Jump to content

Armenian Highlander

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Armenian Highlander

  • Birthday 05/28/1918

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Armenian Diaspora - Looking Tepi Hairenik
  • Interests

Armenian Highlander's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. Excellent essay! I was there at the Armenian Genocide commemoration, I fully agree with the author of the essay.
  2. Perhaps the finest website concerning the Armenian Genocide: http://www.twentyvoices.com/survivors.html (Click each region on the map of Anatolia to hear an eyewitness testimony) Video presentation, featuring survivors: http://www.twentyvoices.com/events.html
  3. Well, actually you have brought up a good point. However, the essential reason why the French, at times, surrender their cities to the enemy is because they don't want them destroyed while "defending" it. French citites are perhaps the finest in the world, and the French know it. The French also know what happenes to such cities during war time. A similar situation happened with Rome. The Germans gave up Rome so that it would not be destroyed by American bombers. Anyway, if it was not for the French, Americans would not have gotten their idea for independence. If it was not for the French, Americans would have not been able to fight the Brits off. Throughout history the French have been one of the finest fighting forces in Europe. Look at the Crusades, look at Napoleon, look at the French Legion. Its time to put aside stupid American propaganda and start enjoying some French Fries (which are not French by the way).
  4. Good point my friend. I guess simple logic eludes many people. Also, don't forget what the "noble victors" did, and are still trying to do, to Nakhijevan and Artsakh. If the "Allies" had their way, there would not be any Armenia to speak of. I, personally, think that Armenia would have been better off had the Germans won the Second World War. In my opinion, the Germans were very aware of the strategic value of the Caucasus and, thus, would not have turned the Caucasus region into a Turkic stronghold. Moreover, the Third Reich did not have any problems with Armenians, whom they concidered Aryans. Contrary to popular belief, the Third Reich only had problems with Jews and Communists. In other words, unlike Stalin, who went on a rampage killing millions of his own countrymen, the Germans had good taste. Unfortunately, however, Germans looked down at the Slavic poulation as sub-human. I think this unwarrented hotility towards Slavs eventually led to their final destruction. Anyway, this is all hypothetical and we could discuss this, to no avail, until kingdom come. Getting back to the topic at hand: If it was not for some miscalculations of the Nazi leadership, coupled with the <> stubborn determination of the Russians, the Third Reich would have won the war hands down - regardless of how much money, manpower and materials USA pumped into the war effort.
  5. If it wasn't for Hitler's stupid strategic blunders, we all would be speaking German now. Germany lost the war because the Nazi leadership did not give the military leadership of the Third Reich freedom to conduct the war the way it should have been conducted. Germany lost the war because it did not try to win the "hearts and minds" of the avarage Soviet citizen, who at the time of the invasion, was suffering greatly under Stalin's oppression. Germany lost the war because its early military successes stretched its manpower and material resources to critical levels. Final analysis, it was Hitler's ill conceived decision to attack the USSR that broke the Nazi war machine. The finest American, French and English troops were no match for any German combat unit at the time. The capability and moral of the German Wehrmacht far surpassed anything fielded by the allies. The question remains: Had the Germans defeated the USSR, would Drastamat Kanayan and company been able to administer Armenia properly?
