MJ

Aaaaa.... don't remember....there was so much information...

But what an amazing woman she was... She has dated every other celebrity American Armenian, has known every third prominent family and has been present at every seminal event in the history of American Armenians.

This thread is very consistent with the cliche "Garni-Geghard-khorovats."

Those who have watched Qocharyan’s live speech, tell me that at one instance he has said the following: “Ya ne govoril o global’nikh voprosakh. No yesli interesno, to Rossiya… izvenite… Armenia… gotova viyasnit’ svoiu pozitciyu…” Now, in European political circles they are joking about him being the Russian “marzpan” in Armenia. EDIT: Translation: "I didn't speak on the global issues. But if it is of interest [to you], the position of Russia... sorry... Armenia is ready to clarify its position."

øàâ²ðÚ²ÜÀ ä²î²êʲܺò øàâ²ðÚ²ÜÆÜ ºÊÊí ³ÛÝ ¹³ÑÉÇ×Çó, áñï»Õ ÑáõÝÇëÇ 23-ÇÝ èáµ»ñï øáã³ñÛ³ÝÁ ѳÛï³ñ³ñ»ó, áñ §²1+¦-Á »Ã»ñ³½ñÏí»É ¿ ÙñóáõÛÃÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝùáõÙ, µáÉáñáíÇÝ Ñ³Ï³é³Ï »ÉáõÛà áõÝ»ó³í ºÊÊì ѳ۳ëï³ÝÛ³Ý å³ïíÇñ³Ï Þ³í³ñß øáã³ñÛ³ÝÁ: лÝó Ýñ³Ý ÝϳïÇ áõÝ»ñ èáµ»ñï øáã³ñÛ³ÝÁ, »ñµ ºÊÊì ³ÙµÇáÝÇó ÝßáõÙ ¿ñ §Áݹ¹ÇÙáõÃÛ³Ý í³é Ý»ñϳ۳óáõóÇãÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÁ¦:{BR} §²Ûë ³ÙµÇáÝÇó ÐРݳ˳·³ÑÁ Ëáë»ó Ýñ³ Ù³ëÇÝ, áñ г۳ëï³Ýáõ٠ǵñ ãÏ³Ý áñ»õ¿ Éáõñç ËáãݹáïÝ»ñ ϳ٠åñáµÉ»ÙÝ»ñ` ϳåí³Í Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï: ò³íáù ëñïÇ, ¹³ ³Û¹å»ë ã¿: гÝñ³ÛÇÝ Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ³ñï³Ñ³ÛïáõÙ ¿ ÐРݳ˳·³ÑÇ , Çß˳ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ß³Ñ»ñÁ` ³ÛÝï»Õ ãÏ³Ý ï»ë³Ï»ïÝ»ñÇ µ³½Ù³½³ÝáõÃÛáõÝ, åÉÛáõñ³ÉǽÙ: ÆëÏ 2003Ã. ݳ˳·³ÑÇ ÁÝïñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï Ñ³Ýñ³ÛÇÝ Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ µ³ó³Ñ³Ûï ù³ñá½áõÙ ¿ñ Ù»Ï Ã»ÏݳÍáõÇ` ·áñÍáÕ Ý³Ë³·³ÑÇ û·ïÇÝ: ²ÝϳË, Ù³ëݳíáñ §²1+¦ Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¹áõñë ¿ ÙÕí»É »Ã»ñÇó: àõà ³Ý·³Ù ٳݳÏó»É ¿ ÙñóáõÛÃÇ, áõà ³Ý·³Ù »Ã»ñ ãÇ ëï³ó»É: ²Û¹ áñáßáõÙÝ»ñÁ ϳ۳óÝáõÙ ¿ ÙÇ Ñ³ÝÓݳÅáÕáí, áñÇ µáÉáñ ³Ý¹³ÙÝ»ñÇÝ Ý߳ݳÏáõÙ ¿ ÐРݳ˳·³ÑÁ: âáñë ³Ý·³Ù ¿, áñ Ù»ñÅíáõÙ ¿ Áݹ¹ÇÙáõÃÛ³Ý ÏáÕÙÇó Ý»ñϳ۳óí³Í §Ð»éáõëï³ï»ëáõÃÛ³Ý »õ é³¹ÇáÛÇ Ù³ëÇݦ ûñ»ÝùáõÙ ÷á÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ ϳï³ñ»Éáõ Ù³ëÇÝ Ý³Ë³·ÇÍÁ, Áëï áñÇ Ðè²Ð ³Ý¹³ÙÝ»ñÇ Ý߳ݳÏáõÙÁ å»ïù ¿ ϳï³ñÇ áã û ݳ˳·³ÑÁ, ³ÛÉ ²Ä-Ç ËáõÙµ-ËÙµ³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ: Ø»Ýù »ñϳñ³ï»õ å³Ûù³ñ áõÝ»Ýù г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ëï³ïÙ³Ý, Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ ³½³ïáõÃÛ³ÝÁ ѳëÝ»Éáõ ѳٳñ »õ ³Û¹ å³Ûù³ñáõÙ ³ÏÝϳÉáõÙ »Ýù ݳ»õ ºÊ-Ç, Çñáù ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³Ï³Ý Æï³ÉdzÛÇ ûųݹ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ÆëÏ É³í³·áõÛÝ ûųݹ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ ³Ù»Ý³É³í ûñÇݳÏÝ ¿¦,- ³ë³ó Çñ »ÉáõÛÃáõÙ Þ³í³ñß øáã³ñÛ³ÝÁ: Æ ¹»å, ݳ »ÉáõÛà áõÝ»ó³í ³ÛÝ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï, »ñµ ùÝݳñÏíáõÙ ¿ñ Æï³ÉdzÛáõÙ ¿É»ÏïñáݳÛÇÝ ¼ÈØ-Ç ÙáÝáåáÉǽ³ódzÛÇ ËݹÇñÁ: Æï³ÉdzÛÇ í³ñã³å»ï êÇÉíÇá ´»ñÉáõëÏáÝÇÝ ³Ù»Ý³Ëáßáñ Ù³ëݳíáñ Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛ³Ý ë»÷³Ï³Ý³ï»ñÝ ¿, ÙÇ³Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ¿É ã³ñ³ß³Ñ»Éáí Çñ å³ßïáÝÁ` í»ñ³ÑëÏáõÙ ¿ гÝñ³ÛÇÝ Ñ»éáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ß˳ï³ÝùÁ: лéáõëï³ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ 80 ïáÏáëÁ Ýñ³ Ó»éùáõÙ ¿: §ØáÝáåáÉdz ¿É ãÇ ¹³, ³ÛÉ ¹ÛáõåáÉÇ, ³ÛëÇÝù »ñϳÏÇ ÙáÝáåáÉdz` »õ Ù³ëݳíáñ ѳïí³ÍáõÙ, »õ ѳÝñ³ÛÇݦ,- ³ë³ó Þ³í³ñß øáã³ñÛ³ÝÁ` µ³ó³ïñ»Éáí ݳ»õ Çñ Ùï³í³ËáõÃÛ³Ý å³ï׳éÁ. §´³ áñ í³ÕÁ ÐÐ Çß˳ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ëÏë»Ý µ»ñ»É Æï³ÉdzÛÇ í³ñã³å»ï êÇÉíÇá ´»ñÉáõëÏáÝÇÇ ûñÇݳÏÁ, 㿱 áñ ¹³ ËݹÇñ ÏÉÇÝǦ: êïñ³ëµáõñ· γñÇÝ» ²ë³ïñÛ³Ý §²1+¦ http://www.a1plus.am/arm/?go=issue&id=1960...b467dab9af29893

