Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

    Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols



    By Aram Suren Hamparian on Oct 7th, 2009



    Listed below are 12 of the more common rhetorical devices being used by those seeking to overcome the growing grassroots opposition to the Turkey-Armenia Protocols.

    1. “How dare you!”
    This approach, very often seen in undemocratic settings, seeks to silence criticism because it represents an inappropriate challenge to those in authority. This is somewhat akin to an “ad lapidem” argument, which dismisses a position outright as absurd without providing any reasoning. Indignity is obviously a convenient approach for those in charge, but just as clearly not a sound basis for reasoned discourse.

    2. “You are living a comfortable life so you don’t have a say.”
    This attack sets the standard that those who don’t suffer along with the Armenian population should not comment on issues affecting Armenia’s welfare. This ignores the fact that Armenia’s leaders certainly do not share these material hardships, and, more importantly, disenfranchises 2/3 of the Armenian nation, perhaps Armenia’s greatest natural resource, from any meaningful role in the future of the Armenian people.

    3. “We must live for the future, not the past.”
    The is a classic “false choice” argument, that posits that you can either embrace one of two distinct values, but not both. Other variations of this black-or-white approach include, you can care about the genocide or the republic, the diaspora or the homeland, etc. All are equally false. Armenians should chart the wisest path forward, not allow themselves to be herded down intellectual cattle-shutes created by others.

    4. “Opponents of the Protocols are against relations with Turkey.”
    This is a common “strawman argument” that seeks to bolster its own position by defining the opposing side in the most extreme and irrational terms.

    Supporters who are either unable or unwilling to make their case based on facts and analysis often try to take this shortcut. With regard to the Protocols, this involves attacking the supposed radical views of protocol opponents, who they describe as being mindlessly opposed to any relations with Turkey. This is, of course, both inaccurate and intellectually lazy. The core opposition to the Protocols is based on the desire to first remove from the present document provisions that represent a threat to Armenia and a surrender of Armenian rights, and then to see Armenia-Turkey relations normalized on a fair, constructive, and respectful basis.

    5. “Trust me.”
    This approach runs against the basic precepts of Western democracy, which places sovereign power in the people, fosters a sense of active citizenship, and establishes systems of limited, constitutional government.

    This complete delegation of decision-making power presupposes a hierarchical relationship, in which those in power make decisions for everyone else, and the average person lacks either the confidence or the ability to take a meaningful part in charting the future of their nation. Those who utilize this approach in the Armenian context are typically seeking to cynically take advantage of the cultural and political habits that have come about as a result of Armenians having been subjects of others for far longer than they have been citizens of free societies.

    6. “Protocol critics don’t care about Armenia.”
    This type of “ad hominem” argument is made against the person making a point, not against the point itself. The President and some of his supporters have used this rhetorical device to seek to silence dissent both in Armenia and the Diaspora.

    7. “Let’s set these Protocol detractors straight, once and for all.”
    The “argumentum ad odium” is used by some supporters of the Protocols who clearly have an axe to grind against some of the document’s detractors, for sins real or imagined. They seek to strengthen their stand by appealing to existing prejudices, and, at times, seem to use the excuse of this controversy to settle old scores.

    8. “The people support the Protocols.”
    Some advocates of the Protocols seek to bolster their position by citing support for this document among the populations of the homeland and diaspora, but without any basis in fact or reliance upon objective data. In fact, the only polling, both in Armenia and the Armenian American community, shows that majorities in both places opposed the adoption of the Protocols.

    9. “You are leading Armenia to ruin!”
    This represents an appeal to fear, or “argumentum in terrorem.” It seeks to make its case by sparking fear and anxiety, not by making an intellectual case.

    10. “Mr. President, you are so wise and visionary.”
    This type of flattery was on full display in several of the meetings the President of Armenia held around the world. Some supporters of the Protocols framed their support within the context of their public devotion to the President’s leadership and respect for his rightful place as the “decider” on Armenian issues. They sought to simultaneously both win his favor, and to use their subservience to his authority as an example for others to follow.

    11. “Those who are the most successful know best.”
    This represents a particularly offensive use of the appeal to the purse, “argumentum ad crumenam,” which, sadly, is not uncommon in Armenia or the Armenian American community. It holds that a point of view is true because the speaker is rich.

    12. “I know what’s right (even if I really don’t know anything).”
    “Argumentum ad ignorantiam,” or an argument from ignorance, was on full display during the New York City community meeting with the October 3rd meeting with the President of Armenia. At this event, one of the most vocal supporters of the Protocols, a noted benefactor, admitted before all in attendance that he had not read the Protocols, but supported them fully.




    "All truth passes through three stages:
    First, it is ridiculed;
    Second, it is violently opposed; and
    Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

    Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

  • #2
    Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

    It is funny how this guy came up with a list that couldnt be more useless. The whole premise that mr hamparian is working off of is based on the fact that there is a decisions to make in the first place and that someone actually has the power to make this decision. There is no decision being made by the armenian authorities including mr sarkisian. This deal was not a suggestion by the great powers of the day, it was a demand which fits in with the rest of the plan they have for the region. They couldnt care less about our historic homelands, their goal is to insure peace and stability which is good for business and to insure safe trade routes (including oil). No one asked Armenian authorities opinion on this because Armenia is no more independent then michigan. All Armenia is, is a russian vessal state and that is all it can afford to be today. Once you understand this simple fact it really takes the emotion out of the equation and lets you look at it with a cooler head.
    Hayastan or Bust.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

      Originally posted by Haykakan View Post
      . This deal was not a suggestion by the great powers of the day, it was a demand which fits in with the rest of the plan they have for the region.
      So you think that the interests of the US and Russia as rivals coincede here? How would you explain that?

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

        Originally posted by Lucin View Post
        So you think that the interests of the US and Russia as rivals coincede here? How would you explain that?
        Why America wants it

        *Peace in the southern Caucasus region benefits Europe and Israel, b/c it ensures the safety of the B-T-C pipeline

        *Open borders could mean alternative shipping routes to Afghanistan and other nations of the region for the USA


        Why Russia wants it.

        *B/c russians don't give 2 shyts about us and would sell us out to Turks which they've already been doing, b/c Turks are better business partners. Also Russia wants Turkey to be happy with them so they won't just go with Western Europe on everything

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

          Originally posted by ara87 View Post
          Why America wants it

          *Peace in the southern Caucasus region benefits Europe and Israel, b/c it ensures the safety of the B-T-C pipeline

          *Open borders could mean alternative shipping routes to Afghanistan and other nations of the region for the USA


          Why Russia wants it.

          *B/c russians don't give 2 shyts about us and would sell us out to Turks which they've already been doing, b/c Turks are better business partners. Also Russia wants Turkey to be happy with them so they won't just go with Western Europe on everything

          You need to read Armenian's commentary and Haykakan's very closely. If Russia really did not give 2 sh*ts about Armenia, we would not be here today. The fact is, Russia has done more to ensure that Armenia is operational and can act as a bulwark against pan turkism than the u.s., which for the past 20 years has seen Armenia as a nusiance to its designs in the region more than anything else.

          If it were not for the Russian intervention against turkish threats to invade Armenia in 1993, there would be no Armenia to speak of today. Russia has its interests, and so does the u.s., thank the Lord that we at least fit positively into the interests of one of them.
          For the first time in more than 600 years, Armenia is free and independent, and we are therefore obligated
          to place our national interests ahead of our personal gains or aspirations.



          http://www.armenianhighland.com/main.html

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

            Originally posted by Armanen View Post
            You need to read Armenian's commentary and Haykakan's very closely. If Russia really did not give 2 sh*ts about Armenia, we would not be here today. The fact is, Russia has done more to ensure that Armenia is operational and can act as a bulwark against pan turkism than the u.s., which for the past 20 years has seen Armenia as a nusiance to its designs in the region more than anything else.

            If it were not for the Russian intervention against turkish threats to invade Armenia in 1993, there would be no Armenia to speak of today. Russia has its interests, and so does the u.s., thank the Lord that we at least fit positively into the interests of one of them.
            I know Russia has done many things for us, but they've also done great many things that have harmed us (i.e giving Nakhichevan and Artsakh to Azerbaijan, trying to Russify the Armenian language, USSR causing the west to side heavily with turkey so they wouldn't become part of it, etc)

            Russia would sell us out for Azerbaijan any day. If Turkey had said forget any demands about Azerbaijan, we can have open borders without a protocol about NK, Russia would be swooping in to comfort a very upset Azerbaijan.

            In the end Russia, Turkey, and Iran, (mainly Russia and Turkey) will eat Caucasia alive

            F*** 3rd Rome, 3rd Russia will eventually get here
            Last edited by ara87; 10-10-2009, 12:04 PM.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

              Originally posted by ara87 View Post
              I know Russia has done many things for us, but they've also done great many things that have harmed us (i.e giving Nakhichevan and Artsakh to Azerbaijan, trying to Russify the Armenian language, etc)

              Russia would sell us out for Azerbaijan any day. If Turkey had said forget any demands about Azerbaijan, we can have open borders without a protocol about NK, Russia would be swooping in to comfort a very upset Azerbaijan.

              In the end Russia, Turkey, and Iran, (mainly Russia and Turkey) will eat Caucasia alive

              F*** 3rd Rome, 3rd Russia will eventually get here
              It was not the Russians that gave Artsakh or Naxichevan away, it was the judeo-bolshevik regime that controlled most parts of the former Russian empire.

              The notion of pan turkism is an abhoration to the Kremlin and has been since the turks began it advocate it more than a century ago. Do you really think Russia would allow Armenia to be wiped out so the turks can set up dominance from the black sea to mongolia? Not to mention the opposition that Iran has to pan-turkism as well, one of the strategic reasons they helped a Christian country rather than a muslim but turkic nation.
              For the first time in more than 600 years, Armenia is free and independent, and we are therefore obligated
              to place our national interests ahead of our personal gains or aspirations.



              http://www.armenianhighland.com/main.html

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

                Originally posted by Armanen View Post
                It was not the Russians that gave Artsakh or Naxichevan away, it was the judeo-bolshevik regime that controlled most parts of the former Russian empire.

                The notion of pan turkism is an abhoration to the Kremlin and has been since the turks began it advocate it more than a century ago. Do you really think Russia would allow Armenia to be wiped out so the turks can set up dominance from the black sea to mongolia? Not to mention the opposition that Iran has to pan-turkism as well, one of the strategic reasons they helped a Christian country rather than a muslim but turkic nation.
                While notions of pan Turkism are alive in some places, it's ultimately dead and as far as becoming 1 nation goes, if it wasn't azerbaijan would have already ceded itself to Turkey, also Kazakhstan, and the other Turkic nations while being friendly with the Turks of Turkey do not want to be under their control, and already do business with them anyways.

                The Russians/USSR stirred up the greatness we had going with the Azeri's. The Azeri bolsheviks sided with Armenia and said Nakhichevan, Artsakh, and Zangezur belonged to us

                "As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent. Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhchivan are recognised to be integral parts of the Socialist Republic of Armenia"

                Nariman Narimanov Bolshevik Leader of Azerbijan.

                As for the USSR being under the control of Judeo-Bolsheviks, while the people in charge may have been of judeo origin, thee people who followed them were russians. While the bolshevik revolution has considerable questionable financing, it could not have happened if the people of Russia didn't support it either.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

                  Originally posted by ara87 View Post
                  While notions of pan Turkism are alive in some places, it's ultimately dead and as far as becoming 1 nation goes, if it wasn't azerbaijan would have already ceded itself to Turkey, also Kazakhstan, and the other Turkic nations while being friendly with the Turks of Turkey do not want to be under their control, and already do business with them anyways.

                  The Russians/USSR stirred up the greatness we had going with the Azeri's. The Azeri bolsheviks sided with Armenia and said Nakhichevan, Artsakh, and Zangezur belonged to us

                  "As of today, the old frontiers between Armenia and Azerbaijan are declared to be non-existent. Mountainous Karabagh, Zangezur and Nakhchivan are recognised to be integral parts of the Socialist Republic of Armenia"

                  Nariman Narimanov Bolshevik Leader of Azerbijan.

                  As for the USSR being under the control of Judeo-Bolsheviks, while the people in charge may have been of judeo origin, thee people who followed them were russians. While the bolshevik revolution has considerable questionable financing, it could not have happened if the people of Russia didn't support it either.
                  Pan-turkism is alive and kicking, look at the notion two states one nations and if they had the chance they would create their empire.

                  And go to the Georgians because it was a georgia named stalin who has given our lands away.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Deconstructing the Defense of the Protocols

                    Originally posted by KarotheGreat View Post
                    Pan-turkism is alive and kicking, look at the notion two states one nations and if they had the chance they would create their empire.
                    yes i know but my point is that if they really believed that they would have already unified, you don't have to be contingent to be 1 country, (USA & Alaska, Hawaii, US territories, etc) Any ethnic tensions we have with Azerbaijan today was caused by the Russians/Soviets


                    Originally posted by KarotheGreat View Post
                    And go to the Georgians because it was a georgia named stalin who has given our lands away.
                    Well actually after the Azeri bolsheviks said, Artaskh, Nakhichevan, and Zangezur belonged to us vladamir lennin's response was

                    "Vladimir Lenin, although welcoming this act of "great Soviet fraternity" where "boundaries had no meaning among the family of Soviet peoples," did not agree with the motion and instead called for the people of Nakhchivan to be consulted in a referendum."

                    That's how we lost Nakhichevan

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X