  6. What Are We Up to – in Ukraine? by Patrick J. Buchanan In the 1940s, as Stalinists were seizing Czechoslovakia, ex-OSS agents were running bags of money to Italy and France to ensure the Communists were defeated in national elections. In the 1950s, using a rent-a-mob, the CIA effected the ouster of an anti-American regime in Iran and the overthrow of Arbenz in Guatemala. In the 1980s, after Solidarity was crushed by Gen. Jaruzelski, Ronald Reagan secretly aided the Polish resistance. Many of us applauded these Cold War means, as we believed that the ends – security of the West and survival of freedom – justified them. But when news broke that South Africa was maneuvering to buy the Washington Star in the 1980s, this city was ablaze with indignation. How dare they seek to corrupt American media! In the 1990s, when China was caught using cutouts to funnel cash to the Clinton campaign, we were full of righteous rage. Given this history, several question arise. Are we today using Cold War tactics in a post-Cold War era? Are we guilty of the same gross interference in the internal affairs of Ukraine, trying to fix their election, we would consider outrageous and criminal if done to us? Are we Americans hypocrites of global democracy? Consider what we have apparently been up to in Ukraine. According to the Guardian and other sources, NED – the National Endowment for Democracy – and USAid, Freedom House, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and George Soros' Open Society Institute all pumped money or sent agents into Kiev to defeat the government-backed Viktor Yanukovich and elect Viktor Yushchenko as president. Allegedly in on the scheme is the supposedly objective and neutral Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. The Guardian's Jonathan Steele describes how we put the fix in: "Yushchenko got the Western nod, and floods of money poured in to groups which support him, ranging from the youth organization, Pora, to various opposition websites. More provocatively, the U.S. and other Western embassies paid for exit polls ..." Those polls showed Yushchenko winning by 11, demoralizing the opposition and convincing most Ukrainians he was the next president. But, on Election Day, Yushchenko, like Kerry, lost by three, as the populous eastern Ukraine delivered the same huge margins for favorite son Yanukovich as did western Ukraine for Yushchenko. Into the streets came scores of thousands of demonstrators, howling fraud and demanding that Yushchenko be inaugurated. Engaging in civil disobedience, and backed by the West, the crowds intimidated parliament, President Kuchma and the judiciary into declaring the election invalid. John Laughland writes in the Guardian of the double standard our media employ: "Enormous rallies have been held in Kiev in support of the prime minister, Viktor Yanukovich, but they are not shown on our TV screen. ... Yanukovich supporters are denigrated as having been 'bussed in.' The demonstrators in favor of Yushchenko have laser lights, plasma screens, sophisticated sound systems, rock concerts, tents to camp in and huge quantities of orange clothing; yet we happily dupe ourselves that they are spontaneous." Laughland is saying the Yushchenko demonstrations may be as phony as that U.S-Albanian war in the Dustin Hoffman-Robert DeNiro film Wag the Dog. He calls Pora "an organization created and financed by Washington," like Otpor and Kmara, which were used in Serbia and Georgia to oust leaders Washington wished to be rid of. Pora's symbol, writes Laughland, depicts "a jackboot crushing a beetle." If the United States has indeed been interfering in Ukraine to swing the election of a president who will tilt to NATO, against Moscow, we are, as Steele writes, "playing with fire." "Not only is [ukraine] geographically and culturally divided – a recipe for partition or even civil war – it is also an important neighbor of Russia. ... Ukraine has been turned into a geostrategic matter not by Moscow, but by the U.S., which refuses to abandon the Cold War policy of encircling Moscow and seeking to pull every former Soviet republic to its side." Our most critical relationship on earth is with the world's other great nuclear power, Russia, a nation suffering depopulation, loss of empire, breakup of its country, and a terror war. That relationship is far more important to us than who rules in Kiev. For us to imperil it by using our perfected technique of the "post-modern coup" – as we did in Serbia and Georgia and failed to do in Belarus – to elect American vassals in Russia's backyard, even in former Soviet republics, seems an act of imperial arrogance and blind stupidity. Congress should investigate NED and any organization that used clandestine cash or agents to fix the Ukrainian election, as the U.S. media appear to have gone into the tank for global democracy, as they did for war in Iraq Source: http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=4114
