joseph parikian

http://www.aboutteens.org/images/sadmmik1.jpg

Is this the Humer section cuz i thought i enterd the the National section by mistake!!!!!!! Can the moderators PLEASE move this discussion to where it belongs thanks

http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0903/traurig/sad-smiley-044.gif how old you said you are????

Well you remeber they said he did not resist

From the Daily Telegraph http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2004/01/08/wirq208big.jpeg The moment Saddam was dragged from his hole (Filed: 08/01/2004) The first pictures purporting to show the capture of Saddam Hussein appeared on the internet yesterday. Click to enlarge The photographs appear to show the deposed Iraqi dictator held down by an American soldier, whose face has been deliberately obscured, after he was dragged from his hiding place, an 8ft hole in the ground. The dictator was captured on Dec 13 at a house on the outskirts of his home town, Tikrit, north of Baghdad. The dishevelled, bewildered and bearded figure resembles Saddam as he looked when he was first photographed in custody. The latest photographs have yet to be authenticated but Pentagon officials said soldiers may have had a camera with them. The pictures surfaced yesterday on an American civilian website dedicated to military matters. Saddam is believed to have been betrayed to soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division by the family whose farmhouse he had been hiding in. The house was just across a river from one of his former palaces what do you make of this picture to me he looks like he was druged ?????? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...8%2Fwirq208.xml

Britney Spears, After a Dip Into Marriage, Is Free for Whatever Future May Hold By LOLA OGUNNAIKE Published: January 6, 2004 orlorn men around the world can breathe a collective sigh of relief. Britney Spears is one step closer to being available again. Confirming reports that her marriage to a childhood friend early Saturday morning in Las Vegas might not last forever, a spokesman for the Clark County District Court in Nevada said yesterday that Ms. Spears had filed a request for an annulment that morning. The request was made on the grounds that "plaintiff Spears lacked understanding of her actions to the extent that she was incapable of agreeing to the marriage." It said that Ms. Spears and her husband, Jason Allan Alexander, "did not know each others likes and dislikes, each others desires to have or not have children and each others desires as to State of residency." "Upon learning of each others desires," the request continued, "they are so incompatible that there is a want of understanding of each others actions in entering into this marriage." A statement issued Sunday by Ms. Spears's record company, Jive, called the sudden union "a joke that went too far." Mr. Alexander, a college student and aspiring football player, was back home in Kentwood, La., by Sunday night. "It was just crazy, man," he told NBC's program "Access Hollywood" yesterday, according to The Associated Press. "And we were just looking at each other and said: `Let's do something wild, crazy. Let's go get married, just for the hell of it.' " Ms. Spears's publicists said they had no comment beyond the record company's statement. Just five months after kissing Madonna in a mock wedding ceremony at MTV's annual Video Music Awards, Ms. Spears did it — well, something like it — again. She and Mr. Alexander, both 22, met in kindergarten. They were married at 5:30 a.m. Saturday after a long night of partying, according to press reports. There is no word yet on whether her wedding ensemble — a baseball cap and torn jeans — was designed by Vera Wang. But by Saturday evening they were arranging for an annulment. Ms. Spears's latest album, "In the Zone," is currently No. 10 on the Billboard chart after starting at No. 1 in November. Ever since rocketing to fame in the late 1990's with her platinum-selling debut album, "Baby One More Time," she and her midriff have been ubiquitous. A self-described innocent at the onset of her career, Ms. Spears, who once favored pigtails and Catholic schoolgirl skirts, espoused the virtues of saving virginity until marriage. But with each album she has grown increasingly provocative. In an interview with W magazine last year she acknowledged that she had had sex with the singer Justin Timberlake, when they were dating. Over the years her shirts have got tighter, her skirts shorter. She recently posed for the cover of Esquire in nothing more than sweater and pumps. "I think this is a classic Britney move," said an MTV News correspondent, Su Chin Pak. "She's always walked the line between good girl and bad girl. The craziest thing she allows herself is to get married to a perfectly sweet guy from Kentwood, La., that she's known all her life. It's not like we're pulling her out of rehab." Ms. Spears, she said, is not taking her sundered nuptials too seriously. "She has a 10-minute video of the wedding that she's been showing to friends," Ms. Pak said. "She thinks it's a big joke." :velho: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/arts/mus...;partner=GOOGLE

