Topic: The Great Religious Controversy Returns (Read 53 times)
They tend to openly or secretly support their allies or people under their control. It really has nothing to do with religion otherwise the Christians in Ukraine and Donbass wouldn't be abandoned when unbelievers, nazis and other anti-christ forces were persecuting them. You probably didn't notice how "Babylon" secretly supported its Egyptian ally against Christian Ethiopia during GERD issue. Or how they were against Serbia and those opposed to non-traditional/non-Christian values in Europe in favour of others who support or weren't against the so called liberal or pro freedom values. I think part of the issue with Armenia and Azerbaijan was somewhat connected to the Russian/Ukraine issue and the intention was to use that to destabilize the regions surrounding Russia in other to use them.
Alik Bakhshi
The Great Religious Controversy Returns
Today, it can undoubtedly be said that the liberation of Azerbaijan’s territory from the Armenian occupiers was openly disapproved by Western Europe, and this despite 4 UN Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal of all Armenian occupation forces from the occupied regions of Azerbaijan. For 30 years, European politicians, along with the aggressor, ignored UN resolutions; they were not bothered by the expulsion under threat of death of 186 thousand ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia and 500 thousand from Karabakh and seven surrounding regions. There was no political or economic pressure from the West to force Armenia to seize 20% of Azerbaijani territory. But the Europeans reacted completely differently when Azerbaijan complied with UN resolutions, liberating its lands from the Armenian occupiers. Suddenly, Azerbaijan was called an aggressor country by Western politicians, and without any intelligible arguments. They suddenly became concerned about the Armenian refugees of Karabakh, although no forced deportation was noticed on the part of Azerbaijan, the Armenians voluntarily left Karabakh, despite the guarantees given by Azerbaijan for their safety, endowing them with the same rights that citizens of Azerbaijan have. So what is the reason for such an ambiguous attitude towards Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis on the part of Western democracies calling for economic sanctions and even sending Western peacekeepers to Karabakh to protect the non-existent Armenian population from supposedly bloodthirsty Azerbaijani Islamists?
A similar situation happened in Ukraine, when the Russians, having occupied Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and then held a referendum, seized these territories from Ukraine, on the grounds that a significant number of Russians lived there. And in this case, the West identified Russia as the aggressor and sided with Ukraine, which is absolutely correct from all points of view. Sanctions were introduced against Russia, and both political and military support were provided to Ukraine. But Armenia did exactly the same as Russia! Why such an unfair assessment regarding Azerbaijan? The double standard of the West is clearly evident here without any reservations.
In my opinion, there is an explanation for this, because there is a reason for everything and it lies, strange as it may seem in our enlightened age, in religion. Armenia is the only Christian country in the Middle East and is perceived by the West as the leading stronghold of Christianity. Here it is appropriate to turn to distant history, namely the era of numerous Crusades of Western European countries, whose troops, during 1096 - 1272, rolled into the Middle Eastern region in waves, bringing death and destruction to the Muslim population. They were opposed mainly by the Turks, who put up stubborn resistance and forced the Europeans to leave the region. It must be said that the military confrontation between Christianity and Islam, represented by the Ottoman Empire, continued until the 15th century. Few people know that the fortress wall around Jerusalem, which the crusaders tried to capture, was built on the orders of Suleiman the Magnificent. This wall still encircles the old historical part of Jerusalem. It is appropriate to remember here that the initiator of the Crusades was France, which even today shows the most active support for defeated Armenia, provoking it to a new war with Azerbaijan. France's demarche against Azerbaijan was stopped by the UN Security Council (1), but France stubbornly continues to try to turn the EU against Azerbaijan and exert political and economic pressure on Azerbaijan.
