MJ

Actually, Edward, I would prefer that he send you a PM, since I think I would enjoy it less than you would. And besides, there may be more personal issues between you and him than him and me. In general, when someone violates my "personal" space, per my jewish/american/masonic/satanic upbringing, I shoot. P.S. Forgot to tell you that I have license to kill.

Variety of sources on Paulicians. Some of them are in HyeForum.

I have already realized that Bournoutian agrees with your opinion. As I said before, whatever I disagree with in his (G.B.’s) scripture, I'll take it with him elsewhere and some other time. As to Douglas, I don't think you have read carefully what I’ve said. As to the insults towards you, I can say one more time that I have already accepted being wrong when alleging forgery by you in view of your references from GB's book and have apologized. I will stop here.

I wish you were right, but unfortunately you are not. The third Republic is the judicial inheritant of the first Republic, thus it has inherited all her treaties. In fact that is the only treaty, which is currently enforced between Armenia and Turkey, as well as Azerbaijan, Georgia. Furthermore, with the same logic as you could claim that Kars treaty being invalid, you could have claimed that Moscow treaty is invalid. In fact, that would be another gross misrepresentation. In fact, your argument is akin to that of the Turkish government, who wants Armenia to unequivocally claim her obedience to the terms of the treaty - as a [not so explicitly articulated] primary pre-requirement (if we take the fluff out), for the opening of the borders and establishment of diplomatic relations. However, the Armenian side claims that "it makes no sense, otherwise that would indicate that there is something wrong with the treaty." While this is obviously a diplomatic maneuver, it is not so senseless, I think.

I have already accepted that your material was not forgery and have apologized for my allegation. I have dismissed your statement that Moscow Treaty was based on Alexandropole Treaty. It was not. To the contrary, Alexandropole Treaty was totally dismissed by the Moscow Treaty - explicitly - though without mentioning the title. The basis of the dismissal of the Severs Treaty was the fact that Russia had never signed it (the only country who had not signed it) and Turkey was just forced to sign it as an action of capitulation [for all intends and purposes]. As to Douglas, you have to bring much more arguments to come even close to convincing me that his book is not a forgery. As to the East and West… Abaran is also divided to East and West (as well as North and South). But yet it is one city, even if by some unfortunate development the West side may go victim to an earthquake or fire. As to East Germany and West Germany, it is a matter of an elementary fact that both have existed for about half a century up until recently. Obviously, Western Armenia is a geographic concept and can be freely used for the purposes of orientation in space. It can be also used in the cultural sense of the word. But why to use such faulty and fictitious concepts in the political context. As to the borders of Armenia, obviously they have changed a lot throughout history. In some sense Armenia has had floating boundaries throughout centuries, and the terms “Eastern” and “Western” shed a very inadequate picture of the subject. For example, what would the Bagratuni Kingdom be classified as? Or what would the unnamed independent for about a century Armenia, predating the Bagratuni Kingdom, and maintained by the Paulicians in the Central Armenia terrain be classified as? Hope the point I am trying to make is clear.