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/rumsfeld_puppets.jpg

http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic...com/hillary.htm http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic...dancingbush.htm http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic...m/motivator.htm http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic...ushaerobics.htm

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/cheney_victory.jpg

---------------------------------- SOCIAL SECURITY: (This is worth reading. It is short and to the point.) Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our Senators and Congresswomen do not pay into Social Security and, of course, they do not collect from it. You see, Social Security benefits were not suitable for persons of their rare elevation in society. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves. So, many years ago they voted in their own benefit plan. In more recent years, no congress person has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. For all practical purposes their plan works like this: When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die. Except it may increase from time to time for cost of living adjustments. For example, former Senator Byrd and Congressman White and their wives may expect to draw $7,800,000.00 (that's Seven Million, Eight-Hundred Thousand Dollars), with their wives drawing $275,000.00 during the last years of their lives. This is calculated on an average life span for each of those two Dignitaries. Younger Dignitaries who retire at an early age, will receive much more during the rest of their lives. Their cost for this excellent plan is $0.00. NADA....ZILCH.... This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for this plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan come directly from the General Funds; "OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK"! From our own Social Security Plan, which you and I pay (or have paid) into, -every payday until we retire (which amount is matched by our employer)- we can expect to get an average of $1,000 per month after retirement. Or, in other words, we would have to collect our average of $1,000 monthly benefits for 68 years and one (1) month to equal Senator Bill Bradley's benefits! Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to jerk the Golden Fleece Retirement Plan from under the Senators and Congressmen. Put them into the Social Security plan with the rest of us ... then sit back and watch how fast they would fix it. If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of awareness will be planted and maybe good changes will evolve. How many people can YOU send this to?

And you being an Americanized Armenian " psychlogically ???? " have easier time dealing with certain subjects as ???????????? Why you dont try DNA test's to fined out if you are 3/4 or 7/8 armenian you could be 1/60 french or decendent of one of the crusaders 1/90 latin Lets put this confusion to rest once and for all

