Virtual Ani

[Kharpert]

Vogelgrippe, if you could please cite some examples or other Turkish construction projects that use the same methods as this restoration.

[Vogelgrippe]

It's not about the individual Turk that we have misgivings. It is about the whole Turkish State attitude and agenda, and we have countless grounds to have mistrust dating back over 100 years. What amazes me is that you can expect anything else from us given what we have witnessed and continue to witness as the Turkish State agenda, and here I'll just name a few recent examples:

1. Reports show that in 1993, Turkey was almost minutes away from attacking Armenia;
2. The U.S. ambassador to Armenia is fired (this year) b/c he acknowledged on his own behalf that the Armenians had in fact suffered a Genocide (I wonder who put the U.S. administration up to that);
3. Azerbaijani Turks completely whipe out in broad daylight thousands of historical centuries-old khachkars, which would be considered national treasures in any civilized country;
4. Turkish prosecutors convict countless authors for uttering the word Genocide in their books, even if they're works of fiction, and the government does nothing to stop this insanity.
5. Turkish prosecutors open a case against our Pope, Karekin, for saying that a Genocide happened while on a visit to Turkey.

I can go on and on, and yet we wait patiently for somes signs of atonement or shame or something that has a semblance of humanity, and you have the nerve to come here and complain that we are complaining about the way the Turkish government has proceeded to supposedly reconstruct our ancient works of art and architecture, after years of neglect and abuse. Give me a break while I take a shi.t just thinking about your perverse perspective.

1) In 1993, as in 2006, Armenia was, as is now, occupying not only Karabagh (where, I stated several times, I believe you have a legitimate claim), but also 20% of Azerbaijan proper. No wonder that some Turkish politicians or generals contemplated about teaching Armenia a lesson.

2) You attack and slander each and every American who makes a pro-Turkish statement. Turks also have a right to pressure/question those who make anti-Turkish statements. Or is it only illegit when Turks do it?

3) This is a shame on part of the Azeri government. You are right. I guess they have a perverted logic like (similar to those of yours regarding Akhdamar restauration) 'Armenians occupy our land, so we can destroy their historical monuments'.

4) You are right again, I agree with you completely. Anyone, anywhere, should be able to express his/her opinion as long as it doesn't incite hatred against other groups/individuals.

5) If you deliberately break the law of any country, you will get prosecuted. (This is not to say that I agree with this law in particular). Same thing happened to Yusuf Halacoglu in Switzerland, chair of Turkish Historical Foundation , for having stated that the Armenian Genocide did not happen.
I believe that both Karekin and Halacoglu should'nt have been hassled with repressive laws.

You can go on and on, and will certainly come up with points which are undisputedly correct. This doesn't change the fact, however, that you are very wrong in other aspects or theories.

Ah, and do not forget to wash your hands afterwards!

[Vogelgrippe]

Vogelgrippe, if you could please cite some examples or other Turkish construction projects that use the same methods as this restoration.

Normally the burden of proof lies with the accuser, but I will take your request as a sign of sincere curiosity, so I respond.

Here is a newspaper article, in English, about the failure of Turkey to do restauration properly on mosques, imarets, lodges etc...

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=national&alt=&trh=20050815&hn=23055

Anothher big issue going on in Turkey is the Black Sea Motorway Project (Karadeniz Otoyolu), and the historical monuments which it will destroy. Even though the local court ordered the halt of the construction on several sites, there are rumours that construction continues at nights. Below is a website, unfortunately in Turkish, of Turkish Chamber of Architects and Engineers, reporting about this abuse.

http://www.mimarlarodasi.org.tr/mimarhaber/index.cfm?sayfa=belge&Dergi=24&Menu=162&Action=showbelge&RecID=574

[auser]

1) In 1993, as in 2006, Armenia was, as is now, occupying not only Karabagh (where, I stated several times, I believe you have a legitimate claim), but also 20% of Azerbaijan proper. No wonder that some Turkish politicians or generals contemplated about teaching Armenia a lesson.

2) You attack and slander each and every American who makes a pro-Turkish statement. Turks also have a right to pressure/question those who make anti-Turkish statements. Or is it only illegit when Turks do it?

