MJ

Thoth, Perhaps I will publish another material on this subject soon, which would touch slightly on some of the issues you have emphasized. It is in the pipeline unless I change my mind. The sad reality is that for decades the rotten ideology of the leadership of Armenian Diaspora, which in a characteristic for herself lack of elementary vision and competence had finalized the selling out of her soul in early 80s (of this century), while not suspecting that the end of USSR was near and was going to cause the collapse of her pseudo-culture and self-cheating political doctrines, has turned the Genocide recognition into an reward that supposedly has to be awarded for the endurance of the trauma and which has to be delivered in a gift wrap. This is why today they are in disarray. The old doctrines have collapsed and they are cowards enough to assume new ones. I agree with you that any genocide is the issue of all humanity. Therefore, it is safe to reiterate an earlier point that no one has ownership of the issue nor can claim ownership of the strategy of its “recognition” or whatever other action. However, by the same token, Armenians have an obligation to recognize (if this was the right word to use) the genocide of Assyrians and Pontic Greeks, among others. To the contrary, the pleas of the latter are being arrogantly rejected by the “guardians” of the Armenian Genocide recognition – organizations and individuals alike as “non-comparable issues.” Nor the government of Armenia has made any steps in recognizing the victimized status of the mentioned people. By doing so, Armenians have fallen into the same trap of inventing “genocide hierarchy,” and thus hierarchy of “chosen people” and “better chosen people,” which means, again, I agree with you that, if nothing else, then at least by our own example, we should not have legitimate expectations that someone else should or has an obligation to “recognize” our own tragedy. By the way, I find this “recognition” term disgusting. If you think carefully about it, the “recognition” is about us being recognized as victims. It is a repugnant form of self-pity. I do agree that the Armenian Genocide issue needs a resolution so that the legacy/trauma caused by it may be laid off. I feel sorry for our people, especially the older generation, who with the help of the Diasporan Armenian political and social leadership have fallen prays to a self-distractive victimization syndrome. However, why would you (generic you) give the key of the much needed resolution and the role of the therapists to the very unrepentant perpetrator of the crime or to some others who have enough issues of their own. Why wouldn’t you resolve your problem yourself? After all, the trauma resides in your own psyche… No? After all not the entire nation of ours is sick, right? Only a fraction of it… Obviously, I am talking here about the psycho-sociological dimension of the problem, which is at the core of all the rest of the problems. Thus, I also agree with you that the issue here is not the fact of the Genocide but its legacy. I have publicly spoken about this many times. And I am not proposing to “turn away from this or go quietly.” If someone things he/she is doing something meaningful on the subject – more power to him/her/them. It is not my place to tell others what they should do not should not do. But I would not allow others to tell me what I should do or should not do, though I am always open for a meaningful discussion which has some purpose other than to establish someone’s sick or inflated ego (this comment is not directed at you, so no need to feel defensive, please.) However, for myself, I question the meaningfulness and, frequently, the motives of our foam-in-mouth loudspeakers. I believe that it is a crime against the future of the Armenian nation to do things with a desire to “energize the base,” or to have the outdated and failed organizations and structures with no mission, whatsoever, “going.” How many more years it will go this way you think? How many more generations are they going to energize this way or “preserve?” What if the Genocide is “recognized?” Then what? As soon as an official label, “Bow your head, a bleeding heart of a victim resides under this chest” is hung from our neck we become a better nation? Or does it give us more self-justification for existence? Or should we continue being immoral and assume that as soon as we tattoo the label “Victim” or “Descendent of a Victim” on our forehead, a golden shower is going to wash us and so that we can claim ourselves back from our rotten mass psyche? Our culture and achievements would not receive recognition as a result of attaching some miserable label to our foreheads or chests. They will achieve recognition and appreciation if we can create all-human values for the future, if we would claim a worthy and dignified place in the family of dignified nations, if we would stop behaving and thinking like parasites, always insinuating that someone else owes us something and everyone else is conspiring something against us, when we would feel responsibility for our existing homeland and our lands that we currently have, rather than pervertly erecting imaginary homelands and claming what we have only held episodically throughout 2000 years according to a cowardly act of running away from responsibility for the real homeland that we have for the last time in history. At the end of the day, no one is immune from cowardice. Even Apostle Peter consecutively betrayed the Lord three times before the crucifixion. Then he felt ashamed and cried. One may only hope that our Diasporan leadership may feel ashamed, cry and repent without the homeland facing crucifixion. I, for one, am not optimistic. This is how much time I can commit to this subject at this time.

