Liberation of Western Armenia

[sirius1234]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Armenian

No one believed that Armenians would be able to beat the Azeri enemy that was much larger and much beter eguipped. American Turkish relations are based upon political interests. When politics change so can their relationship. What's more, Turks in reality, have not been able to do much militarily against Kurds, who are just a bunch of disorganized disunited gaurillas.

Your comparisons are very poor... Azerbaidjan is a tiny nation of the size of Armenia, Tukey is 71 millions of people. As for Kurds, they're guerillas, not a real army, Turkey does not fight them as it would fight Armenians, Turkey is not going to bomb its own cities, slaying its own citizens. However, the same couldn't be told in case of war with Armenia, Turks would conquer it very easily as they did in the past, and as they conquered the whole South-Eastern Europe in a very easy and quick way.

Re-read the essey I wrote, I am not calling for a war against Turkey, I simply want us to be ready for the day when Turkey is weak and the political situation is right.

Turks are not weak, they have been able to control millions of Europeans who outnumbered them, for centuries, Greece and the rest of the Balkan peninsula were Ottoman for 6 centuries, until 1912.

Weak is a relative term, most of Turkey has not been occupied fo almost a millenium, for the time of the Seljuks and of the Ottomans, Turks enjoyed total independence, even the Western attempt to colonise Turkey after the Treaty of Sevres has miserably failed, as Turkish nationalists woke up and defeated the Western armies (Italy, Greece, the U.K, and France), driving them out of Anatolia, and taking all of the lands who were assignated to Greece and Armenia back. On the other hand, Armenians have never been independent for centuries, Armenians are independent since 1991 only, they were conquered by Romans, Byzantines and Iranians, Arabs, Mongols, Turks and Russians, and then Soviets.

What is so important about our lands?

The lands we want hold great sentimental value. That is where our genealogy began, it is where human civilization began, its where our martyred ancestors lie in unmarked graves. More importantly, the land belongs to us legally.

And you think that those lands are magically worthless in the eyes of their autochtonous Muslim people? It is also the ancestral lands of Muslim Turks and Kurds. Oh and, sorry to disapoint you, but the first human civilisation did not begin in Turkey, it started in the Arabian peninsula, in the Southern part of modern Iraq, at the time of the Sumerian ancestors of the Iraqi Arabs.

What about the Kurds?

The Kurds will have a nation they may want to move to in norther Iraq or the south of Van. Those who decide to remain in our historic lands will simply have to become Armenian citizens, just as they are Turkish citizens now. If they decide to give us a hard time, then they simply have to pack and leave as well, its no big deal. In times of geo-political chaos, these things occur naturally. Israel has been able to displace close to a million Lebanese in two shot weeks. The Artsakh army was able to do the same with Azeris in 1993. The Kurds are quite disorganized and disunited, therefore Armenians need not worry much about them as a military/politcal factor.

And how many Armenians suffered from this Lebanese exile? 4% of Lebanon's population are Armenians, tens of thousands of them live in Palestine as well, in Syria and Jordan too, all of them are descending of the Anatolian refugees of the 1910's. Should them be expelled from Arab lands? After all, they're only guests (hiden and saved by Arab families, from Ottoman persecutions), not indigenous people of the Arab World, unlike Kurds and Turks in Anatolia.

So, "Western Armenia" belongs to people of modern Armenia, and not to its Kurdish and Turkish inhabitants? Muslims are indigenous to this area and have inhabited it for millenia, they constitute the vast majority of its population and do not want to be a part of Armenia. But you can still dream about a powerful Armenian military which would conquer Turkey to realise your senseless dreams, considering the extreme weakness of Armenia, it seems like it is just a fantasy.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Your comparisons are very poor... Azerbaidjan is a tiny nation of the size of Armenia, Tukey is 71 millions of people. As for Kurds, they're guerillas, not a real army, Turkey does not fight them as it would fight Armenians, Turkey is not going to bomb its own cities, slaying its own citizens.

