MJ

I came across the materials below, prepared by the Library of the US Congress. I find them appallingly shallow, and sometimes more than inaccurate. However, I think it is worth posting, here. –MJ Section 1 of 1 Armenia National Self-Awareness The Armenians themselves changed dramatically in the midnineteenth century. An intellectual awakening influenced by Western and Russian ideas, a new interest in Armenian history, and an increase in social interaction created a sense of secular nationality among many Armenians. Instead of conceiving of themselves solely as a religious community, Armenians--especially the urban middle class--began to feel closer kinship with Christian Europe and greater alienation from the Muslim peoples among whom they lived. Lacking faith in reform within the empire, Armenian leaders began to appeal to the European powers for assistance. In 1878 Armenian delegates appeared at the Congress of Berlin, where the European powers were negotiating the disposition of Ottoman territories. Although Armenian requests for European protection went largely unanswered in Berlin, the "Armenian question" became a point of contention in the complex European diplomacy of the late nineteenth century, with Russia and Britain acting as the chief sponsors of Armenian interests on various issues. The Armenian independence movement began as agitation on behalf of liberal democracy by writers, journalists, and teachers. But by the last decade of the nineteenth century, moderate nationalist intellectuals had been pushed aside by younger, more radical socialists. Armenian revolutionary parties, founded in the early 1890s in Russia and Europe, sent their cadres to organize in Turkey. Because of the self-destruction of one major party, the Social Democratic Hnchaks, and the relative isolation of the liberals and the "internationalist" Social Democrats in the cities of Transcaucasia, the more nationalist of the socialist parties, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (ARF, also known as the Dashnak, a shortened form of its Armenian name), emerged by the early twentieth century as the only real contender for Armenian loyalties. The ARF favored Armenian autonomy in both the Russian and the Ottoman empires rather than full independence for an Armenia in which Russian- and Ottomanheld components would be unified. In the last decades of the nineteenth century, the Armenians' tendency toward Europeanization antagonized Turkish officials and encouraged their view that Armenians were a foreign, subversive element in the sultan's realm. By 1890 the rapid growth of the Kurdish population in Anatolia, combined with the immigration of Muslims from the Balkans and the Caucasus, had made the Armenian population of Anatolia an increasingly endangered minority. In 1895 Ottoman suspicion of the westernized Armenian population led to the massacre of 300,000 Armenians by special order of the Ottoman government. Meanwhile, on the other side of the Russian border, Armenian churches and schools were closed and church property was confiscated in 1903. Tatars massacred Armenians in several towns and cities in 1905, and fifty-two Armenian nationalist leaders in Russia were tried en masse for underground activities in 1912. Data as of March 1994 Section 1 of 1 Armenia World War I and Its Consequences As was the case for most of Europe, World War I changed Armenia's geopolitical situation. The war also precipitated an ethnic disaster of rare magnitude and brought the Armenians who remained in their native territory into a new type of empire. Postwar Realignment http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/armenia/am01_01c.jpg Folk dancers celebrating Armenian Independence Day (May 28, 1918) in Erevan Courtesy Azarian Churukian Between 1915 and 1917, Russia occupied virtually the entire Armenian part of the Ottoman Empire. Then in October 1917, the Bolshevik victory in Russia ended that country's involvement in World War I, and Russian troops left the Caucasus. In the vacuum that remained, the Armenians first joined a Transcaucasian federation with Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which, however, soon proved to be unreliable partners. The danger posed by the territorial ambitions of the Ottoman Turks and the Azerbaijanis finally united the Caucasian Armenian population in support of the ARF program for autonomy. In May 1918, an independent Armenian republic was declared; its armies continued to fight on the Allied side south of the Caucasus until the Ottoman Empire surrendered in October 1918. The independent republic endured from May 1918 to December 1920. In the new government, ARF leaders R.I. Kachazuni and A.I. Khatisian became prime minister and foreign minister, respectively. The Republic of Armenia included the northeastern part of present-day eastern Turkey, west along the Black Sea coast past Trabzon and southwest past Lake Van. But Armenia's precarious independence was threatened from within by the terrible economic conditions that followed the war in the former Ottoman Empire and, by 1920, by the territorial ambitions of Soviet Russia and the nationalist Turks under Kemal Atatürk. Atatürk had rehabilitated Turkey rapidly under a new democratic system, but the ruling party still hoped to create a larger state by taking territory in western Armenia from which Armenians had been driven. In defending its independence, the Republic of Armenia waited in vain, however, for the material and military aid promised at the Paris Peace Conference in 1919. The Allies' memories of the 1915 massacre faded as war weariness and isolationism dominated their foreign policy. In agreeing to the 1920 Treaty of Sèvres, the World War I Allies and Turkey recognized Armenian independence; as part of the treaty, Armenia received some disputed territory in what had been the Ottoman Empire. However, most of western Armenia remained in Turkish hands. Eastern Armenia, ravaged by warfare, migration, and disease, had an Armenian population of only 720,000 by 1920. Caught between the advancing Turks and the Red Army, which had already occupied neighboring Azerbaijan, in November 1920 the ARF government made a political agreement with the communists to enter a coalition government. The Treaty of Aleksandropol', signed by this government with Turkey, returned Armenia's northern Kars District to Russia [this is inaccurate –MJ] and repudiated the existence of Armenian populations in newly expanded Turkey. Data as of March 1994 Section 1 of 1 Armenia Nagorno-Artsax and Independence The conflict in Nagorno-Artsax (often called simply Artsax) served as a catalyst for nationalist movements following the precipitous decline of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s (see fig. 3). In the early 1990s, the struggle defied all negotiating efforts of the West and Russia. Artsax as a National Issue The protests of the Armenians of Nagorno-Artsax against Azerbaijani rule began in the spirit of perestroika, but the movement evolved quickly into a political organization, the Artsax Committee, a broad anticommunist coalition for democracy and national sovereignty. In the confusion following the earthquake that devastated northern Armenia in December 1988, Soviet authorities tried to stem the growing opposition to their rule by arresting the leaders of the committee. The attempt by the CPA to rule in Armenia without support from Armenian nationalists only worsened the political crisis. In March 1989, many voters boycotted the general elections for the Soviet Union's Congress of People's Deputies. Massive demonstrations were held to demand the release of the members of the committee, and, in the elections to the Armenian Supreme Soviet, the legislative body of the republic, in May, Armenians chose delegates identified with the Artsax cause. At that time, the flag of independent Armenia was flown for the first time since 1920. The release of the Artsax Committee followed the 1989 election; for the next six months, the nationalist movement and the Armenian communist leadership worked as uncomfortable allies on the Artsax issue. Gorbachev's 1989 proposal for enhanced autonomy for NagornoArtsax within Azerbaijan satisfied neither Armenians nor Azerbaijanis, and a long and inconclusive conflict erupted between the two peoples. In September 1989, Azerbaijan began an economic blockade of Armenia's vital fuel and supply lines through its territory, which until that time had carried about 90 percent of Armenia's imports from the other Soviet republics. In June 1989, numerous unofficial nationalist organizations joined together to form the Armenian Pannational Movement (APM), to which the Armenian government granted official recognition. [This section is totally misrepresenting the logic of the events. I don’t know if it is due to lack of adequate understanding of the issues, or due to political considerations. –MJ] Data as of March 1994 Section 1 of 1 Armenia The Artsax Crisis Escalates, 1989 The Azerbaijani-Armenian conflict escalated steadily in the summer and fall of 1989. Both the APM and the newly formed Azerbaijani Popular Front (APF) called for abolition of the Special Administrative Committee that Gorbachev had established to manage Nagorno-Artsax. The Armenians held to their position that the region must become part of Armenia, and radical Azerbaijanis called for abolition of Artsax autonomy. As hundreds of thousands of Azerbaijanis demonstrated in Baku, their government further restricted the flow of goods and fuel into Artsax and Armenia. In August 1989, Artsax Armenians responded by electing their own National Council, which declared the secession of Artsax from Azerbaijan and its merger with Armenia. The Armenian Supreme Soviet then declared the Artsax National Council the sole legitimate representative of the Artsax people. The Azerbaijani Supreme Soviet responded by abrogating the autonomy of both Artsax and Nakhichevan. Although the declarations and counter declarations of mid1989 were ultimately declared invalid by the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union, and although both Armenia and Azerbaijan continued to be governed by communist parties, neither republic was willing to obey Moscow's directives on the Artsax issue. In November 1989, in frustration at its inability to bring the parties together, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union abolished the Special Administrative Committee and returned direct control of Artsax to Azerbaijan. Rejecting Moscow's decision, the Armenian Supreme Soviet declared Artsax a part of Armenia in December 1989. After more than two years of the Artsax conflict, Armenia had gone from being one of the most loyal Soviet republics to complete loss of confidence in Moscow. Gorbachev's unwillingness to grant Artsax to Armenia and his failure to end the blockade convinced Armenians that the Kremlin considered it politically advantageous to back the more numerous Muslims. Even the invasion of Azerbaijan by Soviet troops in January 1990, ostensibly to stop pogroms against Armenians in Baku, failed to dampen the growing anti-Soviet mood among Armenians (see Within the Soviet Union, ch. 2). {I am sorry for the shallowness of the author of this material. –MJ] Data as of March 1994 Section 1 of 1 Armenia A New Political Climate The resignation of Suren Harutiunian as first secretary of the CPA in April 1990 and the triumph of the APM in the elections of the spring and summer of 1990 signaled the end of the old party elite and the rise of a new Armenian political class that had matured during the two years of tensions over Artsax. The newly elected Armenian parliament (which retained the Soviet-era name Supreme Soviet or Supreme Council) chose Levon Ter-Petrosian instead of the new CPA first secretary as its chairman, and hence as head of state of the republic. With the APM in power and the communists in opposition, the transition from Soviet-style government to an independent democratic state began in earnest. The new government faced a nearly complete collapse of order in the republic. Buildings were seized by armed men in Erevan, and several independent militia groups operated in Erevan as well as on the Azerbaijani frontier. Frustrated by the Azerbaijani blockade and determined to defend their republic and Artsax, members of Armenia's Fidain (whose name was taken from an Arabic term literally meaning "one who sacrifices himself" and recalling the Armenian freedom fighters of the turn of the century) raided arsenals and police stations to arm themselves for the coming battles. In July Gorbachev demanded immediate disarmament of the Armenian militias and threatened military intervention if they did not comply. In response, Ter-Petrosian's government itself disarmed the independent militias and restored order in Erevan. On August 23, 1990, Armenia formally declared its intention to become sovereign and independent, with Nagorno-Artsax an integral part of what now would be known as the Republic of Armenia rather than the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Armenian nation was defined broadly to include not only those living in the territory of the republic but also the worldwide Armenian émigré population as well. In redefining Armenian national interests, the government acknowledged--but temporarily put aside--the painful question of Armenian genocide, having in mind improved relations with traditional enemies Turkey and Iran. This policy prompted strong criticism from extreme nationalist groups that wanted to recover territory lost to Turkey in World War I. The CPA was also vehemently critical. {The author is a total dilettante in the issues he/she describes. –MJ] Data as of March 1994 Section 1 of 1 Armenia Independence In January 1991, the Armenian Supreme Soviet decided not to participate in Gorbachev's planned referendum on preserving the Soviet Union. In March the parliament announced that, instead, the republic would hold its own referendum in September, in compliance with the procedure outlined in the Soviet constitution for a republic to secede. Although literal compliance would mean that Armenia would not be fully independent for five years after the referendum, Moscow soon moved to change Armenia's course. Without notifying the Armenian government, Moscow sent paratroopers to the republic in early May, ostensibly to protect Soviet defense installations in Armenia. Ter-Petrosian's official statement in reaction characterized the move as a virtual declaration of war by the Soviet Union. In August 1991, when a self-proclaimed emergency committee attempted to overthrow Gorbachev and take control in Moscow, the Armenian government refused to sanction its actions. Fearing an extension of the Soviet incursion of May, Ter-Petrosian approached the Moscow coup very cautiously. The republic's Defense Committee secretly resolved to have the Armenian armed forces go underground and wage guerrilla warfare. Ter-Petrosian, who believed that Gorbachev's personal blunders, indecisiveness, and concessions to conservative communists were to blame for the coup, was overjoyed when the conservatives were defeated. But the coup itself convinced Armenians of the need to move out of the Soviet Union as rapidly as possible, and it validated TerPetrosian 's refusal to participate in the revival of the Soviet Union advocated by Gorbachev. Within two months of the coup, Armenians went to the polls twice. In September 1991, over 99 percent of voters approved the republic's commitment to independence. The immediate aftermath of that vote was the Armenian Supreme Soviet's declaration of full independence, on September 23, in disregard of the constitution's restraints on secession. Then in October, Ter-Petrosian was elected overwhelmingly as president of the republic. He now had a popular mandate to carry out his vision [his vision??? – MJ] of Armenian independence and self-sufficiency. As political changes occurred within the republic, armed conflict continued in Nagorno-Artsax during 1991. Armenia officially denied supporting the "Nagorno-Artsax defense forces" that were pushing Azerbaijani forces out of the region; Armenia also accused the Soviet Union of supporting Azerbaijan as punishment for Armenia's failure to sign Gorbachev's new Union Treaty. In turn, Azerbaijan called Armenia an aggressor state whose national policy included annexation of Azerbaijani territory. Data as of March 1994 Section 1 of 1 Armenia Postindependence Armenia Two immediate tasks facing independent Armenia were rebuilding its devastated economy and strengthening its fledgling democratic institutions. But the escalating war in NagornoArtsax and the effective blockade of the republic by the Azerbaijanis led to a total collapse of the economy. By early 1993, the government seemed helpless before mounting economic and political problems. The last remaining oil and gas pipelines through neighboring Georgia, which itself was being torn by civil and interethnic war, were blown up by saboteurs. To survive the cold, Armenians in Erevan cut down the city's trees, and plans were made to start up the nuclear power plant at Metsamor. In February 1993, demonstrations called for the resignation of the government, but Ter-Petrosian responded by naming a new cabinet headed by Hrant Bagratian. While economic and political conditions deteriorated within Armenia, the military position of the Armenians in the Artsax struggle improved dramatically. Various peace negotiations sponsored by Iran, Russia, Turkey, and a nine-nation group from the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe ( CSCE--see Glossary) had begun in 1991 and sporadically had yielded cease-fires that were violated almost immediately. In the spring of 1992, while the Azerbaijani communists and the nationalist Azerbaijani Popular Front fought for control in Baku, Artsax Armenian forces occupied most of Nagorno-Artsax, took the old capital, Shusha, and drove a corridor through the Kurdish area around Lachin to link Nagorno-Artsax with Armenia. But the immediate result of this victory was the collapse of Russian-sponsored peace negotiations with Azerbaijan and the continuation of the war. Beginning a counteroffensive in early summer, the Azerbaijanis recaptured some territory and created thousands of new refugees by expelling Armenians from the villages they took. In midsummer this new phase of the conflict stimulated a CSCEsponsored peace conference, but Armenia stymied progress by demanding for the first time that Nagorno-Artsax be entirely separate from Azerbaijan. By the end of 1992, the sides were bogged down in a bloody stalemate. After clearing Azerbaijani forces from NagornoArtsax and the territory between Artsax and Armenia, Armenian troops also advanced deep into Azerbaijan proper--a move that brought condemnation from the United Nations (UN) Security Council and panic in Iran, on whose borders Armenian troops had arrived. In the first half of 1993, the Artsax Armenians gained more Azerbaijani territory, against disorganized opposition. Azerbaijani resistance was weakened by the confusion surrounding a military coup that toppled the APF government in Baku and returned former communist party boss Heydar Aliyev to power. The coup reinvigorated Russian efforts to negotiate a peace under the complex terms of the three parties to the conflict: the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the increasingly independent and assertive Artsax Armenians. CSCE peace proposals were uniformly rejected during this period. Although Russia seemed poised for a triumph of crisis diplomacy on its borders, constant negotiations in the second half of 1993 produced only intermittent cease-fires. At the end of 1993, the Artsax Armenians were able to negotiate with the presidents of Azerbaijan and Russia from a position of power: they retained full control of Nagorno-Artsax and substantial parts of Azerbaijan proper (see After Communist Rule, ch. 2). Data as of March 1994

