MJ

quote:Originally posted by Thorny Rose: Ali, I think what MJ wants to say is that we must not deny ourselves the fact that it was not the Republic of Armenia who gave some portions of our present eastern land back to Turkey (hence the mention of the battle of Sardarapat, etc.) but the Bolsheviks. We must not deny that it was stolen, in a way, given by some authority that had no authority to make such compromises (though that can be disputed – do we wait for the big fish to eat the little fish after all or do we preach moral high ground?). Thorny, Neither the Republic of Armenia nor the Bolshevik Armenia have not given “back” to Turkey any lands. The transfer of the lands universally recognized (using Ali’s terminology) Armenian lands to Turkey has been done without the participation of Armenia, and by Russia and Turkey at the time when Armenia has been recognized by both as a Sovereign State. Later, after the occupation of Armenia, Russians, as promised in the paragraph 15 of the Russo-Turkish Treaty of March 17, 1921, have twisted the hands of the Bolshevik Armenian government to accept it. Without the Russo-Turkish treaty preceding the Treaty between the Caucasian States and Turkey one might’ve tempted to think that Armenia has agreed to its terms. However, the Russo-Turkish treaty, and especially its paragraph 15 shed light on the circumstances of the signing of that Treaty. In fact, this Treaty can by used in schools for cases studies on the subject of the most outrageous violation of the norms of international law (since we have decided to base our discussion on the International law, right? ). P.S. The only reason I have mentioned Sardarabad was to emphasise that in the entire history there is only one instance of a large scale battle between Armenian and Turkish Armies - that is in the spring of 1918 in Sardarabad, Bash Abaran, Kgharakilise, etc. The Armenian side has celebrated an overwhelming victory, which has become the source of the first Republic of Armenia, and subsequently the subsequent two - this Republic is the result of the heroism of the Armenian nation in Sardarabad. By the way, the Treaty referenced above is about much more than lands - it is about the Armenian Sovereignty, first of all, which is restricted by the terms of that treaty. [ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Dear Ali, I will reply to you on a paragraph-per-paragraph basis: If I can still read English, the first paragraph says that the Republic of Armenia should advance territorial claims to Turkey, and the second paragraph says that it would be naïve to expect the Armenians to do so or expect satisfaction of them. Now are these two paragraphs contradicting one another (which seems to me to be the case), or have you (or I) omitted some sentence that would have clarified the issue and made sense out of them? I don’t think that these two parts of the above paragraph contradict to each other. The first part means that Armenia has adequate legal and historic basis for making certain claims. The second part means that despite your allegation that Armenians traditionally have not succeeded in the area of statesmanship or diplomacy, there is adequate and realistic understanding in Armenia and elsewhere in some Armenian circles on how things work in this world. By the way, as a side comment, given the historic absence of statehood throughout the major chunk of Armenian history, it is incorrect to expect statesmanship and diplomacy from the historic Armenians. However, the Armenian individuals have a long list of incredible achievements as statesmen and diplomats within the structures of other states – be it Byzantine, Bulgaria, Russia, Ottoman Turkey or others. How can the Republic of Armenia both advance territorial claims on Turkey and expect to establish diplomatic relations with it, or even expect Turkey consider Armenia as anything other than an enemy? Turkey has not given so far any indications to Armenia that it considers Armenia as anything else but enemy, while Armenia has not advanced any territorial claims to Turkey. This fact itself serves as a pretext for many Armenians to claims, “don’t get out of your way to develop friendship with Turkey. The are not open to it anyway.” It also has nothing to do with the generally accepted principles of interstate diplomacy or dialogue. I don’t think so. Sweden and Finland have had territorial disputes or disagreements for very long time. They have always had normal diplomatic relationship, and have been able to discuss their issues in a very civilized manner. The same concerns Lithuania and Belarus. There have been many such issues between many European countries. Any such case that I am aware of is a testimony about the two sides’ ability to face the issue and find an acceptable for both sides resolution. As far as Turkey goes, I think it is reminiscent of the “old Turkish glory” to demonstrate “machoism” – "if you can, come and take it." I personally am convinced that the Republic of Armenia should raise the issue and pursue it to its fullest extend. Unfortunately, I don’t have a way of persuading them to do so. Show me a single state on earth that has recognized the legitimacy of claims on its own universally recognized territory (including the state that advances these claims, for the Republic of Armenian recognizes the territorial integrity of the Turkish Republic, as stated by President Robert Kocharian himself) and agreed to search with the advancer of these claims solutions acceptable to both sides. The territories I am talking about have been universally recognized as part of the Republic of Armenia (including by Turkey) between 1918 and 1920. As evident, things like "universal recognition" in this world have a tendency to change every now and than. With this said, I don’t have expectations of territorial changes in the part of the world subject to discussion. 1. I would separate “territorial” from “other” and discuss them separately. I have made my position on the territorial claims clear. They do not call for a discussion or dialogue as far as I am concerned. Other items may. Yes. Your position sounds “we are bigger and stronger. If you can – come and take it.” We have known it all along and have not had any illusions. However, it doesn’t mean that we don’t think that we have a legitimate case. 2. I think the above made it sufficiently clear. If it didn’t, the answer is simple: by advancing territorial claims on Turkey, you would at best cause Turkey to ignore you as a state (which as we both know it has the power to afford), and at worst draw Turkey into a war that you imposed on it in the first place. No state that I know of allows, or participates in, any discussion of its territorial integrity, for it is the number one duty of the state to defend its territories. If it didn’t do that, it would be de facto defunct. That is also understood long time ago. But the biggest mistake (and it is a continuing illusion) that Turkey made in the latest decade was its ignoring of Armenia. Certainly, Armenia initially suffered great deal. However, in the strategic realm of things, there was nothing more useful that Turkey could do to Armenia but the imposed blockade. In the last decade, Armenia has done a titanic work in orienting the Armenian economy in a manner that it needs virtually no relationship with Turkey. Not that it is a decision not to have economic relations with Turkey, but it is not so important for Armenia. If there is one - good for us, but not more than for Turkey. In fact, it has been very beneficial for Armenia not to have economic relationship with Turkey, since at the time, it would’ve been very easy for Armenia to lose its economic sovereignty to Turkey. Therefore, if the time Turkey had not imposed blockade on Armenia, Armenia should have done it itself. We are past that point now. The Armenian economy is functional, it is growing after a very painful and steep downfall, and it is elementary under certain very realistic circumstances for Armenia in the near future to become a most prosperous country in the region. I would go as far as to claim that Turkey has more to gain from the economic collaboration with Armenia than Armenia would do so. Armenia would be fine – just give it some time. Armenia’s serious problems are of internal character -not external. I thought the existing issue was the recognition of the Genocide and the reparations to be made along the lines of the reparations Germany made after the Holocaust, which we discussed and – to my impression – were in full agreement with one another. This was my impression from my former dialogues with the Armenians, and from a good number of postings I read here in the forum, and these included yours. If I have given the impression that I would be prepared to accept Turkey’s territorial integrity as an issue that can be discussed, then I gave the wrong impression, for which I can only apologize. If there is an impression that we can discuss only things which would be “allowed” to us, that is a wrong impression. I think “dialog” means putting everything on the table and finding resolution. If there is an attitude that “we can discuss this, but not that,” I would say, “yes, we can discuss this for now, but it wouldn’t resolve the issues associated with that, unless you have some meaningful suggestions.” You sure may say that “you are bigger and stronger,” and therefore “you wouldn’t discuss that.” OK. What is new about it? I did not know that the Turkish Republic had recognized the Genocide, condemned it, repented for it, and moved on to make the necessary reparations along the lines of the Holocaust reparations made by Germany, including the recognition of the right of the Armenians to return to their ancestral lands. Did I miss something? Yes. I think you did. I was not talking about the Genocide. The Genocide has nothing to do with lands neither historically nor legally. The Genocide is a crime against humanity imposing a heavy burden on the Turkish society, and it is up to the people of Turkey to come clean from under that burden. In the sense of my own psychological comfort or my own life, I wouldn't care whether Turkey recognizes the Genocide or not - if it does - good for the Turkish people. If it doesn't - I would feel sorry for the Turkish people. If Turkey recognizes the Genocide it wouldn't make my ancestors any less slaughtered, or the opposite would not make them any more so. Btw, I would never be so naive as to think that Turkey is going to consider any other than symbolic reparations for the Genocide. At least it is evident from the tone of this conversation (I am not referring to the land reparation). In some ways, this may also indicate that the situation in the region is not ripe for a dialog, yet, and under the current circumstances with the latest developments in the international arena there is no point to discuss serious issues, other than when Turkey is ready to come up with some initiatives. Not having direct information about the position of the Turkish Foreign Policy architects beyond that of PR, I don’t want to make any strong claims here. I would rather wait and see – there is nothing for Armenia to lose from it. Just it would have been better to find some common ground. As I had said, there was one main (Genocide & implications) and one smaller (Nagorno-Karabagh) issue between us, at least in my opinion, which was reinforced by some postings I saw here (or did I misinterpret them?). If you feel there is a third one, please state it. I also fully agree that there is no point in dialogue simply for the sake of PR, and we Turks are not very good at it (PR) anyway, are we, whether we care about it or not. I don’t know how would Artsax come between us any more than Cyprus may come between us. I think in Karabagh the following has to be done if we want the problem to be solved for good: Azerbaijan should understand that it has to say good-bye to it. Nagorno-Karabagh is almost 100% Armenian, there is no real hope for these guys living peacefully side-by-side, and as far as I can understand even before the conflicts started the Turks there were less than 10% of the population. They have no future together. A parallel may be drawn with the loss of the Arab peninsula by the Ottomans in ww1, which did not bother the republican Turks a bit, in fact they were quite happy with it since we saw the Arabs as an untrustworthy element that would also hold us back if they were included in our new state. And history seems to have proven that we were right. The Nagorno-Karabagh Armenians and the Azeri Turks are like us in this respect, both would benefit from a border between them, and harmed if they are forced to coexist in the future on the same piece of land. Now Nagorno-Karabagh is buried deep in Azerbaijan with no land corridor that Armenia could claim legally, they “claimed” it militarily and there is one now. Frankly, I think if the Armenians got that and gave off the southern tip of Armenia so that Turkey-Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan are physically connected, and if all three parties agreed on that being the final solution to that problem, it would not recur. I understand Khodja’s suggestion was along these lines (he also added a sea