Wednesday, August 27, 2014


OSCE Chief Calls On Yerevan, Baku To Show Restraint

The chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Irish Prime Minister Eamon GilmoreThe chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Irish Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore
The chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Irish Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore
The chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Irish Prime Minister Eamon Gilmore
The chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Eamon Gilmore, has called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to refrain from further retaliatory measures amid a recent upsurge in violence.

Speaking to journalists in the Armenian capital, Gilmore, who is Ireland's foreign minister, condemned the latest clashes, which exacerbate tensions stemming from the lingering conflict over the ethnic Armenian-populated Nagorno-Karabakh territory inside Azerbaijan.

Gilmore warned the Armenian and Azerbaijani sides that the dispute cannot be resolved by force.

At least nine soldiers from both sides have been reported killed in violence along the Azerbaijani-Armenian border and Nagorno-Karabakh border in a surge of hostility over the decades-old conflict, which has been simmering since a 1994 cease-fire was declared.

With additional reporting by Interfax
This forum has been closed.
Comment Sorting
by: Jason from: here and everywhere
June 12, 2012 15:20
I wonder if Mr. Gilmore would condemn both sides for escalating the violence in WWII. So the Germans attacked, Gilmore would condemn the allies for responding.

How stupid can this be? well, listen to Gilmore and the entire US led overtly pro-Azeri stance. Oil profits prevents these gentlemen and women of the West to render honest judgement and condemn the Azeri perpetrators for continuos anti-Armenian racism directed by Baku and violence promised by Alyiev and his cronies at every occasion for the whole world to hear.

OSCE and the Council of Europe are a discredited organizations.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 12, 2012 19:44
It doesn't take long for the Nazi comparison to be thrown. But if we do that, who is the aggressor here? It clearly is Armenia, who has militarily occupied Azerbaijan's territory, and done a total ethnic cleansing of all non-Armenian elements, something never done even by the Nazis in this level.
Thus, even if Azerbaijan goes on a full offensive to retake the control of the whole area, it will still be a defensive action, as it would be aiming to restore control within its sovereign territory. However, in recent cases we do not have clear information about who is doing what but Armenians are being used to being pampered by the West, so whatever happens they seem to expect full support, no matter who is responsible.
In Response

by: Jason from: here
June 13, 2012 15:17
Why do people NOT read what they write before they click "send". Anonymous, if you had done that you would have realized how ridiculous you sound.

It was only "yesterday" that Azerbaijan unleashed a war on the Armenians. This was not something that happened in a distant past, we were all here and witnessed how Soviet politburo thugs such as Pugo, Yazov and others helped the Azeri attack and cleanse Shahumian, Getashen Martunashen and Karabakh proper from its native Armenian citizens.

WWii analogy is absolutely appropriate in this case. You DO NOT accuse the people being attacked in an equal manner as those who do the attacking. But Europe is too impotent to stand up against Baku.

If the allies had not attacked the Nazis, and destroyed parts of Europe in so doing, today we would not be living in a free world. Azerbaijan needed to be defeated, as it was, so that they would stop the cowardly killings of innocent men women and children, at will. All Azeri subsequent deaths are on the shoulders of criminal leadership in Baku.

As for the recent violent flare-ups on the border with Armenia, there is not even a shred of doubt that it was the Azeri side instigating it to show Clinton that Baku is not happy with the status quo. Even Mrs. Clinton gave a hint to that in her speech in Yerevan, unfortunately the stench of oil was too powerful and prevented her from publicly accusing Aliyev of warmongering.

