aurguplu Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by nairi:Thoth jan, though in many ways I agree with you, I don't see why Armenians should cooperate with the Alis in the world when we have the members of the "Union Against Genocide" to cooperate with. Don't you think cooperating with the latter is more effective than continuing the same old monologues with (pseudo/brainwashed)-deniers? Ali has hardly responded to any of our substantial posts. He only selectively picks out posts to which he can respond "drop the land claims first" with. I don't care whether he has a diploma, is an A-level student, or a trained denier. The fact is, I haven't seen the slighest bit of progress in him in the last month alone. If you have, please point it out, because I'm having trouble seeing it.ali may have different criteria in judging which posts are substantial and which not. and since he is the only turk here he has to respond to a large number of posts, in his spare time, and this involves selection. posts by some people (mj, thoth, and a few others) i consider much more substantial - even though i may disagree strongly with some of their contents - and more persuasively argued, and in a far more civilised style than others (guess who), so i concentrate on them. if you will read carefully you will realise that i have responded to every post by them and to every point raised in them. we still do not agree on a number of issues, and there are some on which i cannot see we will ever agree, but there are enough vital points on which we agree that makes - in my opinion - it worthwhile to continue with the discussion. by the way, what would "progress" on my part mean to you? agree to hand you on a plate half of eastern anatolia and persuade my people to get the hell out of there? and who are you to make statements about my "progress"? are you holier than me? do you see me talking about anyone having to align his position with mine in order to "progress"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:how are we going to address the questions of why on earth turks killed the armenians after having lived side by side with them relatively peacefully until the 1890s, and why the are still denying it? and what is more pertinent, if we cannot explain, then how on earth are we going to tackle the problem of getting the turkish government recognise ag, since neither us (the turks who want to see it recognised) nor the armenians have the power to force it into such a recognition?Isn't this the official line of denial nowadays? We must explain why we had to kill the Armenians, i.e. we must justify the genocide? Again, Ali, since you are neither in prison nor living in exile, I, for one, cannot take anything you say seriously. Sorry. Nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:agree to hand you on a plate half of eastern anatolia and persuade my people to get the hell out of there?Why do you keep assuming that Armenians want Turks out of Anatolia? Armenians are a civilized people Ali. The Armenians who say they want lands back are saying: "Those lands should be ruled by Armenians. Thus, if a Turk lives in that territory he should abide by Armenian law as an Armenian living in Turkey would abide by Turkish law." I hope this fact was interesting enough for you to read and use as the basis of your arguments next time. Nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by sen_vahan:Hi, Ali, 1. the land claims are not there because of ag denial. various armenian groups were demanding land from the turks since well before 1915 or even the hamidian massacres in 1891-95. They had the right to do so. Show that they didn't and cannot now. they had the right to do so, and the turks had the right to do something about it (and before you jump on it, no, they had no "right" to commit genocide, nor was it necessary) 2. we are in a vicious circle here. turkey is not going to officially recognise ag unless and until land claims are dropped, and land claims are going to persists unless and until turkey recognises ag. to break it, there has to be an agreement that the land claims will be dropped prior to ag recognition, upon condition that the dropping of these claims will be immediately followed by ag recognition (=you drop the land claims today, we recognise the ag tomorrow kind of thing). Present-day Turkey does not seem to be ready for such an agreement, Ali, because I said before what we see in the world is the denial of the fact. And I guess the propaganda of denial still goes on in your country and people are still being brainwashed. How do you want us to deal with a state with such an attitude among people? Sorry, but it does not seem to be a civilized manner to solve a problem. turkey was not ready to recognise the kurdish identity until 1991, it has now. it wasn't ready to allow public use of kurdish, it just has. it wasn't ready to abolish the death penalty, it just has. it isn't ready to reach such an agreement now, it will be. don't underestimate turkey. you miss a point here: from the turkish side, you cannot START by asking them to drop the denial, because they are concerned about the land claims. if you start by dropping the land claims, then turkey will have no reason to be concerned about, and getting the recognition will be much easier. the recognition is not the BEGINNING of the process, it is the intended CULMINATION (unless the armenian agenda is ultimately about getting the lands back, with ag recognition being an intermediate step, as turkey suspects). 