Isn't it a little disturbing that the President of the Republic of Armenia delivers a speach on the floor of Parliamentary Assembly of EU in Russian? P.S. A speach which otherwise is a good one.

Well, it is how it has allegedly started - a new era in the history of Armenian Diaspora. This is what has culminated subsequently to lead to the separation of the Church and has served as precedent for butchering countless other Armenians by ARF in 1950s.

Not exactly for this thread, but don't want to open a new one. ____________________________________________________________________ Parliamentary Assembly session : 21-25 June 2004 (To be checked against delivered speech) Address by Robert Kocharian, President of Armenia Strasbourg, 23 June 2004 Mr. President, Members of the Parliamentary Assembly, Ladies and Gentlemen, It is an honor and pleasure to address you. Last time I have addressed the Assembly on a very significant day for Armenia the day of accession to the Council of Europe. These were three demanding years of reforms that have touched upon all the domains of life in our country and necessitated full time employment of all our efforts. Today I am here to announce that Armenia has fulfilled the vast majority of its accession commitments. For the few outstanding ones, there is a timetable agreed with a deadline fixed at the end of this year. Still, if asked of the single most vital achievement I would definitely answer: change in the perceptions in the Armenian society about own future. The people of Armenia is now more involved in the everyday life of the country. Formation of the Civil Society is on the move. Does this mean Armenia has achieved the desirable level of democratic freedoms? The obvious answer is NO. Democracy has a long way to go in any country with high poverty indicators. To assure fully inclusive participation by the people in the democratic process, it is essential to achieve at least minimal level of social guarantees. That is precisely why we have strived to synchronize reforms in economy, political system, judiciary and the social field. In essence, Armenia has completed the process of dismantling the former centralized system of power and economy, which allowed for a total control over the society. Armenian economy has undergone radical transformation both in terms of activity fields and of property forms. The scope and depth of the reforms allowed for a full scale enactment of market economy. At present over 85% of Armenia's GDP is produced in private sector, over 38% of it in small and medium enterprises. Annual GDP growth has averaged at 12% for last three consecutive years, regardless of the blockade implemented by two fellow members of this very organization. That dynamic economic growth has allowed us to develop a long term Poverty Elimination Strategy. The first time in Armenia this governmental program was developed in close cooperation with international financial institutions and also with wide involvement of the society. That Strategy now guides us in the political decision making and in choosing our budget priorities. Fighting corruption is yet another important step towards effective democracy. The Government of Armenia watches corruption as a systemic evil, which cannot be eradicated merely through rhetoric or a couple of sampler prosecutions. We concentrate on the systemic change aimed at ruling out the sources of corruption. That is exactly why we have joined the GRECO group where we can learn from the experience of other states on combating corruption. Through a wide discussion including the OSCE, we have developed a comprehensive Anti corruption strategy. A few weeks ago I have established an AntiCorruption Council. As an urgent measure directed at eradication of corruption in Armenia I shall prioritize the necessity of deepening the judicial reforms, improvement in tax and customs administration, and formation of an effective system of Civil Service. All these are key tools for implementation of anti corruption policies. In terms of a broader effort aimed at reducing corruption risks, I would like to particularly mention the importance of establishing competitive climate, predictability of governmental action, simplification of procedures, transparency thereof and public control. Those are our current priorities aimed at achieving the sustainability of the reforms and irreversibility of the democratization process in Armenia. Ladies and Gentlemen, I know many of you wonder: what was happening in Armenia last spring? What fostered the activity of the opposition that surrogated the parliamentary work by revolutionary rallies? You are right to wonder, since you have been all informed by the monitoring group Rapporteurs who had visited Armenia only very recently, in January, that there are significant advancements in fulfilling the commitments accepted at the accession. And you know that most of those deal with advancing democracy. Expert evaluations of Armenia by international financial institutes are more than optimistic. Two digit figures of economic growth and budgetary proficit, by default cannot fuel the revolutionary atmosphere. Moreover, there are three full years before the next parliamentary elections. Therefore, there were no internal prerequisites for increase in political activity. Accordingly, what has happened? The answer is easy. The opposition, encouraged by the results of the "rose revolution" in neighboring Georgia, decided to duplicate it in the Armenian reality, which, however, had nothing in common with the Georgian one. They disregarded the fact that Armenia's economy, as opposite to Georgian, undergoes dynamic advancement, the government is efficient, and the democratic achievements are safeguarded by institutional structures, including the law enforcement system capable of protecting the public order. The history has many times demonstrated that inspiration by foreign revolutions never results in positive outcomes. Unfortunately, learning often comes only from own experience. That also happened in our case. The opposition left the parliament and unfolded street activity. They openly declared the goal: to destabilize the situation in the country, cumulate the maximum possible number of participants in a street action, surround the building of the Presidency and force me to resign. Once the opposition witnessed lack of public interest towards their action plan, they decided to increase the tension, most probably to attract attention. They blocked the most loaded avenue of the city of Yerevan. That resulted in disruption of the traffic, prevented normal functioning of the National Assembly, of the Administration of the President and of the Constitutional Court. Four embassies, the National Academy of Science and one of the biggest schools are located at the same avenue. The organizers called on the public for demonstrative disobedience. The police was left with no choice; the public order was restored quickly, without any significant damage to the health of the participants. Necessity of implementation of similar police operations is always regrettable. Still, authorities have to protect the society from political extremists. It is particularly important in young democracies, which still lack the advanced traditions of the political and legal culture. Even more so when part of the population lives in poverty and can be easily manipulated by populist rhetoric. I would like to particularly mention that the parties comprising the ruling coalition have many times offered cooperation to the opposition. Unfortunately, those offers were rejected. The opposition probably thinks that cooperation would