MJ

Dear Timucin, There are few things in every aspect of life, which are not questionable even before subjecting it to intellectual analysis. Such are the mutual feelings in my family, for example. But the correct formulation of “questionability” requires specification of “questionable for whom.” We (not ‘we’, btw) have no questions about the slaughter of our ancestors, the organized and systematic character of those slaughters, and we build our allegations of genocide on a very specific premise, contrary to your intellectual speculations. The premise of your arguments sounds like we know what the genocide is, it already exists as a well defined category in our consciousness or in our intellectual strata, and we have to carefully and intellectually analyze to understand whether what is alleged to be Genocide of Armenians according to the well known now UN Resolution does indeed qualify as so or not, and if the term Genocide itself is adequately defined there. I think this is where our (not ‘our') primary discourse may originate from. The Genocide as political category is defined in this document for the first time. So this is exactly the definition of the Genocide, and this is what we are referring to, and this is the starting point of our (not ‘our’ legal premise. It is a document signed by, perhaps, the absolute majority of the states, including Turkey. Therefore, it is the starting point of our legalistic discussions. We are not trying to analyze here neither the epistemology of our understanding of the term Genocide, nor the psychology or the psyche of the perpetrator or the victim. We are not even trying to deny that there may have or may have not been a context to it. First, we are trying to constitute the fact of the Armenian Genocide, press charges and ask Turkey, “How do you plead?” Then, there may be a long deliberation of both sides depending on how Turkey pleads. In any case, as in any judicial process, first, the alleging party is filing a complain, then the allegedly guilty party pleads guilty or not. Only when it comes to the stage of conviction, the jury considers all the circumstances of the crime, including those of mitigating character. However, it is well known judicial/parliamentary tactics to filibuster the process through endless maneuverings and argumentations, which dilute the essence of the issue. For example, I suspect those of us who think and declare even over the Internet that time is working for Turkey, and against Armenians, therefore there is no reason at this time for Turkey to make concessions to Armenians, might be tempted to exercise such tactics through endless and, by the way, academically not well laid out speculations, when at the end of the long material it is not even clear what was being said. And because it is not clear, then we would need to go to another round of such speculations, then another, and another – all this in the name of the academic integrity of the process, and the desire not to arrive to incorrect and unfair convictions. But I suspect time is not working neither for Turkey nor for Armenians, therefore, I rush to get to the point. I suspect that long after Turkey’s acceptance of the Armenian Genocide, and the closing of its political dimension, the academicians, the psychologists and psychiatrists will continue speculating and publishing materials on the subject. I have no other expectations, knowing academia very well and having spent more time, and to a further extend (with all due respect) than you have done so far. Therefore, first, I don’t find myself in the position to be silent “when two academicians talk” and, second, I always try to see clarity in whatever is being discussed, even if it is being done for the sake of purely academic studies. Just for further clarity, I have left/hated academia and refused to pursue further my academic career because I found it to be a sick establishment, publishing papers for the sake of the mere number of them - and as a rule papers of zero content - but long ones. Spending days or more studying their work, eventually you come to an understanding that, with the exception of few in each discipline, they publish garbage, and their intent is not to make the complicated thing clearer and better understood for the rest of the world, but quite the opposite - to make even the simple things look more complicated, and build their careers publishing scores of papers - less clear better it is, and “earning” reputation of distinguished scholars. I also found, that with the exception of few, any self-respecting academician leaves academia sooner or later, finding that he/she can, first, do some more useful work in the private sector, he can make a better living and have more dignified lifestyle, and will have a more fulfilling life in general. If you would need further tips on academic endeavors and machinations, feel free to send me a private message, and I would gladly volunteer. This paragraph of mine may sound off the topic from the onset, but I think with some effort we can find some relevance to our discussion. I am not in favor of banning the anti-genocide or anti-holocaust statements, any more or any less than banning racial, anti-Turkish, homophobic, anti-humanistic, etc, statements. But with the same token, I am not in favor of filibustering in the name of academic and other freedoms. If the Armenian Genocide was about just recognition or compensation, believe me, I wouldn’t care to interject myself into the middle of it. On such level I wouldn’t care if Turkey would recognize it or not – it is the problem of the Turkish people and the problem of the evolution of the Turkish society. On a personal level I don’t care about compensation, even though enormous wealth has been expropriated/stolen from my paternal family. I have not a single document to prove it, nor would be able to point to the location of our family property. The only reason I am interjecting myself into the middle of this controversy is the continuing character of it. Think about it. Since Turkey has not recognized/realized and adequately assessed its past crimes, it remains too susceptible to commit new ones (btw, first of all against its own people), and its current policies leave not too much ambiguity in ones mind that given proper circumstances, it may commit them again. Indeed the Armenian Genocide is not an Armenian property. In fact, it is more of a Turkish property. Our entire argument is about Turkey claiming its ownership. One may discuss it as long as one wants, and teach in schools about it and elsewhere – from the very early stages of the development of the personality. For this reason perhaps, some Armenians in America are pretty active in the direction of adding the Genocide teaching, in particular as it pertains to Armenians, in school curriculums. If the fact of my resentment towards the continuing genocidal policies of modern Turkey sound to you nationalistic rather than humanistic, and our attempts to have our urgent issues addressed rather than to dilute our resources (especially given the motivations of some of our opponents) in addressing the global issue on the level of the future of the humanity sounds to you nationalistic, I just would respectfully ask you to spend more time and effort on reassessing things. About Dadrian and Suny… I don’t subscribe Armenian Forum, though am familiar with their Web site and the materials there. My only point of current contact with the Armenian world is the Hye Forum. However, due to the family friendship existed between my and Ron’s families, I know him very well – better than Dadrian. I have not read the publication you refer me to, but from personal discussions I am familiar with the points of both scholars. Thereofre, there is no need to mail the publication to me. It would suffice if you just could clearly state your own argument. [ September 07, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by Aghtchik: 3,14... how can you come up with pi when tinking of creating Armenians Armenian pie?

