Hezbollah

[Armenian]

Re: Hezbollah

I disagree with this. That you personally think Islam will 'not make a comeback' is completely irrelevant to the way things seem to be headed. Secular societies are in decline. While people in secular societies are dabbling in their enervated passions and searching for the ideal thrills, traditional and religious societies like Arabs are breeding like rabbits making the future soldiers of a revitalizing and hungry civilization.

There is merit in what you are saying here. But this problem is not with Islam per se, it's with all third world nations. If Islamic nations were allowed to develop naturally, that is without western interference, I think they would be experiencing the same problems the West is experiencing today regarding a decline in population. Islamic peoples today are being driven towards extremes, and since they are predisposed towards aggression due to their culture and religion, they are reacting in extreme fashion as a result. Poverty and attacks for the outside breeds violence, fanaticism, backwardness and oddly enough population growth. And when you add to this mix religious fervor, you create a very volatile powder keg. Islam today is becoming a volatile powder keg. If Islam is to rise in the future it will have done so as a result of what has been happening to them during the past one hundred years.

Most people don't realize that at turn of the 20th century Islam was actually in a steep decline. And then came in the greedy western oil companies, western intelligence services, western organized assassinations, western funded dictators and monarchs, western manipulated civil wars, western funded revolutions, the western organized Islamic terrorism, the Zionist state, massacre of Muslims, invasion of Islamic nations, anti-Muslim propaganda... Another society of people would have rolled over and played dead. But due to certain inherent aspects of the tenants of Islam the opposite has taken place.

No matter how one looks at this issue, the West has created this monster.

I also disagree that it would be in the interest of Armenians living under an Islamic society as opposed to a Western secular one.

I personally would rather live in a western/secular society. But rest assured, the Armenian community will eventually die in such an environment. As the communities of Iran and Turkey have shown, Armenians living under Islamic rule tend to keep their identity somewhat. This does not mean that they will have wonderful lives.

Let's ask some Armenians about the not so pretty nature of living under the thumb of Islamic rule where you are told what status you are, how you must dress, etc. Islam is backward in that it stunts growth and intellectual progress and you want Armenians to live under an atmosphere of such ultra-conservatism? You would want Armenians to live as second class citizens in Islamic society because of their religion? To pay the jizya and make life more difficult for them? So Islamic authorities can seize churches whenever they wanted them without due process?

Although in places like Palestine and Iran not a single Armenian church has been closed by Muslims, as droves of churches in the West gets shut down due to a lack of attendance, I more-or-less agree with what you are saying here. But it's pointless to bring this up in this discussion.

As Western power is now receding, these traditional societies are beginning to show cracks and reverting back to their older ways of fanaticism.

Anywhere you find Islamic fanaticism you will find it to be a direct result of western exploitation and manipulation.

I appreciate and respect all the contributions you and many of the nationalist posters here have offered over time, but I completely disagree with this blind cheerleading of Islam. You can still state your grievances and your anti-Western and anti-Israeli persuasion without having to go from one roof to under another.

Anon, have you not read any of my comments regarding Saudi Arabia, Chechnya or Pakistan? Who the fuck here is "cheerleading Islam." This is nothing but a figment of your imagination. Regarding my so-called cheerleading, I will continue praising Hezbollah and Iran for very valid reasons, and I will continue cheering the Palestinians against Israelis.

The rest of the Islamic world, especially the religious Sunnis who currently are or have been backed by the West, are utter garbage.

[Tigranakert]

Re: Hezbollah

Armenian, since Armenia was not independent they could not play a role in the lives of the Diaspora Armenians. But is it not the duty and task today of the Armenian government to attract the Diaspora? If the Diaspora is assimilating today and in the future, the blame is also on the Armenian government. How can it be that the government formed a Ministry of Diaspora in 2008 and not ten years earlier?

It is true that the Diaspora brings with her some dangers too, but do you really think our government is ''nationalistic'' and wants the best for us as a nation? Aren't the reforms who are taking place now the result of the protests, after the oligarchs got scared. As much as I dislike P-xxx-trosyan, I do not praise our president Serge Sarkisyan. Do you think the Republican Party will gradually transform into a ''nationalistic'' one from the inside?

[Anonymouse]

Re: Hezbollah

Anywhere you find Islamic fanaticism you will find it to be a direct result of western exploitation and manipulation.

And was it Western 'exploitation' and 'manipulation' that resulted in Islam's fanatic rise and spread in the first place?