As to the controversy regarding Khatisian, while I might’ve forgotten that his signature may have been placed on the Alexandrople Treaty, for which I am ready to apologize if it is verified, the following must be noticed: Alexandropole Treaty was a treaty of capitulation of the Republic of Armenia forced to Armenia as the result of the total decapitation of the Armenian Army [without a single shot] and because of the total demoralization of the army and the nation resulted from the inaptness of the Armenian Government of the time. It amounted to accepting the perimeters of Armenia equivalent to that of the Yerevan Gubernia – basically Yerevan, the basin of the lake Sevan, and parts of Lori and Shirak as we know it. It indeed reduced the size of the Armenian Army to 1,500 people – basically a police force rather than an Army. This is the significance of the referenced Treaty. This comes to demonstrate, at least, that the Moscow Treaty was not based on the Alexandropole Treaty (as I said earlier, Moscow Treaty totally removed any relevance which the non-ratified Alaxandropole Treaty might have even theoretically had). Furthermore, as mentioned by the knight, Khatisian was not in the government of Armenia at the time – he was already a former prime minister. To the contrary, Kanaian was the defense minister at the time and they were signing a capitulation treaty. Guess who was running the “show…” Besides, Kanaian was a member of the ARF Burro (spelling?), if I am not mistaken. It has to be understood that all decisions were being made by the Burro (if needed, I can provide evidence). Now, if there is any anything that has annulled the Sevres Treaty (more exactly the articles concerning Armenia), that would be the fourlateral Kars treaty, on which the signature of the Republic of Armenia is placed (through the Socialistic Republic of Armenia, but from the perspective of the international law and judicial inheritance, unless the Third Republic announces otherwise, it is to be honored). As to my suspicions about the potential falsifications of the content of Bournoutian’s book by the knight are concerned, I obviously was wrong (in view of the scanned material) and apologize for it. However, I will take my dismay with George when the opportunity arises, rather than discussing it here. However, to explain further why my cautiousness about things that may come from the knight, which is based on past experience, I would like to paste below a material written by George Bournoutian, himself, a while ago. I think it goes to the heart of the subject of forgeries on Armenian history and will demonstrate why I am so skeptical when it comes to the knight. Perhaps another Armenian writing a history book under an “odar” name? Overall, I think the signing of the Alexandropole Treaty is one of the most interesting chapters of the First Republic – at least from an academic point of view. As embarrassing as it was, and as tragic as its consequences might have been had it been enforced, in my view it must be –considered one of the best diplomatic moves of the Armenian government at the time - and they haven’t had many. If I find passion in me to write more on this issue, I will do it at a later time. ______________________________________________ Books: A Whodunit of Another Kind AIM: Armenian International Magazine; 4/30/1992; George Bournoutian AIM: Armenian International Magazine 04-30-1992 BOOKS: A Whodunit of Another Kind. In a large and somewhat comprehensive book, John M. Douglas paints a most sympathetic picture of Armenia and its people from the dawn of civilization to the present day. The author has obviously adopted the Armenians, their history, their hopes and aspiration as his own. Unfortunately, The Armenians is another example of good intentions gone awry. The dust-jacked describes Douglas as "well versed in classical history and the author of many books." However, there is no indication of his educational background nor other credentials nor is there a list of any of his books. A search in a number of libraries, books-in-print catalogues and a national computer data base inquiry failed to produce any books by a John M. Douglas who is a classical historian. No one seems to know anything about this "famous" scholar. The J.J. Winthrop Corporation (apparently not a publishing house) is not listed in any New York directory, and the sales flyer provided only a P.O. box in Illinois. The introduction explains that the author was moved by the 1988 earthquake in Armenia to assemble the data that he and his father had collected on the Armenians and the Middle East. According to Douglas, his father (no name given) was a scholar of Ottoman history and a newspaper editor, who left many rare documents which Douglas claims to have used. The author adds that he has traveled widely around the world for his research and has spent time in Armenian refugee camps in the Middle East, where he interviewed survivors of the Armenian Genocide. Since no indication of the date is given, on