Month: December 2008

OSCE SECRETARY GENERAL WELCOMES HELSINKI STATEMENT ON NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT

Trend News Agency
Dec 15 2008
Azerbaijan

The OSCE Secretary General Marc Perrin de Brichambaut welcomes
statement of the OSCE foreign ministers on the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict made in Helsinki, Novosti-Armenia reported.

"The Helsinki statement by the 56 foreign ministers is very important
document and peak in this issue. We should assist sides in the
resolution of the conflict and continuing talks," Brichambaut told
press conference in Yerevan on Dec. 15.

Secretary General said statement by the OSCE foreign ministers
and foreign ministers of the OSCE co-chair countries issued on the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict in early Dec are compatible and do not
contradict each-other. He stated that he can not say concrete date of
resolution of the conflict adding that the Helsinki documents gives
hopes that the sides will continue talks on high level.

"The sides need to demonstrate more flexible position and create an
atmosphere of respect and trust," Brichambaut said.

In his part, Armenian FM Edward Nalbandyan noted that document adopted
by the OSCE foreign ministers in Helsinki deals with the resolution of
the conflict by peaceful political means and strengthening ceasefire,
bringing position of the sides together with the help of the OSCE
Minsk Group co-chairmen.

"The OSCE Minsk Group co-chairmen have made a statement in the same
spirit in attempt to hold talks and move closer position of the sides
on the resolution of the conflict by peaceful political means under
international norms and principles through cooperation with the OSCE
MG co-chairmen in line with Madrid principles," Nalbandyan said.

The statement of the OSCE co-chairmen issued on Dec. 4, says
that Moscow Declaration signed by the sides marks a new and
promising stage in the common strive to establish peace in the
South Caucasus. Presidents confirmed their commitment to peaceful
resolution of the conflict within the mediation efforts of the Minsk
Group co-chairmen and Basic Principles developed by the co-chairmen
through cooperation with Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents on basis
of their proposals made in Madrid in 2007.

OSCE SECRETARY GENERAL WELCOMES HELSINKI STATEMENT ON THE KARABAKH CONFLICT

Today.Az
cs/49581.html
Dec 15 2008
Azerbaijan

OSCE Secretary General Mark Perrin de Brischambo is positively
assessing the statement of the OSCE Foreign Ministers on Nagorno
Karabakh conflict, adopted in Helsinki.

"The statement of 56 Foreign Ministers in Helsinki is an extremely
important document and a the culmination point in this issue. We
must assist to the parties in the resolution of the conflict and
continuation of talks", said Brischambo at a press conference in
Yerevan Monday.

The secretary general noted that the statements of the OSCE Foreign
Ministers and Foreign Ministers of the OSCE MG co-chairmen, adopted on
the Karabakh issue in early December, do not contradict to each other.

At the same time, he said he is not able to specify definite terms
of the conflict resolution, adding that the Helsinki documents give
hope that the sides will continue talks on the highest level.

"The parties must demonstrate a more flexible position, form the
atmosphere of mutual trust and respect", assured de Brischambo.

In turn, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandyan noted that the
document, adopted by the Foreign Ministers of the member states of the
organization in Helsinki, referred to the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict peacefully and strengthening of the reconciliation regime,
raproachment of the positions of the parties under OSCE MG co-chairs’
mediation.

ARMENIAN FOREIGN MINISTER: "RUMORS ABOUT CHANGES IN MADRID PRINCIPLES ARE NOTHING BUT DISINFORMATION"

Today.Az
/news/politics/49579.html
Dec 15 2008
Azerbaijan

"No amendments or alterations have been introduced to the Madrid
proposals of the OSCE Minsk Group on the resolution of the Karabakh
conflict", said Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbanyan.

"The rumors that Madrid proposals are amended or introduced changes,
are false. Additional proposals are made during discussions on
different issues and aspects, included into the Madrid principles
and that is all. No amendments or alterations are made to the Madrid
proposals", assured the Minister at a press conference on Monday.

He noted that the announcement that the Armenian Foreign Minister
received a document, introducing changes to the "Madrid proposals"
is not real.

According to the Minister, "The Foreign Ministry got a paper, related
to Madrid proposals, which does not, however, speaks of any changes
in the proposals".

At the same time Nalbandyan assured that numerous papers of the kind
are received during the negotiation process.

