QUOTE (MSHAK @ Jan 21 2005, 01:20 AM)
Domino as you know the term genocide was coined by Raphael Lemkin and he was one of those who wrote the convention. Therefore, we have to accept genocide as it is described by international laws.
Domino, do you imagine how big is 30, 000?
30, 000 people where sluaghtered and burnt in a few days and you say that "there are no clear evidences it has been planned by any authorities"?
I dont think it is that easy to kill 30,000 people. Do you think of a way to slaughter 30,000 without planning?
If even Adana's holocoust was not the part of the Genocide, the song "Adana Lamentation" is accepted as Genocide song.
There are ample of evidences linking the government with the massacres in 1915... the about 20 major concentration camps in the desert, the way relief organisations access was blocked, the way orphans were treated, the way the members of the special organisation were formed... there are evidences in German, Turkish sources etc.
In the cases of Adana, there is no clear evidences linking the government with what happened, and I would not find it logic that just soon after the Young-Turk took power, and supported Armenian organisations at that time, they will decide right away, to murdet people like this. It defy common sense.
And, yes! it was quite possible that such a massacre happened without the governments implication, given that Abdhul Hamids supporters were not lacking at all, and that they had a very good influence, even in the general population.
A cases of an implication should be supported, like any claims, this is what gives weight to arguments, we should not leave the denialist side arguments to counterattack, so every points that is brought should be supported.
I am ready to chance my mind, if evidences are brought, linking the government with what happened in Adana.
About genocide, the modern conception was not as Lemkin intended it, I wrote an essay that is somewhere in the genocide section, run a search on Lemkin, and you may end up there. Lemkin had more in mind the restrictive term, because from the UN convention, any massacres could be interpreted as a genocide...,
By calling what happened in Adana in genocide, we are trying to compare it with what happened in 1915, and obviously, it can't. Adana has been called Holocaust for very long time, even before the Armenian genocide, it has its name, and it is the Adana Holocaust, I think only the term Holocaust is enought strong to show the intensity of the horrors.