3. the yataghan is out of date. The principle is the same. i had meant the principle. "these days it is the buttons. and before actual warfare, there are a host of economic/political measures such as trade sanctions, embargoes, freezing of assets, denial/postponement of eumembership etc." Exactly, and that's what you are probably doing? nope. i had meant the west. we don't have the buttons (which i am happy about, actually), and we are the ones on the receiving end of the sanctions, not the producing end. "and do not forget that while you tend to see just us when you look at us, we tend to see therussians, eu and, to some extent, the usa in addition to you when we look at you. after all, the turkish armenian border was (is it still ) patrolled by russian troops and not armenian ones. " Sounds like you consider us to be very important. yes we do consider you more important than you consider yourselves to be. at least on this point you cannot blame us with arrogance. By the way, there are russian as well as armenian soldiers,troops in the border. we have no american troops on our borders (iraq may be excepted now). Whereas you see russians , eu, and us (?), we see you dealing with this problem. precisely my point. you are not alone. we are. "plus, if the armenians get stronger, they will want to "solve" the problem the way all strong nations solve. you have a problem with the azeris and you are solving it by the sword, not negotiations, because you have a sword strong enough and they don't (and we are not helping them much, because we don't want to get into yet another quagmire)." 1.you mean economic sunctions or buttons? Neither one will work with turkey because neither is possible. You probably think a small country will bother you (a powerful one) with its sword when it gets stronger? Come on, this game does not make any sense, sorry. i had meant both. sanctions, yes (for instance, ag recognition is a prerequisite for us to get into the eu. while i agree with it fully, i also see it has little to do with economics. what if we recognise ag to get into eu, and then the eu comes up with a prerequisite that we give up eastern anatolia? they had said similar things until very recently re the kurds in the southeast. yes a small country can bother us with its sword when it gets stronger. israel is a tiny country with barely two million people in it, and kicks the xxxx out of 150 million arabs from the pacific shore to the atlantic. it is in the same region, which was until 80 years ago part of the same empire, and was craeted by the very same great powers that had carved up the ottoman empire and had supported you. "the example is right before our eyes. artshakh opted out of attempting to achieve peaceful coexistence with the azeris already when azerbaijan was not even ruled by the azeris. and the issue there has always been more about getting ancestral lands back than working out a solution for peaceful coexistence. what guarantee do we have that you will even contemplate peaceful coexistence with us the moment you have the power to get rid of us?" Yeah, in the near 1000 years Armenia may probably get that strong "to get rid of you". Isn't that rediculous, Ali? it hasn't taken 1,000 years to get strong enough to get rid of the azeris, twice your size, has it? "4. no exaggaration, merely a statement of observable facts. all you have to do is look at the postings in this forum." Postings are different but you mainly deal with people that are polite and intelligent enough, right? Ali, unfortunately, one cannot find any turkish forum as civilized as this one. In all the turkish forums I attended armenians/armenia are insulted in an awfull manner. i am no contributor to any turkish forum and hence not responsible for whatever goes on there. i am here. i do not represent anyone but myself. i talk to the people here. i am responsible for what i type here and respond to what is typed about me here. Anyway, we talk to you personally, to a person who is really appreciated in this forum (I think you know that) but sometimes you are insulted because people are very different here, and the topic is about extermination of the nation, so, don't be surprised, please. thanks. could i be forgiven for doubting that after the posts of nairi, gamavor, tb, and recently boghos? 