"If we make all these papers public, there is no sense of talks
and they will be held by way of papers. We continue talks on the
resolution of the Karabakh conflict on the basis of Madrid proposals
as is fixed in the Helsinki statement of the OSCE Foreign Ministers
and the statement of the OSCE MG co-chairs", noted he.

TURKEY AND EUROPE: THE DECISIVE YEAR AHEAD

International Crisis Group
=5796&l=1
Dec 15 2008
Belgium

Turkey is entering a critical year, in which its prospects for
European Union (EU) membership are at make or break stage. Domestic
crises over the past two years have slowed national reform, betrayed
the promise of a new constitution and undermined the political will
needed to pursue accession negotiations. Its leaders show scant sign
of changing course, at least before the March 2009 local elections,
and EU states are applying little pressure to reinvigorate reform. Both
sides need to recall how much they have to gain from each other and
move quickly on several fronts to break out of this downward spiral
before one or the other breaks off the negotiations, which could then
well prove impossible to start again.

The dangers to Turkey of this loss of EU-bound momentum are already
evident: weak reform performance, new tensions between Turks and Kurds,
polarisation in politics and the potential loss of the principal anchor
of this decade’s economic miracle. For Europe, the cost would be longer
term: less easy access to one of the biggest and fastest-growing nearby
markets, likely new tensions over Cyprus and loss of leverage that real
partnership with Turkey offers in helping to stabilise the Middle East,
strengthen EU energy security and reach out to the Muslim world.

Paradoxically, the reform program went off course in 2005 concurrently
with the launch of EU membership negotiations. A first reason was
bitterness that the Republic of Cyprus was allowed to enter in
2004, even though it was Turkish Cypriots, with Ankara’s support,
who voted for the reunification deal (the Annan Plan) backed
by the UN, the U.S. and the EU itself, while the Greek Cypriots
voted it down. Then the AKP (Adalet ve Kalkınma Partisi – Justice
and Development Party) government lost motivation as France and
Germany worked to block Turkey’s EU ambitions. It was disappointed
by the failure of the European Court of Human Rights to overturn the
Constitutional Court’s rejection of a hard-fought amendment to allow
women university students to wear headscarves. It was also distracted
by need to concentrate on other Constitutional Court cases brought by
the secularist establishment that narrowly failed to block the AKP’s
choice of president and to ban the party but deepened the polarisation
of domestic politics and institutions. Simultaneously an up­surge
in attacks by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) focused attention
increasingly on security issues.

Turkey now pledges to relaunch reforms with a new National Program
for Adopting the EU Body of Law (the acquis communautaire). The draft
text focuses on anti-corruption measures through regulation of state
tenders and state incentives, judicial reform and more democratic laws
governing political parties and elections. In particular, AKP officials
mention lowering the 10 per cent national electoral threshold for a
party to enter parliament; allowing 100 of that body’s 550 seats to
be determined by nationwide proportional voting; and lengthening the
short daily broadcasts in Kurdish and liberalising their content.

However, such plans are years late and fall short of EU expectations
expressed in a 2007 Accession Partnership document and the European
Commission’s annual progress reports. While the EU seeks many
changes within a one- or two-year timeframe, Turkey envisages longer
horizons. Instead of showing determined political commitment to the EU
process, some top Turkish leaders have preferred to adopt an injured
tone of complaint about Brussels’ demands and criticism. Above all,
implementation has lagged: despite brave talk that it would replace
the Copenhagen Criteria the EU has used since the early 1990s to
assess a candidate’s status with its own "Ankara Criteria", Turkey has
passed only one sixth of a self-developed list of 119 legal reform
measures announced in April 2007. Most disappointingly, the AKP has
also dropped its prime promise in that year’s election campaign of
a new, truly democratic constitution.

This slowdown comes just as Turkey’s initiatives to encourage
openness and calm tensions in the region are showing how much it can
do to advance EU foreign policy goals. Ankara has helped de-escalate
crises over Iran’s nuclear policy and Lebanon; mediated proximity
talks between Syria and Israel; and opened a new process of contacts
with Armenia and cooperation with Iraqi Kurds. It is also supporting
promising new talks on the reunification of Cyprus, where a settlement
could provide a critical breakthrough for its relationship with the EU
over the next year. Such initiatives helped win Turkey a two-year seat
on the UN Security Council from January 2009. Conversely, however, a
failure to live up to the commitment made in 2005 to open seaports and
airports to Greek Cypriot traffic in 2009 would risk anti-membership
EU states seeking to suspend Turkey’s accession negotiations.