Actually Azerbaijan wasn't fighting against the Republic of Armenia, it was fighting against Armenians from Karabakh, which today number at just under 140,000 people. A guerilla force from a population of 140,000 utterly defeated an army from a nation of over 8 million (Azerbaijan). And about Turkey slaying its own citizens... it has not shown any reluctance nor have they hesitated when it comes to this aspect of internal affairs. No offense, but open up a history book.

Turks would conquer it very easily as they did in the past, and as they conquered the whole South-Eastern Europe in a very easy and quick way.

Are you joking? Turkey cannot even defeat guerillas within their own borders after 3 decades of fighting. If Turkey attacks Armenia they can destroy the country with their Nintendo pilots, but they cannot successfully occupy the land. Armenians thrive when they use guerilla tactics (look at the Karabakh war), and guerilla warfare seems to be the one weakness with the Turkish army, considering their domestic situation.

And you think that those lands are magically worthless in the eyes of their autochtonous Muslim people? It is also the ancestral lands of Muslim Turks and Kurds.

East Anatolia never formed a part of the Turkish homeland. This region, if you have read up on Armenian history, was full of revolts and resistances from before Christ, all throughout the Turkic invasions, and even in the last century. East Anatolia was only kept by force and by the deportation of native populations, and it was not part of the Turkish homeland. The Turkish homeland is central and western Anatolia, where there were no major revolts throughout their rule, and where the population had more or less assimilated into a cohesive unit, unlike the case in east Anatolia. Armenians have been building civilizations in East Anatolia since at least the 6th century B.C., up until WWI.

[sirius1234]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Armsurvival

Today the Republic of Armenia's army is occupying those areas in Azerbaidjan, not Armenian guerillas.

Also, I suggest you to grab a history book as well, all countries have once slayed their citizens on political purposes, it doesn't mean Turks are going to slay their own people to defeat some Turkish guerillas. Guerillas are not armies, they're resisting civilians, and are hard to catch, unlike troops who may be mass bombed... Turkey is the second army of NATO, don't ever pretend Turks would have difficulties to conquer such a tiny and poor country as Armenia, when they already conquered dozens of nations in South-Eastern Europe and occupied their lands for centuries, Greece, Georgia, Macedoine, Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Hungary, Moldova, and parts of Austria, Croatia, Ukraine, and Russia. Not to mention the victory over the Mameluks, and then the occupation of Arab lands at the same time, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Finally, Eastern Anatolia is today also inhabited by indigenous Kurds, that the person called Armenian calls to expell. This area was inhabited by Kurds, Arabs, Persians, and by the ancestors of today Anatolian Kurds, for millenia. Turkey is a recent concept, it exists since 1923, it does not mean the forfathers of the Turks emerged only in the 20th century... their Hittite ancestors lived in Eastern Anatolia long before the first Armenian entity ever existed. Also, this land was a part of Arab-Semitic empires of Assyria and Babylonia, long before Armenia ever existed as well... so by this logic it would mean those lands are for the Semites of the area, Arabs... not Armenians.

Of course many Armenians lived there and were ethnic cleansed from their lands, but there were also Turkish populations living there with Armenians for millenia, those lands were not more Armenian than Turkish-Kurdish.

All those senseless claims about Eastern Turkey don't surprise me after all, the Armenian delegation of 1920 even claimed parts of the Arab Homeland for its new state...

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Today the Republic of Armenia's army is occupying those areas in Azerbaidjan, not Armenian guerillas.

No, thats false. The ROA doesn't have a single soldier in Karabakh, the region has its own army made up of people who live within Karabakh's borders.

Also, I suggest you to grab a history book as well, all countries have once slayed their citizens on political purposes, it doesn't mean Turks are going to slay their own people to defeat some Turkish guerillas. Guerillas are not armies, they're resisting civilians, and are hard to catch, unlike troops who may be mass bombed...

I know that guerillas are different from conventional armies, but the point is, Armenians fight guerilla wars, while Turkish troops have a hard time dealing with guerillas (look at the Kurdish problem for the last 30 years).