In Response

by: greg from: virginia
June 13, 2012 18:00
well done jason. i could not have responded to anonymous better myself. and to make one more point very clear to all the Azeri "territorial integrity" fanatics, NKR is no longer the sovereign territory of Baku. NKR is now the sovereign territory of the people of NKR. Now, as it happens, those people happen to be majority armenian. And because of that, every nationalist turk - azeri fanatic from here to timbuktu is vomiting racist bile against every armenian walking the earth - all because some armenians, who live in a land that was once ruled by a non-local power, did the same thing the americans, texans, bosnians, croats, kosovars, darfurans, etc etc, did once upon a time. And that was to try and peacefully exercise the right to self-determination. And as we learned in Lexington, San Antonio, Sarajevo, Zagreb, and on down to Stepanagert, it takes the rotten pathology of those clinging to their "territorial integrity" to turn a civil referendum into a dirty blood bath.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 13, 2012 18:12
Jason do you have any idea what kind of a laughing stock you make yourself by such nonsense? The Russians was fully behind the Armenians in early 90s and it is Armenians who were preparing for a long time for war and started massacring Azerbaijanis in Karabakh and Armenia itself, deported civilian population in hundreds of thousands and then started an all out attack with full Russian backing, while Azerbaijan was disorganized and politically unstable, again thanks to a healthy healthy doze of interference from Moscow. Denying that it was Armenia who attacked Armenia is like buying Hitler's suggestion that he attacked Poland in self defence.
Then, again if you don't have a shred of doubts about recent events then you are either utterly gullible or sorrily misinformed. The last thing that Azerbaijan needs is to draw attention and criticism of the great powers. If Azerbaijan is not on a proper offensive it is not something they need. On the other hand, flaring things up without changing any line of control suits Armenia as it will inevitably draw Russia more firmly into this, whose aid Armenians need like air and water and who can not defend for more than a week without Russia. And that is exactly happening as Russia is increasing its attention and military manoeuvres in the region. So, job well done Armenia, I guess they deem this many lives worth for a firmer support.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 13, 2012 19:39
Greg, before pulling a tirade check a few facts. Karabakh is fully within the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan and every inch of Azerbaijani land is owned by the Azerbijani people. It is temporarily invaded by Russia, who has also tune Armenia itself into a pathetic colony. Once the foreign invaders are out, Armenians will be allowed to live in this Azerbijani land, with certain cultural autonomy and that is the fairest outcome of this conflict.
In Response

by: greg from: virginia
June 14, 2012 15:07
Sorry to differ with you Anonymous, but you need to go to the offices in stepanagert and check property deeds and do title searches. With the exception of properties from which azeri residents were forced out of, you will find that most of the remaining titles, thus the land and property there, lawfully belong to the people of NKR, not to some racist Azeri government that wants the Armenians to "ask permission" before getting their rights as second class Azeri citizens. Not sure what you mean when you say Russia "temporarily invaded" NKR. You lost me on that one. Again, NKR belongs to the people of NKR, and just as Kosovo does not need Belgrade's permission granting Kosovars "certain cultural rights", neither do the people of NKR need Baku's permission. And I am quite sure, once Azerbaijan comes to grips with having a new, sovereign neighbor, NKRs former Azeri residents will be allowed to return if they choose, and those Azeri's will (and ought not) need special permission to be Azeri in NKR. Just live and be good neighbors to their fellow NKR armenians. That's all the Armenians ask Anonymous. Be a good neighbor. That is the just outcome.
In Response

by: Jason
June 14, 2012 15:49
Anon. you can pull that BS on people who don't know the history of the region. Not here buddy!!

You can pretend ignorance as much as you want the fact remains that in February 1988 when the Karabakh Soviet voted to join Armenia the Azeris along with the ruling thugs at the Kremlin's not-so-deep State led by interior Minister Pugo sent the OMONs to attack Shaumian, Martunashen to clear "hooligans", the hooligans Pugo was talking about was the entire Armenian population of those towns in the northern part adjacent to Karabakh OBLAST. Tens of thousands of Armenian citizens of Soviet Azerbaijan were deported into Armenian SSR. You must have been in your diapers at that time, but it gives me a great pleasure to educate you, and go on writing another three pages if need be, about how the Azeris buoyed by such Kremlin backing continued their open and vicious warfare only to loose against a determined self-defence spirit of a very unorganized but courageous Armenian population of Artsakh and Armenia proper, for you Artsakh is the Armenian province with that name three millennia, long before the ancestors of the "Azeris" left Central Asia and settled in Armenian, Albanian Talish and Persian lands.