The Wall Street Journal November 7, 2001 Commentary A Caspian Alternative to OPEC By Brenda Shaffer. Ms. Shaffer, research director of the Caspian Studies Program at Harvard University, is author of "Borders and Brethren: Iran and the Challenge of Azerbaijani Identity" (MIT Press). BAKU, Azerbaijan -- As the U.S. struggles to maintain its global coalition against terrorism, it finds itself bending over backwards to not offend the Saudis. Although Saudi Arabia bears some responsibility for the rise of Islamist radicalism, and is only offering lukewarm support for the anti-terror campaign, it appears to be immune from criticism because of American dependence on its oil and gas. The U.S., it is believed, can't afford to get tough with its main energy supplier. Or can it? One way to help diminish dependence on Saudi Arabia is to focus on oil from the Caspian Sea. Diversity of sources is one of the most important factors in energy security. Saudi Arabian officials and Saudi-sponsored think tanks are constantly producing low estimates for the amount of Caspian oil and dismissing its importance. The reason? Caspian oil makes Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel nervous. Not because of the size of the Caspian volumes, which are roughly equivalent to those of the North Sea. Rather, because the main oil producers in the Caspian region -- Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan -- are not members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and do not coordinate their policies with the cartel. Flows of large volumes of Caspian oil through non-OPEC countries would erode the power of OPEC, as well as its ability to maintain high oil prices and to use oil as a mode of political blackmail. In order to contribute to world energy security, the previous and current U.S. administrations have been pressed for the construction of an oil pipeline on an east-west route -- known, by its coordinates, as "Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan." This would bypass Iran and Russia, and ensure a major oil source far from OPEC tentacles. http://interactive.wsj.com/public/resources/images/ed_azerbaij11062001223926.gif The U.S. administrations have demanded that this route prove its commercial viability beyond its contribution to diversity of world energy sources. British Petroleum has now thrown its weight behind the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan plan, reflecting the project's commercial value, and it seems that significant amounts of Caspian oil will flow from Azerbaijan to the Turkish Mediterranean port of Ceyhan in 2005. The U.S. should deal with Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan because, although they are predominately Muslim states, they maintain complete separation of religion and state. The overwhelming majority of the populations of these states are secular and their foreign policies, especially in Azerbaijan, are staunchly pro-American. While both countries need to make significant progress to strengthen democracy and the rule of law, the human rights situation there is a liberal dream compared with Saudi Arabia and the neighboring Gulf states, which do not even pay lip service to the popular will. Even Russia has, in the last year, dropped its active opposition to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline and appears to have accepted the project as inevitable. So, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan are pro-American states, awash with oil, non-coordinated with OPEC, and begging to have their oil flow westward. Does this sound too good to be true? It is. One glitch is the continuing Nagorno-Karabagh conflict. On the eve of the Soviet breakup, a conflict emerged between neighboring Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabagh region. This district was in the internationally recognized boundaries of Azerbaijan, but had a majority Armenian population. In 1992, despite the defeat of Azerbaijan, Congress -- at the urging of the Armenian-American community -- slapped sanctions on Baku, barring government-to-government assistance in many fields of cooperation. Despite this punitive move, Baku has cooperated with Washington throughout the decade on non-proliferation and anti-terror operations. Congress has renewed the sanctions, despite the previous and present administrations' opposition, which complicates Washington's ability to cooperate with Azerbaijan. Under the guise of mobilizing support for the anti-terror campaign, and at the urging of Secretary of State Colin Powell, Congress endorsed last week a temporary presidential waiver of the sanctions. While this is a step in the right direction, voices in Azerbaijan are expressing disappointment that while this interim waiver will allow the U.S. to use its bases and airspace, Azerbaijan is still among the group of pariah states including Iran, Iraq and Cuba that have U.S. sanctions placed on them. Azerbaijan also finds it ironic that it is the target of Iranian and Islamist extremist destabilization due to its pro-American policies, even as Washington keeps its sanctions. Caspian oil cannot replace the volumes from Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf states. However, its contribution to the world oil market can weaken OPEC's price and political manipulation. A dramatic change of regime in Saudi Arabia could bring an interim slowdown in oil production and delivery, but even radical states of any type like to sell their oil and gas. In the event of a temporary reduction of Gulf oil flow, the Caspian contribution could soften the blow to the oil market. Diversification of oil sources and energy forms should remain a constant policy, and quick development Caspian oil contributes to that goal. http://interactive.wsj.com/fr/emailthis/re...36416722840.djm [ November 11, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

I would propose to move the materials not related to the Kurds in Turkey to another thread. What do you say?

Founder's Foreword: "Sphere Law" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/2001jun/R_J_Rush.jpg by Rev. R. J. Rushdoony -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (Condensed from "This Independent Republic"1) The idea of sphere law is basic to Christian orthodoxy and to an understanding of Western history. The concept is also termed sphere sovereignty, not an altogether accurate designation, since sovereignty is not ascribed to the spheres but to God and His law. Moreover, the term sphere sovereignty is a modern one, owing its central philosophical formulation to Abraham Kuyper and its great development to Herman Dooyeweerd.2 The historical and theological origins, however, are much older and are of vast significance to our history. In ancient history, the Tower of Babel stands as the best witness to man's virtually universal faith.3 The unity of life was asserted, the unity of god or gods and man, of divine and human, so that man's total life, religious and political, was under the power of this unified divine-human order, against which there was no appeal. The sole exception to this was ancient Israel when faithful to the Lord. The priestly and kingly offices were strictly separated, although without separating religious responsibilities from the king. In apostasy, the state sought this union of powers in pagan cults. This unity, however, was forbidden to the human order; only in the Messiah were the priestly and royal offices, common to pagan monarchs, to be united. The development of Judaism, however, represented the apotheosis of this unity, so that, as Christ, representing the incarnation and transcendental focus of this unity, came onto the scene, He clashed at once with a hierarchy which saw the challenge of His presence. The hope of the Jews had become a world order governed by themselves as God's chosen people, with the Messiah, where accepted by a particular party within the state, seen as subservient to this hope. The coming of Christ was thus a challenge to the truly totalitarian world of antiquity. The Caesars recognized the challenge and fought it savagely and bitterly, and lost.4 With Athanasius and Augustine, the faith triumphed that there can be no confusion between the human and the divine orders. The history of the Christian era has been largely the struggle in some sense to reestablish the divine and unitary state, the Tower of Babel bond of heaven and earth, as against the Christian sundering of that bond. In the West, the Holy Roman Empire quickly developed the same claim to represent total order, and its one-power theory led it to claim "apostolic" rights over the church. Against this, in terms of the Christian faith, there was the bulwark of Augustinian and Gelasian affirmations of the two-power theory, i.e., church and state, both under God. Later, however, Pope Innocent III abandoned this concept in favor of the one power idea, the church as the divine-human bond of heaven and earth, the kingdom of God on earth, though various factors within the church paved the way for the development of sphere law and the integrity of creaturely activity. The Reformation, while challenging the one-power concept of Innocentine faith, and of the state, was also a continuation of the new sense of priesthood being developed by the Tertiaries. Significantly, also, Augustine was a major influence on both Luther and Calvin. With respect to sphere law, Calvin at three major points fashioned the doctrines of a new world order: 1. Calvinism denied that the kingdom of God is to be equated with the church. Instead, wherever God reigns, there is the kingdom and God should reign everywhere. Hence, man can serve God everywhere, and the kingdom of God includes every area of life, and every institution which obeys His commandments. 2. Calvinism, both in terms of this concept of the kingdom and in terms especially of justification by faith, which relates man directly to God, asserted the priesthood of all believers. Thus, man is as fully a priest of God at his business desk and cobbler's bench, when he faithfully obeys God, as is any ordained man in the pulpit. He has direct access to God, and serves God everywhere. Hence, the glory of the closed church meant for Protestantism that the institution and building were there for worship, but not needed for access constantly to God, Who heard men everywhere. Every sphere of life is an area of priesthood and a place of nearness to God. Similarly, man under God is king or vicegerent of creation, called to exercise dominion over creation by godly exploitation, exploration, knowledge, and activity. Again, he is a prophet, called upon to interpret creation in terms of the Word of God. 3. This led to a third factor, not immediately recognized but steadily asserting itself. In view of this doctrine of the spheres, and the kingdom, neither church nor state has any right to rule over the spheres, since each is directly under God and equally in the kingdom. It is Christ Who is the mediator, and the only mediator, and no institution, order, or person can interfere between God and man. Interventionism is a pretension to deity, a claim to powers of mediation and to divine government, and hence is inadmissible. Medieval feudalism, whatever its weaknesses, still had the Christian virtue of asserting against total government the limitation of powers and the responsible, contractual or feudal nature of power. It was thus a forerunner of true federalism. To this inheritance was added the Protestant concept. The independence of the spheres was an interdependence in life and activity but an independence in terms of human authority. It meant for society a necessary division of powers in institutional and sphere activity: in civil government (as developed in the United States, executive, legislative, and judicial branches, all under a constitution which presupposes a higher law), in the church (minister, session or board, members, church synods and conferences, creeds, Bible), in education (the development in the United States of trustees, a new concept and derived from church lay rule), and in other realms a like division. Man, being a sinner, needs checks and balances. Man, being in the kingdom and a priest, serves God everywhere. Every area has its own law-sphere, and every area its own powers as well as God-imposed restraints on its powers. The unity of these activities and spheres is not in any one of them, in man, or in the whole, but is transcendental; it is in God only. Man experiences the spheres as unity, but he sins if he seeks to unify them under his government. Thus, no institution or sphere, nor man himself, individually or collectively, can claim to be the source or the mediator of unity and authority. Totalitarianism, civil or ecclesiastical, claims institutional divinity and authority. The sources of American liberty are deeply rooted in this faith and cannot long survive apart from it. The U. S. Constitution had a severe conception of the limitation of powers, and most present federal activity is in violation of the express power doctrine of the Constitution. Instead of being rootless, American history is deeply rooted and hence hostile to the empty forms of traditionalism. Its emphasis on localism and development within context are aspects of this respect for sphere law, or, from a theological point of view, for the priesthood of all believers. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Condensed from chapter 11, "Sphere Laws" in R. J. Rushdoony, This Independent Republic (Nutley, NJ: The Craig Press, 1964). Ross House Books will be republishing this book in 2001. 2 For this development, see Abraham Kuyper, Lectures on Calvinism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1961); Evan Runner in Christian Perspectives 1961 (Hamilton, Ontario: Guardian Publishing Co., 1961), 188; Herman Dooyeweerd, A New Critique of Theoretical Thought (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 19531958), 4v. 3 See Eric Burroughs, "Some Cosmological Patterns in Babylonian Religion," in S. H. Hooke, ed., The Labyrinth, Further Studies in the Relation between Myth and Ritual in the Ancient World (London: SPCK, 1935), 4370; and Andre Parrot, The Tower of Babel (New York: Philosophical Library, 1955). 4 Ethelbert Stauffer, Christ and the Caesars (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1955). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rev. R. J. Rushdoony (deceased) was the chairman of the board of Chalcedon and a leading theologian, church/state expert, and author of numerous works on the application of Biblical Law to society. http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/2001jul_au..._sphere_law.htm

