Israel is deeply humiliated by Erdogan at Davos

[deerouz]

Originally Posted by shahinc

Very interesting question Rahim Jan.
In my opnion we should look at time line and the norm of that era for such a events. For example, I think it was quite normal at the time ( of Nader Shah) to attack another country and take over their government.
I am also fairly certian that on those attacks and wars, many crimes against civilians did occur but it was part of their life at that time.

Nevertheless this is a good question and smart observation. When do we draw the line for such a teremendous human tragedies ? Can we look back even further to time of Alexander the great or the Roman Empires ?

Good point. I think in general there is no formal rule for it except that in modern times, people and states are hold to a higher moral standards. The cases about Nader Shah and Agha Mohammad Khan are indeed morally unacceptable, but today people more focus on 1) more recent cases 2) cases where involves massacre or forced relocation of large groups of people. Cases such as Holocaust, Armenian genocide, Bosnia, Rwanda, and of course, Palestinians.

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by deerouz

So far your response to the arguments made by IZ and eveyone else has been just repeating the same thng: "It doesnt matter". Could you explain why this fact -that the Turkish Republic approves and follows th same position on Armenian massacre as the Ottomans- does not matter?

Dear deerouz, is the question being debated as follows; the Turks do not have moral ground to criticize another country until they admit their fathers or their ancestors misdeed?
And if the answer is yes, are older crimes subject to some kind of statute of limitation? And if the answer to second question is yes, why ; and when should people stop bringing such crimes up?

[deerouz]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

Dear deerouz, is the question being debated as follows; the Turks do not have moral ground to criticize another country until they admit their fathers or their ancestors misdeed?

No dear Iranpak. I think every one has the moral ground to criticize others. The debate was about whether Erdogan's outburst was an act of courage and moral standing, or simply a shrewd opportnist call. or at least it started when people applauded his personality for his stance, and othrs pointed out that he was not as consistent.

Although I generally agree with Westi's point that he would have lost his poltical future if he had touched the Armenian issue at this point, but I think sooner or later someone at his rank must acknowledge the facts about the Armenian genocide. I think another reason they have not done so is the fear that they will be forced to pay a huge compensation to the descendants of the genocide.

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by deerouz

No dear Iranpak. I think every one has the moral ground to criticize others. The debate was about whether Erdogan's outburst was an act of courage and moral standing, or simply a shrewd opportnist call. or at least it started when people applauded his personality for his stance, and othrs pointed out that he was not as consistent.

I am sorry, so far I was under the impression that this debate is about who has moral authority to criticize others.
With regard to Erdogan, I tend to differ with you. As you know, Turkey was (and perhaps still is) the closest friend Isreal has in that part of the world. I find it very unlikely that in the heat of the debate on the stage, Erdogan did decide to a do political calculation and leave for domestic political reasons.
I do believe that had the moderator given him time to respond, he would have stayed. The world would not have come to an end if the dinner that the moderator was so cencern about would have been served a few minutes late. Bear in mind that Perse called Erdogan shortly after and apologize.

[deerouz]

Sure, it is a possibility. But Erdogan is indeed a shrewd and calculating politician. We may not know exactly what his motives were. I agree with rahim that it paid hugely for him domestically .

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by deerouz

Sure, it is a possibility. But Erdogan is indeed a shrewd and calculating politician. We may not know exactly what his motives were. I agree with rahim that it paid hugely for him domestically .

deerouz aziz, anybody who becomes a Prime Minister must be a shrewd and calculating politician to begin with, that is given. But I do not cast each and every move they make, in pure political expediency.

[Iranpaak]

deerouz JAn, forgive me for being a bit slow this morning; if everyone has the right to criticize others, and the question being debated here is not about moral authority, then why the Armenian issue is being discussed here?

[deerouz]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

deerouz aziz, anybody who becomes a Prime Minister must be a shrewd and calculating politician to begin with, that is given. But I do not cast each and every move they make, in pure political expediency.

It could be true, dear Iranpak. I think the past 30 years made a cynic out of most of us

(I first wanted to say Rafsanjani's time but then I realised with all his sleaziness, the guy is probably more honest than all the other IRI politicans!)

[deerouz]

Originally Posted by Iranpaak

deerouz JAn, forgive me for being a bit slow this morning; if everyone has the right to criticize others, and the question being debated here is not about moral authority, then why the Armenian issue is being discussed here?