  7. http://http://www.armgate.com/ararat/far_14.jpg Ararat, the Cradle of Civilization? The Sumerians, an ancient peoples and one of the first civilizations in the world called Ararat, Arrata. In their great epic poems of Gilgamesh and Arrata, they tell of the land of their ancestors, the Arratans in the Highlands of Armenia. The Sumerians also in the epic poems describe the Great Flood and the rebirth of life after the terrible deluge that fell from the Highlands of Armenia unto the lands of Mesopotamia and the Fertile Crescent. The Sumerians had a very close connection with the ancestral Land of Ararat and considered it as their ancestral homeland (many historians and archaeologists are convinced that the Sumerians initially lived in Northern Mesopotamia and Armenian Highland).The Greeks believed that the people who first worked with bronze and iron came from the same area, they called them Khaldi. "The great majority of the cultivated plants of the world trace their origin to Asia. Out of 640 important cultivated plants, about 500 originated in Southern Asia. In Asia alone we have established five of the principle regions of cultivated plants.... The fifth region of origin in Asia is the Southwestern Asiatic centre and includes Asia Minor, Trans-Caucasia, Iran and Western Turkmenistan. This region is remarkable, first of all, for its richness in numbers of species of wheat resistant to different diseases...There is no doubt that Armenia is the chief home of cultivated wheat. Asia Minor and Trans-Caucasia gave origin to rye which is represented here by a great number of varieties and species.... Our studies show definitely that Asia is not only the home of the majority of modern cultivated plants, but also of our chief domesticated animals such as the cow, the yak, the buffalo, sheep, goat, horse, and pig...The chief home of the cow and other cattle, the Oriental type of horse, the goat and the sheep is specifically Iran.... As the result of a brilliant work of Dr. Sinskaya, the discovery was recently made that the home of alfalfa, the world's most important forage crop, is located in Trans-Caucasia and Iran.... From all these definitely established facts the importance of Asia as the primary home of the greatest majority of cultivated plants and domesticated animals is quite clear." The above quotes from the book by Vavilov, N. , "Asia: Source of Species" in Asia, February 1937, p. 113, indicate a long held belief by many that cradle of civilization was in the hills of Armenia. Also the location of the Garden of Eden and the location of the flood and the landing place of the Ark of Noah! More recent studies conducted by Melinda A Zeder and Brian Hesse (Science 287 (2000) 2254-57) place the initial domestication of goats to the Zargos Mountains at about 10,000 years ago. And Manfred Heun's (Science 278 (1997) 1312-14) studies indicate that large scale wheat cultivation began from 8,000 to 9,000 years ago near the Karacadag Mountains. Both areas are very near where the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers come close together. Source: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/ararat.html#urartu
  8. The map below revels the route as proposed by Thomas V. Gamkrelidze and V. V. Ivanov that proto-Indo-European tribes took during their epic journey that began approximately six to eight thousand years ago. Indo-European Armenians, Greeks and ancient Persians essentially evolved from the remnants of these proto Indo-European tribes that had for some reason or another stayed within the vicinity of their origins. Nevertheless, it is the Armenian nation today that still remains, more-or-less unaltered, within the epicenter of the birthplace of Indo-Europeanism and Aryanism. The Thracian Phrygians (also known as the Mushki) who are an essential component of the Armenian nation, essentially "returned" to the land of their origination when they "re-entered" Asia Minor approximately 1,500-1,000 BC. Nevertheless, as of to date, Asia Minor/Armenian Highlands and the southern Caucasus remains to be the undisputed epicenter of human civilization and the region where the white race first began to evolve. Asia Minor is where Indo-European/Aryan culture first originated and the land that spawned the greatest cultures know in world history. http://www.armenianhighland.com/images/illustration130.jpg
  9. What Are We Doing in Russia's Neighborhood? February 04, 2004 by Patrick J. Buchanan Napoleon III, Emperor of France, saw his opportunity. With the United States sundered and convulsed in civil war, he would seize Mexico, impose a Catholic monarchy and block further expansion of the American republic. In 1863, a French army marched into Mexico City. In 1864, Maximilian, the brother of Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph, was crowned Emperor of Mexico. The French empire had returned to North America a century after its expulsion in 1763. Secretary of State Seward did nothing until the Union armies had defeated the Confederacy. Then, he called in Gen. John Schofield, who had wanted to lead an army of volunteers into Mexico to drive the French out, and instructed him instead to go to Paris. "I want you to get your legs under Napoleon's mahogany and tell him he must get out of Mexico," Seward told Schofield. To impress upon Napoleon that the Union was in earnest, President Johnson, at the urging of Grant and Sherman, sent Gen. Sheridan with 40,000 troops to the Rio Grande. Napoleon got the message. The French army headed for the boats, and Maximilian went before a Mexican firing squad. Lesson: Nations are unwise to seize upon the temporary weakness of a great power to put military forces inside its sphere