Sasun

Tough-Talking Aliev Threatens Renewed War With Armenia www.armenialiberty.org By Emil Danielyan Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliev on Wednesday blamed Armenia for the collapse of last month’s crucial peace talks on Nagorno-Karabakh and urged his countrymen to be prepared for winning back the Armenian-controlled territory by force. The remarks followed Aliev’s effective rejection of an international peace plan that would reportedly enable Karabakh’s predominantly ethnic Armenian population to formalize its de facto secession from Azerbaijan. "The Armenian side is stalling for time and the fact that the negotiating process has reached a dead end is the fault of the Armenian side," AFP news agency quoted Aliev as saying during a visit to areas in western Azerbaijan close to Karabakh. "Azerbaijan must review its position," he said, adding that his nation’s "military expenditures have grown" to be ready for "any eventuality". "We are the victimized party and this gives us the right to resolve the issue by any means. We must get ready and the population must be mobilized," Aliev said. The comments are certain to reinforce renewed pessimism about prospects for Karabakh peace that has set in since the dramatic failure of the February 10-11 talks near Paris between Aliev and his Armenian counterpart Robert Kocharian. International mediators hoped that the two leaders will cut a framework deal that reportedly calls for the holding of a referendum on Karabakh’s status in 10-15 years from the start of Armenian withdrawal from Azerbaijani territories surrounding the disputed enclave. Their unusually upbeat statements made in recent months suggest that the conflicting parties had agreed on this peace formula in principle. Some Armenian pro-government politicians say the Paris summit ended in failure because of Aliev’s last-minute rejection of the referendum option. The Azerbaijani leader lent credence to this theory last week when he told Turkish NTV television that a referendum in Karabakh is unacceptable as it would run counter to Azerbaijan’s constitution. “We will never agree to Karabakh’s secession from Azerbaijan,” he said. Aliev implied that he is unhappy with the mediators’ most recent peace proposals and believes Baku will get a better deal in the future. “We should think whether to hastily agree to some agreement not beneficial for us or to achieve better results after waiting for a while,” he said. “I prefer the latter.” Aliev also repeated his intention to use Azerbaijan’s soaring oil revenues for a massive military build-up which he said will eventually force the Armenians to give up Karabakh. "We are becoming the leading state in the region and Armenia can not compete with us," he claimed on Wednesday. Azerbaijan is to almost double its military budget to $600 million this year and plans further hikes in the coming years. The Armenian military, by comparison, will get only $165 million in 2006. Armenian leaders have repeatedly played down the widening gap between Baku’s and Yerevan’s defense expenditures, insisting that it will not translate into Azerbaijani military superiority anytime soon. Meanwhile, the French, Russian and U.S. mediators acting under the aegis of the OSCE Minsk Group are scheduled to meet in Washington on Monday to discuss ways of salvaging the peace process. According to media reports, the meeting may well be followed by fresh talks between the foreign ministers and even the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Speaking to RFE/RL on February 21, the Minsk Group’s U.S. co-chair, Steven Mann, said he still believes that "2006 is the year for [achieving] a solution." Mann warned that failure to resolve the Karabakh conflict this year would be a “true tragedy.” For his part, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said on February 14 that Yerevan still hopes that a breakthrough can be achieved this year. However, regional and Western analysts are now far more pessimistic. “The fact that time and the oil boom are likely to shift the military balance in Azerbaijan’s favor perhaps helps to explain Mr. Aliev’s refusal to cut a deal,” the London-based Economist Intelligence Unit said in a detailed analysis released last week. “It is quite possible that he calculates that in five years time he will be in a position to drive a much harder bargain with Armenia.” “The window of opportunity for 2006 appears to be closed; it is not clear how many more there will be,” the EIU concluded grimly.

Maybe not.

Yervant, she is neither dumb nor immature, she is simply an Azeri.