undermine the revolutionary temper of their supporters. Our country is in the important stage of its advancement, and I am confident that there are many directions that require non partisan effort. We have offered the opposition to work together on the most important issues the Constitutional reform and the new Electoral Code. The offer is still valid, however the discussions shall be held in the parliament, not in the street. Ladies and gentlemen: I would now like to turn to another important issue: the honoring of obligations by the new members of the Council of Europe. May I remind you that most of the reforms to be implemented by a new member are sensitive issues in domestic politics? Often, implementation of the reforms clashes the inertia of the public opinion. In the case of Armenia examples of such issues are the Constitutional reform, abolition of the death penalty and the new Electoral legislation. Active implementation of commitments by the authorities usually results in increased internal tension and meets active resistance of the opposition. For example, the parliamentary opposition of Armenia openly contested the abolition of the death penalty and the new edition of the Constitution, drafted in close cooperation with the Venice Commission. Honoring the obligations is a heavy political load accepted by the entire country, not only by the authorities. Our application for accession to the Council of Europe was signed by all the parliamentary factions. In this Assembly the country is presented by the entire parliamentary spectrum. Therefore, the duty of honoring the obligations shall bind the opposition as much as the government. One ought not purposefully fail to comply with own obligations for the sole purpose of discrediting the ruling political authorities in face of the Council of Europe. I would never talk about all this if not the recent resolution of the Parliamentary Assembly on Armenia. I regret that some of our MPs drew the PACE into that discussion. I am confident that the Council of Europe is not the best choice for the place to practice the opposition authority contention. For that purpose there is national parliament: the main political mise en scene of Armenia. Mr. Chairman: I would now like to turn to one of the priority interest issues for Armenia. At the time of accession Armenia undertook to make steps towards peaceful settlement of the Nagorno Karabagh conflict. We have done so because we highly appreciate the necessity of friendly relations among neighboring states. However, to be able to effectively secure a long lasting solution, one needs to deeply understand the essence of the conflict. I would like to outline two important factors characteristic of the Karabagh conflict. First of all: Karabagh has never been part of independent Azerbaijan. At the time of collapse of the Soviet Union two states were formed: the Azerbaijani Republic on the territory of Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic and Republic of Nagorno Karabagh on the territory of the Nagorno Karabagh Autonomous Region. Establishment of both these states has similar legal grounds. The territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, henceforth, has nothing to do with the Republic of Nagorno Karabagh. We are ready to discuss the issue of settling that conflict in the legal domain. Second: the war of I992 94 was launched by the aggression of the Azeri authorities, which attempted to implement ethnic cleansing of the territory of Nagorno Karabagh with the purpose of its annexation. The situation in place today is the result of a selfless fight of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabagh for survival on their own land. It is a classical example of both the implementation of the right for self determination and of misusing the "territorial integrity" concept as a justification for ethnic cleansings. The people of Karabagh has prevailed in it's strive for independent life in an egalitarian society. Independence of Karabagh today has 16 years of history. An entire generation grew up there that can think of no other status for the country. Nagorno Karabagh Republic today is an established state, in essence meeting all of the Council of Europe's membership criteria. It is the reality which cannot be ignored. That is exactly why we insist on direct participation of Nagorrio Karabagh in the negotiations, in which Armenia actively participates. The solution shall emerge from the substance of the conflict and not from the perception of the possible strengthening of Azerbaijan through future "oil money". "Oil money" approach is the formula of confrontation and not of compromise. Armenia is ready to continue and advance the cease fire regime. We are ready for serious negotiations on a full scale solution for the conflict. That is exactly why we have accepted two last formulas of solution offered by the international mediators, which, unfortunately, were denied by Azerbaijan. It is difficult to overstate the importance of advancement of the regional cooperation in the Southern Caucasus. There is a wide spectrum for potential cooperation: from synchronization of legislation to restoring the interconnected transportation systems and to joint projects in the energy sector. We are confident that regional cooperation is the right route to the settlement of conflicts. We have no doubt that South Caucasus as a region of inclusive economic cooperation will be able to achieve much more than three states of the region can dream of doing on their own. We believe in peace and cooperation. Southern Caucasus has always been sensitive of external influences. Located at the crossroads of civilizations with vast potential in resources and numerous transit roots, it has always been a zone of increased interest. These considerations guided us in forming our foreign policy of "complimentarity." That policy is based on the concept of seeking advantages in softening the contradictions of the global and regional powers, and not in deepening the gaps. We are responsible for the regional stability and our actions shall help to solve problems, instead of creating new ones. That approach allowed us to develop trustworthy relations with the United States, the European Union and Iran, and to strengthen the traditional kinship with Russia. In this context I would also like to concentrate on the Armenian Turkish relations, or rather on their absence. Those relations are shaded by the memories of the past: the Genocide, its consequences and lack of repentance. Nowadays the situation is worsened by the blockade of Armenia by Turkey. I would like to outline two principals which in my view are crucial to finding the way out from this impasse. First of all: Developing practical ties and deliberations over the inherited problems shall take place in different dimensions and shall not influence one the other. Second: Armenian Turkish relations shall not be conditioned by our relations with a third country (Azerbaijan). Any precondition terminates all positive expectations. Dear Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen: Concluding, I would like to assure you that Armenia perceives its future in full scale integration with the European family. A few days ago the European Union has decided to include Armenia in its "new neighborhood" initiative. This will further advance our resolve to satisfy the European criteria, to be able to contribute and fully benefit from the cooperation between our states and nations. We walk this road with deep belief and confidence and we appreciate your efforts to help us in that uneasy but crucial effort. Thank you for your attention.