²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 10, ÑáõÝí³ñÇ, 2001 ÐÐ ²Ü å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙÝ»ñÁ ÈÛáõùë»Ùµáõñ·áõÙ ÐáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 30-ÇÝ ï»ÕÇ ¿ áõÝ»ó»É ºØ-г۳ëï³Ý ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ËáñÑñ¹Ç 3-ñ¹ ѳݹÇåáõÙÁ, áñÇÝ Ù³ëݳÏó»É ¿ ÐÐ å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÇ ·É˳íáñáõÃÛ³Ùµ: ä³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³½ÙáõÙ Áݹ·ñÏí³Í ¿ñ ݳ¨ ²é¨ïñÇ áõ ³ñ¹Ûáõݳµ»ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ γñ»Ý ÖßÙ³ñÇïÛ³ÝÁ: гٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ËáñÑñ¹Ç ѳݹÇåÙ³ÝÁ ùÝݳñÏí»É »Ý г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý µ³ñ»÷áËáõÙÝ»ñÁ ¨ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³Ï³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÝ»ñÁ, Ýß»Éáí, áñ ÐÐ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹ÇÝ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ íϳÛáõÙ ¿ »ñÏñáõÙ ·ñ³Ýóí³Í ³é³çÁÝóóÇ Ù³ëÇÝ: ÎáÕÙ»ñÝ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ³Ý Ý³¨ ù³Õµ³Ýï³ñÏÛ³ÉÝ»ñÇ ËݹñÇÝ, ß»ßï»Éáí, áñ г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ³Û¹ ËݹÇñÁ ·áÛáõÃÛáõÝ ãáõÝÇ, ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ³Ý Ý³¨ ³ÛÉÁÝïñ³Ýù³ÛÇÝ ½ÇÝíáñ³Ï³Ý ͳé³ÛáõÃÛ³ÝÁ ¨ ٳѳå³ïÅÇ í»ñ³óÙ³ÝÁ: Êáë»Éáí ºØ-ÐРѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ Áݹ·ñÏí³Í ïÝï»ë³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñÇ ßáõñç, ÏáÕÙ»ñÁ ùÝݳñÏ»É »Ý Ù³ëݳíáñ»óÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÝ»ñÇÝ, ³ïáٳϳ۳ÝÇÝ ¨ ¿Ý»ñ·Ç³ÛÇ ³ÛÉÁÝïñ³Ýù³ÛÇÝ ³ÕµÛáõñÝ»ñÇÝ, гٳß˳ñѳÛÇÝ ³é¨ïñÇ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛ³ÝÁ ÐÐ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÝ»ñÇÝ ³éÝãíáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: ÀݹáõÝí»É ¿ 2002 Ã.-Ç Ñ³Ù³ñ ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ³é³çݳÛÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ ÷³ëï³ÃáõÕÃÁ: ܳËáñ¹ ûñÁ, ÑáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 29-ÇÝ ï»ÕÇ ¿ áõÝ»ó»É ³ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙ »ñ»ù ѳñ³íÏáíϳëÛ³Ý ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ¨ ѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ËáñÑñ¹Ç ݳ˳·³Ñ ïÏÝ. Ü»ÛÃëÇ, ºØ µ³ñÓñ Ý»ñϳ۳óáõóÇã - ·É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñ åñÝ. êáɳݳÛÇ ¨ ºØ ²ñï³ùÇÝ Ñ³ñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³ñó»ñáí ѳÝÓݳϳï³ñ åñÝ. ö»ÃÁÝÇ Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ùµ: гݹÇåÙ³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ÑÇÙݳϳÝáõÙ ùÝݳñÏí»É »Ý ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù å³Ûù³ñÇÝ, гñ³í³ÛÇÝ ÎáíϳëÇ Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³ÝÝ áõ Ù»ñ ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³ÝáõÙ ºØ ¹»ñÇÝ í»ñ³µ»ñáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: гݹÇåÙ³Ý í»ñçáõÙ ÁݹáõÝí»É ¿ ѳٳï»Õ ÏáÙÛáõÝÇÏ» ºØ ¨ »ñ»ù ѳÝñ³å»ïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨: ºñ»Ï åñÝ. úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ѳݹÇå»É ¿ ݳ¨ ºØ µ³ñÓñ Ý»ñϳ۳óáõóÇã Ê.êáɳݳÛÇ Ñ»ï: øÝݳñÏí»É »Ý ÈÔ Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ·³íáñÏ³Ý Ý»ñϳ ÷áõÉÇÝ, ÐÐ ïÝï»ë³Ï³Ý ½³ñ·³óÙ³ÝÁ, ѳñ¨³Ý »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇÝ ¨ ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ ³ÛÉ ËݹÇñÝ»ñÇÝ ³éÝãíáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 31, ÑáõÝí³ñÇ, 2001 ì»ñçÇÝ »ñÏáõ ß³µ³Ãí³ ÁÝóóùáõÙ Æï³ÉdzÛáõÙ ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³Ý г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ øñÇëïáÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý ä»ï³Ï³Ý ÏñáÝ Ñéã³ÏÙ³Ý 1700-Ù³Û³ÏÇÝ ÝíÇñí³Í »ñÏáõ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ñ³Û³·Çï³Ï³Ý ·Çï³ÅáÕáíÝ»ñ: §Ð³Û»ñÁ ¨ ì»Ý»ïÇÏÁ: Þ»ÑñÇÙ³ÝÇó ÙÇÝ㨠ØËÇóñ. ѳ½³ñ³ÙÛ³ ³í³Ý¹áõÃÛ³Ý ·³·³ÃݳϻïÁ¦ Ëáñ³·ñáí ·Çï³ÅáÕáíÁ ϳ۳ó³í ÑáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 11-Çó 13-Á ì»Ý»ïÇÏÇ §Èáñ»¹³Ý¦ å³É³ïáõÙ: Çï³ÅáÕáíÁ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåí³Í ¿ñ í»Ý»ïÇÏÇ §ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ, ·ñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ É»½íǦ ÇÝëïÇïáõïÇ, Æï³ÉdzÛÇ ¨ г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ý³Ë³·³ÑÝ»ñÇ, Æï³ÉdzÛÇ ² ¨ Øß³ÏáõÛÃÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñáí³Ý³íáñáõÃÛ³Ý Ý»ñùá: ºñÏñáñ¹ ·Çï³ÅáÕáíÁª §êáõñµ ñÇ·áñ Èáõë³íáñÇãÁ ¨ Ýñ³ å³ßï³ÙáõÝùÁ ѳñ³í³ÛÇÝ Æï³ÉdzÛáõÙ¦ ûٳÛáí ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³í äáõÉdz ݳѳݷáõÙ ÑáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 18-Çó 20-Á: ²ÛÝ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåí»É ¿ñ È»ãã»Ç гٳÉë³ñ³ÝÇ ÏáÕÙÇóª äáõÉdzÛÇ Ý³Ñ³Ý·³å»ï³ñ³ÝÇ, ºíñáå³Ï³Ý êáóÇ³É³Ï³Ý ÐÇÙݳ¹ñ³ÙÇ ¨ Æï³Édz-Ðáõݳëï³Ý ÙÇçݳѳݷ³ÛÇÝ Íñ³·ñÇ Ñáí³Ý³íáñáõÃÛ³Ùµ: Çï³ÅáÕáíÇ ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³í ѳٻñ·, áñÇ ÁÝóóùáõ٠ϳï³ñí»óÇÝ ²ñ³Ù ʳã³ïñÛ³ÝÇ, ²éÝá ´³µ³ç³ÝÛ³ÝÇ, ¾¹í³ñ¹ ´³Õ¹³ë³ñÛ³ÝÇ ëï»Õͳ·áñÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ: Çï³ÅáÕáíÇ ³ß˳ï³ÝùÝ»ñÇÝ Ù³ëݳÏó»óÇÝ Ù»Í Ãíáí ѳ۳·»ïÝ»ñ Æï³ÉdzÛÇó, ²ØÜ-Çó, üñ³ÝëdzÛÇó,Ðáõݳëï³ÝÇó, ÎÇåñáëÇó: г۳ëï³ÝÁ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ ¿ÇÝ ÐÐ ²² ÷áËݳ˳·³ÑÁ, سï»Ý³¹³ñ³ÝÇ ·Çï³ß˳ïáÕ ¨áñ· î»ñ-ì³ñ¹³ÝÛ³ÝÁ, Æï³ÉdzÛáõÙ ÐÐ ¹»ëå³Ý ³·ÇÏ ´³Õ¹³ë³ñÛ³ÝÁ: ì º ð æ: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 01.11.01Ã. ñùÇ ßÝáñѳݹ»ë Ô³½³Ëëï³ÝáõÙ ÐáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 30-ÇÝ Ô³½³Ëëï³ÝáõÙ ¨ ÔñÕ½ëï³Ýáõ٠г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»ëå³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÁ ¨ Ô³½³Ëëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³·³ÑÇ ²ñËÇíÁ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñå»É ¿ÇÝ 2001 Ã. ÉáõÛë ÁÝͳÛí³Í §È¨áÝ ØÇñ½áÛ³ÝÁ Ô³½³Ëëï³ÝáõÙ: ö³ëï³ÃÕûñÇ ¨ ÝÛáõûñÇ ÄáÕáí³Íáõ /1933 –1938 ÃÃ./¦ Ëáñ³·ñáí ·Çñù-ÅáÕáí³ÍáõÇ Ñ³ë³ñ³Ï³Ï³Ý ßÝáñѳݹ»ëÁ: ²Ûë ÙÇçáó³éáõÙÁ ÝíÇñí³Í ¿ñ г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ Ô³½³Ëëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ²ÝϳËáõÃÛ³Ý Ñéã³ÏÙ³Ý 10-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ ¨, ÇѳñÏ», ÁÝóÝáõÙ ¿ñ г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ùñÇëïáÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý å»ï³Ï³Ýáñ»Ý ÁݹáõÝÙ³Ý 1700-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ: ÄáÕáí³ÍáõÝ µ³ó³éÇÏ ³ñËÇí³ÛÇÝ ÝÛáõûñÇ íñ³ ϳï³ñí³Í Ù³Ýñ³½ÝÝÇÝ ¨ ͳí³ÉáõÝ ³ß˳ï³ÝùÇ ³ñ¹ÛáõÝù ¿: ²ÛÝ å³ïñ³ëïí³Í ¿ Ô³½³Ëëï³ÝÇ Ý³Ë³·³ÑÇ ²ñËÇíÇ ³ß˳ï³ÏÇóÝ»ñÇ, г۳ëï³ÝÇ ¹»ëå³Ý³ï³Ý ¨, Ù³ëݳíáñ³å»ë, ³ñï³Ï³ñ· ¨ Édz½áñ ¹»ëå³Ý, å³ïÙ³Ï³Ý ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ¹áÏïáñ ¾¹áõ³ñ¹ Êáõñßáõ¹Û³ÝÇ û·ÝáõÃÛ³Ùµ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 1 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ î»Õ»Ï³óÝáõÙ »Ýù« áñ ÑáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 30-Ç »ñ»ÏáÛ³Ý ØáëÏáíÛ³Ý °°ò³ñÇóÇÝá°° ßáõϳÛÇ Ùáï³Ï³ÛùáõÙ ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³Í Ù³ëë³Û³Ï³Ý ³Ýϳñ·áõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï¨³Ýùáí íÇñ³íáñí»É ¿ 20-Çó ³í»ÉÇ ¨ ½áÑí»É »ñÏáõ Ù³ñ¹« ³Û¹ Ãíáõ٠ݳ¨ 37-³ÙÛ³ ØáëÏí³ÛÇ µÝ³ÏÇã, ѳ۳½·Ç ì³ñ¹³Ý ÎáõÉÇç³ÝÛ³ÝÁ£ ܳËÝ³Ï³Ý ïíÛ³ÉÝ»ñáí ³Ýϳñ·áõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ Ññ³Ññí»É »Ý éáõë³ëï³ÝÛ³Ý áñáß Ý»áݳóÇëï³Ï³Ý ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÏáÕÙÇó£ ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ 05.11.01Ã. àõß³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝ î»Õ»Ï³óÝáõÙ »Ýù, áñ Ù»ñ ÏáÕÙÇó ݳËûñáù ѳÛï³ñ³ñí³Í ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 5-Ç È³ïídzÛÇ ¨ г۳ëï³ÝÇ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³ï»Õ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ ³ëáõÉÇëÁ ï»ÕÇ Ïáõݻݳ ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 6-ÇÝ Å³ÙÁ 18.00-ÇÝ: î»Õ»Ï³óÝáõÙ »Ýù ݳ¨, áñ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ ³ëáõÉÇëÁ Ïϳ۳ݳ »ñÏáõ »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ²Ü-Ý»ñÇ ÙÇç¨ Ñ³Ù³·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É ³ñӳݳ·ñáõÃÛ³Ý ëïáñ³·ñÙ³Ý ³ñ³ñáÕáõÃÛáõÝÇó Ñ»ïá: Ðñ³íÇñíáõÙ »Ý Éñ³·ñáÕÝ»ñ ¨ ûå»ñ³ïáñÝ»ñ: Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ Ð³ÛïÝáõÙ »Ýù, áñ º²ÐÎ ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑÝ»ñÁ ÏÅ³Ù³Ý»Ý ºñ¨³Ý êï»÷³Ý³Ï»ñïÇóª ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 6-ÇÝ: ²ÛóÇ Ýå³ï³ÏÁ ÈÔ Ë³Õ³Õ Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÇ ùÝݳñÏáõÙÝ ¿: ºñÏûñÛ³ ³ÛóÇ ÁÝóóùáõ٠ѳٳݳ˳·³ÑÝ»ñÁ ÏѳݹÇå»Ý ÐРݳ˳·³Ñ è.øáã³ñÛ³ÝÇ, ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ ì.úëϳÝÛ³ÝÇ ¨ ²Ù»Ý³ÛÝ Ð³Ûáó ϳÃáÕÇÏáëÇ Ñ»ï: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 05.11.2001 Ã. ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ ì.úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó ȳïídzÛÇ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñáõÃÛ³Ý å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛ³ÝÁ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 5-ÇÝ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍ»ñÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó ³ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ ³Ûóáí ºñ¨³ÝáõÙ ·ïÝíáÕ È³ïídzÛÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ÆݹáõÉÇë ´»ñ½ÇÝßÇ ·É˳íáñ³Í å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛ³ÝÁ: гݹÇåÙ³Ý ëϽµáõÙ ÏáÕÙ»ñÁ Ý³Ë ³Ýñ³¹³ñÓ³Ý ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÇÝ ¨ ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù Çñ³Ï³Ý³óíáÕ å³Ûù³ñÇ ÁÝóóùÇÝ: ²ÛÝáõÑ»ï¨ å³ñáÝ ´»ñ½ÇÝßÁ Ý»ñϳ۳óñ»ó ȳïídzÛÇ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÑÇÙÝ³Ï³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ, Ù³ëݳíáñ³å»ë ȳïídz-ºØ ëå³ëí»ÉÇù ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³ÝÝ ³éÝãíáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: ÐÛáõñ»ñÇ Ëݹñ³Ýùáí ݳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ Ù³Ýñ³Ù³ëÝ ³Ýñ³¹³ñÓ³í È»éݳÛÇÝ Ô³ñ³µ³ÕÇ Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÇÝ, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ Ý»ñϳ Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÇÝ: Êáë»Éáí »ñÏÏáÕ٠ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ, ½ñáõó³ÏÇóÝ»ñÁ Áݹ·Í»óÇÝ Ñ³Ù³·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ÁݹɳÛÝÙ³Ý ¨ ËóÝÙ³Ý ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßïáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ÆîàôÂÚàôÜ Èð²îì²ØÆæàòܺðÆ 05 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. î»Õ»Ï³óÝáõÙ »Ýù, áñ ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 6-ÇÝ Å³ÙÁ 12.15 ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ ³Ûóáí êï»÷³Ý³Ï»ñïÇó áõÕÕ³ÃÇéáí ºñ¨³Ý ¿ ųٳݻÉáõ º²ÐÎ ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇ å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ: гٳݳ˳·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇÝ §¾ñ»µáõÝǦ û¹³Ý³í³Ï³Û³ÝáõÙ ¹ÇÙ³íáñ»É ó³ÝϳóáÕ Éñ³·ñáÕÝ»ñÁ ¨ ûå»ñ³ïáñÝ»ñÁ ÙÇÝ㨠ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 6-Ç Å³ÙÁ 10.00-Ý å»ïù ¿ óáõó³Ï³·ñí»Ý ²Ü гë³ñ³Ï³ÛÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ í³ñãáõÃÛáõÝáõÙ (Ñ»é.ª 56 25 43): гÛïÝáõÙ »Ýù, áñ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ ãÇ ïñ³Ù³¹ñáõÙ ÷á˳¹ñ³ÙÇçáó: ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 7-ÇÝ ï»ÕÇ Ïáõݻݳ ѳٳݳ˳·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ ³ëáõÉÇëÁ, áñÇ í³ÛñÇ ¨ ųÙÇ Ù³ëÇÝ Éñ³óáõóÇã Ïï»Õ»Ï³óÝ»Ýù: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ 06.11.2001 Ã. Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ Ð³ÛïÝáõÙ »Ýù, áñ º²ÐÎ ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ ³ëáõÉÇëÁ Ïϳ۳ݳ ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 7-ÇÝ Å³ÙÁ 14.30-ÇÝ, ² ݳ˳ñ³ñáõÃÛ³Ý ß»ÝùáõÙ: Ðñ³íÇñíáõÙ »Ý ²Ü ѳë³ñ³Ï³ÛÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ í³ñãáõÃÛáõÝáõ٠ѳí³ï³ñÙ³·ñí³Í Éñ³·ñáÕÝ»ñÝ áõ ûå»ñ³ïáñÝ»ñÁ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 6 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇÝ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 6-ÇÝ ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ ³Ûóáí г۳ëï³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Í ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñ ìÛ³ã»ëɳí îñáõµÝÇÏáíÇ /è¸/, èáõ¹áÉý ö»ñÇÝÇ /²ØÜ/ ¨ üÇÉÇå ¹» êÛáõñÙ»ÝÇ /üñ³Ýëdz/ ·É˳íáñ³Í å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇÝ: ØÊ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÁ ùÝݳñÏ»óÇÝ ÈÔ Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³Ý Ë³Õ³Õ ·áñÍÁÝóóÁª µ³ó³é»Éáí ÑÇÙݳËݹñÇ í»ñçÝ³Ï³Ý ÉáõÍÙ³Ý é³½Ù³Ï³Ý ×³Ý³å³ñÑÁ: ²Ûë ³éáõÙáí ¨ë Ù»Ï ³Ý·³Ù Áݹ·Í»óÇÝ ´³ùíáõÙ ÑÝãáÕ é³½Ù³ï»Ýã ѳÛï³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ³ÝÁݹáõÝ»ÉÇáõÃÛáõÝÁ: гïáõÏ áõß³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝ ¹³ñÓí»ó ѳϳٳñïáõÃÛ³Ý ÏáÕÙ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨ íëï³ÑáõÃÛ³Ý ³Ùñ³åÝ¹Ù³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛ³Ùµ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåíáÕ ÙÇçáó³éáõÙÝ»ñÇÝ, áñáÝù ѳݹÇë³ÝáõÙ »Ý µ³Ý³Ïó³ÛÇÝ ·áñÍÁÝóóÇÝ ë³ï³ñ»Éáõ ϳñ¨áñ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñ: ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 7-ÇÝ ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇÝ ÏÁݹáõÝÇ ÐРݳ˳·³Ñ èáµ»ñï øáã³ñÛ³ÝÁ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 06.11.01à êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõ٠ϳ۳ݳÉáõ ¿ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç 109-ñ¹ ÝÇëïÁ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 7-8-Á ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ Ù»ÏÝ»Éáõ ¿ êïñ³ëµáõñ·ª Ù³ëݳÏó»Éáõ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç 109-ñ¹ Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÇÝ, áñÁ ÏñáõÙ ¿ “ä³Ûù³ñ ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù” Ëáñ³·ÇñÁ: ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç 109-ñ¹ Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÇÝ ÁݹáõÝí»Éáõ ¿ ²Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù å³Ûù³ñÇ í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É ÏáÙÛáõÝÇÏ», ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ºíñáå³ÛáõÙ Ù³ñ¹áõ Çñ³íáõÝùÝ»ñÇ å³ßïå³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ Ñ³Ûï³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝ: ÐáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 8-ÇÝ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ Ù³ëݳÏó»Éáõ ¿ ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç ¨ Êì ´ÛáõñáÛÇ Ñ³Ù³ï»Õ ÝÇëïÇÝ: êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙ ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÁ ѳݹÇåáõÙÝ»ñ ¿ áõݻݳÉáõ ºÊ ÊáñÑñ¹³ñ³Ý³Ï³Ý í»Ñ³ÅáÕáíÇ Ý³Ë³·³Ñ Èáñ¹ è³ëëÁÉ æáÝëÃáÝÇ ¨ ºÊ ÊáñÑñ¹³ñ³Ý³Ï³Ý í»Ñ³ÅáÕáíÇ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñÇ Ñ³ÝÓݳÅáÕáíÇ Ý³Ë³·³Ñ ÂÇ»ñÇ ¸»ÛíÇëÇ Ñ»ï: ܳ˳ï»ëíáõÙ »Ý ݳ¨ ѳݹÇåáõÙÝ»ñ ºÊ É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñ ì³Éï»ñ ÞíÇÙ»ñÇ ¨ ºÊ ѳçáñ¹ ݳ˳·³ÑáÕ »ñÏñǪ ÈÇïí³ÛÇ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ²Ýï³Ý³ë ì³ÉÇáÝÇëÇ Ñ»ï: ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 7-ÇÝ ºíñáå³Ï³Ý å³É³ïÇ ×»Ù³ëñ³ÑáõÙ µ³óí»Éáõ ¿ ê»ñ·»Û ö³ñ³ç³ÝáíÇ ëï»Õͳ·áñÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ óáõó³Ñ³Ý¹»ëÁ. óáõó³Ñ³Ý¹»ëÇ µ³óÙ³Ý ³ñ³ñáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ Áݹ·ñÏí³Í ¿ ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÇ ÁݹѳÝáõñ Íñ³·ñáõÙ ¨ µ³óÙ³Ý Ëáëùáí »ÉáõÛà ¿ áõݻݳÉáõ ºÊ É˳íáñ ù³ñïáõÕ³ñ ì³Éï»ñ ÞíÇÙ»ñÁ: ìºðæ вڲêî²Ü-ºìðàä²ÚÆ ÊàðÐàôð¸ ì»ñçÇÝ ï³ñÇÝ»ñÇÝ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ÊáñÑáõñ¹Á ѳïáõÏ Ï³ñ¨áñáõÃÛáõÝ ¿ ï³ÉÇë ²Ý¹ñÏáíϳëÇ »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÇÝ, ù³ÝÇ áñ ²Ý¹ñÏáíϳëÇ Ý»ñ·ñ³íáõÙáí ϳٵáÕç³óíÇ ÙdzóÛ³É Ñ³Ù³»íñáå³Ï³Ý ϳéáõÛóÇ Ó¨³íáñáõÙÁ: ÆÝã í»ñ³µ»ñáõÙ ¿ г۳ëï³ÝÇÝ áõ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇݪ í»ñçÇÝÝ»ñÇë ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ñóÁ ÙÇÝ㨠í»ñç»ñë ¹Çï³ñÏíáõÙ ¿ñ ÙdzëÇݪ ÈÔ ËݹñÇ å³ï׳鳵³ÝáõÃÛ³Ùµ: 2000Ã. ÑáõÝí³ñÇ 17-ÇÝ ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÁ Ññ³íÇñ»ó ѳݹÇåÙ³Ý ºÊ ³Ý¹³Ù »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ¹»ëå³ÝÝ»ñÇݪ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝ»Éáõ ºÊ-ÇÝ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÇ ÁÝóóÇÏ íÇ׳ÏÁ: 2000Ã. ÑáõÝí³ñÇ 26-ÇÝ ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ ì. úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ³ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ ³Ûóáí ·ïÝíáõÙ ¿ñ êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙª ºÊ ÙÇ ß³ñù å³ßïáÝ۳ݻñÇ Ñ»ï ùÝݳñÏ»Éáõ г۳ëï³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÇ ½³ñ·³óáõÙÝ»ñÁ: 2000Ã. ÷»ïñí³ñÇ 8-ÇÝ ÐРܳ˳·³ÑÇ Ýëï³í³ÛñáõÙ ²½·³ÛÇÝ ³Ýíï³Ý·áõÃÛ³Ý ËáñÑñ¹Ç ³Ý¹³ÙÝ»ñÇ Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ùµ ³Ýóϳóí»ó ËáñÑñ¹³ÏóáõÃÛáõݪ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ÊáñÑñ¹ÇÝ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝóóùÇ, Ù³ëݳíáñ³å»ëª ÐÐ Çß˳ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÏáÕÙÇó å³ñï³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ëï³ÝÓÝÙ³Ý Ñ³ñóÇ í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É: 2000Ã. Ù³ñïÇ 7-ÇÝ ö³ñǽáõ٠ϳ۳ó³í ºÊ ÊáñÑñ¹³ñ³Ý³Ï³Ý í»Ñ³ÅáÕáíÇ ø³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñÇ Ñ³ÝÓݳÅáÕáíÇ ÝÇëïÁ: úñ³Ï³ñ·áõÙ, Ç ÃÇíë ³ÛÉ Ñ³ñó»ñÇ, Áݹ·ñÏí³Í ¿ÇÝ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ñó»ñÁ (·áñÍÁÝóóÝ»ñÇ ùÝݳñÏáõÙ): سëݳíáñ³å»ë, Ý»ñϳ۳óí»óÇÝ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇ ¨ г۳ëï³ÝÇ í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ¨ Çñ³í³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñáí ½»ÏáõÛóÝ»ñÁ: 2000Ã. Ù³ÛÇëÇ 26-ÇÝ Æï³É³Ï³Ý ݳ˳·³ÑáõÃÛ³Ý Ññ³í»ñáí ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÁ êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙ Ù³ëݳÏó»ó ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ å³ïíÇñ³ÏÝ»ñÇ ÝÇëïÇÝ, ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³í Ùïù»ñÇ ÷á˳ݳÏáõ٠г۳ëï³Ý - ºÊ ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ½³ñ·³óáõÙÝ»ñÇ Ý»ñϳ íÇ׳ÏÇ í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É: 2000Ã. ÑáõÝÇëÇ 15-ÇÝ ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ ³ÛóÇ ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ ºÊ-Ç Çï³É³Ï³Ý ݳ˳·³ÑáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³Ó»éÝáõÃÛ³Ùµ г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ¿ñ ·ïÝíáõÙ Æï³ÉdzÛÇ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñáõÃÛ³Ý å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁª ݳ˳ñ³ñÇ ï»Õ³Ï³É, å»ïù³ñïáõÕ³ñ àõ. è³ÝÇ»ñÇÇ ·É˳íáñáõÃÛ³Ùµ: ÐРܳ˳·³ÑÇ, ÷á˳ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÇ Ñ»ï ѳݹÇåáõÙÝ»ñÇ ÁÝóóùáõÙ ùÝݳñÏí»ó ºÊ-ÇÝ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³ñóÁ, ÇÝãÇó Ñ»ïá ºÊ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ å³ïíÇñ³ÏÝ»ñÇ ÝÇëïÇÝ Ý»ñϳ۳óí»ó ½»ÏáõÛóª г۳ëï³ÝÇ, ìñ³ëï³ÝÇ ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇ Ñ»ï ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É: 2000Ã. ÑáõÝÇëÇ 28-ÇÝ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ÊáñÑñ¹³ñ³Ý³Ï³Ý í»Ñ³ÅáÕáíÇ Édz·áõÙ³ñ Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÇÝ ùÝݳñÏí»ó ³Û¹ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛ³ÝÁ г۳ëï³ÝÇ ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ñóÁ: Àݹ·Í»Éáí ½·³ÉÇ ³é³çÁÝóóÁ Ù³ñ¹áõ Çñ³íáõÝùÝ»ñÇ å³ßïå³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ã³÷³ÝÇßÝ»ñÇÝ »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ûñ»Ýë¹ñ³Ï³Ý ¹³ßïÇ Ñ³Ù³å³ï³ë˳ݻóÙ³Ý µÝ³·³í³éÝ»ñáõÙ ¨ ³ÛÝ, áñ г۳ëï³ÝÇ ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÷á˳¹³ñÓ íëï³ÑáõÃÛ³Ý ÙÃÝáÉáñï Ïëï»ÕÍÇ È»éݳÛÇÝ Ô³ñ³µ³ÕÇ Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛ³Ý Ë³Õ³Õ Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñª ÊáñÑñ¹³ñ³Ý³Ï³Ý í»Ñ³ÅáÕáíÁ ÏáÕÙ ³ñï³Ñ³Ûïí»ó »ñÏáõ »ñÏñÝ»ñǪ ºÊ ÉÇÇñ³í ³Ý¹³Ù ¹³éݳÉáõ ³éÝãáõÃÛ³Ùµ: 2000Ã. ÑáÏï»Ùµ»ñÇ 11-Çó 13-Á ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÁ êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙ Ù³ëݳÏó»ó è³ëǽÙÇ, é³ë³Û³Ï³Ý Ëïñ³Ï³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý, ùë»ÝáýáµÇ³ÛÇ ¨ ³ÝѳݹáõñÅáճϳÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù ºíñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝý»ñ³ÝëÇÝ: ÎáÝý»ñ³ÝëÇ ÁÝóóùáõÙ ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ áõÝ»ó³í ÙÇ ß³ñù ³ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ Ñ³Ý¹ÇåáõÙÝ»ñ ºÊ å³ßïáÝ۳ݻñÇ Ñ»ï: 2000Ã. ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 3-Çó 4-Á ÐéáÙáõÙ ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÁ Ù³ëݳÏó»ó سñ¹áõ Çñ³íáõÝùÝ»ñÇ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»ÝódzÛÇ ÑÇëݳÙÛ³ÏÇÝ ÝíÇñí³Í ݳ˳ñ³ñ³Ï³Ý ÏáÝý»ñ³ÝëÇÝ: 2000Ã. ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 9-ÇÝ ºÊ ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÎáÙÇï»Ç 107-ñ¹ ÝÇëïÇ Ñ³Ù³å³ï³ë˳ݳµ³ñ Res(2000)13 ¨ Res(2000)14 µ³Ý³Ó¨»ñáí г۳ëï³ÝÁ ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÁ Ññ³íÇñí»óÇÝ ¹³éÝ³É ºíñáå³ÛÇ ÊáñÑñ¹Ç ³Ý¹³Ù »ñÏñÝ»ñ: 2001Ã. ÑáõÝí³ñÇ 17-ÇÝ Ü³Ë³ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ å³ïíÇñ³ÏÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ñÃ³Ï³Ý ÝÇëïÇ ÁÝóóùáõÙ ùÝݳñÏí»É »Ý г۳ëï³ÝÇ, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝǪ ºÊ-ÇÝ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñ³ñáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Å³ÙÏ»ïÝ»ñÁ: 2000Ã. ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 16-Çó 17-Á г۳ëï³Ý ¿ñ Å³Ù³Ý»É ºÊ §ì»Ý»ïÇÏÇ Ñ³ÝÓݳÅáÕáíǦ å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁª ºÊ ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 9-Ç áñáßÙ³Ý ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ áõëáõÙݳëÇñ»Éáõ ѳٳñ г۳ëï³ÝÇ ÏáÕÙÇó ÙÇ ß³ñù ûñ»ÝùÝ»ñÇ ÁݹáõÝÙ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ ûųݹ³ÏáõÃÛ³Ý Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ: ä³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ ѳݹÇåáõÙÝ»ñ áõÝ»ó³í ÐРܳ˳·³ÑÇ, ê³Ñٳݳ¹ñ³Ï³Ý ¹³ï³ñ³ÝÇ Ý³Ë³·³ÑÇ, ², ³ñ¹³ñ³¹³ïáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ, Ï»ÝïñáÝ³Ï³Ý ÁÝïñ³Ï³Ý ѳÝÓݳÅáÕáíÇ Ý³Ë³·³ÑÇ, ºÊ-áõÙ ÐÐ ²Ä ËáñÑñ¹³ñ³Ý³Ï³Ý å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ²Ä Ùßï³Ï³Ý ѳÝÓݳÅáÕáíÝ»ñÇ Ý³Ë³·³ÑÝ»ñÇ, г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ÙÇ ß³ñù ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ·ñ³ë»ÝÛ³ÏÝ»ñÇ Õ»Ï³í³ñÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï: 2001Ã. ÑáõÝí³ñÇ 25-ÇÝ êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõ٠ϳ۳ó³Ý г۳ëï³ÝÇ ¨ ²¹ñµ»ç³ÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ å³ßïáÝ³Ï³Ý ³ñ³ñáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ: г۳ëï³Ý - ºíñáå³ÛÇ ÊáñÑáõñ¹ª å³Ûٳݳ·ñ³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ г۳ëï³ÝÁ. -ºÊ-Ç Ëáßáñ µÝ³Ï³Ý ¨ ï»ËÝáÉá·Ç³Ï³Ý ³Õ»ïÝ»ñÇó å³ßïå³-ÝáõÃÛ³Ý, ¹ñ³Ýó ϳÝËÙ³Ý ¨ û·ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåÙ³Ý µ³ó Ù³ëݳÏÇ Ñ³Ù³Ó³Û³Ý·ñÇ ³Ý¹³Ù ¿ /ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ å³ïíÇñ³ÏÝ»ñÇ 486-ñ¹ ѳݹÇåáõÙ, ÑáõÝí³ñ, 1993 Ã./: -ÄáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛáõÝ Çñ³íáõÝùÇ ÙÇçáóáí »íñáå³Ï³Ý ѳÝÓݳÅáÕáíÇ /§ì»Ý»ïÇÏÛ³Ý Ñ³ÝÓݳÅáÕáí¦/ ³ëáódzóí³Í ³Ý¹³Ù ¿ /ܳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ï»Õ³Ï³ÉÝ»ñÇ 547-ñ¹ ѳݹÇåáõÙ, ÑáÏï»Ùµ»ñ, 1995 Ã./: -Ùdzó»É ¿ ºíñáå³Ï³Ý Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ ÏáÝí»ÝódzÛÇÝ /êïñ³ëµáõñ·, 25 ³åñÇÉÇ, 1997 Ã./, -1998Ã. ÑáõÝÇëÇÝ í³í»ñ³óñ»É ¿ ºÊ-Ç ²½·³ÛÇÝ ÷áùñ³Ù³ëÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ å³ßïå³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý ÏáÝí»ÝódzÝ, áñÁ ëïáñ³·ñí»É ¿ñ 1997Ã. ÑáõÉÇëÇ 25-ÇÝ êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙ: -2000Ã. Ù³ÛÇëÇ 26-ÇÝ ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÁ ëïáñ³·ñ»É ¿ ºÊ-Ç Ñ»ï¨Û³É ÏáÝí»ÝódzݻñÁ, § гϳ¹áåÇÝ·³ÛÇÝ ÏáÝí»Ýódz [ETS 135] § êåáñï³ÛÇÝ ÙÇçáó³éáõÙÝ»ñÇ ¨ ѳïϳå»ë ýáõïµáɳÛÇÝ Ë³Õ»ñÇ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï Ñ³Ý¹Çë³ï»ëÝ»ñÇ ³Ýí³Û»Éáõã í³ñùÇ ¨ µéÝáõÃÛ³Ý ¹ñë¨áñáõÙÝ»ñÇ í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»Ýódz [ETS 120] § Ðݳ·Çï³Ï³Ý ųé³Ý·áõÃÛ³Ý å³Ñå³ÝÙ³Ý í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»Ýódz /í»ñ³Ý³Ûí³Í/ [ETS 143] § гٳÉë³ñ³Ý³Ï³Ý áõëáõóÙ³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Ï³Ñ³ïí³ÍÝ»ñÇ ÁݹѳÝáõñ ѳٳñÅ»ùáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»Ýódz [ETS 138] § ÎÇݻٳïá·ñ³ýÇ³Ï³Ý Ñ³Ù³ï»Õ ³ñï³¹ñáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñ³µ»ñÛ³É »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»Ýódz [ETS 147] § ºíñáå³Ï³Ý ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³ÝáõÙ µ³ñÓñ³·áõÛÝ ÏñÃáõÃÛ³Ý áñ³Ï³íáñÙ³Ý ³ëïÇ׳ÝÝ»ñÇ ×³Ý³ãÙ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ ÏáÝí»Ýódz [ETS 165] ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ 07.11.2001 Ã. Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ î»Õ»Ï³óÝáõÙ »Ýù, áñ ݳËûñáù ѳÛï³ñ³ñí³Í º²ÐÎ ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ ³ëáõÉÇëÁ ϳ۳ݳÉáõ ¿ ÐРݳ˳·³ÑÇ Ýëï³í³ÛñáõÙ: Èñ³óáõóÇã ï»Õ»ÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ ßï³å ¹ÇÙ»É ÐРݳ˳·³ÑÇ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Í³é³ÛáõÃÛáõÝ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 6 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇÝ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 6-ÇÝ ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ ³Ûóáí г۳ëï³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Í ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñ ìÛ³ã»ëɳí îñáõµÝÇÏáíÇ /è¸/, èáõ¹áÉý ö»ñÇÝÇ /²ØÜ/ ¨ üÇÉÇå ¹» êÛáõñÙ»ÝÇ /üñ³Ýëdz/ ·É˳íáñ³Í å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇÝ: ØÊ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÁ ùÝݳñÏ»óÇÝ ÈÔ Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³Ý Ë³Õ³Õ ·áñÍÁÝóóÁª µ³ó³é»Éáí ÑÇÙݳËݹñÇ í»ñçÝ³Ï³Ý ÉáõÍÙ³Ý é³½Ù³Ï³Ý ×³Ý³å³ñÑÁ: ²Ûë ³éáõÙáí ¨ë Ù»Ï ³Ý·³Ù Áݹ·Í»óÇÝ ´³ùíáõÙ ÑÝãáÕ é³½Ù³ï»Ýã ѳÛï³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ³ÝÁݹáõÝ»ÉÇáõÃÛáõÝÁ: гïáõÏ áõß³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝ ¹³ñÓí»ó ѳϳٳñïáõÃÛ³Ý ÏáÕÙ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨ íëï³ÑáõÃÛ³Ý ³Ùñ³åÝ¹Ù³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛ³Ùµ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåíáÕ ÙÇçáó³éáõÙÝ»ñÇÝ, áñáÝù ѳݹÇë³ÝáõÙ »Ý µ³Ý³Ïó³ÛÇÝ ·áñÍÁÝóóÇÝ ë³ï³ñ»Éáõ ϳñ¨áñ ·áñÍáÝÝ»ñ: ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 7-ÇÝ ØÇÝëÏÇ ËÙµÇ Ñ³Ù³Ý³Ë³·³ÑáÕÝ»ñÇÝ ÏÁݹáõÝÇ ÐРݳ˳·³Ñ èáµ»ñï øáã³ñÛ³ÝÁ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 08.11.2001Ã. êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõ٠ϳ۳ó»É ¿ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç 109-ñ¹ Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÁ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 8-ÇÝ ÐÐ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍ»ñÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ êïñ³ëµáõñ·áõÙ Ù³ëݳÏó»É ¿ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÙÇï»Ç 109-ñ¹ Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÇÝ: ºÉáõÛà áõݻݳÉáí Ýëï³ßñç³ÝÇÝ, áñÇ ÑÇÙÝ³Ï³Ý Ã»Ù³Ý ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù å³Ûù³ñÁ ¨ Ýñ³ÝáõÙ ºÊ-Ç ¹»ñÝ áõ Ý»ñ¹ñáõÙÝ ¿ñ, ݳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ Ýᯐ ¿ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù å³Ûù³ñÇÝ Ð³Û³ëï³ÝÇ ³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ý áõ Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ, ÙǨÝáõÛÝ Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ¹³ï³å³ñï»Éáí áñáß »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ÏáÕÙÇó ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛáõÝÝ ÇÝùÝáñáßÙ³Ý ß³ñÅáõÙÝ»ñÇÝ ÝáõÛݳóÝ»Éáõ ç³Ýù»ñÁ: ܳ ³é³ÝÓݳÝᯐ ¿ ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ¹»ñÝ áõ Ýñ³ Ý»ñϳ۳óñ³Í ³ñÅ»ùÝ»ñÇ Ï³ñ¨áñáõÃÛáõÝÝ ³Û¹ å³Ûù³ñáõÙª ѳïϳå»ë ß»ßïÁ ¹Ý»Éáí ³Ý¹³Ù »ñÏñÝ»ñáõÙ ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³ëï³ïٳݷáñÍÁÝóóÝ»ñÇ íñ³: ܳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ݳ¨ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ»É ¿ ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ ËݹÇñÝ»ñÇÝ ¨ Áݹ·Í»É, áñ Ýáñ å³ÛÙ³ÝÝ»ñáõÙ Ýáñ Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ »Ý µ³óí»É ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ Ñ³Ù³·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ³Ù³ñ: лﳷ³ Çñ³íÇ׳ÏÁ гñ³í³ÛÇÝ Îáíϳëáõ٠ٻͳå»ë ϳËí³Í ÏÉÇÝÇ ³Ý¹³Ù »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ¹ÇñùáñáßáõÙÝ»ñÇó ¨ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ϳÙùÇó, »½ñ³Ñ³Ý·»É ¿ ݳ˳ñ³ñÁ: Êáë»Éáí ÅáÕáíñ¹³í³ñ³Ï³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÝ»ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ, ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñÁ Ý»ñϳ۳óñ»É ¿ ºÊ ³Ý¹³Ù³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÇó Ñ»ïá г۳ëï³ÝǪ ëï³ÝÓÝ³Í å³ñï³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ï³ï³ñÙ³Ý áõÕÕáõÃÛ³Ùµ, ·ñ³Ýó³Í ³é³ç˳ճóáõÙÁ: ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 8-ÇÝ ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÁ ѳݹÇå»É ¿ ºÊÊì ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ѳñó»ñáí ѳÝÓݳÅáÕáíÇ Ý³Ë³·³Ñ »ñÇ ¸»ÛíÇëÇ Ñ»ï: гݹÇåÙ³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ùÝݳñÏí»É »Ý ºÊÊì-Ç ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõ٠ѳϳٳñïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³ÝÝ áõÕÕí³Í ùÝݳñÏáõÙÝ»ñÇÝ í»ñ³µ»ñáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: ²ÛÝáõÑ»ï¨ åñÝ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ѳݹÇå»É ¿ ºÊÊì ݳ˳·³Ñ Éáñ¹ è³ë»É æáÝëÃáÝÇ Ñ»ï ¨ ëïáñ³·ñ»É ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»Ù å³Ûù³ñÇÝ áõÕÕí³Í 6 ÏáÝí»Ýódzݻñ ¨ ³ñӳݳ·ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ. 1. øñ»³Ï³Ý ·áñÍ»ñáí í³ñáõÛÃÝ»ñÇ ÷á˳ÝóÙ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»Ýódz, 2. ²Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛáõÝÁ ϳÝË»Éáõ Ù³ëÇÝ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»Ýódz, 3. гÝÓÝÙ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»ÝódzÛÇ Éñ³óáõóÇã ³ñӳݳ·ñáõÃÛáõÝ 4. гÝÓÝÙ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»ÝódzÛÇ »ñÏñáñ¹ Éñ³óáõóÇã ³ñӳݳ·ñáõÃÛáõÝ, 5. øñ»³Ï³Ý ·áñÍ»ñáí ÷á˳¹³ñÓ û·ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»ÝódzÛÇ Éñ³óáõóÇã ³ñӳݳ·ñáõÃÛáõÝ, 6. ´éÝÇ Ñ³Ýó³·áñÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇó ïáõųÍÝ»ñÇ ÷áËѳïáõóÙ³Ý Ù³ëÇÝ »íñáå³Ï³Ý ÏáÝí»Ýódz: ܳËáñ¹ ûñÁ, ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 7-ÇÝ, ºíñáå³ÛÇ ËáñÑñ¹Ç ß»ÝùáõÙ ï»ÕÇ ¿ áõÝ»ó»É ê»ñ·»Û ö³ñ³ç³ÝáíÇ óáõó³Ñ³Ý¹»ëÇ µ³óÙ³Ý ³ñ³ñáÕáõÃÛáõÝÁ, áñÇÝ áÕçÛáõÝÇ Ëáëùáí ѳݹ»ë ¿ñ »Ï»É ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ: ØÇçáó³éÙ³Ý Ñáí³Ý³íáñÝ»ñÝ »Ý г۳ëï³ÝÁ, ìñ³ëï³ÝÝ áõ àõÏñ³ÇݳÝ: ܳ˳ñ³ñÁ ٻͳå»ë ϳñ¨áñ»É ¿ ³Ûë ÙÇçáó³éáõÙÁ, ѳïϳå»ë, ö³ñ³ç³ÝáíÇ Ñ³Ù³Ù³ñ¹Ï³ÛÇÝ ³ñí»ëïÁ ѳٳß˳ñѳÛÇÝ ³ñÅ»ùÝ»ñÇ å³ßïå³Ý ³Ûë ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛáõÝáõÙª ºÊ-áõÙ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝ»Éáõ ³éáõáí: í»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ 09 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. 2001Ã. ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñ ³Ùëí³ »ñÏñáñ¹ Ï»ëÇÝ ëå³ëí»ÉÇù ³Ûó»ñÇ ó³ÝÏ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñ 20-21 ÚàôܺêÎú-Ç ·É˳íáñ ïÝûñ»Ý Î. سóáõáõñ³ÛÇ ³ÛóÁ г۳ëï³Ý ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñ 27-28 ê³ÝÏï ä»ï»ñµáõñ·Ç ݳѳݷ³å»ï ì. ê»ñ¹ÛáõÏáíÇ ³ÛóÁ г۳ëï³Ý ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñ 13-15 ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ ì.úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ÏÙ»ÏÝÇ ÜÛáõ Úáñùª زÎ-Ç É˳íáñ 56-ñ¹ ²ë³ÙµÉ»³ÛÇ ³ß˳ï³ÝùÝ»ñÇÝ Ù³ëݳÏó»Éáõ ÜáÛ»Ùµ»ñ 29-30 ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ ì.úëϳÝÛ³ÝÁ ÏÙ»ÏÝÇ ØáëÏí³ª Ù³ëݳÏó»Éáõ ²äÐ ³Ý¹³Ù å»ïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Õ»Ï³í³ñÝ»ñÇ ·³·³Ã³ÅáÕáíÇÝ ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð³Õáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ 09 ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ, 2001Ã. ܳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó ¹»ëå³Ý ÐáÉó»ÇÝ ²Ûëûñ, ÝáÛ»Ùµ»ñÇ 9-ÇÝ ÐÐ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍ»ñÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ³ß˳ï³Ýù³ÛÇÝ ³Ûóáí ·ïÝíáÕ ÐÐ-áõÙ ¨ ìñ³ëï³ÝáõÙ ºØ å³ïíÇñ³ÏáõÃÛ³Ý Õ»Ï³í³ñ, ¹»ëå³Ý Âáñµ»Ý ÐáÉó»ÇÝ: гݹÇåÙ³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ùÝݳñÏí»óÇÝ Ð³Û³ëï³Ý-ºØ ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï³·³ Ëáñ³óÙ³ÝÝ áõ ³Ùñ³åݹٳÝÁ, Ù³ëݳíáñ³å»ëª í»ñç»ñë ÈÛáõùë»Ùµáõñ·áõ٠ϳ۳ó³Í ºØ-ÐРѳٳ·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ËáñÑñ¹Ç ݳ˳Ýß³Í áõÕÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñáí: ÎáÕÙ»ñÝ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ³Ý Ý³¨ ï³ñ³Í³ßñç³Ý³ÛÇÝ Ñ³Ù³·áñͳÏóáõÃÛ³ÝÁ, ºØ-Ç ÏáÕÙÇó г۳ëï³ÝÇÝ ïñ³Ù³¹ñíáÕ û·ÝáõÃÛ³ÝÁ, ºØ ßáõϳݻñ ѳÛÏ³Ï³Ý ³åñ³ÝùÝ»ñÇ ÙáõïùÇ Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇÝ áõ ºíñáå³ÛáõÙ ºØ ûųݹ³ÏáõÃÛ³Ùµ ÙÛáõë ï³ñÇ Ý³Ë³ï»ëíáÕ µÇ½Ý»ë ýáñáõÙÇÝ ³éÝãíáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñÇÝ: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ 09.11.2001Ã. ØdzóÛ³É Ü³Ñ³Ý·Ý»ñÇ æáÝ Ðá÷ÏÇÝë ѳٳÉë³ñ³ÝÇ ØÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ»ñÇ ¹åñáóÁ §Üáí³ñïÇë¦ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳٳï»Õ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÙ »Ý ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³Ù»Ý³ÙÛ³ Ùñó³Ý³Ï³µ³ßËáõÃÛáõÝ, áñÇÝ Ï³ñáÕ »Ý Ù³ëݳÏó»É ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³é³ç³ï³ñ Éñ³·ñáÕÝ»ñ áÕç ³ß˳ñÑÇó: ÎÇó Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ »Ýù í»ñáÝßÛ³É Íñ³·ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ Ñ³Ûï³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ, áñï»Õ Ù³ïݳÝßí³Í »Ý Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ѳÛï³Ã»ñÃÇÏÇ Ý»ñϳ۳óÙ³Ý å³ÛÙ³ÝÝ»ñÁ: سëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñçݳųÙÏ»ïÁ 2002à ÑáõÝí³ñÇ 18-Ý ¿: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ 09.11.2001Ã. ØdzóÛ³É Ü³Ñ³Ý·Ý»ñÇ æáÝ Ðá÷ÏÇÝë ѳٳÉë³ñ³ÝÇ ØÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ»ñÇ ¹åñáóÁ §Üáí³ñïÇë¦ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳٳï»Õ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÙ »Ý ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³Ù»Ý³ÙÛ³ Ùñó³Ý³Ï³µ³ßËáõÃÛáõÝ, áñÇÝ Ï³ñáÕ »Ý Ù³ëݳÏó»É ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³é³ç³ï³ñ Éñ³·ñáÕÝ»ñ áÕç ³ß˳ñÑÇó: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ 09.11.2001Ã. ØdzóÛ³É Ü³Ñ³Ý·Ý»ñÇ æáÝ Ðá÷ÏÇÝë ѳٳÉë³ñ³ÝÇ ØÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ»ñÇ ¹åñáóÁ §Üáí³ñïÇë¦ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳٳï»Õ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÙ »Ý ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³Ù»Ý³ÙÛ³ Ùñó³Ý³Ï³µ³ßËáõÃÛáõÝ, áñÇÝ Ï³ñáÕ »Ý Ù³ëݳÏó»É ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³é³ç³ï³ñ Éñ³·ñáÕÝ»ñ áÕç ³ß˳ñÑÇó: ÎÇó Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ »Ýù í»ñáÝßÛ³É Íñ³·ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ Ñ³Ûï³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ, áñï»Õ Ù³ïݳÝßí³Í »Ý Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ѳÛï³Ã»ñÃÇÏÇ Ý»ñϳ۳óÙ³Ý å³ÛÙ³ÝÝ»ñÁ: سëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñçݳųÙÏ»ïÁ 2002à ÑáõÝí³ñÇ 18-Ý ¿: ì»ñç: ²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Æ ·ÇïáõÃÛáõÝ Éñ³ïí³ÙÇçáóÝ»ñÇ 09.11.2001Ã. ØdzóÛ³É Ü³Ñ³Ý·Ý»ñÇ æáÝ Ðá÷ÏÇÝë ѳٳÉë³ñ³ÝÇ ØÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ áõëáõÙݳëÇñáõÃÛáõÝ»ñÇ ¹åñáóÁ §Üáí³ñïÇë¦ Ï³½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÃÛ³Ý Ñ»ï ѳٳï»Õ ϳ½Ù³Ï»ñåáõÙ »Ý ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³Ù»Ý³ÙÛ³ Ùñó³Ý³Ï³µ³ßËáõÃÛáõÝ, áñÇÝ Ï³ñáÕ »Ý Ù³ëݳÏó»É ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ÅáõñݳÉÇëïÇϳÛÇ ³é³ç³ï³ñ Éñ³·ñáÕÝ»ñ áÕç ³ß˳ñÑÇó: ÎÇó Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ »Ýù í»ñáÝßÛ³É Íñ³·ñÇ Ù³ëÇÝ Ñ³Ûï³ñ³ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ, áñï»Õ Ù³ïݳÝßí³Í »Ý Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ѳÛï³Ã»ñÃÇÏÇ Ý»ñϳ۳óÙ³Ý å³ÛÙ³ÝÝ»ñÁ: سëݳÏóáõÃÛ³Ý í»ñçݳųÙÏ»ïÁ 2002à ÑáõÝí³ñÇ 18-Ý ¿: ì»ñç:

