See the solution of an Armenian commenter on preserving Armenian roots on Turkey
It is what it is. Turkey has successfully made sure historical Armenian lands will never be under Armenian governmental/Armenian Republic rule. Many factors played into it: Depopulation of Armenians, Armenian state being under Soviet state for nearly 70 years, treaties being signed between Western superpowers and Turkey, it’s just too late. The boat for saving western Armenia has already sailed. Yes, I do wish that Ani and other historic Armenian territories would return to its rightful owner, but the Turkish government is very territorial government. The best way to preserve Armenian roots in these lands are if mass amount of Armenians return to these lands and start reproducing like the Kurds and Turks. Every Armenian family should have 7-8 kids. That way they’ll be able to replenish the Armenian roots again.
Historic Armenia – Peter Musurlian documentary on Western Armenia
“The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) is an independent, bipartisan federal government entity established by the U.S. Congress to monitor, analyze, and report on religious freedom abroad.”
This is stated by the mentioned Commission on its “Annual Report of The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom”. This means that the Commission is independent of any outside influence.
Is it?
We’ll see…
Recently The Commission has announced its 2023 report where Azerbaijan among other several Turkic and Muslim countries is accused of “suppressing the religious freedoms”. All Turkic countries – Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Türkiye and Turkmenistan – except Kyrgyzstan are those which is seen by this very Commission as “a perpetrator of religious freedoms”.
According to this report’s Azerbaijan chapter (just 2 pages) this country is in a very disturbing position and must be included “on the State Department’s Special Watch List” for violating religious freedoms…
Now let’s see some citations from the Report:
1. “This report provides an update on religious freedom conditions in Azerbaijan in 2023. It describes the legislative framework that facilitates the official regulation of religious practice, concerns for religious sites in Nagorno-Karabakh, the ongoing repression of Shi’a Muslim religious activists, and the impact of the government’s refusal to allow conscientious objection.”
“Concerns for religious sites in Nagorno-Karabakh”. One must think that the Report is overseeing the destruction of more than 60 Mosques in Karabakh during its occupation by Armenia. Yes, even all Mosques in Karabakh and other occupied lands of Azerbaijan were wiped off by Armenia. But no single word about this in the Report!
Plus, we must add that there is no territorial entity within Azerbaijan called “Nagorno-Karabakh”. Seems the compliers of the Report are using occupant Armenia’s terminology while talking about Azerbaijan…
While talking about “the ongoing repression of Shi’a Muslim religious activists” The Commission forgets about the realities of our region. Those so-called “repressed Shi’a Muslims”, who are defended by the US Government are mostly the followers of Iranian General Qasem Soleimani. This General was eliminated on Jan 3, 2020, by the US drones in Baghdad, Iraq as a terrorist. And those so-called Shi’a Muslims “repressed by Azerbaijan” are mostly the supporters and followers of this very terrorist! So, the U.S. must decide and rethink if this very country has killed Qasem Soleimani by mistake…
2. “The law also prohibits non-Azerbaijani citizens from engaging in “religious propaganda” or missionary activity without explicit state permission.”
What is strange here? Why Azerbaijan must be accused of preventing its citizens from the religious propaganda? People, even foreigners are free to practice their religion. But religious propaganda by foreigners is and must be prevented!
3. “In May 2023, the chairman of the SCWRA Mubariz Gurbanli explicitly called for Armenian priests to abandon the Dadivank Monastery in the Kalbajar region as he falsely claimed that they had no connection to the site. While a United Nations mission to Nagorno-Karabakh completed in October 2023 reported that it “saw no damage…to cultural or religious structures”, human rights organizations continued to urge the government to ensure protections for religious and cultural sites and rights.”
I would say that No Comment! But The Commission needs a bit explanation and enlightenment. The Monastery which they claim to be called as “Dadivank” is Khudaveng Monastery and has nothing to do with Armenians. It was built by Albanian Christians and is under state protection of Azerbaijan. But as other religious sites it was occupied by Armenia and then renovated a bit to prove that it is “an ancient Armenian Monastery”. Even the UN mission also stated that no damage “to cultural and religious structures”.
