Turkey, Iraq and the United States, O. Faruk LOĞOĞLU

Two recent Iraq-related events hold special significance for Turkey. One is the terror agreement signed between Turkey and Iraq in Ankara. The other is the resolution adopted by the U.S. Senate on the desirability of a loose federal structure in Iraq.

The agreement signed between the Turkish and Iraqi Interior Ministers on combating PKK presence and activities in Iraq has generally met with skepticism by Turkish commentators. One opposition leader has called it “an omelet without an egg”. The main criticism is that the agreement does not contain the key clause of “hot pursuit”, thereby rendering the whole document ineffective and practically useless. Without it, the reasoning goes, the Turkish military cannot cross the border into Iraq to go after the PKK terrorists.

Yet looking at the agreement in a broader context may lead to a different assessment. This is the first time in the post-invasion period that Baghdad has committed itself formally to designating the PKK as terrorist and to fighting it. Such commitment has the merit of improving the international understanding for and the legitimacy of Turkey’s fight against the PKK. Most of the world visualizes the setting as “the big and mighty Turkey” trying to punish the “poor and defenseless Kurds”. Now, the Government of Iraq takes the position that Turkey is indeed engaged in a struggle against terrorism and that it is going to work with Turkey to this end. In combating PKK, this is more than what any other neighbor of Turkey has done to date, at least on the moral/ethical level.

There are several other reasons why I think this is a useful document. To the extent that Iraq actually implements the various provisions of the agreement, there will be substantial gains for both sides in terms of the restriction of the scope of PKK activities in Iraq and the prosecution of captured terrorists. Baghdad’s commitment should also serve as a tool of persuasion with the Kurdish authorities in the north to take an unequivocal stand against terror. In the end, it is important for Turkey to have the Arabs of Iraq on the same side in the fight against terrorism.

One final word is in order on the absence of the “hot pursuit” element in the agreement. If it were included and if Turkey were to undertake cross-border operations on that basis, would the negative ramifications and consequences of such action have been any less? In all probability, the Iraqi Kurds would have opposed it, Baghdad would not have been happy about it and the international community would have condemned it. The more critical point here is, however, that whether it is included in a bilateral arrangement or not, Turkey has the right to defend itself against threats to its national security. This is a fundamental concept of international law, enshrined in the UN Charter. To use this right, Turkey does not necessarily need Iraq’s permission. This is a determination the Turkish Government must ultimately make on its own.

Given the high cost of an intervention into Iraq under the present circumstances, Turkey must first try to engage the Kurdish authorities in Iraq. The agreement signed in Ankara gives greater ethical force to Turkey in this regard. The considerable Turkish influence in northern Iraq should be used by Turkey to make Kurdish leaders understand that it is also in their best interest to work with Turkey against PKK terror. If the Iraqi Kurds continue to refuse to cooperate, then Ankara will be justified in looking at other options.

The other event of interest to Turkey is the resolution the U.S. Senate adopted on Iraq. This idea of an Iraq divided into three parts (Sunni-center, Shiite-south and Kurdish-north) has been in circulation in some Washington circles for some time. Senator Joseph Biden has been the most prominent spokesperson of this idea. There have been other ideas on Iraq’s future. It is one thing for politicians and others in their individual capacities to come up with suggestions and proposals about an issue like Iraq. That is normal and useful. When, however, the upper chamber of the U.S. Congress with a huge bipartisan majority solemnly adopts a plan for another country’s future set-up, it is a completely new ball game. Even if it is not binding on President George Bush, the Senate resolution has moral force and with the kind of majority it has mustered, probably a lot of political power as well.

The Senate action is uncalled-for and inappropriate for reasons more than one. Reactions from within Iraq and from the Arab world show that the Senate action is uniformly unwelcome. First, the plan is not in Iraq’s interest because it is highly like to lead to the country’s disintegration, a process that would surely ignite and feed a long, bloody civil war, incomparably worse than the strife currently bleeding the country. It would lead to greater chaos and conflict in the already turbulent region by involving Iraq’s neighbors.

Second, the U.S. Senate does not (nor for that matter any legislative body anywhere) have the right to pronounce its designs or preferences for another country’s internal structure and organization. The people of Iraq have already approved a constitution and a system of governance for their country. There are still important and difficult issues to work out, but that is the Iraqi people’s business. Not the legislators of another country but only the people of Iraq can be the architects of their country’s future. Having set a most unfortunate precedent, the U.S. Senate is quite out of bounds here.

Finally, the Senate resolution gives a freehand and encouragement to all those forces and groups inside and outside Iraq to undermine that country’s territorial integrity and political unity. This part concerns Turkey. Turkey has been working with the U.S. administration to rebuild and stabilize Iraq, with the understanding that Turkey and the U.S.A. are both committed to preserving and protecting Iraq as a united country. Turkey would not and should not tolerate the fragmentation of Iraq. If the U.S. resolution is signaling a change in American policy toward Iraq, then there might be a further parting of ways between the two allies on the question of Iraq.

In WWI, 150 thousand of our soldiers were captured by the British

In WWI, 150 thousand of our soldiers were captured by the British. And some of these soldiers were imprisoned in Seydibesir Useray-i Harbiye Camp (1) near the city of Alexandria in Egypt. The full name of the camp was "Seydibesir Kuveysna Osmanli Useray-i Harbiye (2) Kampi". In this camp, the Ottoman soldiers of 16th Division's 48th Regiment who were captured at the Palestine fronts in 1918 were interned. For two years until June 12th, 1920, they were subjected to any kind of torture, oppression, heavy insults and humiliation.

The reason for this inhumane treatment was the Armenians.

The British commanders of the camp, because of the wrong, mendacious translations and provocations of Armenian translators who knew Turkish, had become fierce Turk enemies.

***

The war was over. Nevertheless, to release the soldiers besides the ones who died because of heavy conditions in the camp was not to the benefit of the British. Because the British were brainwashed by Armenians, being told that in a potential new war they could come up against these soldiers again. The solution was massacre…

Our soldiers, forced by bayonets, were put in disinfection pools with the excuse of wiping out germs. But the chemical, krizol, was added a lot more than normal in the water. Even just when they put their feet, our soldiers got scalded. However, the British troops didn't let them get out of the pool by threatening with rifles (3).

Our soldiers didn't want to put their heads under the water that reached waist level. But then the British started shooting in the air. Our soldiers knelt and put their heads under water not to die.

But the ones who got their heads out of the water couldn't see any more. Because the eyes were burned…The resistance of our soldiers who saw what happened to the ones that got out was no use and our 15 thousand men got blinded.

***

This savagery was discussed in May 25th, 1921, in the Turkish Great National Assembly. The congressmen Mr. Faik and Mr. Seref proposed that 15 thousand sons of this country were blinded in Egypt by being put in the "krizol" pool; and wanted the Assembly to make an attempt for punishment of the British physicians, commanders and soldiers who were guilty of this act.

Of course the newly founded government had a thousand other problems. Demanding an explanation for this act was easily forgotten.

***
But they don't forget. They show even their own betrayal as a fact of genocide and present it to the world.

The most regrettable of all is that some people, you know who, are also behind, supporting these defamation campaigns.

Sinan AYGUN – The President of ATO

With great thanks to the translation of Ms. Damla Ozdemir.

This article is from the book "Katran Kazanında Sterilize" ("Sterilized in Tar Cauldron") by Imge Publications, written by Ahmet Duru who revealed the diary of the sub-lieutenant Ahmet Altinay from Karaman…

(1) "Useray": unknown.

(2) "Kuveysna" unknown as well.

(3) "Dipçik darbeleri" has no exact English equivalent. Basically it means that they were threatened with rifles; not exactly, though.

As if The Graves Spurt Out the Dead Bodies

Translated by: Hüseyin Avşaroğlu – Kayseri, August 2007.


A cauldron was set up in the town center Babies were boiled, Ladies who had not seen the light of day Were forced to dance at the tip of the sword.

This verse which was written to describe the Armenian atrocities in the Salimbeyli district of Adana (old Cilicia), summarizes the endless catastrophe facing the Turkish people after the central government collapsed due to the Great War 1 (1914-1918).

Gaining courage from the French occupation forces Armenians started killing their neighbors of 900 years one morning, in order to invade the lands they wanted and declare their autonomy. Women and young girls were forcibly brought by armed men and stuffed into the Government Hall. Children and babies were taken from their mothers’ arms, boiled in cauldrons, and served to their mothers on trays. The above verse is part of a poem chanted by an unfortunate Melek Hatun after her late daughter Afife.

An eye witness from the same village described to accomplished researcher Cezmi Yurtsever, how Kurdish Genco was killed; “They caught Sergeant Major Genco and brought him to the Government Hall. They nailed him upside down to the nearby plane-tree from his hands and feet. They killed him by skinning him alive.

Similar incredible scenes of atrocities sending chills through the spine of reasonable men were witnessed by the French, British and Russian soldiers in most cities all over Anatolia while it was under their invasion. We mean to say those who claim they suffered genocide by the Turks and those who passed resolutions in line with such outrageous claims are guilty of attempt to perform genocide on the Turks.

Russians in the East, British and the French in the South collected old broken down rifles from the Turkish villagers after invading their land. Later they armed the Armenians and sent them to destroy whatever was left over; mostly women, children and the elderly from their enemy, the Turks. After approving Greek atrocities in the West, the British armed the Nestorian population of Mosul in addition to the Armenians in an effort to wipe out the Turks. They also provoked the Kurds. Mr. Marlin informed Sir Edward Grey on Sep, 3 1912; “Not only the Balkans and Europe, but the Arabs, Armenians, Kurds and all different races must be severed off from the Ottoman Empire” , Lord Curzon was not embarrassed to write to Wardrop on 11 March 1920; “Boghos Nubar and Mr. Ahoronian paid a visit to me. I scolded them for their stupid actions. I explained to them the stupidity of using on the Azerbaijanis the armament that we gave them to kill the Turks.”

It is interesting to note that the weapons were given to the Armenians not to defend themselves, but to attack the Turks.

The same unfair attitude prevailed in the French, Italian and even the German rows. Arşavir Şıracıyan, who killed the Ottoman Prime Minister Sait Halim Pasha in Rome, a well known İttihat and Terakki Party foreman Bahaattin Şakir in Berlin, and Trabzon Mayor Cemal Azmi Bey also in Berlin wrote in his memoirs translated into Turkish as “Bir Ermeni Teroristin Itiraflari [An Armenian Terrorist’s Confessions]” how the Armenians hid the enemy soldiers, how they armed themselves, and how he benefited from the Italian and German police.

Almost all of the soldiers of the French Battalion who took over the city of Maraş from the British soldiers were Armenian. The number of Armenian soldiers among the French was reported as 3,000 by the Darende Lieutenant Governor to the ministry of Internal Affairs (dated 11 Teşrini sani 1315).

In a small city where there are no young men or ammunition to defend civilians, and a collapsed central government, such large number of enemy soldiers causes big threat. The belligerent Armenians of Zeitun who were already committing serial murders must be added to this number of invading enemy soldiers. In such a situation it must be noted that the French used the Armenians to commit genocide in South East Anatolia, as well as Adana and Mersin.

Russians also did partake in the Armenian atrocities. Not only did they send them ammunition to strike the Turkish Army from behind prior to the war, they also encouraged the Armenians to annihilate the Turks in the cities they occupied.

A Russian Red Crescent Nurse, Tatiana Karameli who was also a student at the Moscow Medical School, penned her memoirs including the time that she spent in Bayburt. She mentioned that the Russian Commander Popov invited the Armenians aged 18-45 and distributed weapons to them from the Russian Army’s stocks in Bayburt. This Russian girl who said the murders of the region were organized by Arshak and Antranik’s bandit forces also mentioned that all the Turks detained in Bayburt were killed. Also, some of the 150 Turkish children that the Armenians took as hostage with them on their retreat were killed en route.

An Armenian state was planned to be founded east of the line drawn from Trabzon on the Black Sea coast to Iskenderun on the Mediterranean, so genocide was committed to the Turks living in that area, especially those living in and around Kars, Erzurum, Erzincan, Bitlis and Van.

Genocide means intentional annihilation, with a plan, of people belonging to a certain ethnicity, race, or religion,. As soon as World War 1 erupted, Armenians started to exterminate the population of Eastern Anatolia because they were Moslem or Turkish. Their method of destruction is comparable only to that of the Greeks in Western Anatolia. By archive documents, it will be proven how this genocide took place against the very same people who are unfairly portrayed as the guilty party.

Armenian Terrorists at Work in U.S

Armenian Terrorists at Work in U.S Part1




Armenian Terrorists at Work in U.S Part2




Armenian Terrorists at Work in U.S Part3





Armenian Terrorists at Work in U.S Part4

CAN WE SPARE ROOM FOR HATRED?

Living in a friendly world sounds like a good idea. However, Diaspora Armenians openly perpetuate racial hatred. See the article penned by Line Abrahamian which can be found at http://www.readersdigest.ca/mag/2006/10/hate_to_hope.php.

Here are some excerpts from that article; “Every one of the 27 years she has been a teacher at an Armenian kindergarten; my mom has taught children about the Genocide. I ask her if she thinks five is too young to hear about this. “You have to put it in their blood early on,” she says, “otherwise they won’t grow up with that fire in their belly to fight for our cause. That’s what we did with you.” “So would I be less loyal to my heritage if I didn’t hate Turks?” I ask her. “Yes,” my mom replies unflinchingly. “So it’s okay for me to hate another human being?” “No, not just anyone,” she says. “But after what they did, how could you not hate a Turk?” “But is it fair not to distinguish between the generations?” I venture. “Fair?” she snaps. “When they were massacring the Armenians, did they distinguish between the women, the children, the elderly? And today’s Turk is just as bad, for denying it happened.”

Line Abrahamian expresses surprise because an elderly friend of hers who lived through those hard times does not feel hatred, but she does. Her elderly friend says; “Armenians must learn that there are good Turks, and many Armenians will testify that Turks helped them survive. Unless we break through the walls of hatred, the question of Genocide is never going to be resolved.”

Brainwashed hatred must be worse than first hand experience of anguish. As a Turk whose grand father was killed by Armenian bandits in 1916, should I hate back all Armenians? In fact, from 1910 to 1923 Turks found themselves attacked by Greek, French, Russian, English and even Australian forces. All Christian States descended on the Turks to share the land of the dying Ottoman Empire. As such, Turks were kicked out of the Balkans, Middle East and North Africa. Every Turkish family has more than one story to tell about the atrocities their ancestors faced in the hands of invading savages. Were the Turks mistaken to extend olive branches to their old enemies for the following 90 years?

Armenia – A Destabilizing Aggressor in the Region

One visit to Line Abrahamian’s volunteer project http://www.norjraberd.org/NJpowerpoint.ppt reveals that she is involved in an organized effort to grab more land from the Azerbaijani territory. In their site, the Armenians are shown as innocent fundraisers for the needy who are trying to settle in their homeland. There is no mention that the Armenians are trying to settle on recently invaded Azeri territory. Atrocities on Azeri civilians caused by the 1992 attack of Armenia are cleverly concealed in her web site, so let’s follow the actual historical background from the 2002 book; “ARMENIA: Secrets of a “Christian” Terrorist State” by Samuel A. Weems, a US District Attorney and Judge (ISBN: 0-9719212-3-7,).

“In 1991 ten countries of the former Soviet Union had met and organized the Commonwealth of Independent States in Minsk, Belarus. Three of the states were Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Less than one year later, the promises of the Russians and Armenians became meaningless as they invaded Azerbaijan. Russia gave the Armenians more than one billion US dollars in military armaments and equipment (84 of their top of the line battle tanks, 50 armored personnel carriers, 24 Stud missiles and other unnamed military equipment ) to use in the invasion of neighbor Azerbaijan. Soldiers of the Russian 366th combat regiment took part in the Armenian invasion. The United States press witnessed the Armenian/Russian massacre of thousands of unarmed Azerbaijani civilians during the first two weeks of March 1992. One million poor Azerbaijani souls have been living in refugee camps since then — these one million individuals lived through a war of Armenian “terrorism” and they are the recent victims of Armenian aggression.

Shortly after the surprise joint Armenian/Russian attack on Azerbaijan — the United Nations Security Council passed four Resolutions (822), (853), (874) and (884) reaffirming the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the inviolability of international borders. The UN called upon the Armenians to withdraw from Azerbaijan a total of five times. However, the Armenians and their Russian supporters refuse to honor the UN demand to withdraw from Azerbaijan and Armenia continues, after more than ten years, to illegally hold more than 20% of the lands of Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan has never had a single soldier in Armenia; however, the United States Congress passed a law stating that Azerbaijan used “offensive force.” in self-defense of its country. The US Congress stated that this was a terrible thing for Azerbaijan to do in attempting to protect itself.

The Armenian lobby within the United States gives many millions of dollars to American members of congress each and every election campaign year. The Azerbaijanis have no such lobby organization at all within the United States. This is the reason the Armenians were able to get this law passed and this is why Armenia received more than $1.5 billion in US foreign aid over the past ten years while they hold Azerbaijan lands they captured and stole by armed force.

It is because of the Armenian lobby that the United States ignores the five United Nations Resolutions calling on Armenia to withdraw from Azerbaijan. Also sad but true is the fact that the United States hands over to Armenia more than an average of $100 million dollars each year as foreign aid. The American government should not give the terrorist state of Armenia one penny until such time as they obey the United Nations resolutions and depart from the Azerbaijan lands they stole by armed force” writes the honorable judge Sam Weems.

The Republic of Armenia founded in 1991, after the dissolving of USSR lays claims on territory belonging to the Turkish Republic as well. Mount Ararat, the highest peak in Anatolia, which is located inside Turkey is symbolized on Armenia’s Presidential flag. Can you imagine the Eiffel Tower placed on the flag of Germany or Britain? However impoverished this small country with a flagrant economy, they refer to Eastern Turkey as Western Armenia.

Similar provocations are too long to list. Thanks to the Turkish Army which is a strong member of NATO, they could not advance into Eastern Anatolia, as they did into Azerbaijan’s Nagorny Karabakh Region.

Does it fit the UN Definition of “genocide”?

When examined without bias, the Turkish – Armenian conflict is in no way akin to the Nazi assault on the Jews and Gypsies who were considered racially inferior at the time, an event which led Rafael Lemkin to coin the term ‘genocide’. Upon Lemkin’s suggestion, protection of warring parties was excluded from the UN convention of genocide prevention, so the Armenians will lead you believe they were an innocent minority group during those times.

In reality, the Armenians took arms against the Muslim civilians of Anatolia during the chaos of World War 1 (1914-1918) and their strategic alliance with the invading armies (Russian, French and British) caused heavy casualties on the Ottoman Army. The relocation decision was clearly a defense measure in reaction to the minority Armenians’ savage attack in the Eastern Anatolian city of Van.

With distortions and false accusations a labyrinth of lies was built to blame the young Turkish Republic (founded in 1923). The relocation started on May 30 1915 with a decree from the Ottoman government, it was suspended with the onset of winter on November 25 1915, and completely stopped on February 8, 1916. The deportees were allowed to return back on voluntary basis with another decree by the Ottoman Government on December 31 1918.

According to American archive (NARA, T 1192, Roll 8; 86oJ.5811) dated April 26 1921, 644,900 of the deported Armenians returned back to Anatolia. According to UK archives (WO 158/933, No. 5796, 1, p.3) the total population of Armenians in 1914 was 773,430 in Anatolia. Therefore, the claim that 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Turks in 1915 does not hold water.

The number of casualties cannot be counted for certain, but no one should doubt that hundreds of thousands of Turks were killed by Armenians and both parties suffered heavy casualties due to enemy attacks, typhoid and hunger. However, Armenians are portraying themselves as innocent victims, whilst trying to hide the Turkish casualties. Their reason for deliberate exaggeration of their dead is best explained by Ottoman History Professor Justin McCarthy of the University Louisville, Kentucky; “Any war sounds like a genocide if the dead of only one side is counted”.

Silencing the Truth

Many leaders who took responsible positions admitted in all earnest to the Armenians’ ambitious miscalculations of the early 1900’s. In this regard, it is worth mentioning Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first Prime Minister of the Armenian Republic from 1918 – 1919. Even though, in 1890 he was among the founders of the Dashnagzoutiun Party, he stated the following observations to dissolve the party in 1923;

“It was a mistake of the Armenians to establish volunteer units to fight against

the Ottoman Army or to ally with the Russians against the Ottoman Government”.

He concludes that the deportation of Armenians was a rightful measure taken by Turks in self-defense. He also mentions that the Armenians massacred Muslim populations. See Hovannes Katchaznouni “Dashnagzoutiun has nothing to do anymore, Kaynak Yayinlari, 2006, ISBN: 975-343-453-7. Even though 2000 copies of the original Armenian text of Katchaznouni’s manifesto were printed in Bucharest in 1923, they disappeared from world libraries no thanks to a deliberate campaign to destroy them. To this day, its publication is banned in the Republic of Armenia.

This past April, ANCA led a grassroots campaign to punish the Los Angeles Times Managing Editor, Douglas Frantz for putting a hold on a story written by Mr. Ajax, an Armenian-American reporter. Douglas Frantz explained his reasons as; “[I] put a hold on the story because of concerns that the reporter had expressed personal views about the topic in a public manner and therefore was not a disinterested party, which is required by our ethics guidelines, and because the reporter and an editor had gone outside the normal procedures for compiling and editing articles. My actions were based solely on the journalistic ethics and standards that we follow to ensure that readers of Times news coverage are not affected by the personal views of our reporters and editors."

Over 5,000 Armenians responded to he ANCA action alert and sent emails and letters calling for Frantz's resignation. In addition, the ANCA-WR, California Courier Publisher Harut Sassounian and other community representatives met with the publisher and senior Los Angeles Times management on multiple occasions during the last several months to convey the community's outrage regarding Frantz's “discriminatory” (in my opinion ‘unbiased’) actions. Mr. Frantz has resigned effective July 6^th reported the Armenian National Committee of America- Western Region (ANCA-WR).

In 2006 the VP in Public Broadcasting Syndicates, Jacoba Atlas became the target of a similar Armenian hate Campaign because she dared to allow a debate between professors of both sides. The Armenians feared that it could somewhat counter balance the one sided Armenian propaganda films aired until then.

Currently, a letter campaign to protest the Hachette publishing company is organized, because, in their Blue Guide (travel book), with a passing sentence they mentioned “The Armenians also killed many Kurds, during the early 1900’s”. They attempt to hide all Armenian wrong doing.

More Intimidation

Numerous calls of the Turkish Government to research into historical events without bias, has fallen on deaf ears. The Armenian side seems to be searching for the slightest chance to call the 90 year old events as genocide, while silencing the mounting evidence which proves that Turks reacted in self defense.

Historical facts favoring the Turks were brought to the public attention as full page articles both in the New York Times and the Washington Post in May 1985. These facts were signed by 69 world known scholars who were experts in their field. Armenian Diaspora retorted to harsh intimidation as well as bombing the house of one historian. They do not like historians. They refuse to evaluate the facts.

Anti Defamation League was founded in 1913 to fight anti-Semitism. It has spoken out against ethnic cleansing in the Balkans and genocide in Darfur; but in the long-standing dispute between the Armenians and the Turks, it has not accepted the Armenian claims of genocide. It is the main supporter of the “No Place for Hate” campaign which was recently awarded to Watertown Massachusetts, a town heavily populated by Armenians. Now the Armenians of Watertown are using the “No Place for Hatred” sign at the town hall to protest the ADL.

Abraham H. Foxman, the national director of ADL said he is surprised that he has become the new target of Armenians. "I'm not going to be the arbiter of someone else's history," he said in an interview, adding that he does not believe that American Congress should either. When asked specifically if what happened to Armenians under the Ottoman Empire was genocide, he replied, "I don't know." The ADL only takes positions, he said, on current events, not on something that happened in the past.

Many politicians have voted in line with the false Armenian allegations in order to please their constituents. Many more are under bombardments of biased propaganda. The Turkish side of the truth is yet to be heard.

Hate is Dangerous

I watched a documentary showing the sub–human behavior of Armenians during their attack on Khojaly - Azerbaijan in 1992. Young men were screaming with joy after torturing their victims. Similar atrocities were reported during the Armenian uprising against the Ottoman Empire in early 1900’s. It is really surprising that some of these butchers were later allowed to boast in US papers about their role in killing Turks as if it was their contribution towards a valuable cause.

John Roy Carlson (a.k.a. Arto Derunian) told stories of how he smashed Moslems’ heads with stones and later set ablaze, because he did not want to waste bullets on them. The Armenian bandits spent time to carve limbs of thousands of Muslims (including babies) and meticulously stacked the dead bodies.

The obvious dual standard continues to favor the Christian Armenian Americans’ aggression to this day. The media is flooded with one sided propaganda material. The Turks have become targets of undeserved hatred.

Even if it is the only way to keep the Diaspora from assimilation, hatred should not be taught because it can get out of hand. Line Abrahamian’s mother must be aware that mature people could see the flaws in her story, so she chose to brainwash her students at the tender age of 5.

Testament that hate, lives for centuries comes from Simon Winchester’s book of 1999 “The Fracture Zone: A Return to the Balkans”. The Serbians who killed some Kosovo Albanians in 1986 by severing off their heads with an axe or cutting their breeding organs with a razor blade, declared their reasons as their revenge of their ancestors’ death during the Kosovo War of 1389 against the Turks. What kept alive their hatred towards their Muslim neighbors for 600 years who shared the same language and were of the same race?

My grandmother told me stories seem to overrule reason and morals. This is why breeding hatred should be stopped for good.

In all fairness, all parties should examine the historical events of decaying Ottoman Empire without bias.

Hüseyin Avşaroğlu, August 6, 2007 Kayseri – Turkey

The Forty Days of Musa Dagh - From Holdwater

The following are excerpts from Professor Erich Feigl's book, "The Myth of Terror." "The Forty Days of Musa Dagh," has already been made into a little-known, Armenian financed film; a planned MGM production was halted in the 1930s, thanks to efforts by the Turkish ambassador to the United States (the father of Atlantic Records' Ahmet Ertegün). Steven Spielberg has been reported to consider directing a remake, with Antonio ("If You Can't Beat 'Em, Join 'Em") Banderas slated to star. Reliable word has it Spielberg received a hand-delivered copy of "The Myth of Terror" personally to consider the other side of the story. Thank you, Professor Feigl... and thank you, Professor Ozan.

Franz Werfel knew that he had been taken in by forgeries.

Abraham Sou Sever (a.k.a. Albert Amateau... the root of "Amateau" means "lover of water," which is what "Sou [really, 'Su'] Sever" means in Turkish) is a Sephardic Jew, born in Izmir, Turkey, (On Amateau's page, you'll read he was born in Milas... which is the province Izmir is located in) before World War I. He later emigrated to the United States and now lives in California.

Abraham Sou Sever has filed a written Deposition and Testimonial in which he tells the truth about the Armenians' "genocide" claims and their propaganda methods from his own personal life experiences and knowledge. Particularly significant is his testimony on Franz Werfel. Mr. Sever's notarized deposition has been transmitted to research institutions in the United States as part of a written and oral history collection on the Armenian claims for a genocide.

Here is what Mr. Sever has to say about Franz Werfel and the events which took place on Musa Dagh:

Few have pressed the Armenians' case better than the Austrian author; Israeli Minister of Education Yossi Sarid was so decisively influenced by the book , he figured the case for the genocide had been made. By the way, the Armenian postal service should ask for its money back. The portrait barely resembles the Beethovenish Franz Werfel. [Click to compare.]

"Moussa Dagh (Mount Moussa), if the truth be known, is the best evidence of the Armenian duplicity and rebellion. Fifty thousand Armenians, all armed, ascended the summit of that mountain after provisioning it to stand siege. Daily sallies from that summit of armed bands attacked the rear of the Ottoman armies, and disappeared into the mountain. When the Ottomans finally discovered the fortification the Armenians had prepared, they could not assault and invade it. It stood siege for 40 days, which is a good indication of the preparations the Armenians had made surreptitiously under the very nose of the Ottoman Government. Nor was it ever explained that the rebellion of the Armenians had been fostered, organized, financed, and supplied with arms and munitions by the Russians.

Leaders of the Armenian revolutionary organization DASHNAGTZOUTIUN have since admitted to have been seduced by Russia with promises of independence and a New Armenia. They have admitted that they were financed and armed by Russia. They have admitted that bands of Armenian revolutionaries had been organized to sabotage and interfere with the Ottoman armies defending their homeland, even before the Ottoman Government had entered the war against Russia. The thousands who occupied the summit of Moussa Dagh for 40 days escaped by descending the mountain by a secret exit fronting oil the Mediterranean, while the Ottoman armies were besieging the front of that mountain.

The Armenians had communicated by flambeau signals with the French and British naval ships patrolling the Mediterranean. Those (thousands) who escaped were taken aboard the ships of the British and French and transported to Alexandria in Egypt. The Armenians found it to their interest to invent that these thousands had perished - keeping their rescue by the British and French a secret. Only a small contingent of Armenians who had remained fighting the Ottomans finally surrendered.

My dear departed friend, Franz Werfel, who wrote that book, The 40 days at Moussa Dagh, never was in that region to investigate what he wrote. He wrote it as his Armenian friends in Vienna had
told him. Before his death, Werfel told me that he felt ashamed and contrite for having written the book and for the many falsehoods and fabrications the Armenians had foisted on him. But he dared not confess publicly for fear of death by the Dashnag terrorists.

Christian missionaries had found the Armenians willing and easy converts from their ancestral Orthodox Christianity to the Protestant and Catholic brands. Sympathetic to their converts, they helped spread the false stories of massacre throughout the Western World. Modern day Armenians heard the false stories from their elders who were never there themselves, but had heard them from the Dashnag revolutionaries who had made deals with the Czar and the Bolsheviks. The Republic they established died aborning because of the intrigues and subtle dealings typical of the Dashnag fanatis. The false claims of genocide and holocaust have gained for them great sympathy throughout the Western World. They cannot tolerate disproof and refutation. They try to stifle and prevent disproof by threats."

The preceding is from ataa.org

The Asala Terrorist Organization

YOU CAN'T CHANGE HISTORY

During the new phase of Armenian terrorism from 1973 to 1985, the terrorist organization most frequently mentioned was ASALA (TheArmenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia). No information has yet been published on its establishment, structure and activities. With regard to ASALA, various Armenian sources and publications provide information about certain individuals, and the results of terrorist activity, mostly obtained from publications issued by the organization or terrorist group. This is information, which the terrorist group wishes to publish or does not object to having published. With regard to the founding of ASALA, some publications link it with the events in Lebanon; they take the view that it was established under the inspiration of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, within which it had been active. Others claim that it was founded by a small group of Armenians, who, within a short time, carried out the most sensational and effective acts of terrorism of the period. All this is very far from providing a complete explanation of how ASALA was founded. Until the conditions under which ASALA first appeared as an organization are better known and the gap it filled is more satisfactorily elucidated, present doubts will continue for a long time to come.

It is generally known that the first Armenian terrorist activities of the new period were in accordance with the policies and targets of the Dashnak terrorist organization. Throughout the course of history as well as in the period under discussion, the Dashnaks were completely pro-Western. They adopted a policy of limited terrorist activity, which was directed basically against Turkish targets, and, as revealed by various sources of evidence, they obtained help and support from the Western states; in fact, they collaborated with them. Basically, their principles and historical development did not allow them to adopt a different approach. In this situation, one sphere of activity still remained. Namely that relating to the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, which appealed to the younger Marxist Revolutionary generations and, particularly, to the "New Armenian Resistance Organizations", in France. In fact, this area had long since been filled by the Hunchaks. Since 1960, they, with their various points of view, had also been preparing for a new period of terror. However, the Hunchaks were not in evidence, and a terrorist organization, wishing to be regarded as completely new, appeared on the scene in the guise of ASALA. When the factors leading to the new period of Armenian terrorism are taken into consideration and their aims and policies, especially as a Hunchak terrorist organization, are examined, the conclusion can be reached that ASALA is a terrorist offshoot of the Hunchaks. It was above all the conditions and new developments in Lebanon that lay behind the emergence of this group as a new terrorist organization, which because known for the various acts of terrorism for which it claimed responsibility. In fact, no significant change has taken place. The two Armenian terrorist organizations once again occupy the centre of the stage against the backdrop of history. The first is more in evidence, operating through its terrorist offshoots, whilst the second operates under cover, in the guise of a terrorist group to which it has given manpower and expertise, as well as moral support. This group in turn carries out terrorist activities through subsidiary groups and teams.

1. Foundation and Organizational Structure

ASALA was founded in 1975. The leader of this terror organization is known to have been Agop Agopian, one of the two most active members of the six or seven founding members. The second was Agop Tarakdjian, who was personally involved in terrorism and other criminal activity and who ensured the continued existence of the organization in the absence of Agop Agopian. The second of these two men died in 1981, whilst the first continued as leader throughout the whole of this period, apart from the time spent under treatment for wound received. He was well known as a mucahid and a member of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

The organization was structured in accordance with the general practice of the Armenian terrorist groups. The Lebanon Central Committee was the supreme executive body. In 1980 this committee took on a very important form in the Lebanon and assumed the nature of a "bureau". Subordinate to the Central Committee were bodies such as the Political Committee, the Finance Committee, the Propaganda and Information Committee, the Intelligence Committee and the Military Committee. Subordinate to the Military Committee were a number of operational teams.

2. Aims and Objectives

ASALA revealed to the world its aims and objectives in a "political programme" published in the end of 1981. According to this, the aim of ASALA was "the foundation of a united Armenia under the leadership of a democratic, socialist, revolutionary government". The identity of the government in question is quite clear from the definition. All aid was welcome from the USSR and other socialist countries, while at the same time Soviet Armenia was accepted as a base in "the long struggle of the Armenian people".

In this political programme their enemies were divided into two groups. The first of these was the Dashnak Armenian terrorist group, and all the "regional reactionaries" who opposed, or at least failed to support ASALA. The second was "Turkish imperialism, aided and abetted by international imperialism".

ASALA believed that "the only way of liberating Armenian territory was through the use of violence", and issued public announcements to this effect. According to their programme, ASALA was to support all those who rejected the domination of the ruling classes and who were willing to work towards the foundation and strengthening of coalitions within the international revolutionary movement. Violence and terror formed an essential element in this programme.

In order to realise ASALA's aims and objectives it was not essential that terrorist activities should be directed solely against Turks and the friends of Turkey, or against people in positions of power or authority. "Terror is a phenomenon" and the important point is its scope and dimension. The actual targets may be of secondary importance. Greatest stress it to be laid on murders and massacres that will arouse violent public reaction. Whether the targets are men, women or children, Turks or non-Turks, is of little significance. Nevertheless, first importance was to be given to attacks on Turkey and the Turks. The importance of the attacks and massacres carried out in the airports of Paris and Istanbul, in the Istanbul Covered Market and the airport of Orly, lay entirely in the nature and violence of the reaction these were aimed at arousing.

3. Strategy, Attitudes and Behaviour

The essential aim of ASALA was to make the Lebanon the centre for all progressive Armenian movements throughout the world and the point from which all operations would be directed. In short, all progressive Armenian groups were to unite in the Lebanon and for the basis for an "ASALA Popular Movement". In this way, all progressive Armenians could enter into an official organization in which their individual strengths could be united.

An attempt was made in the summer of 1981 to put this section of ASALA strategy into effect by calling all progressive Armenians to a meeting in the Lebanon. By "progressive" was meant "Marxist-Leninist".

The second stage of this strategy began with the terrorist activities and open war undertaken by the organization thus founded with the help of certain socialist states. Armenian terror formed an integral part of the struggle for independence in the Middle East, uniting with other movements directed against the integrity of Turkish territory. This led inevitably to the union of ASALA and PKK.

ASALA was clearly a terrorist organization in attitude and behaviour. In all ranks of the administration terror and the implementation of terror was regarded as an essential feature of the organization. The leaders murdered one another, liquidated those of whom they disapproved or had them done away with. Apart from this, each terrorist team was presented to world opinion as if it were a separate Armenian organization and all types of propaganda were carried on by this means.

Responsibility for the crimes committed were assumed by various organizations whose names had never before been heard of. A list is to be found in an appendix at the end of this Introduction showing how in 1981 and 1982 the murders, crimes, bombings and raids were carried out by a single organization but attributed to groups with a variety of different names. By examining this list the reader will find a number of operations claimed to have been carried out by a great many different Armenian groups but which actually all bear the mark of a single team and a single organization. All these so-called independent groups remained subordinate to and directed by ASALA itself.

4. Political developments

The first stage in the political development of ASALA, which is generally agreed to have been founded in 1975, was highly effective, and the organization was strengthened by new forces recruited during the Armenian Congress in Paris in 1979. It gained further strength in 1981. In 1983 it split into two factions.

The first operation carried out by ASALA was the assassination by Agop Tarakdjian, one of the founders of the organization, of Oktay Cerit, First Secretary in the Turkish Embassy in Beirut, on 16 February 1976. The period up to 1979 was marked by ASALA's involvement in the conflicts between the various Palestinian groups, in the course of which Agopian, one of the leaders, was wounded. Links with the Armenian terrorists in France were established during the Armenian Congress meeting in Paris in 1979, which saw the organization strengthened by the addition of new elements and fresh blood. The most famous of the new members were Alex Yenikomshian and Monte Melkian. In 1981 a number of terrorist attacks carried out by ASALA on innocent groups or individuals having severely shaken its standing in world public opinion. Following the Israeli occupation of the Lebanon the ASALA leaders were forced to leave the Lebanon along with the Palestinians. A split in the organization took place in 1983.

o The Agop Agopian Group - This was centred in Greece and the Middle East. Its terror was directed indiscriminately against Turks and non-Turks, as well as against innocent women and children. It was this group that was responsible for the attack at Orly.

o In Western Europe the movement operated under the name of the "Asala Revolutionary Movement". This followed a more moderate course of action and directed its terror solely against Turks. The leaders of this group were Monte Melkonian and Ara Toranian. Toranian was the leader of a group centred in Paris known as the "Armenian National Movement" which described the Orly attack as a purely Fascist operation.

Melkonian, who had been born in Iran, declared his intention of setting the Armenian struggle on a sound political footing. According to this the movement had two aims; to rouse the Armenians to action, and to make common cause with other groups in their struggle against Turkey. In this second stage, Melkonian was involved in establishing alliances with other groups while Agopian continued with his own type of activity.

5. Support and Alliances

ASALA received support from three main sources:

1.The Soviet Union, the Eastern block and other socialist countries.

2. Countries such as Greece and Syria whose geopolitical expectations depended on the destabilisation of Turkey from within and without.

3. Various communist parties, indirectly from the Hunchak Armenian terrorist organization and its sympathisers, and also from the Armenian church, in spite of its difference in outlook.

In ASALA's links with other groups first priority was given to relations with non-Armenian terror groups which threatened Turkey directly or indirectly, and whose activities ran parallel to the strategy implemented by ASALA itself. In the period between 1976 and 1980 these consisted of groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization, activist members of the various communist parties and the secret services belonging to certain states. In 1980 ASALA widened the scope of its activities following the agreement reached with PICK at a meeting in Sidon in the Lebanon, thus establishing unity of outlook and action between ASALA and PKK. As a matter of fact, these two organizations had already displayed a marked affinity in aims, structure and beliefs. From 1983 onwards ASALA relations began to develop along the lines of the strategy laid down by Monte Melkonian. First priority was given to terrorist activity within Turkey, and links were established with any group capable of furthering this strategy by either direct or indirect means. These groups were headed by PKK, the Turkish CommunistParty and other communist organizations.

6. Publications and information media

ASALA's most important, official organ is Haiastan

Other important publications include the periodicals Hai-Baikar, Armenia and Kaytzer, published in London.

ASALA's first radio broadcasts began in 1981 in Beyrut with a daily one-hour programme "The Voice of the Armenians in the Lebanon". Apart from these, facilities are provided by the public radio corporations and mass communication media belonging to countries with which it has established contacts.

Edward J. Erickson reviews McCarthy's "Armenian Rebellion at Van"

The Middle East Journal 61.2 (Spring 2007): p348(2).

The Armenian Rebellion at Van, by Justin McCarthy, Esat Arslan, Cemalettin Takiran, and Omer Turan. Salt Lake City, UT: University of Utah Press, 2006. vii + 266 pages. 11 Maps. Notes. Appends. to p. 285. Bibl. to p. 291. Index to p. 296. $25.

Reviewed by Edward J. Erickson

This timely book follows and complements recent work by Donald Bloxham [The Great Game of Genocide, reviewed in The Middle East Journal (MEJ), Vol. 60, No. 1 (Winter 2006)] and Guenter Lewy [The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide, reviewed in MEJ, Vol. 60, No. 2 (Spring 2006)]. Both Bloxham and Lewy contend that there was an actual Armenian rebellion in 1915, which was encouraged and aided by the Allies, and aimed at the establishment of an Armenian state. Moreover, Bloxham asserts that ill-timed active collaboration with the Allies by Armenian nationalist leaders led their people into a disastrous confrontation with the Ottomans. The Armenian Rebellion at Van supports these contentions by showcasing them with a fascinating case study of the well-known uprising in Van, the eastern Anatolian city and province, in the spring of 1915.
The authors begin with three chapters detailing the geographic, economic, and demographic setting of Van province, with attention to the origins and politics of the Armenian committees, especially those of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (the ARF or Dashnaks). Chapter four examines the rebellion of 1896. Chapter five, titled the "Development of the Revolution, 1897-1908," outlines the growth of an armed Armenian movement by examining its leadership, tactics, arms smuggling, and Russian connections. Chapter six, on the period 1908-1912, briefly covers the deteriorating relations between the Young Turks and the ARF, while chapter seven covers the events preceding the outbreak of war.

The heart of the book, chapter eight, is a detailed examination, at the tactical level, of what happened at Van in late March and April 1915. Using previously unavailable documents from the Ottoman military archives in Ankara, the authors offer a picture of a carefully planned and executed rebellion that was sponsored by and closely coordinated with the Russians, who launched an offensive aimed at seizing the city. The concluding two chapters explain the destruction of both the Armenian and Muslim communities in the province and present an analysis of why the Ottomans failed to suppress the rebels.
So why read another book about the Armenians'? This book represents a massive revision of what is known in the West about the Van uprising. Of particular importance is a well-developed exposition of Armenian leadership, organizational architecture, professionalism in military training, innovative tactics, and weaponry that is integrated into an explanation of how the battles were fought. The authors assert that the rebels were not simply city residents reacting in self-defense but were instead well led, tightly organized, and dangerous. They present a convincing argument based on new archival information. The maps are unusually clear and include (for the first time) small-scale municipal maps of the city of Van as it existed in 1915. The book is a gold mine of new and detailed information.

This reviewer found the overall tone of the book to be unusual in its fair treatment of the Armenians by Turkish scholars. Professor McCarthy and his Turkish co-authors present the Armenians as able practitioners of the art of insurgency and note that the Armenian leader "Aram Manukian must be counted as one of the geniuses of guerrilla warfare" (p. 258). Moreover, they conclude that the Armenian insurrections were instrumental in crippling the Ottoman strategic position in Anatolia, and they also reinforce Bloxham's assertion that the Armenians were badly let down by their Russian allies. Unfortunately, there are minor factual errors in the text. For example, Ottoman casualties at Sankaml are overstated by 100% (p. 179) while the cited Turkish source (Turk Harbi) actually gives much lower numbers. The authors erroneously give the date of a critical order from Enver Pasha on security precautions as September 25, 1914 (p. 190), when the correct date is February 25, 1915.
Incorrect information is given on the composition of the First Expeditionary Force (p. 210) that includes flawed British estimates of non-existent bis divisions. There is also a lack of clarity and completeness in citing the Turkish archives; the authors rarely detail what the document is. Instead, they choose to list only its archival call number. However, these are small issues in what is otherwise a very valuable contribution to the field.
Specialists and interested readers alike will understand and appreciate this book. It is clearly written, and establishes an important corrective to the extant Western historiography. While it will certainly irritate the global Armenian lobby, this reviewer would encourage those seeking a balanced and informed understanding of these events to read The Armenian Rebellion at Van. It is well worth the price and highly recommended.

Lt. Col. Edward J. Erickson, USA (Retired), International Research Associates, LLC

SPREADING "FALSEHOOD AND EVIL AGAINST TURKS IS THEIR UNENDING OCCUPATION - 2

Seth Klarman

Seth A. Klarman, the insanely wealthy investment manager who heads a firm managing over five billion dollars (and author of the popular Margin of Safety: Risk-Averse Value Investing Strategies for the Thoughtful Investor), serves as chairman of "Facing History," and his motivation might have had something to do with "serving a noble cause" (spreading word of the Holocaust is something too many Jewish folks believe is a worthy mission), along with giving his wife something to do; Beth S. Klarman is another vice-chair of the Board of Directors, along with the aforementioned Jeffrey D. Bussgang, Ronald G. Casty and Dana W. Smith. Dorothy P. Tananbaum is co-Chair.

Until the middle of Fiscal Year 2006, the organization received over eleven million dollars in contributions. In 2005, the organization had assets of nearly eighteen million dollars, versus liabilities of $144,000.

This is high finance propaganda.

Their "partners" include:
Harvard Law School
Lesley University
New Visions for Public Schools
New York University Steinhardt School of Education
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS)
Reebok Human Rights Foundation
University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education
USHMM Committee On Conscience

Once again, PBS helps to ruin its credibility by aligning what should be its "neutral" self with such a propagandistic organization. (One of the resources Facing History offers is the PBS film, Andrew Goldberg's "The Armenians, A Story of Survival." It is only one of Facing History's many Armenian genocide propaganda productions.)

The "Partners," with which Facing History collaborates "closely," "share our desire for a more informed, involved, and morally-aware citizenry."

It is simply horrifying how they shamelessly couch their mischief with such doing-good terminology.

Major supporters — the ones who part with their cash to finance such perpetuation of hatred — include:

The Allstate Foundation
The Claims Conference
The Crown Family
The Bernard F. and Alva B. Gimbel Foundation
The Goldman Sachs Foundation
The Plough Foundation
The Charles H. Revson Foundation
The Richard and Susan Smith Family Foundation
The United States Institute of Peace

These companies need to be informed as to the fake history "Facing History" endorses. They all bear a responsibility to the racism "Facing History" teaches the children.

Most depressingly, "Facing History" claims that in 2006:

Reached over 1,500,000 students through a network of 22,000+ educators.

Some may agree that is, figuratively, an example of a real "genocide," with 1.5 million victims: a systematic extermination campaign of the truth.

Now I wish we could get into their ridiculous "Armenian" history in greater detail (and if they have no credibility with the Armenian subject matter, obviously nothing else from Facing History can be accepted at face value). But dissecting such familiar propaganda can get awfully redundant, after a while.

The fact is, "Facing History" presents not just Armenian propaganda... but the kind most Armenian propagandists would not go near. They serve as the propagandists' propagandists.

For example, as the letter below to Bussgang will relate, they go for a total Armenian survivor figure of 600,000, while even Dadrian and Balakian concede one million. Even more incredibly, their "Armenian Genocide Chapter 4" begins with:

"The Armenians living in Turkey will be destroyed to the last. The government has been given ample authority. As to the organization of the mass murder the government will provide the necessary explanations."
—Behaeddin Shakir, a member of the Central Committee
for the Committee of Union and Progress

If you run a "Google" search for any key phrase from the above, you will get back (at the time of this writing) only four results. (Once this page goes up, this number will be sure to increase.) One is the Dadrian study where this was taken from (which The Tall Armenian Tale; TAT readers have come to recognize as Vahakn Dadrian's Greatest Embarassment, the Hyelog entry where it was reproduced, another stupid genocide article by UCLA's Stephan Astourian ("The Armenian Genocide: An Interpretation," reproduced in a 1990 issue of "The History Teacher." Groan!), and Facing History.

The reason why propagandists leave this one aside is because it comes from a forgery of Aram Andonian.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen. "Facing History" has no qualms about sinking to the level of proven forgeries to teach their (Armenian) history.

And Jeffrey Bussgang was made very aware of this very fact over a year ago. Assuming he read the letter, he lacked the honor and the conscience to do anything about it.

You can get an idea of Facing History's ways in an "Armenian Genocide" section of their site. Note the propaganda material consulted, passing for "history," including their "resource book" (which featured the Behaeddin Shakir forgery. To be more specific, Andonian did not have Shakir in mind when he concocted this particular forgery; it is Dadrian who told us it must have been Shakir, since the letters BEHA were supposedly on it — as though Shakir would have signed his document with the first four letters of his name. What Dadrian does not explain is that if Shakir were to engage in this unusual practice, the Turkish spelling of his name would have been BAHAttin), along with the Goldberg PBS film.

Other teaching materials of this "history" include a painting by an Armenian, Gorky, described as "a survivor of the Armenian genocide." In the next few lessons, prepared by crackerjack educators Adam Strom and Mary Johnson (with the quality of their work, they would well deserve the 2007 Margot Stern Strom Teaching Award), we are told Armenians "struggled to obtain equal rights" in the 19th century, as persecuted as they were, and that "many European and Russian diplomats became increasingly concerned about the treatment of minority groups within the Ottoman Empire. Their arguments and efforts to protect those minorities would set important precedents for the international movement for human rights." That's right, folks. We all know the British and the Russians were acting selflessly, and the thought of using the Armenians as pawns to further their imperialistic interests never occurred to them.

"Lesson Three: Analyzing Historical Evidence," is the one that invites the greatest scrutiny, and what they have to offer is: "On May 24, 1915, the Allied nations of Great Britain, France, and Russia warned the Young Turk leaders that their 'crimes against humanity and civilization' would not go unpunished." Indeed, the warning of three powers set to divide the ailing Ottoman Empire between themselves through secret treaties must be considered as objective sources. They also point to Armin Wegner's undocumented photographs at "armenian-genocide.org" (the site's "photo_wegner.html" page.) All that can be determined are that people were miserable and suffering. Suffering is not genocide. A few shots feature corpses, with helpful captions such as "Corpse of murdered young man," as if the dishonest writer could determine what the cause of death would have been. Are these supposed to "prove" genocide?

(Instruction to teachers: "Allow students a choice to put their heads down or leave the room if the content becomes overwhelming. Show Wegner’s photographs without commentary.") What incredible orchestration and manipulation.

There are a good number of genuine and documented photos of massacred Turks at the hands of the Armenians. Note that the racist "Facing History" organization would never make room for these.

The hatred is then permitted to spread to modern Turks, in their final lesson, "Denial, Free Speech, and Hate Speech."

"After the Armenian Genocide, the international community lacked the political will to fulfill its promises to hold perpetrators of the genocide accountable." What an incredible falsehood. The British worked feverishly to uncover the genuine evidence to convict their accused in the precursor to "Nuremberg," the Malta Tribunal (1919-1921). No evidence could be found.

We are then told that "Several former Ottoman officials complicit during the genocide assumed important positions in the new government." If the British could not determine the guilt of these individuals, on whose say-so should we go by? Fatma Muge Gocek's, for example? (She says, for example, that Ismet Inonu was a "genocide culprit.") One cannot honorably accuse another of having committed a crime without the valid evidence. But "honor" is obviously not in the vocabulary of the propagandistic "Facing History."

"Since that time the Turkish government has denied that the Armenian Genocide occurred. "

There we go. That conforms to the entire agenda of the unscrupulous pro-Armenians. Make the Turks out to be "evil." Yes, this is the kind of poison being taught to 9th graders, thanks to the underhanded efforts of "Facing History."

"The denial has taken many forms and used many strategies... To deny its factual and moral reality as genocide is not to engage in scholarship but in propaganda and efforts to absolve the perpetrator, blame the victims, and erase the ethical meaning of this history."

These people do not know the first meaning of what "scholarship" entails, they engage in the most vicious propaganda, and then dare to tell us those who attempt to right their wrongs are committing the very crimes they are committing. Of course; that is part and parcel of their agenda.

A suggested activity for teachers:

On the board write, “Denial is hate speech and as such it should be forbidden.”
Explain to students that denial continues and many people are struggling to find a way to deal with it. Henry Theriault, a professor of philosophy at Worcester State College, Worcester, Mass. suggests that denial is hate speech, and therefore should be restricted.

It is all perfectly coordinated. Refer to a non-historian like Theriault (who also points to the Andonian forgeries in order to "prove" the "Armenian genocide"), and they do their best to stifle debate — so that their invented and immoral "genocide" may not be questioned.

They are actually advocating thought censorship, teaching the children that freedom of speech is to be frowned upon. We all know what "hate speech" is, and it has nothing to do with telling historical truth; real "hate speech" perpetuates prejudice by bringing an ethnic group to sub-human status.

By encouraging students to think that Turkish people are like Nazis, the ones who are practicing "hate speech" are organizations such as "Facing History"— under the guise of following a noble cause.

It is all nothing short of evil.

Letter to Vice-chairman Jeffrey Bussgang

Once again, the unanswered letter below was sent on March 13, 2006 to Mr. Bussgang.

Jeffrey Bussgang
Vice-Chair
Facing History

Dear Mr. Bussgang,

You come across as endearing and down to earth from some of the things I've read about you. I'd like to speak to you about a very serious subject, and I hope you will have the open mind to listen to a viewpoint likely to be different than what you've been led to believe.

I'm writing you because the "Facing History" site has no email addresses I could find. Just a contact page, and what I have to say is far too important for a lower ranked individual to consider. I believe "Facing History" is just one of the things you're involved with... it is not your "main thing." But as a top gun of this organization, you bear a big responsibility.

Perhaps "Facing History" has good works to offer; I hope so. I'm writing on the basis of only one example that I've come across, one which has nothing to do with history. Paradoxically, it has everything to do with prejudice and even racism. This is a paradox, because the mission page is very concerned about "morality."

And this content is highly serious, because your organization is involved in molding many of the young minds of our country.

Your organization, according to its mission page, is resolved "to combat prejudice with compassion, indifference with ethical participation, myth and misinformation with knowledge."

The Armenian Genocide page, however, offers nothing but myth and misinformation, and fosters prejudice, by perpetuating the stereotype of the Terrible Turk, based on the hearsay of bigots and tainted evidence, and looking at this controversial topic entirely in a one sided manner.

When Facing History states "the study of history is a moral enterprise," we must bear in mind history needs to remain dispassionate, and all sides must be considered. Below is one of my favorite descriptions:

==================================
Historians should love the truth. A historian has a duty to try to write only the truth. Before historians write they must look at all relevant sources. They must examine their own prejudices, then do all they can to insure that those prejudices do not overwhelm the truth. Only then should they write history. The historians creed must be, "Consider all the sides of an issue; reject your own prejudices. Only then can you hope to find the truth."
Do historians always follow this creed? They do not, but good historians try.

There are ways to tell if a historian has been true to his craft. All important sources of information must be studied: A book on American history that does not draw upon American sources and only uses sources written in French cannot be accurate history. All important facts must be considered: a book on the history of the Germans and the Jews that does not mention the death of the Jews in the Holocaust cannot be true.

Uncomfortable facts, facts that disagree with one's preconceptions and prejudices must be considered, not avoided or ignored: Any book on the history of the Turks and the Armenians that does not include the history of the Turks who were killed by Armenians cannot be the truth. This is obvious. It should be so obvious that it need not be said. But we know it must be said, because so many have forgotten the rules of honest history.
Prof. Justin McCarthy, The First Shot
==================================

I realize this may be a hard sell. You are living, and perhaps have grown up, in "Armenian country," Massachusetts . Peter Balakian is listed on Facing History's Board of Scholars. (He is anything but a scholar, based on the rules of history.) He and other agenda-pushing pharisees who are listed indicate this organization is a very closed club, for only like-minded individuals. (There are no real Ottoman historians, in this list of "scholars," from names I was able to determine. How could genuine history be written in the absence of such specialists?)

(NOTE: It appears "Facing History" has removed their "Board of Scholars" page. One other addition to this board turns out to be Samantha Power, however. Just learned Barack Obama hired her as an advisor. No wonder he has become an "Armenian genocide" advocate, undermining his credibility.)

At any rate, Balakian spelled out in his "Burning Tigris" the roots of Armenian infiltration in Massachusetts . (http://www.tallarmeniantale.com/burningtigris.htm#alice) Ohannes Chatschumian stole the heart of an "intellectual," and like a stack of Dominos, everyone bought the Armenian version. It was easy, since no one was around then to defend the Turks. With these people's ingrained prejudices, the media presented the view that the Armenians were poor, innocent Christians ready to be martyred by the Terrible Turks' bloody swords. Things are not that different today. As a Massachusetts resident, you are especially susceptible to this unilaterally presented propaganda... made possible by big money and influence.

I'm going to ask you to dig deep and consult the "fair" part of you. Put your "historian" cap on, and let's take a look at whether my words have basis.

We are referring to this horrible, horrible propagandistic page that is on your organization's site.

(NOTE: The link for their "Chapter 4" .PDF file was provided.)


The page begins with a quote from Behaeddin Shakir, "The Armenians, living in Turkey , will be destroyed to the last..." There it is, in black and white; genocidal proof.

How peculiar that one of the worst partisans for this alleged genocide, Professor Richard Hovannisian (who is another nationalist ideologue on the organization's Board of Scholars) is reported to have said in the "Congress on the Problems of World Armenians" held in 1982: "The Armenian problem could not be proved. The genocide is not valid legally and it is exposed to prescription."

If Bahaeddin Shakir actually said those words, why would Hovannisian have made such a statement? After all, what Shakir said sounds like actual proof, doesn't it?

Which leads us to ponder: what is the source of this dubious quote?

Footnote 66 informs us that it's Vahakn Dadrian (the "foremost scholar on the Armenian genocide," as Peter Balakian says), regarding his work on the Naim-Andonian documents.

The fact that these are notorious forgeries is commonly accepted. The British themselves rejected them, during their 1919-1921 "Nuremberg ," The Malta Tribunal. This is the one where every Turkish official was freed at the end, for lack of evidence.

Consider the enormity of that. The British had signed the death sentence for the Turkish nation with the Sèvres Treaty (the intention of the British, along with the rest of the Entente Powers, was to divide the "Sick Man" between themselves, as proven by secret treaties. It was convenient for them to come up with a Turkish monster, which people in the West were ingrained to accept since the times of the Crusades, in order to justify the allies' land-grabbing scheme), and even the British (to their credit) rejected the Andonian documents. There is not one serious historian that holds them to be valid. That is, not one who holds the concept of "morality" dear to heart.

(If you'd like to discover what an embarrassing low your organization's version of "history" has sunk to, try this simple test, with the knowledge that there are tons of "Armenian Genocide" sites on the Internet. Type a key phrase from the Shakir quote into Google. I got four results, three pointing to the Facing History propagandistic page. The fourth regarded the work of an Armenian history teacher. If this Shakir quote is so legitimate, how do you explain that everyone has avoided it?

Only Vahakn Dadrian, among a handful of others, would stoop so low. Dadrian is a propagandist and has the agenda to affirm his genocide. He will stop at nothing to alter statements, translations and in offering false documents as his evidence. No serious historian would regard Dadrian as a true scientist.

Even among the ranks of the "genocide scholars," Dadrian has become one to be wary of. Hilmar Kaiser points to the "misleading quotations" and the "selective use of sources" in Dadrian's work, and he has concluded that "serious scholars should be cautioned against accepting all of Dadrian's statements at face value." ["Germany and the Armenian Genocide, Part II: Reply to Vahakn N. Dadrian's Response," Journal of the Society for Armenian Studies, 9 (1996): 139-40.] Donald Bloxham also has issues with Dadrian's lack of scholarly ethics.

Yet this article refers to Dadrian repeatedly. In addition, conflicted sources such as missionaries like Johannes Lepsius, and war propaganda chiefs like Lord Bryce are presented. It's unbelievable, for an organization that purports on molding young minds, and for holding "morality" so dear.

I don't want to hit you with too much, as I realize this is not a subject you are in tune with, having likely and lazily accepted the surface explanations. But practically everything this article claims is rooted in deceit. We're still on the first page, and the opening sentence after the Shakir quote states that "scholar" Robert Melson (he is no scholar; not if we agree the definition entails observing all sides of a story) explains, "Once the Ottoman Empire joined the Central Powers... against Russia, the CUP could use the excuse of military necessity to destroy the Armenians." Aside from the basic historical fact that Russia was among other enemies (Britain, France and Italy), let's examine the logic here, by creating a fantasy scenario with our own nation.

Let's say the USA is on her knees, and imagine that there are great superpowers who are attacking on all fronts. There is a critical shortage of manpower and resources, the nation's infrastructure has crumbled, and the nation is bankrupt. The nation is being threatened with extinction. This was the situation of the "Sick Man." (As history tells us, this matter of life or death ended in death for the Ottoman Empire.) Would this be the opportune time to initiate a resource-depleting program of enormity, the transportation and care of hundreds of thousands?

Truly, how logical would that be? A British writer, in a 1916 book called "The Armenians" (www.tallarmeniantale.com/c-f-dixon-BOOK.htm) got to the heart of the matter:

"The Turks had just sustained in the Caucasus a severe defeat. They needed every available man and every round of ammunition to cheek the advancing Russians. It is therefore incredible that without receiving any provocation they should have chosen that particularly inopportune moment to employ a large force of soldiers and gendarmes with artillery to stir up a hornet's nest in their rear. Military considerations alone make the suggestion absurd."

If we take our scenario further, let's imagine the enemies of our country enticed the some-one million Armenians in California to rebel, with promises of a New Armenia in that state. (Exactly what the Armenians did in the Ottoman Empire; the anti-Turkish New York Times reported, days after Russia had declared war on Nov. 7, 1914: "ARMENIANS FIGHTING TURKS — Besieging Van-Others operating in Turkish Army's Rear." www.tallarmeniantale.com/nyt-armens-fight-turks.htm) The Armenians begin to massacre fellow Americans in an effort to create an ethnically pure state, and hit the U.S. Army in the back. I don't even know if our "compassionate" President would bother with a "deportation," but let's say the decision is made to move them out of the danger zone, far inland. Where there are no rails, the Armenians have to travel on foot a long distance. Along the way are gangs of Americans waiting to take revenge, or seeking criminal opportunity. Armenians are massacred. Would this be a genocide?

It can only be a genocide if the government shows "intent" of systematic extermination (proven by the kinds of things Shakir is supposed to have said. Because the Armenians lacked evidence, they put those words in his, and other Ottoman officials' mouths), along with there not being any political alliances. These are the rules of the 1948 U.N. Genocide Convention.

Frankly, everywhere I am looking in this article, I am shuddering in disbelief. Bear with me for one more example from p. 85: "In all, including those who took refuge in Russia (300,000, as mentioned a few paragraphs before), the number of survivors at the end of 1916 can be estimated at 600,000 out of an estimated total population in 1914 of 1,800,000, according to A. Toynbee."

Fact: Arnold Toynbee, who was ashamed in later years to have served in his Majesty's propaganda division (Wellington House), estimated there were 1.2 million Armenians in all of the Ottoman Empire, the year before he became a propagandist ("Nationality and the War," 1915: 761,000 Armenians in all of Anatolia. Your article: 1,200,000, seven eastern vilayets of Anatolia, nearly double of Toynbee's estimate.)

Fact: Your "Scholar," Richard Hovannisian, had written Armenians who escaped into Transcaucasia as having numbered 500,000, vs. your article's 300,000. [" The Ebb and Flow of the Armenian Minority in the Arab Middle East," Middle East Journal, Vol. 28, No. 1 (Winter 1974), p. 20; in this article, Hovannisian further provided an additional near-300,000 who had gone on to lands the Ottomans no longer controlled, in the Middle East. There were also many thousands who had gone on to Europe and America.] Please add them up, to get a better picture of survivors, according to your own scholar.

FACT: Your article tells us only 600,000 Armenians survived, when Hovannisian, Balakian and Dadrian all concede there were one million survivors. Isn't that incredible? Your article actually out-propagandized the propagandists! But these propagandists also out-propagandized the Armenian Patriarch from the period (as the current professors vouch for a mortality of over a million and up), who broke down his inflated pre-war population of 2.1 million Armenians in this fashion (in 1919): 1,260,000 survivors (that is double the number of survivors of your article), and 840,000 dead. (The Patriarch reported 644,900 Ottoman-Armenians remained in 1921, in a report given the British.) The reality: out of an original population of around 1.5 million (most "neutral" sources said so, like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica), if we subtract the one million survivors, we wind up with half a million dead. Most died not from massacres, but causes claiming the lives of all Ottomans, famine and disease. 2.5 Turks/Muslims also died, mainly from these causes.

How do you explain your "moral" organization (Mission Page: "Civic education must be rooted in a moral component." Morality must begin first with the educator) neglecting these historical facts? You will notice nothing I'm offering is "Turkish propaganda." If anything, they derive from sources famous for supporting Armenian propaganda. These facts are only a mouse click away. How could your "Facing History" people be so unconscientious as to not Face History?

Is it because they have an agenda to serve? I can see the organization is rooted in the teaching of the Holocaust. Unfortunately, Holocaust-centric scholars have a tendency to accept Armenian genocide claims at face value. They probably have an irrational fear that the negation of this widely accepted Armenian genocide (thanks to money and prejudice) would serve the Holocaust to be questioned. It also does not hurt that wealthy Armenians support genocide institutes throughout the world. Whatever their motivations, they are being highly unethical, in their support of obvious lies.

Prof. Guenter Lewy — an example of a real scholar, and one who cannot be called a "denialist," since Lewy is a Holocaust survivor — has recently come up with a book entitled, The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey, A Disputed Genocide. He exposes the lack of scholarly ethics of those such as Vahakn Dadrian, and explores all facets of this tale. Why would you suppose this account and the one at your organization's site would be as different as can be?
(An example of his work: www.tallarmeniantale.com/lewy-revisit.htm; his response to Dadrian: www.tallarmeniantale.com/lewy-dadrian-meq.htm)

Conclusion: you are supporting an organization, very much contrary to its sanctimonious claims of morality, that is engaged in lies and racism.

Am I being harsh by going so far as to accuse your organization of racism? Let me resort to the words of one of our nation’s deepest thinkers, Prof. John Dewey, who had wrote in a 1928 article ( www.tallarmeniantale.com/dewey-turktragedy.htm):

Few Americans who mourn, and justly, the miseries of the Armenians, are aware that till the rise of nationalistic ambitions, beginning with the 'seventies, the Armenians were the favored portion of the population of Turkey, or that in the Great War, they traitorously turned Turkish cities over to the Russian invader; that they boasted of having raised an army of one hundred and fifty thousand men to fight a civil war, and that they burned at least a hundred Turkish villages and exterminated their population.

The racism is thus twofold: not only does your organization’s horrid article reduce the Turks to subhuman, comic book monsters (perpetuating an already existing “Terrible Turk” stereotype; check the second definition of “Turk” in your dictionary), but the article totally ignores the extermination crimes of the Armenians. (British Colonel Wooley estimated the Armenians had killed 300-000-400,000 Ottoman Muslims; Ottoman archives never meant to be publicized provide a figure of some 520,000. It wasn’t only Muslims who were targeted by the Armenians, but anyone who was different, in their hopes of creating an ethnically pure state, including Jews, Greeks, and even Armenians who had converted to Islam.)

(Which brings rise to another question: If “Facing History” is genocide-centric, what determines the value of some genocides to others? More “Turks” were slaughtered by the Armenians than the other way around, since the bulk of the up to 600,000 Armenian mortality had died of reasons not entailing outright massacre. Why does Facing History not acknowledge the value of these human beings? This is what we would call “racism.”)

Imagine if you were accused of a ruinous crime strictly on the say-so of the accuser, without presentation of any factual evidence. How would you feel? (You would be "denying" the accusations at the top of your lungs.)

Do you know how unthinkably unconscientious it is to defame an entire nation with the worst crime against humanity, based on false or no evidence? I realize you must not have thought about this before, but you happen to be an integral part to these unethical goings-on.

It all boils down to: Exactly how committed are you, as a key representative of your organization, to the truth? Actually, please forget about your organization, for the moment; let’s concentrate on you, as a man. With your involvement, your personal honor is at stake here. And if you don’t do something about this, please don’t think the credibility of this organization will remain as sacred as it evidently has.

I know you are not directly responsible, as you are not overseeing the day to day functions of this organization. What calls for determination is, why does your president, Margot Stern Strom, who hopefully is expected to ensure true history, has not questioned the integrity of many of the partisan academicians in your Board of Scholars? Why has she not made sure to fill the ranks with genuine scholars, like Prof. John Dewey, who made sure to examine all sides of the issue and did not amateurishly accept surface allegations? (Dewey, by the way, warned in his article that Americans should be wary of being deceived by Armenian propaganda. That was over three-quarters of a century ago, Armenian propaganda is stronger than ever, and organizations as yours shamefully outdo some claims of hardcore Armenian propagandists.

As an example: Richard Hovannisian was called on his shoddy scholarship in a 1985 paper (www.tallarmeniantale.com/lowry-hova-dunn.htm ), over the way he made things about an American officer, because the officer had the audacity to regard these events in an even-handed way. (A decade after its writing, the author of this article, Prof. Heath Lowry, was the victim of a smear campaign spearheaded by one of your other “scholars,” Peter Balakian. The abhorrent idea of the forces your organization champions is to stifle debate.) Hovannisian’s unethical methods are plain to see in this generation-old study.

Is your president so unaware of such research? Or does she deliberately overlook them? Either way, her own credibility and competence becomes seriously compromised.

She is supposed to be in charge of serious history; her choices are supposed to enlighten the minds of our nation’s children, not to poison them.

What is called for is to [1] do away with your awful propaganda immediately, [2] Write a true account of these events, by enlisting objective and non-partisan scholars like Guenter Lewy, and devote no less time to the ethnic cleansing efforts of the Armenians. Politically, this might be difficult; but if the organization is so concerned about being “moral,” what could supersede the importance of truth?

Please pass this letter on to President Strom and Chairman Seth Klarman. I'd appreciate a response. Your organization's immersion in defamatory, racist and painful propaganda is a very serious matter.

Sincerely,

Holdwater
www.tallarmeniantale.com

Talk about falling on deaf ears.
News Item: The ANC & Facing History "Ethics"

The following is from the California Courier, April 13, 2006:

Facing History and Ourselves Hosts Institute on the Armenian Genocide

PASADENA — The Armenian National Committee announced last week the first California Institute for Educators on the Armenian Genocide, offered by Facing History and Ourselves will take place June 26-30 at the Krouzian Zekarian Vasbouragan Armenian School in San Francisco.

The Institute connects a rigorous exploration of the Armenian genocide, to ethical decision-making students face today. The ANC strongly endorses this program and is calling for financial support from the community to ensure teachers from southern California will be able to attend.

The Institute and resource book, Crimes against Humanity and Civilization, provides one of the most comprehensive guides to the Armenian Genocide created for secondary education. The Armenian Genocide is placed in thorough context and is studied through historical facts as presented in primary sources from the National Archives, Library of Congress and with the support of prominent specialists in the field.

Dr. Richard Hovannisian, Holder of the AEF Chair in Modern Armenian History at UCLA, who is a member of Facing History's National Board of Scholars, will be a featured speaker at the Institute.

The weeklong institute builds on one-day trainings Facing History has already provided teachers in Southern California, including district-wide workshops in Glendale, Montebello and Pasadena.

Teachers of Modern World History, International Relations, and Comparative Government will find this institute particularly valuable. Individuals in the San Francisco Bay Area are sponsoring teachers from their region, but additional funds are needed to ensure teachers from southern California are able to participate.

Please consider sponsoring a teacher to attend the institute: $1000 will cover the costs for one teacher, including the $350 tuition, airfare and accommodations in San Francisco for one week, and all resources.

The goal is to send 12-15 teachers from Los Angeles, who collectively can expect to reach 1200-1500 students each year with the lessons and resources gained at the institute.

Following the institute, Facing History program staff will provide free follow-up support to help customize the course to meet the teachers' needs.

Quite a racket.... is it not?

© Holdwater