Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
With the turks you saw a deliberate attempt to either kill off or get rid of the armenians, which is a different situation. The US didnt want the fillipinos to go to taiwan or anywhere else. Even during the fighting the political view was that the phillipines would eventually be given self determination, followed by independence.
When you are going for genocide, you typically dont try to let the locals establish self rule (Judenraat excluded), recruit locals to your side (sonderkommando don't count), or try to establish systems of education for the people you are trying to remove/kill off.
Actually..I don't really see the difference here. About the same number of people died as well. The US was contending that the Philippines belonged to the US. The Turks were contending that Istanbul belong to them.
The difference was that killing the armenians had no real relation to keeping istanbul. There was no military value, besides getting rid if people who dont like you, to the mass migration and extermination of armenians. In the phillipines the US used a tactic of corralling civillians in camps, so they could gun for eveyone else remaining (the logic of outside of camp = rebel). The deaths in the camps were due to disease, not a systemic approach to kill filipinos. You can call the camp thing barbaric and a war crime, but its still not genocide. The US goal was not to kill every filipino, just the rebels. In the case of the Turks, ANY armenian was a target for either death or exodus. Same with the Jews in Germany in WWII.
My view on this is based on people not using words that invoke horror for any reason less than what they were intended for. Starting to call any group of deaths genocide weakens the term.
As an aside, Cambodia is a wierd one, in that it was cambodians killing cambodians. I think that is genocide, but it doesnt fit into my definition well, I admit.
Actually..I don't really see the difference here. About the same number of people died as well. The US was contending that the Philippines belonged to the US. The Turks were contending that Istanbul belong to them.
The difference was that killing the armenians had no real relation to keeping istanbul. There was no military value, besides getting rid if people who dont like you, to the mass migration and extermination of armenians. In the phillipines the US used a tactic of corralling civillians in camps, so they could gun for eveyone else remaining (the logic of outside of camp = rebel). The deaths in the camps were due to disease, not a systemic approach to kill filipinos. You can call the camp thing barbaric and a war crime, but its still not genocide. The US goal was not to kill every filipino, just the rebels. In the case of the Turks, ANY armenian was a target for either death or exodus. Same with the Jews in Germany in WWII.
My view on this is based on people not using words that invoke horror for any reason less than what they were intended for. Starting to call any group of deaths genocide weakens the term.
As an aside, Cambodia is a wierd one, in that it was cambodians killing cambodians. I think that is genocide, but it doesnt fit into my definition well, I admit.
They Americans didn't only kill combatants..they killed everyone. The figures are somewhat shaky but it runs between 600K and 1.4 million people. I call that a genocide. We had no business whatsoever in the Philippines. Even ol' Teddy came to realize that.
Little late after everyone is dead.
Well..my contention is that you really don't give a rat's ass about Genocide..and you are interested in throwing a NATO ally under the bus.
Prove this.
Prove this. Show me where I have said this.
Where is the thread? I haven't seen it. If it is here, and posted as a genocide in the title then either I missed it or it was before I came here. I post in the Darfur and Sudan threads.
Prove this as well.
Or genocides in general. Except for the one in Germany and the Armenian one.
Where is a thread about our personal views about Genocide in general? See above and then.
Prove this as well.
Sallow said:Prove what?
Sallow said:Where's your thread about the Filipino genocide?
Where's your thread about the Turks helping the Jewish people during WWII?
Where's any thread you started about the Sudan?
Basically, I don't care if you are Israel centric. That's fine. But Turkey's been a good ally to the United States. And it's in America's interest to keep it that way.
Bottom line is I care far more about America then I do Israel.
And yeah..I don't like Genocide in general.
You are also minimizing the act of genocide by attempting to attach a human identity to it in general so that you can then attempt to create comparisons as if those comparisons show a moral equivalence.
^^ Fucking morons.
You create a thread and then say I am afraid to respond while we are posting in another thread?
Cowardly and moronic.
I just read it now.
It's the husteria of the left, they can't cope with being ignored.
Sallow is looking kinda shallow these days.
They Americans didn't only kill combatants..they killed everyone. The figures are somewhat shaky but it runs between 600K and 1.4 million people. I call that a genocide. We had no business whatsoever in the Philippines. Even ol' Teddy came to realize that.
Little late after everyone is dead.
That's the contention of the Turks as well.
With the turks you saw a deliberate attempt to either kill off or get rid of the armenians, which is a different situation. The US didnt want the fillipinos to go to taiwan or anywhere else. Even during the fighting the political view was that the phillipines would eventually be given self determination, followed by independence.