4. “The government has particularly targeted the unregistered Muslim Unity Movement (Müsəlman Birliyi Hərəkatı) or MUM, a group that has criticized the government’s repressive policies toward religion and whose persecution many human rights defenders believe to be politically motivated.”
This so-called Muslim Movement is that very organization which supports Qasem Soleimani and Iran’s clerical regime. These people hate the U.S. and other major Western democracies and want to overthrow the government in Azerbaijan… in order to establish a new one which would support such terrorist organizations like HAMAS, Hezbollah…
5. “The United States should pressure Azerbaijan to address its severe violations of religious freedom and place the country on the State Department’s Special Watch List until the Azerbaijani government amends its 2009 law “On Freedom of Religious Beliefs” in line with international human rights standards and ceases other policies and practices that routinely infringe upon its citizens’ freedom of religion or belief.”
I’d ask, are you serious? Do you really think that Azerbaijan must be included in this List just only for preventing the country and its people from the so-called religious interference of the terror-sponsor state – Iran? What is the connection between Iran and The U.S. Commission which compiles such reports?
Maybe there is someone in The Commission who has the ties with Iran or its close allies?
Yes, there is someone called Danielle Saroyan Ashbahian, who is a Chief of Public Affairs at The Commission. If review her social media accounts, one easily can see that she is an active member of Armenian propaganda against Turks – Azerbaijan and Türkiye! But she must be neutral person, isn’t it?
This very Danielle worked for the Armenian Assembly of America before joining The Commission dealing with the religious issues throughout the world…
“Danielle Saroyan Ashbahian is the Chief of Public Affairs at the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom, overseeing the Communications and Congressional Relations. Before joining USCIRF, she was the Director of Communications at the Armenian Assembly of America. Prior to that, she was the Layout Editor at the Public Diplomacy Magazine and worked at the Los Angeles Consular Corps. She has had previous experience at the office of former U.S. Congresswoman Janice Hahn, the United Nations Department of Public Information in Armenia, the Lebanese Consulate in Los Angeles, and the San Francisco Ethics Commission” reads The Commission’s web site…
One more important point: The Commission is trying to support its claims against Azerbaijan siting so-called “Caucasus Heritage Watch”, a pro-Armenian entity launched in 2020 by Armenians, supported by Armenian organizations…
Just again, No Comment!
BTW, there is no report on Armenia at all! We’ll remind The Commission that for example the Jewish Synagogue was set to fire in Yerevan in 2023. Or all Muslims are religiously cleansed from Armenia! And Armenia is one of the very few countries of the world denying multiculturalism and having even 98 percent of population of Armenian ethnic background…
Did Britain ever rule over Turkey? If not, why did Great Britain not take over Anatolia during World War I considering that Germany was allied with the Ottomans at that time?
No, Britain did not rule over Turkey. During World War I, although Germany was allied with the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), Great Britain did not take over Anatolia for a variety of reasons.
Firstly, it is important to understand the geopolitical landscape of the time. The Ottoman Empire, once a powerful force in the region, was in decline in the early 20th century. However, it still held strategic importance due to its control of key trade routes, particularly the Suez Canal, which connected the Mediterranean Sea to the Red Sea and provided a vital shortcut to India, Britain’s prized colony.
Britain, being aware of the Ottoman Empire’s strategic significance, pursued a policy of maintaining the status quo rather than outright annexation. This approach aimed to preserve stability in the region and protect British interests without jeopardizing delicate alliances and triggering further conflicts.
Additionally, Britain had other priorities during World War I. The war effort required substantial resources, both human and material, which were primarily allocated to fighting on the Western Front against Germany and Austria-Hungary. British forces were heavily engaged in Europe and the Middle East, including campaigns in Gallipoli and Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq).
Moreover, the prospect of taking over Anatolia would have presented significant challenges for Britain. It would have required a massive military campaign and an occupation force to maintain control over the vast territory. With limited resources and stretched supply lines, such an endeavor would have been logistically challenging and potentially prolonged the war effort.
Another crucial factor to consider was the potential backlash from other major powers. Imperial Russia, a key ally of Britain at the time, had territorial ambitions in Anatolia and sought to expand its influence in the region. Any attempt by Britain to seize control of Anatolia would have likely provoked a confrontation with Russia, leading to further complications and potential conflicts.
Furthermore, the post-war settlement played a role in Britain’s decision-making process. The Treaty of Sèvres, signed in 1920, aimed to dismantle the Ottoman Empire and divide its territories among various powers. However, this treaty was superseded by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, which recognized the independence of the Republic of Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This effectively marked the end of Britain’s ambitions to rule over Anatolia.
Hamas is designated as a terrorist organization by several countries, including the United States, Canada, the European Union, Israel, and others. However, it is important to note that opinions on this matter can vary, and different countries and entities may have different perspectives on the classification of Hamas.
Some people such as Turkish president Erdogan have the opposite opinion. Turkish president Erdogan said that Hamas is not a terrorist organization.
Some people agree that Hamas is not just a terrorist organization, but far worse and too big to be labeled as terrorists. They believe that they are a political party that also has its own military and enforcement.
The foot soldiers are trained radicals who blindly follow their billionaire leaders.
Despite the grim picture of turmoil and instability that has emerged in Afghanistan since the Taliban came to power, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) has demonstrated a unique ability and efforts to resolve the Afghan crisis. As a regional organization, the SCO has shown interest in Afghanistan since its creation in 2001, primarily because the country’s stability affects its members, such as Pakistan, India, China, Russia, Iran and the Central Asian region. In this regard, in 2005, the SCO-Afghanistan contact group was created. Its main objectives are to establish dialogue with Kabul, combat security threats in the region, drug trafficking and organized crime, as well as contribute to the restoration of a peaceful, stable and economically prosperous state. However, as violence in the region escalated and US influence grew following its invasion in the country, the Contact Group lost its relevance and was disbanded in 2009.
Afghanistan received observer status in the SCO when President Hamid Karzai visited China in 2012 and signed the SCO counter-terrorism protocol in 2015. In 2018, Afghanistan officially reaffirmed its commitment to combating terrorism, extremism, drug trafficking and economic cooperation. The Afghan Contact Group was revived in 2017 and held annual meetings before the Taliban took power.
Today, during a period of global economic and political instability and conflicts in the Middle East, the revival of the activities of the SCO-Afghanistan contact group is more relevant than ever. Integrating Afghanistan into the Belt and Road Initiative will allow China to fill the economic and political power vacuum.
Uzbekistan, a member of the SCO, also plays an important role in dealing with the Taliban because many Uzbeks live in Afghanistan, although they are persecuted. Turkmenistan takes a neutral position, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan take a wait-and-see position. Tajikistan supports the pre-Taliban government and hosts Afghan refugees and politicians.
The differences between India and Pakistan regarding Afghanistan could not be more serious. India was the last regional stakeholder to reach out to the Taliban, while Pakistan has friendly ties and influence with the previous and current Taliban regime.
Some of Afghanistan’s most pressing problems fall outside the organization’s mandate. Recognition, sanctions and humanitarian assistance are the responsibility of the UN.
More than 90% of Afghans are at risk of starvation. The SCO’s response to the humanitarian crisis was country-specific. For example, India sent medical aid and a shipment of wheat in collaboration with the World Food Programme. So far, $2.4 billion has been raised, less than the $4.4 billion requested by the UN.
The Taliban regime has violated its commitment to establish a representative and inclusive government. Restrictions on women’s freedom and human rights have threatened recognition, humanitarian assistance and access to frozen assets.
The situation is complicated by disagreements between SCO members at present. However, the revival of the activities of the SCO-Afghanistan contact group would contribute to the solution to the Afghan crisis in a more targeted and organized way, not within initiatives of a single SCO member country.
