MJ

quote:Originally posted by koko: quote:Originally posted by MJ:Alpha, I, personally, don’t think that Diaspora Armenians have obligation to help Armenia financially. Besides, a very significant percentage of Diaspora Armenians is unsettled in its own turf. Actually, I think the other way – Armenia has obligation to help Diaspora. However, I am saddened that Diaspora Armenians, by in large, do not have a feeling of ownership over Armenia. As to the structures, I only believe in structures which have their center of gravity in Armenia. However, I always welcome anythhing positive that is being proposed for Armenia. Im sorry but who are u to say or judje that the Armenian Diaspora doesnt have a feeling of belingingness, feel ownership over Armenia? No one owns Armenia. Armenia is the homeland of armenians. The armenian who is engaged in his or her heritage knows very well wich or where or who's Armenia we are talking about. One problem that is connected with the so called "ownership" word is that in Former Sovjet armenia they didin't let armenians from abroad to get citizenship in the country. Because to them we weren't real Armenians.How could they be when they hadn't lived in Armenia? To understand this u have to know armenian history, of course! My apologies, Karine, but I cannot quite understand what you were saying above. Could you say it again?

Arpa, Correct me, if I am wrong, plesae. Doesn't the words "orinag" in Armenian originate fromt eh Ancient Armenian (Grabar) "zororinag?" In such case, I think it would raise serious doubts on some of the interpretations of the word, above, i think.

Alpha, I, personally, don’t think that Diaspora Armenians have obligation to help Armenia financially. Besides, a very significant percentage of Diaspora Armenians is unsettled in its own turf. Actually, I think the other way – Armenia has obligation to help Diaspora. However, I am saddened that Diaspora Armenians, by in large, do not have a feeling of ownership over Armenia. As to the structures, I only believe in structures which have their center of gravity in Armenia. However, I always welcome anythhing positive that is being proposed for Armenia.

quote:Originally posted by KGrigory:does anyone know what happened to the site www.armenianlyrics.com it used to be pretty good with the lyrics to lots of armenian songs. Now it shows up as selling some type of insurance. Maybe another good Armenian with good intentions found himself/herself tasting the bitterness of the reality of making the ends meet...

Alpha, I think the primary reason of such "inequality" is that Armenian Diaspora of Russia claims ownership of Armenia and sees it as its homeland. For the rest of the [majority of] Diaspora, Armenia is an akin country. Their country is the one which has existed only in their imagination in the last 1000 years. However, in the issue of Karabagh I think the rest of the Diaspora has had much more involvement. I think it is because of a desire "to get even with the Turks."