Furthermore, if Karabakh was indeed a sovereign territory of Azerbaijan then there would be no need for negotiations, would there? The negotiation are continuing for one purpose only, how to make Baku realize that Artsakh will never ever be within the sovereignty of Azerbaijan the way Baku wishes. Self-Determination is a powerful aspect of the equation, especially when the people are on the land and ready to defend the independence to death.

Time to think about all these facts Anon.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 14, 2012 20:12
Greg, you, men and everybody in Karabakh knows how meaningless those pieces of papers are. If you have any doubts about the legality of Azerbaijan's sovereignty go check countless documents by international organizations or legal experts. I would suggest you start with the German international law expert Heiko Kruger's book titled "The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict: A Legal Analysis".
P.S. Russia did not invade NKR, there is no such thing. It is a piece of Azerbaijani territory, invaded by active Russian assistance and declared NKR. They can declare it Proud Rooster's Republic for all they want, it still would be as the current one.
In Response

by: greg from: virginia
June 15, 2012 15:29
Anonymous, not sure what "pieces of paper" you are disparaging, except to say that King George III considered the American Declaration of Independence a worthless piece of paper when compared to international law in the 1700's, a law which essentially said everyone within a states territory is the subject of that states sovereign executive, with rights granted, or taken away, by that executive. As the American's said then, and the people of NKR in the late 80's, sovereign rights are not granted by permission of a king (or oil-rich president). Said rights are vested in the people (american or NKR citizen), and the right to establish government emanates from the people. I also took your advice and looked up Heiko Kruger's legal analysis. Without benefit of the $120 needed to purchase the book, i read the reviews. Barring that book reviews on the internet are now part of the big armenian conspiracy, it appears that Kruger's book is generally poorly rated because the research Kruger did appears to have relied almost exclusively on turkish and azeri sources. If the research stems from a biased, colored pool of "facts", then the conclusions drawn would thus be open to serious question. Perhaps if you cite another piece of international law that explicitly denies the existence of the right to self determination, i can research that source. Then maybe i will be convinced that NKR, Ossetia, Kosovo, Darfur, the FYR's, Texas, and even us American's, never had any right to break from our former masters.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 15, 2012 21:08
Jason buddy, I can assure you that unlike many on the Armenian side, my aim is not to bring BS, but to help you have a better understanding of what really went on.
It is actually understandable that many people think like what you say. There apparently is an attempt to create a canonical version of events in Armenia and anyone who says something that does not conform to this almost gospel level truth then that must be a BS. Well, step outside of that thinking. Now, there is a myth created here and fed to Armenians and to all those whoever would be gullible enough to buy it. And the myth is this, "Barbarian Azerbaijan, backed by their murderous cousins Turks and even aided by their co-religious Iran viciously attacked this handful of brave Christian people, the aim was the eradicate them from their ancestral land. And the big bad imperialist Russia helped them carry out this genocide 2.0. Despite all these, courageous Armenians withstood all, because all of them loved their land and were fighting for their families."
Now if that version makes you feel better then believe it, I wouldn't want to hurt your feelings with such little inconveniences called truth. Or if that is more suitable to tell the children then that is fine too. But you should know that there will be many who would not buy it. The reality is much nastier. The Russians in this war have always been behind Armenians. And naturally so. They are historical allies. Russians have never trusted Azerbaijanis and starting as early as nineteenth century they have relied on Armenians, whom they relocated to Caucasus in large numbers, as soon as they took over Caucasus. Don't tell me otherwise, this is well documented, even by Armenian authors.
In the Karabakh war too, they have provided assistance and military help to Armenians. And when the Armenian side was on the verge of collapse they again got involved actively and staged a coup which led to the overthrowing of a pro-Western government in Azerbaijan.