assumes that Douglas visited the refugee camps and interviewed Armenian survivors in the 1920s (because by 1930 there were practically no such camps left in the region). Douglas must therefore be 90 years old! There are a number of general problems and many specific inaccuracies. There are no bibliographical data and no footnotes; the two explanatory notes mention to sources, and numerous quotes appear without references. Furthermore, for a book of his size with thousands of names and terms, the index is a mere three pages! The order of certain events is haphazard and vignette-like and there is no critical analysis of major statements involving controversial issues. Douglas employs myriad dates without substantiating them. There is no transliteration system; some strange renditions of proper names appear, e.g. Madteos Ourhayetsi, Katchuk Kaimardji, Ashin instead of Oshin, Emperor Tchimishkik instead of Tzimisces, Behemund, Edesa, and Mkhitar Koch (Gosh). For a work of this nature, it is surprising to find only one map, and that map is erroneous. In particular, the borders of the present-day republic are inaccurate. The work can and probably will be attacked by anti-Armenian groups as very biased, praising everything Armenian and attacking every Muslim or Turkish action without citing sources. To cite only a few of the many specific problems: The author mentions the great Armenian scholars and lists a certain Parbetsi among them - no first name. One presumes he means Lazarus of Pharb. Douglas' claim that Darius was a son of a Parthian king and not an Achaemenid is inaccurate. He does not mention the inscription at Behistun and the Armenians. He lists Armenia as comprising the 13th and 14th satrapies, when in fact it was the 13th and 18th satrapies. Douglas indicates that Alexander the Great entered Armenia; he never did. He reports that Chairman Mao planned to adopt the Armenian alphabet to replace the Chinese characters, an interesting though outrageously false notion, especially since there is again no footnote to justify this. He wrongly accuses the Seljuks of "deporting" Armenians to Cilicia, and the Armenian survivors of that "holocaust" then brought sheep and forests to the area. Douglas refers to an Armenian woman ruling Egypt and being responsible for the establishment of Mamluk rule there, again citing no sources. The author lists the number of Armenians living in the various cities in Turkey. This and statements from the survivors of the Genocide would have been extremely valuable had the author bothered to mention his sources. Otherwise, such statements as well as many other pro-Armenian statements could be interpreted as biased and unsubstantiated propaganda. He quotes the famous line, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," without mentioning Santayana as one of its authors. It appears from Douglas's prose that Shaumian planned to escape to Yerevan via the Caspian Sea! His explanation of the Armenian conversion to Christianity follows the same old legends and ignores modern research on the subject. Further-more, he gives 303 A.D. as the date of conversation, but adds that recent studies claim it to be 314 A.D., failing to explain how either date was arrived at. Douglas totally ignores the Armeno-Arab treaty between Theodorus Rshtuni and the Muslim caliphate in Damascus, and concentrates on creating an exaggerated picture of Arab terror. Other statements are completely false. He claims that the Arabs tried to convert the Armenians and that only after they failed did they classify them as dhimmis, or the protected people. In actuality, the Arabs from the start classified all Christians and Jews as the people of the scriptures, and thus, dhimmis. Douglas depicts Peter the Great as having no plans for expanding southward towards Persia, not responding to Israel Ori's plan. This is inaccurate. Peter the Great did give Ori hope for the future and in 1722 did attack the Caspian littoral and northern Persia. Douglas claims that the Russians triumphed over the Turks and annexed Eastern Armenia. The region, in fact, was under Persian suzerainty and Russia annexed it after the Russo-Persian Wars of 1804-1813 and 1826-1828. Finally, Douglas ends the book by saying that he hopes that Armenians will one day return to their homeland - the Plains of Mount Ararat. The present-day Armenian Republic is located on the plain of Ararat! The absence of any concrete information on the author renders the entire project extremely suspicious, and forces one to assume that this is either a private effort by someone (probably an Armenian) who has passionately tried to acknowledge the great injustices inflicted upon the Armenians, or an effort to make money from the current interest in Armenia. Unfortunately, his effort can do more harm than good. I hope John M. Douglas identifies himself and rewrites this work, which could have been a valuable contribution to the history of the Armenian people. Ethnic NewsWatch © SoftLine Information, Inc., Stamford, CT