Interview with Norman Naimark Interview by Khatchig Mouradian http://www.aztagdaily.com/interviews/interviews.htm 31st of December 2003 A senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Norman M. Naimark is also the Robert and Florence McDonnell Professor of East European Studies and chairman of the Department of History at Stanford University. He is an expert in modern East European and Russian history, Poland since 1863, and the history of the German Democratic Republic since World War II. His current research focuses on the Soviet occupation of Eastern Europe after World War II and ethnic cleansing in the twentieth century. His book "Fires of Hatred: Ethnic Cleansing in Twentieth Century Europe", published in 2001, studies "cases from twentieth-century European history that help illuminate the process of ethnic cleansing, its causes and effects". Aztag Daily contacted professor Naimark requesting an interview and he gladly agreed to answer our questions about genocide and ethnic cleansing in general, and the Armenian genocide in particular. AZTAG - Does one find any distinctive features in ethnic cleansing in Europe in the 20th century when one compares it to ethnic cleansing and genocide on other continents? Does the fact that Europe is the "epicenter" of human rights and high levels of culture make such calamities all the more shocking? Norman Naimark - I think one has to consider Europe -- broadly speaking, including Russia and the Turkey/Ottoman Empire -- the home of ethnic cleansing. If one thinks of episodes of ethnic cleansing and genocide outside the European continent, like the partition violence in India in 1946-47, the Rwandan genocide, or the Cambodian genocide, one could argue that the preconditions for these horrible events were "exported" in some senses from Europe. That Europe in the 20th Century was home to ethnic cleansing and genocide is indeed more shocking, I think, because of the high levels of culture and society. What could be more disorienting than the Holocaust, for example, which saw one of the most civilized and developed countries in Europe -- home of Goethe, Schiller, Weber, Einstein, and Benjamin – turn on the Jews in such a vehement and murderous fashion? AZTAG - In "Fires of Hatred" you underline the difficulties of differentiating ethnic cleansing from genocide, especially because ethnic cleansing more often than not turns violent. What is the importance of differentiating between violent incidents of ethnic cleansing and Genocide? Norman Naimark - I think intentionality is important in understand the phenomenon of mass killing. In Bosnia, for example, or in postwar East Central Europe, the intention of the perpetrators was to drive the "enemy" (Bosnian Muslims and Germans) out of a concrete stretch of territory, thus ethnic cleansing. This is not genocide; they didn't care how they left, just as long as they left, using whatever violence they thought was necessary to accomplish it. In the cases of genocide, like that of the Jews or Armenians, the intent of the perpetrator is murder, genocide. Both ethnic cleansing and genocide are crimes against humanity. Genocide, I believe (as does international law), constitutes, however, a higher level of criminality and it much harder to prove. AZTAG - Is there any legal framework based on which people could be held accountable for "ethnic cleansing" today? Norman Naimark - The International Tribunal for Yugoslavia has included ethnic cleansing among its listed crimes against humanity. Again, it is an important crime, but not of the order of genocide. There seems to be no special attempt to place ethnic cleansing in a separate category. Instead it is joined with ideas of "forced deportation." AZTAG - What about the moral accountability of bystanders? Norman Naimark - I am not a moral philosopher and am unwilling to judge the culpability of bystanders in this connection. Clearly, they share some responsibility for what is going on. But I have been much more concerned with demonstrating, historically, that ethnic cleansing and genocide are the products of government planning and the nationalist political elites that control those governments. AZTAG - Do you think September 11th and the war on terror will change the way the West responds to genocidal acts? Norman Naimark - Yes, I believe the trajectory of the international system has shifted dramatically from one that seemed increasingly willing to deal with acts of ethnic cleansing and genocide, for example in Kosovo, to one that is mesmerized by the "war against terrorism." It is unclear where the "system" and its guiding star at the moment, the U.S., will go from here. But I think it less likely (take a look at Liberia, for example), that the U.S. and U.N. will intervene in genocidal situations than in 1990. AZTAG - How did your become interested about the Armenian genocide and in what ways did your research on the Armenian genocide unfold? Norman Naimark - I had heard about the Armenian genocide from Armenian friends and found myself very confused by the contradictory nature of Armenian claims on the one hand and Turkish protestations on the other. The scholarly literature on the genocide is growing -- people like Vahakn Dadrian, Richard Hovanissian, Taner Aksam, and Ronald G. Suny have made important contributions -- but it is not nearly as solid and developed as that on the Holocaust. As I consequence, I wanted to study the documents myself, as a way to understand what happened for myself. The older I get as an historian, the more I want to see the documents myself in order to judge controversial problems. AZTAG - Also in "Fires of Hatred" you say that "the concept of Genocide does not fit the Armenian case perfectly", citing the fact that Armenians in Constantinople and Smyrnia were left intact due to the presence of foreign observers in the city and that some Armenians were converted to Islam, and some Turkish officials ignored the order etc. Some of these are, fortunately for Armenians, some "gaps" in the plan to annihilate a whole race; do these gaps make a genocidal act less genocidal, or less "perfect"? Norman Naimark - What I tried to say in the book is that, first of all, we are short of the kinds of documentation we have for the Holocaust. Because intentionality is so critical for the determination of genocide, it would be an easier case if we had more internal Turkish documents that would demonstrate the intention of murdering the Armenians. Also, genocide seeks to destroy all of a nation. Armenians, as you know, could sometimes convert, escape to the mountains, stay in certain locations, survive as Protestants or Catholics, etc. I don't think there is a perfect or imperfect genocide. But conceptually, the Armenian case does not fit neatly into our idea of genocide. I believe it was genocide, as you know from my book. But it is not the same kind of case as that of Hitler and the Jews. AZTAG - In the book, you do not hesitate to use the "G" word when you speak about the Armenian massacres and deportations. What were the "pieces of information" that led you to conclude that this was, in fact, Genocide? Norman Naimark - The "G" word is important and I do believe it fits the Armenian case. What convinced me more than anything was reading the documentation of the various consuls and doctors and observers who witnessed what was going on around them and reported it to Ambassador Morgenthau back in Constantinople or to their respective governments or bosses. Thus, there is an accumulation of first-hand eyewitness evidence about what was being done to the Armenians that -- combined with some other documents, the post-WW I trials of the Young Turks, some remarks by the Young Turk triumvirate itself, and a few others -- convinced me this was intentional murder of a nation, thus genocide. AZTAG - Do you consider the Armenian Genocide a template for other genocides that followed? Norman Naimark - I think the Armenian genocide was not so much a template for genocide as an historical precursor of other genocides, especially the murder of the Jews. We know Hitler and his circle knew about the Armenian genocide. There is some question whether he actually made the statement "And who remembers the Armenians now." Still, the example of mass murder and the inability and unwillingness of the "international community" to do anything about it -- which was clear in the Armenian case -- certainly had some kind of influence on the Nazi sense that one could do these sorts of things with impunity. AZTAG - The Armenian Genocide is denied by Turkish governments, and it is not recognized by a number of other countries, including the USA. Naturally, without recognition and some form of reparation the wounds would not heal. In your opinion, how can this issue be resolved? Norman Naimark - You are right, there is only one way for healing to take place, and that is for the Turkish government not only to recognize what was done to Armenians, but to give historians unrestricted opportunity to use Ottoman archives. I have participated in conferences where, in a very preliminary way, Turkish historians (usually from outside Turkey, but not only), and Armenian historians, have discussed the genocide from their own perspectives. There IS progress on this score. But there is much more work to be done, including the building of a museum in Washington commemorating and documenting the genocide. Healing will come, but it will take time and it will take honesty. I hope soon the Turkish government will come to this realization, as well.

