So it’s simply false to say "Azerbaijan attacked Armenia
International law does not dictate reality, nor does it prevent or resolve conflicts over territorial disputes. If it did, Armenia would still possess the land they have historically occupied since basically recorded history. You are throwing a dart and then drawing a bullseye around it.
Secondly, nations do not attack land masses, they attack people. Azerbaijan attacked Armenian citizens, and a nation is composed of its people.
If the US carrier fleet was attacked while at port in a different country, would people tolerate the pedantic excuse of, “they didn’t attack America because they don’t have sovereign reign in the area they were attacked” ?
I did no such thing. Word “Armenia” means a specific thing. “Armenians” mean another thing. So you’re correct to say
Azerbaijan attacked Armenian citizens
But if a town populated by only Armenians living in, say, France was attacked by, say, German forces, you wouldn’t say that Germany attacked Armenia. Germany attacked France, because it’s about the country.
Speaking of ships, according to the maritime law, vessels flying a country’s flag are considered an extension of that country’s territory. So legally, yes, attacking a US carrier would be the same as attacking the USA.
Until now, I was being neutral regarding who’s at fault, but you keep insisting that Armenians are the only victims here, and the land is allegedly historically theirs. Ok, let’s assume that’s true. I even agree that Armenians definitely lived there historically. But if what Armenians did in 1993 (capturing seven Azerbaijani-majority districts outside the enclave itself) is justified and OK, then what Russia is doing now in Ukraine is also justified and OK. There are plenty of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, especially in the occupied territories.
Now imagine the conflict in Ukraine is frozen for 20 years. And 20 years later, Ukraine takes back their internationally recognized territories. Will you also be claiming that Russians have historically lived there and hence it’s not OK for Ukraine to recapture them?
You can’t decide these things based on “historical territories”, the international law exists for a reason, else everybody would be at each other’s throats. How far back should we go? Do we arbitrarily pick a cutoff date? Draw a line in the sand? Should Italy start claiming the entirety of Europe because Rome once occupied it for half a millennium?
did no such thing. Word “Armenia” means a specific thing. “Armenians” mean another thing.
Again, a pedantic dispute. Armenia means different things under different context, and to different people. You are just trying to force a specific interpretation based on international law, one that has no real power nor influence over the specific topic.
But if a town populated by only Armenians living in, say, France was attacked by, say, German forces, you wouldn’t say that Germany attacked Armenia. Germany attacked France, because it’s about the country.
In this wild hypothetical, would this Armenian town in France have French citizenship? If so then no, they would be attacking the French. However if these people were only Armenian citizens who were being harbored in France, then yes.
Speaking of ships, according to the maritime law, vessels flying a country’s flag are considered an extension of that country’s territory.
That is also a legal fiction utilized to pervade complications with international laws. Though its recognized by international law, it offers no real protections extended to non citizens under the flag. This is why you still hear of American ships flying under the flag of the Cayman Islands ect
But if what Armenians did in 1993 (capturing seven Azerbaijani-majority districts outside the enclave itself) is justified and OK, then what Russia is doing now in Ukraine is also justified and OK.
You mean when they migrate more Azerbaijan citizens to the area to make a pretense for territorial disputes in the first place…? Kinda sounds exactly like what Russia was doing in the first place.
You can’t decide these things based on “historical territories”, the international law exists for a reason
Yes to validate the winnings of territorial dispute for the side who has the most economically powerful friends.
Also, why are you still arguing…you were wrong.
The military forces of Armenia and Azerbaijan have been engaged in a border conflict since 12 May 2021, when Azerbaijani soldiers crossed several kilometers into Armenia in the provinces of Syunik and Gegharkunik. Despite international calls for withdrawal from the European Parliament, the United States, and France, Azerbaijan has maintained its presence on Armenian soil, occupying at least 215 square kilometres (83 sq mi) of internationally recognized Armenian territory
So this is settled then right? Or are you going to make another excuse to stan for Azerbaijan?
Yes to validate the winnings of territorial dispute for the side who has the most economically powerful friends.
Sure, if you completely disregard the international law, then yes, I concede that I’m wrong.
But by that logic, what Russia is doing is ok. Who cares if the laws says that territory is Ukraine’s, there are Russians in there. Let them keep it.
And since my whole argument is based on respecting international law, I have nothing else to say. Especially since you managed to settle this decades long dispute so easily. Armenians good, Azerbaijanis bad. That will surely solve everything.
P.S.
You mean when they migrate more Azerbaijan citizens to the area to make a pretense for territorial disputes in the first place…? Kinda sounds exactly like what Russia was doing in the first place.
How devious of the Albanians and Turks to start moving there 1000s of years in advance to later “denazify” the area.
what Russia is doing is ok. Who cares if the laws says that territory is Ukraine’s, there are Russians in there. Let them keep it.
Lol, my dude. Just because there are some situations where international law support material and historic reality, does not mean all situations which don’t are inherently wrong.
The only way your example makes any sense is if you do not acknowledge the historical context. It also requires you to selectively apply the logical framework of international law so it doesn’t apply to the land dispute that predates it.
since my whole argument is based on respecting international law, I have nothing else to say.
Didn’t you already admit that you were wrong and that azjeries broke international law? So it kinda seems like you either don’t have an argument, or you are being very dishonest about your biases.
How devious of the Albanians and Turks to start moving there 1000s of years in advance to later “denazify” the area.
Lol, you are conflating Azerbaijan’s founding with the region in which we were discussing. Can you make any kind of rebuttal that isn’t based on logical fallacy?
International law does not dictate reality, nor does it prevent or resolve conflicts over territorial disputes. If it did, Armenia would still possess the land they have historically occupied since basically recorded history. You are throwing a dart and then drawing a bullseye around it.
Secondly, nations do not attack land masses, they attack people. Azerbaijan attacked Armenian citizens, and a nation is composed of its people.
If the US carrier fleet was attacked while at port in a different country, would people tolerate the pedantic excuse of, “they didn’t attack America because they don’t have sovereign reign in the area they were attacked” ?
I did no such thing. Word “Armenia” means a specific thing. “Armenians” mean another thing. So you’re correct to say
But if a town populated by only Armenians living in, say, France was attacked by, say, German forces, you wouldn’t say that Germany attacked Armenia. Germany attacked France, because it’s about the country.
Speaking of ships, according to the maritime law, vessels flying a country’s flag are considered an extension of that country’s territory. So legally, yes, attacking a US carrier would be the same as attacking the USA.
Until now, I was being neutral regarding who’s at fault, but you keep insisting that Armenians are the only victims here, and the land is allegedly historically theirs. Ok, let’s assume that’s true. I even agree that Armenians definitely lived there historically. But if what Armenians did in 1993 (capturing seven Azerbaijani-majority districts outside the enclave itself) is justified and OK, then what Russia is doing now in Ukraine is also justified and OK. There are plenty of ethnic Russians in Ukraine, especially in the occupied territories.
Now imagine the conflict in Ukraine is frozen for 20 years. And 20 years later, Ukraine takes back their internationally recognized territories. Will you also be claiming that Russians have historically lived there and hence it’s not OK for Ukraine to recapture them?
You can’t decide these things based on “historical territories”, the international law exists for a reason, else everybody would be at each other’s throats. How far back should we go? Do we arbitrarily pick a cutoff date? Draw a line in the sand? Should Italy start claiming the entirety of Europe because Rome once occupied it for half a millennium?
Again, a pedantic dispute. Armenia means different things under different context, and to different people. You are just trying to force a specific interpretation based on international law, one that has no real power nor influence over the specific topic.
In this wild hypothetical, would this Armenian town in France have French citizenship? If so then no, they would be attacking the French. However if these people were only Armenian citizens who were being harbored in France, then yes.
That is also a legal fiction utilized to pervade complications with international laws. Though its recognized by international law, it offers no real protections extended to non citizens under the flag. This is why you still hear of American ships flying under the flag of the Cayman Islands ect
You mean when they migrate more Azerbaijan citizens to the area to make a pretense for territorial disputes in the first place…? Kinda sounds exactly like what Russia was doing in the first place.
Yes to validate the winnings of territorial dispute for the side who has the most economically powerful friends.
Also, why are you still arguing…you were wrong.
So this is settled then right? Or are you going to make another excuse to stan for Azerbaijan?
Sure, if you completely disregard the international law, then yes, I concede that I’m wrong.
But by that logic, what Russia is doing is ok. Who cares if the laws says that territory is Ukraine’s, there are Russians in there. Let them keep it.
And since my whole argument is based on respecting international law, I have nothing else to say. Especially since you managed to settle this decades long dispute so easily. Armenians good, Azerbaijanis bad. That will surely solve everything.
P.S.
How devious of the Albanians and Turks to start moving there 1000s of years in advance to later “denazify” the area.
Lol, my dude. Just because there are some situations where international law support material and historic reality, does not mean all situations which don’t are inherently wrong.
The only way your example makes any sense is if you do not acknowledge the historical context. It also requires you to selectively apply the logical framework of international law so it doesn’t apply to the land dispute that predates it.
Didn’t you already admit that you were wrong and that azjeries broke international law? So it kinda seems like you either don’t have an argument, or you are being very dishonest about your biases.
Lol, you are conflating Azerbaijan’s founding with the region in which we were discussing. Can you make any kind of rebuttal that isn’t based on logical fallacy?