of influence. Which brings us to this headline in last week's Washington Post: "U.S. May Set Up Bases in Former Soviet Republics." The lead graph reads like something out of the London Times in the salad days of Kipling and Queen Victoria: "Secretary of State Colin Powell said Tuesday that the United States might establish military bases in parts of the former Soviet empire, but he sought to reassure Russians that increased U.S. influence in the region does not pose a threat to them." With bases already in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, we apparently intend to build a base in Georgia, birthplace of Stalin. Query: What are we doing there? What is the strategic interest in Georgia? Tbilisi is about as far away as one can get. Why are we rubbing Russia's nose in her Cold War defeat by putting U.S. imperial troops into nations that only yesterday were a part of that country? Powell anticipated the question: "Are we pointing a dagger in the soft underbelly of Russia? Of course not. What we're doing is working together against terrorism." But after Iraq, where we invaded an oil-rich country on what the world believes were false pretenses and forged evidence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, why should Russians not suspect our motives? After all, the neoconservatives who beat the drums loudest for war, and cherry-picked the intelligence sent to Bush that got us into war, have been braying for years that we intend to create an American empire and impose our "benevolent global hegemony" on all mankind. Why should Russians, Chinese and Iranians not believe America's crusader castles in Central Asia and the Caucasus are not part of a grand scheme for a Pax Americana? Have we forgotten our history? When Reagan put Marines into the middle of Lebanon's civil war, 241 perished in the terrorist bombing of their Beirut barracks. Reagan retaliated, but got out. He should never have gone in. Who runs Beirut or rules Lebanon is not our business. When we intervened in Somalia's civil war, we got "Blackhawk Down" in Mogadishu and 18 dead Rangers. Again, we pulled out. We should never have gone in. When we planted a U.S. army on Saudi soil after the Gulf War, we got 9-11. Now we have pulled out of there. How often must we be taught the lesson? Have we considered the consequences of planting military bases in countries afflicted by Islamic fundamentalism and ruled by autocrats who, only 15 years ago, were apparatchiks of Moscow? A U.S. imperial presence in Central Asia and the Caucasus resented by Russia, Iran and China and detested by Islamists is less likely to contain terrorism than to invite it. Even a cursory reading of U.S. history shows us to be an almost paranoid people about any foreign military presence near our frontiers. The French, British, Spanish and Russians were all bought off or driven out. Moscow's presence in Cuba and meddling in Grenada and Nicaragua in the Cold War were constant causes of American outrage. But if we are entitled to our own Monroe Doctrine – i.e., no foreign colonies or bases in our backyard – are not other great nations like China and Russia equally entitled? Why should they not feel as we do, and one day act as we did with Napoleon, and tell us to get out of Central Asia and to get out of the Caucasus? But, again, why are we going in? Other than empire, what is the vital interest here? COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC. [...] Source: http://antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=1846
  10. http://www.armenianhighland.com/images/illustration490.jpg Armenian Influences upon Crusader Castles in the Holy Land 1097–1192 Osprey Publishing - military history books An extract from ‘Design and Development’ In the 19th and early-20th centuries, historians of the Crusades believed that Crusader military architecture was most strongly influenced by that of the Byzantine Empire. Shortly before World War I, a student from Oxford University conducted field research in the Asiatic provinces of the Ottoman Empire: he then returned to write a thesis in which he argued that the designers of Crusader castles largely based their ideas upon what was currently being built in Western Europe. This student’s name was T.E. Lawrence, soon to be better known as Lawrence of Arabia. His thesis eventually influenced the next generation of historians of Crusader architecture, but neither they nor Lawrence seriously considered the influence of Islamic traditions of fortification. This idea developed more recently and today it is widely accepted that the military architecture of the Crusader States reflected a broad array of influences, in addition to the inventiveness of those who actually designed it. The late Nikita Elisséeff, who worked for much of his life in Damascus, maintained that Byzantine forms of military architecture in northern Syria were soon added to the Western European design concepts of the early Crusaders. Within a few decades these newcomers were also learning from their Muslim neighbours, especially in making greater use of topographical features to strengthen a fortified site. More recently the Israeli scholar Ronnie Ellenblum highlighted the fact that Crusader castles were built to deal with specific military situations or threats, and that their designers drew upon what