MJ

Just the following material, for now: Armenia ‘Understands’ Freeze On U.S. Sanctions Against Azerbaijan Posted on - 25/10/01 21:23 By ArmenianDaily.com Yerevan, (October 25, 2001) Armenia reacted Thursday positively to the US Senate’s decision the previous day allowing President George Bush to suspend sanctions against its arch-rival Azerbaijan as part of Washington’s ongoing anti-terror campaign. Official Yerevan, which in turn has been promised American military assistance, indicated that it is satisfied with conditions attached to the imminent waiver of Section 907 of the 1992 Freedom Support Act. Following strong pressure from the White House, the Senate allowed the Bush administration to give military and other assistance to Azerbaijan if it helps US efforts to crush worldwide terror networks and is not used for any “offensive purposes against Armenia.” Secretary of State Colin Powell argued in a letter to the lawmakers last week that Baku should be rewarded for its strong support for the US military action in Afghanistan. The two main Armenian-American groups, which had helped impose the sanctions on Azerbaijan, offered conflicting interpretations of Wednesday’s Senate vote. One of them called it “a victory for Armenia,” while the other described it as a “a setback to the cause of lifting Azerbaijan's dual blockades of Armenia and Nagorno Artsax.” In Yerevan, Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian said Section 907, which seriously restricts US funding to Azerbaijan until it lifts the blockade, was amended only “insofar as it is necessary for combating terrorism.” “The Armenian government understands that the US administration needs some flexibility in [dealing with] Azerbaijan for an effective fight against terrorism, just as the American government understands that Azerbaijan has not lifted the blockade and therefore can not receive unlimited assistance from the US,” Oskanian said in a statement. He noted with satisfaction that Congress and the White House “did not cave in” to long-running Azerbaijani pressure to repeal Section 907 altogether. Oskanian made the comments on his return from Washington where he met with senior State Department officials. The issue of the Azerbaijan sanctions were high on the agenda of his two-day talks, the foreign ministry said. President Robert Kocharian and other Armenian had earlier warned that the removal of the aid restrictions would send a wrong message to the Azerbaijani leadership, making it more reluctant to make serious concessions on Artsax. They argued that the repeal of Section 907 should be part of a “package” deal ending the decade-long conflict. The softening of Yerevan’s position may have been the result of the Senate’s parallel decision to allocate $4 million in foreign military financing assistance and $600,000 in international military education and training assistance to Armenia. The provision, suggested by Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), seeks to address Armenian concerns. “Since military assistance will be provided to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, chances that the war will resume are slim,” said Arpi Vartanian, the executive director of the Armenian Assembly of America. “I don’t think that Azerbaijan will get much more than Armenia because that would hamper a peaceful settlement,” she told RFE/RL. The Bush administration has yet to specify the volume of its planned aid to Azerbaijan. It is also not clear what concrete forms the US military support to the two Caucasus foes will take. US warplanes taking part in the military campaign against Afghanistan’s ruling Taliban are believed to be using Armenia’s and Azerbaijan’s airspace, giving them a vital corridor to Central Asia. The Armenian Assembly said the Senate decision giving Bush authority to waive Section 907 was a “victory for Armenia.” "We commend Senator McConnell and the Administration for their diligence in obtaining a limited and balanced waiver of Section 907 law which protects Armenia's and Artsax’s legitimate security interests while ensuring that President Bush has the tools he needs to counter worldwide terrorism,” the chairmen of the Assembly’s board of trustees and board of directors said in a statement. The other Armenian advocacy group active on Capital Hill, the Armenian National Committee of America (ANCA), disagreed strongly, arguing that the waiver gives Bush “nearly unrestricted authority to provide military aid to Azerbaijan” and that the conditions set by the Senate are vague. "We are extremely disappointed by the Senate's action this evening and will continue to press forward with our efforts throughout the remainder of the legislative process to educate members of Congress about the negative impact that weakening Section 907 will have for U.S. interests in the Caucasus region," said ANCA executive director Aram Hamparian. The ANCA and several other Armenian-American organizations have criticized the Assembly for not joining their campaign to prevent any amendments in Section 907. The Assembly, however, insists that with US public opinion overwhelmingly supportive of Bush’s actions since the September 11 terrorist attacks, it was impossible to block the White House initiative. “Our closest Congressional friends advised the Assembly that presidential waiver authority would be granted, in some form," said its government relations director Bryan Ardouny. "In order to ensure the best possible outcome for Armenia and Artsax, we advocated for a balanced and limited waiver of Section 907, suggesting such conditions as restricting its time and scope of activities, providing protection for Armenians, and ensuring that the United States maintains parity in its security relationship between Armenia and Azerbaijan." The two lobbying groups have successfully resisted previous White House attempts to have Congress repeal Section 907. Meanwhile, Itar-Tass news agency reported that Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage discussed the expected waiver of the US sanctions in a phone conversation with Azerbaijan’s President Heydar Aliev on Thursday. Aliev, according to his press service, “expressed disagreement with some provisions” of the Senate decision. No details were reported. --- by Emil Danielyan LEGAL NOTICE All materials copyrighted by ArmenianDaily.com may be copied and distributed without any restrictions and preliminary permissions. As a gesture of support we invite all publishers, using our material, to refer to it as a source of information. Source: RFE/Radio Liberty - Armenian Service

Wise choice to pull out, Ali... I myself have no intention to be part of it, unless Hagop continues walking after me and barking annoyingly in all threads of this forum. As to the premise of the "ongoing personal debacle," I know about it as much as you do. In the spirit of his narcissistic self-indulgence, as demonstrated many times by Hagop in this and other forums, he keeps bringing more personal stories up to the surface. And if there is any doubt as what drives him in doing so, make no mistakes: Hagop is using the opportunity, or what he thinks to be an opportunity, to tell one more time " See how great I am."

Alpha, I thing most of the problems in Armenia are due to the demoralization of the population in the result of whatever developments. I estimate that it has occurred after the cessation of the hostilities with Azerbaijan. Some of it was to be expected, some was artificially created.

Alpha, I am tired today - got home after Mindnight. Besides, being away from home the entire week, have to catch up with the family. Will get back to you hopefully before Monday. As a comment however, it is a little hard to argue specifically without having the text of the Resolution in front of us.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: The Armenian nation will survive only if it enters the present age. I suggest that our philanthropists send persons from the ROA to Greece for a week or two to see what Armenia could become. Why are we still living in the 15th century? You can remain Armenian yet acquire more progressive ideas. Will MJ label this kind of talk is foot-and-mouth disease? Yes. I will. Ali, I will reply to you later.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: As for the issues between MJ and myself, they are based upon divergent views of the world. From what I can ascertain from his postings, although he is a rebel of sorts as I am, he seems to be very respectful of the established order of things, especially as it pertains to maintaining an Armenian identity. Armenian Catholics and Protestants were anathema to mainline Armenians when these millets were established in the 19th century, but are accepted today. .... Both this and the acquisition of a non-Armenian world view is very upsetting for Armenians like MJ. We are seen as a threat to the propagation of the "race." This is a passage reflective of my reasoning to give a dignosis of foot-and-mouth decease to Bedros. Maybe it may also help Ali to understand why my replies to Bedros might've been "borderline insulting."

quote:Originally posted by khodja: As to where I come in, it is at the perifery of the Armenian spectrum. How many Armenians worked closely with the Kennedys? How many Armenians were involved in the US civil rights movement. Maybe 3% of Armenian-Americans. But given the perennial failures of the Armenians as a group (not as individuals) I am very proud to be at the fringe of the spectrum. Who would want to be a typical Armenian? So may of the most prominent of our people wouldn't be caught dead admitting that they are Armenian. And you claim that it is I who is primitive? Then why don't you stay where you are, and let those who are not at the fringes of the nation and common sense try to help it march further towards its promise. As to your affiliation with the Kennedies, I am glad you are honest enough to confess the absurdity of your orientation in life.

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: mj, mj, during the course of our conversation in the forum, i did not always agree with you, but i do not recall to have questioned your integrity, at least in the discussions. and i think that i am subjected to the same treatment by you. after all, there is no point in arguing with someone if you know beforehand that he is dishonest, is there? Dear Ali, I have no questions about your integrity. Sorry if I have made you feel otherwise. I just whish that we don't put words in each others' mouth or ascribe thoughts to each other which we don't contemplate.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: MJ, You do not understand the nuances of American idiomatic expressions. "Come clean" has nothing to do with cleanliness of any sort, body, home or mind. It has to do with being "up front" about your loyalties. Furthermore, should you misconstrue this idomatic expression also, it has nothing to do with the other "things" that you have alluded to. LOL Your loyalties are very apparent. It is not unusual at all for Armenian communists to come to America and become conservatives. Even many former Jewish-American communists are now close allies of the President. Political ideology is not linear but circular. It does not take much effort to jump from one end of the spectrum to the other. Most of us in the middle of the spectrum, however, remain fairly close to where we were 20 to 30 years ago. Bedros, I can assure you that you have no idea as what are the things that I understand. Your primitivism in judging your opponent is also very puzzling. Out of good will, let me just suggest you not to underestimate an opponent that you don’t know well (after all I have watched you for much longer than you have even been aware of my existence). Those enjoying the taste of blood and preferring “easy victims” would love to argue with you. I am not one of those. I am taught not to "shed blood" unless there is no way around it. It is one of the credos of my life. And with you, I find it easy to not violate that credo. For your benefit, and for the sake of helping you to have a good and relaxed sleep, let me inform you that I am almost always apparent and transparent. Don't see a point to play games with no significant opportunity of payoff. As to the communists, I think if you had the ability to analyze yourself, it would've also been apparent who has the sump of communism on his forehead here. About me being conservative... I would rather be labeled conservative than leftist, even if it is not an accurate characterization of me. And since your world consists of conservatives and leftists – thank you for the respect. As to you staying fairly close to where you where 20-30 years ago, the fact is I observe you not even being able to stay close to your own early stance throughout your tenure in this forum - it is enough for a strong personality to address a slight positive statement towards you, i.e. to please your narcissistic inner dimension, and you would flip-flap 180 degrees in one discussion session, as done already several times. But I would like to end this "love ordeal" because it makes me hate myself for perturbing the state of your mind. But you are consistently pushing me to do it. From what I understand you are a person of a rather senior age. Out of respect to your age, and not necessarily to the persona you have introduced (though I think you are a better person in life), I would like to end this unproductive polemics. I promise to not "flirt" with your mind and ego, as long as you don't in another suicidal outburst "throw" yourself "at my feet" not giving me alternatives to not step over your "body." If you feel you have anything positive or constructive to contribute to this forum, feel at liberty to exercise that option. Otherwise, there is no point in exercising “out of money” options. Let God give you peace of mind and soul and comfort if He wishes so.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: If history is any example at all, any march toward further progress for the Armenian nation will come from the perifery. I would like to see a Diaspora Armenian, perhaps the son of Richard Hovanissian, as the future leader of Armenia. For clarification, my comment about Armenian primitivism had to do with Armenian chauvinism and the inability to find solidarity on critical issues. Tribalism has never worked for us, why should it work now? MJ why don't you come clean and let us know you political affinities. I have done so, why don't you? Raffi Hohannessian may or may not be a good choice. However, he would not be elected or not on the basis of him being Diasporan Armenian or not. In fact, he is not a Diasporan Armenian for 10 years, now. The citizens of Armenia will elect their future President based on his qualifications (hopefully). Now, tell me who is the tribalist here. As to my cleanness - don't worry about it. I am clean. It is well established. And using the well-known Americanism, I have to add that I am too old to play the "you show yours, I'll show mine" game. Hope it doesn’t sound too vulgar.

quote:Originally posted by khodja: As for the opposing world views of MJ and myself, you have only to look at the Armenian diaspora. The majority of Anatolian Turks living today were raised in Turkey and were formed by the perceptions of the Turkish state. The majority of Armenians living today were raised in the Diaspora. Ths process did not commence in 1915 but early in Armenain history. Can anyone expect Armenians raised in Poland, China, Holland, India, France, Singapore, The Phillipines, America, South America, Australia, etc., etc., to all have the same world-view? I was raised in America in an odar Protestant church by parents who had been Armenian Catholics. MJ was raised in Armenia in the bosom of the Armenian Church. How could one expect all Armenians to have the same world-view? Only if all Armenians were raised under the indoctrination of the Armenian Church and in an Armenian community environment. For many Armenians in the diaspora that is/was not the case. From my perspective being raised in the bosom of the Armenian Chruch and community seriously skewers one's thinking. This is where your world outlook is so primitive (perhaps not the only instance and category), and this is where you lack adequate understanding of where does Armenia come in, where do the Armenians come in, and where is your place in that spectrum. And that is fine. But before you give lectures to others, and point to their failures, try to understand your own shortcomings, first, and to find your place in the broad spectrum of the multi-color Armenian reality. And the entire referenced passage is indicative of my story of the “hammer and the nail.”

Ali, I don't have the time right now to go through the details of this conversation. I will just say this: I have been posting in this forum for more than a year, now, and I think my claim on the subject of clarity may sound credible: it should be clear to the reader where do I stand on the principal issues, my postings are clear-cut in terms of the message I try to communicate, there is no ambiguity in them, etc. If there is a confusion about my message, that may be of two reasons: 1. Somebody is trying to twist my message and present it the way he would like to have had it expressed, because for his "hammer," he needs a "nail;" 2. Occasionally, my messages may be not as trivial as one may be used to. Sorry, cannot go into great lengths now. P.S. I think we have agreed in the past that our most serious problem is of internal character. As ironic as it may sound from the outset, we are in a nation building process. In my view (and many others like me), the ethnicity doesn't constitute a nation. If somebody is ethnically Armenian -25%, 50% or 300%, if he has had one Armenian mother and five Armenian superstar fathers (I am referring to the American comedy "Twins,") it may still mean that an Armenian of my type has nothing in common with him. That ethnic commonality is of an accidental and insignificant character. Armenians like me identify with each other not on the basis of the ethnicity but the proper recognition of Armenia and our aspirations for its future. And it is an "Open house" policy. Everybody is welcome to join, as far as he/she shares the promise of Armenia. Now, one may use it for political purposes, and say "before you resolve your issues with us, resolve it among yourselves," or would understand that in the big picture of things, these "distractions" are of an inconsequential character. [ October 24, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Óne more thing, Ali. How did your example about a girlfirend relate to my quoting of the phrase of Maslow? I fail to see the connection. Please help.

In a very elementary manner - through other countries (such as Turkey), through the private sector (for example by insuring through the governmental institutions the investment risk in Azerbaijan, while not doing the same in Armenia), through the non-profit organizations, and through many other ways, which a creative mind always can bring together in abundance.

Steve, You are growing in my eyes.

I guess the moral is that selling out doesn't save one's skin.

Ali, Given my limited time, I will respond in a Question and Answers format: "I am literally out the door for my weekly trip, and can address the issue at this time only very briefly. Hopefully would revisit it later. And I would much appreciate that in the future you request clarifications from me instead of calling me names. Not that you are not at liberty to call me racist, but you couldn’t be further away from understanding the apparent controversy." -MJ I cannot see how I called you names. I merely pointed you that the manner in which you have used a Turkish (or Muslim) name to refer to your opponent was very much comparable to my experience as "artin suat". I am not claiming that you are racist or whatever, but tell me yourself, were you at our best there?-Ali I am glad I have misread you. Let me also ask you, please, when you go to these Turkish circles where they call you “Artin,” do you introduce yourself as “Artin” or is it something that they insinuate? I am sure you see the difference. I can see how my calling of someone Mustafa in an ironic key might’ve insulted you. I am sorry to have insulted you. That was not my intention. Was I at my best there? Probably not. But I am sort of tired to be at my best, especially when some don’t have appreciation for it. "First, when people call you “Artin,” do you get insulted? Clearly this is just a rhetoric question. Is Mustafa a Turkish name or an Islamic name? I have thought Islamic." –MJ Well, if they know my real name and insist on calling me by another, yes, not because there is anything wrong with artin or being armenian, but simply because I am neither artin nor an armenian and never pretended to be. If you know who I am, then why do you insist on calling me something that we both know that I am not? I thought that by referring to khodja as mustafa or mehmet you were calling him a turk. Obviously, the armenians have more to sort out with turks than other muslims, right?-Ali First, about calling him a Turk – I am not of that good opinion of him. If your questions about sorting things out with Turks are about sorting things out with the individual Turkish people, then my answer is, “no, we have not much more to sort out with the Turks, but rather with the state that represents them.” "Another question, when you go to these Turkish circles and express your opinions on the Armenian Genocide do you introduce yourself with a name like “Saradarabad,” for example?"-MJ No, because 1) I have my own name which has served me reasonably well so far, and 2) I do not know that much about sardarabad to adopt it as a name, and 3) most turks would not have heard of it. -Ali My point was not about Sardarabad, therefore I am very flexible about it. Tell me please, what is the most painful chapter in the Turkish history, and I can use its name as a metaphore that I wanted to use. Additionally, the thing is that we have heard of “khodjas,” we know them well, and we are well aware of their legacy – we have to cope with that legacy hundreds of years later. "The title “Khodja” given to an Armenian is indicative of the Armenian enslavement throughout history and our assimilation."-MJ There were armenians who were referred to as "khodja" in the ottoman empire.-Ali Exactly. But is it good or bad? There are also accounts of some Armenian priests serving as informants for the Turkish special detachments during the Genocide (at least we have had one such account in our forum in the past), there have been Armenian merchants who had sold Armenian women to slavery, and there have been other traitors, too. What is the point of attesting to the existence of “Khodjas?” Besides, so many armenian surnames have turkish components. Shall we call this indicative of turkish enslavement, too? Maybe you should develop a healthier attitude toward the past. –Ali Yes. You are right, and it is indicative of Turkish enslavement. I give to the past what belongs to the past. I think it should be obvious that my anger is directed at the “resurrection” of the past, which has caused such a tremendous pain and loses to our nation. So that to be more explicit about what I am saying let me assert that the forced and unforced assimilation of our nation has inflicted damage to the social fabric of our nation to several magnitudes higher than the Genocide. About the genocide we are agreed (I presume). But it is about the rest of the last 1,000 years that you have to come to terms with. Turkish dominion on the lands in question is a fact. You were not the only nation to experience it. On the other hand, extensive loss of central asian culture in favour of an anatolian one and adoption of an essentially anatolian lifestyle is also a fact for us. If it weren't for our language and high (as opposed to everyday) religious affiliation, what difference would there be between us an the rest of the anatolians, past and present? One more thing: armenians have, throughout history, have proved very resistant to assimilation, at least the voluntary one. Forced assimilation is another matter and the title of "khodja" probably has nothing to do with it. (if his title were "yataghan" or "jizyah", then o.k., I would have agreed with you)-Ali I am not arguing the fact of the Turksih dominion of the lands here, right? I have no comments on the differences of the Anatolian Turks and Central Asian Turks. As to Armenians and assimilation, there are two ways of assimilation – one is based on a pressure (like paying excessive taxes for being a Christian), and the other one based on the benefits, such as trade benefits and so on (for example you become “Khodja,” and give something else away). Is one at liberty to chose his lifestyle and loyalties? Sure. But than be a little considerate when giving lectures, right? "Tell me please, what is in your opinion the statement that the person coming to this forum is trying to make here? He says it is the title of his grand grandfather – shame on him." -MJ You have instantly put almost all ottoman armenians of note to shame.-Ali Not really. As you say, some of them “were not as meek.” Additionally, my point is not that Armenians have assimilated. We know that they have. I have stated this many times. The issue here is in taking pride in it by some. MJ, with all due respect, you are starting to sound like the Turkish nationalists that I am encountering over here. First, his opinions - and, o.k. background - may differ from yours, but that does not mean that he is stabbing the nation from behind. It simply means that you two differ. And as a legal alien (if I may use that term for myself) I have seen much sense in a good deal of his arguments. -Ali Ali, I would appreciate that you first articulate how do I sound like Turkish nationalist, which statement of mine is nationalistic for you, additionally which opinion of his I oppose, where do our opinions differ, which arguments are you referring to. "His entire behavior is one of a fly, which gets attracted to the manure." -MJ It is a time-honoured intellectual practice. -Ali Which one? Feeding off of the manure or cleaning it out? The fly is there because the manure is there.-Ali "And if there is no manure, he creates it himself." -MJ I doubt this last one.-Ali That’s your right. "His primary thesis in this forum, which he is carefully coming out with is that Armenians are of Jewish genetic makeup."-MJ This wasn't the impression I got of his thesis. All he was trying to say - as far as I got it - was that the Armenians have a habit of seeing themselves as a racially pure nation, whereas in fact they are jus as mixed as any other middle eastern nation.-Ali Then you haven’t read him well. As to Armenians being a racially pure nation, in this forum we don’t advocate such nonsense. We understand that there is no such thing as “racially pure nation.” We don’t make a big deal neither from being “racially pure,” nor “mixed.” We don’t care about the genetics, but the consciousness. For example, if you identify yourself as “Artin,” (per se and allegorically speaking), and share our values and aspirations, you would be embraces as Armenian. "First of all, scientifically speaking this is inaccurate (it doesn’t insult me however). But the most puzzling thing for me is that he is trying to make a statement out of it. He is trying to “prove” that Armenians are not a “pure” nation. First of all, who cares." -MJ Those who protest at it. If you didn't care, you wouldn't protest at it, would you?-Ali I protest also at bogus statements on Global Warming. Not because I care (don’t care because don’t see an alarming evidence), but because scientifically it is a misrepresentation. However, if this was just an academic statement, I wouldn’t indeed care. Who cares, as I said. But the implication is that “because we are of Jewish genetic makeup, we have to develop special relationship with Jews, and they would support us if they knew we were Jews.” Living aside the political immaturity of such statement, I think in such form it is a pure racist mentality. We don’t define our allies and our enemies along racial or genetic lines, but rather on the basis of who identifies with us in which way. This is not about the Jews and Armenians. It is about the so-called “genetics.” Second, in my view, anybody who tries to make classifications of nations on the basis of the genetics, and suggest policies on that basis, as he does, belongs to the fringes of the human society and is the real racist, if you are searching for racists here. This is part of the reason he disgusts me. - MJ I got the impression that he was trying to make precisely the opposite, namely to point out that classifications of nations based on perceived differences in the past - which include genetics - will soon be shown to have no basis in fact. In this he might have a point: in many cases, there are no convincing characteristics to distinguish a nation fro the others other than a national language and an awareness of a common past, but then again, our awareness of a common past, including our awareness of our own ethnicity - is at least partly shaped by a number of commonly held notions, many of which are either distorted or in the most extreme cases have the flimsiest connection to scientifically demonstrable realities. This is what I think he is trying to say and I see no racism here, rather the precise opposite. -Ali First, I think you misunderstand him. Speaking of genetics, and taking the high road, there are no differences between the humans in general. Nations are not distinguishable necessarily on a genetic basis. It is the self-consciousness of the nations that makes them different form each other. This consciousness gives rise to cultures. While we may be very similar (per se) genetically, we may frequently be very different culturally. The person in defense of whom you rise, totally denounces the Armenian Sovereignty and Statehood, promotes an idea (among other such ideas) that Armenians where better off under the Ottoman Empire, because his ancestors had reached high positions in the Ottoman establishment, for example.-MJ If he said that (that the Armenians were better of under the Ottomans) then I missed it, I have to re-read his postings. And if he connected it to the sole example of his own family (which I doubt) then you would have been right. -Ali First, you can read just this thread, again. Second, the point is not that that statement is maid on the basis of only his own family. Let’s assume that there were many Armenians better off (for the sake of the argument). How does it denounce the necessity of the Armenian Sovereignty? The question is at the expense of what? –MJ I agree with you here. Certainly, independence and sovereignty is best for a nation, and the Armenians did lose certain things under the Ottomans, even though their treatment up to Abdulhamid II was considerably better than the treatment of other subject peoples in other empires. I am glad you do. However, I find that you were wrong claiming that Armenians were better off until Sultan Hamid II. Maybe you meant to say Armenians had not been massacred before. However, given your agreement, if we analyze further, you can understand where my (and I believe of many others’ resentment to the person subject to controversy comes from. And it is not an issue of conflict of opinions. There is certain threshold that makes the opinion to become more than an opinion. We all have some basic underlying norms. We express our opinions within these norms. There are some limits that we observe. For example, if one would say in this forum “I think we have to go out and kill all Turks,” it stops being an opinion. It becomes an offense, regardless if he is indeed going to go to kill them. As I have said many times in this forum, I have many Muslim friends – very close ones, I have no racial or ethnic issues with Turks, I have no anger for the past, etc. MJ, your anger for the past occasionally pops out. I don't blame you for it in any way: even though I am no armenian, I have a certain anger for what happened to the armenians, especially when I think that certain maniacs did it in the name of my entire nation. But I despise the Ottomanized Armenians like Khodja, while I may very much be supportive of the Turks – these Ottomanized Armenians are the liability of our nation. Another interesting thing to notice is his degree of Ottomanization being born (I assume) in America. By his own recognition, his family has been denounced by the Armenian Community. -MJ These ottomanized armenians form a very significant proportion of the armenian community. Besides, don't forget: to be ottomanised is to become a natural part of of a multi-ethnic world empire. It is by no means the same as losing your ethnic identity and becoming a turk. If his family made a living in the ottoman empire and rose to high posts, how could he not become ottomanised? Can you be anything in america without being americanised? --Ali We know that. The issue is not that we are not tolerant towards them. The issue is that some of them (as witnessed) rather than cleaning their minds up, or at least being neutral, advocate those who are not Ottomanized to become so. Much like a criminal having a non-criminal associate wants the guy to commit a crime, so that to become “one of them.” –MJ[/b] I have to run. I will still revisit the issue – hopefully from a more conceptual and broader perspective. One last thing. Don’t remember where it was, but lately you claimed that about 100,000 Armenians had participated in the French legion. Two questions (I don’t know much about the history of the Cillician adventurism of the Franch), where does this info come from, and when was the French legion (chronology) been formed – just curious, so that to see things in perspective. Another comment of yours was that Armenians were not exactly “meek.” I would like to say that some were meek, others were not. The issue at hand is not that the Ottomans have “eliminated the non-meek,” but that they have eliminated Armenians on the basis of their ethnic identity, regardless if they were “meek” or not. That’s why it is not qualified as “civil war,” “punishment of traitors,” etc, but as Genocide. I expect that we are going to be in agreement here too. Will try to revisit the issue, as suggested above, over the weekend, if I find enough energy. P.S. At some instances lately you have compared my to Grey Wolves. I would appreciate if you could articulate which opinions or statements of mine make me look like a “Grey Wolfe,” which opinions and statements of mine qualify me as a nationalist, and how did you arrive to that opinion. Was it something that I said, or was it because if I was one, it would’ve been easier to “argue with me?” [ October 23, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Ali, I am back in my hotel from a business dinner and few drinks after a long day. Wouldn't like to get back to the original topic of this discussion unless I can concentrate on it. However, there are a couple of short comments that I would like to make: 1. I would appreciate if you could also post the date of the letter of Boghos Nubar *****, if you have at your disposal. I truly don't know it. However from its spirit I can discern that it has been written in 1919. Is this an accurate guess? I also would like to ask you if by posting it here (which was a good thing to do), you meant that any of my arguments given on the subject of this letter were invalid? 2. Very briefly talking on the subject of Khodja, I would like ot remind the readers the phrase of one of the greatest thinkers of the century, A. Maslow, where he claims something like, "If the only instrument you have is a hammer, every problem in the world reminds you a nail." I find this phrase to be of incredible precision. And it applies to Khodja (I may guess his real first name is Peter/Bedros) very accurately. The thing is that being the low level partisan (primaries) functionary he is, he has a very limited set of skills, and there are few things he has been trained to fight against. And so that to be able to do it successfully, he desperately tries to define your perimeters and put you in a framework (regardless if it is applicable), so that to take the few things from his small bag of limited tricks, and execute his routine exercise. I would’ve not bothered discussing him if the problem at hands was not of wider scale character. I will address your previous posting on the subject when I can better concentrate on it.

Alpha, To have a meaningful discussion on the subject, I think it would be good to have the text of the resolution posted here. I personally cannot find it in my current conditions due to time and other limitations. However, would like to give my brief perspective on the subject: 1. I think at the time when the 907 was brought together it might've been a positive political statement, however it has outlived itself; 2. From the pragmatic and practical perspective it has been an empty declaration - it has never been enforced, and there have been enough loopholes in the resolution for the executive branch to go around it with a great easy, which has always been done; 3. From the moral and humanitarian perspective it has been a totally bankrupt resolution in view of the sufferings of the Azeri refugees living in tents, giving birth in rail carriages, growing children in inhumane conditions, etc, at least since the establishment of the ceasefire; 4. From the perspective of the future Armeno-Azeri relations it promises only more hate continuing from generations to generations, which is nothing for Armenia or Karabagh to be happy about; 5. From the PR perspective it has been a total disaster for Armenians; 6. From the political perspective it has been totally meaningless measure; 7. However, from the perspective of the "unity" of certain segments of Diaspora it has meant "we are doing something, and it keeps us together;" 8. I have periodically (every year) received emails from ANCA calling to rise up to defend the Section 907 (I have immediately deleted these emails), however I don't recall ever receiving such emails from AAA. 9. From the point of view of the American politics it has been a very harmful thing for it to appear as an even-handed moderator, and has limited the American influence on Azerbaijan around he negotiations table (not that the role of Russia and France has not been diminished for other reasons). This is all I have right now, without having the text of the resolution in front of me. [ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

As a matter of a broad statement, I don't think that any of the historic monuments should be restored. It just erodes their historic significance.

I can assure you that you would by far not be one of them.

Ali, I am literally out the door for my weekly trip, and can address the issue at this time only very briefly. Hopefully would revisit it later. And I would much appreciate that in the future you request clarifications from me instead of calling me names. Not that you are not at liberty to call me racist, but you couldn’t be further away from understanding the apparent controversy. First, when people call you “Artin,” do you get insulted? Clearly this is just a rhetoric question. Is Mustafa a Turkish name or an Islamic name? I have thought Islamic. Another question, when you go to these Turkish circles and express your opinions on the Armenian Genocide do you introduce yourself with a name like “Saradarabad,” for example? The title “Khodja” given to an Armenian is indicative of the Armenian enslavement throughout history and our assimilation. Tell me please, what is in your opinion the statement that the person coming to this forum is trying to make here? He says it is the title of his grand grandfather – shame on him. In another episode he proudly describes how his titled ancestor has stubbed a knife into the national liberation movement and consciousness, and from all I can gather, it has not just been a psychological position, but something with real consequences for the other types of Armenians. In this forum the person who introduces himself like “Khodja” does nothing else but stubbing the nation – there is not one positive material that he has posted. His entire behavior is one of a fly, which gets attracted to the manure. And if there is no manure, he creates it himself. His primary thesis in this forum, which he is carefully coming out with is that Armenians are of Jewish genetic makeup. First of all, scientifically speaking this is inaccurate (it doesn’t insult me however). But the most puzzling thing for me is that he is trying to make a statement out of it. He is trying to “prove” that Armenians are not a “pure” nation. First of all, who cares. Second, in my view, anybody who tries to make classifications of nations on the basis of the genetics, and suggest policies on that basis, as he does, belongs to the fringes of the human society and is the real racist, if you are searching for racists here. This is part of the reason he disgusts me. The person in defense of whom you rise, totally denounces the Armenian Sovereignty and Statehood, promotes an idea (among other such ideas) that Armenians where better off under the Ottoman Empire, because his ancestors had reached high positions in the Ottoman establishment, for example. The question is at the expense of what? As I have said many times in this forum, I have many Muslim friends – very close ones, I have no racial or ethnic issues with Turks, I have no anger for the past, etc. But I despise the Ottomanized Armenians like Khodja, while I may very much be supportive of the Turks – these Ottomanized Armenians are the liability of our nation. Another interesting thing to notice is his degree of Ottomanization being born (I assume) in America. By his own recognition, his family has been denounced by the Armenian Community. In other forums he claims that he is hiding his real identity so that some Armenians “don’t come after him.” Ask him why should some Armenians leave aside their personal lives and their businesses, and “come after him?” What is it that he has done? Or maybe what is it that his grand grandfather as done, maybe? This is a hectic material. I am sort of nervous because I am running late. If I find time and energy, will plug in from my hotel. Otherwise, if I would not be too tired from the trip, I would get back to the subject over the weekend. P.S. One last thing. If you are interested, ask him why does he support the Section 907, and what is it that bothers him in me not supporting it and not opposing its lifting. I am sure you can find the text of the Section 907 Resolution online. [ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

As I have recommended, you have a choice of committing suicide and liberating yourself from your misery. Additionally, if you have an impression that this forum is dedicated to partisan primaries, you are feeding yourself with yet another illusion. [ October 22, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Ali, I would just like to say that your premise is incorrect.

quote:Originally posted by alpha: It’s quiet disappointing to have a diplomat with Armenian heritage to head an institute (Baker Institute) that promotes policies that promote the agenda of our archenemy, Azerbaijan. One of recommendations of Baker Institute is the following: Increased multilateral efforts to promote conflict resolution on the status of the territory of Naborno-Artsax should be pursued. Greater efforts should be made to implement arms control agreements in the region, and financial levers should be utilized to discourage a renewal of hostilities.The repeal of Section 907 of the U.S. Freedom Support Act which limits U.S. assistance to Azerbaijan should be considered as an inducement to Baku in return for cooperation in conflict resolution negotiations with Armenia. At the same time, Armenia should be encouraged to enter into meaningful negotiations with Azerbaijan to resolve the Naborno-Artsax issue peacefully. It’s understandable that he is an American diplomat and should first of all defend the interests of US; however there are examples among American diplomats, notably Kissinger, who tried to bring together the interests of the country he represents and the country of his forefathers. He would have earned more respect amongst his compatriots if he had a more pro-Armenian stance. The examples of Armenian diplomats in Russia, Andranik Migranyan or Arsen Chilingarov, show that pro-Armenianism can earn political dividends. Alpha, I have not been aware of the statement made by the Baker Institute as referenced by you above. However, for example, I have never felt that the imposition of the Section 907 has been a meaningful or useful measure. As a matter of fact, as much as I have supported some of the campaigns of the Armenian Lobby, I have never supported the Section 907. Moreover, I have felt shame for it. This doesn't mean that I have been active or have demonstrated any initiatives in repealing the Section 907. But I have felt such a shame for some of the Armenians supporting it. As far as your two Armenian respectable politologists operating out of Russia are concerned, I am not aware of any of their policies that are contrary to those of what you dislike. In fact, the policies that Russia pursues, and in many ways at least Mihranian is one of the architects of these polices, are quite unison with those of the Baker Institute.