Thus, in the Karabakh conflict, France openly sided with Yerevan, not taking into account all four UN resolutions, which clearly indicate the withdrawal of Armenian occupation forces from Azerbaijan. (2) Today, because of France, Armenia, not deciding on the issue of choosing a patron, is similar to Buridan's donkey, which is characteristic of the historical past of the Armenians. To betray Russia, which created an Armenian state on the lands of Azerbaijan, a state that has never existed in those parts in history, is entirely in the spirit of the Armenians. (3)
It should be noted that the West is very narrow-minded, accusing countries that have recently gained independence from the Russian Empire of insufficient Western-style democracy. In this regard, it is necessary to take into account the fact that these countries, having fallen into colonial dependence on Russia for a long time, whose people do not like democracy (4), were cut off from world social progress. Democracy cannot suddenly be acquired by the people, much less introduced at the bayonets of the Marines, as was the case in Iraq. The people themselves must evaluate the advantages of democracy without outside interference, and this is a striking example of Turkey, whose people unconditionally accepted the democratic reforms introduced by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The same France moved towards democracy through guillotines and bloody revolutions, passing through five republics. By the way, Azerbaijan, having gained independence, became the first in history in 1918 in the East, a democratic republic in which religion was separated from the state, and women received all rights equal to men, which was a very progressive step for a Muslim country in those days. True, soon, after the arrival of the Red Army, democracy in the young Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was ended for a long time, the Azerbaijani people again found themselves under the harsh heel of Moscow.
Western guardians of democracy do not want to take into account the difficult conditions in which the Azerbaijani people found themselves, namely the fact that democratic reforms had to be carried out from the very first day of independence, namely, being in a state of war with Armenia, which did not hide its aggressive intentions to seize significant territories , or even completely capture the whole of Azerbaijan, if we take into account the plans of the Armenian nationalists to create a chimerical Greater Armenia, in which, judging by the map drawn by the Armenian would-be historians, there is no place for either the Azerbaijani people or the country called Azerbaijan.(4)
Today, some European politicians are opening Pandora's box, and again at the initiative of France, making plans for a new Crusade, but not under the pretext of saving Christ, but under the absurd pretext of saving Armenia from non-existent Azerbaijani Islamists and creating a vast Christian state in the Middle East.
Undoubtedly, it is absurd, but on the other hand, how else can we explain the behavior of the West towards Azerbaijan, which finally expelled the Armenian occupiers from its land.
1. Armenia and the failed Crusade. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/103274.html
2. Corrupt girl of imperialism. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/97866.html
3. Armenia – history and legend. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/101164.html
4. Was there a “Great Armenia” https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/71952.html
02/05/2024
Original with foto: https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/106914.html
The Great Religious Controversy Returns
Today, it can undoubtedly be said that the liberation of Azerbaijan’s territory from the Armenian occupiers was openly disapproved by Western Europe, and this despite 4 UN Security Council resolutions calling for the withdrawal of all Armenian occupation forces from the occupied regions of Azerbaijan. For 30 years, European politicians, along with the aggressor, ignored UN resolutions; they were not bothered by the expulsion under threat of death of 186 thousand ethnic Azerbaijanis from Armenia and 500 thousand from Karabakh and seven surrounding regions. There was no political or economic pressure from the West to force Armenia to seize 20% of Azerbaijani territory. But the Europeans reacted completely differently when Azerbaijan complied with UN resolutions, liberating its lands from the Armenian occupiers. Suddenly, Azerbaijan was called an aggressor country by Western politicians, and without any intelligible arguments. They suddenly became concerned about the Armenian refugees of Karabakh, although no forced deportation was noticed on the part of Azerbaijan, the Armenians voluntarily left Karabakh, despite the guarantees given by Azerbaijan for their safety, endowing them with the same rights that citizens of Azerbaijan have. So what is the reason for such an ambiguous attitude towards Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis on the part of Western democracies calling for economic sanctions and even sending Western peacekeepers to Karabakh to protect the non-existent Armenian population from supposedly bloodthirsty Azerbaijani Islamists?
A similar situation happened in Ukraine, when the Russians, having occupied Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and then held a referendum, seized these territories from Ukraine, on the grounds that a significant number of Russians lived there. And in this case, the West identified Russia as the aggressor and sided with Ukraine, which is absolutely correct from all points of view. Sanctions were introduced against Russia, and both political and military support were provided to Ukraine. But Armenia did exactly the same as Russia! Why such an unfair assessment regarding Azerbaijan? The double standard of the West is clearly evident here without any reservations.
