The Student Room Group

Hillary Clinton refuses to acknowledge Armenian genocide as a genocide

Scroll to see replies

Original post by cbreef
Who isn't? There is sooo much to choose from.

I ask because the user in question has deflected all criticism of Hillary but repeatedly stating that however bad Hillary is, that is inconsequential because Trump is worse. I was, therefore, curious if she was capable of criticising Hillary without mentioning Trump - to gauge the extent of her pro-Hillary bias.
You know, Hilary is a woman and don't you think its time we saw a woman president?

Ya'll are just misogynist pigs who cant stand a woman being elected. I'm sure you're all racist, wife beating terrorists as well.

Did you know, Hilary is a woman? And isn't it about time we saw a woman president?
Perhaps she is trying not to stir up any negative relations with Turkey due to the current offensive they're mounting in Syria, for example if she (as most likely the next President) offended the Turks too much then they may react by attacking the Kurds full-on, which would undermine America's fight against IS. I disagree with her on this issue, but perhaps she's thinking of the bigger picture, who knows.
Original post by KingBradly
Pointing out that Hillary denies a genocide and has aided mass bombings of civilians is "nitpicking"? It's because increasingly clear that you are devoid of morality.


And ignoring the fact that Donald Trump has openly called for murdering innocent people, while focusing on something far less severe from Hillary, is annoying and biased.
Original post by lawyer3c
Just out of curiosity, are you capable of criticising Hillary without mentioning Donald?


yes, I originally supported Bernie Sanders, so I could rant for a while about how annoying Hillary is
Reply 45
Original post by alevelstresss
And ignoring the fact that Donald Trump has openly called for murdering innocent people, while focusing on something far less severe from Hillary, is annoying and biased.


I'm not ignoring that, it's just not the subject of this thread.
Original post by KingBradly
I feel like this is largely to do with the pay outs she gets from Saudi Arabia, who wouldn't want Islam's name to be tarnished with the slaughter of millions of Christians.


Saudi Arabia and Turkey don't have the best relationship with each other. Saudi Arabia stole Mecca from the Ottoman Empire after all and brought an end to 500 years of Turkish cultural dominance over the Islamic world, and Turkish secularism is the antithesis of Saudi Wahhabism (albeit Turkish secularism has been going out of fashion a little in Turkey). Also there is a fair amount of pro-Kurdish sentiment among many Gulf Arabs.
Original post by scrotgrot
You mean the NATO buffer state that borders both Europe and the Middle East?


Buffer between what and what? The biggest security threat to NATO, after Russia, is Turkey itself.
Original post by Copperknickers
Buffer between what and what? The biggest security threat to NATO, after Russia, is Turkey itself.


Lol, Turkey a threat? To what? They can't even properly oppress the Kurds.

Where are you putting China in all of this exactly? Or are they less threatening than Turkey in your opinion?
Original post by KingBradly
I feel like this is largely to do with the pay outs she gets from Saudi Arabia, who wouldn't want Islam's name to be tarnished with the slaughter of millions of Christians.


No, it's to do with the fact that Obama's administration, which she was part of when she made those statements, needed Turkey to serve as a US base for action against ISIL.

When she was a Senator, she supported calling it a 'genocide' - then when she was in government, she was more guarded.
http://europe.newsweek.com/hillarys-shifting-stance-armenian-genocide-324799?rm=eu
Reply 50
Original post by Copperknickers
Saudi Arabia and Turkey don't have the best relationship with each other. Saudi Arabia stole Mecca from the Ottoman Empire after all and brought an end to 500 years of Turkish cultural dominance over the Islamic world, and Turkish secularism is the antithesis of Saudi Wahhabism (albeit Turkish secularism has been going out of fashion a little in Turkey). Also there is a fair amount of pro-Kurdish sentiment among many Gulf Arabs.


That's a valid point, but we are talking about Muslims killing Christians here, which is an issue that transcends diplomatic relations between countries. I'm sure that Saudis are aware that it could shed a bad light on Islam as a whole.
Original post by alevelstresss
yes, I originally supported Bernie Sanders, so I could rant for a while about how annoying Hillary is

What would you say are Hillary's greatest flaws, out of interest?

PS. Try to answer without mentioning the words "Donald" or "Trump".
Original post by Fullofsurprises
No, it's to do with the fact that Obama's administration, which she was part of when she made those statements, needed Turkey to serve as a US base for action against ISIL.

When she was a Senator, she supported calling it a 'genocide' - then when she was in government, she was more guarded.
http://europe.newsweek.com/hillarys-shifting-stance-armenian-genocide-324799?rm=eu

Hillary's change in stance clearly indicates that she is prepared for the challenges (however "immoral" or whatever as some of them may seem to the ordinary person) of the Presidency.
Original post by lawyer3c
What would you say are Hillary's greatest flaws, out of interest?