Why is it strange? And what is wrong with the neocones, if anything, and why cannot they criticize their own? This expression itself has a smell of quasi-fascism, don't you think so?

No, it is not the civility that is disappearing. At least civility is not the core disappearing phenomenon. Its disappearance is just an aftermath. It is the reasoning and the existential quality of personality that is disappearing. It is the thought that is yielding its natural habitat to degraded egos fertilized with a feeling of entitlement. These misfortunate egos preside in an existential dimension of thought manifesting feelings of paleontological entitlement without sufficient foundation even for that. It is a period of time when the terms “earning” and “entitlement” are mixed up and messed up. It is an era of blurred lines between the categories of “I want” and “I need.” It is an era of a paradise of vulgar insinuations and shameless claims. It takes place in the space of disgusting salesmanship vs. merit. It is an era where the irresponsibility is sold for freedom. It is a random reality of four-letter priorities convoluted with blue dreams and envy. It is the fact of advancement of eternally shallow and corrupt desires degrading every single dimension of societal morality. To summarize, it is an old story. Nothing new happens on the earth except that every minute yet another hope commits suicide. But I have had more drinks, tonight, that I can usually handle, so I will stop here before (or maybe immediately after) entering the domain of absurdity.

Not sure if this is the right thread for it. If something better is identified, please feel free to move. ____________________________________________________________________ JihadWatch.org June 17, 2004 Reflections on Bernard Lewis By Hugh Fitzgerald Bernard Lewis is an acute scholar about many aspects of Islam; he writes beautifully. He is well-trained in languages. He lived during the war in Egypt. He is lionized in Turkey, and even in small shops off Taksim Square the proprietors, when they discover a visitor is from the United States, ask if that visitor may happen to know "Professor Lewis." He has all the right enemies -- the absurd Said, who knew nothing about Islam but for some reason thought his being an Arab entitled him to act as an expert (the footnote alone, on "thawra," in Lewis' "The Question of Orientalism," is enough to delicately dismember all of Said's pretentions; he does not survive the essay); the apologist Esposito, who is not fit to be mentioned at the same time as Lewis (Esposito is an out-and-out apologist, an ignoramus, and the producer of glossy picture-books about Islam that win the reader over, and distract from the apologetic or vapid texts he has chosen, with plenty of local color -- venerable mosques, turbans and Iznik tulips, the usual Mughal miniatures of hunting scenes, or Majnoun and Leyla, an apothecary jar or two from Abbassid Baghdad, the obligatory Persian poetry in nastaliq, and of course the Dome of the Rock -- while so many subjects, including Jihad and the treatment of non-Muslims under Islam, are yet again ignored, or minimized to the point of disappearance. In Lewis' long academic career in England, he was not listened to sufficiently by the Foreign Office, and their insulting behavior (stemming from antisemitism) could not but affect him. He clearly enjoys being appreciated (who does not?). He enjoys, on his visits to the Middle East, being made much of by Turkish or Arab hosts. If you had spent years learning, and learning well, certain languages, and the only people who could fully appreciate your achievement were, say, Muslim Arabs, or quasi-Muslim Turks, and if they seemed to you to talk a good game of "moderate" Islam (in the case of the Turks, it was meant), you too might not wish to offend those colleagues, those friends, those hosts and patrons. Some may find it telling that Lewis has reproduced, for both his book of translations from the Turkish, Persian, Hebrew, and Arabic, and for his latest collection of articles, "From Babel to Dragomans", a photograph that shows him sitting in his Western dress -- he never stoops to the clownish indignity of going native like the mythomane Lawrence, or St. John Philby, or dozens of others -- in the tent, or something like it, that belongs to none other than the Hashemite Prince Hassan ibn Talal, that plummy-voiced "dialogue-of-civilisations" apologist for Islam (the most plausible, the most outwardly pleasing, the most subtle, and therefore the most convincing and dangerous of such apologists); that photograph, that desire to have that photograph used on two of his books, might be taken simply as a way to show the members of MESA that -- look, the real Arabs know that I tell them the truth. Lewis in various interviews does seem pleased that he can address two audiences at the same time. "He doth bestride the world like a colossus." He is proud of the fact that so many of his books have been translated into Turkish, Arabic, Farsi. But the truth is: you cannot write with two audiences in mind, one of the Muslim, the other non-Muslim. That Muslim audience is so prickly, so defensive, so unwilling to admit to the events of its own history (the unwillingness, for example, to even read the scholarship of Bat Ye'or, even among the so-called advanced Arabs in the West, is absolutely flabbergasting), that Lewis finds himself at every turn, either pulling his punches, or enveloping the thought in veils of velleities. It is not a case of being fortiter in re, suaviter in modo. He is suave in his prose all right, but that suavity is not wrapped around a sufficient amount of truthful iron. He is attempting a trick that cannot be achieved. You cannot write simultaneously for an audience of Muslims (to get them to see, gently, and with constant, almost formulaic, reassurance about the "greatness" of high classical Islamic civilization -- which Lewis always describes, wrongly, as being far above any other civilisation of the time -- has he forgotten China? And does he still accept the older cliches about the "Dark Ages"? He is a poor historian who appeals to the self-esteem problem of part of his audience; that is not the historian's task. Lewis now seems, at last, to be fully recognized, and triumphant. But is he? He was an enthusiastic supporter of the disastrous Oslo Accords. It is understandable why people such as Clinton, or Tom Friedman, or all the others who know nothing about Islam, should believe in the efficacy of such negotiations and such treaties. But Lewis -- who knows all about the rules of Muslim jurisprudence regarding "treaties" with Infidel peoples and polities, and knows perfectly well why every treaty Israel has ever signed with an Arab state has been violated, sometimes completely, and knows too the significance of the Treaty of al-Hudaiybiyya, which Arafat so frequently mentioned to his Muslim audiences -- what is Lewis' excuse for supporting, so loudly and for so long, the Oslo folly? Lewis describes the series of political, legal, financial, social, sumptuary, and other disablities placed on dhimmis in quite brisk terms, usually limiting himself to a word or two about the jizya and "other disabilities." He does not stop to really go into the whole monstrous system, or to quizzically ask what that phrase "protected peoples" might mean, or how it was that everywhere that Islam conquered, the treatment of dhimmis, whether they were Christians or Jews or Zoroastrians or even Hindus or Buddhists -- was remarkably the same, and in all cases the post-conquest (i.e. post-Jihad) institution of dhimmitude led to the enforced status of degradation, humiliation, and permanent insecurity (including intermittent massacres that Lewis hardly ever refers to) on all of these non-Muslim peoples. Lewis himself must, more and more, have come to see -- especially as his beloved Turkey slides away from Kemalism -- that in certain essentials he got it wrong. He actually got Islam wrong. He underestimated its malevolence. He underestimated the difficulty of reform. He took as representative men the scholars, or the well-educated exiles, who came out of that world but were about as representative of it as Stravinsky, Balanchine, and Nabokov could have been said to represent Soviet Russia. He was wrong; he was wrong on the Oslo Accords; he was wrong in his political advertisement (written with James Woolsey) to promote Prince Hassan to be a new king for Iraq; he remains wrong if he thinks that the United States should continue to be preoccupied with Iraq, when there are so many other ways to expose the political, economic, moral, and intellectual failures of Islam -- which in the long run, is the only thing which will cause, from within, the engendering of