[Armenian]

Re: Hezbollah

And was it Western 'exploitation' and 'manipulation' that resulted in Islam's fanatic rise and spread in the first place?

Which rise? The first one, in the middle ages? Before you answer that question, as yourself what caused the fanatic rise of Christianity in northern Europe and the new world, the Roman Empire, the Persian Empire, the Assyrian Empire, the Mongol Empire, the American Empire, the Russian Empire, Hellenism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Napoleonism, Globalism, etc... Shit happens....

[Armenian]

Re: Hezbollah

Armenian, since Armenia was not independent they could not play a role in the lives of the Diaspora Armenians. But is it not the duty and task today of the Armenian government to attract the Diaspora?

Only a government that is well established, secure and very prosperous can afford to engage in extracurricular activities like that.

Right now the Armenian government's primary task is to protect the borders of the republic and create an economic environment where free trade can develop. Considering its very limited assets, and the screwed up political nature of the Caucasus, the government in Armenia is barely capable of doing this fundamental task today. Besides, such activities should be approached very carefully. Recently official Yerevan has begun to do just that, 'slowly' open up to the diaspora. However, diaspora brings with it problems as well. If diaporan Armenians were allowed to vote in Armenia's elections last year, a criminal like Levon would most probably have won the elections there last year. Let's not paint the Armenian Diaspora is fabulous colors. Armenian diasporans are a convenient vehicle upon which western and Turkish intelligence services operate. Look at the English speaking participants of websites such as ArmeniaNow and Hetq to see what I mean. While there are many well meaning diaporans there are also those who work for foreign interests, the Armenian Assembly of America is one example of what I am talking about here. And there are a shit load of Turkish-Armenians that work for the Turkish MIT. There are lesbo/gay rights groups, there are US government funded freedom and democracy groups, there are anti-Russian groups, there are cult groups, there are pro-Turkish groups (TARC)... You name it. There are also twisted individuals like Jirayr Sefilian stirring trouble in the homeland. Moreover, Levon had a big part of this support base in the diaspora. And there are also those in the diaspora that go to Armenia merely to get an affordable education, to purchase cheep jewelry/gems and antiques and perhaps indulge in some sexual encounters as well.

Diaspora Armenians can be an asset as well as a liability. Thus, the diaspora has to be handled with caution.

If the Diaspora is assimilating today and in the future, the blame is also on the Armenian government.

Your complaint here is unfair and very unrealistic. It is an individual's right to decide which way he or she is headed. If for example an Armenian diaporan wants to marry an odar and assimilate do you think the "Armenian government" should send in a special forces unit to put a stop to it? Stop being silly. We don't live in a laboratory test tube where our actions as individuals are controlled by others. Every single diasporan community has the responsibility to maintain its connection to the Armenian homeland, regardless of the government.

The government in Armenia can barely keep its borders safe and it's people fed and it's going to help you maintain an Armenian identity in the diaspora???

Get real, please.

How can it be that the government formed a Ministry of Diaspora in 2008 and not ten years earlier?

Simply because there were problems of trust. Although much of the distrust has its roots in the Cold War mentalities, some is warranted. If left unchecked, diasporans could easily overwhelm the nation culturally and politically - and not necessarily for the better. Now that the government is in a strong position, now that is has about twenty years of experience at independence, it can now afford to develop such relations. I foresee this agenda getting better as the years progress.

but do you really think our government is ''nationalistic'' and wants the best for us as a nation?

To the best of their intellectual, physical and spiritual abilities - yes. The current government in Yerevan is nationalistic. There is a lot of uneducated and inexperienced sentiments amongst Armenia's politicians today but that does not mean that they don't mean well. And the quality of politicians is slowly changing for the better. Sezh Sargasyan's administration is a good example of this change for the better. I believe that Serzh Sargsyan, Robert Kochayan, Arthur Bagtasaryan, Tigran Sargsyan, Edward Nalbandian, Vazgen Manukyan, even Dodi Gago, are nationalists in their own way. There are also many young upstarts today who will be even better when the time comes for them to serve.

Aren't the reforms who are taking place now the result of the protests, after the oligarchs got scared.

No. The reform were gradually taking place before the whole shit blew up early last year. The violent protests of the Levonakans hurt the Armenian republic severely and sowed the seeds of discontent between Armenians in Artsakh and Armenians in Armenia. What Levonakans did was very dangerous and treacherous. The protests also almost brought a treasonous criminal like Levon into power. The protests may have sped up some reforms, but at the time is brought the Armenian nation to the brink of major disaster. As a nationalist, I wont risk disaster for the sake of fast reforms.