Dear Arpa, THank you for your support. What can I do to meet your request?

It is a bit entertaining to follow the confused train of thought of this thread… Democracy by definition means imposition … of the will of the majority on the minority. In view of this, the question “can democracy be imposed on the people” is a little bit of an oxymoron as it sort of asks whether the will of [the majority of] people can be imposed on the people.

Is it possible that the Armenian maps are received seen in the same spirit by the rest of the people?

It is hard to imagine that Cato Institute, the major libretarian think tank, would propose regulations.

Will Internet Telephony Bring About a Revolution in Telecom Policy? POLICY FORUM Tuesday, September 9, 2003 11:00 am (Luncheon to follow) Featuring J. Scott Marcus, Federal Communications Commission; Link Hoewing, Verizon; Brad Ramsay, National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners; Marilyn Cade, AT&T; and Jeff Pulver, Pulver.com. The Cato Institute 1000 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 Watch the Event Live in RealVideo Listen to the Event in RealAudio (Audio Only) Many Internet engineers and technologists have long dreamed about a day when voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service, or “Internet telephony,” would supplement if not totally supplant, traditional analog, circuit-switched communications networks. This dream may soon become a reality as the VoIP service has blossomed and is increasingly being used by consumers to bypass traditional phone lines and regulations. The revolutionary impact of VoIP has not gone unnoticed by policy makers, however, as discussions are underway at the federal and state level about how to regulate Internet telephony as it grows more popular. Should VoIP be treated like traditional telecommunications services and regulated and taxed accordingly, or is a new regulatory regime in order? And can VoIP be regulated at all given the ubiquitous nature of Internet communications? These issues will be discussed by a diverse panel of industry experts. Cato policy forums and luncheons are free of charge. To register for this event, please fill out the form below and click submit or call Krystal Brand by 11:00 am, Monday, September 8, 2003, at (202) 789-5229, fax her at (202) 371-0841, or e-mail to kbrand@cato.org. News media inquiries only (no registrations), please call 202-789-5200. If you can't make it to the Cato Institute, watch this forum live online. If you plan to watch this event online, there is no need to register. http://www.cato.org/events/030909pf.html

Those with a credible claim on a better knowledge of Hebrew claim that the commandement "Thou shalt not kill" manifests an inaccurate translation of one which should be translated as "Thou shalt not murder."

Stprmy, You probably meant to say that you were surprised to see me here, right?

The other night I was invited out for a night with "the girls." I told my husband that I would be home by midnight, "I promise!" Well, the hours passed and the champagne was going down way too easy. Around 3 a.m., drunk as a skunk, I headed for home. Just as I got in the door, the cuckoo clock in the hall started up and cuckooed 3 times. Quickly, realizing he'd probably wake up, I cuckooed another 9 times. I was really proud of myself for coming up with such a quick-witted solution (even when smashed), in order to escape a possible conflict with him. The next morning my husband asked me what time I got in, and I told him 12:00. He didn't seem disturbed at all. Whew! Got away with that one! Then he said, "We need a new cuckoo clock." When I asked him why, he said, "Well, last night our clock cuckooed three times, then said, "oh shit," cuckooed 4 more times, cleared its throat, cuckooed another 3 times, giggled, cuckooed twice more, and then tripped over the cat.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/heroes/vatch-georgia.jpg Vatche Arslanian pictured with an unidentified woman during his 15-month mission in the Republic of Georgia in 2000. NAME: Vatche Arslanian AGE: 48 AFFILIATION: International Committee of the Red Cross HOMETOWN: Oromocto, New Brunswick FAMILY: Mother, Chake, and sisters, Talin and Sylvie DETAILS: Despite the risks, this Red Cross worker stayed in Baghdad to aid the needy. He was killed when he got caught in the crossfire. Slain Red Cross worker helped Iraqis make it through 'He would always go the extra step' By Jeordan Legon CNN (CNN) -- After a long day at the office moving boxes and securing the arrival of humanitarian supplies, Red Cross logistics coordinator Vatche Arslanian had just one more thing to do. Give a ride home to an employee who lived on the other side of Baghdad. It was a final act of kindness for the husky Canadian with the hearty laugh who dedicated much of his life to helping people in need. Arslanian, 48, died April 8 when his car was caught in the crossfire between coalition and Iraqi troops. His employee was shot, but was able to run away. A day later, when the battle ended, Arslanian's body was recovered, still clothed in his white Canadian Red Cross T-shirt, officials said. "He would always go the extra step," Suzanne Charest, a Canadian Red Cross colleague who often spoke to Arslanian by phone. "He really prided himself on the work of the Red Cross and he knew it was making a difference in a really horrific war. If he hadn't been there ... thousands of Iraqis would not have had access to water or medical supplies." Arslanian, who had been in Baghdad since July 2001, was given the option of leaving the city at the start of the war. He stayed. Too much needed to be done. His staff of 40 Red Cross workers depended on him. He had 65 vehicles, 55 generators and five warehouses to oversee. In the first weeks of the war, his knowledge of Arabic and perseverance ensured food, water and medical supplies continued reaching war-weary Iraqis, Charest said. "The work is rewarding, because helping to bring a smile and dignity to a fellow human being is deeply fulfilling," Arslanian told a Red Cross colleague who interviewed him shortly before his death. Arslanian, who was born in Syria and moved to Canada in 1975, loved to help others, colleagues said. He worked as a taxi driver, dishwasher, security guard and hotel banquet organizer, but no matter what he did, he always found time to volunteer. He served as deputy mayor of his Canadian hometown of Oromocto, New Brunswick, and began volunteering with the Red Cross in 1991. Whether it was moving refugees from Kosovo to Canada or helping feed the hungry in the Republic of Georgia, he enjoyed opening the way for humanitarian relief to arrive. His co-workers say the quiet, detail-oriented man was unstoppable -- keeping a toy bulldozer on his desk as a reminder of his mission. "He really was a bulldozer," Charest said. "He made things happen." http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/hero.../red.cross.html

Vava, My quarel is not with a 14 years old boy. It is with those who have cultivated for decades and continue doing so, the refernced above mass psychosys.

KOCHARIAN AGAIN BRANDED ‘ENEMY OF PRESS’ http://www.a1plus.am/eng/images/3526/1.jpg By Shakeh Avoyan President Robert Kocharian was branded on Saturday “the enemy of the press” by an Armenian media association for the second year in a row. The National Press Club (NPC), which unites journalists mostly working for pro-opposition media, accused Kocharian of “establishing full control over TV air,” seeking to enact an “undemocratic” media law and “effectively sponsoring” attacks on independent reporters. The decision was announced on World Press Freedom Day marked by journalists around the globe. The NPC said Kocharian was chosen by the overwhelming majority of its members. One of them, Vartan Vartanian, showed off an appropriate certificate awarding Kocharian the dubious prize at a special news conference, saying it that it will be sent to the presidential administration. Another, less radical media group, the Yerevan Press Club (YPC), again voiced its disagreement with the NPC’s charge. The YPC chairman, Boris Navasardian, said the NPC does not represent the entire journalist community. Still, he admitted that the situation with press freedoms in Armenia has deteriorated over the past year. “Unfortunately, the media and press freedom in Armenia have moved backwards by all objective standards,” Navasardian told RFE/RL, singling out the closure in April 2002 of the independent A1+ television station. A1+’s forced shutdown was a key reason why the Armenian media was rated “not free” this week by Freedom House, a major U.S. human rights organization. In its annual report on freedom of media around the world, Freedom House accused the Armenian authorities of stifling dissent and intimidating journalists critical of their policies. The authorities have insisted all along that A1+ lost its broadcasting frequency and was forced off the air as a result of a competitive bidding conducted in accordance with Armenia’s law on television and radio. (Photolur photo: the NPC statement accusing Kocharian of being "the enemy of the press.") http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeniarepor...15C6D73BE1D.ASP

What a pathetic thing ... I agree MJ. Only a stupid Armenian would write something stupid like that about another Armenian. It just comes to show how perverted the Armenian psyche has become as a result of the decades of the erection of the Pathetic and Masochistic Victimdome by the Armenian mass Culture.