lots of local Ataturks, who may work to constrain or limit Islam, as its sacred texts, including the authoritative recensions of hadith, are immutable. Lewis was asked some years ago by the TLS to review Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not a Muslim." He dawdled and dithered; by the time he told them he just could not do it, it was too late, in the opinion of the TLS, to run any review. Contrast that with how the lefist, even Marxist French scholar of Islam, Maxine Rodinson, treated the same book. He was given it to review by Le Monde, which assumed that Rodinson, known for his tiersmondiste sympathies (which probably explains why Edward Said gave an enthusiastic blurb to Rodinson's quite crticial book on Muhammad -- but then Said was known to provide enthusastic blurbs for hundreds of books he never opened, but just guessed as to their general direction; his endorsements were spread around like confetti, and even cheaper). But Rodinson produced a favorable review, much to the chagrin of the editors at Le Monde -- and they, acting true to Stalinist form, simply refused to print the review (it can be found in Rodinson's other publications). But how could Lewis, after all, praise Ibn Warraq publicly? And he could not publicly deny that the book had great merit, either. So best to finesse; delay like Kutuzov; the mere passage of time will solve the problem; solve it, Time did, and consequently that book, one of the most important in recent decades, never received a review in the TLS. It is fascinating to compare the behavior of Lewis with two other scholars of roughly the same age and status. S. D. Goitein wrote his celebrated "A Mediterranean Society" based on his detailed study of the papers found in the Cairo Geniza -- a record of the Jewish community in Cairo, and not only in Cairo, that extended over many centuries. Goitein, who earlier had had a kind of sympathetic, almost sentimental interest in promoting the idea of the natural sympathies and similarities of Muslims and Jews, was severely chastened by his last decades of scholarship. If there was one thing, he wrote, about which he had to revise his opinion, it was about the severity of the jizyah. He now realized what a terrible burden it was, especially on the poor non-Muslims. Just before he died, Goitein was preparing a favorable review of Bat Ye'or. Even at their advanced ages, both Rodinson and Goitein were willing to break, in part, with their own pasts, to declare that new evidence, and final summings-up, had led them to conclusions that were not nearly as favorable to Islam as they might once have hoped. Goitein's study of the Cairo Geniza led him to rethink the problem of the dhimmi, to reconsider his old pieties and sentimentalities. Rodinson, who had been (of course) a great defender of the Arabs against French colonialism, a die-hard tiersmondiste, a Marxist, found that Ibn Warraq's relentless assault on Islam, above all for its intellectual constraints and failures, deserved the highest praise -- and he was willing to disappoint his editors at Le Monde in insisting that they either publish his enthusiastic review, or squash it altogether (of course, they squashed it). Lewis himself once wrote an essay that identified the philo-Islamic strain in Jewish Orientalists who found what seemed to be the more welcoming world of Islam, compared to the brutalities inflicted on Jews by Western Christendom. He was good at diagnosis, but not as good at self-diagnosis. He has never quite described, for his many admirers and his wide audience, the full panoply of disabilities placed on non-Muslims under Islam, usually being content with a sentence or two about the "jizya" and "other disabilities." Lewis has in the past been unwilling to endorse the scholarship of Bat Ye'or, describing it as "too polemical." Really? If the scrupulous scholarship of "The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam" is too polemical (is that a word which one applies when scholarship is sometimes informed with passion?), what of all the scholarship on which that book rests? What of Arakel of Tabriz? Or Armand Abel? Or Charles Dufourcq? Or Levi-Provencal? Or what about the scholarship that Bat Ye'or did not use, that of Mary Boyce on the Muslim treatment of Zoroastrians, or K. S. Lal on the Muslim treatment of Hindus? Bat Ye'or managed both to create a work of scholarship and analysis, much of which was original to her, as well as a synthesis of a large amount of scholarly literature -- by French, German, Armenian, Greek, Bulgarian, Romanian, and other scholars -- scholarship which does not paint quite the picture of the Ottomans as that which Lewis has favored. Not that he has ever been an open apologist for Islam, but he has failed to convey, in book after book, the real nature and horror of dhimmitude. To describe, for example, the forced levy of Christian children by the Turks, as a "recruitment" (which to the modern mind evokes mental images of college or army recruiters dangling inducements), which was often envied by the Muslim parents, is to ignore the scholarship, by scholars from parts of Europe once under Ottoman rule, detailing the fear and horror of such events as the devshirme levy. The subject of dhimmitude has not been part of Lewis' main bailiwick. It is one thing not to treat of a subject, quite another to mislead as to its real significance; quite another still to simply shut out of serious consideration a lonely scholar, outside the regular academic system, who has produced the body of work that Bat Ye'or has produced, and continues to produce. One hesitates to criticize Lewis for this because of the disgraceful treatment of him by the members of MESA (the MIddle Eastern Studies Association). Their relation to Lewis reminds me of a story that the late Tibor Szamuely once wrote in The Spectator. He described a functionary, the compleat chinovnik, of the Soviet Writers' Union, giving a speech in Tula, famed for its samovars, in the southwest of Moscow. "In bad old Czarist days," he intoned, "we had only one writer from Tula Province." And then he noted proudly: "But now, but now we have 3,247 members of the Union of Soviet Writers from Tula Province alone." (Wild cheering, laughter, applause). Szamuely drily added: "Yes. He was right. But he forgot to add that the one writer from "bad old Czarist days" was named Lev Tolstoy" and no one would ever remember any of the 3,247 current members of the Writers' Union from Tula. Well, something like that comes to mind when one thinks of Lewis, and his scholarship, compared to the heaps of Rashid Khalidis and Hamid Dabashis and Joel Beinins, some of whom are former propagandists for the PLO, others of whom spend their academic leisure beavering about in the busy "construction of the Palestinian identity" -- which if it really existed, as more than a transparently useful notion, would not require so much endless "construction." In relation to the MESA members who continue to deny him the recognition he deserves, reminds us of Tolstoy, in Szamuely's anecdote, in relation to his numerous (3,247, to be exact) epigones. But that does not absolve Lewis of his failures, his elisions, his distortions, his underappreciations, his allowing vanity to cloud his keen sight (how could he continue to deny the Armenian genocide? out of what misplaced loyalties to Ottomanists and Osmanlis, and to decades of friendship with many Turks, to what perverse parsing of the word "genocide," could he have found himself denying what masses of evidence, and eyewitness testimony, support? Which was more important -- the continued friendship of Turks, or the scholarly approval of Vankh Dadrian and others who have studied the Armenian genocide? If one is to believe the Wall Street Journal and other publications, Lewis has had an important influence on American policy in Iraq. By that, one means not the original invasion itself, but the Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project, which was to bring "democracy" to Iraq, and then that "democracy," in turn, would serve as a model for other Arab states, and lead to all manner of good things, including the diminishment of the role of Islam. But Lewis, like those in the Pentagon, was making judgments on the basis of friendship with highly misrepresentative men, Iraqis who were well-educated in the West, who had spent decades in the West (Chalabi has been in the West for 45 years), and who not only had become Western, rational men, but had themselves forgotten just how irrational Iraqi society is, with its ever-present substratum of Islam, the hostility that Islam engenders toward all non-Muslims (which means, of course, that any gratitude toward Infidel Americans for rescuing them from the regime of Saddam Hussein will