A First for Francis. With the Ottoman Enemy

[Disir]

In two years as pope, he had never been attacked so harshly as he is now by Turkey, for his denunciation of the Armenian genocide. A turning point in the pontificate


ROME, April 17, 2015 - The first true “causus belli” that has broken the spell of a universally revered and praised pontificate has erupted on account of a century-old massacre, which Pope Francis has had the boldness to call by name, the taboo name of “genocide,” and to equate with all the other systematic, planned annihilations of peoples and religions that have marked the twentieth century and now also the present century.

It is difficult to deny that this marks a turning point in the pontificate. Because only a few months ago, at the end of November, Francis was in Turkey and didn't say a word about the Armenians.

To those who asked him why, he had replied that he was more interested in small steps, like those taken a year before by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan with a letter of condolence. In reality that letter, pure denial behind a bit of smoke, did nothing to console the Armenians, but embittered them all the more.

But Erdogan had asked the pope not to talk about the genocide, and Francis respected the request.
A First for Francis. With the Ottoman Enemy

Good time gone.

 

[Sunni Man]

I don't understand why the Pope, or any other world leader, would bring up the
alleged Armenian genocide?

What good does it do?

The alleged event took place 100 years ago.

And any eye witness or participant is in the grave.

It's time to drop it and move on. .......

 

[Avatar4321]

If that's the case then why does turkey object so much to us talking about it?

 

[Sunni Man]

If that's the case then why does turkey object so much to us talking about it?

Because they object to their country being lied about and slandered. ......

 

[Disir]

Virulent reactions from the Turks, waffling from Western politicians. For Francis the peace and quiet is over.

 

[CynthiaZ]

If that's the case then why does turkey object so much to us talking about it?

For the same reason that Japan objects when people talk about the Rape of Nanking I guess.

 

[peach174]

If that's the case then why does turkey object so much to us talking about it?

Because they object to their country being lied about and slandered. ......

It's not a lie. It is well documented by the Armenian National Institute with photo graphs as well as diaries from the people themselves.
It's also against the law in Turkey to talk about it because it's illegal in Turkey to use the word genocide.
Why? Because the only way not to repeat history is to know our history and Turkey does not want this to be known or recognized.

 

[Sunni Man]

It's not a lie. It is well documented by the Armenian National Institute with photo graphs as well as diaries from the people themselves.

So an American organization (most likely jewish) documents an event that supposedly happened in Turkey / Armenia and we are to take their findings as proof positive.

Yea, makes a lot of sense......... ...

 

[Avatar4321]

So telling the truth is slander now?

 

[Sunni Man]

So telling the truth is slander now?

When it's not the truth, it's called slander. Turkey did not commit genocide in Armenia.

The Armenian's living inside of Turkey had joined the Allies during WWI and rebelled against the Ottoman empire.

They fought against the Turks and lost.

End of story........

 

[Blackrook]

The Germans have owned up to what they did and the Turks should do likewise.

 

[Muslim75]

It is troubling that the Pope raises the question of the genocide when he would not have done so if Armenia was not Christian.

The genocide happened in 1915. The Young Turks had already come to power. The Ottoman Empire was virtually ended. It is a Turkish crime, not an Ottoman one.

 

[Avatar4321]

In other words, genocide

 

[Avatar4321]

It is troubling that the Pope raises the question of the genocide when he would not have done so if Armenia was not Christian.

The genocide happened in 1915. The Young Turks had already come to power. The Ottoman Empire was virtually ended. It is a Turkish crime, not an Ottoman one.

I see no reason to believe the Pope would have ignored the massacres if the Armenians were Jewish Muslim Hindu or whatever. I'm sure he is more concerned when they are Christians because he sees himself as a Christian leader who is supposed to take care of the flock.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't understand why the Pope, or any other world leader, would bring up the
alleged Armenian genocide?

What good does it do?

The alleged event took place 100 years ago.

And any eye witness or participant is in the grave.

It's time to drop it and move on. .......

It was without any doubt a genocide what the Turks did with the Armenians about a hundred years ago. Because after the european catastrophe World War 1 nearly no one took care and nearly everyone ignored this genocide Hitler was later sure no one would take any care about any murder or crime. I guess he thought it's only important to be a good liar and winner - because the winners are writing what's the true interpretation about history. But this changes nothing. Facts are what they are. Who denies genocides is ready to prepare the next genocide.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't understand why the Pope, or any other world leader, would bring up the
alleged Armenian genocide?