In my opinion, there is an explanation for this, because there is a reason for everything and it lies, strange as it may seem in our enlightened age, in religion. Armenia is the only Christian country in the Middle East and is perceived by the West as the leading stronghold of Christianity. Here it is appropriate to turn to distant history, namely the era of numerous Crusades of Western European countries, whose troops, during 1096 - 1272, rolled into the Middle Eastern region in waves, bringing death and destruction to the Muslim population. They were opposed mainly by the Turks, who put up stubborn resistance and forced the Europeans to leave the region. It must be said that the military confrontation between Christianity and Islam, represented by the Ottoman Empire, continued until the 15th century. Few people know that the fortress wall around Jerusalem, which the crusaders tried to capture, was built on the orders of Suleiman the Magnificent. This wall still encircles the old historical part of Jerusalem. It is appropriate to remember here that the initiator of the Crusades was France, which even today shows the most active support for defeated Armenia, provoking it to a new war with Azerbaijan. France's demarche against Azerbaijan was stopped by the UN Security Council (1), but France stubbornly continues to try to turn the EU against Azerbaijan and exert political and economic pressure on Azerbaijan.
Thus, in the Karabakh conflict, France openly sided with Yerevan, not taking into account all four UN resolutions, which clearly indicate the withdrawal of Armenian occupation forces from Azerbaijan. (2) Today, because of France, Armenia, not deciding on the issue of choosing a patron, is similar to Buridan's donkey, which is characteristic of the historical past of the Armenians. To betray Russia, which created an Armenian state on the lands of Azerbaijan, a state that has never existed in those parts in history, is entirely in the spirit of the Armenians. (3)
It should be noted that the West is very narrow-minded, accusing countries that have recently gained independence from the Russian Empire of insufficient Western-style democracy. In this regard, it is necessary to take into account the fact that these countries, having fallen into colonial dependence on Russia for a long time, whose people do not like democracy (4), were cut off from world social progress. Democracy cannot suddenly be acquired by the people, much less introduced at the bayonets of the Marines, as was the case in Iraq. The people themselves must evaluate the advantages of democracy without outside interference, and this is a striking example of Turkey, whose people unconditionally accepted the democratic reforms introduced by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk. The same France moved towards democracy through guillotines and bloody revolutions, passing through five republics. By the way, Azerbaijan, having gained independence, became the first in history in 1918 in the East, a democratic republic in which religion was separated from the state, and women received all rights equal to men, which was a very progressive step for a Muslim country in those days. True, soon, after the arrival of the Red Army, democracy in the young Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was ended for a long time, the Azerbaijani people again found themselves under the harsh heel of Moscow.
Western guardians of democracy do not want to take into account the difficult conditions in which the Azerbaijani people found themselves, namely the fact that democratic reforms had to be carried out from the very first day of independence, namely, being in a state of war with Armenia, which did not hide its aggressive intentions to seize significant territories , or even completely capture the whole of Azerbaijan, if we take into account the plans of the Armenian nationalists to create a chimerical Greater Armenia, in which, judging by the map drawn by the Armenian would-be historians, there is no place for either the Azerbaijani people or the country called Azerbaijan.(4)
Today, some European politicians are opening Pandora's box, and again at the initiative of France, making plans for a new Crusade, but not under the pretext of saving Christ, but under the absurd pretext of saving Armenia from non-existent Azerbaijani Islamists and creating a vast Christian state in the Middle East.
Undoubtedly, it is absurd, but on the other hand, how else can we explain the behavior of the West towards Azerbaijan, which finally expelled the Armenian occupiers from its land.
1. Armenia and the failed Crusade. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/103274.html
2. Corrupt girl of imperialism. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/97866.html
3. Armenia – history and legend. https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/101164.html
4. Was there a “Great Armenia” https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/71952.html
02/05/2024
Original with foto: https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/106914.html
Jump to: