Tweet
Re: Onnik Krikorian, ''fake'' anti-Armenian journalist.
<Second Item of Note: A More Direct Example of Anti-Armenian Malice>
A quote by Onnik from this blog discussion that went on between various think tanks and individuals on the topic of the protective buffer zone the anti-Armenian (or Turkophile, same thing) political block chooses to call "occupied territories":
"Well, whatever. I hope there will be a Karabakh peace deal, refugees and IDPs can return to their homes, and confidence measures will slowly bring Azeris and Armenians back to being able to live together in urban settlements at least."
Indeed, used again is the theme of "wolves and sheep grazing together" (wolves are indeed still carnivores, but that detail is not important to raving anti-nationalists), albeit worded as "Armenians and Azeris living together in urban settlements." I wonder what the definition of "urban settlements" is and why there is emphasis on this "urban settlement" idea? "Armenians living in UN delineated and protected ghettos in a sea of Tatars who style themselves as Azeris?" Most likely. Is our in-house raving anti-nationalist also hinting at the possibility that Armenians will be denied a much more prosperous and secure rural existence? No land or farms for us Armos? Not clear.
That is less important.
The important aspect of this discussion here http://ditord.com/2007/05/29/liberat...ries-in-focus/ is the zeal with which we are being frightened and coaxed as Armenians to forget the very apt British maxim of "possession is 9/10 of the law." Onnik forgets this, Onnik who is a very British person despite his attempts at appearing Armenian, which should mean nothing anyway because nationalism is bad to Onnik, which, a contradiction, is irrelevant to anti-nationalists who are usually walking contradictions, intolerant individuals who use ridicule and threats to preach tolerance, and so on and so forth. To unmangle this pretzel of a psychotic mind is truly not my job, nor is it a preferred profession.
My intention is to demonstrate malice, which, the form in this case it came in is the zeal to tell Armenians that land is not important, possession means nothing, and "peace" of some ephemeral form is "most desirable"... or else.
Another quote that obviously leaves Armenians totally vulnerable to any military design, the acceptance of a mere "Lachin Corrodor", which reads like a texbook repetition of Thomas Goltz or Thomas de Waal, the "Thomas Twins":
"As I said, if Armenians in Karabakh can gain their sovereignty, if a land border can be established which would likely constitute part of Lachin (but note, Lachin and not Kashatagh which encompasses more than just the Lachin region), and international security guarantees could be put in place, why not?"
Of course. Notice how he avoids the more accurate term "Lachin corridor". The mere word "corridor" should send chills down any Armenian's spine: Any random sniper can pick off any passer by in a "corridor", but, Onnik says we will "live as sheep and wolves in peaceful pasture." The "security guarantees" will be by UN troops who are not allowed to fire, and in this way, much as the Tutsi in Rwanda, we Armenians shall feel oh-so-safe. By the way, Turkey has offered to be among the "peace keeping" forces upon the "return of lands and a peaceful settlement." Talk about wolves and sheep!
Over and over again we are told by the blog author himself who calls himself the "Observer", Onnik and a few other arrogant tropes that "the occupied lands cannot be called liberated territories". Down below a certain "Ardashes" has labeled all those who prefer the term "Liberated Territories" as "mentally imbalanced" or something to that effect. "Mentally retarded" and other such example of "civil discourse" is all you will find in the oh so liberal "anti-nationalist" camp of extreme leftists.
Yet, the "leftism" is selective. I have yet to hear one "leftist" Turk be chastised for not advocating the return of Armenian land to Armenians by his "leftist" brothers among Armenians, English or otherwise.
Curious indeed.
<Second Item of Note: A More Direct Example of Anti-Armenian Malice>
A quote by Onnik from this blog discussion that went on between various think tanks and individuals on the topic of the protective buffer zone the anti-Armenian (or Turkophile, same thing) political block chooses to call "occupied territories":
"Well, whatever. I hope there will be a Karabakh peace deal, refugees and IDPs can return to their homes, and confidence measures will slowly bring Azeris and Armenians back to being able to live together in urban settlements at least."
Indeed, used again is the theme of "wolves and sheep grazing together" (wolves are indeed still carnivores, but that detail is not important to raving anti-nationalists), albeit worded as "Armenians and Azeris living together in urban settlements." I wonder what the definition of "urban settlements" is and why there is emphasis on this "urban settlement" idea? "Armenians living in UN delineated and protected ghettos in a sea of Tatars who style themselves as Azeris?" Most likely. Is our in-house raving anti-nationalist also hinting at the possibility that Armenians will be denied a much more prosperous and secure rural existence? No land or farms for us Armos? Not clear.
That is less important.
The important aspect of this discussion here http://ditord.com/2007/05/29/liberat...ries-in-focus/ is the zeal with which we are being frightened and coaxed as Armenians to forget the very apt British maxim of "possession is 9/10 of the law." Onnik forgets this, Onnik who is a very British person despite his attempts at appearing Armenian, which should mean nothing anyway because nationalism is bad to Onnik, which, a contradiction, is irrelevant to anti-nationalists who are usually walking contradictions, intolerant individuals who use ridicule and threats to preach tolerance, and so on and so forth. To unmangle this pretzel of a psychotic mind is truly not my job, nor is it a preferred profession.
My intention is to demonstrate malice, which, the form in this case it came in is the zeal to tell Armenians that land is not important, possession means nothing, and "peace" of some ephemeral form is "most desirable"... or else.
Another quote that obviously leaves Armenians totally vulnerable to any military design, the acceptance of a mere "Lachin Corrodor", which reads like a texbook repetition of Thomas Goltz or Thomas de Waal, the "Thomas Twins":
"As I said, if Armenians in Karabakh can gain their sovereignty, if a land border can be established which would likely constitute part of Lachin (but note, Lachin and not Kashatagh which encompasses more than just the Lachin region), and international security guarantees could be put in place, why not?"
Of course. Notice how he avoids the more accurate term "Lachin corridor". The mere word "corridor" should send chills down any Armenian's spine: Any random sniper can pick off any passer by in a "corridor", but, Onnik says we will "live as sheep and wolves in peaceful pasture." The "security guarantees" will be by UN troops who are not allowed to fire, and in this way, much as the Tutsi in Rwanda, we Armenians shall feel oh-so-safe. By the way, Turkey has offered to be among the "peace keeping" forces upon the "return of lands and a peaceful settlement." Talk about wolves and sheep!
Over and over again we are told by the blog author himself who calls himself the "Observer", Onnik and a few other arrogant tropes that "the occupied lands cannot be called liberated territories". Down below a certain "Ardashes" has labeled all those who prefer the term "Liberated Territories" as "mentally imbalanced" or something to that effect. "Mentally retarded" and other such example of "civil discourse" is all you will find in the oh so liberal "anti-nationalist" camp of extreme leftists.
Yet, the "leftism" is selective. I have yet to hear one "leftist" Turk be chastised for not advocating the return of Armenian land to Armenians by his "leftist" brothers among Armenians, English or otherwise.
Curious indeed.
Your posts, if you are intending to make them more often than the rate of one a year, would be more credible if you tone it down.
Comment