries, it has made Armenians and Turks hate each other even more. As Hrant Dink an Armenian journalist in Turkey said "Armenians are the doctors of the Turks, and Turks are the doctors of the Armenians."


Let's not involve foreign politicians into this matter and let's let the historians decide.

Armenian Genocide Resolution—It’s Not Even What Pelosi Thinks It Is

To pretend H.R. 106 is about condemning ‘another government from another time’ and has nothing to do with the Turkey or Turks of today is entirely disingenuous.

Anyone with any knowledge about this issue knows that issue of recognizing Armenian genocide claims is tied to LAND RESTITUTION CLAIMS.

Stunningly, at the urging of the Armenian Diaspora, this resolution has been drafted to allege that the alleged genocide occurred from 1915-1923, which is outrageously inaccurate about even the most fundamental fact about this issue: when it occurred.

Relocation orders were issued in 1915 to remove Armenians from locations near the Russian front. However, BEFORE WWI ended in 1918, orders were issued repeatedly to stop relocating Armenians.

Starting in 1919, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk and the nationalists under him began the war of independence against the Ottoman regime. During that time, the so called “French” Armenian Legion invaded South East Anatolia aided by the French. Why? Because the French wanted control over the oil fields in what is now Northern Iraq. At the same time, there was an unprovoked invasion by the Greeks to the west, conducted under the watchful eye of the British.

The aim of creating the French Armenian Legion was to allow Armenian to contribute to the liberation of the Cilicia region in the Ottoman Empire from the overwhelming majority Turkic population and help Armenians to realize their national aspirations of creating a state in that region. The Armenian Legion was to fight only Turks and only in Cilicia, and become the core of a planned future Armenian Army. And, all of this, occurred between 1919 and 1923.

This resolution was deliberately written to include as “genocide” this period of time, long after WWI and when Armenians were clearly waging an all out war against Turks. The intent can only be, if this resolution is ever adopted, for the Armenian Diaspora to next allege that the modern Republic of Turkey is responsible for the “genocidal” acts occurring during 1919-1923, the defense of their homeland, under the leadership of officials who formed the Republic of Turkey in October 1923.

This is characteristic of the Diaspora’s methods. They are dishonest, dishonorable, in denial that their own Dashnak revolutionary forces openly declared war against the Ottoman regime during WWI, which then set into motion a horrific series of events in which Ottoman Muslims and Armenians massacred each other on an industrial scale, while the Allies idly stood by and watched.

Now, turning modern jurisprudence on its head, Armenia refuses to release the archives of the Armenian revolutionary parties operating in concert with Russia and France during WWI, and declare it is Turkey that must prove that a genocide did not occur!

While Turkey is criticized without restraint by EU countries and Armenians for disallowing genocide claims, in Armenia, it is illegal to possess a copy of the Manifesto of Hovhannes Katchaznouni, First Prime Minister of the Armenian Republic. Why? Katchaznouni was a leader of the Dashnak revolutionaries during WWI. In his manifesto, he honorably takes responsibility for the Armenians inability to achieve a Greater Armenia in SE Anatolia. He acknowledges that the Dashnak leadership overestimated the support the Russians and French were willing to provide, and grossly underestimated the resolve of the Turks to keep their homeland. Most striking, he actually states that the Ottomans knew what the Dashnak’s goals were and that they were justified in doing what they did to protect their lands.

Meanwhile, in democracies like France and Switzerland, any discussion that challenges the version of history presented by Diaspora Armenians are forbidden by law, a crime.

Moreover, the one and only Turkish citizen that was granted access to the Armenian archives, was arrested by Armenian authorities as he was boarding a plane to come back to the states to return to his doctoral program at Duke. He was arrested for buying books, old books, and having the audacity to think he could take them with him when he left. All of his research was confiscated and he was imprisoned for several months and finally tried and convicted of under a law relating to printed matter more than 50 years old.

Let’s not also forget, that Professor Stanford J. Shaw, one of the most renowned historians of Ottoman history, who concluded there was no Armenian genocide, only a failed attempt at forming an independent nation. As a result, Armenians bombed his house in Los Angeles, Armenians disrupted his classes at the University of Southern California, threatened his life and made it impossible for him to remain in the U.S.

When the EU began insisting Turkey “accept responsibility” for the Armenian genocide committed by a defunct previous regime, Turkey’s Prime Minister Erdogan asked the United States and Russia to open their sealed archives for review. Both refused. The United States’ complicity has been documented to some extent. But it’s the suspected Russian involvement in Armenian acts of terrorism against the Ottoman Empire over a period of nearly 80 years that Russians most certainly don’t want exposed.

To the casual observer with no axe to grind, declarations made without access to all the pertinent archives certainly suggests that Turkey is getting railroaded for political purposes, that those making demands are making use of illegitimate leverage with half the facts concealed.
Freedom of speech and freedom of inquiry when it comes to Armenian genocide claims only exists for those who accept the Diaspora’s claims without question.

And, how ironic, that now the effort to pass this resolution would put at risk U.S. efforts in its war against terror. Some of the first acts of terror that occurred on U.S. soil were committed by Armenian terrorists who murdered over 70 Turkish diplomats (and members of their family, including children) as well as people of other nationalities who were unfortunate enough to be in the vicinity during a span of 12 years, starting in 1973—acts of terror that were committed to promote “genocide awareness,” no less.

Apparently, among the Diaspora, freedom of speech and civil liberties like the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are only permitted if you mindlessly and unquestioningly support their cause.

Do not vote for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards; They are against Freedom of Speech

The Armenian Genocide has a lot of misconceptions and many believe it to be true (due to propaganda), though most logical evidence suggests it wasn't a genocide but a complex vicious cycle of wars between civilian populations and turmoil in Eastern Anatolia while many Armenians died, we should acknowledge that Turks, Kurds, and other Muslims were killed as well with no involvement of the Ottoman Government.

Many politicians regardless of their party have used this historical issue that's still under study by many historical researches, historians, and sociologists and is not settled yet, to grab some quick votes and receive in full the Armenian-American votes. Many debates have been proposed to Armenia by the Turkish government to once and for all settle the argument even though the Ottoman Empire had won this debate once before during 1918 in the island of Malta.

Response to supporters of H.R. 106 for online posts.

You are welcome to copy and paste the following message, which you can use to respond to anyone on the web or elsewhere that claims that H.R. 106 is a good resolution. You would want to use this to respond to comments and posts on the web because it is well written and explains what you are trying to explain more adequately and professionally. Use the following response:

To pretend this resolution about condemning 'another government from another time' and has nothing to do with the Turkey or Turks of today is disingenuous to say the least.

Anyone with any knowledge about this issue knows that issue of recognizing Armenian genocide claims is tied to LAND RESTITUTION CLAIMS.

Armenia does not recognize Turkey's eastern border and considers east Turkey to be west Armenia. This is an ongoing territorial dispute to which history is just one component. THIS is one reason why Turks are reacting as angrily as they are.

Since it was founded, the Republic of Turkey has never sought an expansionist policy. It should be made abundantly clear to the Armenian Diaspora, Armenia and the U.S. Congress, that, as Ataturk once said, Turks will NOT give up one inch either.

If this was about historical truth, and not pandering to Armenian voters and contributers, then when are the Turks massacred by the Armenian militias going to be the subject of a resolution?

The genocide resolution says nothing about the 2 million Muslim and Turkic people forcibly relocated and ruthlessly massacred by Russia aided by ARMENIANS from 1820-1920. Nor does it address the horrid conditions under which Turkic and Muslim people were expelled from the Balkans. According to ethnographic studies conducted by Professor Justin McCarthy of the University of Louisville, while populations the rest of the world over were increasing, due to war, massacre and ensuing famines, the population of Turkic Muslim people diminished by 5 MILLION between 1820-1923. Turks, however, do not run from one parliament to another screaming "genocide" because they understand, it was war. They do not use their dead for dishonorable means.

This resolution also says nothing about the Azeris massacred by Armenians within the last 20 years or the U.N. Resolution calling for Armenians to return territories they've occupied in Karabakh.

If this is about historical truth, why does Armenia refuse to open its archives, as Turkey has? Why does Armenia refuse to take part in a historical committee, as Turkey proposes? Why has this resolution not been written by historians?

Why are the views of the 69 historians who objected to the accuracy when this resolution first surface being ignored? Who in the US is a more qualified Middle Eastern Historian than Dr. Bernard Lewis? The Encyclopedia of History and Historians says nobody.

Apparently, some Congress people with large Armenian constituencies disagree, they feel they are better qualified. Either that, or they are using despicable means to get us out of Iraq (what else could we do if Incirlik is closed?)

Do not vote for Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or John Edwards; They are against Freedom of Speech

The Armenian Genocide has a lot of misconceptions and many believe it to be true (due to propaganda), though most logical evidence suggests it wasn't a genocide but a complex vicious cycle of wars between civilian populations and turmoil in Eastern Anatolia while many Armenians died, we should acknowledge that Turks, Kurds, and other Muslims were killed as well with no involvement of the Ottoman Government. Many politicians regardless of their party have used this historical issue that's still under study by many historical researches, historians, and sociologists and is not settled yet, to grab some quick votes and receive in full the Armenian-American votes. Many debates have been proposed to Armenia by the Turkish government to once and for all settle the argument even though the Ottoman Empire had won this debate once before during 1918 in the island of Malta.

So no one can simplify this issue and declare that there is a genocide just because Armenians and their Christian supporters in the West say so. The UN rules that the events of 1915 were NOT a genocide, yet why are all these politicians, continually talking behind the back of a faithful ally who's helped the United States since the Korean War as well as allowed US bases and troops to use Turkey's land as a base for troops, ships, aircrafts, and even nuclear weapons. Turkey is part of NATO and in 2003 when the United States was about to invade Iraq, Turkey said they can use Turkey's bases, as long as the Turkish Armed Forces can come and support the US coalition, this was refused by the United States (I guess 1,000,000+ troops wouldn't have been that helpful in Iraq, U.S. preferred the Kurds).

Regardless of which side you support on this issue, whether you're Armenian, Turkish, Kurdish, Muslim, or Christian, it should be noted that politicians should not be the ones forming opinions about history. Many politicians seem to use the Armenian voters in the United States for example and other high-Armenian-population countries to give them a quick easy boost in votes just by simply stating that the Armenian Genocide is real and that Turkey is wrong even though the current Turkish government fought the Ottoman Empire in 1923 and Turkey didn't even exist at the time this supposed genocide took place (1915). The fact is, many politicians do not have a major in history nor have they read the proper documents, evidence, and hundreds of books on this issue. If this was a clear-cut simple issue, there wouldn't be this much world doubt over it. It's simply an old grudge that Armenians will not drop no matter how many times evidence tells them there was no Armenian Genocide, they just smack it aside and continue yelling as loud as possible while the Turk's voice fades away.

Neither Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or John Edwards studied this issue or the rich complex history of the Anatolia region, the only thing they know is what their advisers and planners told them to answer if such a question ever arose. And Obama in fact was asked this question at one press conference, and answered it paraphrased as such: "[Armenian Genocide did happen, and Turkey should stop denying it, and we will be working hard to change the issue.]" Notice how they never elaborate on the issue, because they lack all knowledge on this subject. Simply do a google search on all politician names followed by the word "Armenian", and suddenly you see all these politicians promising that they will get Turkey to somehow admit that they are evil, stupid, and genocide-lovers. It's ridiculous because after their interview with some Armenians, they go over to Turkey or they go and make peace with the Turks as well. So they play both sides in order to gain the maximum votes while simultaneously confusing the voter on which side they support.

The Turkish government never steps up to United States government and says "Hey guess what, we're going to make a vote in our parliament that you committed genocide against the Native Americans 200+ years ago, and you committed genocide against the Vietnamese in the Vietnam war, and you committed genocide in Iraq TWICE!" This would be totally absurd, ridiculous, and absolutely FALSE. But yet, the American government has the audacity to create a bill calling for recognition of the Armenian Genocide, by politicians? This is a crime against freedom of speech, absurd, and ridiculous because they are making a vote recognizing a historical issue when the UN did not recognize it and when 170+ other countries don't recognize it. Don't believe it? It's called HR 106 and it is an insult to historians around the world and an insult to a critical ally, Turkey, just watch this video:
Armenian Genocide HR 106 discussion by former congressman (Important to watch)!

Trust me, I was planning on voting for Barack Obama myself, but there's one thing I cannot tolerate, that's selling yourself to get votes and attacking a country that has done NOTHING WRONG to the American people or the American government. The fact is Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and even John McCain don't care about this issue, once they are voted into office, the issue will be forgotten, so my message to Armenians: Why bother, they don't care about this issue one way or another, they just want your cheap easy votes and your juicy donations. The Armenian Genocide issue was never presented to any international court, and Armenians do not want to take it to a court, they want to take it to politicians that are easy to win without any evidence; however, courts are too difficult, because they require HARD EVIDENCE something the Armenians completely lack other than a couple grandma stories and a few faked telegrams that were proven by old courts to be forgeries as they did not match the Ottoman codes and telegram procedures.

So how are they against freedom of speech you will ask... They are against it because they want to pass laws and bills that say Turks cannot say their grandparents aren't murderers. They want Turks, I guess because a majority of them happen to be Muslim, to accept a false genocide that has no video evidence, no audio evidence, no visual evidence, no abandoned concentration camps, no public hate speeches on record, no Ottoman archives directing the genocide, no means of mass killing, and no means of collecting and identifying millions of Armenians living in the Ottoman Empire. You don't believe it, you don't believe that a democratic country can say freedom of speech and yet still be against freedom of speech? Oh well let's look at some European countries that also have large amounts of Armenian voters. France has a law where you can be jailed just for saying the Armenian Genocide does not exist (It basically falls under the racism law, which doesn't make sense, maybe saying the Armenian Genocide exists is racist to Turks). What what what? The country that claims it is the founding fathers of democracy is making laws to jail French citizens that don't believe a genocide existed in 1915? Yes, they actually passed this law through their parliament, just like HR 106.

Need more evidence? Many Swiss-Turkish citizens are in trial over saying there is no Armenian Genocide because Switzerland also has this law that was passed quite a while ago. They were arrested for simply making public statements that the Armenian Genocide lacks evidence and should be re-characterized as the civil war it REALLY IS.

Yes the world loves freedom of speech as long as the speech is in the favor of the majority of voters. So let's say you don't believe the Armenian Genocide is false, you truly believe it's true and you were even sent a video of it, what if after thousands of jailed Turks who said it wasn't true spend many years in jail, and then later you learn that the video was doctored and is a fake. So you just jailed thousands of innocent people just because of their speech. What kind of world are we creating here? Admit that there's a possibility each side can be wrong, and then you truly have become an open-minded person. This is a hypothetical, and it may not happen, but it is the kind of message these countries are creating when making laws. What if Turkey made a law jailing any French citizen that says "France didn't commit genocide against Algiers or Vietnam and is not responsible for the genocide of Rwanda", well I'm sure many French citizens would be angered, so why are the French being so anti-Turkish, could it be because it is a very Christian state that has always crushed other religions in their own country, or is it just that they don't care about anyone except for themselves, is there any other explanation?

So it should be concluded that historians should be deciding this issue in open debate, and doing research for truth rather than looking for ways to make the Ottoman Empire or the Turkish nation look bad. Demonizing a country for something that supposedly happened ~92 years ago with almost no hard evidence except for some grandma stories which the Turks also have many of is not the best way to make friends with the world. The real aim for politicians should be, getting Armenia and Turkey to settle their arguments and making peace with each other. We need less enemies in this world, not make more by causing more argument on an issue that was already put to rest over 50 years ago and was declared NOT a genocide.

Any politician, such as freedom of speech oppressing Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be stopped at all costs. Or you'll end up like France where if you say the Armenian Genocide doesn't exist you go to jail, it appears as though the French have no respect for Freedom of Speech and the United States is heading that way too. No one is disrespecting Armenians by saying it wasn't genocide, everyone acknowledges many Armenians died, but Armenians need to start recognizing that Turks, Kurds, and Muslims died as well, and they are not the perfect angels people think.

It seems that the Republican Party of the United States have a better understanding of history and understand it isn't nice to pick sides on historical issues when you are not a historian. My vote goes for them, I am a democrat and I have voted Democrat for many years, but it's time for change. It should be noted not all Republicans will be as bad as George Bush so please do not label the whole party because of a few bad apples. However it should also be noted that certain candidates of the Republican Party are also supporting such bills and playing both sides, so it's not the whole republican party that people should support, it's politicians in general that create these problems.

For Example, John McCain said 1 million Armenians were systematically murdered but did not call it genocide, this is indeed a mistake, since he is not a historian, nor does he know for a fact that 1 million Armenians were ever murdered, they might have died in battle, been executed for a crime they truly did commit, died from disease, or hunger, as was common during World War I. Might have died fighting alongside Russian armies in their assault against the Ottoman Empire.

American Politics - Who Do I Vote for? Democrat or Republican?
Table of Contents
Democrat or Republican?
Abortion
Keep religion out of politics - Homosexuality?
Atheist? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Agnostic?
Be Independent - don't be victim to group mentality
Who do I vote for?


I'm a TRUE moderate, this is the open-minded way to go. If you vote democrat one term, and republican the next, it shows how clear thinking you are. It shows that you form opinions based on each candidate rather than based on each party. This is the most important thing ANY TEACHER can teach to his/her students.
Democrat or Republican?

You shouldn't vote Democrat just because your friends tell you to or because many in your campus/school do (very typical of American Universities and Schools)... This is social validation and group mentality and can be extremely dangerous. Form your own opinions.