As much as I dislike P-xxx-trosyan, I do not praise our president Serge Sarkisyan. It is true, it takes time, but when can there be a healthy opposition who can actually win the elections, or do you think gradually the Republican Party will transform into a nationalistic one, from the inside?

Serzh Sargsayn is the best man for the job at this point in our nation's political development. To tell you the truth, we Armenians don't deserve a better politician. A nation's government is a reflection of the nation. Having said that I believe that Serzh will prove to be the best president we have yet had. And once the new generation of Armenians gradually replaces the oldfarts in politics today you will see the quality of the political establishment rise dramatically.

And on paper at least, the Republican party in Armenia is very Njhtehakan. It also has noble beginnings. All it needs now is some committed idealists to propel it forward to its potential.

As I see it, the problem in Armenian politics today is - inexperience, incompetence and Bolshevik mindsets. This will changes with time. The changes, however, have to be homegrown, in other words not imported from the West. And such changes have to be gradual. The political environment in Armenia needs evolution not revolution.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Hezbollah

Which rise? The first one, in the middle ages? Before you answer that question, as yourself what propelled the fanatic rise of Christianity in northern Europe, Hellenism, Bolshevism, Nazism, Mongols, the American Empire, etc...

All empires spread by force, that's not the point. The point here is Christianity in relation to Islam. Christianity was defended by the sword to stop the spread of Islam by the sword and finally succeeded in Vienna. Prior to that, the crusades were a delayed response merely to stave off the Islamic aggression which grew bolder in the 11th century. They were to defend Christians in Islamic lands, not to spread religion.

As Bertrand Russel once said, "Bolshevism combines the characteristics of the French Revolution with those of the rise of Islam. Marx has taught that Communism is fatally predestined to come about; this produces a state of midn not unlike that of the early successors of Mahommet. Among religions, Bolshevism is to be reckoned with Mohammedanism rather than with Christianity and Buddhism. Christianity and Buddhism are primarily personal religions, with mystical doctrines and a love of contemplation. Mohammedanism and Bolshevism are practical, social, spiritual, concerned to win the empire of this world."

[Armenian]

Re: Hezbollah

All empires spread by force, that's not the point. The point here is Christianity in relation to Islam. Christianity was defended by the sword to stop the spread of Islam by the sword and finally succeeded in Vienna. Prior to that, the crusades were a delayed response merely to stave off the Islamic aggression which grew bolder in the 11th century. They were to defend Christians in Islamic lands, not to spread religion...

Please study how Christianity was spread in northern Europe and in some part of the Caucasus (hint: it was through a bloody Crusade). Also study how Christianity was spread amongst native Americans of the new world. And study how the Crusading episode in the Middle East came into being in the first place.

A little synopsis of the First Crusade:

Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus asked European powers, the Western Church, to help him fight off 'Seljuk Turks' who had succeeded in overrunning Anatolia after the Byzantines annexed the Armenian Kingdom and scattered its nobility. Alexius had 'not' asked Europeans to fight Arabs nor to liberate Jerusalem. Pope Urban took Alexius' plea as an opportunity to rally the fragmented and warring Europeans around the church banner and give them a "sacred" task. "God wills it" was the popular slogan. By some strange providence, the result was a major social movement that initially took root in the territories of modern France but soon spread like wildfire throughout Europe and eventually ended up being a bloody fiasco where not even Christian Byzantines were spared the brutality of European Christians.

At the time of the first Crusade in 1095-1097, no Christian in the so-called Holy land was being persecuted by the region's native Muslims. A generation before, a Seljuk governor, who even by Muslim accounts was a violent lunatic, had burned down the Holy Sepulcher in a fit of rage. If I recall right, the Turk in question was eventually killed by other Muslims in some confrontation. The region's new rulers, the Egyptian Fatamids, then helped the Christians of the Holy Land rebuild their sacred site and reinstate their rights. Before the Franks got to the region the natives of Holy Land, Christian and Muslim, had a common understanding. Although Byzantium often did battle with Mesopotamian and Levantine Muslims, they never persecuted the civilians of the opposition living in their lands. Byzantium had Muslim populations, Muslim administered regions had Christian populations. And these both had Jewish populations. From Spain to Persia, there was no oppression of Christian subjects by their Muslims overlords at the time the Crusades began.

The problem at the time was the newly arrived and very violent Turks of Asia Minor, who just happened to be Muslims as well.