seemed most suitable in the circumstances. In the early-12th century, each of the newly established Crusader states found itself in a different situation. The Principality of Antioch, for example, was adjacent to the Armenian states of Cilicia, which evolved into the Kingdom of Cilician or Lesser Armenia. Here fortifications ranged from tiny hilltop outposts to major garrison fortresses, while Armenian architects favoured half-round towers that protruded from a curtain-wall far enough to permit archers to enfilade the enemy. Such design ideas influenced castle building in the Principality of Antioch. Furthermore Antioch attracted few Western European settlers and hence relied to a greater extent on military elites of Armenian, Greek and Syrian origin who may also have influenced the design of local fortifications. The mountainous character of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli clearly encouraged experimental and daring design ideas, though the castles themselves ranged from very simple, almost rustic structures to huge hilltop fortresses. Meanwhile building techniques ranged from a typically Byzantine use of small masonry an bricks within one structure, to mixtures of Byzantine, Armenian, Western European and soon also Syrian-Islamic methods of both cutting and shaping stones – each of which had their own distinctive. Sometimes variations in ways of mixing cement and mortar also reflected different cultural influences. Crusader castle building quickly grew more sophisticated. For example the building of concentric castles first took place in the late-1160s, and although the idea had been around for some time, concentric castles certainly appeared in the Crusader States before they did in Western Europe. On the other hand, most early structures remained relatively small while the vast sums of money and effort expended on larger and more elaborate fortifications were characteristic of the 13th rather than the 12th century. One ‘supposed’ characteristic of Crusader castles was a lack of timber in their construction, with this being attributed to a lack of suitable timber in the areas where they were built. However, abundant excellent timber was available in neighbouring Cilician Armenia. Although the deforestation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem may have been well advanced by the time of the Crusades, suitable large baulks of timber were available in the mountains of Lebanon and on Mount Carmel. The situation was better in the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch and the northern regions of the County of Edessa. Furthermore Western Europeans probably enjoyed a technological advantage over their Middle Eastern foes, not only in their tradition of timber architecture but in their logistical ability to transport large timbers over long distances... Text Source: http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_deta...ad&view=extract Picture Source: http://www.armenianhighland.com/cilicia/chronicle481.html
  11. I know of Edward Tashji well, he lived within my geographic area for a very long time. I do not know if he is still around. Nevertheless, no one thinks of him as Armenian, including the non-Armenians. He claims his grandmother was Armenian. And apparently according the the cheep whore, Turks never did anything nasty to Armenians, on the contrary, it was Armenians who back stabbed Turks. Nevertheless, what is the true intent of this thread? Edited for language Հայրենակից, խորուրդ կտաի բառերտ չափավորել, և նրանց ընտրության մեջ էլ փոկր ինչ զգուշ լինել.
  12. http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/urartu.gif BIBLICAL RESEARCH BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY "The great majority of the cultivated plants of the world trace their origin to Asia. Out of 640 important cultivated plants, about 500 originated in Southern Asia. In Asia alone we have established five of the principle regions of cultivated plants.... The fifth region of origin in Asia is the Southwestern Asiatic centre and includes Asia Minor, Trans-Caucasia, Iran and Western Turkmenistan. This region is remarkable, first of all, for its richness in numbers of species of wheat resistant to different diseases...There is no doubt that Armenia is the chief home of cultivated wheat. Asia Minor and Trans-Caucasia gave origin to rye which is represented here by a great number of varieties and species.... Source: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/biblicalresearch.html Wheat Domestication and Evolution: I have been focusing on studies of origin and evolution of Triticum species. In collaboration with Dr. J. Dvorak and other colleagues, RFLPs, SSRs and DNA sequencing have been employed in studies of domestication of emmer and evolution of almost of all the wheat species, including some special forms of cultivated species. Our results showed that T. aestivum originated in Transcaucasia, most likely in Armenia from hybridization between a tetraploid wheat and Ae. tauschii. It is generally believed that the tetraploid parent was cultivated emmer (T. turgidum ssp. dicoccum). Our results suggest a provocative possibility that the A and B genome genepool of T. aestivum was modified by hybridization of T. aestivum with wild emmer. The geographic distribution of the diagnostic alleles in the T. aestivum genepool suggests that this hybridization occurred in Turkey. Source: http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/mcluo/interest.htm Evolution of Cultivated Wheat and Barley in Armenia According to the Archaeological Material P.A. Gandilyan Department of Biology, Armenian Agricultural Academy. 