5. if the phrases have been utterred, then why not bring them up? whatever i (and even those turks in other forums) utter is brought before me, and not infrequently in a distorted interpretation, then why shouldn't i? besides, i see it very relevant. after all "i hate the turks biologically. i wish they simply didn't exist" sounds very much like hitler on the jews, does it not? what if we have someone like gamavor as the president of roa one day, and what if that roa is strong, and say, in possession of nuclear power?" Please, don't go too far in this issue, we are discussing the AG recognition and probable land claims. I think if turkey has nuclear power the world will face more problems. heaven forbid. the first people who are going to face the problem are probably us, since we are very probably goingto store it in a bunker on an earthquake zone, and then when an earthquake hits, we'll all glow in the dark. Moreover, stop this game, please, the genocide of armenians were made in your country and how do you expect that there will be no armenian hating you? i play no games about issues that cost human lives. i do not expect armenians not to hate turks, but i haven't killed anyone, nor has any member of my family, and in this case the hate is misdirected. Sorry, but dealing with armenians in this problem you need to be very CAREFUL (I would do that if I were a turk,yes) because the emotions of people play an important role here. if i haven't been careful enough i apologise most sincerely. And if today you think that "somebody like gamavor" may become a president of roa then you either laugh on us or you are really far to be able to solve this problem. no, in fact. the last thing i do is laugh about it. and if he - or someone like him - one day indeed gets to be your president, you will not be able to laugh, either, will you? "can this not happen? do we not have the right to take preemptive measures to prevent this from happening? " You know your right better i guess. And we also may think that somebody like talaat or enver (lets not talk about hitler, please, we have other examples) becomes a president in your country god knows what will happen. yes you are perfectly entitled to think so - and regrettably not necessarily that inaccurate, after all the mhp is still a coalition member - and we are asking the same question slightly differently: what is happening with our country now? does god know? if he does, then why isn't he doing anything about it? Again, do not go too far, both sides have the same problem and both have something to lose. i agree. but staying where we are we are not going to solve the issues. "after all, hitler did exist, as the ruler of an ostensibly civilised nation like germany, and nukes have been used, twice, one week apart, by another ostensibly civilised nation, the usa, against two non-military targets in japan, and that civilised nation still refuses to apologise for them. and all this was not that long ago, was it?" I would not mix all these issues. Japan was an agressor (I don't say US did a right thing though) and was very powerful. The problem of jews in germany is also very different(I don't want to start this because the topic may be changed as it usually happens). armenians in the empire were peaceful people (as they usually are unfortunately) and were one of the most cultural and they did not owe all the banking system in your country having a huge pressure on the politics and economy. Turks were solving problems they might face later - the land problems, and armenians were important who might have land claims. i agree to a very large extent (to my regret). Today the situation is not very different as i understand because a very intelligent person in this forum says "what if land claims,..., what if gamavor as a president...., etc, etc". today the situation is slightly different. in 1915, they only had the 1890s as an inherited nightmare. today we have both. but then, the ottoman empire was on the verge of collapse, and behaved like a cornered animal. it attacked savagely. today turkey is not on the verge of collapse (i hope) and can behave in a civilised manner. the most savage animal is not dangerous when it is not hungry or threatened. we are not hungry (not land-hungry, i mean), we only feel threatened. if the threat is removed, we will not be dangerous to you or anyone. "do you know on what grounds the decision was taken to use nukes against japan and not germany? "the japanese do not belong to the same branch of humanity that we do (the germans did)." Sorry, I am not sure about that - it would not make sense to do against germany which lost the war with Soviets. the nukes were developed before german capitulation if i remember correctly. i had heard that quote at oxford from a dissident who was busy condemning the usa for the use of the bombs. it has the risk of being inaccurate, and i can abandon it if proved so. it is not cetral to my argument. "well, we don't belong to the same branch of humanity that you do. you are christians, and we muslims. and especially after 9/11 (whose effects will last very, very long), you can find enough people in christendom (especially in your part of the world) to justify such an act, and less than enough people to oppose it effectively. and you are so buddy-buddy with russia, full of (mostly stray) nukes, and not a nation known either for civilised behaviour nor any standards of morality." Does turkey take into account all this to whether or not recognise the AG?? yes it does. we do not see neither ag nor its recognition in a vacuum. there is a context to it. and we have to watch the context. it is no coincidence that a good part of the conflicts of the world emanate from the regions which are former ottoman territories (iraq, syria, bosnia). in most cases the conflicting parties are muslims versus someone else. i am not a conspiracy theorist, but the facts are there. "the bosnian genocide was allowed to go on for years in the middle of europe before any serious action was taken (by the usa, not europe) because i) the russians didn't allow any action against it, ii) europeans didn't want to risk life and limb, iii) europeans saw the serbs doing a dirty job for them (cleaning a part of europe of ottoman muslims), and iv) there was no oil. some 200,000 muslims were killed, there is an independent slovenia, serbia, croatia, macedonia now (and as far as i know montenegro is on its way to independence), but no independent bosnia: there is a bosnian croat federation." Right, and christians there have the opposite point of view. but there was no serbian genocide by the bosnians, was there (any more than there was a turkish genocide by the armenians)? if muslims can be wrong, then christians can be wrong, too. besides, it appears that not all that many christians have the opposite point of view, otherwise serbia would not have been bombed by the christian usa, and milosevic would not be in the hague, in christian europe, accused of a genocide. after all, izetbegovic is not there, nor is there anyone accusing him of genocide as far as i can see. " no independent muslim state in europe. chechnya is being raped by the russians and there is no action (i don't mean words) in sight." Why do you bring all these examples? because they are relevant, and they are the ones that denialists in turkey push forward. we may not like them, but we must address them. "wouldn't you be at least careful if you were a turk?" As I said I would. then you understand me. regards, Vahanregards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by nairi: quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:agree to hand you on a plate half of eastern anatolia and persuade my people to get the hell out of there?Why do you keep assuming that Armenians want Turks out of Anatolia? Nairi"Well I've got news for you: Turks knew Armenians were a civilized people from the beginning. They were also well-aware of the fact that the lands we lived on belonged to our ancestors. Turks decided to wipe out a civilized nation. Hence, they will have to deal with that civilized nation. And if that means losing a quarter or even half of their lands and belongings, they should accept that. What goes around, comes around." see why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:see why?Armenians are a civilized people Ali. The Armenians who say they want lands back are saying: "Those lands should be ruled by Armenians. Thus, if a Turk lives in that territory he should abide by Armenian law as an Armenian living in Turkey would abide by Turkish law." I hope this fact was interesting enough for you to read and use as the basis of your arguments next time. So you think you don't deserve some form of punishment at all, esp. after having built your empire with our belongings? Oh no, that's right, how can we punish a WHOLE nation, even though most of them are direct or indirect culprits? Nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by nairi: quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:agree to hand you on a plate half of eastern anatolia and persuade my people to get the hell out of there?Why do you keep assuming that Armenians want Turks out of Anatolia? Armenians are a civilized people Ali. The Armenians who say they want lands back are saying: "Those lands should be ruled by Armenians. Thus, if a Turk lives in that territory he should abide by Armenian law as an Armenian living in Turkey would abide by Turkish law." I hope this fact was interesting enough for you to read and use as the basis of your arguments next time. Nairithis is exactly what's happening with artsakh and the territories outside nagorno-karabagh that you invaded, isn't it? all the azeris are there living happily under armenian rule, aren't they? all this stuff about one million internally displaced azeris that even the un does not deny is just a propaganda and all these people dying off in the slums of baku and elsewhere are really con-artists paid by aliyev to play the part of the oppressed azeris, aren't they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:all the azeris are there living happily under armenian rule, aren't they? all this stuff about one million internally displaced azeris that even the un does not deny is just a propaganda and all these people dying off in the slums of baku and elsewhere are really con-artists paid by aliyev to play the part of the oppressed azeris, aren't they?Let me take your pain away again, Ali jan. Those Azeris do not want to live under Armenian rule. They want Armenians to live under Azeri rule, even though the territory is and has always been predominantly Armenian. As for Aliyev suppressing his own people, that is a well-documented fact. Armenians, through blockade, progrom, war, earthquake and all managed to house tens of thousands of Armenian refugees from Azerbaijan in less than five years. Are you saying it's our fault that Azerbaijan is not doing the same with its own people? What's next, Turkey's economic collapse being blamed on Armenians as well? Oh yeah, of course, I almost forgot that it's also our fault that the Turkish-Armenian dialogue is and has been stagnant for the past 130 years. Any more, sir? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sen_Vahan Posted September 12, 2002 Report Share Posted September 12, 2002 "they had the right to do so, and the turks had the right to do something about it (and before you jump on it, no, they had no "right" to commit genocide, nor was it necessary)" But they did and we know what. Why if it was not necessary? Religion? hatred? Present-day Turkey does not seem to be ready for such an agreement, Ali, because I said before "turkey was not ready to recognise the kurdish identity until 1991, it has now. it wasn't ready to allow public use of kurdish, it just has. it wasn't ready to abolish the death penalty, it just has. it isn't ready to reach such an agreement now, it will be. don't underestimate turkey." So, did Turkey demand not to have any land claims or whatever from kurds to solve the mentioned problems? By the way, I never underestimate a nation that built an empire. It's a special talent to rule and build a big country. "you miss a point here: from the turkish side, you cannot START by asking them to drop the denial, because they are concerned about the land claims. if you start by dropping the land claims, then turkey will have no reason to be concerned about, and getting the recognition will be much easier." There are land claims in some minds but not in the official position. "the recognition is not the BEGINNING of the process, it is the intended CULMINATION (unless the armenian agenda is ultimately about getting the lands back, with ag recognition being an intermediate step, as turkey suspects)." These are all your gueses though. we have no american troops on our borders (iraq may be excepted now)." Right, because you do not need them there. "precisely my point. you are not alone. we are." So sad. I would say we are and were btw you (big guys) none of which really cares about us. And why should they? "yes a small country can bother us with its sword when it gets stronger. israel is a tiny country with barely two million people in it, and kicks the xxxx out of 150 million arabs from the pacific shore to the atlantic. it is in the same region, which was until 80 years ago part of the same empire, and was craeted by the very same great powers that had carved up the ottoman empire and had supported you." First, we are not jews, and we do not rule the Wall Street Banks (and not only), we do not have such a huge support and powerful organizations all over the world. Again your gueses? Second, I have no idea how those great powers supported us. If they had done it the massacre would not have happened. "it hasn't taken 1,000 years to get strong enough to get rid of the azeris, twice your size, has it?" Why do you compare your country with a Soviet republic that in fact did not have an army and was formed territorially not by themselves (as in turkish case) but by others. "heaven forbid. the first people who are going to face the problem are probably us, since we are very probably goingto store it in a bunker on an earthquake zone, and then when an earthquake hits, we'll all glow in the dark." We are also in the eartquake zone, why do you think we will want that crap? "no, in fact. the last thing i do is laugh about it. and if he - or someone like him - one day indeed gets to be your president, you will not be able to laugh, either, will you?" I agree. "wouldn't you be at least careful if you were a turk?" As I said I would. then you understand me." I probably do, not sure though. See you,Vahan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twilight Bark Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 I discarded my yet another long-winded reply to Ali, after seeing how the tone of the discussion deteriorated and that we don't seem to have an actual dialogue. I want to state once again that I do not harbor even a particle of hate towards Ali. I do think Ali's thought system is inconsistent and in need of serious repair. If my analyses of what he writes sounds harsh, it is only because of my annoyance at an intellectual level. Ali may be an intelligent man, but he does say many things that are simply not intelligent at all. I would find the idea that the Turks are oh-so-afraid of the big, bad Armenians funny if it were not so annoyingly misguided and misplaced. Turks are afraid of the Armenian ghosts, and are demanding our help in exorcising them. And the price Ali is hypothetically offering is (perhaps) some pocket money and a promise (of dubious credibility at best) that they will allow the remaining Armenians of the planet to pretend to have dignity. Again, I am not discarding the offer, but simply stating what it actually is. And if you care to follow the evolution of Ali's arguments, now the culprit is no longer the big, bad Turkish population threatening to revolt at the face of