Maybe maybenot i am not going to tell you

Quoted frpm Domino To correct you it was on Sunday afternoon April 13/1975 I was watching a soccer game between Homentman and Nejme in west Bairut Shamoun stadium we left after the game to go back to Bourj Hamoud and there were armed people androad blocks all over i was in car with Dikran Apkarian and his two sons Sarkis and Boghous we have to drive through west Bairut and all kined of armed people were on the streets then we came to east Bairut were the christian Falanges blocked all the roads When finaly made it we heard that a bus cariying palestinians from Tell Azaatar was ambushed while going back to the camp and all died , they were not soldiers And thats how the civil war started http://lexicorient.com/cgi-bin/eo-direct-f...leb_civ_war.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebanese_Civil_War http://www.rimbaud.freeserve.co.uk/lebanon_civwar.htm#beginn

My friend i dont know how many of these young men survived I know few of them but i dont know who made it

simply defending Armenian proporties and neighborhoods after the collaps of the Lebanies army and police You should have been there to know why they organised armed Armenians No government no security and the Armenians where serounded with all kined of armed groops They where neutral to the point where their survivel was thretend No one knows what Armenians went through those 18 years of civil war unless they where there my friend

http://www.sellmyhomeandcar.com/images/dashnaks/mesrobianboys1.jpg Beirut 1976 - Armed Armenian units, stationed at Levon & Sophia Hagopian College Memories Memories Memories

We never bash the Rusian people per ce eather,rather the barbarious Rusian Ruling class,which is responsible for the death of millions in the last century Do you agree with me ?

Wow Stormig what a beutiful artical specialy the closing part of it God bless you

I lived in Lebanon from 1965 till 1985 in Bourj Hamoud next to cinema Central I have lots of friends there like Apo Kasabian , Levon Altunian,Apo Nenejian,Sarkis and Boghos Apkarian they oun Central Librery Where do you guys live I have beutiful memories from Lebanon one more thing how old are you my friends