be either feigned, or fleeting, or both). Lewis likes to think of himself as unswervingly unpolemical, the historian au-dessus de la melee -- but he did not hesitate to co-sign a political advertisement (written with James Woolsey) on behalf of Prince Hassan of Jordan, to become the new king of Iraq -- an advertisement that required him to praise the ahistoric fantasies of Amartya Sen about the historically "democratic" strain in Islam, which if we are talking about modern "democracy" and its connection to human rights, completely misstates the case). Lewis allowed himself to forget, because he wanted not to remember, the essential tenets of Islam, the manichaean split between Believer and Infidel, the inability of the Believer to accept any authority other than the sharia (and certainly not an authority stemmming from the votes of mere mortals), the impossibility of their being a real defense of human rights (beginning with full freedom of conscience, which is impossible in any Islamic regime). Lewis lived,in Egypt during World War II, when Egypt was essentially ruled by the British under extraordinary, wartime conditions (it was the British who jailed Answar Sadat for his pro-Nazi activities). Otherwise, Lewis has visited the Middle East as a dignitary, and in Turkey a celebrity. He is feted, treated with famous courtesy. In Amman Prince Hassan himself is a host and patron. In Princeton, dissenters now eager for support within the Administration make sure, as Saad Eddin Ibrahim did, to visit Lewis in Princeton (Lewis was instrumental in putting pressure on the Egyptian government, through threats to withhold $30 million, to change its treatment of Ibrahim in the courts). All of this attention, all of this lionizing, has had an affect. Lewis has retailed on more than one occasion his bon mots to gathered Arab admirers in Amman; his natural wariness seems strangely absent in his retelling of a story where his sally met with appreciative laughter. Few of us would respond otherwise; everyone likes to have a receptive audience. Lewis did not grow up in the Arab and Muslim world, as did the dry and brilliant Elie Kedourie; nor did he live, among the Arabs in situ, as did J. B. Kelly. (It is quite another thing to live among Arab colleagues in the West). He does not recognize quite as easily, and thus dismiss quite as completely, the nonsense, lies,and blague that are the stock-in-trade in the Arab countries as Kelly, for example, is wont to do. What is passing strange is that Lewis' first and greatest interest was modern Turkey. He admired the Kemalist reforms. He understood how difficult it was to undertake them. He knew that save for that reforms, the class of secularist Turks -- the very class from which his own colleagues and friends came -- would never have attained the critical mass it did. Yet, when confronted with Iraq, he did not draw any lessons from Kemalism. He did not stop to think that Kemalism was a result purely from within, a result derived from an enlightened despot, convinced that Islam explained the failures, political, economic, social, and intellectual, of the Muslim peoples, including the Turks -- and it was Islam that would, in its practice, have to be constrained by government fiat. That was what Kemalism was all about. Now, confronted with Iraq, Lewis ignores the lessons of Kemalism. Yet he must know that had the British tried, for example, with their soldiers still walking the streets of Istanbul, to impose the kind of de-islamizing reforms that Mustafa Kemal imposed, it would never have worked, now seems to be promoting the idea that "democracy" can come to that most unlikely country, Iraq, where tribalism and not the idea of the individual, still rules, where ethnic (Kurd and Arab) and sectarian (Sunni and Shi'a) rivalries and hatreds, have a long and deep history, and where the underlying ideology of Islam is opposed, in every fiber, to the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- including the right to freedom of conscience (apostasy), the right of equal treatment under the law for believers in all religions (directly contradicted by the sharia), the right to equal treatment of men and women (also contradicted by the sharia), and so on. Why did Lewis not employ the lessons of Kemalist Turkey, the only successful or quasi-successful, democracy in the Muslim world, and apply them to Iraq? Surely the goal is not to bring "democracy" which would mean a Shi'a takeover. The goal for Infidels should be to bring about the kind of end-of-our-tether conditions that will allow a sufficient number of people within the Muslim world to see that Islam itself has failed, politically, economically, morally, and intellectually, and that the Kemalist approach -- not to try, hopelessly, to "reform" Islam but rather to grimly and relentlessly create the conditions that constrain the practice of Islam, so that a secularist class may be nurtured. And in turn, that class will have a stake in continuing to adhere to the local version of Kemalism, to continue to suppress any signs of backsliding, so that Islam could continue to be tamed. As Lewis must know from his own encounter a few days ago with the Turkish Prime Minster, Mr. Erdogan, Kemalism is now under assault, perhaps a successful assault. The assumption that the gains were permanent, that Turkey would remain unaffected by Islam's natural distempers (not, as Lewis would have it,merely reactions to the disappointments of the modern world), has turned out to be shaky. Lewis has noted, in public lectures, that more has been achieved to bring "progress" to the Muslim world by those who would be properly described as enlightened despots, such as King Muhammad V of Morocco, Bourguiba in Tunisia, Reza Shah Pahlavi in Iran, and especially, and most successfully, by Ataturk in Turkey. Belief in the "people" (i.e. in"democracy") in the Muslim world is likely to lead to retrograde legislation, and a situation that makes things worse, not better, for Infidels. So why did he apparently promote the idea of Iraq as a likely candidate for something called "democracy'? Just how was that to take place, and what was the final outcome likely to be in Iraq's power structure? And since there is nothing self-evident about the idea that "democracy" in Iraq will necessarily be worth the vast allocation of men, materiel, money, and attention that is now being spent, monomaniacally, on this project, just how does it relate to encouraging, from within Islam, lots of local and little Ataturks to recognize the failures of Islam, and in their own way, for the sake of their own peoples, to cunningly fashion ways to constrain its practice and dampen its appeal? What, one wonders, does Lewis think of the many Muslim or ex-Muslim scholars who have written about the total contradiction between the principles of sharia and the principles enshrined inthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights -- such scholars, for example, as Rexa Afshari, or Ali Sina, or Ibn Warraq, or Azam Kamguian. Does he give weight to their views, or regard them all as malcontents and, as he has sometimes employed the Muslim word, "renegades"? Particularly when it comes to the Middle East, where Muslims do not brook the slightest criticism of Islam, its greatness, the greatness of its civilisation, and so on, it is hard for scholars who perceive things otherwise to speak their minds fully. There is often a gap between what is said publicly, and what is admitted privately. And a good many people like to think that if they spent many decades studying a subject, it must have inherent worth, its civilisation must have been a glorious thing indeed. Those mental pictures pass by in vivid array, those mosques in Samarkand and Tashkent and Bokhara, the Dome of the Rock gleaming in Jerusalem, those turbaned Turks and Iznik tulips, all the local color of that "high Islamic civilization" that Orientalists today still feel that they must formulaically overpraise (and in so doing, either tacitly accept the long-discarded notions of a European "Dark Ages," or belittle the vaster achievements of other non-Western civilizatons -- those of the Mayans, or the Hindus, or the Chinese). Lewis has outlived almost all of his colleagues. The kind of training he received goes far beyond what the Beinins and the Khalidis can even conceive of, and much further still beyond what they could ever attain. Because he towers over those who foolishly attack him, he has been mistaken for a Giant Sequoia. Had those colleagues remained in the field, he would now be seen as still something impressive -- a sturdy English oak, Quercus robur, say -- but not quite as tall, or as impressive, as that Giant Sequoia. http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/002247.php