Putin Has His Own Candidate for Pre-emption NY Times October 6, 2002 By STEPHEN SESTANOVICH While working to slow down the Bush administration's campaign against Saddam Hussein, Russia has for weeks waged a campaign of accusation and intimidation against neighboring Georgia, where some Chechen fighters have taken refuge. It's not the first such outburst by Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, against his Georgian counterpart, Eduard A. Shevardnadze. But Russia's pitch-perfect parody of American antiterrorism policy has commanded Washington's attention and could even derail Russian-American cooperation. On the eve of President Bush's Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations on Iraq, Mr. Putin wrote Secretary General Kofi Annan charging that Georgia's passivity toward Chechen fighters on its territory violated Security Council resolutions. Russia might therefore have to act unilaterally. The chief of Russia's general staff insisted that Mr. Shevardnadze was "in no way" different from Mullah Omar of the Taliban. The Russian defense minister announced that no United Nations vote was needed to attack Georgia. One Russian newspaper published military plans to occupy all of Georgia - and thereby "dictate the terms" of its future existence as a state. The headline: "Pre-emption Moscow-Style." Mr. Shevardnadze has shown he can use Moscow's words against it. Echoing the United Nations debate on Iraq, he has invited Mr. Putin to send unarmed inspectors to see for themselves that Georgian forces have cleared the area where Russians say Chechen fighters roam at will. When the current anti-Georgian frenzy began, many in both Moscow and Washington saw it as a Russian military attempt to deflect attention from the war in Chechnya. Russian polls show popular confidence in the management of the war has dropped to about 30 percent. Yet even the most transparent scapegoating of Georgia seems to sell. No surprise, then, that one of the generals reprimanded when Chechen rebels shot down a military helicopter in August told reporters last week that the Chechens got the missile they had used from - yes - the Georgians. If one believes Moscow journalists and politicians, Russian generals fear more than professional disgrace in Chechnya. By perpetuating the war, they also protect the black-market livelihood they have there, selling oil, drugs, even weapons. Yet blame-shifting is only one Russian aim in this affair. Moscow's nationalistic agitation has brought other motives to the surface, particularly the desire to take Georgia down a peg. For years Mr. Shevardnadze has said that letting Russian combat forces into Georgia would engulf his country in the same violence that Chechnya has experienced. To which some Russians answer, "So what?" For them, if chaos could topple Mr. Shevardnadze or break Georgia's budding relationship with NATO, or wreck plans for pipelines that circumvent Russia - well, what's wrong with a little chaos? Russian officials disavow such ideas, but Moscow's threats have guaranteed a strong show of American support for Georgian independence. President Bush fired off a letter to Mr. Shevardnadze, praising his "invaluable contribution" to the war on terrorism. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, while saying he wouldn't lecture the Russians, has publicly warned them off any thought of using "brute force" against Georgia. Administration officials acknowledge that a Russian attack on Georgia would be a fiasco for their friendly relations with Mr. Putin. "Regime change" in Georgia would reverberate across the entire former Soviet Union. In Russia, it would make the idea of restoring some sort of post-Soviet realm not just a nostalgic Communist obsession but a respectable strategic alternative to joining the West. Elsewhere, governments that the United States has tried to help - or, as in central Asia, whose help it has sought - would be on notice that America cannot, or will not, help them stand up to Russia. Despite its emotional heat and dangerous implications, Mr. Putin's indictment of Georgia has already had its effect. These days in Washington it's not good enough for any state to say that it tolerates only a few terrorists and only some of the time. Or that there aren't enough of them to affect the outcome of the war next door. Or that the terrorists wouldn't be a problem at all if the neighboring state hadn't mismanaged the war in the first place. Georgia can and does make these arguments, with real persuasiveness. Yet, while holding the Russian at bay, the Bush administration has apparently concluded that the only way to avert disaster is to get the Georgians to address the underlying problem rather than to win the debate. Last spring, during an earlier round of Russian accusations, the United States responded by announcing a major military training program for Georgia. This time the response has been: Get your act together - a serious state doesn't make itself vulnerable by letting armed fighters use its territory. Mr. Shevardnadze's sweep against the fighters is one result. The fact that fighting has now escalated in Chechnya itself, involving Chechen units with nowhere else to go, may be another. Russians often accuse the United States of blindness to Mr. Shevardnadze's failings, but they're wrong. The afterglow of admiration for his achievements as Soviet foreign minister under Mikhail Gorbachev doesn't drive American policy anymore. In fact, most American diplomats regard his regime in Georgia as corrupt and ineffective and have given up hope that any of Georgia's problems will be dealt with seriously under his leadership. They know Mr. Shevardnadze is a survivor. They just want to see him do enough to survive. If this confrontation ends more or less peacefully - a big if - it may be because all the parties accept what they least like in each other's policies. The United States may not mind Russian pressure if it focuses Mr. Shevardnadze on what he has to do. The Russians may not mind American influence if it yields a change in Georgian policy. And the Georgians may not mind being told they have to make decisions they find it hard to make themselves. In such an outcome, Russians who saw an opportunity to turn back the growth of American influence will be disappointed. But some of them may have known this was where they would end up. Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, was asked three weeks ago whether Russia didn't in fact need a larger American presence in Georgia. "Maybe," he shrugged. Stephen Sestanovich is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/06/weekinre...=1035183328&ei= 1&en=2cd51cf2f52e70ff