Aaron, that's a nice piece of propaganda. However, we know you Azeris too well. Our history has been destroyed throughout the decades all the way leading to the Karabakh movement. Your people who you claim are educated and nice are nothing like that. All governments that you have had have gradually destroyed the tombstones in Jugha, buried or destroyed churches in lower Karabahk, there has been a consistent policy during Soviet times to steal or destroy our history. All this happened with the silent support of your Azeri people and your chauvinistic intelligentsia. They never denounced the massacres of Sumgait, they never denounced Safarov, they never denounced fabrication of history. In fact, they have always supported anti-Armenian acts of the governments. Anti-Armenian hysteria is a major way to unite your people, it plainly shows that everyone hates Armenians. So, nice attempt, but no, I don't buy it. Such words are not worth a penny...

I know the British have robbed most of the world, but I didn't know they have robbed Cilician treasury? When did that happen?

I guess I love you and Vava too plus Moso

A normal country does not declare a cowardly killer a man of the year. It just shows what values your nation Azerbaijan holds. You have made a hero out of a coward. That is a shame and if I were you I would denounce my nationality rather than justifying. Don't you understand that until your nation drops its hate and warmongering there cannot be a normal conversation, because if we sleep in the same hotel I have to worry about my life thinking that there is a nutcase national "hero" with an axe who wants to chop my head off. By declaring such muderers national hero your nation only confirms that you are the nation who is always ready to resort butchering such as in Sumgait, Baku and Kirovabad. Your nation is simply uncivilized nomads in the core, sitting on oil and stealing and destroying our history. Destroying tombstones is again something that a cowardly nation will do, because breaking stones is not really an accoplishment but confirms ones brutality. Come to think of it, your nation does all these things and you have the nerve to come here and try to have a normal conversation?

Oh by the way, I forgot to mention... I am not for suppressing, that's actually unhealthy. The right thing to do is not to focus on sexual thoughts, there are a lot more useful things to keep ones mind engaged with rather than futile self-deceit with sexual thoughts. One should be realistic and moderate with sex. The key is not to suppress sexual desire but keep the mind free from sexual desires, in other words control your thoughts so the sexual forces will not bug you and make you a slave of desire.

Why not?

I absolutely agree with this, and that is exactly what I am trying to do I simply fail to see how somebody's assertion that they know it all is intolerant. Who exactly is being not tolerated by such a statement? Actually, I don't recall anyone saying such a statement. But as far as our situation is concerned some people have said God exists. In what way is this intolerant? Every opinion, philosophy and religious view should be tolerated, not necessarily agreed to. Tolerated in the sense that the person who holds views should not be insulted (not to mention burned or stoned). You can say that he/she is wrong, but you cannot say that he/she is stupid or worthless, or should leave the forum...

That sounds like a fair statement, but can you point out somebody in the recent past who has insulted somebody or been intolerant othwerwise? So somebody makes a statment that you don't agree for whatever reason, and you ridicule them. Well, I am sorry, but it IS intolerance. Tolerance means civilized disagreement, insulting someone because of their views is not civilized. Why do people have to abide by your personal principles? Why is anyone accountable to you concerning their beliefs? Suppose I claim I know everything (not that I do). Does it hurt you in anyway that you have to insult me? Why can't I just be tolerated? Is there a censorship in place?

Actually I don't mean to label you anyway, it just stroke me that you called praying people arrogant... anyway, as far as I am concerned, I don't really defend Christianity as most people know it. I absolutely disagree with some theological ideas of the various churches, such as eternal hell, one life only where some people are born sick and some die after a few days, and all the horrible inequalities. However, I would hate to ridicule somebodies beliefs no matter how adamant I may be in disagreeing with their views. For that reason most Christians do not get offended of my views. For example, Seb seems to be a fantastic young fellow. I have a lot of respect for him, but I am sure we hold some diametrically opposite views. For example, he thinks Christianity is the only true religion while I don't think so. But neither one of us is offended of such disagreements. The trouble that I see in HyeForum is not all beliefs are tolerated. Why the hell can't I be sure in something 100% and at the same time be tolerated.

Let me make it clear... Arpa is talking about fantasing in the air. I don't see anything creative there really. If you are talking about sexual indulgance it is not creative really. What exactly can one create? There is no lasting relationship between man and woman who indulge in sex, sooner or later they start hating each other, though movies and romances will tell you otherwise. This is based on my real life understanding.

But I would say you are number one in HyeForum with putting forward the strangest ideas. I didn't know that sex is what makes us humans

I haven't known too many humble people who say they are humble But whoever said that Christian God is sadistic and all that ??? I don't understand, are you arguing with Seb? Ludwig? Djrak? Anahid? Who? I don't see anyone saying that. I really don't see that. I would not exactly call you the most humble person in HyeForum

I am an advocate of a balanced life in which spirituality and healthy lifestyle are a large part. Sexual fantasies are not part of that, no matter at what age. Sex is for procreation, not sexual fantasies. Fantasy is not necessary and is unhealty, it only makes matters worse by creating frustration, especially in teenagers. I want to see one person who can honestly tell me that he/she felt happy in fooling himself/herself with sexual fantasies. There is no such a thing as happiness in sex, it can never happen because you always want a lot more than what you can possibly get. Essentially, you can never be satisfied with sex. This is a simple philosophy yet most people fail to understand until life gives them a couple of slaps. For that reason it is wrong to give someone a bad advice that has to do with sex life.

I strongly believe that you are right. As a teenager I was not like you, I was like most teenagers ignoring God and going after all kinds of garbage including sexual pleasure. Please keep on your noble journey, those who boast of sexual life (even when they don't really have one) have nothing really to be proud of. Because no matter how good they are they can't be better than rabbits Don't make a mistake and follow their advise.

I don't get it. So you can be sarcastic about God who, from your point of view, could possibly exist though you don't know. You make various types of strong statements about believers, and after all this you don't think that you are arrogant. But some people humbly pray to God on their knees to talk to them and they are arrogant? Nope, I can't accept that.

I think there are many lives to come after we die. Yet I am afraid to die without fulfilling the purpose of this life.

Excuse me, but weren't you complaining just a few posts ago why God doesn't show up and give us a lecture? Can I call it the height of arrogance? Talking to God is possible and everybody's birthright. It is arrogant to think that God should follow our whims and talk to us in a way that we want Him to talk. That is very egotistical. However, it is not arrogant that we sincerely seek God and through prayer and meditation talk to God the way He envisioned. It is not our way that should be, it is God's way that should be.

There have been woman saints too. For example, St. Theresa of Avila was very advanced spiritually and has written books teaching her methods of prayer/meditation. There is a very great woman saint and a spiritual teacher in our times in India who represents the Divine Mother - mother aspect of God. Her name is Ammachi. There have been other woman religious figures.

Think this way: in the phenomenal world we observe an endless chain of manifestations of cause and effect: everything is caused by something, every cause is an effect of some other cause. Then one would ask, what is the cause of all causes that is not an effect itself? We must conclude that whatever it is it can't be of this world where everything changes and is an effect of something. Then comes the idea of a transcendental cause - a cause which does not belong to the phenomenal world. The eternal and ever existing God is that transcendental cause.

God's word is available everywhere and to everyone, it is broadcast universally all throughout creation. There is no need for a special ad. Even if there was such an ad somebody would still be able to refuse watching it and yet complain why God does not show himself in another way. It is we who choose not to listen to God's message. How do we listen? By deep meditation. All the prophets and saints who wrote about God practiced some form of meditation and witnessed God. If we spent as much time on seeking God as we seek wealth or mundane things then we will surely find God. The Christian tradition of prayer leads to states of deep meditation. I think it was St. Paul who said "pray unseasingly", which is essentially meditation on God. Unless you seek you will not find. So to those who complain why they can't see or hear God, I would ask: what steps have you taken to know God? God does not have a special need to make himself known to all whining human beings. He is just fine whether or not we believe in His existence.

Sip, first of all preaching can have a wide meaning, how do you define what's preaching and what's not. But however you define it, are you saying that preaching is intolerant or disrespectful? Preaching can be viewed as advice.

Let me get this straight: you are pretty much saying if you disagree with someone then you can't tolerate. In that case what is it that you can tolerate, only people who either agree or are not sure about something? Now imagine if somebody didn't tolerate you for an opinion you had.