Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[Artashes]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Aaaaaaah I am talking to a wall. Perhaps my english is too bad. I don't know. Who acceptes rape, murder etc as normal? Me? International law? Man you misunderstood nearly everything I said. You talk about crime, I was talking about the invasion and the the invasion and settlement of terkic tribes in the Middle Ages settlement of turkic tribes back in the middle ages. That's what is regarded as normal and a closed process.
Lav, animast a, inch uzum es mtatcir: Karevor chi edqan:

Ara qez eshi tegh es dnum te iskapes xoshor yeghjeravor es?

--- you (Artashes) are talking about crime, I (Vahram) was talking about the invasion and settlement of terkic tribes in the Middle Ages--- ????
The invasion and settlement were and are a crime !!! The crime was murder and theft and rape and abduction and torture.
I don't believe I'm misunderstanding you at all. You are approaching this as a lawyer or barrister and circumventing the truth in the guise of ??? Political correctness??? Or international law ??) I'm not sure. Your argument in defense of terk ligitemicy in regards to where they live and how they got there is the exact same ploy the terk and international law uses.
Utter nonsense.
Except for "baby's talk" I cannot speak my own language so don't know what you said in our script.

[haydavid]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

He is not approaching this as a lawyer. He is approaching this as a neutral.
Why would any neutral support the Armenian claims over the Azeri ones ? From an Western point of view , Azeris have as much claim as Armenians to Karabakh. This is normal , they have THEIR logic and their ideology. Does it mean it is the right one ? Not at all but we should take that into account before judging if someone is pro-Armenian or pro-Azeri. Every nation tries to defend its OWN interests and being objective on an issue is impossible.
Let me ask this to you , can you find a solution to the Palestine , Crimea , Abkhazia , Kashmir , Moldovan ... conflicts that is seen as reasonable ? You are going to look at it from an Armenian perspective and give your judgment. Other people (Western people) will probably have a different view and solution to the same conflict.
You cannot simply call someone pro-Armenian or pro-Azeri just because one or some of their views contradict your own. I think this is what Vahram means. He is not saying that De Waal is right or wrong , he is saying that De Waal has a different (British)view on the conflict and that it's normal.

[Artashes]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

He is not approaching this as a lawyer. He is approaching this as a neutral.
Why would any neutral support the Armenian claims over the Azeri ones ? From an Western point of view , Azeris have as much claim as Armenians to Karabakh. This is normal , they have THEIR logic and their ideology. Does it mean it is the right one ? Not at all but we should take that into account before judging if someone is pro-Armenian or pro-Azeri. Every nation tries to defend its OWN interests and being objective on an issue is impossible.
Let me ask this to you , can you find a solution to the Palestine , Crimea , Abkhazia , Kashmir , Moldovan ... conflicts that is seen as reasonable ? You are going to look at it from an Armenian perspective and give your judgment. Other people (Western people) will probably have a different view and solution to the same conflict.
You cannot simply call someone pro-Armenian or pro-Azeri just because one or some of their views contradict your own. I think this is what Vahram means. He is not saying that De Waal is right or wrong , he is saying that De Waal has a different (British)view on the conflict and that it's normal.

I was not accusing Vahram of being pro terk. I am saying his argument is identicle to both terk and world fraudulent perspective.
De Waal's comments and the official Brit view are fraudulent and self serving.
Does one have the right to express a view that contradicts the truth ? According to the free speech advocates the answer is a resounding yes. Does one have the right to tell lies ? According to the free speech advocates the answer is a resounding yes. The freedom to speak does not imply the freedom to lie.
If De Waal's expression the Brit point of view is "normal", and the Brit point of view contradicts the truth, then it's normal for the Brit to contradict the truth. Because it's normal for the world to place their own concerns above the truth does not invalidate the truth.
Neutrality cannot be used as a guise to promote sensibility to the terk claims. They are fraudulent.
The genocide and all the other atrocities are NOT an Armenian point of view. They are an accurate description of of the truth.
Legitimacy cannot be given to anyone just because that's their point of view. The point of view has to be istablished in the truth, or it's a wrong point of view.
The truth stands, the terk murdered and stole. There is no ligitimacy to their claims of our land.
There is no ligitimacy to lies.

[Azad]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

De Waal has a different (British)view on the conflict and that it's normal.

This British guy makes his living from a Scottish Carnegie endowment. He should focus on being compassionate and understanding for the Scottish and Irish independence from British rules. An Armenian should be an arbitrary entity/promoter between the parties. Better yet, we will wait till Britain is controlled by Pakistanis and they will ask for their own territory in England, we will send an Armenian as a regional conflict resolution expert to express his views.

[haydavid]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

I was not accusing Vahram of being pro terk. I am saying his argument is identicle to both terk and world fraudulent perspective.
De Waal's comments and the official Brit view are fraudulent and self serving.
Does one have the right to express a view that contradicts the truth ? According to the free speech advocates the answer is a resounding yes. Does one have the right to tell lies ? According to the free speech advocates the answer is a resounding yes. The freedom to speak does not imply the freedom to lie.
If De Waal's expression the Brit point of view is "normal", and the Brit point of view contradicts the truth, then it's normal for the Brit to contradict the truth. Because it's normal for the world to place their own concerns above the truth does not invalidate the truth.
Neutrality cannot be used as a guise to promote sensibility to the terk claims. They are fraudulent.
The genocide and all the other atrocities are NOT an Armenian point of view. They are an accurate description of of the truth.
Legitimacy cannot be given to anyone just because that's their point of view. The point of view has to be istablished in the truth, or it's a wrong point of view.
The truth stands, the terk murdered and stole. There is no ligitimacy to their claims of our land.
There is no ligitimacy to lies.

I know you didn't accuse Vahram of being pro-Turk and I never said that.
You are right on some points there , his views should not give him the right to tell lies.

This British guy makes his living from a Scottish Carnegie endowment. He should focus on being compassionate and understanding for the Scottish and Irish independence from British rules. An Armenian should be an arbitrary entity/promoter between the parties. Better yet, we will wait till Britain is controlled by Pakistanis and they will ask for their own territory in England, we will send an Armenian as a regional conflict resolution expert to express his views.

[Azad]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

we will wait till Britain is controlled by Pakistanis and they will ask for their own territory in England,

Wait a second, they couldn't even digest the idea of having "others" in their nation they decided to brexit. How racist of them Brits. Can't you all live happily ever after in a De Waal understanding and harmony?

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Armenian air defense subdivision on Ashuluk firing range in Russia. 2015

[Azad]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Armenian air defense subdivision on Ashuluk firing range in Russia. 2015

^^ The new radar that was mentioned few days ago?

I take that back the new radar was revealed in 2016

[Artashes]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Originally I wanted only say that the question of historical ownership cannot play a role from an objective point of view simply because living longer in a region does not mean that the "newcomer people" has not the right to live there. So, ownership is always divided in contested regions and therefore it makes no sense to expect from others to talk about it.
What gives us the right to f*ck the azeris out of our lands is that they make our existence impossible and we have only to defend our interests. Thats the difference between Yezdis, molokan russians, Assyrian brothers and these azeris.

--- historical ownership cannot play a role from an objective point of view ---
--- does not mean the newcomer people has not the right to live there ---
I cannot fathom your reasoning.
The murdering of the indeginous people's and the stealing/occupation of their lands is a crime.
The murderous invaders you discribe as "newcomers" have NO right to anything they stole and have no right to claim a lie is the truth.
Your arguments seem strange, I cannot fathom them at all.
You are using the phrase "from an objective point of view" and then asserting that means the terk has ligitimacy to their clams of our land ???
The subjective point of view from terk is they have ligitimet right to --- stolen --- land. The objective view is they acquired that land by murdering the rightful occupants.

[Hakob]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Neutral means calling things as they are.
Declaring any events addressed to which side is doing what.
For the past 20 years Azeris are the perpetrators in breaking all the ceasefire agreements and clashes on border 95% of cases. When "The wall" and his bosses call the guilty and perpetrator by name, then they will be neutral. Otherwise equating both parties is a one sided approach.
Neutral means no double standards, that is Artsakh should have the same opportunity and protection as Kosovo, right?
Neutral is when west is obligated to condemn arms sales to Azerbaijan by Russia and Israel. Condemns turkey for being partial and supporting azeri military solution. For keeping Armenia in blockade by both.
Nobody can be neutral without condemning blockade.
Neutral is is dewall accepts artsakh people's right to security and protection just like people of Israel, blocking and denying any right to Palestinians until they accept Israeli people's rights on that land.
So, anybody talking about Azeri people's equal right to live in artsakh, without accepting Artsak's 100% legitimate (by UN standards) Declaration of Independence, is talking very one sided.
Dewaal and his bosses speak as if Artsakh protecting it's existence and right of self determination and self governance is an obstacle equal to azeri militarism and demand to surrender and subjugation.
There is no way the rule of self defence and protection of territorial integrity applies to Azerbaijan, because Artsakh is not a foreign entity invading, but part and territory exercising right of self determination, but west acts as if it applies to azerbaijan too.
What neutrality are you guys talking about?
Every time an innocent boy is killed, like today, because west applies very selective arbitration between countries, enebling azeris to keep commiting atrocities.
How can westerners condemn human rights violations in Azerbaijan, but forget that same human right also guarantees self determination and call it impartial?
It means that human rights and democracy is used by west only as part of dirty games.
The whole article above by that guy is 100% example of one sided policy extension.
The purpose of it is not to inform the truth, but play as an "I told you so", because every monkey knows that the war is coming because oil to arms transfer is as holly to world politics as cross to pope.