You shouldn't vote Republican just because your family or elders tell you to. Or just because you're a businessman or a religious leader.

A great teacher once told me this about politics of America (It's paraphrased):

Quote:
Throughout life people change their opinions on politics, many people that graduate high school vote democrat, because they need job, they aren't prepared enough for life, and they find life difficult, so they vote democrat, because they are may rely on welfare or need job security. People who graduate from 2 year colleges, usually vote republican, because they have earned their degree and have an average job, and find that their salary isn't much and so much taxes go to people who haven't worked as hard as them. People who graduate from 4 year universities tend to be Democrat, because they get high paying or well paying jobs and care for the poor and the unfortunate and can afford to do so. Ph.Ds usually tend to be Moderate, sometimes Republican, sometimes Democrat, because they have studied and learned so much about the world that it has made them wise enough to decide that neither side is always right, they have become enlightened usually.

Abortion

Abortion SHOULD be legal, it is the woman's right and it should be encouraged. You kill thousands of cells every shower just by using soap on your body, and it's the same concept with abortion. If you think Abortion is a sin, or that it is "killing" or "murdering", then you can say, well, "You two didn't have intercourse tonight? You basically killed a baby's chance at the world!" Of course the first and foremost defense is, not abstaining from sex until you decide for sure you want kids, or using safe sex practices. However, I would like to ask any Christians, what do you care if someone else commits a "sin" in your opinion?

Abortion is linked to crime rate, if you allow abortion crime rate drops significantly.

Keep religion out of politics - Homosexuality?

You can believe in God and even Christianity if you so choose, but religion should not affect politics or decisions of people on sexual orientation or abortion. Even if you do not like homosexuals, even if you think they have a dysfunction, but that doesn't mean they don't have the right to be homosexual, and that doesn't mean they do or don't have the right to be married or not. It's really their own problem/blessing, why do you worry yourself about other peoples' behavior?
Atheist? Christian? Muslim? Jewish? Agnostic?

Watch Zeitgeist movie, the first part is a bit of atheism, but that doesn't mean Christians should be afraid of watching it, because it's good to keep an open mind, even if they don't like atheism etc... There is nothing wrong with being Atheist, Religious, or Agnostic, but there is something wrong when you are one of these and you go and force your beliefs on others or annoy them with your opinions on spiritual/non-spiritual matters.

A Sociology professor once told me, that religion was created out of necessity, and it has evolved for centuries, and cannot be attributed to a couple prophets. People will always war with each other over religion but all the of the religions were invented by man, and no one knows how much of it is corrupted or not. The idea of religion should be taken as "do good", and don't be evil, and nothing else should be taken from it. Rituals, sacrifices, are all sociological aspects created by man.

Too bad Taner Akcam was never a good sociologist, otherwise he'd know more about the Armenian rebellion, I think he should have just kept to politics as he had in Turkey, but I guess prison showed him that he needed to be more cunning than that, what better way to be a politician than to pretend you're a historian?

Be Independent - don't be victim to group mentality

Don't vote democrat, just because of the good things you hear from people about some politician. Don't think for one second that any of these politicians are "down-to-earth" or "really nice" people, not a single politician is an average joe who believes in the good of mankind. 99.9% of them ... Just like Obama and Clinton, many politicians are corrupt money-loving, lobby-kissing good-ole'-politicians.

And if you were even for a second assuming one of these candidates are people who make decisions on their own, who have opinions just like you, you are sadly living in a world of idealism, and they did an amazing job of FOOLING YOU.

Of course you should believe in the separation of Church and State even if you believe in God. People will always try to use religion to their advantage, and that is a sin in my opinion. The Founding fathers worked hard all their lives for this country, and they believed in Church and State even though all of them were quite religious. It just shows the HIGH amount of intelligence of these people.

Who do I vote for?

Huckabee? Horrible choice... Ron Paul? No way... Rudy Guliani? Who is he really? John Edwards? Don't think so. Barack Obama? Maybe if he didn't eat from the hands of lobbyists... Hillary Clinton? Yeah right. Mitt Romney? Too religious.
--- gasp... so who do we vote for? It's really hard to decide, but if John McCain is the candidate for republicans I'm voting for him (he's a war veteran, he knows politics, and he thinks on his own, and doesn't succumb to party beliefs), if Al Gore is the candidate for Democrats (what an amazing politician, and he actually cares for a cause), I'm voting for him (too bad he's not running).

Think open minded, and don't let others form your opinions.