Even with all the death and destruction the Franks brought upon all the inhabitant of the Levant, Christian Jew and Muslim, the Muslim victors were very merciful towards the region's native Christians after the Franks had been expelled.

Crusader history is one thing I know very well, Anon. I probably have every major book written on the topic.

[Anonymouse]

Re: Hezbollah

Please study how Christianity was spread in northern Europe (hint: it was through a bloody Crusade). Also study how Christianity was spread in the new world. And study how the Crusading episode in the Middle East came into being.

Byzantine Emperor Alexius Comnenus asked European powers, the Western Church, to help him fight off 'Seljuk Turks' who had succeeded in overrunning Anatolia after the Byzantines annexed the Armenian Kingdom and scattered its nobility. Alexius had 'not' asked Europeans to fight Arabs nor to liberate Jerusalem. Pope Urban took Alexius' plea as an opportunity to rally the fragmented and warring Europeans around the church banner and give them a "sacred" task. "God wills it" was the popular slogan. By some strange providence, the result was a major social movement that initially took root in France but soon spread like wildfire throughout Europe and eventually ended up being a bloody fiasco where not even Christian Byzantines were spared the brutality of European Christians.

At the time of the first Crusade, no Christian in the so-called Holy land was being persecuted by the region's native Muslims. A generation before a Seljuk governor, who even by Muslim account was a violent lunatic, had burned down the Holy Sepulcher in a fit of rage. If I recall right, the Turk in question was eventually killed by other Muslims in some confrontation. The region's new rulers, the Egyptian Fatamids, then helped the Christians of the Holy Land rebuild the sacred site and reinstate their rights.

From Spain to Persia, there was no oppression of Christians subjects by their Muslims overlords at the time the Crusades began. The problem at the time was the newly arrived and very violent Turks of Asia Minor, who just happened to be Muslims as well.

Even with all the death and destruction the Franks brought upon the inhabitant of the Levant, the Muslim victors were very merciful towards the regions native Christians.

Crusader history is one thing I know very well. I probably have every single book written on the topic.

The focus of this was not how Christianity was spread. Of course Christianity was spread by violence as well in many parts. But can you truly claim that Christianity was spread more violently than Islam? That is the point. Differences are in degrees, not kinds. Your defense of Islam is an uphill battle.

And I don't know what you are aiming for divulging your knowledge of the crusades. My only point was that the crusades were launched not for any imperialistic goal of spreading religion, or booty.

Maybe you should review your history of the crusades because you ignored how in Jerusalem prior to the crusades Christians were second class and persecuted. They were crucified, executed, and of course there was the jizya. Even WikiAnswers seems to have this:

The Crusades resulted as a reaction of Muslim aggression against the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantines). The Muslims were running constant aggressive conquest campaigns on Christian lands as part of their imperialistic expansion. In 638 the Muslims conquered Jerusalem - the holy land where Jews and Christians would pilgrimage to. The Christian pilgrims to there were persecuted by the Muslims greatly. Over 60 Christian pilgrims were crucified in one short period by the Muslims. A Muslim governor of Caesarea in the 8th Century often seized pilgrims, one large group from Iconium was seized and they were all executed as spies (except for some that chose to convert to Islam instead of facing the sword). Muslims would ransack the churches if the pilgrims didn't pay protection money. Christian iconography and crosses were banned by the Muslims so many churches were pillaged and defaced. Caliph Mansur (around the 8th Century) ordered that the hands of all Christians and Jews be stamped with a distinctive symbol which helped them be 'humiliated' and identified for paying of the Jizzya (tax for being Christian). Converts to Christianity were executed (such as the ex-Muslim monk in 789). Churches and monasteries conquered by the Muslims were plundered and monks and clergy were often murdered such as Saint Theodosius monastery in Bethlehem. By the start of the 9th Century most Christians fled from their hometown to Christian cities such as Constantinople that were still under the Byzantines. In 937 during Easter celebrations, specifically Palm Sunday, Muslims rampaged through Jerusalem against the Christians and destroyed their churches including Church of Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection. It wasn't until the 960's (up to 200 years later) than the Christians actually reacted to this violence and persecution. Cities taken by force such as Crete, Cilicia, Cyprus, Antioch and even parts of Syria were reconquered by the Christians.

In 974 the Muslims then launched an official offensive under Sunni Caliph Abbasid against the Byzantines. The campaign of Muslims against the Christians lasted for around 30 more years until a short ceasfire while the Muslims fought against themselves. Then at the beginning of the 11th Century the Muslims again started their offensive against the Christians under Abu 'Ali al-Mansur al-Hakim and this was taken out on the average Christian. Churches were burnt, church property was seized. Over the first 10 years of the 11th Century over 30,000 churches were destroyed by the Muslim aggressors.

