Armenia and the information war

[SevSpitak]

Re: Armenia and the information war

First they spread anti-armenian propaganda in russian and english, now they're spreading it in armenian. Basically they have no clue how to retaliate for xocali.net.

Yeah but what difference does it make if it's in Armenian. Most Armenians know Russian or English, why is this different? The site has Azeri written all over it, I don't think people are stupid enough to fall for that.

About xocali.net, like I say, the fact that the hacking of the site was encouraged at the state level, shows the type of immature mentality these people have. No [reasonable] dialogue, just war. No argument, just hack. If they're so sure about their stuff, they'd make a site to counter it. Then they won't need to hack it, we'll take it down ourselves out of humility (not that this will ever happen, but that's the basic pattern to follow to truly be victorious). The fact that they so quickly panicked to have the site down shows how much confidence they have in their work. I actually think this hacking business was a HUGE plus for us! This is what we needed to make them lose the credibility battle in this information war.

[ashot24]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Yeah but what difference does it make if it's in Armenian. Most Armenians know Russian or English, why is this different? The site has Azeri written all over it, I don't think people are stupid enough to fall for that.

No one would be so stupid to not notice, and even if somebody were, as you go on reading you will notice what kind of site it is.

Also, xocali.net is in Azeri.

About xocali.net, like I say, the fact that the hacking of the site was encouraged at the state level, shows the type of immature mentality these people have. No [reasonable] dialogue, just war. No argument, just hack. If they're so sure about their stuff, they'd make a site to counter it. Then they won't need to hack it, we'll take it down ourselves out of humility (not that this will ever happen, but that's the basic pattern to follow to truly be victorious). The fact that they so quickly panicked to have the site down shows how much confidence they have in their work. I actually think this hacking business was a HUGE plus for us! This is what we needed to make them lose the credibility battle in this information war.

Right, you don't see us hacking their websites...if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear...but of course it's not like that. If the Azeries promoted hacking the site at a state level, that it's the best proof for us that they have much to hide and they are afraid.

[Karabed]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Soldier of Azerbaijani Army commits suicide

And we have another one...

Azerbaijani soldier commits suicide due to brutalities in military unit

Soldier of the Azerbaijani Army Elchin Abdulazimov committed suicide in Geranboy military unit of the Defense Ministry, Vesti.az reports citing defense ministry sources.

The soldier’s uncle Mehdi Atashev said his nephew committed suicide due to the unhealthy atmosphere in the military unit, according to ANS PRESS. Atashev also said Abdulazimov underwent continual brutalities by officers and sergeants.

http://panorama.am/en/law/2010/03/02/azer-army/

[Eddo211]

Re: Armenia and the information war

....
Right, you don't see us hacking their websites...if they have nothing to hide they have nothing to fear...but of course it's not like that. If the Azeries promoted hacking the site at a state level, that it's the best proof for us that they have much to hide and they are afraid.

We don't get any browny points for this and there is no democracy on the WEB. Plus, we have more than enough excuses to pre-empt their sites. If I knew how to do it I would.......enough playing nice, nobody fcking cares.

[SevSpitak]

Re: Armenia and the information war

We don't get any browny points for this and there is no democracy on the WEB. Plus, we have more than enough excuses to pre-empt their sites. If I knew how to do it I would.......enough playing nice, nobody fcking cares.

We've never been playing nice. They don't let us play nice. But, before not playing nice, we must play smart. Hacking their sites will only make us look like we're afraid of them. When the time comes for an international court or study on the khojaly issue, hon e mer kordz'e. These petty sites won't make a difference then, hacking them even less. If anything, it makes the hackers look like sore losers. Mind you, xocali.net is not petty, but until we're in front of the judge, browsing through the site or hacking it makes no difference. Even if you smash the evidence in the face of an Azeri (the usual stupid ones we deal with), they're too hard headed to believe it until Aliyev says it. Hacking their sites will give them a small panic, but the end result is irents martu degh tradz bidi e'llas. They'll have confidence that they made something so big.. that it got hacked! I've checked out their sites. A site that uses this map to describe Greater Armenia is not worth taking seriously. That map can only be used for two reasons:
1. Ignorance
2. To exaggerate Armenians' claim to damage our credibility