Actually, one of the Roslin Gospels was from the Walters Museum. The other one* was from Hermitage (St. Petersburg). There were a number of Serbian, Greek, Georgian, Islamic and other manuscripts here as well. Overall, it was very diverse and one could not get a sufficient look at them within an hour or two. * See http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Byzantium/gallery_3.asp.

The Metropolitan Art Museum (NY) has two weeks left for its Byzantium exhibition to close. There are four Armenian illustrated Gospels exhibited here. Two are by T’oros Roslin, one by the Priest Yohannes and one by an unknown miniaturist of 14th century. A number of Armenian coins (King Hetum’s) of the Cilician Kingdom period are also exhibited. There were also some prints depicting Armenian miniaturist’ work for sale. Overall, I found the exhibition to be overwhelming. Especially, the collection of Russian icons and gospels was very impressive. I think it closes on July 4th.

I have a dream... Before the members of this forum respond and speak out, they first read and comprehend. And in general, given the proportion of the number of ears to the number of their mouths in real life, they listen and speak in proportion. But this is just a dream…

Hi: The standards at the State Gallery of Armenia (at least this is how it was called before) were not too bad. Lighting and humidity control standards were enforced in the old days. Don’t know what is the current status. The standards and the Modern Art Museum were nothing to brag about. Other museums were even in worse condition. Armenian has not had a Contemporary Art Museum, before, and contemporary art as such, has not existed. However, such a museum is soon to be opened due the finding provided by Qafesjian’s (spelling?) and based on his private collection (not such an impressive collection from what I have heard from some experts).

I haven't made statements. I have only dismissed some of your statements. Since you are the one claiming things, the onus is on you. And since you have all treaties, and I don’t have some of them, currently, (and at least in English), please scan and paste the Brest-Litovsk, Sevres, Alexandrapol, Moscow, Kars, Losagne Treaties. Then, we can go line-by-line. In fact, I have posted the Sevres treaty (at least the parts concerning Armenia) somewhere in the Hye Forum, in the past. Contrary to my wishes, let me ask you, if Alexandropol Treaty is the basis of Moscow Treaty, how come Zangezur is within the borders of Armenia, for example, and how come Armenia has had an army far exceeding the number 1,500, at least up until 1923, or up until 1930? This is a rhetoric question. I don’t expect an answer. But you are free to throw some more fluff. Finally, I will say it again: “My next response will come only if you can provide facts, demonstrating that you have read the documents you want to argue about, i.e. you have done your homework. Until then I have nothing else to talk to you about.” And this time, I mean it.

Now, tell me that this guy doesn’t have aptitude problem and doesn’t talk fluff… “I could provide evidence, but you would accuse me in forging evidence. So I will not provide evidence. Instead, I will say this: you are a bad guy.”

