notes / comments

[freakyfreaky]

Re: notes / comments

"Armenians who love to quote Saroyan’s pro-Armenian statements should be reminded that he also said he felt sorry for the Turks; and when Armenians adopted Palestinians as their role models and engaged in acts of terrorism and assassination, he (Saroyan) was at a loss and could not understand why his fellow Armenians behaved that way. Perhaps one reason Saroyan loved Armenians, or so he said, was that he neither knew nor understood them completely."

This is a one-hundred percent true statement. But, then again, naivete or ignorance is a writer's fuel.

[jgk3]

Re: notes / comments

I would've been at a loss too if I was alive and old enough to comprehend what happened when that bunch of Armenians committed those acts of terrorism. One thing to consider though is that we didn't even have a nation yet, and my intuition tells me, based on what I've seen, that any ethnic group without a nation are prone to, from time to time, have amongst their ranks an activist/militant group that take it out of innocent citizens of nations they believe to be their enemy. Look at ETA, and even close to home (for me), even the FLQ got blood on their hands in 1970, triggering the October crisis.

I think this tells us more about human society and how some members of any society that seeks self-determination, self rule, will resort to violence against those they believe to be their aggressors, who continue to block their aforementioned interests. I don't support these tactics though because they deny human rights to innocent civilians. In certain circumstances though, it's the only way to get the enemy to negotiate with you, however, it might've made more sense if we weren't the ones who provoked the conflict then and there.

[Anonymouse]

Re: notes / comments

Terrorism is purely political. To look at it in any other context is to misrepresent it. But why single out groups that do it (be it Muslims, or the IRA, or even Armenians), when states (i.e., governments of all kinds) routinely engage in terrorism in the name of peace, prosperity and the greater good of the nation, couching it in language of "foreign policy" or even the irony of ironies, "combating terrorism" or a "war on terror."

Why does Mr. Baliozian fail to condemn the existence of governments, which ipso facto are based on the rule of violence, coercion and terror? Why describe it as simply a group phenomenon?

If we are serious about condemning terrorism, we should condemn the biggest terrorist, government itself (any government), because these localized terrorist phenomenon (muslim, Tamil Tigers in India, IRA, Armenians, etc.) are all reactions and effects of state terrorism.

Well Mr. Baliozian?

[Azad]

Re: notes / comments

... and when Armenians adopted Palestinians as their role models and engaged in acts of terrorism and assassination, he (Saroyan) was at a loss and could not understand why his fellow Armenians behaved that way.

I beleive you or Mr Saroyan were or are confusing Palestians with Israelis.

http://www.doublestandards.org/unbunche.html

There are even movies glorifing one's "terrorism".


"La raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure".

[freakyfreaky]

Re: notes / comments

Azad, there was no Israel until 1948. Between 1920 and 1948, the territory from which Israel carved was known as the British Mandate of Palestine. Even the link you cite refers to Palestine.

Now, if you want to go back and understand wherefrom the guerilla warfare practiced by the likes of the PLO, etc. originates from, get your hands on a copy of the Italian classic - the Battle of Algiers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/plotsummary

Anonymouse, you should appreciate this as it looks at this historical freedom fight from the view of state sponsored terrorism and that of guerrilla warfare.

And, certainly, Saroyan was alive and kicking strong when the PLO acted in violent resistance against what they considered the unlawful Israeli occupation.

[Azad]

Re: notes / comments

Azad, there was no Israel until 1948. Between 1920 and 1948, the territory from which Israel carved was known as the British Mandate of Palestine. Even the link you cite refers to Palestine.

Now, if you want to go back and understand wherefrom the guerilla warfare practiced by the likes of the PLO, etc. originates from, get your hands on a copy of the Italian classic - the Battle of Algiers. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0058946/plotsummary

Freaky I am very familiar with "1948" and the headache it brought to the rest of the world, not to mention one of the main reasons of our Genocide with their first attempt of creating the same joow hole during WWI .... now I don't understand your 1962 Algerian independence from the DeGaulist era that was almost 20 years later. Irrelevant ... I was trying to convey the injustice we are associated with is with the loosing entity and not the "winning" one.

[freakyfreaky]

Re: notes / comments

Whoop... I guess that one went right over your head then, Azad. There were no Israelis during the timeline that you presented. You need to read jgk3's post above. Basically, there are bad apples in every basket. The PLO's activities in the 70s and 80s preceded and overlapped some of the notorious events that I believe Mr. Baliozian was referring to which Mr. Saroyan was likely present to perceive.

"In the late 70s and early 80s, the Armenian liberation army (ASALA) assassinated Turkish diplomats to focus media attention on the Armenian genocide. In July 1983, a Turkish diplomat was killed in Brussels. In Paris, six people died and 48 were wounded when a bomb exploded in front of the Turkish Airlines' check-in desk at Orly airport. ASALA killed 39 diplomats in a decade. Many of the gunmen were trained in Libya and had Palestinian connections. The Armenians have, at different times, identified with both Palestinians and J-ews." http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardia...kend7.weekend2

In conclusion, Mr. Baliozian may be biased but I doubt he is confused.

[jgk3]

Re: notes / comments

Terrorism is purely political. To look at it in any other context is to misrepresent it. But why single out groups that do it (be it Muslims, or the IRA, or even Armenians), when states (i.e., governments of all kinds) routinely engage in terrorism in the name of peace, prosperity and the greater good of the nation, couching it in language of "foreign policy" or even the irony of ironies, "combating terrorism" or a "war on terror."

Why does Mr. Baliozian fail to condemn the existence of governments, which ipso facto are based on the rule of violence, coercion and terror? Why describe it as simply a group phenomenon?

If we are serious about condemning terrorism, we should condemn the biggest terrorist, government itself (any government), because these localized terrorist phenomenon (muslim, Tamil Tigers in India, IRA, Armenians, etc.) are all reactions and effects of state terrorism.

Well Mr. Baliozian?

good point... I understand this phenomenon better now after reading this.

[Azad]

Re: notes / comments

Whoop... I guess that one went right over your head then, Azad. There were no Israelis during the timeline that you presented. You need to read jgk3's post above. Basically, there are bad apples in every basket. The PLO's activities in the 70s and 80s preceded and overlapped some of the notorious events that I believe Mr. Baliozian was referring to which Mr. Saroyan was likely present to perceive.

Let us see how you will handle this one.

I am sure you heard of the "Manouchian group" ... mainly a Joowish group let by ONE Armenian. In your view were they terrorists? or just like the movie "Munich" the terrorist are glorified as the "revenge squad" doing good in these particular scenarios since the equation was around Joowish victimhood.

In the views of Mr. Saroyan or ara's speculation Mr. Tehlirian was a terrorist too. He should have just shoved it all in and moved on in life, well unless if he was a Joo the world would have understood his pain and suffering.

[freakyfreaky]

Re: notes / comments

There is a very fine line between freedom fighter and terrorist depending on politics, the players and the circumstances on the field. I don't think Manouchian was trying to draw attention to the German occupation of France. That fact was well known.

While the ideology of the group may have been unfavorable amongst his some of his countrymen, their purpose was to get people to leave their country.

Viva la resistance. Mind you, there were plenty of tribe members (not our tribe) in the resistance. You could appreciate how they would be encouraged to assist allied forces in toppling the Nazis. Or, maybe not.

On the corrolary, you may consider that after Ottoman Turkey suffered horribly in WWI and committed genocide on its own people, they were left to being reduced to the pages of history books and their people had to change their alphabet, vocabulary, language, names, etc. in an attempt to erase their past.

Tehlirian committed a crime of passion, his jurors forgave him.