What a pathetic thing ...

FREEDOM HOUSE Freedom of the Press 2003: A Global Survey of Media Independence The numbers: Each country is rated in three categories, with the higher number being the least free. A country's total score is based on the total of the three categories: a score of 0-30 places the country in the free-press group, 31-60 in partly-free, and 61-100 in the not free-press group. ARMENIA Status: Not Free Legal environment: 23 Political influences: 26 Economic pressures: 16 Total Score: 65 Status change explanation: Armenia's rating declined from Partly Free to Not Free as a result of the government's repeated use of security or criminal libel laws to stifle criticism, as well as the forced closing of the country 's leading independent television station. Freedom of the press declined in Armenia as a result of the closing of the country's leading independent television station, and the government's continued attempts to stifle criticism in the media. Article 24 of the constitution guarantees freedom of expression and the press. However, the government acts to limit these rights in practice. National security legislation and criminal libel laws allow the state to prosecute journalists for any perceived infraction. Journalists frequently experience physical assaults and other forms of intimidation in relation to their work. In late 2002, a reporter investigating the government's 1999 assault on the parliament building suffered serious injuries from a grenade attack. Law enforcement officials often decline to prosecute attacks against journalists. Most media outlets seek sponsorship from powerful business or political interests. These interests frequently exercise de facto editorial control over content and foster a climate of self-censorship among journalists. In April, the National Commission on Television and Radio transferred the broadcast frequency of A1+, the leading independent television station, to an entertainment company with reported links to the government. Often critical of the government, A1+ did not resume broadcasting in the run-up to presidential and parliamentary elections. AZERBAIJAN Status: Not Free Legal environment: 22 Political influences: 28 Economic pressures: 23 Total Score: 73 The passage of new media legislation has had a positive influence on press freedom. Nevertheless, political interference and harsh economic conditions remain obstacles to the further development of free media in the country. Amendments to the Law on Mass Media came into effect in March 2002. Leading Azerbaijani press organizations applauded this development, as the amendments removed nearly all the registration requirements previously used to stifle print media. Existing laws governing television and radio broadcasting stand in contrast to these changes. President Heydar Aliev has the sole power to appoint members to the broadcast regulatory board. Ill-defined licensing procedures limit the growth of Azerbaijan's few independent broadcasters. Government lawsuits for libel threaten media outlets with severe fines and the prospect of closure. Many businesses are reluctant to pay for advertising in opposition media for fear of government reprisals. A government scheme to provide loans to struggling papers allows even greater room for political influence over the financially burdened independent press. GEORGIA Status: Partly Free Legal environment: 18 Political influences: 21 Economic pressures: 15 Total Score: 54 The independent media struggle in the face of continued political and economic pressure. Article 24 of the constitution bans censorship and provides for freedom of expression. The 1991 Law on the Press and Other Mass Media allows for a wide degree of press freedom; however, the law lacks effective enforcement mechanisms. To address weaknesses in existing legislation, parliament introduced the Law on Freedom of Speech and Media during 2002. Local nongovernmental organizations and civic groups generally applauded the measure but raised concerns that sections regarding media registration and national security could potentially restrict reporting. The bill passed on its first reading but had not entered into force by the end of the year. The 1999 administrative code provides for open access to public information. Adherence to this regulation varies widely. The limited space for press freedom diminishes rapidly outside the capital of Tbilisi. In June, the Bolnisi town mayor physically assaulted a female journalist after she reported on election irregularities in a recent local election. In September, law enforcement agents damaged equipment and assaulted the staff of a Zugdidi television station after the channel broadcast a story on police corruption. The great majority of print and broadcast outlets are privately owned; however, the state continues to maintain control over the only nationwide television and radio stations. Private media have demonstrated marked dependence on powerful economic or political interests. --- http://www.freedomhouse.org/pfs2003/pfs2003.pdf

I don't have time to go into this discussion, now. Have to run. By in large and implicitly, you have answered the questions you have raised. Next month, I will introduce some Turkish professionals and semi-organizations which are not sponsored from Ankara and are manifestations of progressive Turkish thought. In reality, I would confirm, here, Ali Suit's earlier statement that the Turkish government is exploring the possibilities of slowly educating the Turks on the subject of Genocide and opening their minds for the recognition. However, they want to control the pace of these developments. In any case, the Armenian issue is not a priority for them. They have much more serious from their perspective issues. Neither does the Genocide recognition threten them in any meaningful ways, as long as they can control the pace of it, as I mentioned above.

