What was the purpose of Azeri genocide in Khojaly ?

Originally posted by strategos Originally posted by ArmenianSurvival Originally posted by Alparslan Giving back Eastern Anatolia to Armenia? How can we give something that you did not own? You do not want Turks to give back. But only to give. It was a hypothetical comparison of the two situations. I did not mean it literally. Thats my point, if Turks cannot give back Armenians their original lands, then by that logic, why should Karabagh be given back to Azerbaijan when there are no Azeris there? That was my question. I simply brought up the Eastern Anatolian example to compare the two situations. Please explain how to give an Armenian-dominated province like Karabagh back to Azerbaijan. I said this to someone else as well....most people here cant read Turkish documents written in Turkish. But from what i understand the site claims 518,000 Turks killed by Armenians? Go to the thread about the genocide...i have posted an answer to this accusation there. This topic is about Karabagh and Azerbaijan. Also ironic how they would demand a Kosovo, a chechnya, a Palestine, but no Kurdistan, no Karabagh.

You forgot to add Turkish Cyprus which Turkey recognize it as state when its existance has less legal ground than a Karabakh republic.

We call this politics.

 

You don't get it, do you? Karabakh as an Armenian region does not exist because of the expropriation of Azeris, the Armenians were clearly a majority there before the conflict started. The conflict started when the Karabakh Armenians started the legal process of independence according to Soviet rules. Karabakh republic could stand international laws, and had it been not of Azerbaijan agressive policies and oil and Turkish republic pressing to recognize Azerbaijan and Armenia to delimitate their territories and bring the international community to leave Azerbaijan changing their own constitution to incorporate the enclave as an integral part against the treaties,... now Karabakh would have been an indeendent nation.

The Turkish republic of Cyprus exist because of a majority created by the expropriation of people, this is how it was created, if the Greeks and Turks return to their homes pre Turkish invasion, there could not be the possibility of a Turkish republic there, while even after the Azeris return Karabakh would still be a majority.

Furthermore, Azerbaijan with its hypocrasy unofficially recognize the republic of Northern Cyprus but does not do it officially because if they do so, Greece and Armenia will follow by recognizing Karabakh and Russia is waiting patiently a move to do the same. If that was to happen Azerbaijan will have to start another war and they will be considered the agressor nation.

And finally, as i said previously, the number of refugees of slightly over a million includes the 300-350 thousand Armenians. Per population there was as much Armenian refugees in the conflict and unlike Azerbaijan Armenia is not only land locked and blocked by two countries, but it doesn't have oil to finance the relief, but yet they have found a way to house them while Azerbaijan still place theirs in camps to use them as publicity as tool. Also, Armenia already agreed to leave the Azeris refugees return if ever Karabakh independence was assured while Azeribaijan never agreed to let Armenian refugees return.

Originally posted by bg_turk Originally posted by Fadix Most importantly, the Turkish Cyprus exist after evacuating the population to creat to homogenous territory, while Karabakh Armenian majority was already there. People were expopriated to creat a Turkish Cyprus. Yes you are right the situation of Northern Cyprus and Karabakh is very similar. It is a major foreing policy dilemma for Azerbaijan, which wants to foster friendly relations with the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, but is afraid of setting a precedent which the armenians would take advantage of.   People were expropriated not only in Cyprus, but in the occupied azeri territories as a result of the Armenian invasion one million azeris have become refugees and it is note worthy that some of these people still live in refugee camps, in total misery.

No, I think that Azerbaijan should not be occupied, but I object to the claim that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan. Karabakh people voted for this independence according to Soviet rules and declared their independence in the same time as Azerbaijan. Any person who still believe in democratic principales could not do otherwise than accept that a people has the right to take their destiny in their own hands.

As for the security resolutions, Karabakh is not included as occupied only the rest. But Armenia has also made clear that they will remove their army once Karabakh is left alone.

Two questions.

Do you support the independence of the Turkish republic of Cyprus?
Do you support the independence of Karabakh?

Originally posted by bg_turk So what is your point? Trying to justify the illegal occupation of a sovereign country, the ethnic cleansing of 25% of the population of Karabakh, the brutal invasion of adjacent territoires - an act for which there is no ethnic or demographic jusitification and are condemnded by security resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884. http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/13508.htm

Separatism should be decided by the people that lives there. Karabakh Armenians were a majority there before the conflict and they have voted. Besides, Karabakh was an autonomous region and an Azeris protectorate under Soviet rules, this works when you are also part of a larger entity, but not when this entity brake.

Besides, the Quebecers here in Canada have voted two times in a referundum to decide if they want to separate from Canada. This is called democracy, not you or me have the right to take a decision on the behalf of people living in the region.

Originally posted by bg_turk Originally posted by Fadix Do you support the independence of the Turkish republic of Cyprus? No, I believe the recent unification plan was a fair one. An independence would be against human rights of the 180,000 GCs who would have been ethnically cleansed from the north of Cyprus, many of whom have pending cases in the ECHR. Independence would require the TRNC to inherit these cases, and in any case the return of refugees will be unavoidable. There is simply no way for the TRNC to get away with Greek Cypriot land in the North, or escape international law.   Do you support the independence of Karabakh? No. Karabakh is an unrecognized entitiy, a de facto state, but de jure under the jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. According to the CIA factbook on Azerbaijan: [img] http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/maps/aj-map.gif [/img] Armenia supports ethnic Armenian secessionists in Nagorno-Karabakh and since the early 1990s has militarily occupied 16% of Azerbaijan - Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) continues to mediate dispute; over 800,000 mostly ethnic Azerbaijanis were driven from the occupied lands and Armenia; about 230,000 ethnic Armenians were driven from their homes in Azerbaijan into Armenia;  It is very hard to withdraw borders these days, and seperatism has no justification. Karabakh armenians will simply have to live as part of Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan will have to learn how to respect minority righs.

As for the security resolutions, Karabakh is not included as occupied only the rest. But Armenia has also made clear that they will remove their army once Karabakh is left alone.

Here's a really clear indication of Armenia's intent:

On 1.December.1989 (before the official dissolution of the USSR), the Armenian parliament declared Karabag's union with Armenia, and passed a joint budget for both on 9.January.1990.

You're not mentioning the fact that prior to this, they held a democratic vote in Karabakh, and the overwhelming majority voted to become part of the Republic of Armenia.

Karabag Armenians have always wanted to join with Armenia. Moscow gave it to Azerbaijan. Everyone knows this. I replied to Fadix because he wrote 'Armenia only wants Azerbaijan to leave Karabag alone'. That is untrue. Armenia wants to annex Karabag and if possible Nahchivan. And the Armenian diaspora, which lives in la la land, want Eastern Turkey as well, in addition to these lands.

Treaty of Sevres gave a fifth of Turkey to Armenia, u dont see any Armenians there do you?

I don't see your point. Sevres treaty was invalid from the very beginning, because the Ottoman parliament rejected it.  Then the Allies dispersed the parliament and the Sultan signed it. At that point, the new parliament in Ankara refused to sign it. And Ankara won the war. Lausanne was signed as the treaty ending the war. 

Anyway Sevres didn't give Turkish land to Armenia, because there was no Armenia at the time. It meant to create an Armenia on Turkish land. Which never happened. That's another reason why Armenia cannot legally claim Eastern Turkey. Of course, at that time there were few Armenians left there anyway, but the imperialists don't really care about Armenians, they just wanted another mandate.

The Armenian Government is ok with a free a Karabakh republic. Oh and Naxichevan was also Armenian in 1920, but most of the population fled. Why should we give a damn about commies? they had no right to take away lands inhabited by Armenians and give them to Azerbaijan.

My source (a neutral one) says that in 1914 there were 81300 Azeris and 53700 Armenians in Naxichevan.

Frankly, I think the Armenian diaspora should give up trying to adopt the Jewish model, which involves hoping that the Western powers will force Turkey to give up land to Armenia, like they gave Palestine to the Jews. This kind of imperialist action was possible in 1920, when the Western power was at its peak. And they tried it and failed even back then. Today it is an empty dream, which harms Armenia-Turkey relations. Armenia is more realistic, they are ready to develop relations with Turkey without absurd claims of land.

I think the diaspora should set itself realistic targets (for instance obtaining an official apology for the genocide from Turkey) and work for the normalisation of Turkish-Armenian relations, which would help Armenia greatly. Instead, the diaspora lives in a fantasy world, and keeps causing problems for the Armenians in Turkey and Armenia. They also push for useless Armenian genocide laws, which create friction between Turkey and the West. I think they should work together with Turkish and Armenia Armenians, and lobby the Turkish government, rather than the French. The farther away Turkey is from the EU, the farther away is any sort of apology or recognition.

And of course, the diaspora-supported hardliners in Karabag have caused huge amounts of problems there. Participation of all sides is needed to achieve a solution there, because as long as Azerbaijan land is occupied by Armenia, Turkish-Armenian relations will never normalise. An agreement may be reached on an independent Karabag, but occupation of Azerbaijan is out of question. The status quo affects Armenia much more than it affects Turkey, so Turkey can afford to do nothing about it.

When the S�vres treaty was signed, the official government was the Sultan's government in Istanbul. Ataturk's government wasn't yet recognized as the official government. The Sultan accepted the S�vres treaty, whilst Ataturk (who wasn't the ruler of Turkey yet) rejected it.

You seem to forget that although the peace treaty was "renewed" in Lausanne, Armenia or Armenians didn't participate in the signing of the treaty, and thus didn't accept the new Turkish borders.

http://www.hri.org/docs/lausanne/

The recognition of the Armenian genocide is obviously one of the primary goals of the Armenian diaspora.

But you must understand that all those people have almost nothing to do with current Armenia. They are mostly old Armenians, who are not in their homeland because of the Genocide.

Maybe things will improve with the newer generations. 

The issue of genoicde is already out in the open and the Turkish government cant change that

If the Turkish government is isolated from the West, it will never acknowledge any genocide. Who cares that France has laws, if Turkey is best friend of with Iran and China against the West?

The Armenian mandate was created, but was attacked.

Lines drawn on a map, by imperialists...

And what would be your source on the populations of Naxichevan in 1914? and why no comment on Karabakh...this is a thread on Karabakh no?

? My source agrees with you on Karabag. It was Armenian majority from the beginning, and was given to Azerbaijan by Moscow. But Naxichevan was Azeri majority, that's why it is a part of Azerbaijan.

True can afford to do nothing about it, and Europe can afford to do nothing about Turkey's acceptance to EU.

So? Do you really think the EU gives a rat's ass about Armenian genocide? Its only value is the political leverage over Turkey it gives them. But this leverage is only there when Turkey is pro-Western.

Economists say, that the opening of the border will not change Armenian economy much.

Well, let's see the map. Armenia is landlocked, and has borders with Georgia, Iran Azerbaijan, and Turkey. In order to maintain contact with the world, it needs access to one of the three, Iran, Turkey, or Georgia, with the best option being Turkey. Without this access, it will be screwed. Iran won't let the West help Armenia, if Armenia becomes pro-Western. Georgia may, now that it is somewhat pro-Western, after the revolution. But Russia is always near, to reclaim it, and it won't like a pro-Western Armenia either. Turkey is the only reliable pro-Western contact in the long term. As long as Turkish border remains closed, Armenia's balls will firmly be in Russia's hands. 

When the S�vres treaty was signed, the official government was the Sultan's government in Istanbul. Ataturk's government wasn't yet recognized as the official government. The Sultan accepted the S�vres treaty, whilst Ataturk (who wasn't the ruler of Turkey yet) rejected it.

Don't teach me Turkish history please. I gave you the outline above. Sevres was illegal because the Ottoman Parliament refused it. Sultan can accept whatever he wants, Ottoman Empire was a constitutional monarchy, not an absolute one. Besides, a people has the right to defy any agreement signed by a puppet government, in a city under occupation. If you disagree, good luck in convincing the French about the legality of Vichy France, because by your logic, it was more legal than Sevres Armenia. 

This is the problem with the Armenian diaspora, you see, as long as you side with the imperialists, you'll never get anywhere.

You seem to forget that although the peace treaty was "renewed" in Lausanne, Armenia or Armenians didn't participate in the signing of the treaty, and thus didn't accept the new Turkish borders.

Do you really think Armenians had a say on the Sevres? Besides, legally Armenia was part of USSR, and they accepted the Turkey-USSR agreements. Armenians hadn't accepted the borders, who cares? Do you think the Kurds accepted Turkish-Iraqi border? Do you think the Arabs accepted the Turkish-Syrian border? Do you think anyone asked these people what they think about the borders? Unfortunately, the governments decide borders, not the people, and Moscow and Ankara drew the Turkish-Armenian border.

The recognition of the Armenian genocide is obviously one of the primary goals of the Armenian diaspora.

I think the way they pursue it is counter-productive.