Dave

Mar. 27, 2005 21:33 Armenian Priests assaulted in Jerusalem's Old City By ETGAR LEFKOVITS An intoxicated Jewish man who assaulted two Armenian priests near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem's Old City Sunday night was placed under arrest, police said. The two clergymen did not require medical treatment, and the assailant was in police custody. The attack on the priests, which took place during the Jewish festival of Purim when it is customary to get drunk, was the third such incident in the last six months. from http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pag...d=1111893691699 Just as the article says, this is the third of such attacks... Will they ever stop? Is this what the Armenian priest deserved during Easter?

Do you think a Revolution similar to the Rose, Velvet, and Tulip Revolutions would soon happen in Armenia?

http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=11185

PASTOR SHOCKS TURKISH TV VIEWERS BY BOLD REMARKS ON GENOCIDE Even though the Turks are supposed to be on their best behavior in order to convince the Europeans that they are civilized enough to join the European Union, they are still extremely intolerant of anyone who dares to bring up the taboo subject of the Armenian Genocide. Last month, when Orhan Pamuk, an internationally-known Turkish novelist, boldly told a foreign reporter that one million Armenians were killed around 1915, just about all Turkish commentators, historians (government-paid propagandists) and politicians severely condemned the writer for making such a statement. A radical Turkish group even called for the murder of this "traitor." Furthermore, a Turkish publisher is being prosecuted by the government for releasing the Turkish translation of an English language book that urges the acknowledgment of the Armenian Genocide. Around six months ago, in the midst of trying to qualify for the start of membership talks to join the EU, the Turkish Parliament adopted a new law that makes it a crime for anyone to acknowledge the Armenian Genocide. If this is how the Turkish government is acting, while trying to impress the Europeans, imagine what it would do if its actions were not under scrutiny! Given all the controversy this issue has generated within Turkey, the Turkish "Flash TV" decided to air earlier this month a five-hour live talk show on the Armenian Genocide. The host of the program requested that the Armenian Patriarchate send a representative to take part in this show. However, the Patriarchate refused to participate by saying that it did not have an expert on the subject to be discussed. The host then invited Rev. Krikor Aghabaloghlu, the outspoken and courageous pastor of a local Armenian evangelical church, to present "the Armenian point of view." Rev. Aghabaloghlu is a well-known activist who has already been jailed once for challenging the confiscation of his church’s property by the Turkish government. While there have been many talk shows on the Armenian issue, no one has ever dared to go on Turkish TV and repeatedly assert in a bold and brazen manner, as Rev. Aghabaloghlu did, that there is no doubt a genocide was committed against the Armenians. Both Hulki Jevizoglu, the host of the show, and his main guest, historian Mehmet Saray were dumb-founded and tongue-tied by the Armenian clergyman’s unexpectedly outspoken remarks. In a very calm and congenial manner, and with always a smile on his face, Pastor Aghabaloghlu said on national Turkish TV that all Turks in Anatolia know the truth about the Armenian Genocide. He said that no one dared to talk about this subject and that anyone who had the courage to speak about it, is called a traitor, condemned by the media, taken to court, and sent to jail. Despite all attempts to shut him up during the show, Rev. Aghabaloghlu kept on insisting that as a clergyman he has the obligation to tell the truth. When asked to back up his comments, he said that he knew the facts first-hand from the experiences of his own family. Besides, he added, there is plenty of evidence for the Genocide in thousands of books and that everyone knew that the Armenians in Anatolia were the victims of Genocide. Otherwise, he said, what did happen to the Armenians inhabiting that region? Did they evaporate? Did they decide to migrate en masse? Are there any Armenians left in Anatolia? Making the Turks even angrier, Rev. Aghabaloghlu said that since Armenians are mistreated in Turkey today, one can only imagine how much worse their treatment must have been back then under the Ottoman Empire? Mehmet Saray, the Turkish historian, was so enraged by the Armenian clergyman’s assertions that he kept asking the host of the show, "where did you find this man?" Saray said he would have refused to appear on the show if he had known that he would take part in such a "low quality" discussion and that his years of research and his books on this issue would be ignored. When a viewer from Erzeroum called to say that mass graves of Turks were recently uncovered, Rev. Aghabaloghlu immediately retorted: "How do you know that these bones did not belong to Armenians?" This astounding conversation, broadcast live to millions of Turkish viewers, went on until the wee hours of the morning. Rev. Aghabaloghlu is the courageous shepherd not only of his own flock, but that of all Armenians in Turkey who dare not to speak out fearing for their lives! The good pastor risked his life by making such bold remarks on a taboo subject in Turkey. European Union officials should warn the Turkish government that Turkey’s EU membership prospects would be seriously jeopardized should anything happen to this brave Armenian servant of God who, as he says, has an obligation to tell the truth! By Harut Sassounian; Publisher, The California Courier from http://www.azg.am/?lang=EN&num=2005032502

I have checked Azeri news sites. Sometimes, I read articles saying that an Azeri soldier had ''accidentally'' crossed the border. These Azeris are out of the ordinary. They even kill their own people in order to victimize themselves and make it look like their enemies did it.