recognition, but the state that is acting according to its own agenda. Ali has to understand that some Armenians get infuriated by his comments because he is shoving "realpolitik" on their faces, and is expecting gratitude in return. Forget about "recognition", "apology" and the rest of the insincere nonsense Ali is peddling. If Turkey started treating Armenians as normal human beings, they will "discover" that their paranoia is baseless, and that things can start moving along just fine. There are many, many holes, in Ali's system of thoughts, but I will stop addressing them, as he avoids any real argument and either comes back in a "victim" mode, or starts peddling the same old insensitive, arrogant positions. The fact that Ali comes here and talks to Armenians does not mean as much as some might think it does. I would like to remind the forum that the first prominent Turkish politician to visit Armenia was none other than Turkesh, the head of the ultrachauvinist party MHP. Speaking of MHP, their pre-1980 vote percentages were at times in the teens, and not in the mid single digits as Ali would have us believe. Ali, if you start working on your government's attitude towards Armenians, you would be expending your efforts more fruitfully. Be nice to the Armenians for a change. If Armenians do not respond in kind, and start building weapons, you can always go back to your traditional attitude before they become this big, bad monster you are so afraid of. Now I will stop addressing this issue. All that can possibly be said has been said. It is the responsibility of the reader to arrive at a self-consistent and practical view of reality, using what has been said on this forum as a guide. One last word. I agree with Thoth that we are all guilty of some form of arrogance by virtue of the fact that we think we have something worthwhile to say that others need to listen to and learn from. I intend to be quiet for a while, and focus on being a good person, and hopefully a good Armenian as well. Regards to all,Twilight Bark [ September 12, 2002, 02:34 PM: Message edited by: Twilight Bark ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 hello i have decided to stop replying to each posting separately because it costs too much time and most of the posts have many points in common, and we have really exhausted the issue anyway. here is what i have to say: we have a blood feud that needs to be solved if our children are to live in peace. that needs intelligent discussion and civilised negotiation. i have seen no negotiation come to a fruitful end without either side ready to make such concessions. there is no sitting at the table and getting ALL of what you want, and that applies to both of us, not just you. as far as i can see our starting point is as follows: hardline armenians would want turkey to recognise the ag, apologise for it, pay compensation for it, allow armenians to return to anatolia and give half of eastern anatolia to roa, and get the hell out of there or accept armenian rule, open up the borders and keep silent about the armenian-azeri conflict. hardliners in the turkish establishment would want the ag claims dropped dead, avoid apology, compensation, no return of armenians and certainly not an inch of territory given to anyone, and armenians either to get out of karabagh or accept azeri rule. the two points of view are irreconcilable and there is no point in attempting to get these people to the negotiation table. softline turks would want the armenians to drop land claims and get out of the territories OUTSIDE nagorno-karabagh that NKR is currently occupying. that's all we want from you. in return, we offer pushing for ag recognition, apology, compensation, return of armenians to live as armenians live in france or usa (well the place is a bit poorer but still), opening up the border, normalising relations with you and helping you and the azeris to normalise relations. we can reach an agreement with those armenians who want everything except actual secession of territory by turkey and continued occupation of lands OUTSIDE NKR in azerbaijan. that is the only way that i can see to solve this problem. once this is thus solved, we can have peace flourishing and maybe our grandchildren will have different thoughts about territorial integrity and what should belong to whom. in europe, you can have a country (denmark) opting for eu membership while a part of it (greenland) stays out of it. this sort of thing would have been unthinkable fifty years ago even in europe. (or maybe especially in europe, given what it was like fifty years ago). there is no border between europeans now, the very same people who slaughtered eachother by the tens of millions just fifty years ago. but eu was not built in a day. and it would never have made it if the founders pushed for everything that is taking place now at the beginning. deep down to me the concept of this land belongs to me/to you is an unrealistic and arrogant statement. it is not the land that belongs to us, it is the other way round. we belong to it. we come and go and the land stays. all our wars about this or that territory is ultimately meaningless because in