EU member states should seize the chance to fix past mistakes over
Cyprus by prioritising success in the new negotiations on the island
and do more to encourage Turkey to revitalise its reform effort. EU
politicians must stop pushing the qualifying bar ever higher for
Turkey and restate that they stand by their promise of full membership
once all criteria are fulfilled. For its part, Turkey should be
less sensitive to slights and stop treating the EU as a monolithic
bloc. It should take care to avoid the trap of self-exclusion, keep
its foot in the still open door and, like the UK and Spain before it,
refuse to take "no" for an answer.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To the Government of Turkey:

1. Recommit to EU-compliant reforms at the highest executive level;
immediately approve and begin implementation of the draft National
Program for Adopting the EU Body of Law; and re-establish trust between
parliamentary parties and cooperation on the EU membership goal.

2. Sustain full support for the current round of talks on a Cyprus
settlement and avoid navy intervention against oil exploration in
waters claimed by Greece or the Republic of Cyprus.

3. Broaden the policy of inclusion towards the Turkish Kurds by both
sustaining economic development plans in Kurdish-majority areas and
developing wider cultural and language rights.

4. Extend freedoms and equal rights for members of all faiths in
choice of religious instruction at school, access to seminaries and
status of places of worship.

5. Sponsor and encourage an inclusive process of national discussion
leading to the adoption of a new, less authoritarian civilian
constitution and reform political party and electoral legislation to
increase transparency and representation.

To the EU and Governments of EU Member States:

6. Reassert firmly and often that Turkey can achieve full membership of
the EU when it has fulfilled all criteria; lift unofficial blocks on
the screening and opening of negotiating chapters; and familiarise
Turkish companies with the requirements, benefits and costs of
complying with the EU body of law.

7. Take a greater, even-handed interest in Cyprus settlement talks;
send senior officials to visit both community leaders in their
offices on the island; underline willingness to give financial support
for a solution; and consider delaying oil exploration in contested
territorial waters while talks are under way.

8. Support and coordinate with recent Turkish foreign policy
initiatives to de-escalate crises in the Caucasus and the Middle East.

9. Crack down more firmly on financing from Europe of the Kurdish
militant group the PKK (Kurdistan Workers’ Party); ensure that requests
in relation to the arrest and extradition of suspects accused of
terrorist attacks in Turkey are fairly dealt with.

10. Encourage Turkey to ensure that steps in support of more freedom of
religion are taken not just for non-Muslim minorities but also involve
a commitment to the rights of Muslims, including non-mainstream faiths
like the Alevis.

–Boundary_(ID_CEW9tGQlAP2jKU5oXtCELA)–

MALKHAZ GULASHVILI: TIME WILL SHOW WHETHER RUSSIA WILL HELP AZERBAIJAN RESOLVE THE KARABAKH CONFLICT

Daily Georgian Times
Dec 15 2008
Georgia

In his annual live Q and A session recently broadcast Russian Prime
Minister Vladimir Putin claimed that Russia was ready to help Georgia
restore its territorial integrity but its authorities had spoiled
everything. Azeri news agency 1news Az contacted Malkhaz Gulashvili,
President of The Georgian Times Media Holding, to interview him
concerning this statement. This interview is reprinted below.

Q: In the Talks with Putin programme the Russian Prime Minister said
that the Russian Federation "was ready to help Georgia restore its
territorial integrity but its authorities had spoiled everything." How
sincere do you believe Putin was in this statement?

A: It’s difficult to say, but I can tell you what I think about
Russia. Sooner or later Moscow will have to reconsider its decision
of recognizing the separatist republics [South Ossetia and Abkhazia]
and think of a new formula, together with the Georgian people, for
how this problem can be solved, if it wants to halt the processes
which may lead Russia itself into dismemberment.

Q: Putin added that they had recognized Abkhazia and South Ossetia
as the August war had demonstrated it was impossible to restore the
territorial integrity of Georgia. Do you think this was a mistake?

A: I believe there are no impossible things in politics, especially now
Germany and Russia, having once fought a bloody war, are emerging as
allies. No one could have expected that. I believe a common language
can be found in the Caucasus and Russia’s national interest – which
sees Georgia’s NATO membership plans as jeopardizing its security –
should also be taken into account.