This is a perfect demonstration of your paranoia. I haven't said anything of the kind - you just made it up. What I have said was or meant to be that the sites you referenced to me did not contemplate even a shred of such argument or evidence. Bit let’s for a moment assume that you are right, and there is enough scientific evidence to support your allegations. What is your moral? What is our conclusion, and what should we do?

Last time I asked you to give some supporting evidence, you referred me to four Web sites. I visited them, and found not a shred of evidence supporting your "theory." Then you told me that you have heard about them in a private report of an Armenian specialist. Throughout months I observed the subject being elevated by you to a level of paranoia. Finally, I find nothing more racist than your perpetual obsession the "base and the number of peas in the soup."

Statement by Ambassador Edward Djerejian, Director of the James A. Baker Institute for Public Policy, Rice University September 5, 2001 "The creation of a private group, the Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission, which seeks to foster cooperation and communication leading to recommendations for the consideration of the Armenian and Turkish governments that address historical and contemporary issues of fundamental importance to both peoples, is a welcome and positive development. There are important trends in the region. Russia under its new President, Vladimir Putin, is seeking to strengthen Russia's ties with the West, and especially the United States. Turkey is seeking to be part of the European Community, while strengthening its ties in the Middle East and Central Asia. Georgia and Azerbaijan are actively pursuing stronger relations with the West. Even Iran under President Khatami has made initial moves toward opening a window to the West and the United States. Armenia's hope for security and prosperity will be shaped in no small part by these major trends toward regional and global integration. Armenia cannot risk being "the odd man out" in the region. Indeed, Armenia should rediscover its historic role as a bridge between the North and South, and the East and West. An enhanced Armenian-Turkish dialogue can play an important role in this overall direction. Edward P. Djerejian" Edward P. Djerejian is the founding Director of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University, as of 1994. He is one of our country's most distinguished and experienced diplomats. His career has spanned the administrations of eight U.S. Presidents. Prior to his nomination by President Clinton as United States Ambassador to Israel (1993), Ambassador Djerejian served both President Bush and President Clinton as Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1991-1993) and President Reagan and President Bush as U.S. Ambassador to the Syrian Arab Republic (1988-1991). http://www.aaainc.org/TARC/djerejian.htm

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: I just want to point out that restitution of the property is a private legal matter, (I'm not talking about legitimate claims based on International law) and as such has nothing to do with recognition of the Genocide by Republic of Turkey. Sounds totally logical, assuming that it is not another humor.