Putin Has His Own Candidate for Pre-emption October 6, 2002 By STEPHEN SESTANOVICH While working to slow down the Bush administration's campaign against Saddam Hussein, Russia has for weeks waged a campaign of accusation and intimidation against neighboring Georgia, where some Chechen fighters have taken refuge. It's not the first such outburst by Russia's president, Vladimir V. Putin, against his Georgian counterpart, Eduard A. Shevardnadze. But Russia's pitch-perfect parody of American antiterrorism policy has commanded Washington's attention and could even derail Russian-American cooperation. On the eve of President Bush's Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations on Iraq, Mr. Putin wrote Secretary General Kofi Annan charging that Georgia's passivity toward Chechen fighters on its territory violated Security Council resolutions. Russia might therefore have to act unilaterally. The chief of Russia's general staff insisted that Mr. Shevardnadze was "in no way" different from Mullah Omar of the Taliban. The Russian defense minister announced that no United Nations vote was needed to attack Georgia. One Russian newspaper published military plans to occupy all of Georgia - and thereby "dictate the terms" of its future existence as a state. The headline: "Pre-emption Moscow-Style." Mr. Shevardnadze has shown he can use Moscow's words against it. Echoing the United Nations debate on Iraq, he has invited Mr. Putin to send unarmed inspectors to see for themselves that Georgian forces have cleared the area where Russians say Chechen fighters roam at will. When the current anti-Georgian frenzy began, many in both Moscow and Washington saw it as a Russian military attempt to deflect attention from the war in Chechnya. Russian polls show popular confidence in the management of the war has dropped to about 30 percent. Yet even the most transparent scapegoating of Georgia seems to sell. No surprise, then, that one of the generals reprimanded when Chechen rebels shot down a military helicopter in August told reporters last week that the Chechens got the missile they had used from - yes - the Georgians. If one believes Moscow journalists and politicians, Russian generals fear more than professional disgrace in Chechnya. By perpetuating the war, they also protect the black-market livelihood they have there, selling oil, drugs, even weapons. Yet blame-shifting is only one Russian aim in this affair. Moscow's nationalistic agitation has brought other motives to the surface, particularly the desire to take Georgia down a peg. For years Mr. Shevardnadze has said that letting Russian combat forces into Georgia would engulf his country in the same violence that Chechnya has experienced. To which some Russians answer, "So what?" For them, if chaos could topple Mr. Shevardnadze or break Georgia's budding relationship with NATO, or wreck plans for pipelines that circumvent Russia - well, what's wrong with a little chaos? Russian officials disavow such ideas, but Moscow's threats have guaranteed a strong show of American support for Georgian independence. President Bush fired off a letter to Mr. Shevardnadze, praising his "invaluable contribution" to the war on terrorism. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, while saying he wouldn't lecture the Russians, has publicly warned them off any thought of using "brute force" against Georgia. Administration officials acknowledge that a Russian attack on Georgia would be a fiasco for their friendly relations with Mr. Putin. "Regime change" in Georgia would reverberate across the entire former Soviet Union. In Russia, it would make the idea of restoring some sort of post-Soviet realm not just a nostalgic Communist obsession but a respectable strategic alternative to joining the West. Elsewhere, governments that the United States has tried to help - or, as in central Asia, whose help it has sought - would be on notice that America cannot, or will not, help them stand up to Russia. Despite its emotional heat and dangerous implications, Mr. Putin's indictment of Georgia has already had its effect. These days in Washington it's not good enough for any state to say that it tolerates only a few terrorists and only some of the time. Or that there aren't enough of them to affect the outcome of the war next door. Or that the terrorists wouldn't be a problem at all if the neighboring state hadn't mismanaged the war in the first place. Georgia can and does make these arguments, with real persuasiveness. Yet, while holding the Russian at bay, the Bush administration has apparently concluded that the only way to avert disaster is to get the Georgians to address the underlying problem rather than to win the debate. Last spring, during an earlier round of Russian accusations, the United States responded by announcing a major military training program for Georgia. This time the response has been: Get your act together - a serious state doesn't make itself vulnerable by letting armed fighters use its territory. Mr. Shevardnadze's sweep against the fighters is one result. The fact that fighting has now escalated in Chechnya itself, involving Chechen units with nowhere else to go, may be another. Russians often accuse the United States of blindness to Mr. Shevardnadze's failings, but they're wrong. The afterglow of admiration for his achievements as Soviet foreign minister under Mikhail Gorbachev doesn't drive American policy anymore. In fact, most American diplomats regard his regime in Georgia as corrupt and ineffective and have given up hope that any of Georgia's problems will be dealt with seriously under his leadership. They know Mr. Shevardnadze is a survivor. They just want to see him do enough to survive. If this confrontation ends more or less peacefully - a big if - it may be because all the parties accept what they least like in each other's policies. The United States may not mind Russian pressure if it focuses Mr. Shevardnadze on what he has to do. The Russians may not mind American influence if it yields a change in Georgian policy. And the Georgians may not mind being told they have to make decisions they find it hard to make themselves. In such an outcome, Russians who saw an opportunity to turn back the growth of American influence will be disappointed. But some of them may have known this was where they would end up. Russia's foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, was asked three weeks ago whether Russia didn't in fact need a larger American presence in Georgia. "Maybe," he shrugged. Stephen Sestanovich is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and a professor of international diplomacy at Columbia. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/06/weekinre...=1035183328&ei= 1&en=2cd51cf2f52e70ff