Turkey is the second army of NATO, don't ever pretend Turks would have difficulties to conquer such a tiny and poor country as Armenia, when they already conquered dozens of nations in South-Eastern Europe and occupied their lands for centuries, Greece, Georgia, Macedoine, Bulgaria, Romania, Bosnia, Serbia, Albania, Montenegro, Hungary, Moldova, and parts of Austria, Croatia, Ukraine, and Russia. Not to mention the victory over the Mameluks, and then the occupation of Arab lands at the same time, Egypt, Syria, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, and parts of Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Great, a bunch of military victories that took place centuries before the Republic of Turkey was even founded. I can start naming Armenian victories over Hellenic armies, Persian armies, Roman armies, etc, but it has nothing to do with the present-day.

Turkey is a recent concept, it exists since 1923, it does not mean the forfathers of the Turks emerged only in the 20th century... their Hittite ancestors lived in Eastern Anatolia long before the first Armenian entity ever existed.

Hittites are not the ancestors of Turks, there is not a single credible historian who would claim that. Even Turks consider themselves as descendents of those nomadic tribes which travelled from central Asia to Anatolia (namely the Oghuz Turks). I hope you see the paradox in claiming that Turks' ancestors were nomads in central Asia AND a sedentary civilization in Anatolia, especially when these two peoples did not have any contact with one another.

Also, this land was a part of Arab-Semitic empires of Assyria and Babylonia, long before Armenia ever existed as well... so by this logic it would mean those lands are for the Semites of the area, Arabs... not Armenians.

The term "Arab" does not refer to Babylonians and Assyrians. Just because they are semetic doesn't mean they are Arabs... unless you mean to say that J-e-ws are Arabs too.

Of course many Armenians lived there and were ethnic cleansed from their lands, but there were also Turkish populations living there with Armenians for millenia, those lands were not more Armenian than Turkish-Kurdish.

I know Armenians also lived on those lands with other peoples. But study this region at any period in history and you'll see that this region was either part of independent Armenian states, or were autonomous Armenian districts within major empires. It can be traced from at least the 6th century B.C. with the Yervanduni dynasty (585 B.C.-200 B.C.), Artashesian dynasty (190 B.C.- 2 A.D.), Arshakuni dynasty (66-428), even during Persian domination they had local Marz, or rulers (428-640), under the Arabs they had their own local princes and the highland was called 'Arminiya' (640-884), Bagratuni dynasty (884-1045), Armenian Cilician Kingdom (1080-1375), and even under Ottoman, Safavid and Russian domination, the term Greater Armenia (or similar related terms like 'Ottoman Armenia' or 'Russian Armenia') were used to describe the highland and its peoples.

This is not the case with central or western Anatolia, where there were no Armenian entities (either independent or under a foreign yoke), and where there was no major revolts against Turkish rule for centuries. That is why central and western Anatolia are part of the Turkish homeland, while east Anatolia has demographically, politically and culturally been seperate from the Turkish yoke.

As I said, you need to study Armenian history in order to know these details.

[sirius1234]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Armsurvival

By your logic, the so-called Armenian accomplishments of the Ancient political entities that took place in today Armenia, are not to be attributed to Armenia...

The term Arab reffers to the Arab peoples, who descend from the Berbers, Ancient Egyptians, African Sudanese, Canaanites-Phoenicians, people of the Arabian Peninsula, and Mesopotamians. Well, it is a historical fact that Iraqi and Syrian Arabs are the descendents of Assyro-Babylonians. Moreover, Semites originated from Arabia, Assyro-Babylonians, who owned Eastern Anatolia, were of Arabian origin.

Hebrews (not J-ews, who are people following the religion Judaism, and are mostly of White ancestry, not Middle-Eastern Semites) were the Ancient Israelites, who were themselves Judaised Arab Canaanites, and then became Christianised-Hellenised Palestinians, who mass converted to Islam following the Muslim expulsion of European byzantine occupiers.

By the way, even in the Bible, Saudi Arabs are a Hebrew Tribe called the Ishmaelites, descending of prophete Abraham, who was an Aramean immigrant from Chaldea (Southern Iraq) who settled in Canaan, today known as Palestine.

No, thats false. The ROA doesn't have a single soldier in Karabakh, the region has its own army made up of people who live within Karabakh's borders.

The CIA World Fact Book says:

"Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s, has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) continues to mediate dispute; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; about 230,000 ethnic Armenians were driven from their homes in Azerbaijan into Armenia; Azerbaijan seeks transit route through Armenia to connect to Naxcivan exclave; border with Turkey remains closed over Nagorno-Karabakh dispute; ethnic Armenian groups in Javakheti region of Georgia seek greater autonomy; Armenians continue to emigrate, primarily to Russia, seeking employment."

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/am.html#Issues

Great, a bunch of military victories that took place centuries before the Republic of Turkey was even founded. I can start naming Armenian victories over Hellenic armies, Persian armies, Roman armies, etc, but it has nothing to do with the present-day.

Well, the Turkish nationalists who founded Turkey in 1923, have been able to defeat the Greeks, the Italians, the French, the Armenians, and the Brits, at the same time, driving them out of Anatolia and Eastern Thrace, taking back all of the occupied lands and imposing the new Treaty of Lausanne on the Allies. Turks also captured Northern Cyprus in the 70's.

Of course Armenians can fight guerilla wars like everyone on earth, but they would be still occupied and under foreign domination, they would kill a few of soldiers but many of their civilians would be killed by Turkish bombings, or even massacres, I really doubt Armenia can face Turkey at war, even Greece, which is much bigger and richer, is scared to engage in war about its territorial conflicts with Turkey.

Hittites are not the ancestors of Turks, there is not a single credible historian who would claim that. Even Turks consider themselves as descendents of those nomadic tribes which travelled from central Asia to Anatolia (namely the Oghuz Turks). I hope you see the paradox in claiming that your ancestors were nomads in central Asia AND a sedentary civilization in Anatolia, especially when these two peoples did not have any contact with one another.

Oh yes they are, and there is no paradox to have a few ancestors from Central Asia, and Europe, while being ethnically Anatolian in majority. The vast majority of Maghrebis identify as Arab people and are a part of the Arab World for more than 1 millenia and 3 centuries, they are Berber in term of race though. You say there is no credible historian who would tell Turks are descendents of the Hittites, although most scholars state that Central Asian element is minor in Turkish people, they're mostly descendents of indigenous Anatolians who lived there for millenia, and long before Armenia ever existed.

Cilicia included parts of the Arab Homeland, it is not Historical Armenia, it was created after the Arab occupation of Armenia. The oldest trace of Armenia you listed is 580 B.C, well, Semites owned those lands more than 1500 years before... like Armenians owned those lands only 1500 years before "invading Turks who came in the 1000's". So, you're not more indigenous than them, Semites were there first according to this logic, and modern represents of Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian Semites, are the Iraqi, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian Arabs.

Encyclopaedia Of the Orient, edited by Norwegian and American specialists of the Middle-East and North-Africa


"Turks : the Turks are a mixture of the indigenous population belonging to the region since millennias, the Turk-Tatarians immigrating from 11th century and the two following centuries. In the centuries following this immigration, people came from all over the Mediterranean world, as well as from Caucasia."

http://lexicorient.com/e.o/turks.htm

This Greek website, about Anthroology, says Turks are mostly Anatolian in term of race, not Central Asian:

"The Anatolians are the ethnic descendants of both the indigenous populations of Asia Minor who converted to Islam (and were thus spared from the genocidal campaign of the Ottomans and Kemalists during the early 20th century), and also of non-indigenous populations from the Balkans, the Middle East, and Central Asia. From Central Asia came the Turks, who were the main agent for the Islamization and during the last century Turkification of Asia Minor."

"Using the figure of 38.5%, the paternal contribution of Turks to the Anatolian population is estimated to about 11%. In lieu of the approximation, allowing for 33% relative error in either direction for both the true frequency of Mongoloid lineages in Anatolia and in early Turks, we obtain a range of 6-22%. It would thus appear that the Turkish element is a minority one in the composition of the Anatolians, but it is by no means negligible."

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/02/how-turkish-are-anatolians.html

Armenians have Turkish, Iranian, Russian, Arab, and many other allien genes as well, it doesn't make them invaders.

This is not the case with central or western Anatolia, where there were no Armenian entities (either independent or under a foreign yoke), and where there was no major revolts against Turkish rule for centuries. That is why central and western Anatolia are part of the Turkish homeland, while east Anatolia has demographically, politically and culturally been seperate from the Turkish yoke.

As I said, you need to study Armenian history in order to know these details.

But, when Ottomans ethnic cleased this area, it was already populed by a large Turkish-Kurdish population of Muslim faith, not only Armenians. That is why Mustafa Kemal took those lands back, he fought for the lands inhabited by a majority of Turkish people.

For example, today the area of Van is a Kurdish region, and Kurds are not even Turkic speakers, they're Indigenous Indo-European speaking people like Armenians.



I did study Armenia, don't worry.

[skhara]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Armos, I make a plea with you not to engage in conversation with turds -- let them crap and go.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

By your logic, the so-called Armenian accomplishments of the Ancient political entities that took place in today Armenia, are not to be attributed to Armenia...

How? I just named all the instances where an Armenian entity existed throughout history, even while foreign empires occupied it, and you simply disregard it.

Hebrews (not J-ews, who are people following the religion Judaism, and are mostly of White ancestry, not Middle-Eastern Semites)

White ancestry? LMAO.... where are you pulling these terms out of? There is no such term as "white ancestry" outside Neo-Nazi circles. And for your information, Hebrew is a semetic language, and Israel is located in today's middle east.

The CIA World Fact Book says:

"Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s, has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) continues to mediate dispute; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; about 230,000 ethnic Armenians were driven from their homes in Azerbaijan into Armenia; Azerbaijan seeks transit route through Armenia to connect to Naxcivan exclave; border with Turkey remains closed over Nagorno-Karabakh dispute; ethnic Armenian groups in Javakheti region of Georgia seek greater autonomy; Armenians continue to emigrate, primarily to Russia, seeking employment."

Armenia gave limited petrol and electrical support to Karabakh, but this does not mean that ROA has troops stationed there. Your source even claims that it was a secessionist force, meaning that it was from within Azerbaijan, not from Armenia. Look at your own sources more carefully.

You say there is no credible historian who would tell Turks are descendents of the Hittites, although most scholars state that Central Asian element is minor in Turkish people, they're mostly descendents of indigenous Anatolians who lived there for millenia, and long before Armenia ever existed.

I am not denying that "Hittite genes" are present in Turkey today, but this does not mean they are the same people. Turkish and Hittite culture are markedly different and have no continuous connection to one another, considering the Hittites, as a civilization, died out centuries before Turks appeared there.

Cilicia included parts of the Arab Homeland, it is not Historical Armenia, it was created after the Arab occupation of Armenia. The oldest trace of Armenia you listed is 580 B.C, well, Semites owned those lands more than 1500 years before... like Armenians owned those lands only 1500 years before "invading Turks who came in the 1000's". So, you're not more indigenous than them, Semites were there first according to this logic, and modern represents of Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian Semites, are the Iraqi, Palestinian, Lebanese, and Syrian Arabs.

Semite is a term which includes different groups, from Arabs to Assyrians to xxxs, and is also a language group. You cannot compare a designation like this to Armenians, who are one group within the Indo-European family. You can compare Semites to Indo-Europeans, but it is wrong to compare a vast group such as Semites to a single people such as Armenians. By your logic, Armenians can claim India since both peoples are Indo-European. This logic is very inaccurate.


Seeing as you use terms like "white race", and comparing language groups to single peoples, there is no point in having a discussion with you. I have nothing against you, but I'm not going to waste my time with this.

[sirius1234]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Armos, I make a plea with you not to engage in conversation with turds -- let them crap and go.

How courageous, is that an other way to say you're inarticulate and have nothing productive to say?

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Sirius1234 do you really think that Turkey could occupaie Armenia
Even the US said would have trouble to win a war in Armenia so do you really think that the Turkish Army is stronger than the US army. and about the claime that Armenians livedthere from 6CBC is also wrong you are frogeting about the Uratu kingdom and the other tribes that lived there. And the turks are not decendets of the hittites but are a ural-mongolic tribe


Karo

[sirius1234]

Re: Liberation of Western Armenia

Armsurvival

Semite is a term which includes different groups, from Arabs to Assyrians to xxxs

You're mistaken in part, Semites were the Ancient Arabs and their Northern counterparts, who were themselves of Arabian origin and migrated to Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Oriental offshore of Mediterranea, as early as 3500 B.C, 5500 years ago. Most Semites then adopted the Aramaic language, and then the Modern Arabic civilisation following the Muslim expulsion of the European Byzantine occupiers and their Sassanid Iranian rivals. Modern Arabs are the descendents of those people, who are linked to them in term of race, Semitic language-culture-religion, and in term of Middle-Eastern civilisation.

and is also a language group. You cannot compare a designation like this to Armenians, who are one group within the Indo-European family.

Armenian itself is a language family as well, not only a single language... you claim Armenians descend of people who spoke different languages and dialects in the past as the language of Modern Armenia, so the same can told for modern Arabic, which is derivated from the Aramaic language, the tongue spoken by Semites prior to the Islamic period (unlike Ancient primitive Arabic languages, aka Southern Arabic languages, who were not derivated from Aramaic).

You can compare Semites to Indo-Europeans, but it is wrong to compare a vast group such as Semites to a single people such as Armenians. By your logic, Armenians can claim India since both peoples are Indo-European. This logic is very inaccurate.

This is not my logic, Indians are not the ancestors of Armenians, are they? You didn't get my point, about the modern Arabic speakers being the descendents of Ancient Semites.



Arabs:

People living in North Africa and the Middle East, from western Morocco to Oman, and from Turkey in the north to Yemen and Sudan in the south.

The Arabic heartland is Hijaz (now western Saudi Arabia) and Yemen. Around the year 610 CE, the birth year of Islam, this was a trade area along caravan routes, where the town of Mecca was one of the central towns. People came to Hijaz from Africa, from Mesopotamia, from Phoenicia, and from Egypt. The little evidence we have suggests that the Arabs in this era were not a pure race because intermarriage and the freedom of Arab women to choose their own bed mates created a diverse society.

Arab identity would spread with with the advances of Islam. Although Arabs originating from the Arab heartland at some time emigrated into all the new territories which today have a population defined as "Arabs," these territories were already peopled by a population far larger than the immigrants. For a number of reasons, however, Arab lifestyles, Arab identity and Arabic language would come to replace the original lifestyles, identities and languages.

Arabs would come to have some influence to the race, but in most cases the Arab peoples living in lands originally non-Arab, represent about the same racial composition as before the Arabization.

Hence the former Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Phoenicians, Canaanites, (most of the) Berbers etc. are still there, but they have simply changed their identities.






Mesopotamia is Iraq, and Mesopotamians are the Iraqis, those who controlled
Armenia for centuries before Armenia ever existed...

I am not denying that "Hittite genes" are present in Turkey today

You just did though, you changed your opinion in a quick way...

but this does not mean they are the same people.

Yes it does, they're the same racially and they're culturally Middle-Easterners like their ancestors.

Turkish and Hittite culture are markedly different and have no continuous connection to one another, considering the Hittites, as a civilization, died out centuries before Turks appeared there.

Well, Ancient Armenians had a different alphabet, a different religion, a different dialect, a different primitive culture, their geographical location was much different and they didn't live in Modern Republic of Armenia, they were under monarchies. You can't have it both ways... Armenia has never been an independent state for most of its history, it always belonged to other political entities, such as Iraq, Iran, Russia, USSR, and Turkey.

How? I just named all the instances where an Armenian entity existed throughout history, even while foreign empires occupied it, and you simply disregard it.

The answer is above, those monarchies were not the Modern Republic of Armenia.

Note that culture and language are not criterias of indigenousness, otherwise all Americans and Indians would be of Germanic descent, which seems very strange for people of India and for tens of millions of Germanic speakers from the USA, who are racially African, not Scandinavian.

So, do you mean Turks have to leave simply because they changed their languages, just like the whole planet's nations did? Do the Latin Speaking French have to leave their country simply because they were Latinised and Romanised by their conquerants, their ancestors being Celtic speakers of Gaulish descent, not French (from the Germanic Frankish invaders, -Franks-) ?

Children of immigrating people who are of different nationalities and speak different languages, still can inherit from their parents and even grandparents wealth, plain and simple. Conclusion, the same blood runs through their veins, and they own their forfathers lands.

I find it very immature and senseless that so many people try to deny Turks their indigenousness, those people do exactly what they complain about, it is childish.

Armenia gave limited petrol and electrical support to Karabakh, but this does not mean that ROA has troops stationed there. Your source even claims that it was a secessionist force, meaning that it was from within Azerbaijan, not from Armenia. Look at your own sources more carefully.

Do not try to confuse, the source clearly states Armenia occupies 16% of the country, not Armenian forces...

"Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s, has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan."

If it reffered to the secessionists the term would be "have".

And for your information, Hebrew is a semetic language, and Israel is located in today's middle east.

Hebrew was not spoken by israelis before 1948 and the etablishment of their colony in Palestine, israelis used to be European and African speaking people. The USA is located in Americas, most of its inhabitants are allien to the continent though, they came from Europe and stole it from the Indians, so what's your point?

israel still doesn't recognise the Armenian genocide by the way.

White ancestry? LMAO.... where are you pulling these terms out of? There is no such term as "white ancestry" outside Neo-Nazi circles.

What was the "LMAO" for? White is a term for people who trace their ancestry to Europe, but since you're an Asian from Armenia, it isn't surprising you ignore this common knowledge.

The point was israel was founded by Ashkenazi J-ews (85% of the World's J-ewish population), who are mostly of European stock, not Middle-Easterners. They are recent illegal J-ewish immigrants came from Europe in the 20'th century and after Holocaust, then they mass imported millions of J-ews from Europe, America, Africa and Asia, to repopulate the country they stole and emptied of its original Palestinian population after the ethnic cleansing of 1948.




History and Ethnic groups of israel according to the US Department of State:

"The creation of the State of Israel in 1948 was preceded by more than 50 years of efforts to establish a sovereign nation as a homeland for J-ews. These efforts were initiated by Theodore Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, and were given added impetus by the Balfour Declaration of 1917, which asserted the British Government's support for the creation of a J-ewish homeland in Palestine."

"With a population drawn from more than 100 countries on 5 continents, Israeli society is rich in cultural diversity and artistic creativity."

"Since 1989, nearly a million immigrants from the former Soviet Union have arrived in Israel, making this the largest wave of immigration since independence. In addition, almost 50,000 members of the Ethiopian J-ewish community have immigrated to Israel, 14,000 of them during the dramatic May 1991 Operation Solomon airlift. 35.3% of Israelis were born outside of Israel.

"The three broad J-ewish groupings are the Ashkenazim, or J-ews who trace their ancestry to western, central, and eastern Europe; the Sephardim, who trace their origin to Spain, Portugal, southern Europe, and North Africa; and Eastern or Oriental J-ews, who descend from ancient communities in Islamic lands."

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3581.htm#people

Seeing as you use terms like "white race", and comparing language groups to single peoples, there is no point in having a discussion with you. I have nothing against you, but I'm not going to waste my time with this.

I never used the term of "White race", it seems like you didn't read well, so no wonder why you didn't understand the meaning of my sentences...

Where are you from? As I just said, the term White is commonly used in Europe and in the West to reffer to a person of European ancestry, there's nothing taboo about it, and as for the single peoples, modern Arabs are descendents of all Ancient Semites. Since you're not Arab, you need to study the Arab World history before to state such false statements.

Also, I really have nothing against Armenia, but some people here are Islamophobic and show hatred towards Arabs, Kurds, and Turks. One of them even calls to ethnic cleanse the Indigenous Kurds of their homeland, doing the same as Armenians had to live at the time of Ottomans, it is simply hypocrisy and hatred.