We estimate that it would take two days for the Armenians to march straight into Baku from http://www.nkrusa.org/nk_conflict/islamic_mercenaries.html

In the third line of the poem, you wrote ''hakarts''. Isn't it ''antsgav''? And why do you say ''Once again the WA has it right.''? Wasn't EA closer to krapar?

Here's a good new article about Artsakh... Artsax Tensions Part of New Great Game By John Antranig Kasbarian As the United States and Russia continue their uneasy struggle for influence across the CIS, a remote corner of the southern Caucasus is gaining prominence once again, part of a series of regional subplots that could aid or impede any grand designs for power. The corner in question is Nagorny Artsax, a tiny mountainous enclave inhabited predominantly by Armenians, which was the scene of a brutal armed struggle in the 1990s when local separatists successfully ended Azerbaijan's rule. Since that time, Artsax's Armenians have controlled the enclave and its borderlands, having fashioned their own republic, which enjoys significant support from neighboring Armenia. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan refuses to acknowledge any change, instead seeking Artsax's return to its full control. Emerging in 1988, the Artsax struggle was once heralded as a test case for Soviet nationalities policy under Mikhail Gorbachev. Artsax's Armenians, with the support of Armenia, initially sought to secede from Azerbaijan, citing their constitutional right to self-determination. However, when these demands met with violent reprisals against Armenians across Azerbaijan, peaceful rallies and petitions were replaced by low-intensity conflict pitting Armenian partisans against Azerbaijan's special forces, amid the rapid demise of Soviet power. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Artsax struggle quickly spiraled into all-out war. By 1994, it had left tens of thousands dead and hundreds of thousands uprooted on both sides. The conflict also drew in a host of regional actors -- Armenia and Azerbaijan, of course, but also neighboring Turkey and Iran, as well as Russia and eventually the United States. This made for a complex geopolitical equation. Indeed, depending on whom you speak to, the Artsax issue is framed differently. For native Artsaxtsis, it is a pure-and-simple national liberation struggle that seeks to remove foreign occupation. For politicians in Yerevan and Baku, Artsax is an apple of discord vied over by competing states. For regional powers, it is a political playing card, through which ethnic tensions can be stoked, suppressed or otherwise manipulated depending on the interests at stake. The problem, of course, is that all four levels operate simultaneously within a hierarchical nest of power relations. Following a 1994 cease-fire, the Artsax conflict has subsided to a large extent. True, border skirmishes continue, and military preparedness remains a priority for Armenians and Azeris alike. Yet all concede that a tenuous "not-war, not-peace" environment has slowly set in. The war on the ground has been largely replaced by a war of words, as all sides press for advantage at the negotiating table. Meanwhile, these sides seek to create new facts-on-the-ground that will bolster their positions in the future. For example, the self-declared Nagorny Artsax Republic has consolidated its de facto independence by establishing firm links to Armenia, on which it now relies for substantial economic and political support. At the same time, Azerbaijan has skillfully parlayed its trump card -- massive Caspian energy reserves -- into a strong multilateral foreign policy that has steered away from dependence on Russia and toward friendly ties with Turkey and the United States, thus creating a favorable mix of anxiety and dependence among those who seek favor with Baku. Diplomacy aside, there are also concerns that oil and gas money now entering Baku may contribute to its remilitarization, thus leading to renewed hostilities. In this war of maneuver, uneasy coexistence has been the norm for the last decade or so. In Baku, Soviet strongman and former President Haidar Aliyev made some noise occasionally, but generally remained low-key, as he favored negotiated solutions and steered clear of any destabilizing developments that might upset investors. In Yerevan, the dovish President Levon Ter-Petrosyan and his successor, the slightly more hawkish Robert Kocharyan, have been even less prone to belligerence, given the ongoing pressures they face from neighboring Turkey and the United States, which have scarcely concealed their support for Azerbaijan. Perhaps most compelling has been the rivalry between the United States and Russia, as the two have evinced markedly different approaches to the region. The former seeks a negotiated settlement within an East-West integrated sphere of influence that would extend from Turkey to Central Asia, effectively cutting off Iran from Russia. The latter has sought permanent instability in Artsax and elsewhere that would ensure the Caucasus' continuance as its primary zone of influence. This slow-motion dance has faltered only twice: once in early 1998 when Ter-Petrosyan was ousted after becoming too conciliatory in his talks with Aliyev and again in 2001 when Kocharyan and Aliyev agreed to a tentative compromise that blew up when Aliyev returned to Baku and apparently changed his mind. Today, however, things appear to be changing: Ilham Aliyev, recent successor to Haidar, has retained his father's authoritarian habits at home while demonstrating increasing belligerence abroad, both in his pronouncements and concrete initiatives. He is emboldened by Russia's seeming retreat, coupled with the United State's recent involvement in the region, as well as its present attempts to court Baku in the campaign to isolate Iran. Thus, with wind in his sails, Aliyev has combined periodic threats to retake Artsax by force with diplomatic offensives designed to paint Armenia as the conflict's aggressor. The most recent initiative is a proposed UN resolution decrying Artsax's hold over "occupied territories" surrounding the enclave, in which Baku demands that Armenians evacuate these lands before negotiating anything regarding Artsax's status. Armenians reply that these are buffer zones, required as a cushion against possible future attacks -- a claim supported by the occasional war cries that still emanate from Baku. Moreover, Artsax's authorities report that their "occupation" hardly resembles the West Bank or Baghdad; rather, Artsax's borderlands have been settled sporadically and unevenly, in many cases by itinerant refugees driven from Azerbaijan during the war years. These claims, too, have been borne out, most recently by French mediator Bernard Fassier, who was in Artsax as part of an OSCE monitoring team in January. Fassier notes in part, "In many areas there is no electricity and poverty predominates. I wouldn't say people live. Rather, they are surviving in half-destroyed walls topped by a tin roof." Not surprisingly, Armenians have rejected Baku's territorial preconditions for a settlement, saying that the central issues -- guarantees of Artsax's security and, ultimately, its political status -- must remain at the forefront of any negotiating process. Azerbaijan replies by stressing Artsax's illegitimacy as a party in negotiations, insisting it will only deal in state-to-state scenarios involving Armenia. So what is to be done? Having spent a good deal of the past decade in Artsax, I know first-hand that native Armenians are stubbornly distrustful of Azeri authorities, and would sooner die than return to the pre-1988 status quo. Accordingly, Azerbaijan must take the fundamental steps of acknowledging Artsax's right to exist and allowing its inclusion as a side to the negotiations. No solution -- no matter how clever -- can work without local involvement. A second issue, however, is perhaps even more thorny: It involves the regional balance of power and, specifically, how Russia intends to react to growing U.S. aggressiveness in and around the Caucasus. If Russia retreats, leaving matters in the hands of U.S.-led interests, more blood may be spilled before a solution is reached. On the other hand, Russia must acknowledge that it cannot use the blunt instruments and blatant manipulations of its recent past, if it is to maintain influence. Rather, Moscow's intentions must become more transparent, aiming to build trust within a framework of regional cooperation rather than by perpetuating instability among vassal states. Otherwise, the stalemate will continue well into the next decade. from http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2005/03/14/006.html