I totally agree with you, I'm not sure if I will vote for John McCain, but he doesn't seem like a bad choice. I don't tend to vote Republican, but ever since Democrats have been trying so hard to please Armenian-Americans by succumbing to their political pressure, I fear I have to change my stance to the Republican party.

I really thought Obama was going to be a great candidate, he tricked me into believing he's an average person, a person of the people. Then suddenly in one television interview he was asked "Barack Obama are you Muslim?" and he replies "No I am very much a Christian... bla bla bla", that's just ridiculous, to think that he would actually now try to please the Christian community as well. Even if he is fully Christian, I'd assume a politician wanting to be president, would like to please all his Muslim, Jewish, Agnostic, and Atheist voters as well. I think in the end this will hurt him the most.

And then he broke the last straw by making speeches and lecturing Americans on Ottoman history, just who the hell does this guy think he is?

I think a lot the way that you guys think. However, I was under the impression that Barack Obama was Christian, although he was part of a church that is really anti-Semetic. I heard that his pastor was a devout anti-Semite and on top of that, an Israeli panel ranked him as being the worst candidate for voters who care about Israel. That, and his catering to the Armenian lobbies, are enough of a reason for me to not vote Obama, even though I agree with him on most social and economic issues. Huckabee, Romney, and Ron Paul are all losers in my opinion. I don't like any thing about any of them. I am liberal on social and economic issues, but conservative on foreign policy, especially when it comes to Israeli and Turkish security. However, I will never vote for lunatics, and in my eyes, that is precisely what Ron Paul, Romney, and Huckabee are. Ron Paul is anti-Semetic on top of that, he has links to the KKK. I am leanings towards either Clinton or McCain. Clinton is supposed to be better for Israel. She has the support of the entire Jewish Lobby and most of the US Jewish community at large. On top of that, I love Madeleine Albright, and she endorsed Clinton. Clinton is conservative on foreign policy and liberal on every thing else, just like I am. However, I don't like that she is a flake who sold her soul to many lobbyists, including the Armenians. McCain is better than her, for this reason, but I don't agree with McCain on much outside immigration, campaign finance reform, and foreign policy. I am much more liberal than him on social and economic issues. I am voting either Clinton or McCain, that much I know. Which one, only time will tell.

You're probably right. The only reason I am against Hillary is because she is a co-sponsor of H.R. 106. She seems to be playing both sides in everything. John McCain might be conservative on some issues, but that's because he is in the Republican Party, he may not be as conservative as he appears. He's a very logical thinking person. I think I will vote for John McCain this year, just because I don't wanna risk everything on Hillary Clinton, because we really don't know what she really stands for but I can guess that she is exactly as you describe her to be, but I cannot be sure.

H.R. 106 Armenian Genocide Resolution

So last I heard was that this issue would not be followed up on.

I know Jon Stuart of the Daily Show has made fun of American hypocrisy at issues like the Native Indians and enslavement of Africans in comparison to Congress talking about the Armenian genocide resolution. But he also criticized Bush for supporting Turkey. He also made fun of NPR for naming one of their articles "NPR: Turkey Fight Bill Genocide", which clearly shows the intelligence level of people working there.

Also Bill Maher made fun of the genocide resolution extremely well:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kth7T198VWI

What saddened me is the political use of the phrase "We agree with the Armenians, but its not good timing for this resolution", or "we agree with the Armenians but Turkey is a big ally in the middle east"... These are completely wrong reasons to do the right thing. The right reason was expressed best by Representative Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, who said clearly "[I am not opposed to the Armenian Genocide Resolution because Turkey is a strategic ally but because the Armenian genocide doesn't exist!]". Finally a politician who knows her history, a politician that finally understands that propaganda can be used to trick people into believing in a cause that never has been proven in the first place. Finally a politician understands that the reason so many countries recognize the Armenian genocide is because they have many Armenian constituents voting and donating for bribe-able politicians.

Jon Stuart Armenian Genocide Article
Some right minded individual who isn't a Turk finally sees the bigger picture at hand. Funny isn't it? Genocides all over the world and definitely rampant in Africa where people are dying all this time. While Westerners still buy diamonds that are from conflict areas where people are tortured to dig them up, and still these Armenians persist with their selfish and baseless accusations that have been proven wrong countless times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U404xXgAh5M
Daily Show episode about Armenian Strife. Listen closely however, to what Jon Stuart says at the end. I think he himself doesn't really care for the Armenian genocide theory one way or another, but only wants to criticize Bush and his friends.