OIL AND MILITARY BASES CAST CLOUD OF UNCERTAINTY OVER ARMENIAN GENOCIDE: SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE WASHINGTON, DC, DECEMBER 17. ARMINFO. Unfortunately, much of the American media still thinks that the Armenian genocide is subject to debate. To counter such historical inaccuracy, in June 1998 the Association of Genocide Scholars unanimously defined this event as the 20th century's first genocide. Two years later, 126 Holocaust scholars, including Elie Wiesel -- awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his lifelong effort to bear witness to genocide -- published a petition in the New York Times affirming "the incontestable fact of the Armenian genocide." Denial of the Armenian genocide didn't always exist in this country. Before World War I, Americans knew exactly what had occurred. During the 1890s, American reformers launched a human-rights campaign to protest repeated massacres of the Armenian people. In September 1895, the New York Times headlined a story as "Another Armenian Holocaust." During 1915, that paper published 145 articles about the mass murder of the Armenian people, describing the massacre as "systematic, "authorized" and "organized by the government." In 1918, Theodore Roosevelt called it "the greatest crime of the war." In May 1915, the Allies conceived of the term "crimes against humanity" to describe the Ottoman government's massacres of the Armenian people. So what cast such a cloud of uncertainty over the Armenian genocide? The short answer is: oil and military bases. After World War I, the United States' drive for oil in the Middle East resulted in an alliance with the new Turkish republic. Even though post-war Ottoman military confessions and American eyewitness accounts provided indisputable proof of the genocide, Turkey waged a systematic campaign to erase the Armenian genocide from historical memory. During the Cold War, Turkey gained even greater leverage to promote its denial when it became a strategic site for American and NATO military bases. Never forget that Adolf Hitler relied on that silence when he said on Aug. 22, 1939, "Who after all speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?"

http://www.watan.com/img/1/sadam-cap.jpg Whats wrong with this picture remember that it was taken in mid december

Artical from Gibrahayer EDITORIAL S'A'DDAM SHAME BY GAREN YEGPARIAN What a week! Heydar Aliyev dies and Saddam Hussein is captured. And thereby hangs a tale. Besides the obvious initial snickers and comments--"What if it's one of Saddam's doubles they found," and the major effort required by some who suffered under Aliyev's tyranny to suppress whoops of joy at his demise, and besides the obvious benefit of having two tyrants less prowling the planet--there is a serious problem. One murderer is hunted at a cost of billions of US tax dollars in an illegal invasion. The other is given red carpet treatment in a top-notch US medical facility. Very fair, sensible, and understandable, right? The list of such US--mollycoddled-murderers is quite extensive: Pinochet, Idi Amin, take your pick of China's leaders, Pervez Musharaff, etc. ad nauseam and sometimes really strikes close to home, as in Aliyev's case. Why haven't we seen an "Operation Free Prometheus" (he was bound to the Pontic Mountains in Greek mythology, if I remember correctly) to rid Turkey of its wannabe Ataturk leaders, establish democracy for all residents of the country--especially the long suffering Kurds (the once and future Armenians), and implement the right of return of dispossessed Armenians to our homes? Ya think it might have something to do with the black stuff that both Iraq and (formerly) Texas ('til it was largely sucked dry) float atop? Maybe even the Shrub's connections with the oil industry? Or, could the Afghanistan escapade have something to do with a pipeline deal being worked to transport Central Asian oil to the south, specifically to circumvent and exclude Russia? What about the early saber-rattling against Iran, before the Wolfowitz(-less)es occupying the halls of US power realized that conquering, occupying, and subjugating Iraq wasn't going to be a cake-walk? Could that too have something to do with black gold? And of all these shows of US imperial might and arrogance, is it just possible they're designed to scare the Saudis into compliance with Washington's demands? Gee, guess what, Saudi Arabia has the world's largest proven oil reserves. Then, with all this oil lined up, Venezuela could be squeezed, through oil-pricing shenanigans, to bring to heel the hapless president who dares defy Uncle Sam's dictates and stands for his own people's interests. Another revealing phenomenon, though tangential to this article's topic, is the thinking that with Saddam gone, the anti-coalition (I gag and cackle every time this word is used in the present context) attacks will eventually ebb, possibly after an initial surge. The people just don't get it. They don't understand nationalism, not viscerally anyway. They don't understand human beings' deep hatred of occupiers. How else to explain everything being attributed to individuals vs. organizations/groups of people with shared ideas? With all this in mind, we're still supposed to take seriously the President's pontifications about liberty and such. It's a damn shame.

I found this site http://www.iraqioasis.com/assychald.html klick on assyria tv in the site

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/122...kyquake-ON.html http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11 Klick on the links