Both do not express what they have done, they only express what others have done to them, and they do so for profit.
What you wrote makes not much sense. My point was that they have no reason - for the very point you made - to go to war with one another and the scenario is wildly implausible. Therefore, to make a reasoned argument one way or the other is to indulge in - at most - hypotheticals.The one thing that the two countries do have in common is that their peoples were victims of the 20th century's two greatest genocides. The Ottoman Turks against the Armenians in World War I (and actually before as well) and the Germans against the Jews before and during WWII. This then giving additional force to the case for their respective peoples to have sovereign states to call homelands. That said, the question, as I say, beyond that, is rather silly.
Even if they were subjected to genocide, they carried out massacres to others and still continue to do so, they are a little hypocritical.
Hardly. They have been at war with hostile states and populations. That is not exactly unknown in human affairs. It is not quiet the same thing as taking out whole populations - civilians included - and shoving them into ovens.By your rather elastic definition of genocide, the Turks and the Russians have been committing genocide against one another for centuries. It is really an absurd argument.
Massacres are not a genocide, but they still did not take lesson from this events, they not strive for peace.
Sir, the same might be said in both directions. The problem, of course, is that "genocide" is defined in international law and the Armenians and the Jews were both subject to genocide under the definition. Turkey's protestations of innocence in the case of the Armenians notwithstanding.In any case, it is a morally problematic argument, at best, that says "it was not a genocide, it was a massacre." That scarcely gives comfort.
Injuns and Circassians also experienced genocide, but the world did not support these two nations in this regard, because these two nations are a bit weak.
Actually, "Injuns" - I presume you mean Native Americans - have extraterritorial and other legal rights in the United States. Circassians are few and far between.The bottom line is that it is hardly moral to argue that because justice has not ALWAYS been done that it ought NEVER be done. Perhaps the Circassians deserved a state and did not get one. The fact that they did not it does not therefore follow that the Armenians ought not have gotten a state.
That's not a reason, that's just another way of saying they're at war. I'm asking you what the power struggle is about. What happened that made one attack the other or both attack each other? What are the reasons? If you're gonna ask a question you also gotta be able to explain it.
Scroll Down to Read Other Opinions
Because of the distance between the nations and the nations inbetween. Armenia, for example, barely has an air force. And that’s exactly what’s needed to attack over those distances
I don't support Jesus Christ rejecting countries at all.
Be the first girl to share an opinion and earn 1 more Xper point!