I am not talking about even evidence, that you can't find any, just bring one logical explanation for why the Russians would abandon their historical allies and even help their massacre? What did they get form Azerbaijan in return? An anti-Russian government? Wouldn't one expect the return of favour if Russians helped Azerbaijan? Or was the Russian government so stupid or just irrational maniacs who just killed for the sake of killing. Or how do you explain heavy Russian influence and involvement in each and every matter regarding Armenians, up to our day, which has turned Armenia into a virtual colony or an outpost, if we have to use an actual term by a Russian officer. If you really want to know what happened in those years, starting from 1988, try to get out of the canonical Armenian version of the events. Then you will see what kind of criminals, i.e. Samvel Babayan and others, were hailed as heroes, or what kind of events led to the war, for example to murders and deportations in Azerbaijani villages around Khankendi, like Gushcular and others.
And let's turn to today and future, the negotiations have nothing to do with what you suggest. If it was, then they wouldn't go on. Azerbaijan has repeatedly said that it would never negotiate or agree to any solution that includes the possibility of secession of any part of its land. Karabakh being a part of Azerbaijan's sovereign territory has been always confirmed by even the mediating countries and the organizations where they have final say. Even Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan does not have a firm stance on the sovereignty issue.Then how can the negotiations continue for the one purpose you suggest? That is what I mean when I say that you should get out of the realities created in your head. Even if you choose to stay there, then don't push them as objective and absolute truth that all have to accept.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 15, 2012 21:44
And a little follow up for Greg. I just checked Krueger's book. Out of his 114 sources, only 4 are written by Azerbaijani authors (2 published outside of Azerbaijan), only one is co-authored by a Turkish author, the other one being German. And 5 sources are written by Armenian authors. The vast majority are Western scholars and a some references to international organizations.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 16, 2012 10:31
Legally speaking King George was absolutely right when he said that. No expert can deny that. It was retrospectively legitimized when England accepted American independence. That is yet to happen in Karabakh and until then all those papers as I said before, are meaningless, I can write a lot of papers if you want. Or I can collect 100 friends of mine to declare something, or I can even bring together the entire population of a town or a region to declare independence. None will be legitimate without proper recognition and settlement.
Can you imagine if in the same United States the Hispanic population, which are already majority in many areas would declare secession and that would be consider legal and legitimate? Or how about the natives of the same land? I know it sounds even romantic to bring in such notions like people's will etc. but things quite don't work that way. Especially when you have deported one community entirely. That is called ethnic cleansing not independence fight. If you are quick to bring in analogies, then the most fitting would be Serbian attempts in Bosnia and Croatia. So, what happened there? Think about that.
Well, about Krueger's book. Go find it, and deal with his arguments. Don't bring in your prejudices about who says the argument, that's called ad hominem. If you have something about his arguments then say that. His sources are not mostly Turkish and Azerbaijani, he cites a lot of sources by Armenian authors too, but I wouldn't judge any work by the ethnicity of an author, that would be as I said ad hominem and probably racist too. Besides, it is not correct that his work is poorly reviewed, just check Only some of the reviews are low and they are probably not satisfied with his arguments. Well, bad for them but a sound argument is a sound argument.
Right for self determination can never be denied and no one has ever said that. Pretending that the opposing side says that when in fact they do not, is called a straw man fallacy.
In Response

by: Jason
June 16, 2012 21:33
Anon. You approach this issue in an extreme myopic perspective. You are free to do that and remain in a perpetual "blind-me-right" attitude. Or, you can widen your scope and try (however hard) to get out of your imbedded pro-Azeri stance.

There are many glaring flaws in your arguments.