I am only aware of a publication on North-Western Syria's South-Eastern corner's Northern Town's Souther Quarter's Commercial district's slang. Le me know if it is of interest...

Edward, There have always been a lot of half-breeds around me - my wife being my best example, with obvious implications for my children. If somebody would tell my wife or my children that they are not "pure Armenians," their response would be, "who the hell are you to tell me who I am." I can also tell you that I am a full-breed, but some who have not been familiar with my vocabulary, have told me even in this forum that I am not, at least real, Armenian. But we, in this forum, are past that level. I cannot speak for you and your experiences. I can only speak for mine, and those around me. If you define yourself being Armenian, regardless of the content of your blood, I don’t see what force in the nature may deny you that privilege or stand on your way. There are a lot of full Armenians who I would not consider being not only Armenians but a mere human being. If somebody disqualifies you being a full-righted Armenian after your own self-determination, he/she doesn’t deserve any respect, and believe me, that person disqualified himself/herself as an Armenian. But if one tells me that some idiot’s such attitude is a ground for a "half-Armenian" or "quarter-Armenian" (these are wrong expressions in my view) or whatever, to be alienated from the community or the national consciousness, I would tell you that the half-breed subject to discussion is looking for excuses. In any case, I wouldn’t like to attract somebody to the community on the basis of his/her blood content. I would look for other qualities. However, I have noticed that regardless of what some idiots may say to one-Armenian-parented person (which still may mean a full Armenian), there is a resentful Half-Breed Syndrom on its own right, i.e. HBS.

I do.

Your last hyperlink is broken. I will reply to you when I read the previously referenced materials.

Gamavor, I can live with Turks not any worse than I can live with Armenians. On your other remark, I have to say that as a Moderator, at least, I don't appreciate it, and I think you are getting very close to earning series of formal warnings.

My service is down, today, and I am using phone line to access. I'll look at these materials when the fast service is back. Meanwhile, please give me your conclusions/summary regardless of the materials you have referenced (btw, non of them is what you had referenced me to in the past. In the past you had given me some Oxford University links).

So back to counting the number of split peas in the soup...

By what I had said about fixing your problems youself and not whining about them, I did not mean an “eye to eye” culture, which is not part of our “high” culture. What I wanted to say rather was that if you are wronged, the most reliable person to right this wrong is you, because you are going to take your own problem more seriously than anyone else. Other people are simply not going to be half as interested in it unless and until it suits them. This is not a desirable state of affairs, nor is it (in my opinion) one that would lead humanity to further heights, but it is the bleak reality. Look at the way the international community handles the issue: everyone who knows about the issue knows that the armenians have been murdered. But if millions of dollars of deals, stability in the middle east and the oil flow are at stake, your interests dictate that the genocide issue must be put aside as long as you need the ally in question. This may make us puke as human beings, but that’s the way states function. So in sum, what I have said was not “if he kills you, kill him back”, but rather “if you are seeking justice, first rely on yourself and not others, as others by nature are not going to care as much as you do.” No question about it. Unfortunately, our existence as legal entity with the corresponding privileges has only 10 years of history. But seems that we are making progress, lately. Regarding accusations of the Armenian Genocide of the Turks. While I do agree that the Armenians could not logically be engaged in such a thing, because first of all they did not have a state (it is states that mastermind genocides, not common people), let us face it: in the last decades of the 19th Century, you would not be hard put to find a sizeable group of Armenian intellectuals who would rather see the Turks dead as a nation, and worst of all, take part in reaching that end. This of course does not extend to the population at large, and therefore the Turkish position of “they killed us, we killed them back” is baseless. But there were such people. Also, if we take the view that even killing a single person on the grounds of his ethnicity constitutes an attempt at Genocide, then there are quite a few Armenians who do not come out that clean, aren’t there? The same yardstick must be used to measure evil. My criminal is not better than your criminal, and yours not better than mine. Yes, you are right. There might’ve been such Armenian individuals, and there still may be. But the thought of committing crime doesn’t constitute crime itself. However, most of us are very resentful of the terror, avenge, etc. There is no place in my book of Armenian people for such. I completely agree. But as I said, if you meet individual, informed, open minded Turks in an environment where they do not feel the fear of the state or the sense of being “cornered by the enemy”, they come out with it quite easily. The worst mistake that can be done is assuming that Turks would accept and repent only under pressure. Under pressure Turks simply turn into oysters that shut tight and keep that way for a long time. Look at me, for instance: my grandfather had told me what a mistake it was to have done the things we had done to the Armenians (without mentioning the word “genocide” and to have said that the issue was resolved for the next fifty years (implying, but not naming, Talat). He said “it is coming out now”. This was in 1980, if I remember correctly, a year before he passed away. This was my first exposure to a different interpretation of the events at the tender age of 14. The second was when my grandmother had related the story of my dad’s wet nurse (who was an Armenian lady) “whose two sons were gone in the killing”. She used the word “kıyım”, the folk word for mass killings, and not “soykırım” the official word for genocide, which is a literal translation, and has political overtones. So there was a “kıyım” in which people had died, contrary to the official version (at that time – military government – the state was denying the whole thing, even the killings themselves). Later on, in the west, I was exposed to other material of course, and made up my own mind on the subject. For me, to accept the thing was a matter of personal integrity and humanity before all else. At no time have I been subjected to any pressure by an Armenian or anyone else to be made to accept it. Indeed, I recall a few instances where the subject was brought up in a political debate in an international environment, where I immediately felt in the trenches, and, although not denying the killings, resorted to justifying them by saying that it was a tit for tat. You see, people will do anything when they feel cornered, and the first thing you have to do in resolving such conflicts is to ease both parties, especially the one who is going to “foot the bill” so to speak. Otherwise you risk losing them. I am in full agreement with you, again. "And I wouldn’t worry about the chance of the Armenian-Turkish relations being beautiful. First, they have never been beautiful, even way before the Genocide, and the Armenian-Russian relations are not beautiful either – neither historically nor in our days, as much as one may be tempted to think.