The future of Karabakh

Originally posted by mamikon whats so unrealistic about it? why dont you explain it to us?

Not every source is true, especially if the claim is unrealistic.

There are many Armenians in Tbilisi approximately 4%, in addition more than 3% has changed their surename into georgian surenames but its stupidity claim they're majority, even when armenian army in 1918 entered Georgia to capture tbilisi, those armenians living in tbilisi fought shoulder by shoulder with georgians to defeat invaders and we were victorious.

Originally posted by mamikon When I say major I meant majority as I said a post back...as in, the majority in that population was Armenian.

Originally posted by mamikon [QUOTE=kapikulu] you mean a minority? Nope, read some books....

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival      But honestly, I still don't know what right Azerbaijan had to annex the lands from Armenia in the first place.

Inability to understand and refusal to understand are two entirely different things.

 For those unable to understand a pursuit of a discusion may be a worthwhile exercise, for those who refuse to understand, it is simply a waste of time.

Originally posted by kapikulu you mean a minority?

Nope, read some books....

Originally posted by bg_Turk Armenia got rid of as many as 200,000 Azeri Turks within her territories. Where was their right to defend themselves?

They had no line of defense, and it is a tragedy...the 350,000 Armenians who fled Azerbaijan also had no line of defense.

Originally posted by bg_turk Armenia got rid of as many as 200,000 Azeri Turks within her territories. Where was their right to defend themselves?

     I never said it would be wrong for Azeris to take up arms against Armenians if in fact they were being kicked out of their homes. They had every right to do so, but the reality is they didn't do it, while the Armenians punished the Azeri authority severely for their mistake. Also, how are those refugees supposed to return to Armenia when Azerbaijan refuses to open the border?

     And you never addressed what right Azerbaijan had in taking those provinces in the first place. Armenia's territorial integrity can be trampled on while Azerbaijan's has to be fully respected, just because some legal document says so? Legality doesn't always equate to justice.

Originally posted by bg_turk Self-defense does not involve ethnic cleansing and scorch earth policies against the indigenous population, and that is precisely why your alleged "self-defense", which I would rather call an agressive invasion and land grab, is against international law, and precisely why the cessionist entity remains unrecognized, and will remain unrecognized and in breach of international law until the day when every single refugee unjustly expelled from their land return to their rightfully owned homes!

     You call it land-grabbing, I call it justice (except for the expulsion of natives which Azerbaijan is also equally responsible for and initiated in 1988). Azerbaijan had no right to the land except for a Soviet annexation policy. All the subsequent international rights they had acquired for Karabakh were thus irrelevant. Also, as me and mamikon have said, the Azeris are guilty of everything they accuse the Armenians of. Does that mean the international community should not recognize Azerbaijan as well?

Originally posted by DayI I hope also you are aware that Armenia (nachcivan and many other city's) had a major Muslim population, also even before WW1...

     And I'm sure you're aware that except for modern Armenia and Georgia, which are tiny, all surrounding lands (including Nakhichevan) are populated exclusively by Muslims.


Edited by ArmenianSurvival - 06-Sep-2006 at 17:32

Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival      Also, when you use pogroms to get rid of minority populations like Azerbaijan did to the Armenians, that population has a right to defend itself. You have repeatedly called this self-defense a breach of "international law". Utter nonsense.

Armenia got rid of as many as 200,000 Azeri Turks within her territories. Where was their right to defend themselves?

Self-defense does not involve ethnic cleansing and scorch earth policies against the indigenous population, and that is precisely why your alleged "self-defense", which I would rather call an agressive invasion and land grab, is against international law, and precisely why the cessionist entity remains unrecognized, and will remain unrecognized and in breach of international law until the day when every single refugee unjustly expelled from their land return to their rightfully owned homes!

yup