In your case, I think "a simpleton" may be an exaggeration. Therefore, I will stop with you, as well, here, without even bothering to read the rest of your mumblings.

The way I remember, it was 600,000.

At least they were more educated and cultured (those who lived in Yerevan). Obviously, they will hate Armenians for longer time to come and, at the same time, will be not liked by the other Azeries. I think we can see similar phenomenon in the Armenian domain as well. It also demonstrates that as discriminative as the attitudes may have been towards them in Armenia on the psychological domain, they had the opportunity to grow and become a viable force in Azerbaijan after their non-voluntary migration. P.S. I meant to say "they had the opportunity to grow in Armenia to a degree that to become a viable force in Azerbaijan after their non-voluntary migration."

First, you have to read the definition of sovereignty in a good dictionary. Perhaps that may help you in the argument. Second, when you have an argument to make about what Peter has said, you shouldn't refer to what Paul has said, because that amount to being an argument by association and demonstrates lack of argument in the first place. By now, it should have been obvious that I also don't care about you caring what I think. However, if you want to argue about the most important treaties that have ever been signed by or on behalf of Armenia, if you want to receive a better reaction than what you have received, you have to read the treaties themselves and not rely on what others have said about these treaties. First, others may be wrong due to a variety of reasons or just say bizarre things, second they may also say things based on what others have said about these issues, third they may lack adequate methodology to properly analyze things when they read them. To summarize, if you want me to be more respectful to what you have to say, you should go and first read all the treaties referenced in this thread before you engage in an argument. And then, you can paste the texts of the two (or three) treaties subject to argument and demonstrate word-by-word the basis of your [mis]interpretations. (I would recommend adding the text of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk.) I am sorry that they have not yet taught this simple thing in your college. To summarize again, don't site historians, since historians are the ones who normally mess up our understanding of history and don't claim credibility on someone else's behalf. In this particular case, site the documents subject to discussion, which are put together with black and white, to avoid interpretations or misinterpretations of something you have not read. And there is no need to bring an example in such topics to support an argument. Before you bring example, you need to bring facts. Examples are brought to enhance the understanding of facts when the facts are provided and turn to be hard to grasp. In your case, you have brought no facts, but want to bring examples. That itself demonstrates the weakness of your argument. It is also called fluff. My next response will come only if you can provide facts, demonstrating that you have read the documents you want to argue about, i.e. you have done your homework. Until then I have nothing else to talk to you about.

Get the hell out of my face,

knight: For the last time: Alexandropol treaty had nothing to do with Moscow treaty and obviously its content is contrary to that of Moscow treaty. If I have to accept the basis of your argumentation, then the Brest-Litovsk Treaty is the basis of Moscow treaty - there is more basis to claim this than anything else. Whether Moscow treaty was illegal or not, it is still enforced and not contested by anyone. I am not saying that there is no argument here. All my conscious life in politics I have fought to raise awareness against this treaty. But it is one thing to contest a Treaty you have signed, another one to contest a treaty that two other countries have signed. The first Republic was not taken by read Army in 1920 (it is a different story if we are talking about the summer of 1921). As even your prior material suggested, Armenia was voluntarily surrendered to a Bolshevik Armenian government as the result of the inaptness of the government of the First Republic - it was merely a regime change resulted from desperation and absence of better choices, at least in the judicial sense of the word - the country was badly messed up and then regime was unable to lead her - this is normally what happens when forces like that come to power. Armenia has stayed sovereign till 1923 - till joining the Caucasian Federation. Armenia has joint Soviet Union when the latter was established - in 1930. What the hell are you talking when mentioning France, Vinchy, WWII? Can you bring one straight argument without fluff?

Huh? What a weird guy you are.... Normally, I leave such outbursts unanswered. But given that some of the issues touched upon are within the scope of my passion, I guess I will not refrain from a reaction. I assume you are referring to your mumblings that I are referenced below: 1. From this point of view, the modern republic of Turkey is the judicial inheritant of the Ottoman Empire, Thus has inherited the treaty of Sevres. Furthermore, I am using your very own logic. 2. the treaty of kars is infact a void, illegal treaty which is enforceable by INTERNATIONAL LAW, til this day. the treaty was signed by an official who was out of power, thus making it void. from this same logic, the treaty of moscow is also void because it was aimed at affirming the void treaty of kars, without taking the interests of the armenian people, and without the participation of armenian officals. 3. infact, there was a proposal put forward to adopt the armenian language an international langauge, but eventually the english language was chosen as the english langage. the justification is here, is 1 billion china not part of this international world???? I don't understand #2, whatsoever. If anyone understands it, I would appreciate someone explaining what is being said here, if anything - even just from the point of view of the structure of the sentence, and I am not talking about the lack of coherent thought in it. On #1, of coarse Turkey is the judicial inheritant of the Ottoman Empire. What kind of discovery is this? And Sevres treaty largely is accepted by Turkey - except the articles concerning Armenians and Kurds. Now, the Armenian articles have been removed from the Treaty in Losagne (spelling?) in 1923, in the next iteration of the Sevres Treaty. Sevres Treaty has not been ratified other than through Losagne. Furthermore, treaty is just a paper, unless there are enforcement mechanisms. I don’t think you are using neither mine nor your own logic. There is no logic in what you are saying - first of all because you don't have the command of the facts. Most importantly, the legitimate Socialistic Armenian government has signed the Kars Treaty, which has annulled any other treaties signed between Armenia and Turkey prior to that point, thus providing legitimacy to the Losagne Treaty. #3 is a total grotesque, which belongs to the series "Yerevan drinking water is the second best water in the world." It is very entertaining, in general, to contemplate on the Armenian alphabet (I have even lost the count of for how many nations "Mesrob Mashtotc has created alphabets"). As hard as I may try to say something serious on this subject, I really cannot force myself to be that creative. As to the Jews... I consider them to be a very normal and advanced nation and don't take the allegation of me being a Jew as an insult. Therefore, I will only say that this allegation is a simple error resulted from the lack of knowledge, and such error is negligable on the face of the other [gross], errors in the rest of your mumblings.

I have no clue who you are nor have any interest in knowing it. Nor I have any high expectations from someone like you for who you may be or what you may say. The rest of your mumbling in incomprehensible. Sorry. So, here you have my apology, I guess...