When you are going for genocide, you typically dont try to let the locals establish self rule (Judenraat excluded), recruit locals to your side (sonderkommando don't count), or try to establish systems of education for the people you are trying to remove/kill off.
Actually..I don't really see the difference here. About the same number of people died as well. The US was contending that the Philippines belonged to the US. The Turks were contending that Istanbul belong to them.
What value did the US see in the Phillippines? do they have oil?
The difference was that killing the armenians had no real relation to keeping istanbul. There was no military value, besides getting rid if people who dont like you, to the mass migration and extermination of armenians. In the phillipines the US used a tactic of corralling civillians in camps, so they could gun for eveyone else remaining (the logic of outside of camp = rebel). The deaths in the camps were due to disease, not a systemic approach to kill filipinos. You can call the camp thing barbaric and a war crime, but its still not genocide. The US goal was not to kill every filipino, just the rebels. In the case of the Turks, ANY armenian was a target for either death or exodus. Same with the Jews in Germany in WWII.
My view on this is based on people not using words that invoke horror for any reason less than what they were intended for. Starting to call any group of deaths genocide weakens the term.
As an aside, Cambodia is a wierd one, in that it was cambodians killing cambodians. I think that is genocide, but it doesnt fit into my definition well, I admit.
They Americans didn't only kill combatants..they killed everyone. The figures are somewhat shaky but it runs between 600K and 1.4 million people. I call that a genocide. We had no business whatsoever in the Philippines. Even ol' Teddy came to realize that.
Little late after everyone is dead.
The low end number I saw was 32k, which makes figuring out the number basically impossible.
and considering it was an insurgency, you run into the problem you get now, what is a civillian vs what is a combatant.
Most of the civillian deaths were from disease in the camps, which in a sad twist of fate, were designed to protect civillians from the fighting.
With the turks you saw a deliberate attempt to either kill off or get rid of the armenians, which is a different situation. The US didnt want the fillipinos to go to taiwan or anywhere else. Even during the fighting the political view was that the phillipines would eventually be given self determination, followed by independence.
When you are going for genocide, you typically dont try to let the locals establish self rule (Judenraat excluded), recruit locals to your side (sonderkommando don't count), or try to establish systems of education for the people you are trying to remove/kill off.
Actually..I don't really see the difference here. About the same number of people died as well. The US was contending that the Philippines belonged to the US. The Turks were contending that Istanbul belong to them.
YOU OBVIOUSLY FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE BASIC MEANING OF WORDS YOU THROW AROUND, A GENERAL FAILURE OF THE LEFT IN PRINCIPLE. Words have meanings and you don't get to change them for your convenience. Genocide is the systematic attempt to eliminate a group of people. In the Philippines no such attempt was made. It was an insurrection and a very brutal one at that. Are you aware that the .45 caliber automatic was developed because of that fight? The Filipinos would get hopped up on drugs and the .38 wouldn't even phase them.
They were brutal murderers bent on destroying anyone that opposed them. By the way we won that Insurrection. Perhaps we SHOULD take lessons from it.
In the case of Turkey I do not blame Turkey to begin with as the fighting was by the Ottoman Empire not Turkey. That would be like blaming the United States for the slave trade to North America when the British started it.
They Americans didn't only kill combatants..they killed everyone. The figures are somewhat shaky but it runs between 600K and 1.4 million people. I call that a genocide. We had no business whatsoever in the Philippines. Even ol' Teddy came to realize that.
Little late after everyone is dead.
The low end number I saw was 32k, which makes figuring out the number basically impossible.
and considering it was an insurgency, you run into the problem you get now, what is a civillian vs what is a combatant.
Most of the civillian deaths were from disease in the camps, which in a sad twist of fate, were designed to protect civillians from the fighting.
Again..this was an imperialistic attempt to subjugate a people. Not sure what this little exercise in semantics proves or the diddling over the math. Most scholars on the subject agree that this was a terrible chapter in American history. And it basically qualifies as an attempt at Genocide. What set it off? The "massacre" of under 50 American military. What really set it off? The desire for a colony and to be counted as one of the "big boys" on the international scene.
swallow ....enjoy the endless pm's you are gonna get from ropey
so i take it your point here is that jews only care about their holocaust....
i have found that to be true in general.....the motto....'never again'...should read....'never again to us'
genocide is neither a left or right problem ....its a human problem that needs to be stopped on all fronts regardless of who is being killed by whom
swallow ....enjoy the endless pm's you are gonna get from ropey
so i take it your point here is that jews only care about their holocaust....
i have found that to be true in general.....the motto....'never again'...should read....'never again to us'
genocide is neither a left or right problem ....its a human problem that needs to be stopped on all fronts regardless of who is being killed by whom
The low end number I saw was 32k, which makes figuring out the number basically impossible.
and considering it was an insurgency, you run into the problem you get now, what is a civillian vs what is a combatant.