passage through Turkey for Armenia, which I rejected: you cannot have everything). Such a solution would have the great advantage of actually working once it were put into place, for the way both Azerbaijan and Armenia look today calls for a future war for the borders to be redrawn just for geopolitical reasons. Armenians would have their Nagorno-Karabagh (Artzakh), and we would have our physical connection to Azerbaijan and safety for Nakhichevan. In this way, everybody would be equally unhappy (the successful statesman makes everybody equally unhappy to make sure things work, if one party is noticeably more unhappy than the other, that spells disaster). I see no basis for land swap between Armenia and Azerbaijan - neither historic, nor legal or factual. Karabagh is the homeland of Karabagh Armenians. It is a de-facto independent state. It has never (practically never) been part of Armenia throughout history. It has almost always been independent territory. There is no issue of annexation of Karabagh within Armenia. At least it has never (until arbitrarily being put under Azerbaijani dominance in 1923 by one man) been part of Azerbaijan. Karabagh has followed the letter and the spirit of the International law and the constitution of USSR separating from Azerbaijan and USSR in 1988-91. It has been able to defend itself from the Azerbaijani aggression, it has been able to build structures of self-governance, it has constitution, independent economy, etc. It has held free elections according to the standards of international law (at least freer than those in Azerbaijan), it has an independent government, and people who would shed the latest drop of their blood, but would stand for their freedom. The Karabagh issue has nothing to do with Armenia beyond that of Armenia providing support to fellow Armenians so that they are not slaughtered one more time, as it has happened in 1905, 1918, 1920, 1988, 1989 with the instigation and participation of different parties at different times. To the contrary, Meghri is an integral and strategic part of Armenia. There is no force on the earth or heaven that may make Armenia to denounce this part except that of a brutal and overwhelming military force after/assuming the Armenian sovereignty is lost. As I had stated earlier, I recognize the right of Armenians to return to their ancestral lands if they so wish, and if they do not so wish, have access to the financial wealth it produces. For me it is not a bluff, but their right. Dear Ali, whether you recognize that right or not is an internal Turkish issue for the sake of the evolution of the Turkish society – it has no consequence for us, given that we see no reason to return to Turkey, and lift up its economy one more time. We would rather do so with the Armenian economy, or at least we would stay where we are. Having recognized that, I would leave the question of whether they would or would not return to Anatolia to the Armenians themselves. By the way, it is not true that no Armenian is ever going to return there, some already have: there has been at least one well-publicized marriage between a Turkish guy and an Armenian lady from Yerevan, they now live in Van, if I am not mistaken (the guy was Kurdish if I remember correctly). I would expect that we would not use this highly publicized and unfortunate for the young couple story, which for years couldn’t find a place neither in Turkey nor in Armenia to live. In my view that sad story has nothing to do neither with the Genocide nor with the desire of Armenians to return to Anatolia. It is a story of love, I assume, and I would leave it there. Also, the Armenian population of Turkey has shifted back and forth in the last three decades, many people who lived in Turkey long after the Genocide left the country during the Cyprus crisis and the coup of 1980, some of whom later returned. And several years ago Diaspora Armenians were trying to buy back their ancestral lands (houses etc.) from their present-day owners, upon which the state interfered and put an end to it (to my grief). Therefore, I would not exclude the possibility that some Armenians may choose to return to their ancestral lands. I can understand that most Armenians would choose not to, at least not in the foreseeable future, but if one day the region were the way Europe is now, then why not? There are many American Jews living and working in Germany now. The Armenian population of Turkey represents the Turkish nation and state. They are Turkish citizens. There may have been some curious cases of Diasporan Armenians buying their ancestral lands/property (I know nothing about it), but by in large, it would not be of any interest to us, I think. I for one, wouldn’t even speculate on that subject – imagine first being rubbed off of our ancestral property, and then to buy back and virtually be robbed again. I may be romantic, but not that romantic. I understand, but reserve my right to disagree. Thanks for your understanding, too. Sure. I also understand you very well, and I think have always done so. I do not know of a single case where a state has ever accepted “the legitimacy” of claims on its territorial integrity on any grounds whatsoever. If there is one, please let me know, and with adequate detail, please. Yes. Finland, for example. MJ, with all due respect, I have to point out a vital shortcoming that the Armenians on the whole (I allow for exceptions) appear to have, which was discussed by a very prominent and open-minded Turkish historian named Ýlber Ortaylý. I paraphrase with my own additions that I do not distinguish in print, so these comments are inspired by him rather than quoted verbatim: The Armenians have amassed, throughout their long history, a wealth of experience in many aspects of human life, such as arts & crafts, literature, music, and what not, but diplomacy, politics and statecraft are not amongst them, for obvious reasons. They had many prominent figures, but no statesman, politician, or diplomat on a world scale in a very long while, perhaps long before the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, since they were already largely partitioned between the Byzantine Empire to the West and the Persian Empire to the East. Statecraft, politics and diplomacy are human faculties like science, arts and technology, and the value of long-time uninterrupted experience in these areas is obvious, just as are the shortcomings in these areas that appear when a previously dependent nation suddenly finds itself in possession of a state. You could not expect the informed citizen of any nation seasoned in such matters to ask his neighbor to accept the legitimacy of any territorial claims that his country may advance on his, and expect to have any relations left, much less improve the existing ones. I have seen a number of comments by Armenians on the shortsightedness and low caliber of their politicians and statesmen in the last two centuries (the new one is too recent to comment upon), and at least partly blamed the disasters that befell the Armenian nation on them. In short, what they said was “they led us to disaster”, that is, if I understood them correctly. I had heard very similar comments from Cypriot Greeks about the fate of Cyprus in 1974, and I agree with them (I am also painfully aware of the way our low-caliber politicians led us to disaster in Cyprus, and not only in Cyprus). I have partially addressed your comments of the previous paragraph, before. I would just like to add that if you have attributed my remarks on “legitimate claims” to a shortsightedness or low caliber, at the risk of appearing abrupt (and believe me, please that is not my intention at all), I have to ask you to think more thoroughly about my remarks. Do not forget that the worst enemies of the any nation can only be found amongst the members of that nation itself, for they alone have the capacity to guide their own nation into adventures and disaster. The Armenian nation has suffered so much more than its fair share of disasters that it should by now be able to distinguish between wise statecraft and foolish politicking. I think we are in full agreement here. You have enormous tasks and problems facing you: Nagorno-Karabagh, your relations with Azerbaijan, with Turkey, with Russia, with Europe, with the USA, and the rest of the world, your infrastructure, economy, corruption, the exodus of Armenians from Armenia, the nuclear stations, environmental safety, and what not. You have just come into existence as a state after a millennium-long spell and a brief moment early in the last century. I don’t think so. We have no serious problems with Russia, Europe, USA. Or at least our problems are of cosmetic scale compared to those of Turkey. Our problems with Azerbaijan just force us to be alert at all times, but they are nothing that we cannot afford. Armenia has no environmental problems - with eh economic downturn and the paralyzing of the Armenian chemical industry, which has been a major one in the Soviet era, the environment has significantly improved, and the nuclear plant is Armenia's main asset - not the problem. As to Turkey – our problems with Turkey are neither economically nor politically consequential – we are past that level. They just have some internal implications of demoralizing character, but I am sure within another decade that would also be behind us. It is amazing what nations like Armenians can achieve in the modern world with so little. Throughout your postings I have got the impression that you are perhaps one of the most intelligent persons that contribute to the Hye Forum. In your previous contributions you have accurately shown the conflict areas, the causes for the polarity of positions and remedies therefore, but in this particular one you appear to have 1) contradicted yourself (look at your own two paragraphs that I have quoted and commented on above) and 2) (I must regretfully add) disappointed me as to your grasp of generally accepted basic principles of international politics and statecraft. I hope I have been clear enough. Dear Ali, with a regret I have to point that your last assessment of my “contradictions” or my command of the “international politics and statecraft” is a little shallow. However, not being a professional, I would not claim professionalism, either. As stated before, I am ready to continue any dialogue on any topic other than my country’s territorial integrity, as I reckon we found ourselves in broad agreement on a number of really vital issues and principles. As much as I know, in this forum, as long as the Code of Conduct is observed, all the members are at liberty to conduct or not to conduct dialog on any subject. While I have not had any expectations that the Turkish side is going to face the real issues in our dialog, and it would not be able to do so for the foreseeable future, that has no implications on my decision to talk or not to talk on certain subjects. I just would like to add that if anybody things that Armenia is or should be any more interested in a dialog with Turkey than Turkey has to be – that is a great illusion. I am currently drafting another posting on my views on the future development of states, especially in our region. I shall expect your comments on it as I think it will answer a number of your questions, including the issue of territorial integrity. I look forward to it. Sorry for the format of the reply. It just makes things much quicker. P.S. I recall seeing you mentioning the issue of Sardarabad somewhere, but I lost it – I am lately not in the position of spending much time with the Hye Forum. My impression at the time when I saw it was that you had misunderstood me, and were not familiar with its history. If you could refer me to that subject, I would gladly accept. PP.S. Had to fix a formatting related typo. [ September 21, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Dear Ali, If there is an impression that I think that we are going to advance territorial claims and Turkey is going to satisfy them, or there is any reality to expect satisfaction of such claims despite Turkey’s opposition, I have to say that it would be a very naïve impression. However, I don’t understand what means a “dialog,” if you are not even ready to discuss the existing issues. Pretty much what you are saying is what we have heard Turkey say at least since 1993. However, there are issues between us, which require some resolution, and unless we are ready to put all the issues on the table, the illusion of the dialog wouldn’t serve any other reason but PR, which I personally wouldn’t care about. As far as Karabagh is concerned, I would appreciate if you could explain me in greater details the crux of your position and statement. I have to leave in about an hour and a half, myself. So we can discuss it on the weekend, unless I find time during the week to snick into the forum, which is not much likely. I have to add that the return of the Armenians into Anatolia is a (using Edward Demian’s terminology) a primitive bluff from both sides, and it should be called off for the sake of not wasting precious time in our discussions. No Armenian is going to return to Anatolia even if by some crazy magic it becomes part of Armenia. Cheers, Martin