There is a non-Aremnein word popular in such cases in Armenia - khiyar (pre-reincarnational).

Text of Bush's Speech at U.N. By The Associated Press, Text of remarks by President Bush (news - web sites) to the U.N. General Assembly on Saturday, as transcribed by eMediaMillWorks, Inc. Thank you. Mr. Secretary General, Mr. President, distinguished delegates and ladies and gentlemen, we meet in a hall devoted to peace, in a city scarred by violence, in a nation awakened to danger, in a world uniting for a long struggle. Every civilized nation here today is resolved to keep the most basic commitment of civilization. We will defend ourselves and our future against terror and lawless violence. The United Nations (news - web sites) was founded in this cause. In the Second World War, we learned there is no isolation from evil. We affirmed that some crimes are so terrible they offend humanity itself, and we resolved that the aggressions and ambitions of the wicked must be opposed early, decisively and collectively before they threaten us all. That evil has returned, and that cause is renewed. A few miles from here, many thousands still lie in a tomb of rubble. Tomorrow the secretary general, the president of the General Assembly and I will visit that site where the names of every nation and region that lost citizens will be read aloud. If we were to read the names of every person who died, it would take more than three hours. Those names include a citizen of Gambia, whose wife spent their fourth wedding anniversary, September the 12th, searching in vain for her husband. Those names include a man who supported his wife in Mexico, sending home money every week. Those names include a young Pakistani who prayed toward Mecca five times a day and died that day trying to save others. The suffering of Sept. 11 was inflicted on people of many faiths and many nations. All of the victims, including Muslims, were killed with equal indifference and equal satisfaction by the terrorist leaders. The terrorists are violating the tenets of every religion, including the one they invoke. Last week, the sheik of Al-Azhar University, the world's oldest Islamic institution of higher learning, declared that terrorism is a disease and that Islam prohibits killing innocent civilians. The terrorists call their cause holy, yet they fund it with drug dealing. They encourage murder and suicide in the name of a great faith that forbids both. They dare to ask God's blessing as they set out to kill innocent men, women and children. But the God of Isaac and Ishmael would never answer such a prayer. And a murderer is not a martyr, he is just a murder. Time is passing. Yet, for the United States of America, there will be no forgetting September the 11th. We will remember every rescuer who died in honor. We will remember every family that lives in grief. We will remember the fire and ash, the last phone calls, the funerals of the children. And the people of my country will remember those who have plotted against us. We are learning their names. We are coming to know their faces. There is no corner of the earth distant or dark enough to protect them. However long it takes, their hour of justice will come. Every nation has a stake in this cause. As we meet, the terrorists are planning more murder, perhaps in my country or perhaps in yours. They kill because they aspire to dominate. They seek to overthrow governments and destabilize entire regions. Last week, anticipating this meeting of the General Assembly, they denounced the United Nations. They called our secretary general a criminal and condemned all Arab nations here as traitors to Islam. Few countries meet their exacting standards of brutality and oppression. Every other country is a potential target, and all the world faces the most horrifying prospect of all: These same terrorists are searching for weapons of mass destruction, the tools to turn their hatred into holocaust. They can be expected to use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons the moment they are capable of doing so. No hint of conscience would prevent it. This threat cannot be ignored. This threat cannot be appeased. Civilization itself, the civilization we share, is threatened. History will record our response and judge or justify every nation in this hall. The civilized world is now responding. We act to defend ourselves and deliver our children from a future of fear. We choose the dignity of life over a culture of death. We choose lawful change and civil disagreement over coercion, subversion and chaos. These commitments - hope and order, law and life - unite people across cultures and continents. Upon these commitments depend all peace and progress. For these commitments we are determined to fight. The United Nations has risen to this responsibility. On the 12th of September, these buildings opened for emergency meetings of the General Assembly and the Security Council. Before the sun had set, these attacks on the world stood condemned by the world. And I want to thank you for this strong and principled stand. I also thank the Arab and Islamic countries that have condemned terrorist murder. Many of you have seen the destruction of terror in your own lands. The terrorists are increasingly isolated by their own hatred and extremism. They cannot hide behind Islam. The authors of mass murder and their allies have no place in any culture and no home in any faith. The conspiracies of terror are being answered by an expanding global coalition. Not every nation will be a part of every action against the enemy, but every nation in our coalition has duties. These duties can be demanding, as we in America are learning. We have already made adjustments in our laws and in our daily lives. We're taking new measures to investigate terror and to protect against threats. The leaders of all nations must now carefully consider their responsibilities and their future. Terrorist groups like al-Qaida depend upon the aid or indifference of governments. They need the support of a financial infrastructure and safe havens to train and plan and hide. Some nations want to play their part in the fight against terror but tell us they lack the means to enforce their laws and control their borders. We stand ready to help. Some government still turn a blind eye to the terrorists, hoping the threat will pass them by. They are mistaken. And some governments, while pledging to uphold the principles of the U.N. have cast their lot with the terrorists. They support them and harbor them, and they will find that their welcomed guests are parasites that will weaken them and eventually consume them. For every regime that sponsors terror, there is a price to be paid, and it will be paid. The allies of terror are equally guilty of murder and equally accountable to justice. The Taliban are now learning this lesson. That regime and the terrorists who support it are now virtually indistinguishable. Together, they promote terror abroad and impose a reign of terror on the Afghan people. Women are executed in Kabul's soccer stadium. They can be beaten for wearing socks that are too thin. Men are jailed for missing prayer meetings. The United States, supported by many nations, is bringing justice to the terrorists in Afghanistan (news - web sites). We're making progress against military targets, and that is our objective. Unlike the enemy, we seek to minimize, not maximize the loss of innocent life. I'm proud of the honorable conduct of the American military. And my country grieves for all the suffering the Taliban have brought upon Afghanistan, including the terrible burden of war. The Afghan people do not deserve their present rulers. Years of Taliban misrule have brought nothing but misery and starvation. Even before this current crisis, 4 million Afghans depended on food from the United States and other nations, and millions of Afghans were refugees from Taliban oppression. I make this promise to all the victims of that regime: The Taliban's days of harboring terrorists and dealing in heroin and brutalizing women are drawing to a close. And when that regime is gone, the people of Afghanistan will say with the rest of the world, ``Good riddance.'' I can promise, too, that America will join the world in helping the people of Afghanistan rebuild their country. Many nations, including mine, are sending food and medicine to help Afghans through the winter. America has airdropped over 1.3 million packages of rations into Afghanistan. Just this week, we airlifted 20,000 blankets and over 200 tons of provisions into the region. We continue to provide humanitarian aid, even while the Taliban tried to steal the food we sent. More help eventually will be needed. The United States will work closely with the United Nations and development banks to reconstruct Afghanistan after hostilities there have ceased and the Taliban are no longer in control. And the United States will work with the U.N. to support a post-Taliban government that represents all of the Afghan people. In this war of terror, each of us must answer for what we have done or what we have left undone. After tragedy, there is a time for sympathy and condolence. And my country has been very grateful for both. The memorials and vigils around the world will not be forgotten, but the time for sympathy has now passed. The time for action has now arrived. The most basic obligations in this new conflict have already been defined by the United Nations. On Sept. 28, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1373. It's requirements are clear. Every United Nations member has a responsibility to crack down on terrorist financing. We must pass all necessary laws in our own countries to allow the confiscation of terrorist assets. We must apply those laws to every financial institution in every nation. We have a responsibility to share intelligence and coordinate the efforts of law enforcement. If you know something, tell us. If we know something, we'll tell you. And when we find the terrorists, we must work together to bring them to justice. We have a responsibility to deny any sanctuary, safe haven or transit to terrorists. Every known terrorist camp must be shut down, its operators apprehended and evidence of their arrest presented to the United Nations. We have a responsibility to deny weapons to terrorists and to actively prevent private citizens from providing them. These obligations are urgent, and they are binding on every nation with a place in this chamber. Many governments are taking these obligations seriously, and my country appreciates it. Yet, even beyond Resolution 1373, more is required and more is expected of our coalition against terror. We're asking for a comprehensive commitment to this fight. We must unite in opposing all terrorists, not just some of them. In this world, there are good causes and bad causes, and we may disagree on where that line is drawn. Yet, there is no such thing as a good terrorist. No national aspiration, no remembered wrong can ever justify the deliberate murder of the innocent. Any government that rejects this principle, trying to pick and choose its terrorist friends, will know the consequences. We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty. To inflame ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror. The war against terror must not serve as an excuse to persecute ethnic and religious minorities in any country. Innocent people must be allowed to live their own lives, by their own customs, under their own religion. And every nation must have avenues for the peaceful expression of opinion and dissent. When these avenues are closed, the temptation to speak through violence grows. We must press on with our agenda for peace and prosperity in every land. My country has pledged to encouraging development and expanding trade. My country had pledged to investing in education and combating AIDS (news - web sites) and other infectious diseases around the world. Following Sept. 11, these pledges are even more important. In our struggle against hateful groups that exploit poverty and despair, we must offer an alternative of opportunity and hope. The American government also stands by its commitment to a just peace in the Middle East. We are working toward the day when two states - Israel and Palestine - live peacefully together within secure and recognized borders as called for by the Security Council resolutions. We will do all in our power to bring both parties back into negotiations. But peace will only come when all have sworn off forever incitement, violence and terror. And finally, this struggle is a defining moment for the United Nations itself. And the world needs its principled leadership. It undermines the credibility of this great institution, for example, when the Commission on Human Rights offers seats to the world's most persistent violators of human rights. The United Nations depends above all on its moral authority and that authority must be preserved. The steps I've described will not be easy. For all nations, they will require effort. For some nations, they will require great courage. Yet, the cost of inaction is far greater. The only alternative to victory is a nightmare world, where every city is a potential killing field. As I've told the American people, freedom and fear are at war. We face enemies that hate not our policies but our existence, the tolerance of openness and creative culture that defines us. But the outcome of this conflict is certain. There is a current in history, and it runs toward freedom. Our enemies resent it and dismiss it, but the dreams of mankind are defined by liberty, the natural right to create and build and worship and live in dignity. When men and women are released from oppression and isolation, they find fulfillment and hope, and they leave poverty by the millions. These aspirations are lifting up the peoples of Europe, Asia, Africa and the Americas, and they can lift up all of the Islamic world. We stand for the permanent hopes of humanity, and those hopes will not be denied. We are confident, too, that history has an author who fills time and eternity with his purpose. We know that evil is real, but good will prevail against it. This is the teaching of many faiths. And in that assurance, we gain strength for a long journey. It is our task, the task of this generation, to provide the response to aggression and terror. We have no other choice, because there is no other peace. We did not ask for this mission, yet there is honor in history's call. We have a chance the write the story or our times, a story of courage defeating cruelty and light overcoming darkness. This calling is worthy of any life and worthy of every nation. So let us go forward, confident, determined and unafraid.