I will respond when I can commit time to it.

Well, I am glad that now “Bournoutian agrees with your opinion as well,” but next time I see or talk to him, I’ll ask why would he write such bizarre and contrary to the account of the participant of the events things in his book, assuming, of course, that you have not forged things from his book, which is not an uncommon thing with the students of Armenian history – in literary and actual senses of this characterization. But I am almost certain that you have forged things from his book - especially in view of some of the contextual falsifications. But I'll indicate it a bit later. Now about the sources... The primary and the only original source on the subject is Simon Vratsian's “Republic of Armenia,” vol. 2. Vratsian was the prime minister of Armenia at the time, by the way, a historian, and he was making the last minute decisions with the surrender of Armenia. There is a more or less detailed description of communication between Vratsian and Kanaian in the book, whereby Kanaian presents the text of Turkish ultimatum to Vratsian and asks for instructions on how to proceed. Vratsian claims that his answer was, "You are free to do whatever you deem right to do." However, at that time, the government of Armenia had already resigned (and the power effectively was transferred to Bolsheviks as a measure of saving what was left of Armenia) and Kanaian was not informed about it. Vratsian explains his ambiguous answer as maneuvering tactics to win time, and to be able to claim down the road that Alexandrapole treaty was signed by Kanaian, who was representing a government, which had already resigned at the time. All this was taking place on December 1-2, 1920. I am still trying to understand how does all this relate to "Western Armenia..." Next... about Western Armenia, in general... I have notices that Bournoutian frequently use the term "Western Armenia" to characterize part of historic Armenia. This is unfortunate. Sevres treaty has had nothing to do with Western Armenia, since such entity has never existed throughout the entire Armenian history. Severes treaty related to Armenia. Never in history of Armenia there have existed two different Armenias, except for a very short period of time around the 11th century, with the coexistence of Bagratuni and Artsruni kingdoms. The usage of term “Western Armenia” on medieval maps is equivalent to the usage of the term “Atrapatakan” on the same maps. Thus, “Western Armenia” has existed only to the extent that Atrapatakan, for example, has existed. I would claim even less than that. Now, about me and revisionism… If I were a historian, I definitely would have been a revisionist, with the purpose of cleaning the traditional narration of Armenia history from all the filthy lies and falsifications. Turkish and Azerbaijani misrepresentations of history were born on the fertile ground and replicating the traditions of misrepresentations of Armenian historians. The fact of the matter is that up until lately, Armenia history was written by people who could not differentiate ideology and politics from history (in Armenia). As to Diaspora Armenians, up until lately, every other owner of an Armenian Grocery had considered it to be his/her duty to write a book on Armenian history and, especially, the Genocide. That’s why we currently have voluminous productions and reproductions of forgery, which not only embarrass us on the professional and international stage, but does real practical harm in shaping an image and disarming us even when the truth is on our side. My best wish is that others don’t read the absolute majority of the books written by Armenia historians - perhaps starting from Khorenatci and continued by other monks, so that not to pin a label of forgerers of history on us. So again, if I were a professional historian, I would have gladly revised the narration of Armenian history by Armenian historians, so that to clean it from all the falsifications. Now about the references from the Bournoutian book, which, I am almost convinced have been referenced here with less than knight's honor and dignity… “The Russians, surprised by the rapid turkish advance...” Russians had no reason to be surprised with the rapid advancement of the Turkish troops, since they were the ones to get these troops out of the deep hole they were in, by financing and arming the demolished Turkish army in 1920. There are multiple accounts of Russians sending three shiploads of arms and gold to the government of Turkey prior to the latter’s 1920 expedition towards Armenia. But this statement about their “surprise” may just be an interpretation issue… There is a reference, allegedly from page 312 of Bournoutian’s book, in our knight’s last message. It is not clear to me where does Bournoutian’s contemplation stop and where does knight’s creative writing exercise start. The lines are somewhat blurred. However, regardless, I don’t see how does it address or respond to the issues questioned before, rather than mislead the uninformed reader. Furthermore, the reference on “Lerna-Hayastan” confuses the issue further, by blurring the lines between the subject of current argument (related to the events of December 1-2, 1920) with the events, which have come effective February 8, 1921. Finally, if Bournoutian claims that Khatisian has signed the treaty of Alexandrapole, he has to explain why does his account of these events differ from that of Vratsian, who was the head of the Armenian government at the time. But again, I highly doubt that Bournoutian has written such a bizarre thing.

As always, our knight has offered some "pearls" from Armenian history to this Forum. The Alexandrapole treaty was signed by Drastamat Kanaian. Furthermore, this treaty has as much to do with "Western Armenia" or similar fictitious or merely geographic concepts as with Senegal. Not only the Moscow treaty was not based on the Alexandrapole treaty, but also it annulled the Alexandrapole treaty and any other [parts of] treaties signed before, which might have been related to Armenia one or another way (see Severs Treaty, for example). EDIT: Some small edits were made.