To defend an angle that says "Russians have always helped the Armenians" versus "Russians have always hated the Azeris" is childish and exposes the views of someone who lacks understanding in the politics of the region.

To start with, the Russians only help those who they consider conform to their interests at the time and place in question. If the Russians were so categorically hateful toward the Azeris and loving the Armenians, they would have recognized the Armenian demands and easily transferred Karabakh to Armenian jurisdiction during Soviet times.

There goes your argument.

Secondly, Glasnost and Perestroika were two notions of Gorbachev most hated by the old guard. Pugo, Yazov, Kruchkov and other highest ranking members of the Politburo did everything in their power to discredit Gorbachev. They were the ones who actively encouraged the Azeri leadership to act decisively and put an end to Armenian demands. The most violent anti-Armenian pogroms within the entire Azerbaijan territories were unleashed. After Mutalibov the new President Elchibey, who proudly declared in 1992 that soon he was going bathe on the shores of Lake Sevan within Azerbaijan, was proven incompetent and lost more territories for the war he continued so fanatically.

The Putschists were gone by then, Pugo had committed suicide and the tide turned against the Azeris.

The simple truth is that In 1988, the Armenians told Gorbachev if Glasnost and Perestroika is what you want USSR to adopt then let’s talk, in an open and free manner, about the unjust land grab that Stalin gave to Azerbaijan. It is here where the Azeri leadership found allies among the future Putschists and their murderous actions were put in place. Armenians had everything to loose with the removal of Gorbachev and Azerbaijan had everything to gain by it. Here is an example of interests Azeris with Russian leadership conforming, but Gorbachev returned and Azeris lost their strong support in Moscow. Even after this, Gorbachev did everything to stop the Armenians' demands. Then Yeltsin came into the scene and we know the rest.

As you can see, the above will not sit well with the “canonical” Azeri version of events, but since there cannot be two diametrically opposite truths, you are welcome to continue believing in whatever version you can handle.
In Response

by: William from: Aragon
June 14, 2012 22:55
Gentlemen, I am impressed with the standard - not to mention the passion - of this debate. Keep up the good work - it is most informative.
In Response

by: greg from: virginia
June 15, 2012 15:33
thanks william. i grew up near the battle fields of lexington and concord. I have read the federalist papers, read and re-read the american declaration of independence, constitution, bill of rights, helsinki final act, all four "anti armenian" UN resolutions etc. so i have a deep appreciation, and fairly good understanding of issues related to the conflict between territorial integrity and self-determination.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 17, 2012 10:03
Jason, if you wish to keep repeating the same line of "your childish..." argumentation, that's your choice, but I don't think it helps your position.
Russians do not hate Azerbaijanis nor hate Armenians. They do whatever they think it is in their interest. And for this reason they rely in Armenians and do not trust Azerbaijanis. They used to rely in Georgians too but they proved less than suitable for this as they too were seeking their national interests and not following Russians blindly, even against their interests. For this reason Armenians fit better for the Russian aims in the region. If there is a mistake in this approach it belongs to the Russians for implementing it, not to people like me who calls it out.
And if it was so easy to transfer Karabakh to Armenia, they would have done so, there was a war over Karabakh even before the region was integrated into the Soviet Union. So, the Russians never had a free hand in this, it was much more complicated than simply assigning this region here that there. Besides Armenia was never a land grab from Armenia and a gift to Azerbaijan by Stalin. That's another myth passed around by the Armenian myhtmakers.
And your understanding of the events surrounding the Armenian demands and what followed starting in 1988 are fundamentally flawed. There was no national Azerbaijani leadership that sought the national interests. Each and every successive leadership, Bagirov, Vazirov and Mutallibov tried their best to prove their loyalty to Moscow. Since they had little effect in what was going on in Moscow at the time, they often found themselves at the dirty end of the stick. Meanwhile Armenians (not the Soviet leadership in Yerevan, they were loyal to Moscow just like in Baku) were intensifying their demands, deporting Azerbaijanis from Armenia and from wherever they could in Karabakh. Your attempt to tie these events with what was going on in Moscow has no basis, nor logic. To claim that Karabkh events, the wishes of parties had a bearing on the future of Gorbachev, his rivals and the future of USSR is simply laughable. No offence to you yourself, but the proposition itself is ridiculous. If then, please prove some reliable references to back this up.
In Response

by: Jason
June 17, 2012 20:19
Anon, to see how you take my arguments and make it yours ... to "counter" mine, brings smiles to the reader. Indeed a curious strategy on your part.