No, Thoth. I am not a conspiracy theorist – be it left or right. But I know the academia too well. Your assessment of media is inaccurate, I think. For example, the CNN has been established and owned by Ted Turner – an ultra-leftist. CNBS, NBS, ABC, MSNBC or pretty much every media conglomerate is controlled by (and driven by ratings – read money) the left wing as far as the content of the programs is concerned. If they seem to you to be rather conservative, that tells me only where you are. The exception is FOX, which has right-of-the-center editorial board (pretty common sense, in my view with their Managing Editor Brit Hume). Your qualification of the media conglomerates as conservative seem to me totally out of reality. Even Fox, being relatively conservative, still doesn’t qualify being labeled “conservative.” And I have not said that rich people (Ted Turner being an example, again, cannot be leftists). After all, Engels (Marx-Engels spelling ?) himself was a rich person. For God’s sake, Ted Kennedy is a “filthy” rich person. While corporations may or may not be headed by relatively conservative individuals on the very top level (a great number of them is leftist), that is not necessarily true of their policies nor about their middle level managements. Corporations are in both sides of the fence. However, let me reiterate again: I am not advocating leftist conspiracy theory. I am not saying it is conspiracy. It is a natural phenomenon in terms of academia being a cradle of leftism, and thus “mass producing” leftist journalists, because the alternative orientation in academia is totally absent due to lack of incentives. As to Lame Rushbough, now tell me about being “rushed.” Another elaboration: when speaking about the leftism in academia, I mean certain areas, such us the Journalism Departments, first of all, Social Sciences Departments, Education Departments, Political Science Departments (the latest on a selective basis –University of Chicago, for example), History Departments, Literature Departments, Mathematics Department, etc. Now, if you go to Business Schools, you may find both – slightly more tilted towards the right (just slightly), same about the Medical Schools, the Engineering Schools, etc. The corporate sponsorship of universities is heavily tilted at Medical Schools, Engineering Schools, and perhaps Business Schools. As to the other side… as much as I can trace my presence in this forum, and the proportion of people in this forum in terms of very left vs. slightly right, it is heavily tilted towards the left, and the other side has been heavily been represented. So, I guess I don’t understand. But if you want to allude “the other side of the story,” go right ahead… I’ll be here.