-MJ” I mildly disagree. There was a lot of common culture between the common people of Anatolia. The Ottoman State, of course, is another matter, but their relations with Turks were hardly any better. – Ali I think there cannot be “beautiful relationship” between the oppressed and the oppressor, regardless of the cultural similarities – even inside one nation. Obviously, I am not talking here about the relationship of an individual Turk and an individual Armenian as two human beings. I think what he means is this: the survivors were the ones directly affected by the disaster, and they were suffering from the very real loss of their loved ones: people, places, and a lifestyle which they knew and loved, whereas the latter generations, not having a direct experience of the disaster, were being traumatised by the constant keeping alive of the memories that their parents and grandparents, and not they themselves, had. And the issue turned into a blood feud. If this is what Timuçin is implying, then it leads to a “get over it” stance, which I cannot accept morally. If we want the Armenians to stop persisting in bringing out the issue today, then we have to stop persisting in our denial. But I do agree – if this is what he means – that it has become a blood feud, and nothing good comes out of blood feuds. I see it now. But the issue of the Genocide is not just an issue of memories for the current generation. It is also an issue of being uprooted, becoming a perpetual emigrant, suffering the economical consequences of being chopped off of one’s roots, being denied justice, etc, and seeing similar policies practiced by the Republic of Turkey in our days, though on a different level. The latest is a whole different topic, perhaps. As to the blood feuds – I am in full agreement with you again. I think even the Caecilians don’t practice it currently. I hadn’t meant that the best thing that has happened TO ARMENIA in the last decade is the independent Republic. I had meant the best thing that has happened TO THE REGION IN GENERAL AND TURKEY IN PARTICULAR in the last decade is the independent Armenian Republic. You may find this strange, but this issue is now a state issue, and can only be finally put to rest if the two parties put it to rest at state level – for this there must be a n Armenian State. You see, until the independence of the Armenian Republic, the issue was between the Turkish state and various western states, the Diaspora, and terrorist groups. Now the various western states kept bringing it up to further their interests, the Diaspora – at least partly – used it to keep Armenian identity alive in a sea of odars (how is my latest Armenian word? The others are vart, turchun, kam, hach, tun avor es, tun hay es, es tacik em, ksi ksirembur), and the terrorist groups, well you don’t expect a state to bow to a bunch of terrorists, do you? The problem is that the Turkish Republic is a state, and has a constant responsibility toward Turkish citizens. It can only enter into a meaningful dialogue with the Armenian state, which also has the same responsibility toward Armenian citizens. And they are the only two bodies that can solve this issue definitively and prevent it from being a toy in the hands of third countries. That is why the best thing that happened as far as at least this issue is concerned is the emergence of the Armenian Republic. Probably you are right. I can see that your Armenian is improving. Is it indicative of real encounters? Especially the last one. But the pity is that with the emergence of the Republic of Armenia, Turkey has stepped in the opposite direction of your expectations in the arena of resolving the issues – it has refused to establish diplomatic relations, has subjected Armenia to transportation and other blockade, and so on. Now here the “third country” is Azerbaijan, and let me be clear on this, both Turks and Azeris see themselves (at least officially) as one nation, two states. The Turkish government has got himself engaged in the Nagorno-Karabagh issue probably even more than Azerbaijan is engaged now, and they cannot get out of it (especially with the Grey Wolves in the coalition government). Moreover, Turkey has lost a good decade after Ozal in continuous bickering in political life because of low-caliber politicians, another legacy of the 1980 coup. We don’t have statesmen today, we have politicians. As far as “dropping the allegations of Genocide” are concerned, as I had said earlier, the government has first to prepare the public opinion, only then can it move toward accepting “the open secret that everyone knows about”. Again, please refer on my previous postings regarding the development of the Kurdish issue. I understand it. But other than the political expediency, there is not much validity in such unity. Azeris are not Turks, at least in the pure sense of the word. It is my understanding that the only internal rational of Turkish activism in the Karabagh issue is in “keeping Armenians busy on the Azeri dimension,” since if that issue is resolved/over, they “will enter the Armeno-Turkish dimension.” I couldn’t quite understand the alleged statement of Dadrian linking Sultan Hamid to CPU. As much as I know, he has not written anything of the kind. The argument that he has contemplated was that the massacres of Armenian committed by Sultan Hamid were the preludes of the Armenian Genocide, and the idea of the elimination of the Armenian minority of Ottoman Turkey was already in the agenda of Ottoman Turkey. The only missing thing was the opportunity, which was provided by the WWI." To me it seems a bit too much like a conspiracy plot. I may be wrong, of course. I doubt that Sultan Abdulhamid really planned to liquidate all the Armenians, since he was not a nationalist (he made life hell for them). This is a serious topic, I think and requires separate discussion. Let’s revisit it later. No, my source for this was a Turkish historian appearing on TV who had said that an Armenian historian had written something to the effect that “the Ottoman State had used its sovereign right to figt an enemy within and to protect its territorial integrity”. I hadn’t noted the Armenian historian’s name, but as far as I recall he was a Soviet Armenian historian. I am not building anything on this, unless and until I read the said historian. Don’t know anything about it. I thought Andropov was originally Andropian. It seems like the Armenian paranoia of making up Armenians from all celebrities and famous historic personages has infected Turks, too.