74 Terian Street, Yerevan, Armenia Geographically, the territory of the Republic of Armenia is a part of a spacious region, conventionally called the Armenian Upland. Armenia was the place of origin of the ancient Armenian nation that encompassed the whole upland. The Armenian Upland is an integral part of the Western Asiatic region which is widely known as one of the primary foci of civilized culture. It is known that primitive communities were established predominantly in areas rich in biodiversity of vegetation including a wide range of edible plants. There is strong evidence to suggest that wheat (Triticum L.) and barley (Hordeum L.) have been cultivated in Armenia since ancient times. Many scientists assume that the place of wild plant domestication and the conversion to cultivated forms must lie within the area of the plant's natural habitat. Wheat/barley crop mixtures were grown in Armenia, though the relatively "pure" plantings of wheat and barley were found only during a certain period of history. Both wheat and barley forms with small and round grains prevailed in more ancient samples. Later, the oblong forms appeared and very gradually began to dominate over other forms. This process was connected with the change to a drier climate and genetic changes. Bakhteyev named the "bottle-shaped" barley in Armenia Hordeum lagunculiformae. Tumanyan had also found such forms in archeobotanical material and named the round-grained forms as H. antiquorum sphaerococcum and forms with oblongBelliptical kernels as H. urartu. These forms have not been cultivated for a long time, but they can still be found under wild conditions. The possible origins of "speltoid" tetraploid wheats in the wild and their domestication is assumed as follows: AA DD = AD, followed by increase of the chromosome number = AADD. They disappeared in the wild because of shattering of the spikes which prevented self-fertilization. The theory that barley of the Bronze Age was awnless is argued. Ears with well-developed awns have also been found. It is necessary to investigate thoroughly and to conserve the Armenian archaeobotanical material in genebanks for study and more precise taxonomic identification. Source: http://agronomy.ucdavis.edu/symposium/ABSBOOK.htm
  13. http://www.iatp.am/resource/artcult/rockart/geghama/table/t64.gif http://www.iatp.am/resource/artcult/rockart/ughtasar/080.gif The Rock Arts of the Armenian Elevation are the Primary Source of the Armenian, Egyptian, Indian and Hettitian Ideograms (Hieroglyphs) Professor G. Vahanyan, Head of the Computer Graphic Arts Department, Yerevan Academy of Fine Arts, V. Bleyan, post-graduate, L. Kocharian, post-graduate, V. Vahanyan, student It is known, that with the appearance and the development of language the man is becoming a unique “symbolic animal”, passing a way from a biological being to a thinking one. But the reason is that the language, as an informatics object is a developing, open, huge library of interactive symbols, elements. Each of the elements is modeling, projecting and means one appearance of the world, out of the edges of the human race particularly and entirely. Taking in set that symbols and elements are summarized in one image of the space, environment, where live and create the users of that language. As the natural conditions, in which our forefathers lived, and the situation, which is expressed by the representatives of that culture, in many cases are changed from one ethnos to another, in the result we observe differences in the languages of various ethnic groups, and, in some cases, the differences are not essential in one ethnic group. As the authors think, these differences obviously appeared in the stages of the development of rock art, rock images and pictures. Sometimes the graphical languages (executive manners, typical forms, etc.) of various ethnic groups are non-similar. It is supposed, that the complexes of the rock images, which were discovered on the historical territory of Armenia, are differed from each other in a measure of mental characteristics and dialect differences of the representatives of Armenian people from various parts and regions of Armenia. The graphical language, symbols and signs are available. They are invariant and never depend on time, geographical and natural coordinates. Many nations had successfully learned and developed this language. Language symbols are general and understandable basically in the limits of one ethnic group, in determined geographical space and time. The authors think that just the moment of the investigation of the graphical archetypes is supposed to be the start of the civilization. The graphical image, picture, symbol or sign, which is fixed on the stone, exists singly, never depends on its creator - «is alienated from him». All this systems possess by the feature of autonomy and independence. Linguist V.V. Martinov call the language – “Actuality – 2'', in diversity of “Actuality – 1”, which is the world environment. The graphical language, the language of petrography and rock pictures allowed a floating, harmonic and efficient (less actions) passing from ''Actuality – 1'' to ''Actuality – 2''. The construction of ''Actuality – 2'' relative to the objective, real or imaginable process, weighing of negative and positive features, hesitation in sincerity of thoughts, projection and development of the structure of logical constructions, choice of more acceptable decisions and their spreading – for all mentioned the man and the human language are obliged to the features of graphical language, as well as to simultaneity, invariance, reflectiveness, regularity, totality, etc. The hieroglyphs or the symbols (the word “ideogram” comes from the Greek words “idea” and “I’m writing”) have a significant place in the history of letter writing. Hieroglyphs usually considered to be the first step in the development of letter writing and were on the lowest development degree, as if they do not express sounds or syllables. They express whole words or parts of them and, naturally, do not submit any grammatical rule and cause serious difficulties in reading. Egyptians, Shummers and Chinese implemented this kind of letter writing. The ancient nations, such as Armenian, also had hieroglyphs in their letter writing... http://www.iatp.am/ara/sites/articles/rockhierogl/images/image182.jpg Source: http://www.iatp.am/ara/sites/articl...roglyhsengl.htm
  14. CIA angers Russia by predicting break-up of state within 10 years By Andrew Osborn in Moscow 30 April 2004 Russia's political elite has been stung by a recently declassified CIA report that suggests the world's largest country could fall apart at the seams in a decade and split into as many as eight different states. The report, Global Trends 2015, has sparked a lively debate in Russia about the country's territorial integrity and triggered passionate denunciations from some of Russia's leading politicians. Its unflinchingly bleak assessment of Russia's prospects has angered many at a time when the Russian government is doing its best to talk up the economy. The fact that the gloomy prognosis comes from its old Cold War enemy makes it all the harder for Russia to swallow. But many ordinary Russians seem to share the CIA's pessimism. An opinion poll conducted by radio station Ekho Moskvy earlier this week revealed that 71 per cent of those surveyed (3,380 people) thought that the disintegration of the motherland was a "real threat". Yesterday's Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper printed a map for its readers showing how Russia might look by 2015 if the CIA is right. It showed Siberia broken up into four different countries, with western Russia similarly partitioned. It is not for nothing that president Vladimir Putin's party is called United Russia. According to the CIA, some of Russia's eastern regions are so rich in natural resources such as oil and gas that they will opt to break away from Moscow, which they have long accused of poor governance. Komsomolskaya Pravda was dismissive of the report. "Either the CIA has super perspicacious analysts who can see what mortal Russians, including politicians and political scientists, cannot, or someone has got it wrong," it said. Boris Gryzlov, the speaker of the Russian parliament, said: "I completely reject the possibility of Russia breaking up. "Over the past four years, a lot has been done to strengthen vertical power and legislation in the constituent parts of the Russian Federation was brought into line with the constitution a long time ago." According to the CIA report, a falling birth rate meant that the country's population was likely to decline to 130 million by 2015 from 146 million today. It also painted a picture of Russia as a terminally ill patient. "The Soviet economic inheritance will continue to plague Russia," the report said. "Besides a crumbling physical infrastructure, years of environmental neglect are taking a toll on the population, a toll made worse by such societal costs of transition as alcoholism, cardiac diseases, drugs and a worsening health delivery system. Russia's population is not only getting smaller, but it is becoming less and less healthy and less able to serve as an engine of economic recover." Dmitry Orlov, the director of Russia's political and economic communications agency, claimed the CIA had an ulterior motive. "The conservative wing of the American Republican party is interested in the maximum weakening of Russia's position and maybe even in its fragmentation," Mr Orlov told the Izvestia newspaper. Source: http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/stor...9&host=3&dir=73
  15. I hate to admit this, but I agree with you. Nevertheless, the point the author is making is that Chechens have a Turkic/Semitic admixture within them. Thus, genetically (technically) Chechens are not "genetically" completely white. This has nothing to do with the "tone" of ones skin color, since a large percentage of "non-white" population within Asia have light "white" skin. Nevertheless, the point the writer made is foolish and pointless. However, I posted this article for its geo-political analysis - which I agree with. Although your comment this time was not stupid, nevertheless, it was not smart either. I am still waiting for you to say something smart.
  • Create New...