Here is more of it: Iraq files 'show al-Qaeda link' Documents found in Baghdad show a link between Saddam Hussein's fallen regime and al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden, according to a UK newspaper. The Sunday Telegraph says reporter Inigo Gilmore discovered the files in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, the feared Iraqi intelligence service. It says the files, in Arabic, show an al-Qaeda envoy was invited to visit Baghdad secretly in March 1998. The report comes only days after its sister paper, the Daily Telegraph claimed to have unearthed documents showing left-wing Labour MP George Galloway received money from the Iraqi regime. Mr Galloway denies the claims and plans to sue the paper for libel. These latest documents suggest Iraqi officials wanted to pass on an oral message to set up a direct meeting with Bin Laden. The 1998 visit described in the documents would have taken place before Washington blamed Bin Laden for the bombings of two US embassies in Africa later that year. Correction fluid Mr Gilmore told the BBC he found the documents after being allowed into the intelligence headquarters in Baghdad by US troops guarding the site. He smuggled the papers back to his hotel where his translator translated them into English. Perhaps significantly the CIA had been through many of these buildings but they seem to have missed this particular document Inigo Gilmore Sunday Telegraph He told the BBC: "I noticed on some of the documents there were some marks erased out... we scraped away with a razor and underneath we found the name Bin Laden three times and obviously realised this was highly significant. "These documents explain that an envoy from Bin Laden came to Iraq in March 1998 to discuss contact between al-Qaeda and Iraqi intelligence. "It also talks about sending an oral message back to Bin Laden and it furthermore discuss the idea of setting up a direct meeting with Bin Laden himself." In one document quoted by the paper an Iraqi official wrote: "We suggest permission to call the Khartoum station [iraq's intelligence office in Sudan] to facilitate the travel arrangements for the above-mentioned person to Iraq. "And that our body carry all the travel and hotel costs inside Iraq to gain the knowledge of the message from Bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to Bin Laden." Denial Mr Gilmore said the document was highly significant given the United States' claims of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. He said: "I have worked in the Middle East for many years and like many other journalists was very sceptical about American claims. "However, having found these documents, and reviewed them and had several people translate them for accuracy it does seem very credible that this contact was made in 1998 and perhaps followed up afterwards. "We don't have any evidence of that." Mr Gilmore said he was not out to provide propaganda for the US but the documents could be something they would want to use to back up their claims. He said: "Perhaps significantly the CIA had been through many of these buildings but they seem to have missed this particular document. "But it is pretty much pot luck. We have been through many buildings this week and this is the first significant thing we have found." Before the war Saddam Hussein made it clear he had no links with al-Qaeda. During an interview with former British MP Tony Benn, he said: "If we had a relationship with al-Qaeda, and we believed in that relationship, we would not be ashamed to admit it." Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/worl...ast/2979405.stm Published: 2003/04/27 09:07:01 © BBC MMIII

That's about the attitude I have when I read your postings.

