1914-18 : The Great Slaughter - Challenging A Year Of Myth Making.

[Pickman's model]

Oh very well.



1. The fact that the Armenian massacres were mostly carried out by Kurds has no bearing on the question of whether they count as genocide.

2. Earlier in the thread I said that I would accept the term "genocide" to describe those massacres, so long as the same term is used to describe the massacres of Poles, Irish, Sioux, Tasmanians and so on. By this definition history shows thousands of genocides.

3. Of course the modern Turkish republic cannot be blamed for actions carried out a century ago under the direction of the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire.

the question is whether the massacres meet the internationally accepted definition of genocide adopted by the united nations in 1948. perhaps you could identify where you feel it falls short of that definition.

 

[phildwyer]

the question is whether the massacres meet the internationally accepted definition of genocide adopted by the united nations in 1948. perhaps you could identify where you feel it falls short of that definition.

Already done so, several times, at great length, a few pages back.

 

[Pickman's model]

Already done so, several times, at great length, a few pages back.

then you'll have no trouble either identifying the posts or reprising the answer

 

[phildwyer]

then you'll have no trouble either identifying the posts or reprising the answer

Posts 583 through 791, inclusive.

The answer is complicated. But in a virtually unprecedented display of U75 logic, everyone finally managed to agree on it. Except you it would seem.

 

[Pickman's model]

Posts 583 through 791, inclusive.

The answer is complicated. But in a virtually unprecedented display of U75 logic, everyone finally managed to agree on it. Except you it would seem.

my post 767: reply pls.

 

[phildwyer]

my post 767: reply pls.

Oh must we really? Well alright, I suppose so, since you ask:

you could of course adopt the internationally accepted definition of genocide

Why? We've already agreed that it is stupid.

 

[Pickman's model]

Oh must we really? Well alright, I suppose so, since you ask:



Why? We've already agreed that it is stupid.

where do you consider it to fall short?

 

[phildwyer]

where do you consider it to fall short?

You'll really have to read the thread.

I answer this beginning at post 711 and running through post 821.

 

[toggle]

A Russian friend who is Koryo-saram was born in Tashkent. Her grandparents were deported with the entire Soviet Korean population to the Central Asian republics of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan from the Russian Far East for fear of collaborating with the Japanese in Manchuria.

The Soviet government's treatment of certain populations or national groups as a whole was devastating from the point of view of the Stalinists, as it was it bound up in the Stalinist conception of socialism itself.

I know you don't think this, but it's unwise to think of the 1930s terror as just 'the purges,' as in the removal of Communist Party members and important people from government institutions, or to see it as just a cynical reorganisation of the bureaucracy by Stalin, as it focuses on the terror only partially. The three state security 'mass operations' affected a huge number of other people.

When the terror was at its height, nearly 700,000 people were put to death within two years (that's from official Soviet documentation, not a figure pulled out of Robert Conquest's arse), and most of them were just ordinary people deemed to be anti-social elements in the new Soviet society in which the foundations for socialism had been laid and a massive and in their minds sincere defence (an inevitability,) of that socialism was mounted.

But that's the deaths. When you came to its attention, the Stalinist government didn't just come for you, it came for your family. A Stolypin carriage awaited them while you met a bullet.

ty.

I've covered the period in passing, but not in any detail. more looking at the effect it had on the state of the armed forces in the late 30s. hence I've read parts of Conquest, but not much more. but I did look more at why he was criticized. At the time he wrote, he was accused of hugely exagerating the numbers.

 

[Pickman's model]

You'll really have to read the thread.

I answer this beginning at post 711 and running through post 821.

the problem is: you don't. but never mind. apart from your series of evasions you've also shown yourself to be one of the world's shittest liars. not been a top few days for you here, unless you consider making yourself look like a fascist-friendly liar a job well done.

 

[phildwyer]

the problem is: you don't.

As everyone can clearly see for themselves, I do:

So that's a completely stupid definition of genocide then.

It means--doesn't it--that if (for example) Pickman's Model intended to destroy part of the Sioux nation by breaking the leg of a passing member, he would be guilty of genocide.

Appealing as the idea may be, I can't regard it as a practical or useful definition of genocide.

And so we see that you are lying.

Furthermore:

not been a top few days for you here

As a matter of fact, this thread has been one of those rare occasions on which all the principle participants actually managed to reach agreement.

All of them, that is, except one.

You.

Fool.

 

[toggle]

ah pickmans, it appears to be your turn to get the dwyer treatment of 'everyone agrees with me other than you'.

which might be slightly more effective if he wasn't so blatantly obvious about it and it wasn't such an overused tactic.

 

[Pickman's model]

As everyone can clearly see for themselves, I do:



And so we se that you are lying.

Furthermore:



As a matter of fact, this thread has been one of those rare occasions on which all the principle participants actually managed to reach agreement.

All of them, that is, except one.

You.

Fool.

twat. i asked: where does this definition fall short? you seem to think that saying where it is too long is saying where it falls short.

 

[phildwyer]

ah pickmans, it appears to be your turn to get the dwyer treatment of 'everyone agrees with me other than you'.

On this thread?

Well that's easily settled innit.

I reckon every single person (except Pickman's) who has posted more than 10 (ten) times on this thread agrees that there have been many genocides, and that the Armenian massacres were one, but also that there has only been one Holocaust.

Anyone (other than Pickman's) with 10 (ten) or more posts on here disagree?

 

[phildwyer]

twat. i asked: where does this definition fall short? you seem to think that saying where it is too long is saying where it falls short.

And now you lapse into gibberish again.

 

[Pickman's model]

On this thread?

Well that's easily settled innit.

I reckon every single person (except Pickman's) who has posted more than 10 (ten) times on this thread agrees that there have been many genocides, and that the Armenian massacres were one, but also that there has only been one Holocaust.

Anyone (other than Pickman's) with 10 (ten) or more posts on here disagree?

i think you'll find there have been many, many holocausts.

 

[Pickman's model]

And now you lapse into gibberish again.

i said: where does it fall short - that is, where is the definition too narrow. you seem to think it too wide.

 

[Pickman's model]

On this thread?

Well that's easily settled innit.

I reckon every single person (except Pickman's) who has posted more than 10 (ten) times on this thread agrees that there have been many genocides, and that the Armenian massacres were one, but also that there has only been one Holocaust.

Anyone (other than Pickman's) with 10 (ten) or more posts on here disagree?

so you were lying when you said that the armenian massacres were not a genocide. good of you to admit it.

 

[phildwyer]

i think you'll find there have been many, many holocausts.

Name two, fool.

 

[Pickman's model]

Name two, fool.

1) under the headline "the late insurrection in spain", the times of 11/5/1846 (p. 7) mentioned 'the sad holocaust of leon, borso, and montes de oca";

2) the genocide of the jews in europe during the second world war.

 

[toggle]

I reckon every single person (except Pickman's) who has posted more than 10 (ten) times on this thread agrees.........

what they are agreeing atm is that it's well worth putting up with the times pickmans nitpicks one of their comments, just so they get to watch this.

 

[phildwyer]

1) under the headline "the late insurrection in spain", the times of 11/5/1846 (p. 7) mentioned 'the sad holocaust of leon, borso, and montes de oca";

2) the genocide of the jews in europe during the second world war.

What an utterly incredible, hapless, ignorant, Googling Fool you truly are.

You are seriously comparing these two, are you?

Alright, this should be good. What is it about your first example that qualifies it as a "holocaust," apart from the fact that the Times used the word in 1846?

 

[Pickman's model]

What an utterly incredible, hapless, ignorant, Googling Fool you truly are.

You are seriously comparing these two, are you?

Alright, this should be good. What is it about your first example that qualifies it as a "holocaust," apart from the fact that the Times used the word in 1846?

fuck me but you're thick as pigshit, in lenin's immortal phrase. for you the word holocaust has but one meaning, the second example i provided. for everyone else, however, it has a second meaning, which was the general usage until the jewish genocide - a sacrificial offering.

 

[Pickman's model]

that's shut you up you cunt.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Possibly worried that some may be subversives? Interesting that on the other side of the pond McCarthyism took root.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

Yes, they were worried about spies; but also that soldiers who had been in contact with western values - even in a prison camp - were 'infected'.

McCarthy's witch-hunts were terrible things; but not quite the same as taking returning soldiers, ex-POWs but citizens, into a field and machinegunning them.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, they were worried about spies; but also that soldiers who had been in contact with western values - even in a prison camp - were 'infected'.

McCarthy's witch-hunts were terrible things; but not quite the same as taking returning soldiers, ex-POWs but citizens, into a field and machinegunning them.

there are lots of terrible things which are not quite the same as taking returning soldiers, ex-pows but citizens, into a field and machinegunning them.

 

[gosub]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/...sed-of-social-engineering-over-WW1-plans.html


The latest row follows a briefing to Australian journalists by Whitehall officials that no events were being planned to mark their country’s contribution and that internal discussions on the plans do not mention Australia or New Zealand. The briefing disclosed, instead, that officials were concentrating on promoting the role played by so-called New Commonwealth countries, those which achieved independence since 1945.

 

[seventh bullet]

Just took a look on Amazon, seems fascinating.

I did know that the Japanese occupation influenced Kim, but I'd thought it was a case of him defining his regime against theirs, rather than imitating them. But I suppose its a fine line etc.

I see no reason to call him either far-right or far-left.

When he talks of Japanese influence it's to do with people living for years under colonial rule. When the new authorities in the north were faced with personnel shortages those people were used to help run that part of the country.

Kim Il-Sung was favoured by the Soviet authorities but belonged to an external faction of guerillas who had spent years fighting the Japanese in Manchuria, a faction of the Communists that was the least sophisticated in terms of understanding Marxism-Leninism compared to others. Those being Communists who had remained in Korea throughout the war and were concentrated near the southern capital, Koreans who joined the Chinese at Yan'an, and later politically-reliable Soviet Koreans who were sent to provide assistance.

 

[Bakunin]

what they are agreeing atm is that it's well worth putting up with the times pickmans nitpicks one of their comments, just so they get to watch this.

It's worth it because Dwyer is the internet equivalent of syphilis. Just when you think he's finally been banished he returns, more unpleasant and unwelcome than ever.

 

[phildwyer]

It's worth it because Dwyer is the internet equivalent of syphilis. Just when you think he's finally been banished he returns, more unpleasant and unwelcome than ever.

And infecting the brain, not just the sexual organs.