MJ, I AM aware of the “oil factor.” I know. But this is not just about oil. It is also about the geopolitics and the potential regroupings of countries. That is what I was hinting at by putting Saudis, Iraq, Iran, Turkey, etc, in one category. Your point about Turkey also being supported despite its record is correct; however, Turkey IS under pressure, both from the U.S. and from Europe, to reform. Can this be said of the Saudis? (And I am not right only to a degree. Just because they do not torture [don’t they?] doesn’t give them leave to make women live the way they do, although they poop on toilets with golden rims.) No. Albright just lightly touches on it in one visit there, and that’s it. What would happen if the U.S. “cared” as much for the women as it does for the people (perhaps especially the Kurds) of Turkey (does it)? Would the Saudis raise oil prices? The reason is elementary again. With Turkey there is a chance that it may improve its Human Rights’ and other record due to the secularist character of its governance. With Saudi Arabia and the like there is no chance whatsoever that it will happen anytime in this century. Additionally, if pressure is brought on the current Saudi regime, which is the less of the two evils, and it yields, it will lose the control over the country, and the “worse” guys will take over. The same concerns Turkey to a less degree. If pressured too much, and transforming to much, we may have elements worse than the current regime controlling it. That’s why we dance with Turkey, and don’t recognize the Armenian Genocide, for example. In two words, we do this becasue of Turkey's blckmail - "if you don't support us [Turkey], we will align with Iraq, Iran, Saida Arabia, bluh bluh bluh." My point (with the above and previous comments) is that there is no room for “morality talk,” so it shouldn’t be mentioned. Nothing about “good intentions,” and nothing about removing the Taliban because of their grave abuses – does Iran have to send a bomb-filled plane into a building in the U.S. to have the U.S. finally remember that there is a disgusting regime there (alongside the fact that it has sent a pack of suicidals)? The “good intentions” bit for what his government does is for the commoner to find excuses for what he cannot explain. That person is easily lulled when some speaker goes up and talks about supporting a regime because of benefit but also when the same person goes up and talks about opposing a regime because of moral whatever. Somehow I never get the impression that it is spelled to be the other way around, that is, supporting out of moral concerns and opposing because of benefit. Now, whatever the heck happened to the good intentions? Somehow they just don’t fit in anymore. I think you are totally misinformed (given my arguments about the “haves” and “have nots” and the media, it is not surprising). We are not removing Taliban for their grave abuses. We have never recognized them as a legitimate government. We give a limited support to their opposition in this military campaign, though we don’t think that the opposition is much better. We are not there to change their culture. We cannot do it. Additionally, we are not bombing Afghanistan. We are dropping food in Afghanistan. What we are bombing is the Taliban military installations, i.e. their radar installations, their ammunition warehouses, their anti-air systems, the terrorist camps, their hideout caves, and as of lately, their troops. Unfortunately there have been some civilian collateral casualties (2-3 dozen, I presume), though the number of these casualties is grossly inflated by the left wing media. These casualties are unfortunate events. But on the scale of the operations we are in, it is expected. And for the scale of the operations, our record of the collateral casualties is quite impressive. We are not in retaliation business. We are in prevention business there. We are destroying the regime, which openly harbors and cultivates international terrorism, and refuse to hand over the well recognized terrorists, which allocates all the logistic and other means for training terrorists, etc. We are achieving great results. The snakes have crawled back into their holes, their communication is disrupted, their ability of exercising further terror is hampered, their leaders are being eliminated, their financial sources are being dried up, they are on the run, they are being arrested, and it has just started. This is only the first phase of operations. Have a patience, and you will see the rest. Now for your mandate to your government to protect you and your family while I put myself through some intellectual exercise – really, are they protecting you this way? By bombing/punishing Afghanistan? Does it really prevent any further of the same? Is this really your last resort after years of trying to find other venues? I’m not sure years of sanctions against Afghanistan count. And I am not at all happy with the way they are carrying out their stuff. The conception of the operation and the actual execution are two different things, but I’m thinking that they were perhaps a bit too hasty – and the conception flawed. Yes, it does protect me from further terrorist actions, even though it doesn’t exclude them. But if it doesn’t resolve all the outstanding issues, it doesn’t mean that we should not resolve what we can resolve this way. I think the operation is very well thought out, it is being executed extremely well, except a couple of mistakes with the Red Cross facilities, for example. And if there is anybody in the world who can execute successfully such operations, it is us(short of Israel on a smaller scale). You are grossly exaggerating our “hitting of wrong targets.” Except the couple of mistakes we have made, the operation is being carried with surgical precision. The Afghan flaw of refugees is nothing new. Millions of Afghans have been living in refugee camps in Iran and Pakistan, and they continue arriving (true – at some accelerating rates). We provide them with food, medicine and other support. We couldn’t even provide them such support when they where in their original places of residence. After the war is over, we will help them to settle back, and will help them to build Afghanistan – rest assured. Now it is war, and we are after their oppressors – the source of their misery. And again, the allegations of Afghan civilian deaths outside the 2-3 dozens (or comparable amount) of debts is pure misinformation spread by the Taliban regime (which is understandable – the propaganda is part of the wars), and supported by some scoundrel reporters (and that many of the reporters worldwide are pure scoundrels I have no doubt of it, there is enough evidence for it, including those that have reported that Americans have used chemical weapons in Vietnam – that CNN guy has been fired for spreading lies). And if you, Thorny, think that you are the only person who is concerned about the civilians, and all we here are revenge thirsty carnivores, I would just say that when you become 31 (I might’ve also been like you in my 21), perhaps there may be some moderation in your thoughts and declarations (though some 31s that we know here are still not moderated ). I never felt I would be safe to go to the East when, a few years ago, Turkey threatened to declare war on Syria (perhaps because of the distance, too?). What “mistakes” they were already making in Northern Iraq, killing civilians, were enough, and now there was Syria next in line (but after years of trying other venues). Great. Good thing the Syrians were wise and kicked Öcalan out... Which reminds me... Why did not the Taliban hand over Osama? Could it be more than about Osama being “the one to hand over the Taliban government”? I just don’t get the impression that the U.S. could have (not “has” done enough to minimize civilian casualties under these circumstances. Now THAT should be unacceptable by all. This doesn’t mean that, now, once it has started, it should be or can be called off... But why was it given the green light like this, then? I am not going to address the issue of civilian casualties, again. I have been clear about them. I would say that there is a huge difference between Syria and Afghanistan. First, Syria handed over Ocalan not because it wanted to do so. If it would’ve enjoyed the same support of USSR that it used to, the PKK camps would’ve still been station in Syria, and there would’ve been zilch that Turkey would’ve achieved along those lines. So let’s give the “credit” where it is due. Additionally, Usama virtually owns the Afghan Governement. His personal money and the money raised in his name is what runs the Taliban government, and it has always been so. All the communication and other infrastructures of Taliban are controlled by Al-Qaida. The “grotesque” part – I haven’t distorted anything. The case of Armenia and the PKK, in which it was proven that there is no such connection (I think), is not like with Syria and Greece in which Turkey informed many other governments of the role they played in rearing the PKK and in which Turkey provided the evidence (or rather added an element of official assurance to things already on the newspapers for a long, long time) – but nobody heeded the stuff. Again, because it is not moral but totally out of benefit, I would have a heart-attack if Italy SENT troops to help Turkey (makes all the difference in the world whether it is Turkey or the U.S., doesn’t it?). And if you’re all saying, “Yeah, nothing new about that,” then why is there all this “O our allies and O the delight of our eyes – how they have come to help us!” masturbation all over the place as well as all those speeches in parliaments about the sacrosanct nature of this “help”? Something is awfully wrong all over, isn’t it? Or is this just not the time to pinpoint the world’s wrongs? By talking about grotesque, I didn’t mean that the PKK’s affiliation with Armenia is not grotesque. I know that that grotesque is cultivated by certain circles in Turkey, and it has not been taken serious by the government. What I meant was we can take any normal topic/subject, apply a little creativity, and would be able to make such grotesque from it, and make it look like “truth.” All I am saying is let’s apply common sense. MJ, I haven’t been able to follow what you wanted to say with the “haves and have-nots” as far as universities and media are concerned. I wasn’t sure if you meant all the world or just the U.S. (judging from your mention of the First Amendment, Elvis is alive stuff, etc. – I wasn’t sure which direction to turn to after the “even in the U.S.” . I meant the entire world – the US, UK, France (very much so), the “FarFarAwayistan,” , Sweden, etc – you name it. Each of these countries has its analog of First Amendment and Elvis story. CIA and its having to hide certain facts to prevent the stopping of leaks – I don’t know. That (and the conclusions reached via the “evidence” just seems too classical and not at all convincing when it was the same CIA that counted/named corpses that were actually not supposed to be dead but were alive and well in the U.S., Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. Or was it just a game to fool some people, to give the impression that the CIA was on the wrong track? I can be accused of stuck there – but I don’t trust the CIA because of these events. I have no other choice than to accept what they say they will do, perhaps, but then what good am I? CIA is not hiding facts, here. CIA has no mission/obligation to report facts to you/us. CIA reports to the President and the Congress of the US. And it has done so. It also has a practice of sharing/receiving information with other intelligence agencies of other countries, which also unequivocally point at Al-Qaida as the mastermind of the terrorist actions. Additionally, the operatives of Al-Quida are being detained in Germany, UK and elsewhere – where ever they may be. The entire civilized world is after them. It is not just CIA or the US. The morality of the American people – what good is it if everyone including themselves knows that most Americans are America-centred and few follow up or try to understand world affairs (perhaps coupled with the media as you characterize it, except for this event with the 85% ratio [which implies I perhaps have a slight idea as to what MJ was trying to say?])? Where should the Americans be centered at? At Turkey? Armenia? France? Of coarse they are America centered. Aren’t you Turkey centered? If you are trying to say that most of the Americans don’t know much about other countries or nations, you may be right. But who cares? The government knows what needs to be known. And it knows more than any other government does. How do you know that only few follow or understand these operations? Where do you take this information from? Why such generalizations from Thorny? I meet a lot of people on a daily basis. I go with different people for dinner almost every evening of the week. I talk to people around, and exchange views, etc. I see overwhelming interest/concern, I see overwhelming desire to understand the core of the problem, I see the matter being publicized on a non-stop basis, I see people being very thoughtful, truthful, honest. Where do you get your such impressions from? As for Juggernaut’s “it’s America’s fault that it got attacked on Sept. 11” – that is BS. It is the sick-in-the-headedness of the mastermind that has been able to kill thousands of innocent people in one move that is the fault here – not the U.S.’s (see, that mastermind hasn’t been able to think the way I do – that a death of one of yours doesn’t mean there can be another death, from among yours or the other’s, and, unlike what the U.S. claims, this move was not in self-defense, either; so why give him allowance, Jug?). It is like trying to say that Özdemir Sabancı deserved to be killed because he was a big-time money-making businessman and Fehriye Erdal the good-for-nothing leftist just couldn’t take that or it didn’t suit her ideology – and Belgium is OK to be so gaa-gaa for this “freedom-fighter.” As to “Jabbernuts,” if you had not misspelled his name, you would’ve understood him well. [ November 10, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik: Your list of nationalities is incomplete, you didn't get any further then the "A" and, no offense meant, but I still think it's a rediculous question. Dear Aghtchik, He just doesn't know the rest of the alphabet...

Just on a capcity of corraborative information... both of my grnadmothers where carpet/rug wovers.

I just noticed that I started talking about academia being the cradle of worldwide leftism, and forgot to transit to media. So where the journalists come from? From the academia. It is known in advance that the media related jobs (outside the entertainment industry) are also lousy jobs in terms of the salaries. Who goes to accept these jobs? Thos, who also for variety of reasons don’t have the incentive to become “haves.” In other words, the media is the extension of academia. So “haves” don’t go there, because they go after more rewarding endeavors, and in the result, the entire media and academia is being taken over by the “have nots” in some 30 year period. So what is going to be the outcome – pounding the “haves” day and night. What is going to be the outcome? For example, someone with education in literature, history, social sciences or education, who has never had the mindset to read and analyze scientific or economic data, is going to pound day and night, “The sky is falling. The undisputed Global Warming of the bankrupt capitalistic western civilization has sustain unparalleled catastrophic collusion with the greedy and inhumane corporate interests, while they were contaminating the atmosphere with industrial waist.” And who is the best target if not the US? I am sure, you get this picture, too.

Thorny, My reply to you is below: MJ, I am not convinced that it is Osama. I see little wrong in retaliation. However, I think that you may be punishing the wrong people in the first place, undesirable though they are. Well, I am convinced, and I don’t think that we are pushing the wrong people. The evidence is sufficient. While you are welcome to divulge in intellectual exercises, I will give my government my mandate to take all necessary measures to protect the lives of my family members and all other people targeted by the extremists. Ussama may have been enjoying the current campaign initially, but rest assured. He is already changing his mind – his latest video-interview being the first evidence. And if you think that Usama is the mastermind, and we/Americans here are the McDonnald eating hicks, I should say that never underestimate America (much like Russia). This is a powerful nation with enormous and unmatched intellectual and other resources. And to your rhetoric question, “Are we stupid,” I would answer don’t be tempted to think that we are stupid here, that we are any less informed about the world affairs than “you out there,” or that our national morality is on a lower level that anybody else’s out there. In fact, anybody who knows the American nation closely, would know that we are one of the few nations in the world holding the highest moral grounds. And I can give you one explanation where does the current [European] anti-American hysteria come from. What is emerging in the world in the last decade or so is the European Union, which is positioning itself at entering the world markets more aggressively, and competing with the US. However, given the rapid growth of the US economy, its better positioning due to historical and socio-economical reasons, given the rapid and unparalleled growth of the US economy, the economy of China, the dominance of the US $, Europe is finding itself in a tough position to compete. Europe does everything it can to curb the US economic influence and to lessen its competitiveness. One example is the absurd of all – the Kyoto Treaty – hit the nerve of the economy, which is the energy infrastructure of a country, especially that it is already in a crisis. If needed, I can allude further on the subject. The bottom line is that, as always in history, the world is divided between the “haves” and the “have nots.” We happen to be among the “haves.” The “have nots” have two alternatives: 1. To become “haves;” 2. To make the “haves” to become “have nots.” The first option is not readily attainable in Europe. It requires change of culture. Changing cultures is incredibly difficult, if not impossible. The second option is well practiced effective the French Revolution, through the Russian Revolution, and on. It has produced results easier than the first option, i.e. the “equal distribution of poverty” is much easier to achieve than the “equal distribution of wealth.” One has to take into consideration also another factor. In the last 30 years or so, there has been a tremendous shift and change of mentality of representatives of media due to generational transition, if nothing else. The world media (including that of the US) has ended up in the hands of the left wing. Needless to say that the media is a powerful source of information and misinformation. Now, how does this happen? First, it starts at the university level. Even in the US, where you have the highest paying universities in the world, the people who assess themselves having the potential of becoming the “haves” or already being the “haves” have no incentive to become university professors. The pay is lousy. And in country where a smart person may have enormous opportunities to become a “have” outside academia, the academia is being taken over by those, who don’t have the aspiration to become a “have” for a variety of reasons (one of the reasons being their very low risk-reward utility). So, what do you have? Throughout a 30 or so years period of time, you have a left wing mentality take over academia. What happens next? Next, the students start arriving. They are young, and they haven’t decided yet where would they want to be in life as far as the “haves” vs. “not haves” are concerned. Many of them think that that is not their priority in their lives. And for the time being they are right. So, the first “officially smart person” they get exposed to in their lives is ultra-left leaning professor, whose mere existence has become possible due to public funds. He is a tenure professor, meaning he cannot be laid off, he earns miserable income by the standards of the Western world, his free speech is protected by the First Amendment of the constitution, and being negative and nihilistic has become his way of self-expression and self-assertion. And guess what, who else is a better target than the government and its power structures. But more importantly, who is the most hated target? The corporations. Because this is where the “haves” are. More insultingly, this is where his smart students go, who immediately get somewhat like 2-3 times his salary as entry level salaries. So, what do the students get from him? Free ticket to pass through the brainwashing machine for 4-8 years. The machine “exposes” them to the “Elvis is Alive” conspiracy theories, the theory of “corporate greed,” the “corporate interests,” the “environmental crimes,” “campaign finance reform,” and similar garbage. You get the pattern. So the student has two choices – to buy in or to not buy in into this. By now, you know where am I headed. This should be enough for now, I assume. Now about Armenia and PKK. While I understand your point, I would like to say that we can take any healthy argument or concept in the world, and turn it into a grotesque. Want to try? About America supporting Saudi Arabia, oppressing 51% of its population. To a degree you are right. And there are many such examples. But there is an elementary reasoning behind it, and I am surprised that you don’t see it. If the US was supporting the oppressive Saudi regime against their progressive and democratic opposition, your grievance would have been more than legitimate. But the alternative is either to support this regime or its opposition. Which one is the lest evil you think? You may say none, and the Saudi Arabia has to be boycotted completely. OK. But what are implications? First, the hundreds of billions of dollars of investments of the western world over the last hundred years get expropriated. And Saudi Arabia nor any other oil/gas producing country could’ve not possibly become a producer without the Gulbenkian’s and the Rockefellers of the world. So first we make them potent to produce the earth resources that by an irony if history are under their control, then they starve us to slavery, by issuing “Fatwa,” for example. Great alternative right? But it has to be seen not just in the context of Saudi Arabia. How about Iraq? How about Iran? What about Turkey, after all? We support the Turkish state, even though it is one of the most oppressive regimes, right? Why? What is the alternative? Either we support the current regime, which represents the rightist military, or we support the Islamic Fundamentalists? Which one is a better choice? It is a matter of one’s judgment, right? We cannot be neutral, or to boycott Turkey, right? Because then, Turkey would look for other alternatives in the opposite pole – after all this is the game Turkey has always played brilliantly throughout its history, and this is the primary mechanism behind its domination on the territory of the Ottoman Empire. Who suffers eventually, if we don’t support Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc? To me the conclusion is evident. I wish I had the energy and time to e more detailed and systematic. But I would spare it for now for more enjoyable engagements around the family dinner table. To recap my primary point about one of your main questions, the current anti-American hysteria is a European Union driven and serving political prostitution.