Middle East - AP Papers: Documents Show Iraq-Al Qaida Link 1 hour, 46 minutes ago LONDON - Two newspapers reported that they found documents in the bombed out headquarters of Iraq (news - web sites)'s intelligence service that appear to show that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s regime met with an al-Qaida envoy in 1998 and sought to arrange a meeting with Osama bin Laden (news - web sites). Papers found by reporters working for the Toronto Star and Britain's Sunday Telegraph appear to show that purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaida based on their mutual hatred of the United States and Saudi Arabia, the newspapers reported in their Sunday editions. The 1998 meeting went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad, said the newspapers, which had reporters working together with Iraqi translators on the story. Journalists found the documents in the rubble of one of the rooms of the intelligence headquarters, the papers said. Bin Laden's name appears three times in the handwritten file, with each reference clumsily concealed with white-out correction fluid and then blackened with ink, the Toronto Star wrote. The Toronto Star recounted how a translator named Amir scraped off the white correction fluid to reveal bin Laden's name. "It says bin Laden! It says bin Laden," the Toronto Star quoted Amir as exclaiming. One of the pages, dated Feb. 19, was marked "top secret and urgent" and referred to plans for the trip from Sudan of the unnamed envoy, who is described in the file as a trusted confidant of bin Laden's, the Sunday Telegraph said. The document, signed, "MDA," which the Telegraph said is a code name believed to belong to the director of one of the Iraqi intelligence sections, said the Iraqis sought to pay for the envoy's costs while in Iraq "to gain the knowledge of the message from bin Laden and to convey to his envoy an oral message from us to bin Laden." The message to bin Laden "would relate to the future of our relationship with him, bin Laden, and to achieve a direct meeting with him," the Telegraph quoted the document as saying. The other documents confirm that the envoy traveled from Khartoum in Sudan to Baghdad in March 1998 and that he stayed at the al-Mansour Melia hotel, it said. The documents do not mention whether any meeting took place between bin Laden and Iraqi officials, the Telegraph said. Separately, The Sunday Times reported that its own journalists had found documents in the Iraqi foreign ministry that indicate that France gave Saddam Hussein's regime regular reports on its dealings with American officials. The newspaper said the documents reveal that Paris shared with Baghdad the contents of private trans-Atlantic meetings and diplomatic traffic from Washington. One document, dated Sept. 25, 2001, from Iraqi foreign minister Naji Sabri to Saddam's palace, was based on a briefing from the French ambassador in Baghdad and covered talks between presidents Jacques Chirac and George W. Bush. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...id=540&ncid=716

Do you also have similar question about the Chinese government sponsoring Chairs? How about if a Turkish philanthropist sponsors it, for example? Would you still feel resentful?

Wow, thank you for the lesson in international politics and the tenets of Armenian Independence. Before you throw out few more boy-scout outbursts, and quote me lines from the Declaration of Independence of Armenia, it would be useful for you to know that I have had active participation in its crafting and changing. And I know very well the circumstances under which the term “Western Armenia” has been introduced there. I will not go into the details with you. It would be good, however, if you could understand the difference of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. In general, I can assure you that there practically nothing you can tell me on this subject, from all I have seen, that would be new or of interest to me. Also, before you can talk about my “narrow shell,” you need to transform from your stage of boy-scoutism to maturity, and then I will take your mumbling on the “shells.” I think this is enough on the subject of who needs to go where, though I could add few more lines and give you a couple of directions at that. Constitution is not based on the Declaration. Constitution is referencing a line of a Declaration, which is very controversial in nature. On the merits, it doesn’t go beyond referencing the recognition for the Genocide and it does not reference itself anything like “Western Armenia.” It is an utmost stupid thing to say that the Constitution and the Declaration have the same power. Moreover, that the Declaration has superiority. Even scouts should understand that the Declarations is simply a declaration. Thus its name. It is not a binding law. The law of the land is the Constitution, meanwhile, and it is binding. The fact that the constitution can change and the Declaration cannot is correct, however your implications of Declaration’s priority in view of this are indicative only of your faulty thinking. As to the rest of your mumblings, I have more important things to do than to reply to every single one of them. And if you have ever had any illusions that I have ever had any interest in debating with you or another scout like you anything, it would be useful for you to stop feeding yourself with that illusion from this point on. You can also be better served if you go and teach your grandma about realpolitics. She might be more attentive to your needs.

This is the argument which I have called stupid. I have done so because it is chronologically inaccurate and procedurally baseless. TARC had started after the House of Representatives had declined the Resolution, which was not even a Resolution. It was just an instruction for education of the Diplomatic Corps, which is fine. However, TARC has been formed after the plug was pulled for the passage of this deceleration by Clinton. The honesty requires the recognizing of this. You maybe right here or not. In any case, there is nothing stupid or dishonest here. Therefore, I will just read it and keep your perspective in my mind. I would just add that this is the first time ever the Armenian Genocide has been studied from a legal perspective. And the result is good even from the political perspective.