fighting for it we are destroying it, and when we destroy it beyond a certain point the land becomes unlivable and we have to leave it. countless wars have been fought over anatolia and its resources depleted by each successive civilisation in a most wasteful manner. did you know that anatolia was covered in trees from one end to the other just 8,000 years ago? it's a bit hard to believe that now, isn't it? well, these trees all became the fleets of the egyptians, phoenicians, greeks, romans, byzantines, and ottomans. now most of anatolia is a steppe, and the population it supports in its central and eastern parts is barely 30 million, less than half of what it could support if it were not destroyed so extensively. we fought over it, so what? you are out of eastern anatolia but are we in it? no. the provinces that armenians demanded - and died for - barely support a few million people today, and those few who are left there are all looking for a better life elsewhere. we have to change our bases of thought fundamentally. i find it exceptionally arrogant on the part the human being to maintain that land belongs to him rather than he really belongs to land. if we adopt that line of thought, maybe we will look at this territory business in a completely different manner. when we quarrel about this land belonging to us or to you, what we really mean is which STATE it belongs to. to me a state is an institution that serves the needs of a people, and the more respect it shows to the land, the better it does the job. as far as i can see the only states that qualify by this criterion are the scandinavian ones. maybe we both should step aside and invite the swedes, danes, norwegians and the finns to rule us . maybe i should have typed this ages ago, when this discussion first started. cheers, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:hardline armenians would want turkey to recognise the ag, apologise for it, pay compensation for it, allow armenians to return to anatolia and give half of eastern anatolia to roa, and get the hell out of there or accept armenian rule, open up the borders and keep silent about the armenian-azeri conflict.Wrong. Hard-line Armenians want recognition and acknowledgment from Turkey, compensation, return of the ABANDONED, NEGLECTED, AND UNINHABITED ARMENIAN TERRITORIES ONLY (which is hardly a 10th of Turkey; please don't exaggerate Ali, you're only making us hate you more), accept Armenian rule in those territories, and respect Armenian independence in NKR. quote:softline turks would want the armenians to drop land claims and get out of the territories OUTSIDE nagorno-karabagh that NKR is currently occupying. that's all we want from you. in return, we offer pushing for ag recognition, apology, compensation, return of armenians to live as armenians live in france or usa (well the place is a bit poorer but still), opening up the border, normalising relations with you and helping you and the azeris to normalise relations.This is wishful thinking Ali. We can't drop land claims because they belong to our ancestors. We can't drop the lands outside of NKR, since we are using them as buffer zones to protect our own flesh against your hostile cousins. Turks are the wrongdoers. This is an established fact. Like I said, and I'll repeat it AD NAUSEAM if I have to, Turkey, being the wrongdoer, has NO RIGHT to set preconditions on Armenians. As long as Turkey keeps up that arrogant attitude, Armenians will not even consider sitting around the same table as you. Please keep that in mind. quote:we can reach an agreement with those armenians who want everything except actual secession of territory by turkey and continued occupation of lands OUTSIDE NKR in azerbaijan.You can with those Armenians who'll follow your rules of the game. Not to surprise you, but many Armenians are not ready to even listen to Turkish rules. Why? Gee, I wonder. Young Turks promised equality, meanwhile they planned and perpetrated genocide. Modern Turks want Armenians to drop land claims, so that they can continue oppressing us. LOL! Not this time pal! You prove yourself first, and then we MIGHT decide to listen to what you have to say. quote:that is the only way that i can see to solve this problem.I'm glad you pointed out that this is YOUR way of solving the problem, not necessarily the RIGHT way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aurguplu Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 nairi our differences are irreconcilable. no deal. if you so much want the lands, come 'n' get them if you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 quote:Originally posted by aurguplu:nairi our differences are irreconcilable. no deal. if you so much want the lands, come 'n' get them if you can.I wouldn't play with matches if I were you. Nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Ali suad,you realy dont mean that because i hope you have enough tents to host your refueges if we dicide to come and take those lands back,ask your cousins in az.what happen, they were running away while crying "cachin ermanilar galior" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joseph Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Ali