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?