CLARK COUNTY DOES NOT NEED A HATE MEMORIAL Armenian genocide is a long-discredited political claim while the Jewish Holocaust is a court verdict. Remember Nuremberg Tribunal? Where is the Armenian Nuremberg? Let me save you time searching for it: it does not exist! Armenians took up arms against their own government and resorted to terrorism, revolts, treason, and territorial demands, killing more than half a million Muslims, mostly Turks. I am the son of a Turkish survivor of atrocities committed by Armenian insurgents (see ethocide for a photo of the armed Armenian murderers.) The UN, the US, the UK, Australia, Israel, Sweden and many other countries reject the use of the term genocide to describe the Turkish-Armenian conflict. Recognizing a bogus genocide, as Armenian mayor seems to want you to, therefore, would be an insult to the silent memory of 6 million Jews who were murdered by German Nazis for being Jews. Let the facts speak for themselves. This is what world renown scholar, Bernard Lewis of Princeton University, said on camera when responding to a question from a genocide promoter (TV C-SPAN 2, 25 March, 2002) “…Saying that the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale. Great numbers of Armenians, including members of the armed forces, deserted, crossed the frontier and joined the Russian forces invading Turkey. Armenian rebels actually seized the city of Van and held it for a while intending to hand it over to the invaders. There was guerilla warfare all over Anatolia. There is clear evidence of a decision by the Turkish Government, to deport the Armenian population from the sensitive areas. Which meant naturally the whole of Anatolia. Not including the Arab provinces which were then still part of the Ottoman Empire. There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it…” The United Nations 1948 Convention on Prevention and Punishment of Genocide provides the definition of genocide and stipulates that genocide charges can only be litigated at a competent tribunal which shall follow due process to prove intent to destroy. Such was never done in the case of Turkish-Armenian conflict and no court verdict exists saying it is genocide. To call it one anyway would be defrauding the unsuspecting public that there is a genocide verdict when we all know that there is not. So calling it genocide would be a fraud. In a landmark decision, The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) unequivocally supported the above position in its Dec 17, 2013 verdict on Perincek vs Switzerland that [t]he existence of a genocide, which was a precisely defined legal concept, was not easy to prove. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) added: doubted that there could be a general consensus… given that historical research was, by definition, open to discussion and a matter of debate, without necessarily giving rise to final conclusions or to the assertion of objective and absolute truths. Thus, the ECHR created a legal precedent of inadmissibility of any comparison between the Holocaust and the Armenian claims; the latter lacks what the former clearly has: concrete historical facts, clear legal basis, and existence of the acts had been found by an international court to be clearly established. Clark County does not need a hate memorial to further divide and polarize public based on competing narratives. Switzerland is supposed to be a neutral, impartial, non-partisan, an inert country which is why the United Nations European headquarters are there. If Switzerland takes sides now and takes the dishonest and racist Armenian narrative at face value and furthermore, allows erection of a hate monument on its land, then Switzerland is no longer an honest broker. That requires re-evaluation the basing of all international institutions in Switzerland based on the assumption that Switzerland is impartial. There is no need to cultivate more polarization and hatred today to settle a historical score of a hundred years ago. What we need is more honest research and reasoned dialogue.
Posted on: Thu, 22 Jan 2015 02:59:11 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015