I support Russia in this particular aspect. I believe the South
Caucasus and its three countries should become a neutral region. The
Caucasian states should pursue an active policy of neutrality
guaranteed by both Russia, Turkey and Iran and the US, China and
the EU.

I believe Russia and Georgia will still find a common language and
a third party hampers the development of their relations, making
the Georgian Government feel strongly anti-Russian. Russia tried
to hold Georgia responsible for that, not the ones who conduct the
orchestra. We are not the ones who conduct the orchestra, we just
play the music. If Russia is a strong power it should react against
those who conduct the orchestra, not us.

I personally believe that without restoring the territorial integrity
of Georgia we will not achieve much. We have to bring those people
back and pursue a policy free of military rhetoric. It seems to
me that Obama’s rise to the Presidency will give a push to this
process. The August war did not bring anything good to Russia or,
especially, Georgia.

Q: We know you are developing a peace plan which envisions the return
of the IDPs to their homes. You chair the Georgian delegation, while
Maksim Shevchenko, a representative of the Russian Public Council,
heads the Russian side. Has this Commission started to work?

A: Yes, it is already working. We have conducted four sessions. Before
the one in Georgia we had meetings in Baku, Berlin and Vienna. We
also had a TV transmission bridge between Tbilisi and Moscow. Now we
are planning a trip to Moscow to discuss more specifically how the
IDPs can return. We will select two or three villages to start with.

Those who work actively in the Russian Public Commission will act as
guarantors of their security. The Commission includes Olga Kostina,
Marina Riklina, Bishop Theophan and others.

The Georgian Commission also includes well known public figures,
like the publisher and editor of the Svabadnaia Gruzia newspaper Tato
Laskhishvili, political analyst Mamuka Areshidze, famous directors
and actors, Gogi Kavtaradze, a member of the Georgian Academy who is
also an IDP from Sokhumi, Soso Jachvliani the director and actor etc.

We believe that the Commission will work productively, not only on
the return of IDPs but on many other issues. All the contacts between
the Russian and Georgian Governments have been severed and there is
a vacuum. Now society has to fill in this vacuum and unfortunately
the people have not played any role so far.

We have agreed that politicians will not be involved in the Commission,
neither in Georgia nor Russia. The Russian Public Council is an
influential organisation and has contacts with the President and Prime
Minister. So the initiative comes from Russia and we believe it is
poised to improve relations and help the IDPs return home. Rumours
flew that the IDPs would have to take Russian citizenship but this
has been ruled out. They are all citizens of Georgia.

Q: Azerbaijan too has an unresolved conflict. Do you think Russia
will help Azerbaijan settle this issue?

A: I believe that Russia has reevaluated its policy in the Caucasus. I
think Russia can become a guarantor of stability and security not
only in the Caucasus but in the Euroasian space, if it wants to be
a leader, not a ruler which sows fear.

If it wants to become a regional leader, it has to create the
conditions for economic prosperity and mutually beneficial cooperation
in energy. It will become a leader naturally if it does this. But if
it tries to resolve issues by force it will collapse and dismember,
and the status quo will change for the benefit of those countries
which lost the territories. Therefore Russia’s dismemberment will be
more bane than boon. So, it’s up to Russia to make a choice between
becoming a leader or ruler.

It has to look at separatism issues from a different angle. We know
that Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan. I don’t believe Azerbaijan will
manage to govern this region on its own, but some joint mechanisms
can be developed through economic projects.

Time will show whether Russia will help Azerbaijan resolve its
territorial disputes. Some shifts are taking place in this direction,
but still no outcome is in sight.

Pridon Dochia, translated from the Georgian edition fo The Georgian
Times newspaper 2008.12.15 13:55

RUSSIA-ARMENIA TRADE TURNOVER INCREASES

The Messenger
Dec 15 2008
Georgia

Russian-Armenian trade turnover for the ten months of 2008 was USD
860 million. Of this amount USD 680 million was accounted for by
products Russia exported to Armenia.

In 2008 Russia’s investments in Armenia doubled, reaching USD 570
million, 70% of total foreign investment in the country.

Russia and Armenia will cooperate in nanotechnologies, energy and
other economic spheres. Russia will also assist Armenia in building
its new nuclear power station. Armenia has not suffered considerably
so far from the world economic crisis.