You can open such topic in the "Love and Romance" thread, perhaps. Is is also possible to create 1/67 or 3.14 Armenians?

Nope. Just vague delarations on retributions, without specifying the character of retributions or defining mechanisms for its enforcement. Definitely nothing about the lands. At least in our case, the association of the lands claim with the genocide is absurd. [ September 06, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

quote:Originally posted by gamavor: Speak about yourselve Khodja. Don't mess with Armenians. I'm personaly very tolerant towards half/armenians, 1/4 armenians, 1/68, Armenians, and sadly somethimes 0% Armenians are more Armenians than, Khodjas, Mamkuns, Sergeevich and else "sheltered" Armenians. I wonder how does one become 1/68 Armenian?

quote:Originally posted by Harut: erevum a karkin tennisist azg enk, khabar chka vrekners. Aghasi, Ivanisevich, MJ, and more Why don't you start it, too? While in the college, you may have a good opportunity to learn it.

Ali, Another site emphasizing the underlying concepts of Armenian Architecture is the following: /cgi-bin/forum/ultim...c&f=17&t=000007 .

Ali, Just becoming majority in one or another region of Turkey, adjacent or not to Armenia is not a basis for unification with Armenia. Much like being majority in Javakhetia (Republic of Georgia) is not a basis for Javakhetia to unite with Armenia. The International Law doesn’t provide for such unification on the basis of being majority. The principle of territorial integrity is one of the fundamental principles of the modern world. Additionally, I can assure you that no matter what one may hear, expecting that any serious numbers of Armenians (let’s say more than 1000 people – even this would overwhelmingly surprise to me, and those would be sort of Bedouin Armenians) may be interested in resettling the historic Armenian regions is a very naïve one. So, let me assure the Republic of Turkey that there is no such danger to it. Obviously, the Turkish state has a legitimate concern about its territorial integrity, as any other state may. But I disagree with you about the Armenian statement of unconditionally accepting and respecting the Turkish territorial integrity. Normally, such statements are not made in political practice – the opposite ones are made. At least as of now, Armenia has not advanced any territorial claims to Turkey. It would be very strange statement from Armenia to say that it has no territorial claims, even if it is the case, per se. Such statement itself would be indicative of having claims in reality. I, personally, think that Armenia has very legitimate territorial claims to Turkey as a matter of legal and historical validity. These claims have nothing to do with the Genocide nor with the Sevres Treaty. In my view, advancing such claims on the basis of these two categories/realities is a testimony of the incompetence of certain Armenian pseudo-political circles. However, while recognizing and feeling very strongly about the legitimacy of the Armenian territorial claims to Turkey, realistically and pragmatically speaking, I have not a slightest expectation that there ever will be a basis for the materialization of such claims. But I would like to see the Turkish side to recognize the legitimacy of our valid claims, and then may be we can come to terms in some non-traditional ways, which may benefit both sides.