quote:Originally posted by Thorny Rose: Prosecuted - will be or are they being...? The American psyche - what is the American psyche? Not being able to understand how stupid this whole operation in Afghanistan is? And, no, I am not talking about the winter cold. It took years of terrorism and a no-fly-zone for Turkey to move its troops into Northern Iraq - yet the first chance it gets, the U.S. sends its own half-way across the world even if it is not proven it is Bin Laden!? And, instead of criticizing and ostracizing, you now have Italy (yes, I am obsessed with Italy's hypoopy-cricy) sending support. And did I not read somewhere that quite a few Americans support this operation?? If it is going to be "rules above all else," yeah, they will get prosecuted. But "rules above all else" is not the way the world goes 'round... In fact, it was never spoken out in public here, but, many times, when there were those European MP's (OK, I'm generalizing here - guilty as charged) going bananas over terrorists and pontificating at length over "human rights" (yeah right), a lot of people here were saying, "Just you wait and see." Indeed, this strike and this new torture business with mere suspects (not even militants!) has proved us right. It is easy to go on and on and yap and smear all that crap across one's face when not ready to relate. And I think "Dirty Harry" conveyed a message whose significance one cannot belittle. Thorny, There is no shred of doubt that Bin Laden was behind the actions (not the first one, by the way). (I know it for sure. It is proven. There is a Ceritficate of Proof signed by Yassir Arafat. ) About 85% of the American population (according to the polls), including my whole family, supports the operation. If I was conscripted to the American Army, I would've not hesitated for a moment to come at Al-Qaida and Taliban with all the power available - the sole purpose being total eradication. Please tell me what do you see stupid in our retaliation, and wohat would you consider proof.

Thorny, I’m not sure what good going through them will do, as I couldn’t have said anything about what that lady told me on the phone. I’ve told Steve (and perhaps Pappy) only, with the exception of mentioning such on TACT (see below). In a short while, I’ll increase the number of threads per page to fifty so we can search through the material through the “view all” link more efficiently. – Thorny That’s fine with me. But so that not to leave a clout of mystery, sometime in August you where discussing the subject in your forum, and wondering if someone with a name Armen has been able to confirm the continuation of the blasts. And it was done in such a way that it was obvious from the context that you had no information. And as much as I have glanced your forum every now and then, never such information has popped up. Honestly, I don’t know, but I think the Turkish side wouldn’t have been able to manage to score further political gains even if they wanted to, as far as speculating can go. On the other hand, I’m not surprised that they have denied access – it’s more of a “sensitive” issue for our paranoid creeps to allow Armenians somewhere like Ani. Regardless - ... Thorny Well, they did, didn’t they? Instead of directly appealing to Armenia instead of UNESCO. They could’ve done it not necessarily through the governmental channels but the Turkish Architects’ Union (whatever it is called in Turkey) contacting the corresponding Armenian one, for example, or some other way, or just as a matter of private communication through foreign ministers, which I am sure has always taken place, regardless of the absence of the diplomatic relations. They also publicized it in the press, etc. How else does one “score political gains” in such matters? Then where did I get the material for this from (and the date is there)? http://network54.com/Hide/Forum/message?fo...ageid=999927643 -Thorny Thorny, there are two dates involved. If you would recall, Oskanian had first declared that the blasts will be stopped on May 31. That promises was not honored. I don’t know the details why. If you would check the material you reference, it is apparent that your information is based on pre-June 31 observations. There are no arguments neither from the Armenian Government nor from my side, as much as I can deduce, that the blasts have continued throughout the month of June. Actually, no – I was referring to this paragraph of Steve’s from the section on the Cathedral: http://www.virtualani.freeserve.co.uk/cath...l/cathedral.htm - At the time we where discussing the issue, I had not come across this report of Steve. Might it be that it has been added afterwards? If it has been there and I have not seen it at the time, I am ready to acknowledge my sloppy glancing of his site. However, if even it was there, I think that's not how you bring attention to such an urgent and critical issue. As for his style, I would agree that he might have to impersonalize it. –Thorny I think that’s not the only problem in his style. quote: Thorny, Reportedly, indeed the date of stopping the blasts has been August 1, 2001. (...) Thank you for the observations of Beyhan Karamağaralı referenced by you. Unfortunately, you have not noticed the date of that LA Times materials was August 30th, 2001. I don’t see a contradiction here. The LA Times, as much as I remember was not claiming continuing blasts as of August 31, but rather reporting damage for the first time that I had seen publicized. Not “starting” after taking measurements “first” – but halting (no matter what the cost), taking measurements, then resuming or calling it off. –Thorny As we both understand, taking measurements had been denied to Armenians after the publicity, and obviously it would’ve not been granted before. As to not blasting at all regardless of the measurements, I don’t see much to argue about it. I think we are in agreement. At any rate, by now, yes, they've probably stopped. I wonder how the weather affects their work... Will we have to wait until spring to see what they are up to? -Thorny I haven’t seen neither any evidence nor a report that the blasts have not stopped as of August 1st. As to the weather, September-October is the most gorgeous time in Armenia. If you ever consider visiting Armenia, try this season. It is absolutely breathtaking there at that time of the year. The weather is most magnificant and, clearly, it cannot hinder the blasts, if that was the intention.

Thoth, The disagreement is not a purpose, right? The truth is, however.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: Martin, No need for Dr. Kevorkian, I have been cured of the Armenian "disease." When I visited Armenia, the Russian border guards pulled me over. They grilled me for 1/2 hour, not believing that I could be the person of my passport. Persons in Armenia and otherwise at my age look much older. You can make all the jokes you want, but I have found a better way. On the tour bus a young Armenian woman who had befriended me, abruptly got up and moved to another seat when I told her that I was a vegetarian. She assumed that I was Hindu and stated that she did not approve of Armenians who were not Christian. You are a defender of the Armenian traditional way of life. I sometimes wonder how "Armenian" these traditions are. How much have we borrowed from other peoples? "Hovhanness," I think I may find the discussions with you intellectually more stimulating (that is on a relative scale) after your reincarnation as a cucumber.

"Hovhaness," There is also another choice at your disposal. You may ask Dr. Kevorkian to help you. Then, given the "Hindu" you are, you may have a good chance to be reincarnated as a cucumber. Imagine the joy.

As funny as it may sound, I also have not too much negative feelings about Garni. It was done relatively well and diligently, I think. I remember the site before the restoration, and think it was not much altered. But the problem is that its restoration “opened the doors” for further “restorations.” Btw, the mysterious circles in my reference are allegedly associated with the on-the-rise at the time Pagan Movement, as much as I am aware of it.

No rush, Thorny. My working day was ruined yesterday. Have to catch up today, besides have to go to workout.

Thoth, I am glad to hear it. Only would add that visiting the ruins, be it Zvartnots, Garni (before even the restoration) or Dvin, was a very popular form of recreation for the locals and the tourists in Armenia in the old days. At the time, there was some kind of cult of historic monuments. Don't know what is the situation, currently. And I am definitely very much opposed to the restorations of the Monastery of Kecharis as discussed earlier. It is a different story when the monument is in place, by in large, and some segment of it has to be restored. But is it is about a substantial portion of it, it is a gross desecration, in my view. Again, Zvartnots is a perfect example. The ruins are not touched, though the monument was thoroughly studied, and a blueprint of its design was inferred. There was a small and meager (in terms of luxurious elements) museum on its territory, which was acquainting the visitors with its history, demonstrating the mock model, etc. And it was perfect. I am hopeful that the glory of old days would come back to Armenia in the near future as a result of the reorganization of the social and other structures of its sons and daughters. I am optimistic. But this is a very tough and painful transition period.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: MJ, During the first part of my life I was totally "cured" in the eyes of the Armenian community. I was a good boy who went to church every Sunday, went to Armenian school every Saturday, listened to my parents and teachers. I bought all the Armenian myths. I even finally married an Armenian girl from a prominent Republican family. I kept to myself the things that happened at the church. I did everything to please my parents and nothing to please myself. I was proud Armenian, even thinking that we were a "chosen people." I now know that I was "diseased." But I have been cured from this disease. How peculiar that you see me, the cured one, as diseased. Could it be that the majority of the Armenian community are the diseased ones? I will not comment here about the "majority of the Armenian community." But I can tell you that some of us, unlike you, have not grown up to be the vegetables you have described your self to be. Now if you feel that your life at your younger ages has been a waist, that is a personal problem. Another personal problem of yours is that your adult life also appears to be full of wasteful attitudes and incurable set of mind - the stamp of your self described youth is on your forehead. So instead of provide recipes to others, why don't you go and start over?

Thorny, Reportedly, indeed the date of stopping the blasts has been August 1, 2001. I distinctly remember Steve saying that he would not have a way of verifying the facts of explosions till mid September. Therefore, I think there is a disconnect here with what you report. I know how it is to lose a hard drive, so I would not hold it against you. However, I have to tell you that, with all due respect, your assertions about continuing explosions beyond that date cannot be taken for fact. I also thing that there are records of related discussions in your own forum, and you should go and check them vs. the dates they have been posted. I have done it at the time. I quote you: “Whether the “fact-finding” delegation was allowed or not, the quarrying had to stop in the face of the controversy – and it didn’t.” You have a point here. In my view, they should’ve never started. In the past they have not used blasts to extract stone from the quarries Anibemza. They have used cutting machinery. I know this for sure, because in the old days, when I was a teenager, my father has taken me there several times, and I have seen the operations. Anibemza has had some sentimental value to my family. When in 1946 my paternal family has moved to Armenia with great expectations for the future, as soon as it has put its foot on the Armenian soil, it has been surrounded by armed solders of Soviet Border Guard and have been taken to a barn in Anibemza, where they have been given a couple of buckets for water, and have been told, “clean it, this is where you will live.” (They where lucky. Some others where being directly taken to Siberia.) In a short while, some relatives, who had come to Armenia much earlier in a similar manner, have been able to “smuggle” them to Yerevan one night. This, hopefully, should explain my familiarity with the operations of the quarries of the old days. I don’t have further comments on the journalistic integrity of the “who-knows-who.” I have already expressed my opinion on that subject, and would only like to reiterate that it is irrelevant and out of the context of our current discussion. I am sure that after UNESCO had brought to the attention of Oskanian the fact of the blasts and their alleged damage (at least in his eyes), he has appealed to the appropriate controlling authorities. But the respond he has received (this can be easily deduced from the materials I have posted in our forum in the past) has been that the blasts of the character and magnitude practiced could not have impact on the monuments of Ani, and the insinuations just constitute political demagoguery and diplomatic maneuverings from the Turkish side. Whether this is technically accurate or not, I don’t have a way of assessing. However, I do clearly see that indeed the political demagoguery and diplomatic maneuverings where in place. If challenged, I would support this argument with logical and factual evidence. In the eyes of Oskanian, who is being denied access to send specialists to the site so that to check the impact of the explosions, the above argument may be a legitimate one. After all, if there is impact, why wouldn’t the Turkish side be more than volunteering to make the evidence public and “score further political gains?” Regarding Steve mentioning the damage observed. NO! He has not mentioned it. Maybe he has done so to you privately, but he has not mentioned it adequately in a public forum that I am aware of. And this includes his own site. Since there already has been enough controversy on this subject, I will just briefly summarize my arguments in this regard: 1. If one has factual evidence to present, there would be no need for the Theory of Wave Propagation to support the possibility of damage. One can just present the facts; 2. If by mentioning the damage by Steve you mean the paragraph of his site referenced in his posting above, a sober person would realize that the guy here is talking about money (even regardless of the facts being incorrect in terms of the decision of building the cathedral being made after the money already wasraised and allocated for it), and “by the way,” about the “the fragile buildings in Ani literally being shaken.” If you consider the above being evidence, then I have to say that you and me have two very different sets of standards. Additionally, for the sake of the credibility of the alluded information (even if it is accurate), tell me please what does an archeologist/historian/scientist have to do with “rich donors,” or the “Armenian criminal elements?” When one reads such expressions, and follows the emphasis of the alluded text, it raises very explicit questions about the integrity of the alluded information. And if The Cat is concerned about the integrity of his own site and its professionalism, I think he ought to edit this paragraph there. Thank you for the observations of Beyhan Karamağaralı referenced by you. Unfortunately, you have not noticed the date of that LA Times materials was August 30th, 2001. I have to admit that the use of word “significant” was a bad choice for conveying the message I was trying. My mistake – slap me. As far as the stopping of the blasts regardless of the evidence is concerned, I think I have been very explicit about it – they should’ve been stopped. Regarding the experts coming and taking measurements first, and than starting the blasts. Short of my comments above, I think you are casting your stone in the wrong direction, and I have posted materials in the relevant thread in this regard. Finally, at this time, there is only one issue of interest to me in the context of the controversy – if there is a credible information that the blast have not stopped, I would like to have access to it. Otherwise, I haven’t heard anything credible on that subject as of now.

In the good old days, when I was growing up in Armenia, the attitude of the Armenian archeologists and academicians was that the historic monuments should not be restored, but rather preserved. This was especially well demonstrated in the case of Zvartnots. And I think what is right for Zvartnots, may be right for other monuments, too. The restoration of the Pagan Temple of Garni was rumored to be influenced by some "powerful circles," who wanted to restore a Pagan Temple in the heart of Armenia. I don't know who these "circles" where (allegedly). I agree that there is absolutely no rational to restore such monuments. What is the point that one wants to make by restoring them? Is it for the sake of some kind of functional use? I doubt it. If there is a need for a new Church in the particular region, one should build a new one not far from the ruins, and the management of the Church may be an extra body to keep its eyes on the ruins and ring the bells when something wrong goes with them. If it is for the sake of museums, the ruins themselves qualify better for a museum, and the restored building in no way does so.

quote:Originally posted by Thorny Rose: E-mail? I didn't send you e-mail, MJ. Thorny, I was talking about your posting above, which I have not addressed, yet. P.S. My mistake, Thorny. I am running late. Now I really have to go so that to hit home at least at midnight. [ November 08, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]