ACTUAL QUOTE
Abdulaziz Othman ALTWAIJRI,
ISESCO Director General:
“One can come to the conclusion that some Western circles want to create unstable situation in stable countries. Azerbaijan is a tolerant country… The UN Security Council has adopted 4 resolutions and they have not been implemented. What should happen? Should Azerbaijan give up? People’s desire should be respected… Let’s support these people. One should not create unstable situation here. I call on these circles to leave the Islamic world in peace, not to interfere in our affairs, we can solve our problems ourselves”.
From the statement at the press conference on the 2nd World Forum on Intercultural Dialogue, Baku, May 29, 2013
Manouchehr MOTTAKI,
Former Iranian Foreign Minister, presidential candidate:
“We are against all kind of aggression. The Azerbaijani people should solve this conflict. Camps were set in Ardabil for the Azerbaijanis, who sought asylum in Iran during Karabakh war. We condemn the occupation of 20 percent of Azerbaijan’s territories by Armenia. More than 20.000 Azerbaijanis were killed, one million displaced as a result of the occupation. Iran has joined UN Security Council’s resolutions condemning Armenia’s aggression against Azerbaijan”.
From the statement at the meeting with local residents in Maragheh city, May 1, 2013
Arizona State Senate:
“Adopted unanimously, the resolution recognizes Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan and stresses that Azerbaijan’s sovereignty and territorial integrity is recognized and supported by the U.S. and United Nations. Azerbaijani people 95 years ago established the first secular democratic republic in the Muslim world – Azerbaijan Democratic Republic – which was among the first nation-states granting right to vote to women and was recognized by other democratic nations, including the United States of America. In 1991 Azerbaijan restored its independence, over the last twenty-two years, Azerbaijan has consolidated its sovereignty and independence and has become one of the fastest developing countries in the region and beyond…Election of Azerbaijan to the nonpermanent seat on the United Nations Security Council in October 2011 is a testament to the growing role and increased capabilities of this nation in maintaining peace and security in the wider Middle East”.
From the resolution of the Senate on recognizing and supporting the strategic partnership of Azerbaijan – U.S, May 31, 2013
Ercan CITLIOGLU,
Head of Center for Strategic Studies of Bahcesehir University in Istanbul:
“Resettlement of some Sryian Armenians in Nagorno Karabakh is completely absurd. The entire word recognized the occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories by Armenia and the UN Security Council has passed 4 resolutions on unconditional withdrawal of forces from the occupied lands. Azerbaijan has the right to intervene in the attempt to resettle in Nagorno Karabakh the Armenians not only from Syria, but also from anywhere and change demographic situation there”.
From the statement to IA APA, Istanbul, May 20, 2013
Sergei KURGINYAN,
Russian historian of Armenian descent:
“Russia has provided support in the occupation of Azerbaijan’s territories by Armenia, we all have got enough information about it. It is meaningless to say that Russia did not give support. Why do we say so? Didn’t Russia give support in the occupation of Lachin?! I do not want to say more. But all are aware of everything”.
From the statement to IA APA, Moscow, May 28, 2013
Armenians about Armenians
Robert ARAKELOV
KARABAKH DIARY
(beginning in the previous issues)
MANIA OF GRANDIOSE
Being fully deceived by explanations of secrets of the phenomenon of great commander, I started digging in my own memory trying to remember if that old woman had any connection with military field. But as I couldn’t find anybody from the beautiful class among Russians related with Armenians except of trooper-maiden of Durova, I asked him in a low voice shamefully about who Suvorov was.
– Armenian, – he replied me so solemnly as if it was enough that Suvorov became to generalissimo and his student Kutuzov defeated Napoleon also Murat – the commander of his cavalry. Here’s how exaltation as threshold of sickness of nationalistic psychos has already captivated the consciousness and heart of a young boy on the verge of common view. Mythologization of history, deification of sources, also elevation of possibilities of nation, giving her special characters which positively differ it from all other nations, – are two typical symptoms of that the nationalism has worn its ill uniform.