EU Commission Says 10 Countries Can Join EU Wed Oct 9,10:33 AM ET By Gareth Jones BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Commission said on Wednesday 10 countries can wrap up accession talks in December and join the EU in 2004 in a historic unification of Europe, provided Ireland's voters do not derail the project. Thirteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the EU executive said former communist east European states such as Poland and Hungary were ready to compete inside the EU's single market following long and painful economic and social reforms. Presenting its annual enlargement report, the Commission said it would support Bulgaria's and Romania's efforts to join as early as 2007, expanding the bloc into the troubled Balkan region, if they stepped up current transition efforts. Despite heavy U.S. pressure, it proposed no date for starting accession talks with Turkey, by far the biggest and most problematic of the 13 candidate countries. It said Ankara did not yet meet the political criteria on human rights. "Thirteen years ago, Berlin was still divided by a wall of shame. The wall has fallen...and we have rediscovered a historic unity between all our peoples. Our common destiny is to build our future together," Commission President Romano Prodi told the European Parliament in presenting the report. Enlargement would help cement democracy, the rule of law and respect for human rights across Europe and open up the fast-growing region fully to EU investors, he said. Prodi said he hoped "the historic reunification of our continent will not be jeopardized" when Ireland votes on October 19 in a repeat referendum on the Nice Treaty, designed to adapt EU institutions to cope with up to 27 members. EU Enlargement Commissioner Guenter Verheugen said an Irish "No" could scupper the entire expansion project. AVOIDING NATIONALISM EU officials fear that an Irish rejection would play into the hands of member states such as France that are at best lukewarm about enlargement, seen as diluting their influence in the Union and posing a bigger financial burden. Prodi called for an information campaign to overcome hostility to enlargement and highlight the grim alternative. Central and eastern Europe could otherwise be engulfed by the kind of nationalism that destroyed the former Yugoslavia. "Enlargement is our political masterpiece because it will allow us to avoid all this (destruction)," Prodi said. Rejecting suggestions that the EU could not afford to expand in the current global economic climate, he said: "The costs of enlargement is nothing compared to the costs of not enlarging." The 10 frontrunners are Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and the small Mediterranean islands of Cyprus and Malta. Another hurdle is disagreement among EU member states on how much aid to offer to the candidates' farmers and poor regions. But diplomats said the 15 EU leaders should be able to craft a deal on financing when they discuss the Commission's report at a summit in Brussels on October 24-25. They will take a final decision on enlargement at a Copenhagen summit in December. NO WHITEWASH In the report, the Commission was keen to deflect possible criticism that it has whitewashed the record of the candidates, many of whom still have work to do in implementing tens of thousands of pages of complex and sometimes costly law. Verheugen pledged Brussels would monitor closely candidates' implementation of EU law right up to the day of accession. He suggested the EU should be able to invoke "safeguard measures" for two years after enlargement to prevent any market disruptions within the Union. The Commission bestowed the status of 'functioning market economy' on Bulgaria and commended progress toward that goal of its laggard Balkan neighbor Romania. The report praised Turkey's recent reform package, which included the abolition of the death penalty in peacetime and more cultural rights for the Kurdish minority. Verheugen told Parliament the EU's strategy of engagement with Turkey was paying off and raised the prospect of more financial aid for Ankara. "We will make sure the door remains open for Turkey, but it must not deviate from the task of bringing about the necessary changes," said the German commissioner, making clear it was too early to set a date for the start of negotiations. The United States urged the EU to recognize Turkish progress on human rights and give the strategically vital Muslim NATO ally a clear prospect of accession, saying this would also boost hopes of a peace deal to reunited Cyprus before it joins the EU. "We hope that the report is objective and takes recognition of what Turkey has accomplished," U.S. special envoy on Cyprus Tom Weston told Reuters in an interview. "If it points in the direction of a positive future for Turkey with Europe, meaning ultimate accession, but more generally in its relationship with Europe...that ought to be helpful in moving forward on the Cyprus issue as well." (Additional reporting by Marie-Louise Moller, Paul Taylor) http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor..._nm/eu_enlargem ent_dc_4