They even destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulcher - the traditional site marking were Christ was buried. The Caliph ordered the tomb be destroyed.

All the Christians and Jews of Jerusalem (and other Muslim territories) were forced to wear heavy crosses and wooden calves around their neck. It wasn't until 1021 that this persecution decreased.

In 1056 hundreds of Christians were expelled from Jerusalem and European Christians were blocked from the pilgrimage to the city. On entering Jerusalem in 1077 3000 Jews and Christians were murdered by the Muslim invaders.

Then we get to where the story you quoted began - in response to the calls for help by the Christians persecuted throughout the Middle East and former Byzantine Empire territories the Western Church sent help.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_original_purpose_of_the_Crusades

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades) by Robert Spencer

A History of Palestine by Moshe Gil

A History of the Crusades by Steven Runciman

Paroxysms of violent persecution erupted yet again in October—November 923 C.E. according to the patriarch of Alexandria, Sa'id b. Bitriq, as well as two Muslim chroniclers [summarized by Gil]: [63]

...the Muslims attacked...in Jerusalem on Palm Sunday (26 March 937) and set fire to the southern gates of Constantine's church and to half of the exedra, whereupon the Church of the Calvary and the Church of the Resurrection collapsed...According to al—Makin and al—Maqrizi, the Church of the Resurrection and the Church of the Calvary were also robbed of their treasures...It seems at the same time the Muslims attacked in Ascalon again. According to Yahya b. Sa'id, the assault was made on 'the great church there, known by the name of Mary the Green. They destroyed it and robbed it of all its contents and then set fire to it'...The bishop of Ascalon then left for Baghdad to get permission to rebuild the church, but he did not succeed. The church was left in ruins, for the Muslims who lived in Ascalon agreed amongst themselves that they would not allow it to be built again. As to the bishop, he never returned to Ascalon and remained in Ramla until his death.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/05/jihad_begot_the_crusades_2.html

These were well before the first crusade, so how can you claim "no Christian in the so-called Holy land was being persecuted by the region's native Muslims." That is untrue.

[Armanen]

Re: Hezbollah

Not the greatest video but I think it gets the point across about Armenians needing to head back to the Homeland sooner or later.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iukfnFfs-5o&feature=channel_page

[Armenian]

Re: Hezbollah

The focus of this was not how Christianity was spread. Of course Christianity was spread by violence as well in many parts. But can you truly claim that Christianity was spread more violently than Islam? That is the point. Differences are in degrees, not kinds...

That's the frigging point, Anon. The differences between Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, is only degree of death and destruction they have caused. Beyond that, there is no difference between the religions. And yes, historically speaking, Christianity has more blood on its hands than Islam. It's just that you living in a Christian society, or formerly Christian society, are blinded to this fact. And this statement is coming from a Christian.

My only point was that the crusades were launched not for any imperialistic goal of spreading religion, or booty.

The Crusades were launched exactly for that - "for imperialistic goal, spreading of religion and booty."

However, as usual, the peasants and young nobles were psyched up by lofty theological slogans. It's no different today, just substitute the term Christianity with the terms Democracy and Freedom...

So, in a few generations from now, another Anonymouse in a virtual debate with another Armenian, will state that the American Empire went to war against the primitive Muslims of the Middle East in defense of Democracy and Freedom and when the other Armenian disagrees, the other Anon he will post several articles from the web (if there is such a thing as a web then) that feature Muslim fanatics attacking peaceful westerns to back his claims.

I'm amazed at the degree of your stubbornness, Anon.

Maybe you should review your history of the crusades because you ignored how in Jerusalem prior to the crusades Christians were second class and persecuted. They were crucified, executed, and of course there was the jizya. Even WikiAnswers seems to have this:... These were well before the first crusade, so how can you claim "no Christian in the so-called Holy land was being persecuted by the region's native Muslims." That is untrue.

Anon, please. If you want to continue this debate with me do serious research first. I am talking about reading scholarly books written by seasoned historians and not websites with obvious agendas. You are giving me bits of selective information without historical background or context. So, in a sense, what you are doing here is silly. If you want references PM me I'll be glad to give them to you. This debate has digressed to who can have the last word. I have seen you argue just for the sake of arguing. I'm not going there with you.

So, I'm done. Have the last word.