Maybe I wasn't precise. My comment was about the jihad. We Armenians don't go around crusading anymore, don't we?

Hi. I have travelled there a few times, I'm born there. If the situation in Lebanon calms down, it'll be safe to travel there. Lebanon isn't a war zone anymore. And Lebanon isn't an Islamist country either. Just make sure you don't go running around in southern Lebanon - countrolled by Hizbullah - showing your new T-shirt or backpack with the American flag!

Someone should say to this Nuriev guy, that we're not living in the 11th century anymore!

I heard that the Turkish Army massed near the Armenian border - in the early 90s - to ''show its teeth'' to Armenia in order to help Azerbaijan. The Russians supposedly threatened Turkey... Does anyone have a good site that talks about all this? Thanks.

Why don't the Bolsahyes oust him?

Welcome to hyeforum, regmura. Economic benefits are nice - something that Armenia needs. There are many ways to compensate the descendants of Genocide Survivors. For example, they can build a casino or something, dedicated only to this... Do you think the Kurds and Turks in Eastern Turkey would accept us among them, or would they treat us as outsiders, or ''gyavur''? I think Turkey should also give the freedom of the Kurdified or Turkified Armenians, to return being Armenian by adopting Armenian surnames, etc. I'd be also happy if Turkey treats the Armenian monuments better.