Nowhere I have mentioned that Karabakh events had a direct bearing in shaping Gorbachev's future, as you put it. However, Karabakh was one of many "cards" in the hands of those who were against Gorbachev to bring him down. If you don't know this much than it is indeed futile to even try to argue with you.

One thing is quite evident in your approach is your deep bias for the Azeri side. Bias in itself is not unacceptable as long as one sticks to the facts and does not alter the truth, which you seem to have problems with. You somehow (not surprisingly) blame the Armenians for starting the violence. Contrary to your opinions the Armenians did not "start deporting Azeris" from anywhere and everywhere, what Armenians did do is start popular mass protests followed by a demand by the Supreme Soviet of Karabakh to join Armenia. What followed was an open attack on Armenian towns and villages by Azerbaijan. These facts do not interest you because it does not fit your accusatory history-telling. I understand that. Your arguments however in doing so you bring nothing worthwhile to this topic.

One parting thought. Karabakh was not Armenian land in so such as no ethnic units in the Russian Empire has national political boundaries to their own. Let's clarify that. To that effect, Karabakh was not an Azerbeijani land either. Therefore, the argument that says Stalin gave it to the Azeris remains valid.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 19, 2012 04:46
Jason, you are making a claim, then when confronted about it back away from it, saying you never meant that. If you didn't mean that, then your argument looses its validity, but at the same time actually making that claim is also baseless. And it's not anybody's fault that you have put yourself in this situation. As a student of law, I can tell you that in a court this kind of arguing wouldn't last long.
Karabakh was never an issue, minor or major in power struggles in Moscow. As they say, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Please cite some scholars who specialize in the period leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. There are countless scholarly books and articles on this subject, both by historians and political scientists.
Besides, who was this mysterious Azerbaijani leadership? In a bid to create identifiable adversary you have bended basic realities of the period. In 1988 there was no independent Azerbaijan, no armed forces of any kind commanded by leadership in Baku outside of, let alone opposing the will of the Moscow leadership. It' like saying Kalmikia attacked Daghestan for some problem between them. Actually in Soviet Union the republics had even less actual power than these units. You know that too, and that's the rationale for tying in the Russian involvement in Azerbaijan's side theory, in case you didn't know the reason for the existence of that claim. But as you can see that theory has so many holes that it doesn't hold any water.

And if your suggestion about assigning Karabakh to Azerbaijan is valid then that is valid for each and every part of the Soviet Union, in that case singling out Karabakh would loose its significance, cause then one can easily argue that Baku is in Azerbaijan or Kiev is in Ukraine because the Soviet leadership designed it this way. Technically correct, but meaningless as an argument.
In Response

by: Jason
June 19, 2012 15:51
Anon. At this point I deduce that you are just babbling.

I am making a claim and sticking with it. You are just avoiding the issues.

A law student, if indeed you are one, should learn how to read what is written. As such, you fail at this fundamental level.

If you go back to the earlier postings above you clearly would have seen that I said Azeris attacked Armenians as a result of the reunification demand which suited the Kremlin hawks perfectly, this in turn encouraged further the Azeri OMON, which were in existence as a police/military units in the country.

I am not going to continue correcting every point you miss or obfuscate.

Seeing such multiple faults and errors in you posts let me just say that teaching you how to read a text is not my job. Even worse, it seems you don't read what you write and thus contradict yourself.

