Comments on: Calling a genocide a genocide http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide Thoughts, Musings, Reflections, and Ramblings of a campus minister, father, husband, and a Jesus-follower Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:11:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Eddy E http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide#comment-8601 Eddy E Tue, 16 Oct 2007 23:04:27 +0000 http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide/#comment-8601 Miles, thanks for stopping by and for your excellent response. You articulate well what I think I felt on an intuitive level with Fergusson's column. To acknowledge an evil, but to find it politically expedient to not mention it seems to fit well with what you describe existing in a "twisted moral universe." Miles, thanks for stopping by and for your excellent response. You articulate well what I think I felt on an intuitive level with Fergusson’s column. To acknowledge an evil, but to find it politically expedient to not mention it seems to fit well with what you describe existing in a “twisted moral universe.”

]]> By: Miles http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide#comment-8599 Miles Tue, 16 Oct 2007 14:18:23 +0000 http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide/#comment-8599 I think Fergusson has got this issue precisely backwards. It is failure to acknowledge historical truth that leads to genocide, and it is the willingness to allow regimes to deny it that encourages the idea that genocide can work, and that there can be genocide without consequences. I responded at length to Niall Fergusson on my blog: http://www.documentedlife.com/log/?p=320 I think Fergusson has got this issue precisely backwards. It is failure to acknowledge historical truth that leads to genocide, and it is the willingness to allow regimes to deny it that encourages the idea that genocide can work, and that there can be genocide without consequences. I responded at length to Niall Fergusson on my blog: http://www.documentedlife.com/log/?p=320

]]> By: Eddy E http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide#comment-8596 Eddy E Tue, 16 Oct 2007 05:23:44 +0000 http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide/#comment-8596 It is appropriate to ask--my two cents is that the Democrats are trying to force some sort of rift in Bush's war in Iraq. But the other answer to your question is this: the Armenian lobby has tried and tried for many years to get this passed. So it wasn't random and a eureka moment. Such a resolution has actually passed the committee years ago, but did not win the votes in the house. It is appropriate to ask–my two cents is that the Democrats are trying to force some sort of rift in Bush’s war in Iraq.

But the other answer to your question is this: the Armenian lobby has tried and tried for many years to get this passed. So it wasn’t random and a eureka moment. Such a resolution has actually passed the committee years ago, but did not win the votes in the house.

]]> By: Scott http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide#comment-8595 Scott Tue, 16 Oct 2007 04:32:46 +0000 http://www.servingbread.net/2007/10/15/calling-a-genocide-a-genocide/#comment-8595 I must preface my response by saying I'm in agreement that the genocide of Armenians in Turkey is the right designation. And it is very appropriate that our government make these kinds of statements - non-binding, binding or otherwise. What I wonder about is not why the non-binding resolution, but rather, why now? I'm not sure all about the history of this issue, but why hasn't a resolution or statement or declaration or anything been made in the previous 92 years? It seems that as much as I agree with the statement, I question the absolute virtue of those that passed it, since it seems like there is an indictment of 92 years on this one, which calls into question the political motivations for passing it just as much as those opposing it need to be called into question. Is that appropriate to ask? I must preface my response by saying I’m in agreement that the genocide of Armenians in Turkey is the right designation. And it is very appropriate that our government make these kinds of statements - non-binding, binding or otherwise.

What I wonder about is not why the non-binding resolution, but rather, why now? I’m not sure all about the history of this issue, but why hasn’t a resolution or statement or declaration or anything been made in the previous 92 years? It seems that as much as I agree with the statement, I question the absolute virtue of those that passed it, since it seems like there is an indictment of 92 years on this one, which calls into question the political motivations for passing it just as much as those opposing it need to be called into question.

Is that appropriate to ask?

]]>