3) This is a shame on part of the Azeri government. You are right. I guess they have a perverted logic like (similar to those of yours regarding Akhdamar restauration) 'Armenians occupy our land, so we can destroy their historical monuments'.

4) You are right again, I agree with you completely. Anyone, anywhere, should be able to express his/her opinion as long as it doesn't incite hatred against other groups/individuals.

5) If you deliberately break the law of any country, you will get prosecuted. (This is not to say that I agree with this law in particular). Same thing happened to Yusuf Halacoglu in Switzerland, chair of Turkish Historical Foundation , for having stated that the Armenian Genocide did not happen.
I believe that both Karekin and Halacoglu should'nt have been hassled with repressive laws.

You can go on and on, and will certainly come up with points which are undisputedly correct. This doesn't change the fact, however, that you are very wrong in other aspects or theories.

Ah, and do not forget to wash your hands afterwards!

U’d better expand your historical knowledge, your info dates back to 90s only. Kharabagh was a gift from soviet rulers to azerbaijanis in the early 20th . and u gotta know that we didn’t want another genocide (enough is enough).

How many 20% do u add? Karabagh when a part of Azerbaijan was the 20% of all its territory. so in the right time we acted to prevent another genocide(this time at the end of the century)
But honestly I’m not shocked about what is happening in Jugha right now, cos destroying the historical monuments in the 21st century is sth , expected only from turkes and Azerbaijanis (who try vigorously to turn the wold’s opinion more favorable to them but useless.)

[phantom]

1) In 1993, as in 2006, Armenia was, as is now, occupying not only Karabagh (where, I stated several times, I believe you have a legitimate claim), but also 20% of Azerbaijan proper. No wonder that some Turkish politicians or generals contemplated about teaching Armenia a lesson.!

Hmm, obviously you are not a math major. The entire land mass that is currently controlled by Armenians is less than 20%, and that includes Karabagh. Furthermore, can you explain to me how a people that have lived on their land for 2500 years can be called "occupiers". Go to Karabagh and explain to me how it is that Azeri Turks built the hundreds of Armenian churches and monastaries dating back hundreds of years dotting the landscape of Karabagh. And what if we had left all of this to the Azeris, what would have happened. Look at Nakicevan for your answer; they have not only removed every single Armenian, but even our graves and our ancient works of art and architecture.

2) You attack and slander each and every American who makes a pro-Turkish statement. Turks also have a right to pressure/question those who make anti-Turkish statements. Or is it only illegit when Turks do it?.

Before you throw around legal terms like "slander" you have to understand what they mean. It's only "slander" if it's not true. It's not a lie when we say that the Ottoman Turks exterminated our people in cold blood in what amounted to a Genocide, and therefore, it's not slander. We do not slander any Americans who make pro-Turkish statements, because what we say about those Americans is true: they are driven by incentives or threats from Turkey to say what they say, and there's nothing false about that.

3) This is a shame on part of the Azeri government. You are right. I guess they have a perverted logic like (similar to those of yours regarding Akhdamar restauration) 'Armenians occupy our land, so we can destroy their historical monuments'.

How is this similar to our logic regarding Akhtamar? We don't occupy their land, we occupy our own land, and if we had not defended ourselves, there would have been a repeat of 1915, and you know it.

4) You are right again, I agree with you completely. Anyone, anywhere, should be able to express his/her opinion as long as it doesn't incite hatred against other groups/individuals.

Great, we agree on something. Hopefully, we also agree that saying that there was an Armenian Genocide does not qualify as inciting hatred against another group or individual.

5) If you deliberately break the law of any country, you will get prosecuted. (This is not to say that I agree with this law in particular). Same thing happened to Yusuf Halacoglu in Switzerland, chair of Turkish Historical Foundation , for having stated that the Armenian Genocide did not happen.
I believe that both Karekin and Halacoglu should'nt have been hassled with repressive laws.

Except that there's a difference between telling the truth and telling lies that further open wounds in a people that have already been hurt. If you can't tell the difference, then there's something wrong with you. It is ok for Americans to learn that their ancestors exterminated the indigenous peoples of America, because it's true and it's part of the history of America. It's not ok for Americans to run around denying this, because it's not true and it further cuts the very people that have been decimated in the first place.