But there is one more – the third symptom, and the most disgusting for me and also the most dangerous for surrounding nations. Due to formal signs it can be seemed as the different kind of the second one as it also consists of giving special signs to nation which differ it from others, but it isn’t just a difference, for example, only for inclination to musical or mathematical arts, but difference for physiological, biological moments as lets the follower be considered from the highest level (the highest race). It changes the essence of the problem as we have to look over the second symptom as a separate symptom.
Generally, there isn’t any dangerous moment in conversation about separation of people (or even nations) for height or any other physical signs and not having a result from it which could be long for some time. But if the separation can take part as a base for racist claims about superiority of any nation on others, then it means, it is the end, because it isn’t the nationalism anymore, but the real kind of racism. You know, it starts with expression of physiological and biological differences of “own” nation from others. Let’s remember that exactly such methods in estimation of intellectual possibilities of a person were used in fascist Germany. But who could suppose that the similar can happen among nations which have never entered to a Union? And the notorious reconstructing has identified it to the world. It would be strange any speechmaking about gene pool and blood by the leader of Armenian communists, but it seems he gave a start to speculation in the republic over the underlined topic. And then pseudo-anthropological delights in Armenia became to epidemic. But I think that the notice in the newspaper “Epoch” affected me most of all. So, hematologists of Armenia has held large-scaled investigation nearly all over the world, which essence was in that in the majority of states where Armenians live, Armenians were taken blood samples and face structure over the countries. For example, in France – from Armenian and Frenchman, in Greece – from Armenian and Greek e. t. c. Then these samples were analyzed in microbiological level and results of the analyses were opened. And here’s what the analyses said. At first, structure and containing of blood aren’t changed in Armenians not depending on where they live, secondly, such structure and containing in people isn’t observed in any other nations. I should make two questions here. Firstly, don’t the hematologists of Armenia have more important job to do than holding such kind of investigation? Secondly, what is the aim of these investigations that they wanted to prove? We will be able to easily find the answer if we compare the notice in “Epoch” with other publications in periodical editions of Armenia. It stays clear that Armenians, having the Armenian origins, could save the virgin purity of their gen and blood of the ancients carrying it for centuries. Great property for any nation, isn’t it? But all this is just trick and bluff.
(to be continued)
Elchin AHMEDOV, doctor of philosophy in political science
Historic, political and military-strategic value of Shusha
At the beginning of XVIII century Azerbaijan consisted of four beylerbeylik: Tabriz, Shirvan, Chukhursad and Garabagh. Garabagh beylerbeylik with its center in Ganja city covered vast territory between Araz and Kur rivers.
In XVIII century complicated historic events happened in Garabagh. Being one of administrative units of Sefevi state the beylerbeylik of Garabagh was occupied by Ottoman Turkey in 1724. Ganja city, the center of beylerbeylik was invaded by Turkish troops.
In 30-ies of XVIII century armed attacks of Nadir shah Afshari temporarily changed situation in Iran and Caucasus. Iran revived under the rule of Nadir shah succeeded in regaining of Azerbaijan territories, including Ganja, from Ottoman empire (1735). Nadir shah was also harsh to population of Garabagh beylerbeylik existed by that time for over two centuries. This was caused by objection expressed by Garabagh beylerbeylik while inauguration held in 1736 in Mugan when Nadir shah was announced as the ruler.
In 1747 after the death of Nadir shah his state collapsed. In mid-XVIII century after the liquidation of a long lasted ruling of Iran on the territory of Azerbaijan the independent and semi-independent feudal states – khanates were created.
Garabagh khanate was one of eighteen khanates established in Azerbaijan in the middle of XVIII century. Founder of Garabagh khanate Panah Ali khan was from Javanshir kin. Panah Ali khan was the head of Otuzikiler tribe and emir of 20 thousand yards of Jevanshir and Gazakh. He announced himself a khan and ordered to build Bayat fort in Kebirli district in 1748 in order to defend Garabagh khanate from attacks of enemies. During the rule of Panah Ali khan the first war took place at the end of 1748 in Bayat fort. This was due to attack of Haji Chelebi, the khan from Sheki. Panah Ali khan victory over Sheki and Shirvan khanates had brought him fame. Taking into account weak strategic position of Bayat fort and difficulty to hold their troops he decided to build a new defense fort and started construction of a Ternekut fort nearby to Agdam and famous as Shahbulag.
During that period the fame of Panah Ali khan increased every day. He extended his influence over Ganja, Irevan and Nakhchyvan khanates by force and marriage diplomacy. In 50-ies of XVIII century meliks of Khamse became the subjects of Garabagh khanate. Later Panah Ali khan transferred the center of khanate to unreachable area and built a fort there. It was the fort of Shusha.
Building of Shusha fort started in 1750-1751. According to Garabagh historians at some distance from Shusakend, in 1750 on a high steep mountain the building of the fort had been started and completed in 1756-1757. Panah Ali khan made Shusha the capital, reinforced it and turned it into fort-city. For some period of time to an honor of Panah Ali khan it had been named as “Panahabad”, later as “Shusha fort” and “Shusha”.
Enemies of Panah Ali khan were concerned by construction of unmatched Shusha fort. In political events which took place after the year 1751 the name of Shusha was always mentioned. Shusha fort resisted a large number of attacks and evidenced bloody battles.
In 50-ies of XVIII century while Panah Ali khan was involved with reinforcement of Shusha fort the troops of Mohammed Hasan Gadjar, shah of Iran, attacked Garabagh in 1751. Gadjar troops made a camp in vicinity of Shusha, where they stayed for about a month. But strong fortifications of the city had forced troops of Iran shah to go back. Several years later – in 1758 Fatali khan Afshar, the ruler of Urmiya attacked Garabagh khanate with a large army. Fatali khan held Shusha under the siege for 6 months and he failed to capture the city.
(to be continued)
Phelix TSERTVADZE
THE MORGENTHAU TRAGEDY
(beginning in the previous issues)
Chapter 7. Curve arithmetic
Let’s look over the next project of resolution of The United States House of Representatives about recognition of the disputable genocide of Armenians. It stayed just as a project as it wasn’t discussed at the assembly and was included to the history under number 252. Chapter 1: “Genocide of Armenians was planned and realized by the Ottoman empery from 1915 to 1923, as the result approximately 2.000.000 Armenians were deported including 1.500.000 men, women and children were killed and 500.000 were exiled from their homes, and so, 2500 years longing existence of Armenian nation in its historical motherland was prevented”. I should mention: a) the expression “genocide” is incorrect in attitude with the events of 1915-1923. Such expression didn’t exist at those years. Following basing of Rafael Lemkin on the author of this expression is more incorrect and far-fetched with the text; b) “was planned”…doesn’t match with the truth or it is just a trick. There isn’t any fact about the planned acts over annihilation of Armenian population in Ottoman empery till today (it was written on 16 February 2011). As always, they express their dreams as the truth; c) there is one more incorrect amendment: at first they used the word “deported”, then “exiled”. Deportation is equal to exile. How can the same people be exiled twice? At the first moment-from their homes. But where the second exile was realized from? From Syria? From Mesopotamia? Or from their homes again where the exiled people returned after the first deportation? It is just two-sided amendment under which we can understand that the exiled people returned to their homes. But how should we understand you, dear authors of the project, their advisors, advocates and others?