²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð²Ôàð¸²ðàôÂÚàôÜ Ø²ØàôÈÆ Ð²Ø²ð 17.10.2001Ã. ì³ïÇϳÝáõ٠г۳ëï³ÝÇ ¹»ëå³Ý ¾¹áõ³ñ¹ ܳɵ³Ý¹Û³ÝÁ Çñ ѳí³ï³ñÙ³·ñ»ñÁ ѳÝÓÝ»ó ÐéáÙÇ ä³åÇÝ ê»åï»Ùµ»ñÇ 15-ÇÝ å³å³Ï³Ý γëï»É ³Ý¹áÉýá å³É³ïáõÙ, ì³ïÇϳÝáõ٠г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»ëå³Ý ¾.ܳɵ³Ý¹Û³ÝÝ Çñ ѳí³ï³ñÙ³·ñ»ñÁ ѳÝÓÝ»ó ÐéáÙÇ ä³å ÐáíѳÝÝ»ë–äáÕáë »ñÏñáñ¹ÇÝ: ÐéáÙÇ ä³åÇ Ñ»ï ³é³ÝÓݳ½ñáõÛóÇ ÁÝóóùáõÙ ßáßá÷í»óÇÝ Ñ³Û ÅáÕáíñ¹Ç ³ÝóÛ³ÉÇ áõ Ý»ñϳÛÇ, ùñÇëïáÝ»³Ï³Ý ³ñÅ»ùÝ»ñÇÝ Ýñ³ ѳí³ï³ñÙáõÃÛ³Ý, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ г۳ëï³ÝÇ ¨ ì³ïÇϳÝÇ ÙÇç¨ Ñ³ñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï³·³ ½³ñ·³óÙ³ÝÝ ³éÝãíáÕ Ñ³ñó»ñ: ²é³ÝÓÇÝ áõß³¹ñáõÃÛáõÝ ¹³ñÓí»ó ÐéáÙÇ ä³åÇ ë»åï»Ùµ»ñÇ 25-27-Á г۳ëï³Ý ϳï³ñ»ÉÇù ³ÛóÇÝ: ø³Ñ³Ý³Û³å»ïÇ Ï³ñÍÇùáí ³Ûë ׳Ù÷áñ¹áõÃÛáõÝÁ ¹»åÇ ùñÇëïáÝ»³Ï³Ý Ñݳ·áõÛÝ ³í³Ý¹Ý»ñÇ ¨ ëñµ³í³Ûñ»ñÇ »ñÏÇñ Ñݳñ³íáñáõÃÛáõÝ Ïï³ Ñ³Ý¹Çå»Éáõ г۳ëï³ÝÇ Õ»Ï³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý áõ Ñ³Û ÅáÕáíñ¹Ç Ñ»ï, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ݳ¨ ß³ñáõݳϻÉáõ ¨ ³Ùñ³åݹ»Éáõ »ñÏËáëáõÃÛáõÝÁ г۳ëï³Ý»³ó ³é³ù»É³Ï³Ý »Ï»Õ»óáõ Ñ»ï, áñ ëÏëí»É ¿ñ ѳݷáõóÛ³É ì³½·»Ý ² áõ ³ñ»·ÇÝ ² ì»Ñ³÷³éÝ»ñÇ ûñáù ¨ ѳçáÕáõÃÛ³Ùµ ß³ñáõݳÏíáõÙ ¿ ³Ûëûñ Ü.ê.ú.î.î. ³ñ»·ÇÝ ´-Ç ÏáÕÙÇó: ²ÛóÇ ÃÝóóùáõÙ ¾¹áõ³ñ¹ ܳɵ³Ý¹Û³ÝÁ ѳݹÇåáõÙÝ»ñ áõÝ»ó³í ݳ¨ ì³ïÇϳÝÇ Ï³é³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Õ»Ï³í³ñ, å»ïù³ñïáõÕ³ñ ϳñ¹ÇݳÉÇ, å»ïù³ñïáõÕ³ñÇ ï»Õ³Ï³É ³ñù»åÇëÏáåáëÇ, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ÙÇ ß³ñù ³ÛÉ å³ßïáÝ۳ݻñÇ Ñ»ï: ì»ñç:

²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ Ð²Ôàð¸²ðàôÂÚàôÜ Ø²ØàôÈÆ Ð²Ø²ð 17.10.2001Ã. ÐÐ ¹»ëå³ÝáõÃÛáõÝÝ Çñ³Ï³Ý³óÝáõÙ ¿ §ìë»ÙÇñݳ۳ ÉÇï»ñ³ïáõñ³¦ ³Ùë³·ñÇ ßÝáñѳݹ»ëÁ ê.Ã. ë»åï»Ùµ»ñÇ 14-ÇÝ ²ñï³ë³ÑÙ³ÝÛ³Ý »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ Ñ»ï µ³ñ»Ï³ÙáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ Ùß³ÏáõóÛÇÝ Ï³å»ñÇ µ»É³éáõë³Ï³Ý ÁÝÏ»ñáõÃÛ³Ý ß»ÝùÇ ¹³ÑÉÇ×áõ٠ϳ۳ó³í ´»É³éáõëáõ٠г۳ëï³ÝÇ Ð³Ýñ³å»ïáõÃÛ³Ý ¹»ëå³ÝáõÃÛ³Ý Ý³Ë³Ó»éÝáõÃÛ³Ùµ ¨ ³ç³ÏóáõÃÛ³Ùµ å³ïñ³ëïí³Í §ìë»ÙÇñݳ۳ ÉÇï»ñ³ïáõñ³¦ ³Ùë³·ñǪ г۳ëï³ÝáõÙ ùñÇëïáÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý 1700-³ÙÛ³ÏÇÝ ÝíÇñí³Í ѳٳñÇ ßÝáñѳݹ»ëÁ: ´³óÙ³Ý ËáëùáõÙ ÐÐ ¹»ëå³ÝÝ Áݹ·Í»ó ùñÇëïáÝ»áõÃÛ³Ý ¹»ñÝ áõ Ý߳ݳÏáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ñ³Û ÅáÕáíñ¹Ç ¹³ñ³íáñ å³ïÙáõÃÛ³Ý ÁÝóóùáõÙ, Ý»ñϳ۳óñ»ó í»ñáÑÇßÛ³É ³Ùë³·ñÇ ëï»ÕÍÙ³Ý Ý³Ë³å³ïÙáõÃÛáõÝÁ, Çñ ßÝáñÑ³Ï³É³Ï³Ý ËáëùÝ áõÕÕ»ó ³Ùë³·ñÇ ·É˳íáñ ËÙµ³·ñÇÝ ¨ áÕç ϳ½ÙÇÝ, ÇÝãå»ë ݳ¨ ª ³Ùë³·ñÇ ëï»ÕÍÙ³Ý ·áñÍáõÙ Çñ»Ýó Ù³ëݳÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ µ»ñ³Í Ù³ñ¹Ï³Ýó: ÞÝáñѳݹ»ëÇ ÁÝóóùáõÙ ÑÝã»óÇÝ ÙÇ ß³ñù »ÉáõÛÃÝ»ñ, ÇëÏ ï»ÕÇ Ñ³Û³½·Ç »ñ³ÅÇßïÝ»ñÇ áõÅ»ñáí ϳï³ñí»óÇÝ Ñ³Û ÏáÙåá½ÇïáñÝ»ñÇ ëï»Õͳ·áñÍáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ: Üßí³Í ÙÇçáó³éÙ³ÝÁ Ý»ñϳ ¿ÇÝ ´Ð ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÇ ïÇÏÇÝÁ, ÙÇ ß³ñù »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ´»É³éáõëáõ٠ѳí³ï³ñÙ³·ñí³Í ¹»ëå³ÝÝ»ñ ¨ ¹Çí³Ý³·»ïÝ»ñ, ëï»Õͳ·áñÍ³Ï³Ý ÙÇáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ¨ Ñ³Û Ñ³Ù³ÛÝùÇ Ý»ñϳ۳óáõóÇãÝ»ñ: ì » ñ ç:

Dear Ali, To be honest, I am a little puzzled at some of your statements, though understand some others. Your statements can be compared to the ones of a “big guy,” who has been caught with his hands in somebody else’ pocket, and then when being asked to take his hand off, or return what he has stolen, he says “if you can, come and take it.” As a matter of “realpolitiks” we all know that your description is what rules the reality. However, I wouldn’t feel proud of it and wouldn’t feel “macho” about it. I couldn’t quite follow your arguments about embassies, the UK, etc. Please elaborate. As far as Balkans, Greece, etc are concerned, and as far as your premise the way I suspect is concerned, I think Armenia has done its share, too. From al I gather from our Turkish friends in this forum is that they don’t teach in Turkish schools about Sardarabad, Bash Abaran, Karakilise – the only instance in the history when the Turkish army has gone against the Armenian Army. Therefore, I suspect your premise, unless I understand it incorrectly, is wrong. If you really are open for dialog, I think you should recognize the legitimacy of the Armenian claims, have them put on the table, and then try to address them. But what you are saying here sounds like “don’t even put them on the table, and I don’t even want to hear about it.” Therefore, it makes an impression that you are not longing neither to a dialog nor searching a solution. In few hours I have to leave out of town for the rest of the week. If I don’t hear from you by then, I will respond over the weekend.

quote:Originally posted by alpha: The following article better explains the views about failed US policy in the Middle East. It reiterates my point that by selling weapons to Israel US is becoming a part of a conflicting side. Well, I understand that this is what many people feel, and there are elements of truth in it, but it is a very one sided opinion. It would be more objective if the Arab responsibility against Israel is also exposed. Moreover, the dismissal of the premise of the "war on civilizations" is not justified or argumented, in my view. And I again disagree that selling arms to Israel is the source or the axis of the problem. It is rather a consequence of the layout of the forces and the existing conflict. But the interesting question is who should sell arms to Israel so that it is OK with others. Is it OK that Russians do it or the Sweeds do it, for example? Should one assume that Israel should be left alone to those who want to take it apart, and it should be subjected to arms embargo? But I share the opinion that Israel has to be considered also very seriously as responsible party for the existing problems. [ September 17, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by alpha: NO matter what's the purpose of terrorism it should condemned, since it's taking innocent lives. Armenian terrorism dates back to Tehlirian and lived another boom in 70's. ASALA was a shame to our nation. It's a black page in our recent history. We as a nation should not encourage extremism. The actions of ASALA were a result of the world's silence to our plees. Tehlirian's case was a little bit different. He was an emotionally unstable man, who lost everything in Genocide and had nothing to live for. Even though the Turkish court sentenced him, but he managed to escape. I don't think Armenians should feel proud of Armenian terrorists. We are a civilized nation and should stand up for the ideals we preach for. I share your feelings, except that Tehlerian was not a terrorist, and he has not taken an innocent life.

Alpha, Sorry, for the sake of the speed I have t reply in the following format: MJ, what is the difference between suicide bombers in Israel or U.S? The end result always is the same, distraction. I think the terrorists chose the WTC and Pentagon symbolically, in order to show their dissatisfaction with U.S. policies. They could have bombed other buildings that would have caused a lot more damage. Bomb in a sports event or at a concert would have taken a lot more lives. I guess their intentions were not simply killing people, but to attack the symbols of financial and military prowess. They made a very strong statement. Formally speaking, you may be right and I may be wrong. Bin Laden has not conveyed his message to you nor to me. However, I strongly disagree with you. From what I understand many other objects have been targeted. Other attacks have been prevented just because the FAA has grounded timely all the flights. For example, turns out that FBI has acquired information that some objects in Atlanta, where some biological and chemical substances are stored, have been targets. I am sure that may other such objects might’ve been targeted. It just has failed. This is not over, yet. They will try again, if they can. As far as Israel is concerned, I think Arabs have better choices at their disposal to achieve resolution of the problem, unless their agenda is the destruction of Israel. I am for the eradication of also Palestinian terrorism. The difference between the terrorism and war is the scale. Also, why do you think “the sentiment of cultural “superiority” always has tendency to lead to military wars when the circumstances allow.” Shouldn’t “cultural superiority” be proven by civilized means, not by destruction? Distraction and loss of lives shows “military superiority” not “cultural superiority”. Are you telling me this as if I am supporting this thesis as my own value? I am just constituting a historical reality. Saudi Arabia has been exporting Muslim fundamentalism to other countries, don’t you think they should bear some of the responsibilities for the Muslim fundamentalist terrorism. It seems like US is only after the weak states, whose existence is irrelevant to US foreign policies. Do you know that most of the financial support for Muslim fundamentalism and terrorism comes from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates. In facts only three states, S. Arabia, UAE, and Pakistan, have recognized ultra religious Talliban as a legitimate government of Afghanistan. They don’t harbor terrorist organizations but they surely help them financially. If Afghanistan has to be bombed so do the three above-mentioned states. Of coarse. So does Egypt. I don’t think that things are as black and white as you claim. The Bin Laden family is a very prominent family in the Saudi Arabia, and very hostile to their Royal family. Things are quite complex there. The thing is that the governments of the countries mentioned by you have pledged cooperation – Afghanistan has denied. Talliban is not the legitimate government of Afghanistan. It has come to power by slaughtering the previously illegitimate government. Only Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and UAE have recognized it. The blood of millions of Afghans is on the hands of Talliban. They explicitly harbor Bin Laden’s organization. Afghanistan is not in the position of financially supporting Bin Laden. His financial support comes from the Saudi Arabia. I guess we both agree on the arrogance of U.S. foreign policy. Some arrogance, I have to say. Any other country in America’s position would have been a total disaster – including Armenia. America is the lease arrogance on the world on a relative scale. However, I think given its power, it is behaving pretty reasonably. This administration has come with the denouncement of the recognized arrogance. And if you would look at their language and their restraint, it is evident in their behavior. But the world is a very complex place. As much as my thinking allows, I try to look at the world without a very powerful America – and it scares me. Do you think the tragic events will change the failed foreign policy? Undoubtedly so, but in a different way. The reduction of the arrogance and the introduction of meaningfulness of foreign policy has been the agenda of this administration. This is one of the most competent foreign policy teams in the history of America and one of the morally most righteous. I think that the terrorists wanted to achieve a slight change in US foreign policy, and they might. I disagree. Their agenda is their dominance in the world. I can tell you that when I was in Jamaica, I found it to be an amazing country in one sense – it is an extremely poor country with horrendously lazy and irresponsible population (their younger generation), however they are convinced that they are the superior culture of the world, and everything good in the world comes from them. Give them power and see what they would do. Every culture in the world has this attitude. Just give them the opportunity and you wouldn’t wait long for the results. First and foremost US shouldn’t unilaterally support Israel, as it does not. There are only 6 million Jews (not 20 million. In the world there are 20 million Jews. 6 million in US, 4.5 million in Israel, 1.5 million and Russia and rest are spread out all over the world) living in United States, which has a population of 300 million. That’s only 2% of the populace. Maybe my numbers were wrong, However, Jews are a politically active, powerful and important part of the US. They constitute a disproportionately large tax-paying entity, their contribution in the American economy, science, medicine, politics, etc, in general prosperity is enormous. On a smaller scale the same is true with Armenians. We also get a proportional support from America. However, having one million Arabs in Michigan, they couldn’t even sustain one senator of Arabic origin there in the latest elections – not that I think the ethnicity in this context means much. Anyway, Jews obtain legitimate support in the region. But as you recognize yourself, they don’t get unilateral support. They are also under tremendous pressure from the US government, as well as the Israel is under a tremendous pressure from the American Jewry to occupy more centrist position in the region. MJ don’t you think supplying weapons to one of the warring sides helps one gain an advantage over the other. No. Traditionally, while Americans have supplied weapons to Israel, the USSR has supplied to Arabs. Additionally, until the Iraqi occupation of Kuwait, the US has supplied most of the arms to Iraq (through an arms dealer whose last name I am sure you would recognize). There is no such country in conflict that doesn’t get supplied with arms by somebody. In the case of Israel, it is in a disadvantageous and very difficult position. Its security obviously requires some way of balancing the situation. Russia supplied weapons to Armenia, and we won the war. (can you be more specific when Russia supplied weapons to Azerbaijan). This is a very strange statement, Alpha. The entire Karabagh war has been supplied from both sides by Russia. This is not something even to attempt to dispute. Neither army has used anything other than obtained from the Soviet/Russian army. However, understandably, I cannot give you any proofs. Similarly US is supplying weapons to Israel so they can bully the Arab world. The US supplies arms also to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other countries as Bahrain, for example, I think. In regards to NATO, if most of the members are against US actions, US still carries out its policies. If you have objectively followed the statements of this administration, Dick Cheney has declared quite early in the campaign that these issues have to be revisited, at least because unilateral sanctions don’t work, he has said. He has been criticized by the liberals for suggesting to lift the sanctions even from against Iran. The thing is that in politics it is always easier to impose sanctions or to introduce forces, then to remove. However, I would like to invite your attention that if the US is totally out of the region, our region would again drown in its own blood. Things are very complex. It is not that you remove the Americans, and over the sadden things function like in heaven. God forbid that America be out. However, obviously, the current order is not a fair one and doesn’t lead to stability and peace. So I would cross my fingers. How the influence of USSR over Warsaw Pact was different over the influence of U.S over the NATO. The US dictated its policies to the non-free nations. While America may try (not successfully) to exert pressure on the Europeans, it cannot force them.

I don't think that one morning we may wake up and see the terrorism eradicated. However, I think that we have to enforce its eradication every morning and every night - otherwise many of us would just not wake up one morning before even the archangel Gabriel finds it timely.

Edward, We all know this staff. But you were claiming something else in your previous material, which I found to be baseless.

quote:Originally posted by dragon: MJ:Even without the latest actions Bin Laden's terrorist character has already been established. Indeed America is not untouchable, nor is anybody else in the modern world. Nor the situation looks like a game. But I have full confedence in this administration's ability to make the best decisions available. Ladin is terrorist and must be a punished. No doubt. But he is the auther of this tragedy, is not approved yet. America must first execute the first and the responsibles of such action, then ''hashiv makre'' with the others. I am with the world against terrorism and I need justice for this tragedy only, but for Armenian Genocide and other genocides too. Dragon, I am opting for the eradication of all terrorists - individuals and organizations. It doesn't matter whether Bin Laden has committed this particular crime or not. He has committed enough at least since 1993.

quote:Originally posted by alpha: Here is the article from the Opinion section of September 15 LA Times. I find it very interesting. By NAOMI KLEIN, Naomi Klein is the author of "No Logo." Well, there is a lot of validity in the premise of this article. It has been recognized by many American politicians - including such right wing ones as Pat Buchanan. Additionally, everyone who is ibjective in the issue, would recall the Presidential compagn of Gorge W. Bush, who, multiple times expressed dissatisfaction with the US Foreign policy, and even when confronted during the presidential debates, he claimed that he would opt for "humbelness in the US foreign policy, and refrain from showing the American 'ugly' face." I think this was the second presidential debate. But with all this recognition, I think it would be a gross misrepresentation to portray Bin Laden as a victim, and the US as the aggressor.

Alpha, Effective the Golf War, the US military actions have been in retaliation of the invasion of Kuwait and the environmental terrorism committed by Iraq. However, I think at some point the arrogance has prevailed in some aspects. For example, I think the US and UK have no right to enforce the No-Fly zone in Iraq. But I totally agree that Hussein has to be contained. Even Syria at the time, not exactly the ally of the US, gave its support to the alliance to contain Iraq. Even Iran was happy about it, and took advantage of the situation. When we criticize somebody for crossing the boundries of reasonability, let us also be reasonable. Additionally, if you are minimally aware of the biography of Bin Laden, his ideology, you would know that his agenda is indeed War against the Western Civilization. The wars against civilizations are indeed of cultural motivations, and this is indeed the case with Bin Ladin. However, the sentiment of cultural “superiority” always has tendency to lead to military wars when the circumstances allow. The war on the civilization in this particular case can be formulated in a very simple manner – it is against the European countries of Christian tradition, and the US. With all this, I hope that you would recognize that by saying all this I am not some kind of Christian ideologist, and you would recall my positive attitude towards Islam, and my multiple declarations in support of the Arabs and their culture. US is supporting one of the warring factions in Middle East, by supplying weapons to Israel, so technically it’s a participant in that war Not exactly. Not only US does it, but also many other nations, as well as they supply it to the Arab nations. But supplying weapons doesn’t imply being in war. There are ample such examples in the world. For example, Russia supplies weapons to Azerbaijan, however it is not neither technically nor otherwise in war with Armenia. Nor the opposite way. Terrorists do actions to make a point. They don’t try to inflict maximum harm on their adversaries. I am not aware of McVeighs’ affiliation with the right wing - are you? As a matter of fact, his actions were very much against the right wing mentality and values, I think. Obviously McVeigh didn’t declare war to the Western civilization, but to the US government. At least this is what he has declared. But Bin Laden is a very different story. If an individual Arab would kill and individual American official, I wouldn’t consider it as a war against the Western civilization, but rather revenge, while still resenting it. But I think not to see the difference between a Palestinian suicide bomber and Bin Laden’s organization is either strange or attests to the lack of adequate knowledge. In this case I thought it was US foreign policy. Just because the terrorists were Arabs shouldn’t make it a “War on Western Civilization”. Timothy McVeigh, was an American born and bred right wing terrorist who was influenced by extreme right wing and was dissatisfied by the actions of federal government that’s why he bombed Oklahoma City. Did we make such a big deal out of it. Yes, we did. He was prosecuted and sentenced to capital punishment, and executed. We didn’t call it war against the Western civilization because it was not the motivation of McVeigh. Was it considered a “War against liberals”? Of course not. I wouldn’t have been surprised if someone from Yugoslavia who has lost his whole family because of NATO bombing tied a bomb to him and blew himself up around White House. I am not a psychologist, but I think people who are capable to blow themselves up feel extremely powerless and see no point in their lives. That also is possible in general (I don’t want to engage in the polemics on the subject of “liberals” ). However, the actions of Bin Laden’s followers have nothing to do with desperation, but are rather directed at the further escalation of whatever antagonism. They see the terrorism as the last resort. Don’t you think that people who have lost their families due to or because of US foreign policy can commit actions in US soil? An Arab, or any other person, who has lost his son or brother, would be capable to go to extreme measures. In Muslim world everybody knows that it’s because of American support that Israel is capable of bullying its neighbors. A few centuries from now historians would probably look at it as “the second crusader state”, used by West to gain a foothold in the Middle East. In regards to bombing of Yugoslavia, you should know better than I do, NATO is the US. The rest of the members are just supporters. The role of US in NATO is similar to USSR’s role in Warsaw Pact. OK. I resent the parts of the US foreign policy which are wrong in my view, and attest to either not understanding of the mentality and culture of the others, or are resulted from arrogance. There is indeed such element in the US Foreign policy. But what do you say then about the Jews, for example, who have lost their beloved ones, who have been declared war, who have been pleaded distraction, etc? I also consider that Israel currently is bulling its neighbors. And indeed without the US support it couldn’t do it. But has Israel declared war on Arab world or the opposite? Is it Israel who doesn’t recognize the right of the Arab world to exist or the opposite? And why is it not natural that the US supports Israel? There are about 20 million Jews who are American citizens. Isn’t it natural that the US is going to comply with the will of a significant portion of its nationals – especially of those who are politically active? Additionally, the US protects also Kuwait, and some other Arab states. Doesn’t it? And I don’t know why shouldn’t you know equally well with me that NATO is the US, and why should I know it better than you. However, I disagree. NATO is not the US, and your comparison with the USSR vs. Warsaw Pact is inadequate. The US is just one of the members – just the most powerful member. There is no way the US can force something on Italy, for example. As it concerns to Yugoslavia, the US has entered into this stage under the severe pressure from its European allies and with significant reluctance of the US Congress, especially its conservative members. MJ, I am sure you have heard the word “revenge” a lot from various news sources? If you haven’t than I have. I have heard a lot about War, (some commentators also mention WW III), isn’t that an indication for American public’s appetite to see loss of lives and ruins in other parts’ of the world. I am disappointed at this civilized nation. I hope it’s because of mourning and extreme panic. I have. I have said in my previous posting that there are some angry voices. However, the prevailing number of those who plug in raise their voice for restraint, meaningful actions, and not losing the sight of the purpose of the retaliatory action. So are the majority of the commentators. I don’t think it is because of the morning or panic. There is no panic, first of all. But there is a clear understanding that this is not going to stop unless eradicated. However, no matter what, you will always find some who would be blood-thirsty. That cannot be avoided in such a diverse nation. But they are far not a dominant voice, fortunately. It’s true that most people were restrained in their comments, but some have harassed Muslims and even shot at Mosques. This is truly tragic. In times of panic Americans can do a lot of things that they later regret. Don’t forget the same thing happened against Japanese living in California during WW II. Yes, you are right. But it is understandable. With a tragedy of such magnitude, there would be such cases no matter what and no matter in what country. However, there is no such mass outburst. Additionally, as much as I observe, for three days now, the governmental officials and the political commentators consistently urge the people over the TV not to take their anger against the Arabs, Muslims, people who don’t have blue eyes and blond hair. They educate people that the actions committed by Bin Laden are condemned even by Quran. I am sure that if this thing had happened in Germany, France or Sweden, for example, the blood of the Arabs would have changed the color of the horizon in these countries. Well I am glad at least someone has a confidence in this administration, because I surely don’t. I am not surprised. You have always been very transparent about it - not meaning rightfully so, however. [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Even without the latest actions Bin Laden's terrorist character has already been established. Indeed America is not untouchable, nor is anybody else in the modern world. Nor the situation looks like a game. But I have full confedence in this administration's ability to make the best decisions available.

The US doesn't need to show its strength – its strength is well recognized. The information coming from several foreign intelligence services, including those of European countries (France, for example), indicate that indeed Bin Laden has been behind these actions. The President of USA has called him only "Prime suspect," and has not alleged that it is established that Bin Laden is the organizer, and has pointed at the ongoing investigation. Additionally, Bin Laden has already been indicted by the US Courts for the actions against the US Embassies in Africa and the military vassel USS Cole. [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by edward demian: Could you elaborate as to why the return of the lands refferred to in the Treaty of Sevres is against Armenian interests? Yes. It would be better if Turkey keeps its problems to itself, and doesn't transfer them to Armenia, since Armenia has enough on its plate. As far as I understand, these lands are not deserted areas but populated by a varietity of ethinic/nomadic groups, which even may outnumber the polulation of Armenia. I think it is a fair expectation to assume that you are not proposing deportation or slaughter of those people.

Alpha, I have been following almost all the news channels over the last few days, reading USA Today and WSJ. I haven’t come across any serious insinuations of “World War III” by the media or the press – at least the mainstream one. As a matter of fact, I observe the mainstream US media being quite restrained on the subject. All the insinuations by the mainstream media of declarations of war are made in a the sense of declaring war to the International Terrorism directed at its eradication. However, I am surprised at your declarations that Afghanistan has not done anything. Even if we assume that Afghanistan has not directly participated in the organization of the acts of terrorism, evidently it has harbored and accommodated most vicious terrorist organizations and has provided them with the freedom to set training camps. Additionally, anyone who is a little bit familiar with the Middle Eastern/Pakistani/Indian/Afghani cultures, would know that their declarations of their nonparticipation in the acts of incrementing character do not deserve much credit – have heard about Eastern “Shoghokortutiun?” So far, the US government has not given any indications that it is going to bomb Afghanistan or how is it going to respond. From all the accounts available, it is evident that those in charge have a very sober understanding of the problem, its complexities, idiosyncrasies, etc. It has not given any indications of being driven by the principle of “eye for eye,” but has pledged to work along the lines of the eradication of terrorism wherever it may be. Any country sponsoring or harboring terrorists should be rightfully considered as terrorist state and face the consequences. As far as the bombing of the civilians and the civilian objects of Yugoslavia are concerned, I share your resentment, and I have expressed my resentment at the time quite vociferously. Not because of the innocence of Yugoslavia, which I think has committed acts constituting crimes against humanity, but because of the acts of NATO itself have constituted war crimes. However, I would like to add that by the admission of the NATO countries, the objects being bombed have been voted on unilaterally by all the countries of NATO. The only country which has expressed slight discomfort with it has been Greece. Therefore, blaming the Yugoslavian bombings just on the US is unfair, I think. I would be very much for inviting the leftist liberal whinnies of the Vietnam war (such us the previous president of the US) along with General Wesley Clark and the European leaders to stand criminal charges. As far as the demands of the terrorists in the latest action are concerned, while taking 5000 innocent lives, they didn’t even advance any demands. Their acts were not simple acts of terrorism, and the signature was not one of terrorism, but rather of war. The war has been declared not by the US but to the Western Civilization – this is not an action of desperate people appealing to their last resort, but a evolution of a systematic process of purely ideological character to the next stage. For example, few months ago such attempt has been made against the EuroParliament – fortunately the German secret service has been successful in preventing the usage of serane (spelling ?) gas at the premises of that body. It is illusion to think that these actions are just directed at the US. I also share your resentment of the level of the US support given to Israel against the Palestinians. However, it is well known that it is not unconditional. It is well known that both the senior Bush administration and the Clinton administration have been systematically exerting strong pressure on Israel. While not justifying the policies of Israel towards the Palestinian, and feeling sympathetic to the plea of the latest, it would be a gross misrepresentation of the picture of the region to lay all the blame on Israel. First of all, with the exception of Egypt and Jordan, I think, no other Arab state has recognized the right of Israel to exist in the region, moreover, they have pledged for the distraction of Israel. Additionally, anytime there is a perspective of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians, Hamaz, Jihad, and others intensify their suiside bombings to blow any possible resolution up. Israel, while far not behaving like an angel itself, is subject to a daily terror. Under such circumstances, it is not even meaningful to define whose fault it is – it is the fault of both side. While, obviously, there are angry voices in the US to bomb Afghanistan to the stone age[1], most of the people behave and express themselves in a very restrained and dignified manner, and expect their government to take only meaningful measures. Therefore, I think you are indeed mistaken, only not in the sense you claim, but rather in your initial premise. ________ 1 Note that Afghanistan is already in the stone age, and bombing it wouldn't even change on a qualitative level anything substantial there. [ September 16, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

Save a Life, Save All Humanity--Take a Life, Kill All Humanity What the Islamic scriptures really say about jihad and violence For years Islamic terrorists have justified their actions as being compelled by their faith. Osama Bin Laden reportedly thanked Allah when he heard the news of this week's attack. Other terrorist groups invoke Islam as well. Hezbollah, the name of one militant group, is the Arabic word for Party of God; Hamas is the Islamic Resistance Movement.Are the terrorists who cite the Qur'an distorting the spirit of the religion or depicting its emphasis accurately? Here are several of the Qur'an passages most frequently cited, and analysis from Islamic scholars. On Jihad or "Holy War"Chapter 2, verse 190: Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loves not transgressors.This portion of the Qur'an was written in about 606 C.E., when the Prophet Muhammad and his followers were under attack in the city of Medinah, says Imam Yahya Hendi, a Qur'anic scholar who is the Muslim chaplain at Georgetown University. There, they had established their own state. But various coalitions of non-Muslim tribes--including Christians, Jews, atheists and animists--continued to go to war with them. This portion of the Qur'an explains their reasoning behind striking back.The passage actually refers to a defensive war. "You fight back. You go as far as it takes to stop the aggression but you do not go beyond that. So if you have to, you go as far as fighting verbally to get someone out of your home--but you don't shoot him after he is out. You don't keep going on with it--only if you are attacked, if there is an oppression applied to you. The idea is that justice prevails. You don't fight because you enjoy fighting, but because there is an oppression."It could be military force or [in today's world] it could be media force, writing against you. But when the hostilities are over and the enemy offers a peace treaty, you should submit. Muslims are obliged to submit to a peace treaty offered by the enemy. You don't keep fighting."Al-Hajj Talib 'Abdur-Rashid, imam of the Mosque of Islamic Brotherhood in Harlem, says the word jihad has its origin in the verb jahada which means to struggle, to fight. The word has a few different connotations, since struggle can occur on several levels."Muslims understand these levels based not only on the words of Allah in the Qur'an, but also on the authentic statements of the Prophet Muhammad as recorded in our oral traditions, preserved as hadith," he says. According to 'Abdur-Rashid, there are three levels of jihad: Personal Jihad: The most excellent jihad is that of the soul. This jihad, called the Jihadun-Nafs, is the intimate struggle to purify the soul of satanic influence--both subtle and overt. It is the struggle to cleanse one's spirit of sin. This is the most important level of jihad. Verbal Jihad: On another occasion, the Prophet said, "The most excellent jihad is the speaking of truth in the face of a tyrant." He encouraged raising one's voice in the name of Allah on behalf of justice. Physical Jihad: This is combat waged in defense of Muslims against oppression and transgression by the enemies of Allah, Islam and Muslims. We are commanded by Allah to lead peaceful lives and not transgress against anyone, but also to defend ourselves against oppression by "fighting against those who fight against us." This "jihad with the hand" is the aspect of jihad that has been so profoundly misunderstood in today's world. On Non-Muslims Chapter 2, verse 256: Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things.This passage has been cited to justify expelling non-Muslims from Muslim countries. But Imam Hendi says that not only does the Qur'an avoid any such suggestion, it even prohibits aggressive efforts to convert. "No Muslim is allowed to go out and force people to become Muslim. In the early days of Islam, Jews came to Islam and had younger children and asked Muhammad if they could force Islam on their children because they are younger. This verse [which was] revealed to him says that there can be no compulsion on other religions. This is very clear."I have had people come to my office and say they wanted to convert to Islam. I talked to them and it turned out they just weren't happy in their own faiths. So I said, no, go back to your own faith."What's more, fundamentalist Muslems seldom site the passages of the Qur'an which are quite religious pluralistic. For instance, chapter 2, verse 46, says: "And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, 'We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam).'"People of the Book is the term Muslims use to refer to Jews and Christians. "This is the most-viewed verse in terms of how we talk to non-Muslims. We have common ground between us and them," says Imam Hendi. On Martyrdom: Chapter 3, verse 169: Think not of those who are slain in Allah's way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the presence of their Lord.Chapter 3, verse 172: Of those who answered the call of Allah and the Messenger, even after being wounded, those who do right and refrain from wrong have a great reward."Does Islam have a special emphasis on martyrdom? Those who believe so often look at these verses. Imam Hendi says there is, indeed, a special place for those who die in the service of God, though that service needs to be of a different sort than that provided by terrorists. "Suppose I'm on the pulpit teaching and giving my sermon," says Imam Hendi. "If someone shoots me because of what I'm saying about God, the Qur'an says I'm not really dead because I'm with God. If I'm feeding the poor, and calling for justice, I can't be called dead. My soul is alive and God sustains me.""If you are a teacher in a school and you die while teaching you are a martyr. If you die while doing a service for people, you are a martyr. If I am traveling on American Airlines 700 going to London for a conference or to learn something, if that plane, God forbid, crashes, I am a martyr. Travelers for learning are martyrs.So to claim martyer status all terrorists have to do is convince themselves that they are fighting for "justice," which is, of course, highly subjective. "They say that America is the leader of injustice worldwide because of the embargo against Afghanistan, and the thousands of people suffering in Iraq. Some people think America has a double standard when it comes to the Middle East and Israel. [Terrorists] think if they hurt Americans, they serve the cause of justice. They use these verses." But the Qur'an has just as many passages describing how martyrdom cannot cause harm to others. "The prophet Muhammad said, 'Do not attack a temple a church, a synagogue. Do not bring a tree or a plant down. Do not harm a horse or a camel. He went on and on in detail about what Muslims cannot do."On Terrorism and ViolenceObviously the Qur'an doesn't condone terrorism, though Muhammed was the leader of a military force and therefore used violence. "In the West," writes scholar Karen Armstrong in her book, Muhammad, "we often imagine Muhammad as a warlord, bradishing his sword in order to impose Islam on a reluctant world by force of arms. The reality was quite different. Muhammad and the first Muslims were fighting for their lives and they had also undertaken a project in which violence was inveitable." It is true, she says, that unlike Christianity, it's leader was not a pacifist. "Islam fight tyranny and injustice. A muslim may feel that he has a sacred duty to champion the weak and the oppresed," she writes. "Fighting and warfare might sometimes be necessary, but it was only a minor part of the whole jihad or struggle. A well-known tradition (hadith) has Muhammad say on returning froma battle, 'We return from the little jihad to the greater jihad,' the more difficult and crucial effort to conquer the forces of evil in oneself and and in one's own society in all the details of daily life." While there are passages in the Qur'an, like the Old Testament of the Bible, that celebrate military victory, the overall gestalt of the Qur'an promotes a more restrained view. Chapter 5, verse 32, for instance, states: On that account: We ordained for the Children of Israel that if any one slew a person--unless it be for murder or for spreading mischief in the land--it would be as if he slew the whole people: and if anyone saved a life, it would be as if he saved the life of the whole people. That passages places a great value on the sanctity of a single life. "If you kill one person it's as if you kill all humanity," says Imam Hendi. Indeed, Hendi says, the Qur'an goes one step further in chapter 8, verse 61, "But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in Allah." http://beliefnet.com/story/87/story_8753_1.html

quote:Originally posted by edward demian: Reffering to names in the Communist and internationalist vein. You need to remember how terribly dangerous the times were during Stalinism. People dissapeared simply because of their name. Edward, I wonder where do you get such information from? Do you know anybody that has been arrested for his name in the Stalinist era? Has it happened in Romania?

These are names of two pre-Christian era Armenian Goddesses.

Here is a piece from an article of an old friend published in Armenia in 1995. Thought it might be interesting. θÆزܲ ± ²ð¸Úàø ²ØÜ - Á Æð §äºðºêîðàÚβÚÆܦ ì³ÕÁ ÝáõÛÝ ï³é³å³ÝùÝ»ñÁ, ÝáõÛÝ ÏáßÙ³éÁ, ÝáõÛÝ ³í»ñÝ áõ óɳÝÁ ïÇñ»Éáõ ¿ ³ÛÝï»Õ, ²ØÜ - áõÙ: Ø»Ýù ¹ÇÙ³ó³Ýù ¨ ¹»é ÏѳÕûÝù: ÆÝÓ Éñçáñ»Ý ³Ýѳݷëï³óÝáõÙ ¿. ϹÇٳݳ±ù ³ñ¹Ûáù ¹áõù, Ó»ñ ²ØÜ-Á: ²Û¹áõѳݹ»ñÓ »ëª гÛë, Ïó³ÝϳݳÛÇ, áñ ¹áõù ϳñáճݳÛÇù ¹ÇٳݳÉ: àã ³ÛÝù³Ý Ýñ³ ѳٳñ, áñ »ë É³í »Ù Ñ³ëϳÝáõÙ ³Ù»Ý ÙÇ Ù»ÍÇ áõ ÷áùñÇ ï³é³å³ÝùÇ ³ñÅ»ùÁ, áã ÙdzÛÝ Ýñ³ ѳٳñ, áñ »ëª гÛë, ß³ï É³í ·Çï»Ù, û ¹³ ÇÝ㠳ѳíáñ ³ñѳíÇñù ¿, »ñµ ù³Ý¹áõÙ, ³í»ñáõÙ áõ óɳÝáõÙ »Ý ïáõݹª гÛñ»ÝÇù¹, áã ÙdzÛÝ Ýñ³ ѳٳñ, áñ »ë É³í ·Çï»Ù »ñ»Ë³ÛÇ ïËñáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñóáõÝùÇ Ï³ÃÇÉÇ ·ÇÝÁ, ³Ûɨ Ýñ³ ѳٳñ, áñ Ó»ñ »ñÏñÇ í³Õí³, §å»ñ»ëïñáÛϳÛǦ, ³í»ñáõÙÁ ³ñ¹»Ý ËÇëï íï³Ý·³íáñ, ׳ϳﳷñ³Ï³Ý ϳñáÕ ¿ ÉÇÝ»É ÁݹѳÝáõñÇ, Ù»ñ ºñÏÇñ ÙáÉáñ³ÏÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ г½³ñ³ÙÛ³ÏÝ»ñÇ ËáñùÇó ¿ ·³ÉÇë ÇÙª سëÇë, å³ï³ë˳ݳïíáõÃÛ³Ý ½·³óáõÙÝ áõ ·Çï³ÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ ÇÙ ¨ ²ÙµáÕçǪ гٳÛÝÇ, Ýϳïٳٵ: øá §ÐÇÝ ²ß˳ñÑÁ¦, Ù³Ûñó³Ù³ùÁ, ºíñáå³Ý Çñ µ³ñáÛ³½áõñÏ Ñ³ßí»ÝϳïáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ٻͳÙïáõÃÛ³Ý Ù»ç ѳٳéáñ»Ý ãáõ½»ó ׳ݳã»É ¿áõÃÛáõÝÁ, ËáñÑáõñ¹Á, ×ßÙ³ñïáõÃÛáõÝÝ ³Ûë ÇÙ³ëïáõÃÛ³Ý: ÆëÏ ¹áõ ùá å³ï³Ý»³Ï³Ý á·¨áñí³ÍáõÃÛ³Ý í³½ùÇ Ù»ç, ó³íáù, Å³Ù³Ý³Ï ãáõÝ»ó³ñ ÁÝϳɻÉáõ ËáñÑáõñ¹Á Ýñ³, ù³Õ³ù³ÏñÃáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÉÇÝ»ÉÇáõÃÛ³Ý ¨ ѳñ³ï¨áõÙÇ ³å³ÑáíÙ³Ý ¿áõÃÛáõÝÁ Ýñ³: ì³ÕÁ, »Ã» ³ëïí³Í ÙÇ ³ñ³ëó», ï»ÕÇ áõݻݳ ³Ýó³ÝϳÉÇÝ, ³ÝáõÕÕ»ÉÇÝ. í³ÕÁ, »Ã» ùá »ñÏÇñ ï»Õ³÷áËí³Í §å»ñ»ëïñáÛϳݦ ³í»ñÇ ùá ïáõÝÁ. ѳí³ï³, áñ »ëª гÛë, ã»Ù áõñ³Ë³Ý³ ¨ ã»Ù ã³ñ³Ëݹ³: ÆÝãå»ë ³é ³Ûëûñ ùñ¹»ñÇ Ñ³ñóáõÙ »ëª гÛë, ã»Ù ã³ñ³ËݹáõÙ ¨ ã»Ù ³ëáõÙ Ýñ³Ý, áñ ¹áõù ųٳݳÏÇݪ 1915-ÇÝ, ѳÝó³·áñÍ ·áñÍÇù »Õ³ù Ù³ñ¹³Ï»ñ ÃáõñùÇÝ, ã·ïÝí»óÇù ز𸠻ñ¨áõÛÃÇ, µ³Ý³Ï³ÝÇ µ³ñáÛ³Ï³Ý µ³ñÓñáõÃÛáõÝáõÙ ¨ ³Ý·³Ù Ó»ñ ÇëϪ áã ³Ûëûñí³, µ³Ûó Ñ»Ýó í³Õí³, ß³ÑÇó »ÉÝ»Éáí, ãáõÝ»ó³ù Ñ»é³ï»ëáõÃÛáõÝ: ¸áõùª ùñ¹»ñ¹, Ãáõñù»ñÇ ¹ñ¹Ù³Ùµ ¨ Ýñ³Ýó Ñ»ï ÙdzëÇÝ Ïáïáñ»óÇù áõ óɳݻóÇù гÛÇÝ, ³í»ñ»óÇù áõ ½³íûóÇù гÛñ»ÝÇùÁ Ýñ³: ÆëÏ ÑÇÙ³ ÇÝãáõ± »ù ½³ñÙ³ÝáõÙ, ³ñ¹³ñ³óÇ »Õ»ù. ÑÇÙ³ ëï³ÝáõÙ »ù Ó»ñ »ñ»Ïí³ §³ß˳ï³ÝùǦ ÉñÇí í³ñÓÁ: ÐÇÙ³ ¿É Ãáõñù³Ï³Ý Ïáïáñ³ÍÝ»ñÇ Ó»ñ Ñ»ñÃÝ ¿ »Ï»É: ØÇ ÁÝÏ×í»ù. ¹áõù ã»ù í»ñçÇÝÁ, Ó»½³ÝÇó Ñ»ïá ³ëïÇ׳ݳµ³ñ, Ù³ë ³é Ù³ë ºíñáå³ÛÇ Ñ»ñÃÝ ¿É ÏѳëÝÇ: ê³ ¿ ѳÝó³·áñÍ ³ß˳ñÑÇ Çñ³Ï³Ý ûñ»ÝùÁ: ì³ÕÁ, سñ»ëϳ, »ë ËáñÇÝ ³÷ëáë³Ýùáí Ïݳۻ٠ù³Õ³ù³ÏñÃáõÃÛ³Ý ëï»ÕÍ³Í »ñµ»ÙÝÇ ²½³ïáõÃÛ³Ý, ²ÝϳËáõÃÛ³Ý, ųÕáíñ¹³í³ñáõÃÛ³Ý Éáõñç ù³ÛÉ»ñ ³ÝáÕ ³ñÅ»ùÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏǪ ùá »ñÏñÇ, ²ØÜ-Ç ÏáñͳÝÙ³ÝÁ: ÆÝÓ Ñ³ëϳݳÉÇ ó³í Ïå³ï׳éÇ ùá »ñÏñÇ ù³áëÁ ¨ ùá ÙdzÙïáñ»Ý µ³ñÇ áõ å³ñ½ ÅáÕáíñ¹Ç ÑÇñ³íÇ ã³ñ¹³ñ³óí³Í µ³½áõÙ ï³é³å³ÝùÝ»ñÁ: ì³ÕÁ »ë ù»½ ã»Ù ³ëÇ, û ¹áõ ÑÇÙ³ ÙdzÛÝ Ñ³ëϳó³ñ ÇÝÓ áõ ÇÙ ³åñ³ÍÁ: ì³ÕÁ »ë ³Ý·³Ù Ï÷áñÓ»Ù û·Ý»É ù»½: ´³Ûó ¹³ »ñ¨Ç û Ù»Í ûųݹ³ÏáõÃÛáõÝ ãÇ ÉÇÝÇ, ù³Ý½Ç Ù»Í »Ý Ù»ñ »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ½³Ý·í³ÍÝ»ñÇ ï³ñµ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÁ áõ Ù»Í ÏÉÇÝÇ ùá ÏáñͳÝÙ³Ý ß³ñÅÙ³Ý ù³Ý³ÏÁ: ºí ë³Ï³ÛÝ, ³Û¹áõѳݹ»ñÓ, ѳí³ï³, »ë ù»½ Ïû·Ý»Ù áõÅ»ñë Ý»ñ³ÍÇ ã³÷áí ¨ ¹»é ³í»ÉÇÝ: ø³Ý½Ç »ë ³ëÛûñ ¿É ѳëϳÝáõÙ »Ù ùá í³Õí³ ¹Åµ³ËïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ³ñÙ³ïÝ»ñÝ áõ ã³÷Á. ¨ ·Çï³ÏóáõÙ »Ù Ç٠ѳñ³ï¨Ù³Ý ѳٳñ ºñÏÇñ ÙáÉáñ³ÏÇ, ÁݹѳÝñ³Ï³Ý ù³Õ³ù³ÏñÃáõÃÛ³ÛÝ ·áÛáõÃÛ³Ý, µ³ñáÛ³Ï³Ý ÉÇÝ»ÉÇáõÃÛ³Ý ³ÝÑñ³Å»ßïáõÃÛáõÝÁ: ²Ø²ÜàðÚ² ò²ÜÎàôÂÚàôÜܺð ²ØÜ - Ç ø²Ô²ø²Î²Ü àðÌÆâܺðÆÜ âÇݳϳÝ, ÐÇÝ ²ñ¨»ÉÛ³Ý ³Ù»Ý³³Ñ³íáñ ³Ý»ÍùÝ»ñÇó Ù»ÏÁ ³ëáõÙ ¿ - áñ ¹áõ ³åñ»ë Ù»Í í»ñ³÷áËáõÙÝ»ñÇ Å³Ù³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ: ºëª гÛë, ó³ÝϳÝáõÙ »Ù, áñ ¹áõù ϳñáճݳù, ¹Çٳϳۻù Ó»ñ µ³ÅÇÝ §å»ñ»ëïñáÛϳݦ, ¨ áñ ¹áõù »ñµ»ù ã³åñ»ù Ù»Í í»ñ³÷áËáõÙÝ»ñǪ ³ñÑ»ëï³Ï³Ý Ó¨³÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ, í»ñ³Ó¨áõÙÝ»ñÇ, ѻճ÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ áõ å»ñ»ëïñáÛϳݻñÇ Å³Ù³Ý³ÏÝ»ñ: 22 ø³Õáó гÛáó µáõÝ 4488 Ãí³Ï³Ý 31 ¹»Ïï»Ùµ»ñÇ 1995 Ãí³Ï³Ý /Üàðø, г۳ëï³ÝÇ ·ñáÕÝ»ñÇ ÙÇáõÃÛ³Ý ·ñ³Ï³Ý-·»Õ³ñí»ëï³Ï³Ý ѳݹ»ë, ѳٳñ 3, 1996Ã. ¿ç 69-86, ºñ¨³Ý/: One would need Arial AM font to read it. [ September 15, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Juggernaut: Many innocents died in that attack, but it was a good wake up call to the policies conducted by the US around the world. The majority of the worlds population hates the USA and if I was a Palestinian, Iraqi, Afgani or a dozen other nationalities I would be celebrating too. From all I can gather you are already celebrating.