Police used tear gas and batons to break up a mob of angry unemployed stockbrokers in the heart of the financial district as the FTSE100 slumped through the 500 mark to finish at 497.2. The brokers were demonstrating outside of the Stock Exchange building, demanding an audience with the recently elected chairman, James Fleming. When he failed to appear, the brokers began attacking the building and security staff with briefcases and what appeared to be rolled up social security forms. With unemployment in the financial services industry hovering at nearly 90%, the Government has ordered an inquiry into whether it is feasible to permanently retrain the growing army of brokers and other fallouts from the financial services industry. "It is very difficult though," said a spokesman. "It does not appear that they have any useful skills - legal ones anyway - which may be redirected to more productive pursuits." Brokers have become increasingly desperate as the equity market continues to slide and the war in Iraq enters its ninth month with little sign that US forces are making any progress. There was a brief 5-point rally in the market yesterday on news that Saddam Hussein had been captured, but it turned out to be another "look-alike." "We have now detained more than 300 men and 2 women who bear a striking resemblance to the Iraqi dictator," Colonel T.J. Muskrat of the 98th Rangers told a press briefing in Baghdad. The oil price continues to hover at $US60/barrel as motorists began to adjust to the second week of petrol rationing. Commuters have also praised the introduction of rat-powered treadmills to tube trains. Meanwhile, many online employment web sites were inundated yesterday on news that Merrill Morgan Suisse Warburg Barney, one of the three remaining brokerages, was planning to advertise for a receptionist's assistant. Bill Pettigrew at Seekjob.com said brokers swamped his site and forced it off line for an hour. MMSWB later denied the rumour, and said they intended to continue with their recently announced program of staff cuts. Anthony Pope, a former client adviser at ABNAmroMorgans, said the news "perked him up even though I knew it couldn't be true." Yesterday's tentative market rally soon petered out and the market closed near its lows. An LSE spokesman said the reduced trading hours (10.00-10.30am)appeared to be working well. The Nikkei descended below 100 for the second time in a fortnight, and the Bank of Japan was again the main buyer of stocks. It issued another 725 trillion yen of government bonds, with a coupon of 0.00003% per annum and maturing when the sun finally sets on the Japanese empire.

quote:Originally posted by bellthecat: quote:Originally posted by Kaan: "It appears so to you, no doubt; but we Armenians have determined to be free, Europe listened to the Bulgarian horrors and made Bulgaria free. She will listen to our cry when it goes up in the shrieks and blood of millions of women and children...We are desperate. We shall do it." The foundation of the entire article is based on this statement. But is it actualy true, was the main reason Bulgaria got its independence from Ottoman Turkey because of the outrage certain European counries felt on hearing of the Turkish attrocities committed there? I'd say it is patently false - Bulgarian independence resulted from the 1877-78 war between Turkey and Russia. The attrocities the Turks commited to some extent worked in Bulgaria's favour in the peace treaty, but it took a larger war involving Russia for the circumstances that (as a side issue) allowed Bulgarian independence to occur. Thus, there is no logic behind ANY belief that prompting the Turks to commit attrocities would lead to Armenian independence. That is not to say some could believe it would - but the numbers who could believe such an obviously flawed theory would be very small, too small to make any impact. Ali - a "European intervention on behalf of the Armenians" is not the same as having a war fought by one or more European power against Turkey and about Armenians. There was no realistic possibility of such a war. Intervention, in this context, means diplomatic intervention. Like Thoth said, "this whole Huchnack thing is far overplayed". Overplayed by the Turkish state who have found a ready made excuse to turn genocide into just an overly heavyhanded security operation. Overplayed by nationalistic Armenians who seem to need to boast about the martial spirit amongst Ottoman Armenians (which was, in reality, almost non existant). I don't hate to admit, Steve, that I stand 100% behind your reply.