Listen, dude, I already told you that my questioned message had nothing to do with you. When I posted it I had not even seen your material… OK? I am not going to be apologetic about it any more than this. As far as your speaking from the both sides of your mouth is concerned, yes, you do it all the time. You have done it in this thread, too. Maybe it is not just your mouth but the way you think. But, indeed, what you normally say comes from the both sides of your mouth. Frequently, however, few “IMOs” are inserted in between to smooth the transition from one side to the other. About TARC, for the last time (really): I have said that TARC has succeeded in what it has tried to do so far. Here is why. There are no hurdles from the Armenian side for the establishment of diplomatic relations with Turkey. This has been asserted time and again by the consecutive Armenian administrations. The hurdles are created from the Turkish side, and the first one is the ‘allegation of Genocide’ by the Armenian side. Turks say ‘the unfortunate things’ that have taken place in the early 20th century do not constitute genocide, and so that diplomatic and other relations are established, Armenia has to drop such ‘allegations.’ In order to address this issue, TARC had come to a consensuse, not without huge controversies and arguments, to appeal to ICTJ for clarifications on the legal basis for qualifying the questioned events as genocide or not. Both sides had presented the events from their perspectives. The Armenian side, as evident, won. For the first time in the history of the efforts of the recognition of the Genocide, a professional legal entity and not a political one, has claimed that using the term genocide to qualify something that has happened before the UN Resolution on Genocide had even been crafted was legitimate. No other legal entity had done it before and the matter had never been studies from a legal perspective. All the prior proclamations where political in nature, and thus had been always attributed to the “Armenian lobby” or to the “foreign conspiracy against Turkey.” It has been very hard to get to this point of resolution. The ICTJ Report creates a legal point of reference which was absent before. This is all TARC has attempted to do so far, at least from the Armenian perspective, and it has been success. If the Turks would come to grips with this reality, TARC will move to the next step. If not, it would be evident that the venue has exhausted itself and new venues would be searched. In particular, the issue may be pushed in the House of Representatives from a stronger basis and would allow to demonstrate Hasterd (who personally is receptive to the issue) and others (who are not receptive) that Turks are not able or willing to resolve the issue through a bilateral relationship, and it requires the pressure from the US, again. Whether it is likely to happen at this stage in history, it is a different issue. Now, about “your views being incredibly stupid…” I have said no such thing. Talking on a very specific argument of yours, I have said that it was incredibly stupid and I stand by it. In a previous message I have explained why. In your last message you repeat the same argument, by attributing “lost momentum” to TARC and alleging that the “Genocide issue has been completely squashed because of TARC.” You are adding more of the same instead of adding reason to your arguments. If in the first message I called similar arguments stupid, I will add here shame on you. I will also add double shame on you for going even further, and starting to demagogue the argument. Go read your last couple of messages to understand why I am saying it. If you still don’t get it, shame on you one more time, and for a different reason, now.

OK, seems like I am having problems to fall asleep tonight. I had decided not to speak on the subject any more, but will try one last time. First, my answer which I assume you have referenced, had nothing to do with you. It would be great if you could get rid of some of your insecurity. Before you can qualify TARC as success, you should find out what its mission was. TARC, in principle, is not in position to do any of the things you have requested. It has no such mission. All of the functions you have requested belong to the governments. TARC was only in the business of shaping a framework for the negotiations of the two governments. TARC’s first task was to give a professional assessment to the Armenian Genocide. As a result of a joint decision, not without controversy, they appealed to ICTJ and provided arguments from both side. It is well publicized as who won. That is all that TARC has done so far. TARC has not convened since. That is all that is relevant to TARC. The other argument of yours regarding lost momentum is incredibly stupid. When a resolution about educating the US Diplomatic corps in the matters of Armenian Genocide was introduced in the House of Representatives, and that is all that was done, and that resolution was about to pass, Clinton pulled it out claiming that “it would jeopardize the security of the US personnel in Turkey.” Then, the US congress pushed the Armenian and Turkish side to the negotiation table. Speaker Hasterd (spelling?) even made a declaration that that should be the next step. At that time, TARC did not exist. Even if TARC came to some deadlock, which is something that one representative of the Turkish side has pushed it to, that is only a positive thing for the Armenian side. That deadlock can only give further momentum to the recognition by the American side. Without that deadlock the US would not have heard the issue, again. However, since 9/11, any conversation about such momentum has become a product of imagination of people like you. Finally, I am tired of your talk from both sides of your mouth. If you can, try to understand what am I referring to.

You know what... go get a toy and indulge yourself. And while doing so, find yourself another friend at that and don’t through yourself under my feet.