From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

KHAZAR IBRAHIM: "THE NEGOTIATION PROCESS IS PROTRACTED BY ARMENIA"

Today.Az
olitics/49563.html
Dec 15 2008
Azerbaijan

Regnum news agency has recently published a news "Ancient city of
Tigranakert in Nagorno Karabakh is declared a reserve".

In particular, according to the material, the so-called "Tigranakert",
which was allegedly revealed by Armenian archaeologists, got a status
of the reserve. According to the material, this was reported during
the discussion of the draft state budget of the so-called "NKR".

The material also says that it was decided to allocate 35 mln drams
from the state budget of "NKR" of 2009 for continuation of works in
the city.

Day.Az has applied for comments to spokesman for Azerbaijani Foreign
Ministry Khazar Ibrahim.

"Such actions from the side of Armenia contradict to the norms and
principles of international law, the commitments, assumed by the states
in the framework of international organizations, as well as documents,
Armenia is a party to.

This is not the first time that Armenia tries either to ruin the
cultural monuments of Azerbaijan or rename ancient Azerbaijani cities
and memorials in the occupied lands or conduct any other actions,
contradicting to the aforementioned commitments of the Armenian side.

On the other hand, these actions do not promote the negotiation process
and have the most negative impact on it. The negotiation process is
protracted by Armenia", said Ibrahim.

IRAN, ARMENIA EYE MORE ENERGY, DEVELOPMENTAL PARTNERSHIP

Iranian Students News Agency ISNA
Dec 15 2008
Iran

TEHRAN, Dec. 15 (ISNA)-Iran and Armenia eye more energy and
developmental partnership after their gas pipeline was inaugurated
on December 2.

The pipeline with an approximate capacity of 2.3 billion cubic meters
of gas annually will import Iran’s gas to Armenia.

Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki meeting with Armenian Energy
and Natural Resources Minister Armen Movsisyan said Iran is ready to
expand cooperation with the neighboring country in developmental and
industrial projects.

Also expressing satisfaction over the cease of negative impact of
Ossetia conflicts on Armenia he added "Tehran and Yerevan are friends
of hardships and merry times."

Movsisyan who is in Tehran for the 8th joint economic commission of
the two countries underlined the progress in bilateral ties.

TURKEY: TURKISH WARS OF GENOCIDES
by Jaff Sassani

OpEdNews

ARS-OF-GE-by-Jaff-Sassani-081210-863.html
Dec 15 2008
PA

The Turks in Turkey call themselves gray wolves. Gray wolves live in
packs of 8 to 35 members; they like to kill. Wolves can and do kill
humans. The Turks in Turkey have killed millions of people in the name
of Islamic teachings, or Islamic Jihads. Questions Are they related
to the Gray wolves genetically? It needs research and scientist to
figure it out. Why Turks calling themselves Gray wolves? Why they
are proud of killing other human being? What is driving them to kill?

We noted in our article "Turkey in the Middle of the Enemies", that
the Turks moved in to the Middle East after the Arab Islamic army
destroyed the Sassanid Empire. The absence of a strong Iranian army
to protect the borders opened the border gates wide for millions of
Turks to move in to the region.

We will begin by giving some of the background of the wars in
Mesopotamia, known today as the Middle East. We will explain the
root of the Turkish genocidal wars. We will show the reason they
have no friends in the region are because they have hurt every nation
surrounding Turkey. Are they ever going to apologize for their wrong
doings in the past and now?

The Sassanids Empire (226-651 A.D), was the peak of the Iranian
civilizations

The Sassanids Empire (226-651 A.D) was busy establishing laws and human
rights in the Iranian civilizations. They engaged in a long war with
the Byzantine Empire. Both empires were made up of Aryan people, but
the Sassanid Empire was controlled by the Zoroastrian religion while
the Byzantine Empire was controlled by the Christian religion. There
fight was really over territories. Kurdistan, Armenia and Georgia
were the battle grounds for both Aryan Empires. The resources of both
Empires were exhausted after the long war against each other. They
had no idea that the Arabs were planning an attack so soon and with
it they brought their new religion. The Arabs called Islam "light and
wisdom" but Islamic opponents call it darkness. What ever you call it,
the Islamic religion has over one billion followers today.

The prophet Muhammad (c. 570-632 CE) Declaration of Islam

The prophet Muhammad (c. 570-632 CE) at age 40 told his wife and one
of his trusted friends that the angel Gabriel appeared to him and told
him to read in the name of God. He started the preaching of Islam,
the submission to God. His followers are called Muslims, meaning
"those who submit to God’s will". He lived in Mecca, Saudi Arabia and
his teachings were very passive and peaceful. His tribal relatives
and neighbors and other tribes around Mecca fought him feverishly,
but he did not fight back. One of the Arab leaders by the name of
Umar Ibn Al-Khattab (later he became the second Islamic Khalifa,
King or President) joined him. Since then the direction of Islam has
changed to war and violent preaching.

The history of the Islamic religion is not very clear during the 23
years of the prophet Muhammad’s teaching. If one could truly analyze
the life of Prophet Muhammad before Umar Ibn Al-Khattab joined Islam,
you would find difference in the teachings and directions. It is
possible that the Arab leaders forged the Islamic teachings and
Islamic history so they could take over the Sassanid and Byzantine
Empires. This is one explanation of why the fighting occurred in
spite of Prophet Muhammed’s non-violent teachings.

The Arab leaders and especially Umar Ibn Al-Khattab were very
nationalistic before Islam. Umar Ibn Al-Khattab really hated the
Sassanid Empire. This is why he killed millions of Iranian people. This
Arab leader changed the Islamic thinking for sure. He is responsible
for this teaching of violence. He stood against the interests of the
Prophet Muhammad’s family. Did he intentionally change the Islamic
teaching? Did he take over Islam during the Prophet Muhammad’s life
or after him? Perhaps the Prophet was held powerless. No one knows
for sure. One thing is clear: Islamic teachings went from passive
and peaceful to active and violent as soon as he joined Islam.

The Muslims say that "Islam is a religion of peace" but after they
migrated to Medina Saudi Arabia, they changed from passive to violent.

Jihad: Islamic Holy War started year 622 CE

The Legacy of Jihad and the Fate of Non-Muslims is known today. It
started in Medina Saudi Arabia and continue world wide now.

The first forms of military Jihad occurred after the migration (hijra))
of Muhammad and his small group of followers to Medina from Mecca and
the conversion of several inhabitants of the city to Islam. The first
revelation concerning the struggle against the Meccans was surah 22,
verses 39-40: This first Jihad occurred after the migration (hijra)
in the year 622 CE.

The Arab nationalistic armies, under the name of Islamic teaching,
called for "Jihad" and started by attacking the Meccan merchant
caravans passing by Medina. They killed the merchants and took
their belongings. The army divided the confiscated materials amongst
themselves and the war became an income for the Islamic warriors. They
started attacking more and more non-believers, especially the Jewish
people, first in Medina and then later in the rest of the region.

They began going further with their Jihad. The Islamic warriors tried
to kill the entire Jewish male population in the area, forcefully
married the females, and then converted them and their children into
Islam. This tradition became part of the Islamic "Jihad" beliefs.

The Arab Islamic army originally used "Jihad" to conquer both the
Sassanid Empire and the Byzantine Empire. In less than 30 years they
took over the Sassanid Empire and drove the Iranian civilization into
the ground. They took part of the Byzantine Empire. They occupied
today’s Iraq, Syria and Egypt. They collected a lot of wealth, killed
millions of males and took millions of females, marrying them by force.

The Kurdish leader Salahuddin Ayyubi (1174-1193) and Crusaders

After the Arab power diminished, the Kurds briefly took over the
"Jihad". They worked with the Arabs during the Crusades under the
leadership of the Salah al-Din (Saladin) Ayyubi. This Kurdish
leader was very nice to the Crusaders. He did not like killing
and distractions. He came from the Aryan (Iranian) culture of
civilizations. He was different from the Arabs and Turks and did not
share their mentality of killing and destructions.

The Seljuks Turk Empire (1137-1153) Turko-Persian traditionalist and
the Crusaders .

Having received the permission of Sultan Mahmud Ghaznawi (the Ruler
of Eastern Iran, Iran was divided into many states then), the Seljuk
Turks crossed the Oxus River and settled in northern Khorasan,
a province which they subsequently occupied completely during the
reign of Mahmud’s son, Sultan Masud. In 1038 Toghril Beg was crowned
as the Seljuk sultan in Neishabur.

They reached Baghdad and took Iraq and part of Syria. They fought the
Crusaders too. After the death of Mali k – Shah, differences arose
among his descendants and the Seljuk Empire entered a path that led
towards its own disintegration.

They disintegrated into many smaller principalities and later the
Mongols came into the region and it was further divided into many small
states. They fought each other and fought the Byzantine Empire too.

The Ottoman Empire (1299-1922) and Turkish "Jihads" against the
Crusaders

The Ottomans arose from the obscure reaches of Anatolia in the
west of Turkey; these Western Turks were called the Oghuz. They had
come primarily as settlers during the reign of the Seljuks in Turkey
(1098-1308). The Anatolian frontier was largely hostile to Islam. Some
of them were warriors of the Islamic faith carrying out jihad, or
"holy struggle," to spread the faith among hostile unbelievers. It was
a tough life in Anatolia; the Seljuks had been the first to maintain
power over the area.

By 1300, about the time the Seljuk state was crumbling apart, the
Ottomans ruled a small military state in western Anatolia. This small
state was in conflict with several other small Muslim states, each
preying on the other for territory. By 1400, however, the Ottomans
had managed to extend their influence over much of Anatolia and
even into the Byzantine territory in Eastern Europe: Macedonia and
Bulgaria. In 1402, the Ottomans moved their capital to Edirne in
Europe where they threatened the last great bastion of the Byzantine
Empire, its capital, Constantinople. The city seemed to defy the great
expansion of Islam. No matter how much territory fell to the Muslims,
Constantinople resisted every siege and every invasion. The Ottomans,
however, wanted to break this cycle. Not only would the seizure of
Constantinople represent a powerful symbol of Ottoman power, but it
would make the Ottomans master of east-west trade. In 1453, Sultan
Mehmed (1451-1481), who was called "The Conqueror," finally took this
one last remnant of Byzantium and renamed it, Istanbul. From that
point onwards, the capital of the Ottoman Europe would remain fixed in
Istanbul and, under the patronage of the Ottoman sultans, become one
of the wealthiest and most cultured cities of the early modern world.

The Turkish wars of genocides are aimed at eliminating the Anatolian
population. It has never stopped for one moment. The Turks are
guilty along with the Arabs for the elimination of other nations in
the region.

The "Jihads" won’t stop unless the people of the world get together to
stop this unjust practice. There must be a push to reform Islam. The
people in the Islamic world should be allowed to study Islam and
be free to say what is wrong and what is right with it. The Arab
nationalists changed the teachings from passive to violent. The
Turks were violent communities in the first place. They are the
product of Mongols. They became Muslim and added more violence to
their behaviors. This is why they have killed millions of people in
the region.

Sincerely, Jaff Sassani from the SKDC December 3, 2008
[email protected]

We are an organization in Iran and Iraq to mobilize the Jaff people
in both countries to have Voice in the Kurdistan politics and
defend our people’s rights. This is our short term goals. Our long
term goals we like to establish the Aryan (Iranian) Economic Union
(AU) similar to the EU. We believe that our people and the Kurdish
people will be free when all the Iranian people Get united for
establishing the AU which every sub nations of the Aryan (Iranian)
nations within the AU will have the right to form and have their
own independent country within the AU. Jaff Sassani from the
SKDC SKDC_Service att
jaff-sassanie.com

IRAN FM MEETS ARMENIAN ENERGY MINISTER

Tehran Times
Dec 15 2008
Iran

TEHRAN — Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki and Armenian
Energy and Natural Resources Minister Armen Movsisyan held a meeting
in Tehran on Sunday to discuss the expansion of bilateral relations.

Iran and Armenia are friends through thick and thin, Mottaki said.

Fortunately, repercussions from the South Ossetian conflict are no
longer affecting Armenia, he added.

Tehran welcomes projects that can improve the lives of residents
of border areas and is interested in increasing industrial and
construction cooperation with Yerevan, the Iranian foreign minister
stated.

And providing Iranian traders with more facilities can pave the way
for strengthening economic ties with Armenia, Mottaki said.

Movsisyan said that the two countries have significantly improved
their bilateral relations and expressed hope that the opening of
the Armenian consulate in Tabriz will produce ideal conditions for
increased cooperation between Tehran and Yerevan