Most of the civillian deaths were from disease in the camps, which in a sad twist of fate, were designed to protect civillians from the fighting.
Again..this was an imperialistic attempt to subjugate a people. Not sure what this little exercise in semantics proves or the diddling over the math. Most scholars on the subject agree that this was a terrible chapter in American history. And it basically qualifies as an attempt at Genocide. What set it off? The "massacre" of under 50 American military. What really set it off? The desire for a colony and to be counted as one of the "big boys" on the international scene.
At that time everyone was doing it, and it was seen as morally acceptable. Again I dont see the genocide in this, even an attempt. The removal or elimination of the fillipino population was never a goal.
American Imperialism was far from the worst brand. The dutch and germans were notorious for being complete assholes when running thier colonies.
swallow ....enjoy the endless pm's you are gonna get from ropey
so i take it your point here is that jews only care about their holocaust....
i have found that to be true in general.....the motto....'never again'...should read....'never again to us'
genocide is neither a left or right problem ....its a human problem that needs to be stopped on all fronts regardless of who is being killed by whom
What value did the US see in the Phillippines? do they have oil?
Is it your contention that we defend Israel because of oil?
And, while we're talking oil...... if you don't like wars to protect our economic lifeblood, stop fucking driving.
You have to remember; " Only the Jews have suffered."
Everybody else was just inconvenienced.
Filipinos aren't trying to get supplies to Palestinians, so Ropey doesn't care.
As what was my contention on yet another thread about the Armenian Genocide.
It's not the Genocide that's his concern.
swallow ....enjoy the endless pm's you are gonna get from ropey
so i take it your point here is that jews only care about their holocaust....
i have found that to be true in general.....the motto....'never again'...should read....'never again to us'
genocide is neither a left or right problem ....its a human problem that needs to be stopped on all fronts regardless of who is being killed by whom
Thanks dear for the offer..but no thanks..I have a girlfriend and to be quite honest, a bony girl just doesn't seem all that attractive to me.
And in any case..isn't the point a of message board to have messages?
Translation: my argument has no substance, so I will slink away.
He also conveniently forgets that during WWII the Turks allowed Jewish people fleeing Europe to come to Istanbul...and if they chose..to have safe passage to Palestine.
Like so many others, ol' Ropey has a dagger ready for the back of Turkey.
Turkey, if memory serves me well was a serious conduit for Jews running for their lives. As was Holland.
Now though there is a serious problem with uber conservative Islamists who want to literally take out the moderates.
It's a time bomb I've been watching for some time.
swallow ....enjoy the endless pm's you are gonna get from ropey
so i take it your point here is that jews only care about their holocaust....
I have found that to be true in general.....the motto....'never again'...should read....'never again to us'
genocide is neither a left or right problem ....its a human problem that needs to be stopped on all fronts regardless of who is being killed by whom
genocide has a specific meaning and fighting to put down an insurrection does not raise to the level of that term. No effort was made at all to eliminate a race or group of people. Unless you include the enemy as a group and then according to that claim every war is a genocide.
Swallow is using a word that does not mean what he claims. A failing rampant among the left.
Again..this was an imperialistic attempt to subjugate a people. Not sure what this little exercise in semantics proves or the diddling over the math. Most scholars on the subject agree that this was a terrible chapter in American history. And it basically qualifies as an attempt at Genocide. What set it off? The "massacre" of under 50 American military. What really set it off? The desire for a colony and to be counted as one of the "big boys" on the international scene.
At that time everyone was doing it, and it was seen as morally acceptable. Again I dont see the genocide in this, even an attempt. The removal or elimination of the fillipino population was never a goal.
American Imperialism was far from the worst brand. The dutch and germans were notorious for being complete assholes when running thier colonies.
The Philippines is not a very big place..so you don't see the elimination of large chunk of the population of the Island as genocide?
How about the American Indians? Introducing scarlet fever by giving them infected blankets..an attempt at genocide?
Some moron in this thread tries to offset the blame of slavery by pointing out that it was the British that started it..yeah..that works for about the first several decades..what about the rest of the century or so..America, responsible or not?
America has done some really really really vile things. Ignoring them..or watering them down, makes us look like hypocrites and devalues our leadership role in the world as the gold standard in respect for human rights.
