Turkey suspends all ties with France after approval of Armenian genocide bill

[KKvampire]

"The French are morally correct"

Ah so it's Ok to pass laws based on what you think is"moral" Can see where France is heading if they follow that line.

"continued propagation of hate speech and lies that seek to deny the Turkish state sanctioned and planned genocide of Armenians"

Who? Where? and France wants to imprison French nationals for this? It hasn't past into Law yet but we will see how it plays out

Edited December 28, 2011 by KKvampire

[Pakboong]

Doesn't the matter have a lot to do with defining what actually is the truth and with whom the burden of establishing the truth actually rests? Since the Turks actually lost WW1 they do not get to write its history.

Academic review is a broad scope and has been shot down in several courtroom cases relating to academically reviewing the Jewish Holocaust of WW2.

This isn't about the Turks writing history. It is about a fact that some have gone to great lengths to deny. Please do you research. There are many Turkish Academics that believe the continued denial has caused more problems for Turkey than good. A genocide occurred. The cases to which you refer in respect to Holocaust deniers did not reflect genuine academic discussion. The arguments were used by people like Zundel and Irving to provide an excuse to promote their hateful and false polemics. No legitimate academic has ever been prevented from discussing the holocaust. You cannot name one, so why use a canard?

There has to be a provision for the story to reflect new truths that were not available in 1915. The laws in several countries do of course restrict such revision. I don't really care other than the simple matter of reviewing history. Defaming the dead comes into play quite early in such a review. What the Turks claim does not reflect the story on the front page news in 1915. My grandmother constantly reminded us of the starving Armenians whenever we did not eat whatever was in front of us. I guess the story that was written on behalf of the Armenians is the official story which has withstood almost a century regardless of what the Turks believe actually happened.

The court ruled the arguments of Zundle and Irving were not academic. I am pretty familiar with both trials and in my opinion, they were just as academic as those of Debra Lipstadt who helped make the case against them.There must be other ways to determine whether an argument is in fact academic other than through the courts. Is there some standard which can be used to stop short of the courts? The problem as i see it is the presence of sacred cows and there is no way to keep the emotion out of the discussion. I have actually watched a Jewish Revisionist named Cole who while discussing his version of the Jewish Holocaust, got very emotional as a guest on Phil Donehue some years ago. He got way more emotional that Bradley Smith who was also present on the show.

I am not sure which side of the argument you are on and I don't really care about which. i simply care about an obligation to review history on everyone's part. History is never locked in stone and it changes all the time. Your mention of "Academic Review" caught my attention as I agree that no matter should be exempt from academic review.

I was not referring to the Turks writing history but the historical tendency for victors to put their stamp of approval on the official version and lock it into place.