Some argue that he used the equivalent Armenian term. Perhaps, but that will not anger Turkey. Others will argue that he was fierce, telling us that his views on this matter (he has in the past called it a genocide) are unchanged. Again, that will not offend Turkey.
What Obama has done is to try to be as diplomatic as possible to all sides. He has attempted to please Armenians and those of us others who recognize this horrible genocide for what it was, while at the same time carefully avoiding offending his Turkish allies. In short Barack Obama proved today he's a calculating politician who will avoid conscience and choice to appear as likable and good as possible.
When we take this failure to call the events of 1915 a genocide, and his refusal to prosecute those Americans who tortured, we find that Obama is simply an opportunistic politician who will compromise on all sides.
It is true that president Barack Obama did not use the word Genocide when referring to the mass killings of the Armenian population in Eastern Anatolia (today's Turkey), however, he used the Armenian very respected equivalent of Genocide "The Meds Yeghern" two times in his speech. Armenians use the phrase The Meds Yeghern when referring to the Genocide....
In other words Obama did a great political move: he satisfied both Armenians and Turkey. Today the newspapers are writing "Obama refrained from using the G word," but tomorrow all of them will write, Obama used the G. word, but the Armenian equivalent and two times in his speech. In my opinion "The Meds Eghern" is a stronger way of labeling the mass atrocities It's also a respected way of labeling the deaths.
I am not yet sure what to think about this. Is my initial response for Huliq News correct? is Armen's article right? Or something in between? Any thoughts?
For the facts about the Armenian Genocide look here.