You can go on and on, and will certainly come up with points which are undisputedly correct. This doesn't change the fact, however, that you are very wrong in other aspects or theories.

I'm not God, I never purported to be right about everything, or even anything. I'm merely stating my view and noting what I view are glaring deficiencies in your view of things.

[Vogelgrippe]

Hmm, obviously you are not a math major. The entire land mass that is currently controlled by Armenians is less than 20%, and that includes Karabagh. Furthermore, can you explain to me how a people that have lived on their land for 2500 years can be called "occupiers". Go to Karabagh and explain to me how it is that Azeri Turks built the hundreds of Armenian churches and monastaries dating back hundreds of years dotting the landscape of Karabagh. And what if we had left all of this to the Azeris, what would have happened. Look at Nakicevan for your answer; they have not only removed every single Armenian, but even our graves and our ancient works of art and architecture.



Before you throw around legal terms like "slander" you have to understand what they mean. It's only "slander" if it's not true. It's not a lie when we say that the Ottoman Turks exterminated our people in cold blood in what amounted to a Genocide, and therefore, it's not slander. We do not slander any Americans who make pro-Turkish statements, because what we say about those Americans is true: they are driven by incentives or threats from Turkey to say what they say, and there's nothing false about that.



How is this similar to our logic regarding Akhtamar? We don't occupy their land, we occupy our own land, and if we had not defended ourselves, there would have been a repeat of 1915, and you know it.



Great, we agree on something. Hopefully, we also agree that saying that there was an Armenian Genocide does not qualify as inciting hatred against another group or individual.



Except that there's a difference between telling the truth and telling lies that further open wounds in a people that have already been hurt. If you can't tell the difference, then there's something wrong with you. It is ok for Americans to learn that their ancestors exterminated the indigenous peoples of America, because it's true and it's part of the history of America. It's not ok for Americans to run around denying this, because it's not true and it further cuts the very people that have been decimated in the first place.



I'm not God, I never purported to be right about everything, or even anything. I'm merely stating my view and noting what I view are glaring deficiencies in your view of things.

You are right in your first statement, I am not a math major. So please update/correct me about what percentage of Azeri lands (Karabagh excluded) is currently under Armenian occupation.Is it 8%? 12%? If it is less than 20, or 15 percent, is it not proper to call this an occupation?

But your following statements make no sense. So it was a pre-emptive move you made so that 1915 was not repeated? So you guys should have wiped out Azerbaijan from the world map, but you restrained yourselves because of your magnanimity? Give me a break!

Telling the truth is stating that Armenians were wronged by the Turks in the past. Slandering is occupying a land which is legally Azeri territory according to international law (which may contradict with chauvenistic Armenian dogma), and blaming the victims for it. The fact that this land belonged to you 2000 years ago doesn't mean that you have a right to occupy it after it had changed hands several times during the course of history.

Obviously I believe that also in Turkey people should be able to state/write/claim that Armenian Genocide took place. You know I did not imply that this incites hatred against groups or people, so I hope that you wanted to clarify it rather that having attempted to put words into my mouth.

As you can see, it looks like I was also wrong about my statement that 20% of Azeri land (Karabagh excluded) was under Armenian occupation. With the exception of this mistake, however, I do not see where the deficiencies in my logic are.

[Kharpert]

The fact that this land belonged to you 2000 years ago doesn't mean that you have a right to occupy it after it had changed hands several times during the course of history.

By that reasoning, we can also say that Karabagh has now changed hands over to the Armenians, and Azerbaijan does not have a right to reclaim it.

[phantom]

By that reasoning, we can also say that Karabagh has now changed hands over to the Armenians, and Azerbaijan does not have a right to reclaim it.

You took the words right out of my mouth. But I will respond with more later when I have a couple of minutes.

[phantom]

You are right in your first statement, I am not a math major. So please update/correct me about what percentage of Azeri lands (Karabagh excluded) is currently under Armenian occupation.Is it 8%? 12%? If it is less than 20, or 15 percent, is it not proper to call this an occupation?

I believe it is around 7 or 8%. The rest of the land is Karabagh proper, which is Armenian land. It is proper to call the rest an occupation, and the Armenians have always conceded that as soon as the Azeris agree to give up their deluded claims to Karabagh, the Armenians will release the occupied lands. They are only occupied for the purpose of protected the Karabagh Armenians from an attack by a country that frequently threatens to start another war.