What good does it do?

The alleged event took place 100 years ago.

And any eye witness or participant is in the grave.

It's time to drop it and move on. .......

In America, we still talk about our atrocities against Native Americans, enslavement of Blacks and the indentured servitude of the Irish like it was yesterday.

All of which happened more than a 100 years ago.

However, you find it strange that we talk about the genocide of Armenians?

If we remember the evil acts we committed, there is a good chance we will not repeat those acts. It is strange to us to see Turkey wish to deny or forget their acts--this can only lead to Turkey repeating those same acts again.

 

[amrchaos]

I don't understand why the Pope, or any other world leader, would bring up the
alleged Armenian genocide?

What good does it do?

The alleged event took place 100 years ago.

And any eye witness or participant is in the grave.

It's time to drop it and move on. .......

It was without any doubt a genocide what the Turks did with the Armenians about a hundred years ago. Because after the european catastrophe World War 1 nearly no one took care and nearly everyone ignored this genocide Hitler was later sure no one would take any care about any murder or crime. I guess he thought it's only important to be a good liar and winner - because the winners are writing what's the true interpretation about history. But this changes nothing. Facts are what they are. Who denies genocides is ready to prepare the next genocide.

Some problems here

One problem--The Turks/Ottomans did not win WW1

Two--The winner does not always write the history Books. The Soviets helped win WW2, but there were atrocities reported in the USSR both before and during that war

We were successful against our many campaigns against the Native Americans, yet atrocities such as the Trail of tears and so forth keeps popping up.

And to demonstrate this is not a modern concept, The ancient Romans, ancient Greeks, plus a slew of other ancient civilizations has reported their destruction of whole nations in their history.

So no, the winner are not the only ones writing the History books, they just have more influence in terms of the editor.

 

[zaangalewa]

I don't understand why the Pope, or any other world leader, would bring up the
alleged Armenian genocide?

What good does it do?

The alleged event took place 100 years ago.

And any eye witness or participant is in the grave.

It's time to drop it and move on. .......

It was without any doubt a genocide what the Turks did with the Armenians about a hundred years ago. Because after the european catastrophe World War 1 nearly no one took care and nearly everyone ignored this genocide Hitler was later sure no one would take any care about any murder or crime. I guess he thought it's only important to be a good liar and winner - because the winners are writing what's the true interpretation about history. But this changes nothing. Facts are what they are. Who denies genocides is ready to prepare the next genocide.

Some problems here

One problem--The Turks/Ottomans did not win WW1

That's completly unimportant.

Two--The winner does not always write the history Books. The Soviets helped win WW2, but there were atrocities reported in the USSR both before and during that war

"The Soviets" were a weapon the Brit and Prussian William II used to win world war 1. This man alone was a catastrophe - others were a catastrophe too. In summary all this industrialized assholes created one of the worst manmade catastrophes the world ever had seen. Within this catastrophe the new men of the future were psychologically born - Hitler and Stalin for example - while the so called "winners" had nothing else to do than to create a mad world. A sign of this mad world was it to take not any notice what had happened with the Armenians - and others.

We were successful against our many campaigns against the Native Americans, yet atrocities such as the Trail of tears and so forth keeps popping up.

I'm a German. We love red indians.

And to demonstrate this is not a modern concept, The ancient Romans, ancient Greeks, plus a slew of other ancient civilizations has reported their destruction of whole nations in their history.

In former times killed every hero 10 enemies with his little finger, because no one attacked such heroes. In modern times a soldier kills 2000 people and no one knows his name.

So no, the winner are not the only ones writing the History books, they just have more influence in terms of the editor.

The winners wrote not in their history books "Don't take care about what had happened with the Armenians" - that's true. They did not even write the word 'Armenian' in their history books. They wrote the word "I" in their history books and liked to see themselve in this mirror of the own arrogant proudness.

 

[AVG-JOE]

If that's the case then why does turkey object so much to us talking about it?

Because they object to their country being lied about and slandered. ......

That shouldn't make a difference if all that's happening is a history discussion....

The reaction tells me that the Turks are either embarrassed by their history (as they should be), or that this wound is still fresh, bleeding and in need of discussion.

 

[peach174]

Using the word Genocide is still against the law in turkey.
They refuse to deal with it at all.