PS. Try to answer without mentioning the words "Donald" or "Trump".


probably her establishment-esque image, her support of the Iraq war, and her untrustworthiness or out-of-touchness
Original post by Marked Target
Lol, Turkey a threat? To what? They can't even properly oppress the Kurds.

Where are you putting China in all of this exactly? Or are they less threatening than Turkey in your opinion?


When I said a threat to NATO, I meant the European part of NATO. China is only a threat to American interests in the Pacific. Turkey is Europe's main security threat after Russia, since they are facilitating both the refugee crises and also ISIS, and are showing increasing friendliness with Russia. Indeed Russia isn't even really a threat to Europe West of Germany, it's not like they're going to nuke us or try and do a reverse Napoleonic conquest. All they have is their energy industry, which is more than counterracted by their economic problems and the leverage this gives NATO sanctions.
Original post by KingBradly
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4-2NubbOM4[/video]


Give it another few weeks, she'll reverse her opinion. She always does, on homosexual marriage, TPP, NAFTA, wars..... Iranian nuclear deal....
Original post by alevelstresss
And ignoring the fact that Donald Trump has openly called for murdering innocent people, while focusing on something far less severe from Hillary, is annoying and biased.


When has Trump done this ? People are quick to blame Trump for merely saying something which a lot of the time he doesn't even mean. Yet everyone loves Hillary. The women who called for the Iraq war and bombing of Libya. Look at Libya and Iraq now. She even made a sick joke about Gaddhafis death. Gaddhafi was respected by millions of people around Africa and developing countries and she unprofessionally does that....

The fact is that trump has said stupid things, while Hillary has done stupid things. She reverses her views every few weeks also making an indecisive alzheimers-like president with suspicious funding. She claims to run for womens rights, whilst taking money from arabic monarchies. She is the very meaning of hypocrisy and crowd pleasing.
Original post by mcneill98
When has Trump done this ? People are quick to blame Trump for merely saying something which a lot of the time he doesn't even mean. Yet everyone loves Hillary. The women who called for the Iraq war and bombing of Libya. Look at Libya and Iraq now. She even made a sick joke about Gaddhafis death. Gaddhafi was respected by millions of people around Africa and developing countries and she unprofessionally does that....

The fact is that trump has said stupid things, while Hillary has done stupid things. She reverses her views every few weeks also making an indecisive alzheimers-like president with suspicious funding. She claims to run for womens rights, whilst taking money from arabic monarchies. She is the very meaning of hypocrisy and crowd pleasing.


He openly called for killing family members of terrorists, proof is on page 1.

I, and many others don't 'love' Hillary - but she's a fine alternative compared to Donald Trump.
Original post by KingBradly
[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4-2NubbOM4[/video]


It's not that she's refusing to acknowledge it per se, but I think she's indicating it shouldn't be a political issue and is also thinking of American interests; that at the moment it is not a good idea to antagonise Turkey.

It would have been very easy for her simply to agree with the questioner, but I think she's already considering the national interest and what she will have to deal with when she is president.
Original post by mcneill98
When has Trump done this ? People are quick to blame Trump for merely saying something which a lot of the time he doesn't even mean.

Trump attacked a judge simply because he was of Mexican-American descent. He said that the families of terrorists should be tortured. He has repeatedly expressed admiration for Putin and Kim Jong-Il (and Trump is clearly very favourable to Russian interests). He's said many extreme and bigoted things. And he has paid the electoral price; Americans don't like it.

Yet everyone loves Hillary. The women who called for the Iraq war and bombing of Libya.


I don't think they "love" her; they see her as a competent candidate who will be far better than Trump.

And how did she "call" for the Iraq War? This is where conspiracy theorist/Trumpite ignorance gets quite irritating. She wasn't in power when the Iraq War happened, the Republicans were. She was in the senate, and she properly voted to give President Bush authority to use military force (and the senate was told that this would primarily be used as diplomatic leverage).

In any case, I don't see what's wrong with getting rid of a genocidal dictator. Iraq has its problems, but once ISIS has been dispatched Iraq will still be a democracy and on the road to rehabilitating as a nation. I simply don't see how it would be better if Qusay Hussein was now President of Iraq. And there's every possibility Iraq would have fallen apart anyway. Like Syria, it was a despotism run by a small sectarian/confessional clique minority. And like Syria, there was an appreciable likelihood that it could have fallen apart into civil war. The US didn't intervene in Syria, the country still fell apart and has had a civil war that makes Iraq's problems look tame by comparison.

Quick Reply