Re: Armenia and the information war
You didn't answer second part of my question!!!
You are one of the Politicians, who were swearing that the Turkish – Armenian protocols had no ambiguity in it, on:
1) Forming historians committee on Armenian genocide; to check if it’s truly genocide.
2) Recognizing Kars treaty.
3) Making Arthakh issue settlement as a precondition for signing the Protocol.
You have been one of the DEVOTED proponents of the lie above to conceal the fault of our government.
Fortunately our Constitutional Court at its hearings on the protocol ruled out that the three points above should not be interpreted the way it is done above. Because they found the ambiguity there that you didn’t NOTICE.
And then you started to praise the Court decision saying that:
Although there was no ambiguity there it would be good to reject it in a written form.
Thus indirectly claiming that the Court members didn’t understand that there wasn’t ambiguity there, as you and your supporters claimed for more than a year, and Court made unrelated conclusions.
Thus the points of view supported by the mighty (ruling party) is the only guideline for you, regardless how unreasonable/wrong they are.
This is the argumentation that makes me ignore the points you made. And I’m glad that my points are ignored by you either, because they are just incompatible.
Bye
Originally posted by gegev
View Post
Originally posted by Armanen
View Post
Originally posted by Armanen
View Post
1) Forming historians committee on Armenian genocide; to check if it’s truly genocide.
2) Recognizing Kars treaty.
3) Making Arthakh issue settlement as a precondition for signing the Protocol.
You have been one of the DEVOTED proponents of the lie above to conceal the fault of our government.
Fortunately our Constitutional Court at its hearings on the protocol ruled out that the three points above should not be interpreted the way it is done above. Because they found the ambiguity there that you didn’t NOTICE.
And then you started to praise the Court decision saying that:
Although there was no ambiguity there it would be good to reject it in a written form.
Thus indirectly claiming that the Court members didn’t understand that there wasn’t ambiguity there, as you and your supporters claimed for more than a year, and Court made unrelated conclusions.
Thus the points of view supported by the mighty (ruling party) is the only guideline for you, regardless how unreasonable/wrong they are.
This is the argumentation that makes me ignore the points you made. And I’m glad that my points are ignored by you either, because they are just incompatible.
Bye
Comment