suad,if i were you i listen to Nairi,she is right,you play with matches during the day you wet your bed during the night,"anan bono sana oiratmadi mi" your mother didnt teach you this, you will not burn your fingers only but lot more,believe me this is not 1916 my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rubo Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Hovsep jan lets not carried away please.Ali is a guest on this forum and deserves civility and the truth of the matter is Ali does not have the authority to give land or take.These are just opinions and as such it should not be treated as though we are representing our respected countries and we got our armys beyond us waiting for action.True patriotism is deeds done not spoken.Regards Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 I see that the discussion here has deteriorated into insults. We should be glad that Ali is here to discuss issues with us. It is understandable that as a loyal Turk he would not like to see his county reduced in size. That is a natural feeling for a patriot. WE on the other hand feel that parts of Eastern Anatolia are rightfully Armenia. That is also natural for any patriotic Armenian. What do YOU want, for him to feel as an Armenian does? There will be NO progress in Armenian-Turkish relations if you deteriorate your discussions into insults. KHELKET OUR EH???????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sen_Vahan Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Before i leave the topic I just want to add a comment: Nairi, Hovsep,don't underestimate Turkey and don't overestimate Armenia. Aloha! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Hagarag jan, I've already stated before that I, personally, would like to see a world without borders, where everyone is equal and free. Like you, I don't agree with hard-line Armenians, however, as you have also said, their numbers are not insignificant. Therefore, if Armenians are a true democracy, then we should also accept each other's differences. You may wonder what those Armenians want with more land when they can hardly take care of the tiny strip we have now. I say: "Togh et Hayere inch vor oozoomen anen!" Leave them. Let them be. If they want to move back, use the compensation to rebuild destroyed territories, let them. Perhaps they'll even succeed! As I've said to Ali before, I'm here to discuss our peoples' opinions, not only my own. On another note, I would like to take the opportunity to invite Ali to join our other forums. I'm interested to know who he is on a different level. Maybe then I can learn to respect him more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 Nairi Jan, I don't think that our community wil be operated like a democracy UNTIL their are changes in our value system. Due to our history, where we have had no government for centuries, the wealthy merchants and church leaders have had total control. There were benevolent merchants like my ancestors and there have been benevolent churchmen, but this is a hit-or-miss proposition.Few businesses and few churches are run like a democracy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 What changes in our value system do you think there should be? And how do you think they can be realized? Nairi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 The Jews have been suceesful in transmitting their story and we have not. They draw in ALL of their own into their cause. Paul Newman, Warren Beatty, his sister and Goldie Hawn for example are only 1/2 Jewish, but help their cause. WE have never made any effort to create an atmoshpere where an Andre Agassi or a Cher, for example, would be interesed in supporting our community. These are powerful media figures, but we have created an atmosphere where they do not belong. So we are shooting ourselves in the foot. We are a commnity whose values are created by our weathy conservative merchants and our more conservative church leaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nairi Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 quote:Originally posted by hagarag:We are a commnity whose values are created by our weathy conservative merchants and our more conservative church leaders.Okay, but HOW can we change this? Just you and I, say. How can we, the two of us, start a trend that will change this situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khodja Posted September 13, 2002 Report Share Posted September 13, 2002 For starters, get organized and draw back the young. Save what is precious about our culture and discard or revise the self-defeating part of our mentality. Enough of the false moral superiority. Do you realize what a poor job our clegy are doing? Do you realize that in LA to be known as Armenian is to be judged a criminal? Our moral arbitrers consider Cher a moral failure, think it is a disgrace that her daughter and the daughter of Kardashian are linked romantically, while the LAPD considers Armenians to be criminals unless they are a true-blue well-known conseratives such as Philibosian or Deukmejian, Arabian, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.