In either case, the source is unreliable as it is either misinformed or biased. This map is actually used in their official Khojaly "Genocide" site (justiceforkhojaly). While we show a site that does nothing but prove forgeries using evidence, they make a site with false information about Armenians to begin with. I think bringing the attention to these details is more effective than hacking their sites.

That's the way we argue, so let hacking be their way to argue.

That's my personal point of view, anyway.

** for the record, Greater Armenia is either Armenia+Artsakh+Western Armenia+Nakhichevan+Javaxk OR the Armenian Highlands region. That bigger map was proposed in France (sometime between 1918 and 1923) for the Armenian state at the fall of the Ottoman Empire. It was a one shot proposal, and our nation only reached approximately that size for half a century under Tigran II in the 1st century BC. Nevertheless, that map can only be referred to legitimately as the homeland of Armenians, as in where Armenians lived. Using it as what we call "Greater Armenia" is misleading, fraud, false.

Here is the real/unexaggerated Greater Armenia:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/2/2e/20091114134502!Greater_Armenia_map.png

http://www.euratlas.com/Mapping/400grarmenie.jpg

[ashot24]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Xocali.net is back!!

[ninetoyadome]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Genocide not a 'propaganda term'
Wed 03 March 2010 | 14:13 GMT Text size:


Belinda Cooper
News.Az interviews Belinda Cooper, adjunct professor at New York University’s Centre for Global Affairs.

Do you think that President Obama will use the 'genocide' word in his speech on 24 April, as Armenians would like?

I can’t predict whether Obama will use the 'g-word', though I suspect not. He has made it very clear elsewhere that he knows quite well that what happened to the Armenians was genocide, but I think he’ll continue to believe that the word is too sensitive, balanced against the importance of our relations with Turkey. But I could be wrong.

May the Azerbaijani authorities succeed in their attempts to have the Khojaly massacre recognized as an act of genocide act by Armenians against Azerbaijani civilians?

As for the Khojaly massacre, in this case I would caution against using the term 'genocide'. Every atrocity is a terrible thing, but not every atrocity is genocide, and the word shouldn’t be invoked as a propaganda term. Genocide, legally, is a very specific crime with specific elements – particularly the intent to destroy an entire group, which is extremely difficult to prove. This was most likely a war crime, and probably a crime against humanity, which is certainly bad enough; but I don’t believe Human Rights Watch suggested that it was genocide. Terrible things often happen in war, but not every terrible thing rises to the level of genocide – nor does it have to, to be prosecuted. It’s not clear what you mean by 'recognition' of the massacre – I think it’s been widely recognized in the international human rights community as a crime, like many other crimes occurring in conflicts around the world. The main issue is your next question, which is how to prosecute crimes like this.

Baku is trying to call to account some of Armenia's current political leaders for their participation in the war with Azerbaijan in the early 1990s and for crimes against Azerbaijani civilians in Karabakh. Is it possible to make them answer for that, if there is sufficient proof?

As far as wars in the 1990s and answering for crimes, the venues are limited, unfortunately, and national courts are still the preferred forum. At the international level, the International Criminal Court does not deal with crimes committed before it went into operation in 2003, and in any case neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan is a member. At some point in the future, perhaps a mixed tribunal, consisting of domestic and international judges, might be set up to deal with crimes committed in the war between Azerbaijan and Armenia, as has been done in other situations (Sierra Leone, East Timor, Cambodia) – but in that case, both sides’ crimes would have to be considered (there has never been a conflict that I am aware of where only one side committed war crimes, so Azerbaijanis would undoubtedly also have to answer before such a tribunal). As far as immunity, for serious international crimes, leaders generally do not have immunity before international courts, but they do have immunity if tried before an individual country’s courts – for example, if Azerbaijan were to try people responsible for crimes in its own domestic courts under some domestic law, or if a third country were to try such people in its domestic courts, leaders currently in power could not be tried.

But history shows that some political leaders like Milosevic in Serbia could be answerable for their crimes committed in the past.

Milosevic was tried in a court created specifically to deal with crimes committed in the Yugoslavia conflict. The court was created at an unusual moment in history, right after the end of the Cold War, when the international community was willing and able to come together to create it, along with the tribunal for Rwanda; that historical window of opportunity is long gone. In any case, it’s extraordinarily difficult to create such 'ad hoc' tribunals, not only politically but also financially and just in terms of the infrastructure necessary. This is why there is now a permanent International Criminal Court. But that court, too, is very limited in resources and can only deal with the very worst conflicts right now – Congo, Uganda, Darfur – conflicts where hundreds of thousands are dying. That’s the explanation for why this happens so rarely. Mixed tribunals are becoming popular; these are courts, generally in the country involved, that have both domestic and international participation (mixed judges, mixed law), but you need agreement between the various parties in order to achieve that, which is not easy. That again, might be best for this particular conflict, but it would deal with all sides’ culpability. Third states can also try people for certain international crimes, as long as they are not, or are no longer, leaders in power, if they have the right laws in place: Spain tried to get hold of Pinochet some years ago when he travelled to Britain, though that didn’t quite work out, and other countries have tried so-called 'universal jurisdiction', but it comes with a lot of its own problems, both legal and political. Imagine, for example, the repercussions of Germany trying to put xxxx Cheney or Donald Rumsfeld on trial for war crimes (which was suggested but never happened), and you get an idea of how difficult this is. On the other hand, Germany and other countries have tried people responsible for crimes in Rwanda and elsewhere. It's still not so easy to prosecute people responsible for international crimes, especially during ongoing conflicts; but it's happening far more often today than, say, 20 years ago.

Armenia's ex-president, Robert Kocharyan, once said that co-existence of Armenians and Azerbaijanis is completely impossible. Do you think that the two nations will not be able to live peacefully after the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

I will go out on a limb on the last question, even though the conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia is hardly my specialty, and say that of course Armenia and Azerbaijan can coexist peacefully – many countries that were once virulent enemies coexist peacefully – France, Germany, and Poland, for goodness sake!! Remember the First World War? The Second World War? It takes political will and often a lot of time – sometimes a generation has to pass – but of course it will happen, sooner or later.

Belinda Cooper is co-founder of the Citizenship and Security Program at the World Policy Institute and an adjunct professor at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and editor of “War Crimes: The Legacy of Nuremberg”.

Aliyah Fridman
News.Az

http://www.news.az/articles/10619

i dont think azeris read this interview before posting it. She said you cant call what happened in khojaly a genocide, its not a propaganda term. She did say that Obama knows what happened to the Armenians was a genocide.

I seriously thinking azeris thought she was saying Armenians were using the word genocide for propaganda reasons while she said they were using it

[ashot24]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Elnur Aslanov’s “pearls of wisdom”
17:05 / 03/03/2010

By Ivan Gharibyan

Azerbaijan’s chief ideologist and propagandist of Azerbaijan has decided to make a show of his wit. Elnur Aslanov, Head of the Political Analysis and Information Department, Presidential Administration of Azerbaijan, has let his imagination run wild.

“The Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians are seeking peace in their own state, Azerbaijan. They want to be involved in the socio-economic development and enjoy the preferences arising from effective development,” stated the chief ideologist of modern-day Azerbaijan. Moreover, he expressed the confidence that “the people living in Nagorno-Karabakh do not want to be an object of official Yerevan’s irrational policy.” According to Aslanov, Armenia is holding the Nagorno-Karabakh people hostage, imposing its viewpoint on them.

President Ilham Aliyev’s right-hand man does not appear to be well informed of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, or he decided to deliberately lie through his teeth, as Azerbaijan has not any sound arguments to present. Reading his statements, you think back to the year 1988: February, most people in Armenia are living their life and, all of a sudden, hear about a decision made by the Regional Council of People’s Deputies of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region. The Council decided to petition for the region’s seceding from the Azerbaijani SSR and joining the Armenian SSR. At that time many Armenian citizens had a rather vague idea of Nagorno-Karabakh and even of its geographical location.

The Nagorno-Karabakh people’s aspiration to exercise their right to self-determination gave rise to the 1988 movement in Armenia, which, to a great extent, was catalyzed by the Armenian pogroms in Sumgait just a week after the Nagorno-Karabakh Regional Council made its decision. It was murders of Armenian women and children — most of whom had earlier resided in Nagorno-Karabakh — that proved a response many of the Sumgait Azerbaijanis gave to the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians’ peaceful demand. The Sumgait authorities did not take any measures to prevent the massacre. The future was to bring even larger-scale Armenian pogroms in Kirovabad and Baku, Azerbaijan’s military actions against the Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians, days-long shelling of peaceful towns and villages of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as of Armenia’s borderline regions.

So the Nagorno-Karabakh people, who are well aware of all the “delights” of Azerbaijan’s aggression, “have every reason” to dream of “returning to the fold” in order to get rid of “official Yerevan’s irrational policy,” which is Elnur Aslanov’s opinion, or rather dream. The chief Azerbaijani ideologist is constantly cultivating masochistic propensities in his own people – pipe dreams about returning to the “ancient Azerbaijani lands,” demonstration of pictures of “Azerbaijanis’ murdered by Armenians,” to say nothing of the medieval personality cult of the “national leader” Heydar Aliyev – but let him not compare his compatriots with other nations, namely, Armenians. If we imagined not only “irrational,” but antinational leadership in Armenia, even overheated imagination would not help us built up a picture of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians viewing Azerbaijan as their state.

We can understand Mr. Aslanov’s “throes of creation,” though. Poor lad, he is trying to invent something – now the “Khojali genocide” now the “capital of western Azerbaijan, Irevan.” But, alas, no one in the world has given ear to the “pearls of wisdom.” So Mr. Aslanov decided to reach the point of uttering absurdities to drive his own nationals mad. The only thing for us to do is to feel sorry for them.

T.P.

http://news.am/en/news/15795.html

[Parskahay]

Re: Armenia and the information war

dont worry.a website which im also a moderator of it is doing all good in Iran.
www.ourararat.com(englsh)]
http://www.ourararat.com/far/index.htm(perisan,Farsi)
its translated to persian too.even ethnic iranians recognize the armenian genocide in iran due to this site.it doest have forums and etc its only articles and truths about armenian genocide.although it has a guest book

[ashot24]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Armenia is not territory returning state: RA President’s Aide
15:07 / 03/04/2010


“Who says the document on return of 7 regions is already signed? Perhaps, those making such statements are aware of the document content,” said RA President’s Aide Garnik Isagulyan.

According to him, opposition statements that Armenia has already returned 7 Artsakh regions to Azerbaijan are nothing more than a specific message to the international community, “By these statements they seek to signal that even if come to power, they will be unable to make a difference as the regions are allegedly returned. This message intended for abroad means the opposition is ready to return the 7 regions to Azerbaijan, disavow Genocide and blame all on authorities,” he maintained, adding that the case of territories return was dismissed in 1992, when by Supreme Council decision noone can ever sign any document on Karabakh integration into Azerbaijan.

Isagulyan deems that new watershed in Karabakh conflict settlement commences, proved by RA President Serzh Sargsyan’s stance on the matter that he excludes resolution without NKR involvement. “Armenia is not a territory returning state, as did not conquer any,” aide concluded.

http://news.am/en/news/15875.html