But your following statements make no sense. So it was a pre-emptive move you made so that 1915 was not repeated? So you guys should have wiped out Azerbaijan from the world map, but you restrained yourselves because of your magnanimity? Give me a break!

Please study the history of the Karabagh war. Once you do, you will learn that the Armenians did not make any violent pre-emptive moves. The only move they made was to peacefully and lawfully secede from the Soviet Union and Azerbaijan, just in the exact same way that Azerbaijan seceded from the Soviet Union. It was done through a peaceful referendum in which the majority of the residents of Karabagh voted in favor of seceding. The Azerbaijani citizens of Karabagh were given an opportunity to vote too, but most refused, and even if they hadn't, they would have lost, because 75% of the residents of Karabagh were Armenians. This peaceful demonstration of democratic initiative prompted the Sumgait and Baku massacres of Armenians followed by full-scape military attacks by Azerbajian against the civilians of Karabagh. As usual, the Armenians did not start the violence. They merely stood their ground and refused to leave their lands without fighting back and defending what was rightfully and morally theirs. And you call this a "pre-emptive" move. I don't think so. A population of 150,000 would have to be insane to initiate a pre-emptive military attack against a population of 8 million.

Telling the truth is stating that Armenians were wronged by the Turks in the past. Slandering is occupying a land which is legally Azeri territory according to international law (which may contradict with chauvenistic Armenian dogma), and blaming the victims for it. The fact that this land belonged to you 2000 years ago doesn't mean that you have a right to occupy it after it had changed hands several times during the course of history.!

No, telling the truth is stating that Armenians were wronged by the Turks in the past who committed Genocide against their ancestors. As for the Azeris, read above. Regarding your rationale about 2000 years ago, I think Kharpert answered you spot on. We all know how the Azeris ended up with Karabagh being a part of the Azerbaijani Republic of the USSR. What's happened in the past 15 years is merely righting a wrong that was done in the first place, and you know it. If the Armenians hadn't done what they did, Karabagh would have ended up exactly like Nakicevan; another extermination of our people and our rich cultural heritage erased forever. This is the reality on the ground, and for you to argue otherwise is like arguing that the earth is flat.

Obviously I believe that also in Turkey people should be able to state/write/claim that Armenian Genocide took place. You know I did not imply that this incites hatred against groups or people, so I hope that you wanted to clarify it rather that having attempted to put words into my mouth.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, and I accept that you didn't mean to imply that uttering the Armenian Genocide in Turkey incites hatred. I'm glad to hear that you feel that way.

As you can see, it looks like I was also wrong about my statement that 20% of Azeri land (Karabagh excluded) was under Armenian occupation. With the exception of this mistake, however, I do not see where the deficiencies in my logic are.

Read above and you'll see. Most of the deficiencies are less in your logic and more in the facts on which you base your logic. I think I've explained this thoroughly above.

Thank you for your time relating to this discussion.

[Vogelgrippe]

Phantom, we still have some differences of opinion regarding the matter, but I appreciate your candid and mature approach.

Kharpert, the process of conquest, changing hands, occupation, or whatever you want the call it, of Eastern Turkey continued from 1071 until 1921. By this time, the Treaty of Kars, as well as the Treaty of Gyumri, as well as the following treaty of Lausanne defined the Turco-Soviet (and later on, Turco-Armenian) borders.

The same process is not complete yet, in case of Karabagh, but I believe it will eventually conclude in Armenia's favour.

For me, the most important factor in determining a region's fate is its ethnic composition. In Eastern Turkey, at least from early 1700s until 1923, the Turks constituted a majority, while Armenians constituted a significant minority (we had this discussion in another thread, and I offered several non-Turkish sources which clearly demonstrated this fact)

In Karabagh, before the start of the hostilitites, the Armenians constituted a majority while the Azeris made a significant minority. Therefore, if peaceful co-existence is out of question, then it is logical that Karabagh, or the major part of it, should be assigned to Armenians.

In conclusion, Karabagh changed hands, that is correct. Azeris have a right to reclaim it, but I am pretty much certain that they will not succeed.