ANKARA (Reuters) - Turkish Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan called Tuesday for an impartial study by historians of Armenian claims that their people suffered genocide at the hands of Ottoman Turkish troops during and after World War One. Turkey has always denied the genocide claims but has been irked by growing calls, especially from within the European Union which it aspires to join, that it recognize a genocide occurred as an historic fact. Some EU politicians have even suggested that Turkey should not be allowed to start entry talks to join the bloc on Oct. 3 unless it accepts the genocide claims. "We have opened our archives to those people who claim there was genocide. If they are sincere they should also open their archives," Erdogan told a news conference. "Teams of historians from both sides should conduct studies in these archives. We are ready to take steps on this issue. "We do not want future generations to have a difficult life because of hatred and resentment," he added. Armenia says 1.5 million of its people died between 1915 and 1923 on Ottoman territory in a systematic genocide and says the decision to carry it out was taken by the political party then in power in Istanbul, popularly known as the Young Turks. Turkey denies any genocide, saying the Armenians were victims of a partisan war which also claimed many Muslim Turkish lives. Turkey accuses Armenians of carrying out massacres while siding with invading Russian troops. In an unusual gesture that underlined the sensitivity of the issue in Turkey, opposition leader Deniz Baykal joined Erdogan at the news conference to stress his party's full backing for an independent inquiry into the claims. "We are facing a political campaign (against Turkey)," said Baykal, leader of the Republican People's Party (CHP). Several foreign parliaments, including those of Canada, France and Switzerland, have approved resolutions recognizing an Armenian genocide as fact, much to Turkey's irritation. Armenians will mark the 90th anniversary of the killings on April 24. Turkey has no diplomatic relations with its tiny neighbor Armenia and its border has been closed since 1993 in protest against the former Soviet republic's occupation of part of the territory of Ankara's regional ally Azerbaijan. from http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?t...storyID=7846491 Is it true that the Armenian archives are closed for Turkish historians? Do you think there is hope for Turkey to acknowledge the genocide soon?

from http://www.roadrunnerrecords.com/blabbermo...ewsitemID=33852 What do you think about them? Take a look at some of the comments posted under the article. Some of the posters would rather buy cigarettes, than listen to SOAD.

Sorry for the late reply. Rafik Hariri was a very rich Lebanese man. He was enriched as a businessman in Saudi Arabia. He almost single-handedly rebuilt war-torn Lebanon and its capital Beirut after the Lebanese Civil War (1975-1990). He became Prime Minister - a post traditionally held by Sunni Muslims - in the pro-Syrian Lebanese government. Being a Sunni Muslim himself, he embellished the capital by building, among other things, new mosques and even paid for the renovation of churches. If it wasn't for him, Lebanon would have still been struggling to recover from the War. A few months ago, he resigned, and Omar Karami who was more pro-Syrian than him, took his place. He was inclined to join the anti-Syrian opposition with Walid Jumblatt - a Druze. He got assassinated before making the move. The Lebanese opposition, the media, the US, France, and other nations say that the pro-Syrian Lebanese government did it with the help of Syria. Even Russia said that Syria should withdraw its forces from Lebanon. According to certain sources, the bomb was planted under the road which Hariri probably routinely used. If it had been a traditional terrorist attack, telephones would not have flown up into, and from the St. George hotel. A big crevasse wouldn't have been formed on the ground. The Lebanese government wouldn't have ''cleaned up'' after Hariri's death. But we can never be sure. It could have been anyone else... It could have been done by someone who knew how Lebanese nationalists can be manipulated. Anyway, let us get back to your questions. The damages done to Armenia during the earthquake, and during the Karabagh war, were less damaging than the 25 years Civil War. Look at Lebanon now. It stands better than its own neighbour - Syria - that has dominated it politically... Lebanon is lucky that it borders the Mediterranean. The Syrian labour workers helped Lebanon immensely. But now, the Lebanese regret it that they have brought 1.4 million of them. We might regret it too if we bring in Iranian or other Muslim workers in Armenia. They do not assimilate very quickly. I don't know much about Rafik al-Hariri's origin, other than his Sunni Muslim identity. I am sure that his Armenian origins would have been exposed if it was true. I think that Emile Lahoud's mother is Armenian... Rafik Hariri is dead. Hopefully, the buildings he built and renovated won't go down with him. EDIT: Look at what happened in Anjar, an Armenian town near the Syrian border. Several residents of Anjar, a town near the Syrian border and the location of Syrian military-intelligence headquarters, were arrested for holding candlelight vigils following the Feb. 14 assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister. source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0308/p06s01-wome.html

My entourage calls ouzo, oghi. It's the Western Armenian way of saying it, just as arak is the Lebanese way of saying it... as far as I understand.

The Lebanese Muslims are surely more moderate... but not the Pakistanis or Bangladeshis.

They were called Ottoman Armenians, no?

Ararat is already renamed. They call it ''Agri'' (Aghri).

Probably not. But if the moderate Islamic party continues to rule Turkey, maybe.

That, yes, and it might also be because each muslim women get 8 children or more. (!)

...and oghi.

See? We Armenians were right. Beware of Turkish food