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark:

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark: quote:Originally posted by MJ:Dear TB, Maybe then you should have refrained from your comment above, too? Because, after all, what you where saying above? You would think that, wouldn't you? But it so happens that I think I have thought sufficiently deeply about the subject. It is not a logical inconsistency to wish to see the same in the opinions expressed by others. quote:On the subject of violence... if I have made an impression of a pacifist on you, then it is a misperception.No you haven't. And if I gave you the impression that you gave me the impression of being a pacifist, that is a misperception. quote:Otherwise, I have only attempted to contemplate on the subject of the clarity of the relevant agenda.On which I wished you had spent more time contemplating. Best, TB But it is not fair, isn't it? You are reluctant to contemplate due to your time limitation, meanwhile ask me to contemplate furhter, while warning me that if you had time, you would have "shot" me. Thank you for the waring, however.

quote:Originally posted by Twilight Bark: quote:Originally posted by MJ: This also leads to an enforced understanding that Turkish Ideological and Power Centers are afraid only of their own people and their primary driver is the reluctance to implement Human Right's reforms in Turkey. The Armenian Question is the best kept secret of Turkish Power Structures, it is their most hideous crime, and it is their Achilles Heal. Understood! If one wants to see any changes in the Turkish "doctrine" towards Armenia(ns), one has to opt for Human Right's reform in Turkey. However, this is a very risky proposition - in the process of an attempt to implement such reform, there are two realistic outcomes: 1. Human Right's Reform supporters will take over and the problems between Armenians and Turks would be resolved - and I would like to build on an earlier declaration of Boghos, here, but would like to go one step further, claiming that not only the problems between Armenians and Turks are simple, but also their solutions are trivial - there has to be just rational thinking on the subject. But can there be rational thinking on the subject? 2. Human Right's reform supporters would lose, which is not unrealistic to assume, and not only they will fail, but the secularist orientation of Turkey may change - Turkey is really poor country with nothing but misery for its own people and its neighbors - all neighbors – this is a consequence of their past and present imperialism. Under the known poverty, the best chances may belong to the supporters of Islamic Regime, for example. But then, “Armenians? What Armenians?” Given the second outcome, which is a very serious possibility, maybe Turkey's current Regime is the least of two evils? But then, we are back where we started... Dear MJ,Unfortunately I am entering yet another period during which I should refrain from spending much time here. I just wanted to say that I wish you had thought more thoroughly on the subject before you wrote this. TB quote:1. As far as Armenian Revolutionaries are concerned, hope they enjoy their tenure in Hell;P.S. "Armenian revolutionaries" was an almost deterministic outcome of the circumstances. It is unreasonable to expect a complete absence of violent expression of national aspirations at a time of prolonged and worsening oppression. It is irrelevant. It is like saying, "Only if you didn't scream when he was raping you. Then he got really mad." It is irrelevant not only because the scream was as impotent as the "revolutionaries", but also because it is not the actual cause of anything, by virtue of being an inevitable consequence of events and conditions preceding it.Dear TB, Maybe then you should have refrained from your comment above, too? Because, after all, what you where saying above? On the subject of violence... if I have made an impression of a pacifist on you, then it is a misperception. Otherwise, I have only attempted to contemplate on the subject of the clarity of the relevant agenda.