http://www.saferworld.org.uk/CaucasusRep.htm

I think the WSJ article below has some relevance to this thread, though has perhaps been written for multiple purposes. Perhaps it can also provide some explanations an capacity of hints - but that is merely my guess and is not based on knowledge. COMMENTARY Next Up in the Caucasus By DAVID L. PHILLIPS (he is the coordinator of now disbanded TARC and a former State Department emloyee - MJ ) April 14, 2004YEREVAN, Armenia -- Inspired by Georgia's "Rose Revolution," Armenians are also demanding regime change. Thousands of peaceful pro-democracy demonstrators have gathered in Yerevan's Freedom Square in recent days. The government arrested hundreds and is threatening violence if protesters march on the presidential palace. To avoid a bloody conflict, an internationally supervised referendum should be held to determine whether a majority want to recall President Robert Kocharian.Many Armenians are adamant in their opposition to Mr. Kocharian's corrupt and inept administration. Apathy has become anger, particularly among Armenia's youth, who are frustrated by their lack of opportunity. The younger generation is choosing to emigrate rather than stay in their impoverished and landlocked country. Armenia's population was 3.5 million in 1989; today only about two million remain.Armenia has been in crisis ever since Mr. Kocharian forced former President Ter-Petrossian from power in 1996. The low point was reached on October 27, 1999, when masked gunmen stormed the national assembly and assassinated the prime minister and speaker of the parliament. The government's botched investigation disheartened many Armenians and prompted charges of collusion between Mr. Kocharian and the killers.Stepan Demirchian, the speaker's son, and Armen Sarkissian, the prime minister's brother, sought redress at the ballot box. Even though international observers accused the government of rigging the presidential election in February 2003, the opposition had no recourse when the government ignored international condemnation and refused to step down.No single event sparked the recent protests. Armenians have a history of silent protest. But this time they are raising their voices in accusing Mr. Kocharian of running a mafia state -- and demanding change.Contemptuous of the protesters, a scornful senior official accused the opposition of undermining Armenia's security at a time when Ilham Aliev, Azerbaijan's new president, is becoming increasingly bellicose. After achieving independence from the Soviet Union, Armenians won a bloody war with Azerbaijan over the disputed ethnic Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Artsax in Azerbaijan. Tens of thousands were killed and almost a million Azerbaijanis were driven from their homes in a spasm of bloody fratricide. The bloodletting stopped when international mediators brokered an uneasy cease fire in 1993.Armenians have paid a steep price for the war with Azerbaijan. In solidarity with their ethnic brethren, Turkey imposed an embargo while linking opening of the Turkish-Armenian border with return of "occupied territories." Though Armenia is the logical route for transporting oil and gas from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, the $3.2 billion Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline instead traverses Georgia on its way to the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Eastern Mediterranean. To deflect attention from Armenia's domestic problems, Mr. Kocharian may respond to the Azeri president's rhetoric with threats of his own. By maintaining Armenia in a state of constant conflict, Mr. Kocharian has successfully used the insecurity of Armenians and manipulated their fear to his political advantage.Ever since the last years of the Ottoman Empire, when Armenians were deported and experienced genocide, the Armenian national identity has been defined by adversaries and strengthened by enemies. As a result, Armenians find it easy to wallow in victimization -- complaining but rarely taking action.The Artsax conflict represented a departure for Armenians from their historic feelings of helplessness. As a Artsax Armenian, Mr. Kocharian presents himself as a strong defender of the Armenian nation and appeals to the pride of Armenians that is born from their collective tragedy and shared suffering. The Armenians' bunker mentality is compounded by current problems in Turkish-Armenian relations. Turkey imposed an embargo on Armenia to protest Armenian aggression against their ethnic brethren in Azerbaijan. The Kocharian's governing coalition includes the Armenian National Federation. The so-called Dashnaks are an extremist party that opposes all contact with Turks until Ankara provides an official apology for the Armenian genocide, pays compensation to its victims and hands over territories constituting "Greater Armenia."In large part, Armenia's poverty and isolation are caused by its closed border with Turkey. When I asked Turkey's Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about opening the border, which would be in the interests of both Turks and Armenians, he replied "I am very positive towards commercial relations. But first, Yerevan should clarify its intentions." The Turkish leader refers to Mr. Kocharian's refusal to issue an unambiguous statement renouncing claims on territory in Eastern Turkey.Consistent with its support for reform in Eastern Europe and emerging post-Soviet states, the U.S. should help Armenia manage the next phase of its troubled transition to democracy. The Bush administration has great influence over Armenia, which is the third largest per capita recipient of U.S. foreign aid. While making clear that it will not tolerate violence against pro-democracy demonstrators in Freedom Square, Washington can help broker a solution to Armenia's political impasse by encouraging an agreement between the government and opposition to hold a referendum within three months.Progress in Armenia's democratic development could help revitalize peace talks on Nagorno-Artsax, cause Ankara to open the Kars-Gyumri border gate and reduce the influence of Russia and Iran in the South Caucasus. Moreover, it would enable the Armenian people to finally look forward and begin to build a brighter future.Mr. Phillips is a senior fellow and deputy director of the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations. http://online.wsj.com/article_email/0,,SB1...IbqyEm4,00.html