Dear Ali, I would like to the best of my understanding (which is perhaps not the best) to address some of the issues/questions and a couple of technicalities. It is agreed that the term “genocide” has been contemplated by Lamkin precisely in describe the Armenian massacres of 1915-1923. Lamkin has come up with the term before the occurrence of the Jewish Holocaust, if I remember correctly. Obviously, the readiness of the international community to accept such a term, and moreover, to come up with an international Resolution under the auspices of UN is itself indicative that there were not one or two Genocides in the history of world, but the their number was so compelling that they felt necessity to separate a special legal category in the international law. Genocide have taken place all over the history of the mankind. But it is not our fault that others have not survived at all to pursue condemnation of it, or the world civilization at the time has not been on the level of adequate preparedness to condemn those genocides of the time, or if other groups have not been able to put forward adequate social and political organizations to pursue its condemnation. We don’t maintain that the Armenian Genocide is the only genocide in the world history, or necessarily the most brutal. It is just something that concerns us directly. We just hope that the human civilization is mature enough now to address the issue of the Armenian Genocide, and hopefully to put end to all genocides. As so, our genocide is not an issue of mere historic justice (there are so many injustices in history, even only in the Armenian history, that it would be naïve to expect to see them addressed). The Armenian Genocide is a matter of continuing reality in some ways. But I disagree that Muslims have no chance of receiving adequate attention if they are able to raise adequate awareness. As a matter of fact, the Greek atrocities towards the Muslims/Turks are recognized. I thik you have adequately explained in your passages why the world doesn’t concentrate on the sufferings of Turks – your culture is based on “eye for eye” principle, i.e. if somebody has committed an ill towards “you,” “you” don’t wine about it, and resolve the issue “yourself.” It is not indeed the case with us in principle. We are a different culture. As much as in other contexts I claim that Armenians are far from being Christians, nevertheless the “eye for eye” is not widely accepted in our culture. Not necessarily because we are powerless (because we reject that principle, by in large, even in our personal lives), but because we follow to another motto, which has unfortunately not evolved yet to the level of “love your enemy,” but we are somewhere in the middle. I also think that our pursuit of the condemnation of the Genocide is not about the responsibility of individuals who may or may not be alive even, at this time. Most of the more responsible individuals have already been brought to justice one or another way – either the Turkish courts have executed them for their crimes of massacres, or the Armenian avengers of the time have executed them (taalat, for example). So, for us the issue of individual responsibility is a non-issue. The issue is the state . The more balanced and common sense Armenians don’t consider the Turkish nation as the guilty party of the Genocide though, certainly, you would find some in and out of this forum which may claim it. Most of the Genocide survivors accounts (including my own grandparents) attest to the fact that many Turks have saved or have tried to save Armenian lives. Most of the direct survivors of the Genocide, I suspect, have not hated the Turkish nation – including my grandparents, who have suffered in unimaginable ways in the result of the Genocide. The declarations of many of our day Armenians along the lines of holding the entire Turkish nation responsible for the Genocide are resulted from few things – the denial of the Turkish, nation by in large, that the Armenian Genocide has been committed by the Ottoman Turkey, and moreover, the accusations that to the contrary, Armenians have committed genocide against the Turks. The psychological trauma that the new Armenian generation is experiencing in the result of this stance of the Turkish nation, at least the appearance of it is the primary reason for such outbursts, which I cannot justify no matter what. I also would go as far as to claim that hating someone for being Turk is a borderline Genocidal behavior – the only missing thing is the opportunity to massacre them in such case. So I would urge the haters of the Turks or any other nationalities as an a priori feeling to evaluate their own emotions, first. And I wouldn’t worry about the chance of the Armenian-Turkish relations being beautiful. First, they have never been beautiful, even way before the Genocide, and the Armenian-Russian relations are not beautiful either – neither historically nor in our days, as much as one may be tempted to think. I, personally, find difficult to address Timucin’s following argument: The trauma that we are supposedly be dealing with may not even be the continuation of the original trauma in some cases, but the creation of a secondary one through interactions with the existing justificatory discourses with the original trauma. I don’t quite follow him. It may be interpreted in multiple ways. Therefore, I would hold until further clarifications. I also agree that in many ways, Europeans are the most racist unity in the history of the world – not necessarily historically, but they remain so even today. I would also like to add that the atrocities of the Communists in USSR were not directed at any specific ethnic or national groups. Any ethnic/national group of the former USSR would claim that the most terrible atrocities were committed against them, because “Stalin hated them.” I think we have some in this forum who behave like five years-olds, but fortunately, the Armenian nation has been wise enough collectively to bring together mature group of people to deal with the issue beyond the rhetoric. And you are right that the best thing that has happened to Armenia in the last decade is the independent Republic. Until than, even our own tragedy didn’t belong to us – it belonged to the Kremlin and to the various Secret Services of the world, who used the Armenian tragedy as a tool for exerting pressure on Turkey. However, the fact remains that the Republic of Armenia has proposed through multiple channels and venues to start a constructive dialog with the Republic of Turkey, without being a hostage to the history, and it has always been denied by the Turkish side, making the subject contingent to Armenia’s relations with third countries, and dropping the “allegations of the Genocide.” I couldn’t quite understand the alleged statement of Dadrian linking Sultan Hamid to CPU. As much as I know, he has not written anything of the kind. The argument that he has contemplated was that the massacres of Armenian committed by Sultan Hamid were the preludes of the Armenian Genocide, and the idea of the elimination of the Armenian minority of Ottoman Turkey was already in the agenda of Ottoman Turkey. The only missing thing was the opportunity, which was provided by the WWI. I am also not aware of any Armenians who deny the Armenian Genocide. Where does such information come from? The Istanbul Armenians? I also would like to add that the emergence of Dkmadjian or Mikoyan in American or Soviet political elit has had nothing to do with Armenian Diaspora or Armenia. Dokmadjian was an American of Armenian origin, and if in his conduct there was an element of Armenian Agenda, he would’ve had zero chance to reach the heights he has reached. As to Mikoyan, the history of Armenia has only few such traitors, who have sacrificed the interests of the Armenian nation to the ideology of the World Revolution. As to Andropov, I couldn’t follow what does he have to do with Armenians.