As reluctant as I am to come in, I think this thread should be renamed "Psychopathic Idiots' Paradise."

quote:Originally posted by Domino: The work IS "Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890-1902" The work TALK about "Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890-1902" This is an interesting observation and a very typical one, I think. The entire conceptual framework of Turkish (also Jewish, and whomever else) denialism is based on the presentation of things out of their actual context, and is built on very shaky foundations. That is, if it is addressed at us. Let’s do a couple of simple exercises. It would be stupid to claim that Turkish Ideological and Power Centers are this stupid. They are not. But what this attest to is that they use this trick as a device for the "tranquilization" of their own nation, since such materials, or better to say such presentations, are oriented at their internal audience, which probably is stupider than the above-mentioned structures. This also leads to an enforced understanding that Turkish Ideological and Power Centers are afraid only of their own people and their primary driver is the reluctance to implement Human Right's reforms in Turkey. The Armenian Question is the best kept secret of Turkish Power Structures, it is their most hideous crime, and it is their Achilles Heal. Understood! If one wants to see any changes in the Turkish "doctrine" towards Armenia(ns), one has to opt for Human Right's reform in Turkey. However, this is a very risky proposition - in the process of an attempt to implement such reform, there are two realistic outcomes: 1. Human Right's Reform supporters will take over and the problems between Armenians and Turks would be resolved - and I would like to build on an earlier declaration of Boghos, here, but would like to go one step further, claiming that not only the problems between Armenians and Turks are simple, but also their solutions are trivial - there has to be just rational thinking on the subject. But can there be rational thinking on the subject? 2. Human Right's reform supporters would lose, which is not unrealistic to assume, and not only they will fail, but the secularist orientation of Turkey may change - Turkey is really poor country with nothing but misery for its own people and its neighbors - all neighbors – this is a consequence of their past and present imperialism. Under the known poverty, the best chances may belong to the supporters of Islamic Regime, for example. But then, “Armenians? What Armenians?” Given the second outcome, which is a very serious possibility, maybe Turkey's current Regime is the least of two evils? But then, we are back where we started... One thing is clear, though: Turkey's further disintegration promises tremendous misery to its neighbors, especially Armenians... Is Armenia, for example, prepared to experience another decade (maybe more) of turmoil due to the collapse of a yet another Empire in its proximity with unpredictable consequences? See how controversial things may get? Two last comments: 1. As far as Armenian Revolutionaries are concerned, hope they enjoy their tenure in Hell; 2. As far as the initial material of this thread is concerned (Kaan's material) - keep it for internal use in Turkey - it may work. P.S. The moral of my story is, under any circumstances other than the continuation of Status Quo, current Turkish regime loses. But, again, they will lose one or another way. It is just a matter of time, and delaying it may make the agony of death more torturous. But this is more cotnroversal, isn't it? [ October 06, 2002, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: MJ ]

Thoth, I don’t worry about it. Additionally, I am not “bashing” him when “ i agree with his points being made quite often.” Nor I am “bashing” him when I disagree with his points. There are a lot of points made in this forum that I disagree with, but I speak only on some of them. Now, on the subject of me “looking mean,” if that was of concern to me, perhaps I would have done a lot of things differently. However, I don't particularly think that I am here for a beauty contest.

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated:MJ, Dont know about Western Europe, but definettly all English speaking countries (Britain, USA, Aust etc.) Is that all you don't know about?

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated:MJ, Dont know about Western Europe, but definettly all English speaking countries (Britain, USA, Aust etc.) Is that all you don't know about?

No. I simply meant personal. I can have private conversations here, too, but only with the people of good will. I can sympathize a troubled man all you want. However, this forum is a special place in some ways - this is the only more or less functional Armenian online forum. Many troubled en have come here and gone, but this forum still functions - in relative terms at least. For this reason, I think it would be useful in the future too to occasionally point the troubled where do they belong to. As far as you disagreeing with me, however respecting my opinions is concerned, I couldn’t follow where did that one come from.

quote:Originally posted by nairi:The fact that domestic violence, "family honor" homicide, and ostracism are not treated as serious human rights' violations, but rather, are dismissed as "personal issues", proves how hypocritical many Armenians are. Wow! That was a penetrating thought...

Dear TB, With all due respect, I have to tell you that I resent your contention of “Hagarag and MJ having something personal going on.” Where did you get that from? What possibly you think I can have personal or cannot share with Khodja? If you were to say that my original comment towards him in this thread was uncalled for, you might’ve been right given that he was raising a valid issue, which I didn’t expect at the time. But like in the story about the boy ‘crying wolf’ repeatedly, who do you blame for it?

Boghos, Let’s assume that all new arriver Armenians have come to Armenia in 1946 – this is the worst case scenario. Those who where already adults, they were shaped people. They could’ve not become “little Stalins” in eight years. Those who where children, they were outside the reach of Stalinism and were under the influence of their parents, who under the worst case scenario would tell them to “shot their mouths” and not to speak. Either way, other than people being aware of the dangers, I don’t see them becoming little “Stalins.” Moreover, given that the post-war immigrants could not integrate with the “locals,” it would have been extremely difficult for them to be culturally transformed, as you mention it above, which is the truth. Either way, while a “loyal” fragment of the Armenian society has existed in Armenia – out of fear or careerism, Stalinism has never had any profound impact in Armenia (cannot speak about the 30s). I haven’t seen the documentary made by AGBU. The primary reason being that I consider the topic being a secondary importance in the Armenian landscape, as much as Armenians also, like others, have suffered from it.

I don’t think one has to do extensive research to figure out the attitude of early Armenians towards sexual relationship. Last time I was I have visited the ruins of Dvin (it was early 80s), I saw remains of a statue of phallus, as well as its antipode, there. This should be indicative of an existing cult, I would think. But we don’t have to go that far into our history. The landscape of Armenia of 11th century – I would claim this has been one of the most remarkable periods in the Armenian history, as portrayed by Aristakes Lastivertsi and as reflected in the poetry of Nahabed Quchak, suggests quite lax attitudes towards human sexuality. This is the pre-Islamic domination period. Stalinist terror is taken way out if proportions by pretty much everyone I come across in the Western Society. I don’t mean to claim that it has not been a horrific regime, but I mean to claim that its impact on the Armenian culture has been marginal. Primarily, because effective the end of the WWII significant migration has taken to Armenia, and the new comer Armenians have not only been short of the baggage of Stalinism, but by injecting the whatever culture they have brought with them, they have diluted to a very significant degree the mentality of the Stalinian period. This is very idiosyncratic to Soviet Armenia, since it is the only republic which has experienced very significant influx of “western Armenians,” eventually constituting perhaps not less than 30% of its population. Anyone who doesn’t understand this is talking from his own projection and not out of knowledge – to put it softly. No, few words about “virginity.” This is a prominent subject in this forum as long as I remember. The interesting observation is that while one would expect this category to be “guarded” by the older members of the forum, and one would expect the younger ones to be lax on it, the picture is quite the opposite. Additionally, the strongest opinions are expressed by people who have never been in Armenia or have left it at the age of 11 – I have at least three such members in mind. The older members are silent or indifferent on the subject – perhaps because they realize that this is a very personal issue and no one is entitled to imposing his views on such personal matters on anyone. However, one would be tempted to expect that the normal situation would suggest the younger guys be more “aggressive,” and the older ones to be at most successful in suggesting them to at least use protection. But in our forum it is very different… What’s the problem? I think some very significant insecurity accompanied with a problem getting laid. I don’t mean to be offensive but “Something is rotten in Denmark.” Time to get back to work.

Cat, I have never visited the PanArmenian News Website – don’t even know their address. The materials I pasted here where sent to me by a Turkish pal, who was trying to backup his arguments from an earlier discussion of it. I have no reasons to think that he is a liar. I have no comments on the truthfulness of the material, since I have no first-hand personal knowledge about the situation in Turkey. All I can do is to make public a material that I come across and have you, per se, comment on it. At least, it would be very disingenuous from your side to allege a “destructive” behavior from me by doing so. As far as my last sentence “insulting you,” is concerned, I think I was proposing a nice bottle of wine to you, right? Is it the perception of bribery or your resentment towards alcohole that makes you feel insulted?

quote:Originally posted by Accelerated: quote:I would like to inform you that the words "namus" and "djigar" are brought to the Armenian society by the invadors.The words in themselves are insignificant, it is the meaning behind them that should be of concern... quote:These are "honor" Indeed if one wanted to translate "pativ" to a single word it would be "honour". But I would say that they werent exactly the same. And anyway the concept of 'honour' is currently non-existant in the Western world. Hmmm... That's interesting... Are you sure you meant to say the entire Western world or just the USA?