You can find all the answers by going back and read carefully what I've written, and more importantly what you have answered.

A very disappointing debate!
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 19, 2012 22:02
Jason, yes, stick to the facts! Don't make them. Bring in your evidence not your opinion.
1) Azerbaijan did not and could not attack anyone in 1988, there was no such thing as Azerbaijan except in the name.
2) Moscow or no party in Moscow had nor could have an interest in massacring Armenians in Azerbaijan. Claim otherwise? Prove it.

Bring in all your belittling against me all you want, in as many ways as you want. The fact is that me and you are faceless commentators, it matters not if you inflate your ego against me, I won't take an offence. At the end of the day, it is sound arguments that remain, which you have failed to provide.
In Response

by: Jason
June 20, 2012 17:46
Anon, if you believe in your points 1 and 2, then you choose to believe in anything.

As for "belittling" you. If pointing put glaring mistakes, inconsistencies, contradictions and outright false arguments is regarded as belittling then one should avoid the practice.

As yet another example of one of the above "mistakes", let me just point out that your No. 2 point, for which you demand a proof. I never said that the massacres were the "orders" of Moscow Putschists, just as the demand for the reunification of Karabakh with Armenia was not Moscow's doing. What I said, and you failed to read properly, is that once events took shape and massacres broke out, the Putschist elements actively encouraged the "liquidation" of the "Hooligans". The proof of this is there for all to read and see, if you have any interest. Kremlin leadership tailored the events for their benefit. By "Kremlin" leadership I do not mean just Gorbachev, on the contrary, by his enemies, which I have already explained above.

I was, still am, following this issue on a daily basis ever since it erupted, in February 1988. I have chronological data in front of me that clearly indicates the sinister Baku-Kremlin coordinated anti-Armenian policies up to the end of the Gorbachev era. I do not, and never have, deny that Moscow-Yerevan alliance did put an end to Haydar Aliyev's dreams of capturing Karabakh.

For you Anon, since you seem not to take my views seriously, let me just give you a small tidbit of a proof of what I'm saying.

This example, obtained by the most superficial online research took, literally, 5 seconds to come up with. I have a ton of personal data on this subject that I rely on.

So please, have an open mind and avoid blindly sucking up to whatever force feeds your intellect, pocket, or national bias, and try to see things as what they really are.

Have a nice day and a happy life.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 21, 2012 06:28
Jason, I do not believe the points I have written, I know them to be true. It is you who makes the claims, and then the onus is on you to provide evidence or a sound a logic to back it up. Evidence does not mean a propaganda site. By now I have written thousands of pages of academic papers and read much more. Reliable(!), scholarly evidence on such historical matters can always be found, if it is there. If it is not, then you need to rethink your positions.

Thanks to God, all posts remain above and you can go check what you have said then and now about Russian involvement in Karabakh.
As for what I have said, you can check them too, I am behind all that I have written and I can declare hereby that I have not written anything that anyone can call "glaring mistakes", have never been inconsistent, contradictory and have never given "outright false arguments".
What I mean by belittling is your attacks directed at my person, which I find really meaningless since I haven't even bothered to write a nickname, as I don't care to have my personality here, all I'm interested are arguments. I don't know how much you'd heed my advise, but I would always suggest detaching both your and your opponent's personality in such situations. It can only help your position by keeping you focused. And before anyone jumps in, yes I do practice that myself, but even if I didn't that doesn't take value away from it.

You talk about gleaming mistakes and not understanding of the matter, but then go on to write about Haydar Aliyev's dream about capturing Karabakh. If you ever knew anything about him, how he came to power, how he kept it and passed to his son, who was behind him, how he managed and financed his activities, you'd know by now that he was not someone who would have such dreams. But It is a much larger issue than we are able to talk about in here.

Anyway, have a nice first day of the summer.
In Response

by: Jason
June 21, 2012 18:06
Anon, at the end of the day as much as we disagree with each other dialogue about one's own beliefs does not kill anyone, that much we agree I think, otherwise we would not have continued responding to each other.

Here I will happily contradict myself and say despite adhering to my core views as being true I got something out of this, hopefully you did too.

I don't know about you, but I am very happy that the allies won WWII, as is Mr. Gilmore of OSCE, I'm sure.
In Response

by: A. Seb from: Geneva
June 17, 2012 17:40
The chairman of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Mr Eamon Gilmore, is nuts or what!! He should have told the Azeris to stop the war rhetoric not the Armenians!

by: from: Republic of Artsakh
June 15, 2012 04:16

Shame on the Irish Minister of Foreign Affairs AND TRADE!! Did he get his jar of black caviar from Sultan Aliyev to bring back to his family in Dublin?

Should we now support Great Britain in returning back it's sovereign territories of Southern Ireland overtaken by ethnic Irish terrorists?

Shame indeed, Mr. Gilmore!

If you are hired and made to say that nonsense, at least provide a good service to your masters and LEARN YOUR SPEECH to avoid making a complete fool of yourself.

Wishing Republic of Ireland Team well on 18 June despite this clown!

by: from: Free Artsakh
June 17, 2012 02:54
"Doctor" Kruger mentioned in the discussions below is a real clown who is NOT a Doctor, has no clue about the issue and just repeats Azeri propaganda points. He made a fool of himself at his lecture at the George Washington University last year when the entire audience including a numerous contingent Azeri Turks had a blast laughing at his slides and especially his responses to Azeri questions. The guy really needs to learn how to earn his dirty money. He had especially hard time when a couple of students started asking him "really hard questions" like "who paid for your trip and accommodations here?" - his response "I don't know...," "Who translated the sources in other languages for you since you don't read Russian, etc.?" - his response: "I have a staff," "Who pays your staff's salaries?" - NO RESPONSE - the Fake Doctor !! HIDES !! under the table from two young girls pretending to shuffle papers in his briefcase and then disappears quietly while the Azeri Turk audience is still searching for him and chewing on some elaborate "refreshments" so unusual at academic presentations. Read more about this failure clown:
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 17, 2012 10:07
I understand that certain positions by scholars may not sit well with some, so they would go on character assassination. Before putting an Armenian propaganda site as a reference, please back up your claims. Bring any of your proofs if you dispute his academic credentials, if you claim that "is NOT a Doctor, has no clue about the issue".
In Response

by: A. Seb from: Geneva
June 17, 2012 17:33
Anonymous. You are ignorent of the real situation and definitely disqualified to have discussion on this subject. Please do yourself and us a favor and stop your BS. You have already proven that you know nothing. No more to say.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 19, 2012 04:47
I take this as accepting that you do not have any evidence to back up the claim made above. Thank you.
In Response

by: from: Free Artsakh
June 20, 2012 02:32
Hey the Anon-buddy, I don't really get what evidence you are trying to see here. I was there and I saw it with my own eyes. You call him a scholar. What evidence do you have that he is a scholar? He sounded like a hired lawyer doing a pretty cheapo job. An underpaid lawyer servicing the thiefs at the Heydar Baba Foundation? You reference his academic credentials - he's got NONE! He is not an academician. Again, he's a cheap lawyer servicing the Azeri Turk Sultanate.
In Response

by: Anonymous
June 20, 2012 15:22
That't the problem. You don't have any evidence. Only suspicion, because his conclusions are not consistent with yours. So, in order to be a legitimate academic, he needs to agree with you?
And the onus to prove always lies with those who makes the claim? How can you prove that he is NOT an academician? If you openly contest his credentials then you must have concrete evidence besides your personal suspicion right? Otherwise it is called slander.
He has a number of academic works published. So, no those publishers just publish anybody's work who claim to be a doctor? That's not how things work.

Most Popular