Let’s look at the arithmetic: 2.000.000 was deported; 1.500.000 was killed; 500.000 survived. And here’s one more number: 2500 years old existence of Armenians in their historical motherland was prevented. And again (I don’t wish to use the word “trick”) invalid speculation and fantasy on the official document of the USA Congress: 1) There isn’t any document proving the lives of Armenians in Anatoly 2500 years ago; 2) “existence was prevented” – doesn’t match with the reality. Armenians lived in Anatoly till the deportation, during deportation (authors of the project cowardly pass over in silence that not the whole Armenian population was exiled in 1915, but only a part in East Anatoly in zone of fights were deported, and nobody was even touched in large cities), after deportation, and they are living there till today (nearly 150.000 people). I don’t wish to underline all sources as they are many. I just advise the following to the readers who can have suspicion: go to Istanbul and be sure. Due to commentaries of the authors of the project about the numbers, the following happened with Armenian population: they were deported, killed, exiled, prevented. And it’s again wrong. Armenians denied this untruth long before: Bogos Nubar Pasha at Paris international conference (1918-1920); Gabriel Noranduginyan at Lausanne world conference (1922-1924); Khatisov – representative from the Armenian society at Trabzon conference (March-April 1918); Richard Khovanisyan in his works. Sources: http://kultur-gov-tr.livejournal.com, which referred to DX. EUM, the second branch, No 2f/14, 2f/94; Archives des Affaires Etrangeres de France, Serie Levant, 1918-1928, Sous Serie Armenia, Vol.2: folio 47, Ankara, 1998, p. 49; Akdes Nimet Kurat “Turkey and Russia”, Ankara, 1990, p. 471; Richard Khovanisyan “The Ebb and Flow of the Armenian Minority in the Arab Middle East”, volume 28, №1, 1974, p. 20.
Yes, unfortunately, many Armenians died during deportation. The exiled lost their homes and properties. But size of this disaster is much lower than Armenian apologists from parliamentarians and lobbyists in several countries try to introduce. Despite the deportation plan of Germans, Armenian population had possibility to leave Anatoly across the terrible frame of deportation. Besides, great part of the exiled people, breaking the horror of the difficult way, could settle in Arabian countries or reach Russia, Europe and America. Here’re the real numbers by the Armenian sources mentioned above.
(to be continued)
Samuel A.Weems
“Armenia: secrets of terrorist “Christian” state”
The great series of Armenian frauds. Vol. I
(beginning in previous flimsies)
Chapter nine:
Bloodthirsty Armenian Bandits
A Despotic Armenian Regime
Consider what the Monroe Doctrine was to American foreign policy: On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe sent his annual message to the U.S. Congress. This message became known as the Monroe Doctrine and became the basis of American foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine was fundamentally the assertion of an American sphere of influence. The American foreign policy from 1823 forward would be as follows:
1. North and South America were closed to further colonization by European powers.
2. The United States must not involve itself in the wars of Europe.
3. The United States would view any attempt by a European power to extend its political system to “any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety”.
Here, in 1919, almost one hundred years later, the little state of Armenia, controlled by corrupt dictators, was demanding that the United States abandon its century-old foreign policy. Armenia demanded that the United States provide American soldiers to police their neck of the woods, give the Armenians millions of dollars in “aid,” and protect the Armenians – all at the cost of Americans lives and American dollars.
Hovannissian objects, on behalf of the Armenian leaders, because the United States continued with its one-hundred-year foreign policy. Hovannissian never explains why the United States should protect this tiny gang of dictators when America had never gone to war against the Ottoman Empire. A mere handful of supporters of the corrupt Armenian leaders were members of the British parliament. These few, however, were very vocal in demanding that the British “protect” the Armenians. They made an attempt to commit British troops and money to aid Armenia.
“It fell upon Andrew Bonar Law, Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons to respond. Although every member in Parliament, he said, wanted to prevent further atrocities in Armenia, the government’s first responsibility was to its own people, not `to securing good order in countries like this, with which we have no connection at all.` He believed the danger was exaggerated…” (P 120, from the book of Hovannissian).
The British government continued to press the United States to take their place. The American government responded firmly it would not do so. There was a good reason the Americans would not accept a mandate to protect the Armenians: “…the United States had not signed the Treaty of Paris in 1856, the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, or any other international agreement that had perpetuated Turkish rule over Christians, America could not be held responsible…” (P 122).
The British began to withdraw on August 15, 1919, leaving two thousand troops in Batum. Of course, the Armenian leaders` cry that their people would be massacred if the British left didn’t happen.
(to be continued)