You know how the threads get derailed Here is the sequence:

1) Someone posted the news about Erdogan at Davos
2) A few others gave him a big thumbs up and said he is courageous with a clear moral standing
3) Others pointed out that if he was so courageous he woudl have said something about Armenian genocide too
4) Then the first group responded that he has still done more than other turkish politicians to heal that problem and that he could not publicly say anything about it.
5) All of a sudden someone jumped in saying that Turkish republic was not responsible for Armenian genocide
6) other responded
7) personal insults started
8) and then the debate got to the point we are on now!

As you see, quite a typical thread!

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by deerouz

You know how the threads get derailed Here is the sequence:

1) Someone posted the news about Erdogan at Davos
2) A few others gave him a big thumbs up and said he is courageous with a clear moral standing
3) Others pointed out that if he was so courageous he woudl have said something about Armenian genocide too
4) Then the first group responded that he has still done more than other turkish politicians to heal that problem and that he could not publicly say anything about it.
5) All of a sudden someone jumped in saying that Turkish republic was not responsible for Armenian genocide
6) other responded
7) personal insults started
8) and then the debate got to the point we are on now!

As you see, quite a typical thread!

I hope a day comes that we will not have at least have item No.7 in our discussions . In the days following the revolution, I used to go to Tehran University to witness the debate among various groups. In 9 out of 10 debates, it would end in a fight, later they would bring massive amount of stone which resulted banning such debates althougher. After 30 years, I am witnessing the same method of argument albeit via the internet .

[Behrooz_C]

I remember someone arguing that individual British citizens do not have the moral right to criticise other people for whatever they do because of the action of the British in India two centuries ago!!!!!!!!!

But as deerouz points out quite rightly, this discussion is not about morality.
Personally I believe that everybody has the right (and indeed responsibility/obligation) to criticise perceived wrongs of others, regardless of what the government of that person's country did some decades ago before he/she was even born.

[shahinc]

Originally Posted by Behrooz_C

If the Turkish Republic is distinct from the Ottoman empire, then why does it keep denying the Armenian genocide so vehemently and get offended when someone brings it up? Why do they get so defensive about it?

The Ottoman and the Turkish Republic maybe different systems today, but only in name. When the Turkish Republic was established the previous inhabitants were not flushed out or eroded. I can't believe people are trying to distinguish between the two as though they are so entirely different! They aren't. The Turkish Republic is as much responsible as people of a country called 'Ottomanestan', if it were to exist in its place today.

p.s. The Turkish people and government of today are very proud of their history which, by the way, includes their Ottoman past. People who think the Ottomans and Turks should be thought of as distict entities should think to themsleves why this is the case

Nicely Said Behrooz Jan

[IranZamin]

Originally Posted by Behrooz_C

I remember someone arguing that individual British citizens do not have the moral right to criticise other people for whatever they do because of the action of the British in India two centuries ago!!!!!!!!!

It's called Double Standards, Behrouz jan. Without them, life would be quite boring.

[Iranpaak]

Originally Posted by IranZamin

It's called Double Standards, Behrouz jan. Without them, life would be quite boring.

Really, let see what you said not long ago, and what you say today:

By this deranged logic, virtually every one from every country in the world should shut their mouths because their ancestors have done wrong at some point in history.

Post No. 118 here http://forums.iransportspress.com/sh...ocities&page=8

Quote:
Originally Posted by andishe
When he comes out and admits Turkey's genocide against the Armenian then he can talk about other countries atrocities.

Thank you. I'm glad someone else also realizes this.

Your post No. 16 in this thread

I wonder how those shoe throwers feel about the genocide of 1.5 million Armenians. In fact, I want to know if they're willing to admit it even happened! And while they're at it, I would love to hear their opinions on the oppression of Kurds....oh I'm sorry..."Mountain Turks" in their country.:rolleyes

: Post No 5 here http://forums.iransportspress.com/sh...ad.php?t=54585

Now I challange you to find "double standard" in my posts!

[PashaBahman]

Originally Posted by Behrooz_C

So by this logic Iranians today should not be proud of our royal dynasties and kings (Cyrus the Great, Darius etc) because whatever they did was under the Persian empire while today the country is called Iran!!!!!! Islamic Republic of Iran at that! It has nothing to do with the current population... and the government has changed!!!!!

oranges and orangutans.....

A correct example using your dating would be, should the Iraqi's be held respnsible for Nebuchadnezzar's treatment of the Jews? Obivously not.

You should be aware that pride and accountability are two different things.