Phew. What a man of ideas… And take your stinky personality away from me and don’t make me puking…

Pathological disorder… I can bet that you grew up something like Muret Gyunder (whomever it may be) when leaving home, were called something like Hagop Yalanchian (whomever that may be),at home, and yet in your third personality, online, you think of yourself as a barking dog. As Muret you were as meek as one can be, as Hagop you were below the grass, now when you go online you think of yourself a barking entity – perhaps a lion… Why don’t you ever post something on your own so that people would know what you stand for (or that stand for nothing but for satisfying your quintessential ranting needs) , who has nothing to say but to interpret what others say or "editorialize." And yet, three months later would even forget what he stood for and "defended his territory," and flip flap to the opposite side. Isn’t it the mantra of such quintessential cowards to always blame others in what takes their comfort away from them? Just what kind of piece of art do you think you are? I guess this turned to be response for few minutes only.

It seems that some pathologies never get resolved... P.S. Pathologies being certain personalities. Perhaps it is resulted from a dual personality syndrome, while leaving in a society pretending to be someone else than what you pretend to be in your own home. I’ll leave it there.

Fine. I already spoke more on the subject than I enjoy. This would be the end of it for me.

I don't belong to the Arab culture and have no cult for martyrs.

If it is about denial, then it belongs to the subject of history and historians have to sort it out. If it is a political issue, then it belongs to the parliaments which have to come with political statements, refer the matter to their executive branch. and not merely mimic historians as your Parliament or the French one have done, for example, which is in a way a mockery of their own political systems. If it is a legal issue, then it belongs to the courts, or belongs to no one, since there are no such courts with appropriate jurisdiction and the issue may be referred to the perpetrator country under the best-case scenario. If it is a moral issue, than it belongs to everyone and it has properly been assessed by almost everyone. So what is your issue? EDIT: Some quick gramatical cleanup.

As I said, I have no intention to get dragged into this nonsense. For the sake of politeness, however, your arguments don't hold water - neither about Yerevan's declarations nor about Iran's intend. And if the last question is your most important question, it tells me something that I have concluded long time ago. And what is next, are we going to discuss who the real chosen people are, next? And when you start lobbying Yerevan, don't forget the Rwandans, Cambodians and about 100 other nations. Then, I will perhaps believe in your sincerity and recognize the validity of your ranting.

Now, I got dragged into this nonsense, again.

American is a nationality. Obviously not to be confused with ethnicity.

Isn't that exactly the point? Wouldn't almost anything qualify as genocide? It is like the infamous case of dragging a black guy chained at the back of a track in Texas. For some, it was not good enough that the criminals were executed for the crime. They just wanted them to be executed for Hate Crimes. Hope my point would be properly understood.

Since Armenians are not as proud and tall, as more than 300 years history of knocking the doors of others with an expectation of sympathy attests, why don't you lobby for the Armenian Parliament to pass a resolution to condemn the Genocide of Americans of 9/11. Ok, if it is too much for you, why don't you do it for the Assyrians or the Pontic Greeks? Or else, why don't you demand that Iran recognizes the Armenian Genocide. They are not a Jewish state after all, and are a strategic friend of Armenia?

Does the qualification of Genocide depend on the magnitude? And where is that threshold? 6 million, 1.5 million, 100,000 or 3,000?

Was 9/11 a genocide?

So... was it a genocide?