Ali, No problem. You can edit/delete them even now, at your choice. I would like to rise in support of the premise of Khodja, assuming that I understand him correctly, that the recognition of the Genocide and territorial secessions to Armenia are two very different (even unrelated to large degree) issues. The issue at hands is not that Turkey has committed Genocide against Armenians on Armenian lands, and has annexed its territories, but it has done so on a de-facto and de-jure Turkish territory, against its own citizens/subjects. There are two aspects of the issue, which in my view make the problems so much tangled from both sides. From the Turkish side, the resistance of the recognition of the Genocide and the linkage of it to the issue of land retributions is more of along the lines of preserving the status quo of Turkish internal totalitarianism, and the delay of the establishment of climate for respect towards Human Rights and free society. In my view, the Armenian Genocide is the Achilles Heal of the Turkish totalitarianism, and the primary obstacle on its way towards a civil society. Once the Genocide is recognized and condemned, it would be hard to close the Pandora’s Box, which would open the way of other reforms in Turkey. From the Armenian side, the emotional atmosphere systematically created around the thesis of “Our lands” has been the primary mechanism of preservation of Armenian identity in Diaspora, so that to inject a degree of self-importance preventing the rapid assimilation into other nationalities. To a certain degree this tactics has succeeded in the past. However, the very reality of the independent Armenia has changed the cultural and emotional landscape. Gradually, the Republic of Armenia is becoming the center of Armenian self-consciousness. One is far from celebrating the victory of this new centralization, since there is still a resistance by inertia, primarily directed at the preservation of the now bogus pseudo-political structures of Diaspora. But one or another way, those who resist too much to the new axis of Armenian self-consciousness risk becoming a small and peripheral clan in the complicated structure of Armenian reality. The basis of now traditional Armenian claims for territorial reparations is the Treaty of Severs, even though the Treaty of Severs has nothing to do, at least explicitly, with the Genocide. This Treaty, as it pertains to the Armenian paragraphs, has been overwritten in Losagn. There are still Armenians who think that one can revive the Sevres Treaty. That mentality reminds my the mentality of the Armenian Revolutionaries of the late 19th century – “Europe wants to disintegrate Turkey, in parts to diminish the American influence in the region, and we have to be far-sighted and patient, to finalize our centuries old dream of getting our lands back.” In my view, the representatives of this wing of political thought are the real disaster for the future of Armenia. Not in terms of a fear of Turkish retaliation, but in terms of the danger that hey may present if by some irony of history they become influential in Armenia. We need to have realistic, thoughtful and visionary leaders paving Armenia’s way to irreversible progress. One has to notice that the UN Resolution on the condemnation of the Genocide doesn’t provide one with mechanisms of reparations, nor provides with mechanisms of enforcement of pressure on the guilty party. By in large, the Resolution on the Genocide is a declarative document. In my view, the mechanism of resolution of the issues resides in Turkey’s own understanding of its own good. And there is much more for Turkey to gain from it rather than to lose. Armenia has no incentive not to see Turkey as part of the EU. To the contrary, Turkey’s membership there is in Armenia’s best interests. The recognition of the Genocide will only iron out few hurdles on its way to that union. To be continues if/when I am in mood. [ September 05, 2001: Message edited by: MJ ]

I don’t know to laugh at you or to feel sorry for you. I am inclined to do the second, however. Help me to make my mind, please. I don’t think you have quite understood Ara, first of all. Second, someone who calls himself “Nastrodamus” is in no positions to criticize others for thinking of themselves as “Napoleons.” I have something for the German Ambassador, too, but this is not the place for it. I have followed your postings, among others, in the other forum. I have always been puzzled at how presumptuous you were, how one sided you were in your thinking and how much you were in love with your image of a victim. Please don’t do it here, and try to be a little bit more meticulous studying your surroundings and the things that you don’t know, but about which you want to express opinions. Just for the kick of it, let me also tell you that never in my life I have been a member of a Church hierarchy, and have not even entered a building of a Church for perhaps some 15 years. But for the sake of the fairness, I have also to admit that I have agreed with some of your positions and thoughts. You are just a very controversial person. But you are not too bad. Now, here it is almost 1:30 AM, and I got to go to bed. Good night!

In the October 2001 issue of the Tennis magazin, I read that the name of the coach of Goran Ivanisevich is Gerard Tsobanian. Goran is a very strong player, coming from Croatia, and one of the most charismatic men in professional tennis.

No, I don't. Becasue there is mountains of difference between what you are trying to do and what he is trying to do.