quote:Originally posted by aurguplu: we have given our lives, you have given your lives, and we won, you lost. we are not after killing you lot because of your armenian genes like the germans were after killing the jews because of their semitic genes. you are now an independent republic, and we respect your right to life, property, independence, human dignity, and territorial integrity (this does of course not include karabagh) and we are not - and will not be, out of our own accord - engaged in armed conflict against armenia. and we expect the same from you and anyone out there. Dear Ali, Could you elaborate in more details on the quoted above subject, please. I would like to precisely understand the underlying premise. Also, I recall you making some remarks about our side not addressing some of the issues raised by the Turkish side. In particular, those related to the letter of Nubar *****. I recall promising to get back on that issue - I wanted to check the date of the letter with that of the Sevres Treaty, and forgot it. Unfortunately, I don't remember where exactly your comments were made on this subject, and where was originally the letter referenced in the Hye Forum. Would appreciate your help.

²Ü вê²ð²Î²ÚÜàôÂÚ²Ü Ðºî в𲴺ðàôÂÚàôÜܺðÆ ì²ðâàôÂÚàôÜ 14.09.01Ã. гÕáñ¹³·ñáõÃÛáõÝ Ù³ÙáõÉÇ Ñ³Ù³ñ ÐÐ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ Áݹ¹áõÝ»ó è¸ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñ Æí³ÝáíÇÝ ê»åï»Ùµ»ñÇ 14-ÇÝ ÐÐ ³ñï·áñÍݳ˳ñ³ñ ì³ñ¹³Ý úëϳÝÛ³ÝÝ ÁݹáõÝ»ó èáõë³ëï³ÝÛ³Ý ¸³ßÝáõÃÛ³Ý ³ñï³ùÇÝ ·áñÍ»ñÇ Ý³Ë³ñ³ñ Æ·áñ Æí³ÝáíÇÝ: äñÝ. Æí³ÝáíÁ ºñ¨³ÝáõÙ ¿ ·ïÝíáõÙ è¸ Ý³Ë³·³Ñ äáõïÇÝÇ å³ßïáÝ³Ï³Ý ³ÛóÇ ßñç³Ý³ÏÝ»ñáõÙ: гݹÇåÙ³Ý Å³Ù³Ý³Ï »ñÏáõ ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÁ í»ñ³Ñ³ëï³ï»óÇÝ, áñ »ñÏáõ »ñÏñÝ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ѳñ³µ»ñáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÁ ·ïÝíáõÙ »Ý µ³ñÓñ ٳϳñ¹³ÏÇ íñ³, ÇÝãÁ µËáõÙ ¿ »ñÏáõ å»ïáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ß³Ñ»ñÇó: Üñ³Ýù ³é³ÝÓݳÏÇ Ýß»óÇÝ Ý³¨ »ñÏáõ ³ñï³ùÇÝ ù³Õ³ù³Ï³Ý ·»ñ³ï»ëãáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇ ÙÇç¨ ·áñÍáÕ Ñ³Ù³·áñͳÏóáõÃÛáõÝÁ: гݹÇåÙ³Ý ÁÝóóáõÙ »ñÏáõ ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÁ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ³Ý ²ØÜ-áõÙ ï»ÕÇ áõÝ»ó³Í í»ñçÇÝ ³Ñ³µ»Ïã³Ï³Ý ·áñÍáÕáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñÇݪ Ýϳï»Éáí, áñ ¹ñ³Ýù ½·³ÉÇ ³Ý¹ñ³¹³ñÓ Ï³ñáÕ »Ý áõÝ»Ý³É ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ½³ñ·³óáõÙÝ»ñÇ íñ³: Üßí»ó, áñ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ ³Ýíï³Ý·áõÃÛ³Ý ëå³éݳÉÇùÝ»ñÁ ¿³Ï³Ý ÷á÷áËáõÃÛáõÝÝ»ñ »Ý Ïñ»É ¨, ³Û¹ ³éáõÙáí, ³Ñ³µ»ÏãáõÃÛáõÝÁ Ý»ñϳÛáõÙë ٻͳ·áõÛÝ íï³Ý· ¿ Ý»ñϳ۳óÝáõÙ: ºñÏáõëï»ù Ýϳï»óÇÝ, áñ ÙÇç³½·³ÛÇÝ Ñ³ÝñáõÃÛáõÝÁ å»ïù ¿ ѳٳËÙµíÇ Ý»ñϳ ëå³éݳÉÇùÝ»ñÇÝ ¹ÇÙ³·ñ³í»Éáõ ѳٳñ: ÐÐ ¨ è¸ ² ݳ˳ñ³ñÝ»ñÁ ùÝݳñÏ»óÇÝ Ý³¨ ÈÔ Ñ³Ï³Ù³ñïáõÃÛ³Ý Ï³ñ·³íáñÙ³Ý ·áñÍÁÝóóÇ Ý»ñϳ ÷áõÉÇ ½³ñ·³óáõÙÝ»ñÁ: ìºðæ: