622) I: Holy Terror / Secrets Of A "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia (Free E-Book in Parts)

. .

The Armenian Gregorian or Orthodox Church

Armenia is an example of the evil that can happen when church and state act as one. The evidence is clear that from the beginning of the Ottoman Empire, the government was conciliatory toward Christians as well as to other religions. In the early days of Ottoman rule, Christian peasants appreciated the conquests that placed them under Muslim control. The peasants were liberated from the exaction and abuses of Christian feudal overlords. The Ottomans brought law and order into their lives, and also gave them freedom of religion.

The official web site of the Armenian Church states: "Throughout its history, the Armenian Church has paralleled so closely the history of the Armenian nation that it is difficult to explain one without touching upon the other. The two, nation and church, are so closely meshed the phrase `national church` seems specifically coined for the Armenians". It goes on to add, "Consequently, since its inception and to this very day, the church has been the center of political and social controversies. The problems of the nation have always deeply affected the church”.

"In 1536 the Ottoman government entered into an agreement with the French that permitted them to trade throughout Ottoman lands. Total religious liberty was also given to the French. They were granted the right to maintain the guard of the Holy Places, which created a French protectorate over all the Catholics in the Ottoman Empire.

There has been much written about how the Ottoman Empire forced Christians to embrace Islam. This is nothing more than fiction. The granting of religious freedom within the Ottoman Empire, in fact, is what ultimately contributed to its downfall. The Russians learned from this Ottoman mistake and acted accordingly as they expanded their own imperial empire. The Russians were the first to play the Christian versus Muslim ethnic/religion card. As the Ottoman Empire began to decline, Russia, Austria, Italy, and others began to take Ottoman lands. Wars were fought and treaties were signed. In 1774 the Ottomans and Russians entered into one such treaty. In it, the Russians were given the right to intervene on behalf of Christians living within the Ottoman Empire. This right opened the doors to increased European influence regarding Ottoman internal affairs.

This was the beginning of Christians within the Ottoman Empire establishing closer friendships with the Western world. This was the birth of nationalist movements within minority populations living within the Ottoman Empire.

The Ottomans captured Christian Constantinople in 1453. Thereafter, the name of this great city became Istanbul. The Ottoman sultan had already recognized Orthodox Christians and in 1461 appointed Hovakim (Ovakim), the Armenian bishop of Bursa, to be the patriarch of all Armenians within the Ottoman Empire. There would be friendly relations between the Muslims and Armenian Christians that would last for more than three hundred years. This was a time of no European agitation of the Christian populations.

After the sultan helped establish the Armenian Church, he saved more than seventy thousand Armenians from the Crimeans. These Christians had been sent to Crimea in exile by the Byzantine government. He resettled the Armenian Christians along the coast of the Marmara Sea, which is located just south of Istanbul (1).

These Armenians were so trustworthy within the Ottoman Empire, they became known as loyal communities of the sultan. The sultan recognized their Christian religion and gave them rights and liberties. However, as the Ottoman Empire began to decline, some Armenian leaders ignored all the sultans had done for their people throughout the Ottoman period. These newly disloyal Armenians began intrigues with Europeans in the attempt to take Ottoman lands for free while being under the protection of European powers. Russia was the first major power with which these few Armenian leaders began to deal. These same Armenians leaders pretended to be loyal to the sultans while they aided in taking Ottoman lands.

Czar Peter the Great (1689-1725) made good use of the Armenian disloyalty to invade the Caucasus. The Armenians continued to help the Russians under Catherine II (1762 - 1796). Both Peter and Catherine failed to keep their promises to the Armenians, who nevertheless continued their disloyalty to the Ottomans and continued their help to the Russians, dreaming of free lands and a state of their own. Both the secular and religious Armenian leaders supported the Russian invasion of Muslim lands in the Caucasus.

The Russians laid siege to the city of Derkend in 1796. The Armenian residents, pretending to be loyal to the Ottomans, sent information about the town’s water supply, which allowed the Russians to win the battle. The Armenian archbishop, Argutinskii Dolgorukov, made a public statement in the 1790s that he hoped and believed the Russians would "free the Armenians from Muslim rule» (2) There are many more stunning examples of Armenian Church support for Russians and its involvement and cooperation with the Russians in the early 1800s, which continues to this very day.

In 1808 Czar Alexander I (1801 - 1825) presented Daniel, the Catholicos of the Armenian Church with the order of St. Anne, first class, for his espionage work helping the Russians. In the years that followed, the Russians pushed ever westward into Ottoman lands, always with the help of the Armenian Church, which repeatedly called on the Russians to save them from so-called “Muslim oppression”. (3)

The hatred that developed between the Christian Armenians and the Muslim Ottomans had its roots in the work and efforts of the Armenian Church. After all, once the Russians captured Ottoman lands they removed the Muslim population with no compensation, and working with the Church, moved Armenian Christians into the former Muslim owned homes and lands. Much is written today about the unprovoked attack the Armenians, with a billion dollars` worth of Russian military arms and supplies, made in 1992 upon Karabagh, which is a part of neighboring Azerbaijan. In the early 1800s this land was populated by a large number of Muslims. After the Russians took this land from the Ottomans, Armenians moved into Muslim homes. Today, the Armenians claim Karabagh as a part of their "ancient" homeland. The Armenian definition of "ancient" in this case is barely two hundred years old.

The Armenians sought to establish an independent homeland by acts of rebellion just as the Greeks did in 1821. There was one basic difference, however, as well as a practical problem for the Armenians. The Greeks were a majority population in the lands they sought to obtain whereas the Armenians were always a minority population. The Armenians quickly realized that for them to establish an independent government, dictatorial or otherwise, they had to have foreign intervention to help and protect them(4).

It was during the Russian - Persian (modern - day Iran) and the Russian - Ottoman wars of 1827 - 1829 when the Armenian leaders, including their Christian priests, felt the time had come to establish their own independent state. During these wars, Armenians living within the Russian empire joined with Armenian citizens of Persia and the Ottoman Empire to help the Russians fight against their friends and neighbors.

In this war, and those to come, the Russians first would invade Muslim lands and the Armenians would take the side of Russians. The large majority of Muslim populations living where the Russians invaded would be forced out of their homes, always with great loss of lives, and Armenian Christians would move right in behind them. This is how a majority Armenian population was created in what is known today as the Republic of Armenia, a majority created by the military power of the Russians.

When Russia occupied the northern provinces of Muslim Persia, the Etchmiadzin monastery was included in these lands. This was the primate (an archbishop or the highest - ranking bishop in a province) of all the Armenians, the Catholicos. The Russians were able to revive the declining authority of the Catholicos, who had been eclipsed by the Armenian patriarch of Istanbul. This group of Christians became loyal servants of the czars.

Czar Nicholas I (1825 - 1855) is the individual who first said that the Ottoman Empire was the "sick man of Europe». He claimed to be the supreme protector of all Christians living within the Ottoman Empire. It was the Russians who invaded and captured Erivan province from the Persians, where today’s capital of Armenia is located. Before 1827, the date of Russian occupation, more than 80 percent of the population was Muslim as was all Trans - Caucasian at that time. The entire region was both Muslim and anti-Russian. It was the Russians, together with the Armenians they brought in, who ruthlessly suppressed the majority population.

During the Crimean War (1853 - 1856) the Ottomans joined forces with the Western governments against the Russians. There were Armenian leaders in the eastern provinces of Anatolia (modern - day Turkey) who actively supported Russia by becoming spies. In March 1854, several Armenians were arrested in Kars.

When the czars needed help, they recruited Armenians, making promises and showering them with compliments. When the czars no longer needed the Armenians, they never fulfilled their promises. However, Armenian Christians continued to support the Russians. Catholicos Nerses Asdarakes received only a letter of thanks from Czar Nicholas I for all he had done against the Ottomans. In spite of all the Russian broken promises the Catholicos at Etchmiadzin, the church continued its loyalty to Russia.

Christian Missionaries in Anatolia

Beginning in the mid - 1850s within Anatolia, new voices began to be heard: European and American missionaries. These Christian missionaries created many problems for the Ottoman government. (5) The Armenian author A.P.Vartoogian wrote that the missionaries` introduction of Catholicism and Protestantism among the Armenians "had a more ruinous effect on the nation than anything else ever had» (6)

The basic problem was the infighting that took place among the different missionaries from the various nations. France and Austria protected the Catholics. The Protestants were funded from England and the United States. The Russians supported the Orthodox Church. Each of these major powers was hard at work to increase their influence in the Ottoman Empire, "the sick man of Europe," whom the powers thought would soon die. The powers claimed to protect the religious missionaries coming from their nations, but in reality, they were promoting their individual national interests.

Russia was using the Armenians in its quest to reach the warm waters of the Mediterranean so it could cut off England’s route to India. Britain was attempting to use Protestant Armenians to protect its lifeline to India by holding back both Russian and France. The French made use of Catholic Armenians for its own interests in the Near East. Only the Americans didn’t have a clear - cut national objective.

All the powers used Christian religion to intervene in the internal business of the Ottoman government. These powers used the excuse that they were merely protecting the religious rights of their own missionaries and their work with Christian minorities. The actual truth is that each European nation was eager for an opportunity to take a piece of Ottoman lands for free when it ceased to exist. In other words these European countries wanted to be ready like vultures so they could sweep in and pick the bones of the dead Ottoman Empire. The historical record clearly shows each of the powers often injected itself in the Ottoman government affairs, claiming the right to do so to protect Christians. This ongoing interference was a major reason for the increased rebellious activities of the Armenians. This was the historical period when there were increasing Armenian acts of insurrection and terrorism. By these stepped - up terrorist acts, the Armenians themselves created what became known as the "Armenian question" within the governments of the powers.

In June 16, 1880, Lieutenant - Colonel C.W.Wilson, British Consul General for Anatolia, reported to his government his experience with the Armenians. He described them as "being greedy of gain, mostly entirely without education. Immoral, fanatic, bigoted, and completely under the influence of an illiterate, ignorant and sensual priesthood who opposed all education and advancement» (7).

Colonel Wilson goes on to add in his experience with Armenians that "truth and honesty are sadly deficient, but one of the most hopeful signs is the effect of the teaching of American missionaries, who impress upon the people, the necessity of these virtues». The colonel concludes his memo by stating: "The tendency of the Armenian movement is towards opposition to the established authority; the Armenians wish to take the place of the Turks; nothing else will satisfy the men who manage the movements at Istanbul» (8).

Harold Armstrong described the Armenians as a "most vigorous and pushing people; envied and ill - spoken of». He says they have men of good business ability, who are thrifty and able to negotiate a hard bargain. However, they "are also argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know - it - alls». Armstrong concludes his evaluation of Armenians by saying they are "crafty, grasping, secretive, acquisitive, and dishonest, making a great pretence of religion, but using it as a cloak for treachery and greed» (9).

In 1876, just before the Ottoman - Russian war of 1877 - 1878 the Armenian Patriarch, Nerses Varjabotyan met with British Ambassador Elliot to ask that the Armenians be giveu the same privilege that was given to the minorities who had staged a rebellion against the Ottomans in the Balkans. As the twentieth century approached, the Ottoman Empire declined more rapidly. European powers sensed the end was near for the "sick man of Europe", increasing their activity throughout the Ottoman lands to benefit from the death of the Empire. The Armenians, especially their church, also sought benefits.

Armenian Patriarch Nerses Varjabotyan met witb the British ambassador before a series of meetings were held in Istanbul between December 12, 1876, and January 20, 1S77. These meetings were held to discuss the Balkans. The patriarch wanted Armenians to receive the same benefits as those granted in the Balkans. The patriarch indicated the Armenians were very aroused and that if "necessary to rise in insurrection" to gain the sympathy and support of the European Powers, there would be "no difficulty in getting up such a movement» (10)

The patriarch met with the Russian army commander in chief, Grand Duke Nicholas to ask for support to establish an independent state for Armenia. Later the patriarch sent delegation headed by Migirditch Khrimian, a former bishop of Van, to deliver a personal appeal to the grand duke. Th»e patriarch complained that the Ottoman government was persecuting Armenian Christians and asked that the Russians establish an independent Armenian state in the six eastern pro winces of the Ottoman Empire. The grand duke was polite to the Armenians and encouraged their disloyalty to the Ottomans. Of course, the Russian had no intent to help establish an independent Armenia.

In January 1882 British Consul Major William Everett submitted a confidential report to Lord Dufferin, British ambassador in Istanbul. In the report Everett enclosed a document that was widely circulated among the Armenians in Erzurum (in northeastern Turkey) and throughout the province. The document was an enlistment form to join a secret army. Every Armenian who enlisted swore that his objective was to fight for the freedom of the country. (11)

Everett reported in the early spring of that year that the Armenian insurrectionary movement was becoming stronger. He also believed the power behind the movement originated from Russian Armenia and was secretly supported by Russia. The Russian consul in Van was a Russian army major (of Armenian origin) who worked to spread the idea if the Armenians wanted to be delivered from oppression from the Ottoman Muslims, they must look to Russia alone for assistance and help. In addition to the major, there were many Russian agents who were always moving throughout the region stirring and encouraging the Armenians to revolt.

Shortly thereafter, Everett returned and advised the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Granville, that Russia was taking action to occupy the Ottoman lands as quickly as the opportunity presented itself. Everett added that the Russians were working to build more and more discontent among the Armenian Christians so they could be ready to step in and take control of the lands as the supporter of the "oppressed races» (12)

Needless to say the Christian (Orthodox) Russians had no intent of allowing their new Armenian subjects even as much religious freedoms as the Ottomans allowed. In May 1883, the Czar was beginning a policy of repression and Russification of the Armenians. Russians now subjected the Armenians – who supported the Russians based on freedom from "oppression" by the Muslims – to many kinds of persecution.

In 1887, Armenian Avetis Nazarbekian founded a new political movement in Geneva called Hunchak (Bell). This organization was based on Marxist - Socialist principles. In 1890 the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaksutyan) was organized in Tiflis on national Socialist principles. The founders were Kristapor Mikealim, Stepan Zartan, and Simon Zavarian. Each of these individuals was educated in Russian universities. Both of these groups wanted an independent Turkish Armenia in the six eastern provinces so it would become a national socialist state.

Avedis Nazarbekian directed the Hunchak efforts to create an independent Armenia from first Geneva then from Paris and then later from London. His thoughts were always on the end result. He was never concerned about the typical Armenian or Muslim Ottoman so long as his political organization achieved its objectives.

Nazarbekian became one of the most ruthless and militant Armenian leaders. It was his objective to so stir the Christian Armenians and to inflame the Muslim Turks to react, so Christian European powers would become involved and establish an Armenian state. Armenian terrorists would provoke Muslims by ongoing acts of violence. Where the Muslims would respond, Nazarbekian and other Armenians would cry out that "the barbarous Muslim Turks were massacring the innocent Christian Armenians» (13).

Nothing could have been further from the truth.

The Hunchak leaders ordered loyal Armenian followers to exterminate whom they thought were "the most dangerous" of both Armenian and Ottoman Turks who could create problems in local villages and cities. These terrorists never hesitated to commit cold - blooded murder of Muslim Turks. They also killed wealthy Armenians they could not black mail and who refused to give them money. In other words, these thugs killed their own people just because they were not willing to cooperate and become part of their evil acts.

They established what could be called "Murder Incorporated" to carry out their evil deeds. A special exclusive branch of Hunchak movement was created and the destiny of Turkish Armenians was put into the hands of a few Russian Armenian anarchists; this was a turning point in Armenian history. The Armenian church would be used as an instrument in the bloody efforts that would span many years. (14)

This time period would witness Armenian terror as a tool to achieve an independent state. This time period would also witness the Armenian use of propaganda and their ongoing campaigns of lies and deception as their primary weapons, through their constant clamoring to convince the Christian West that they were being persecuted and massacred by the terrible Muslim Turk because of their religion. They clamored that these Christian nations must come and save their brother Armenian Christians. In August 1889 Colonel Chermside, the British consul in Erzurum, reported to William White, the British ambassador in Istanbul, that "statements as to deliberate attempts to exterminate the Armenians and the wholesale recruiting of harems with kidnapped girls, are exaggerations so gross as to be ridiculous” (15).

At the same time, Armenian Thomas Boyadjian, British vice consul in Diyarbakir, reported to Ambassador White in response to British requests for facts about allegations that the Ottoman sultan had ordered a massacre of Armenians Christians. The Armenian stated that he could "most positively state" no such orders had ever been given. (16) Boyadjian also reported that he knew of a number of occasions where Armenians had settled their personal difference by exterminating each other and then placing the blame on the Muslims.

In the fall of 1889, the British vice consul reported to the consul that Armenians had created violence between Christians and Muslims in places where Armenians were a very small minority. The Armenian terrorists killed several Muslims and stirred up those who remained alive. The purpose of such acts was to provoke the Muslims into attaching the minority Christians and the terrorists would then cry out "fanatical Muslims" were massacring Armenian Christians. (17) Once the Armenian terrorists made up and told these stories, they knew it would be spread by the different Armenian organizations throughout Europe. Just one of the many examples was a story published by the London Daily News on December 11, 1889. The newspaper stated an Armenian living in the village of Zitzan had been roasted to death by Muslims. British vice consul Devey called the newspaper article "absurd» (l 8).

In 1890 the Dashnakists increased their campaigns of terror. It was their objective to create a continuous revolutionary campaign that would bring Europeans into the Ottoman Empire to support the Christian Armenian effort to overthrow the government. The Armenian terror organization ordered its followers "to shoot the Turks everywhere, under any circumstance, to kill the reactionaries those who violate their oath and Armenian spies and to take revenge» (19).

The Armenians were doing everything in their power to get a foreign government to come into the Ottoman Empire and take the lands they coveted, by force of arms, and then give the six eastern Anatolian provinces to them. The Armenians claimed these lands as their "ancient" homeland. There was first one basic problem with this tall tale the Armenians were trying to sell to anyone who listened to them. Armenians made up a small minority of population. In 1892 the Geographical Section of the British Foreign Office provided the following details of population of the lands the Armenians coveted. (20)









The Dashnak terror organization began to prepare for its revolution within these six provinces. It used Russian Armenia as the center for arms collection and campaigns of terror directed at the Turks. The Dashnaks were greatly helped by the Armenian Church. As a church, their officials crossed the Ottoman - Russian border on a regular basis. Many church officials used their positions to help the Armenian revolutionary movement; the church was an important communication link between terrorist Dashnaks in the southern Caucasus and Anatolia, and between the same terrorists and the Russian government. This active presence and participation of Armenian Church priests and bishops brought together the primary gun power ingredients for Armenians, church, and nationalism.

Church officials also provided practical help to the terrorists. One example was the monastery of Derik, which was located just across the Ottoman - Persian border in Persia. Bagrat Vartakael Tavarklian was the abbot of the monastery, which he turned it into an arsenal and infiltration center for Armenian terrorists and their activities in Ottoman lands.

They used violence as their primary weapon not only against Muslims but also on their fellow Armenians if they didn’t support or cooperate with them. These terrorists mutilated the bodies of their victims to create horror and fear. In June 1893 near the convent at Kilise, a number of Armenians were killed and accused of being “informers”. After the Armenians were killed by their own, the terrorists cut off their ears and nailed them above the entrance door of the convent. (21)

A.J.Arnold was the secretary of the Evangelical Alliance. In February 1894 he observed that the leaders of the Armenian terrorist movement were attempting to divide Turkey for their own selfish motives. The secretary noted how the Armenians were smart enough to spread stories about the persecution of Christians to influence Protestant Britain against Turkey. The missionaries were in agreement about "the wickedness of the Armenian revolutionary movement» (22).

Arnold later wrote in a Presbyterian publication: "Has this Armenian trouble been, after all, a persecution, on religious grounds, of law - abiding, God - fearing men, or has it been a civil and military prosecution of reckless, misguided men for high treason and murder?" (23). Arnold answered his own question: The Armenians were reckless, misguided men who were committing high treason and murders.

In 1894 British embassy officials assigned to Istanbul reported that the Armenian revolutionary movement did not begin in the Ottoman Empire and the leaders were Russian Armenians. The British had learned that the organizers were actually a very small group of men who came into the Ottoman Empire in 1892 and during a meeting in Kars planned their campaign of terror (24).

The Armenian terrorists were so ruthless they even made an attempt to assassinate their own church patriarch. The French ambassador in Istanbul wrote a report about the criminal act. The ambassador stated that on Sunday, April 27, 1894, Patriarch Ashikian, while returning to Istanbul after a religious ceremony at the Kumkapi church, was attacked by an eighteen - year - old Armenian boy who attempted to shoot the patriarch but his pistol failed to fire. The eighteen - year - old stated that he was a member of the Hunchak terrorist organization (25).

In February 1895 Sir Ellis Bartlett, a member of British parliament, published a pamphlet about the Armenian campaigns of terror. He stated that "most of the tales so widely circulated in connection with the Turco-Armenian incidents, were manufactured and directed by the most imaginative and malevolent spirit. The deliberate object of the agitators was not to obtain redress for the Armenian sufferings, but to excite feelings in their country (England) against Turkey and the Turks».

Bartlett went on to explain that the stories had been, in many cases, made up for the purposes of those who had invented them. "The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees" and had been "wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Panslavic societies». After the Turco-Bulgarian incidents of 1876, the same war game was being played with these so - called Armenian atrocities in 1894 and 1895.

Bartlett pointed out clearly the Armenian claim "that the Christian subjects of the sultan were denied all liberty, and atrociously presented was a thoroughly false one». He continued by saying "no other government had for the past four centuries shown so much toleration, or given so much religious freedom as that of the Ottoman Empire. Every form of religion – Greek, Jewish, Nestorian, Roman Catholic and all others – were allowed perfect liberty of practice and doctrine. Had the Turks been less generous in the past, they would have escaped many of their present troubles. When heretics were being burnt to death in France and Germany, and even in England, the Ottoman Government allowed its subjects entire religious freedom».

Bartlett stated that M. Ximeues, "a Spanish geographer and a man of science, a gentleman of much ability and general information," was "an eyewitness to the rebellion and that he, too, contradicted the Armenian `massacre` allegations. Ximeues was a visitor to many of the places where the Armenians "alleged outrages "had taken place. He stated in clear and simple terms that the "stories so widely circulated in such a horrible language and with such circumstantial detail, was a gigantic fraud». Ximeues stated that "the stories of thousands of Armenians being murdered, their women being raped, of scores of villages being destroyed, of tortures and outrages of many kinds being inflicted upon the priests, women and men, are simply the wildest invention of falsehood». Bartlett also quoted from Ximeues, who observed that "Armenians are, of all the oriental races, the most subtle, adroit and prone to lying».

Bartlett concluded by saying that "England and, to a certain extent, Europe, have been imposed upon by a gigantic deception. In particular proprietors and editors of the great English journals have incurred a very serious responsibility by printing, as they recklessly have done, every tale – many of them so absurd and impossible as to bear their contradiction on the face of them – which has been poured forth by the Armenian manufacturing of lies. Such specimens of manufactured atrocities all came from Armenian sources and were published in British press» (26).

Captain Charles Norman, a British artillery officer sent to the Ottoman Empire, wrote of what he witnessed in 1895. The captain observed that England had yet to learn the "disturbances in Asia Minor are the direct outcome of a widespread anarchist movement of which she has been the unconscious supporter. Nothing that so much had been written for the avowed purpose of proving the Armenians to be a model of all weakness, and the Turk a monster of cruelty». Norman believed that it was important "in the interests of peace, truth, and justice to point out the aims and objectives of the Armenian revolutionaries». Captain Norman reported that "the Hunchak committee was directly responsible for all the bloodshed in Anatolia for the past five years.` He stated that Armenian allegations that the Muslims had started the incidents were just not true.

British Captain Norman referred to an Armenian manifesto, dated November 19, 1895, addressed to the Armenians of the Adana region he had in his possession that stated: "Armenians, arm your people now for the battle. Let us draw our swords and fall on the foe». He said British journalists were "duped by Armenians». Norman added that the British press reports of what he called "the touching story of Armenian matrons throwing their children over the cliff at Antakh Dagh (Sasun), and their jumping over themselves to avoid dishonor, is an absolute myth». The captain questioned the Armenian use of population numbers and said they were "very much exaggerated as were the figures listing their victims».

In 1894 the Ottoman government established the Sasun Inquiry Commission to evaluate the allegations made by the Armenians. In addition to Muslim members, there were also British, French and Russians on the commission. The commission made a finding that Armenians and Turks were equally guilty of attacking each other. However, H. S. Shipley, the British delegate, filed a separate report. He stated that "the stories of the wholesale butchery of the Armenians by the Turkish soldiers, especially the slaughter of Armenian women in the church at Geliguzan, and the convent of Surp merapa in Talari, were without foundation» (27).

British vice consul Captain Dickson wrote a report to Ambassador Lowther on September 30, 1908: "The Armenian in subjection, such as I have seen him, is an unsympathetic, mean, cringing, unscrupulous, lying, thieving, and, given his freedom, he loses none of these bad qualities, but in addition becomes insolent, domineering, and despotic. He is endowed with a sort of sneak thief sharpness, which among ignorant people in these parts passes for intelligence» (28)

Dickson also reported that the goals and objectives of the Dashnak Society were "preposterously ambitious" and they were seeking to establish an Armenian republic created from parts of the Ottoman, Persian, and Russian lands. The Dashnak Society was proposing that all non - Armenians would be removed from these lands once it was in control. Dickson stated that the Armenian Church was so involved in the scheme to help the Dasknaks, their priests were telling members they must marry young and create large families so they could "swamp" all other nationalities who lived in the regions the Armenians coveted (29).

How the Armenian Sneak Land Grab Works

Present - day Armenians learned their lesson of ethnic cleansing well from their turn - of - the - century ancestors. When they made their sneak attack on Azerbaijan in 1992 and captured 20 percent of the country, the first thing they did was to use terror to remove more than a million Muslims without compensation of any kind by driving them away from their homes.

By the turn of the twentieth century Armenian terrorists realized they had to have help from outside Christian nations if they were going to create their dictatorial state from sea to sea. Shortly after the turn of the century, the Dashnak Society was sending their people to the Christian nations of the world to help build support for their, at the time, fifty - year - old "ancient" homeland. The Dashnaks called these Armenians in other nations their "Armenian colonies». The work of these original colonies continues to this very day. The colonists have formed a powerful political lobby group that works for the best interests of their "ancient" homeland, before the best interests of the United States or other Christian nations where they may reside, even if they are citizens of that particular country.

Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, a number of Armenians and Armenophiles in Christian countries these colonists had organized, began extensive lobby campaigns to pressure their governments to actively support their fifty - year - old "ancient" homeland. In England, Ambrose Hopkins sent a report of Armenian actions to British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey dated September 24, 1908. Hopkins attached a copy of a resolution passed "at a large public meeting held at the High Street Baptist Chapel at Abenzychan. The resolution expressed sorrow that nothing had yet been done by the European powers for the "suffering" Armenians. The Baptist Chapel stated its conviction that the solution to the Armenian problem lay in the "separation of Armenia from authority and influence of the cruel Turk» (30).

This was the beginning of the Armenians playing the Christian versus Muslim card around the world with no basis of truth to deceive the Christian world into helping them obtain other people’s lands for free. Just what kind of Christians are these Armenians? Are the Armenians telling the truth when they claim they are innocent of terrorist activity and the Ottoman Turks had no reason to persecute them? How it is that Armenians themselves were guilty of the crimes they claim Turks have committed?

The Armenian Church was active in preaching terrorism. For example, a British official report states that Armenian priests were urging their congregations to buy arms. The report added that such priest’s messages were done openly, indiscreetly, and in some cases, "wickedly». The report asked the question what could be thought of a preacher – a Russian Armenian, who, in a church in Adana where there had never been a massacre as Armenians claimed – who preached revenge for the "martyrs" of 1895. The bishop (Moushed) preached "revenge" from his pulpit "murder for murder. Buy arms. A Turk for every Armenian of 1895».

There was an American missionary present at one such sermon preached by Bishop Moushed. The American got up and walked out of the church. This bishop toured the entire region preaching that any Armenian who had a coat should sell it and go buy arms» (31). Certainly acts of revenge were never taught or accepted by Jesus Christ. Perhaps this Armenian Church doctrine of revenge is why Armenians of today hate Muslims so much.

Moushed was the Armenian bishop of Adana. A British report states he made inflammatory speeches, "paraded around carrying arms and had his photo taken in clothing of the type worn by Armenian revolutionary leaders». The British ambassador in a report to London on May 4, 1909, stated that Bishop Moushed must assume great responsibility for the outburst of violence by Armenians (32).
There are press reports that the Armenian Church in the Kozan subprovince also played an important role in the Armenian rebellion in Adana. This Armenian Church was the headquarters of the terrorists who planned and carried out the revolt. Terrorists used the church, with the approval of church officials, to wait for the order to revolt (33).

In 1914, as World War I approached, Armenian militants hoped the Ottoman Empire would become involved in the war and they began to intensify their preparations for the coming conflict. During that summer Kevork V, the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin, wrote to Count Varantsou - Dashkan, the viceroy of the Caucasus in an attempt to take advantage of the coming war for the benefit of the Armenians. The Catholicos proposed a scheme to solve what he called the "Armenian question». Even though Muslims made up a large majority, this religious leader proposed that the "Armenian provinces" of Anatolia be placed into one single province and placed under a Christian governor appointed by the Russians. The Catholicos leader also asked for a large amount of Armenian autonomy. If the Russians would agree to this scheme, the cleric promised that all Armenians would give unconditional support to helping Russia fight the Ottoman Empire.

In addition to the letter to the viceroy, the Catholicos wrote directly to Czar Nicholas II proposing the scheme. The czar responded by writing, "Tell your flock, Holy Father, that a most brilliant future awaits the Armenians» (34).

Needless to say the Russians never intended to give the Armenians the free Ottoman lands they coveted. The naive Armenian Dashnaks continued to try to make deals with Russia. R. McDowell of the British foreign office reported that Russian leaders made great use of Armenian terrorists when the war began. McDowell stated that the Russians "made very considerable use of the Dashnak Society for secret service purposes in Turkey; and for creating disturbances and opposing the Turks in Asia Minor» (35). This is but one of the countless examples of how the Armenian Church worked as one with the terrorist dictator Armenian Revolutionary Federation. This joining of church and terrorist political action that began early in the twentieth century continues to this very day.

Alexander Khatissian, the president of the Armenian National Bureau, wrote to the Czar supporting the scheme to give Armenians control of the majority Muslim population in eastern Anatolia. He played the Christian versus Muslim card in this manner when he wrote, "From all the countries the Armenians are hurrying to enter the ranks of the glorious Russian Army in order, with their blood, to serve for the victory of the Russian arms.... Let the Russian flag fly freely over the Dardanelles and the Bosphorus.... Let the Armenian people of Turkey, who have suffered for the faith of Christ, receive resurrection for a new life under the protection of Russia» (36).

When World War I began, Garaket Hagopian, head of the Armenian Patriotic Association in London, wrote to Sir Edward Grey, the British Foreign Secretary. Hagopian stated that the Armenian people had not been sitting back watching as idle spectators and that when the war broke out, they offered up "special supplications in their Churches for the success of the land and sea forces of the British Empire» (37). As what has become typical for Armenians, they were trying to make deals with every European nation for their own selfish ends.

The Armenians organized in eastern Armenia with the Russians` active help. The Armenians pretended to be the friends of the Turks and loyal to the Ottoman government while making plans to make sneak attacks along the supply lines of the Ottoman Army. Armenians targeted Van, Bitlis, Erzurum, Karahisar, Sivas, Kayseri, and Diyarbakr. They smuggled weapons into these areas and hid them in their churches and schools. Thereafter, Armenian thugs, consisting mostly of Ottoman army deserters, began to attack and murder unarmed Muslim villagers.

It was because of the ever - increasing Armenian hit - and - run attacks throughout eastern Anatolia that caused the Ottoman Army military command to realize the Armenians were planning an organized rebellion. The Ottoman Army officers were right. In the middle of February 1915, the Armenian Dashnak terrorist organization established a war command made up of thirty members. The Armenian bishop of Karahisar headed this terrorist war command. On February 20 an Ottoman military unit was attacked from the Arak Monastery where Armenian priests were hiding and protecting terrorists. (38)

Armenians joined forces with the Russians in an attempt to overthrow the Ottoman government by force of arms. Clearly, Armenians were leading terrorists attacks behind the Ottoman battle lines and these attacks were disrupting the supply lines of the Ottoman army.

Who First Made Up and Told the Tall Tale of a Massacre?

The Ottoman government asked help from the Armenian Church to stop the Armenian hit - and - run attacks. In an attempt to stop what the Ottoman government called "Armenian treachery," it asked for a meeting with the Armenian Church patriarch. The government advised him it would take drastic action and remove the Armenians from behind their army if they didn’t stop their terrorist attacks that were hurting the army’s ability to fight the advancing Russians. The Armenian patriarch and Armenian leaders considered this request a sign of weakness and increased military attacks behind the Ottoman lines. (39)

On May 12, 1915, Sir Henry McHahon, the British high commissioner in Cairo, sent a secret message to the foreign Office in London. The high commissioner reported that the Armenians were creating large - scale problems for the Turkish Army. (40).

On April 24, 1915, the Ottoman government made the decision to remove the Armenians from all strategic places where many of them were assisting the Russians. The Armenian rebellions and their guerrilla activities brought about this action. On May 26, 1915, the Ottoman government directed the ministry of the interior to evacuate the Armenians from the eastern provinces in Anatolia. They were to be sent far enough away so as to prevent them from reorganizing new rebellions and guerrilla activities. (41)

There were situations where individual Turks did take advantage of the Armenians and atrocities were committed. However, the record is clear the Ottoman government later brought criminal charges and convicted 1,397 Turks for crimes against the Armenians. Since the Ottoman government punished 1,397 of its own officials for committing atrocities against Armenians, how can the Ottoman government be guilty of genocide? The Armenians presented their ludicrous demands for reparations against the Ottoman government to the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I. The victorious Allies gave the Armenians nothing. Now, almost ninety years later, Armenians continue to tell the same old worn - out tale and demand reparations, atonement, penance, self - condemnation, an apology, and indemnity from the Turkish government.

Based on non - Armenian and non - Turkish sources, the evidence clearly shows the Armenians are still not entitled to reparations. Armenia has continued to seek a foreign power, such as the United States, to not only give it billions of dollars in handouts, but to also use its influence to get something for nothing from Turkey.

These Armenians have cost the United States dearly in friendships in the Muslim world. The Armenian government, the Armenian Church, and the Armenian - American colony in the United States do not merit support from Americans because they are wrong. Americans can’t afford the luxury of indulging Armenian - professed Christianity against Muslims when the Armenians are committing ethnic cleansing and stealing a neighbor’s lands.

After almost ninety years, the United States is throwing good money after bad to keep up this little state. The Armenians invited the Russians to come into their state and build and maintain Russian troops after 1992 when Armenian invaded Azerbaijan. Russian soldiers are stationed in Armenian today. Russian MIG fighter jets are based in Armenia today. The Russians have a large number of surface - to - air missile batteries set up in Armenia today. Let the Russians support these people.

Was there genocide? The British government – no friend of the Turks – didn’t think so at the time. On January 16, 1920, W. S. Edmonds, consular officer of the Eastern Department where the Armenians allege the genocide took place, prepared the minutes of a foreign office meeting, which stated, "there is not enough evidence here to bring home the charge of massacre any closer». Dwight Osborne, a clerk of the Eastern Department noted, "On the contrary, the last paragraph of the order of the (Ottoman) Minister of the Interior specifically warns against measures likely to lead to massacres» (42).

Consider this British report: Russia, Great Britain, and the United States had a number of their officials in eastern Anatolia in 1915. They didn’t see any proof of a massacre of Armenians ordered by the Ottoman government. The first information the Russians, English, and Americans received that such a horrible thing was taking place came from the Catholicos of Echmiadzin. There is no question he hated Turks and was helping the Russians.

Consider the importance of Echmiadzin to the Armenian Church. It is called their "holy city». It was the gathering place of the 1,700 - year anniversary of Armenians claiming to be the first Christian state on earth. The Armenian Church’s web site states the "Mother Church of Holy Echmiadzin was completed in the year 303 a. d. This place was chosen after the Holy Vision of St. Gregory the Illuminator. He claimed to have seen Jesus` descent from heaven to the holy place, hence the name Echmiadzin; site of the Lord’s descent, or the descent of the only begotten Son of God. This was the place where the chief priest of the Armenian’s would be the first to start the tall tale of a Turkish massacre of Armenians many weeks before the event could have actually taken place. Examine the proof and the chief priest’s timetable: Consider this historical fact: The Ottoman government made the decision to remove the Armenians on April 24, 1915, in Istanbul. Three days later before there was a start of the actual removal of the eastern Anatolia Armenians, the Catholicos of Echmiadzin told the Russian government the Ottoman government was committing a massacre of Armenians. How can a massacre take place when the government had not started the actual removal and not a single Armenian had yet to pack a bag to leave home?

The Russian ambassadors in Rome and Washington, D.C. were directed to support the "Armenian protest». The Russians thought that by a widespread effort, American and American public opinion would be influenced to enter the war against Germany and the Ottoman Empire. Italy did enter the war within the next month after this "big lie" campaign began, but it would be another two years before the United States entered the war and then only against Germany.

On this infamous April 27 date, the Russian ambassadors in London proposed that the Russian, British, and French governments publish a protest message directed to the Ottoman government stating they were holding the Turkish officials responsible for the “massacres”.

George T. Clerk of the British foreign office was uneasy about the Russian request. He expressed doubts when he wrote, "Before we take action such as is here suggested it would be well to find out what we can about these reported massacres. I think, therefore, we might begin by instructing our ambassadors at Rome and Washington to support their Russian colleagues, if they find that the Italian and the U.S. governments accept the statements of the Catholicos as credible. And if they do, we will prepare a communication to the Ottoman government such as here suggested» (43) Two days later, on April 29, 1915, the British foreign office in London sent the following instruction to Sir Cecil Spring - Rice, their ambassador in Washington: "If the government to which you are accredited [United States] consider the case as presented by the Catholicos justifies their intervention, you may support your Russian colleague» (44).

The British government sent these same instructions to its ambassadors in Rome and Russia. The London foreign office also advised Sir George Buchanan, its Russian ambassador, that the Russian foreign minister wanted three governments – Russia, France, and England – to send a joint message to the Ottoman government protesting the "reported massacres of Armenians». The foreign office also advised Ambassador Buchanan, "before taking this step I think it would be advisable to await the result of the appeal of the Armenian Catholicos to the Governments of the U.S. and Italy for their intervention at Constantinople» (45)

On May 11, 1915, the British ambassador to Russia advised Foreign Secretary Grey that the Russian Foreign Minister thought the Allies should let it be known to the Ottoman government they would hold its leaders responsible at the end of the war "for any massacre of Armenians». The Russian also suggested the three allied governments publish a declaration regarding this matter on a specific day to be agreed upon. The Russian foreign minister suggested the following language for each of the three Christian nations to sign and publish in an attempt to protect the Christian Armenians: "In face of these fresh crimes committed by Turkey against Christianity and civilization, the allied Governments announce publicly to the Sublime Porte that they will hold all the members of the Ottoman Government, as well as such of their agents as are implicated personally responsible for the Armenian massacres» (46).

On May 23, 1915, the Ottoman government sent its first relocation order to the 4th Army Command stating that Armenians were to be removed and to where they would be sent. (47) It would take time to begin the actual removal of Armenians. On May 24, 1915, the allies did publish such a declaration, warning the Ottoman government it would be held responsible for the "Armenian massacres». The Ottoman government issued a prompt denial of the allied governments allegations.

It was not until May 30 that the Ottoman Council of Ministers approved the relocation of the Armenians from behind the battle lines of the Ottoman army in eastern Anatolia – six days after the Allies of Russia, England, and France told them they would be held accountable for the "Armenian massacres" that had already taken place because of the relocation that hadn’t even started. All this foreign government activity was started by an Armenian priest, weeks before the actual order to move Armenians had been issued. This claim of a "massacre" is a tall tale started by an Armenian priest clearly without basis or fact? This was nothing more than a "big lie" like those made famous by the German Nazi and Russian Communist leaders. The only difference between the Germans, Russians, and Armenians is the fact this tiny band of Armenians is nothing more than a "wannabe”.

Armenians were disloyal to the Ottoman Empire. After World War I, Armenia made a surprise attack on its neighbor Georgia in a land - grab attempt and lost. Next, Armenia attacked its neighbor Azerbaijan in another land - grab attempt and lost. Thereafter, Armenia began making preparations to attack the Turks in yet another land - grab attempt. This time the Turks were ready and attacked the Armenians first. They lost again because their soldiers threw down their weapons and ran. The Armenians begged for weapons from the British to help them defend their state from the Russians. Once they received this aid they made a secret deal with the Russians to join the Soviet Union.

Once the Cold War ended, the Armenians talked the Russians out of more than a billion dollars of military arms and supplies. Then the Armenians made an attack on neighbor Azerbaijan once again. This time Armenia captured 20 percent of the country and forced more than 1 million Muslims out of their homes. Armenia has now invited Russia to come into the country and build military bases. These Russian military bases are there today and Russians soldiers man them.

Consider what Kevork V, the Catholicos of the Armenians, did on July 15, 1915. This high priest wrote a letter to Boghos Noubar, who in turn contacted Sir Arthur Nicholson of the British foreign office. This high priest wanted the Allies to create an "autonomous and neutralized Armenia». The new state of Armenia was to receive the six eastern provinces of Turkey and Cilicia. The priest also wanted a commercial outlet by way of Mersin.

Naubar Pasha proposed that there would be both political and economic advantages – especially to England because by "establishing the new Armenia` the British would secure a neutralized terminus for its overland route to India». Noubar proposed that "this new Armenia should be under the protection of all three Allied Powers and not just Russia alone» (48). This is two months from the time the Ottomans began moving all the Armenians from the six provinces coveted by the Armenian Church because they were so active in helping the Russians. The Armenian Church wasn’t concerned about the Armenian refugees – the church was only interested in talking the Allies out of these same lands so Armenia could establish its own state. This attitude proves the intent of the Armenian leaders and shows yet again there wasn’t a Turkish massacre as the Armenian priest claimed back in April.

On July 22, 1915, leaders of the Committee of Armenian National Defense of Cairo, Egypt, met with British Lieutenant - General Sir John Maxwell and asked his help for Armenians in eastern Anatolia. They stated to the General that a volunteer movement, commanded by their national revolutionary committee, was well underway among their "Armenian colony" in the United States and elsewhere. (49)

In July 1915 the Armenian Church patriarch sent out telegrams to all the Christian nations of Europe, telling them of the horrible conditions facing the Armenians in eastern Anatolia and how they were being forced out of their homes and removed from the Ottoman eastern Anatolia lands. Of course, the patriarch never once mentioned the Ottomans had asked his help to stop terrorist activities in this region by his church members and he had refused to help the legal government maintain peace. The British saw this "Christian" letter as a public relations opportunity to create even more anti - Turkish attitudes. Lord Robert Cecil, under - secretary of state for foreign affairs, thought the American press should know of the patriarch’s letter. He sent a copy to the British embassy in Washington, D.C. He suggested that the ambassador should perhaps "arrange to put it into the right hands». Lord Cecil admitted, "We cannot vouch for all the particulars given» (50).

On December 9,1915, the Armenian Church patriarch volunteered to recruit 250 Armenian prisoners of war being held in India to join the French Foreign Legion and send them to Cyprus for training. This Armenian French Foreign Legion, d`Orient recruited by the patriarch would become "holy terror" to innocent Muslims living in eastern Anatolia. No troops would be more vicious and cutthroat to civilians than these Armenians anywhere during and after the war.

The French brought in these Armenians recruited by the Armenian Church patriarch. After the war, the French imposed harsh rule on the Turks and used the Armenians of the French legion d` orient as enforcers.

J.H.S. Dessez was the commanding officer of the U.S. Navy warship the U.S.S. Smith Thompson. On May 3, 1920, he reported to his commanding officer, Admiral Mark Bristol (U.S. Department of state Decimal File 867.00/1288) that American missionaries were creating problems. He describes one such missionary: "Dr. Nichols I consider a very dangerous man who can do a great deal of harm if given a free hand. He is a religious fanatic apparently, anxious to have something sensational take place between the Turks and Armenians, in order to influence public opinion in the United States. He impressed me as rather glorying the fight between Armenians and Turks.

Admiral Bristol forwarded this report to the state department in Washington. The admiral added, "Particular attention is called to the remarks contained in this report regarding Dr. Nichols, who is in charge of the Near East Relief work for the territory embraced within Syria and Cilicia. There are some few of our Americans in Turkey who take this attitude».

Turkish police found anti - Muslim propaganda publications together with weapons and ammunition hidden in American missionary centers in several places in a police report dated May 25, 1921. General Hamelin requested that the Armenian Legionaries be replaced by French troops. Wherever they went, they terrorized the civilian population, killing, raping, and robbing Muslims.

British officers in Cilicia complained that the Armenians lacked all sense of discipline and refused to follow the orders of their own officers. In due course, these Armenians turned on the French. Admiral Bristol reported that his sources advised him that all "the killings going on in Cilicia were due to the French treatment of the Turks as uncivilized colonials and the French mistake of arming and supporting the Armenians» (This information is from Stanford Shaw; From Empire to Republic, Vol II, P 882 Ankara).

After the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 began, Russian troops fighting in the Ottoman Empire quickly deserted and returned home. The Armenians occupied the Turkish territories evacuated by the Russians. Major E.W.C. Noel of the British army inspected these lands a few months after the Armenians took charge. He filed an official report of what he witnessed on behalf of the British government: "As a result of these months touring through the area occupied and devastated by the Russian Army and the Christian army of revenge accompanying them, during the spring and summer of 1916. I have no hesitation in saying that the Turks would be able to make out as good a case against their enemies as that presented against the Turks. According to the almost universal testimony of the local inhabitants and eyewitnesses, Russians acting on the instigation and advice of Armenians who accompanied them murdered and butchered indiscriminately any Muslim member of the civil population who fell into their hands. A traveler through the Rowanduz and Nell districts would find widespread wholesale evidence of outrageous crimes committed by Christians on Muslims» (51).

The Armenians quickly began a campaign of murder, destruction, and rape to rid these lands of Muslims because they were the overwhelming majority of the population. The Armenians believed this would help them establish an Armenian state in Muslim lands because there would be no Muslim remaining. This was their reason for a campaign of terror and this policy continues today in Azerbaijan. Terror and violence have been official policy of Armenians since the beginning of their nationalist movement. An Armenian Russian author wrote of this time that Armenian political leaders had organized a campaign not for building a state for their people but rather worked to "exterminate" the Muslims who lived in the region and also to steal and plunder the Muslims` property. (52)

American General Harbord reported that "where Armenians advanced and retreated with the Russians, their cruelties unquestionably rivaled the Turks in their inhumanity» (53).

A British colonel reported that the Armenians "massacred between 300,000 and 400,000 Kurdish Muslims in the Van and Bitlis districts» (54)

On February 21, 1918, there was a British Foreign Office report that states: "I am afraid there is no doubt that the Armenians have been massacring. Colonel Pine has reported it to CITS, and it is only natural. Possibly the less attention called to the matter the better» (55).

Later, on March 20,1918 British Brigadier - General F. Clayton of General Headquarters Egyptian Expeditionary Force forwarded to the Foreign Office what he called "propaganda material" given to him by an Armenian priest of the Ourtass Convent of Bethlehem. The priest was spreading "Turk massacre" propaganda. William Young of the Foreign Office wrote, "Surely we do not want any more Armenian propaganda». S. Gaselee asked Arnold Toynbee what he thought. Toynbee responded: "The moment is hardly opportune as the Armenians seem to have been doing massacres during the recent fighting» (56)

Mark Sykes wrote a book in 1915 titled The Chaleph’s Last Heritage. He wrote, "The Armenian national revival was a calamity which has not yet reached its catastrophe. Mollahs and missionaries should be put under lock and key before any serious business is undertaken» (57).

Sykes had observed that generally the Armenian young men inspired "a feeling of distrust and their bearing is compounded of a peculiar covert insolence and a strange suggestion of suspicion and craft… The keynote of town Armenian’s character is a profound distrust of his own coreligionists and neighbors» (58).

Sir Mark Sykes continued to share his dealings and observation with Armenians: "The Armenians will willingly harbor

revolutionaries, arrange for their entertainment and the furthering of their ends. The pride of race brings about many singularities and prompts the Armenians to prey on missionaries, Jesuits, consuls and European traveler with rapacity and ingratitude. The poor Armenians will demand assistance in a loud tone, yet will seldom give thanks for a donation. Abuse of Consular officers and missionaries is only a part of the stock - in - trade of the extra - Armenian press.

"That the Armenians are doomed to be forever unhappy as a nation, seems to me unavoidable, for one - half of their miseries arises not from the stupid, rangy, ill - managed despotism under which they live, but from their own dealings with each other. In a time of famine at Van, Armenian merchants tried to corner the valuable grain; the Armenians Revolutionaries prefer to plunder their coreligionists to giving battle to their enemies; the anarchists of Constantinople threw bombs with the intention of provoking a massacre of their fellow countrymen. The Armenian villagers are divided against themselves; the revolutionary societies are leagued against one another, the priests connive at the murder of a bishop; the church is divided at its very foundation.

"Never were a people so fully prepared for the hand of a tyrant; never were a people so easy to be preyed upon by revolutionary societies; never was there a nation so difficult to lead or to reform. That these characteristics are the result of Muslim oppression I do not for one moment believe» (59).

Many scholars and authors throughout the Western world are in agreement that rarely, in the pages of history, have facts been so deliberately altered to deceive and create an untrue picture. The Armenians have told tall tales over and over again to create public opinion within the Christian world that they are a martyred state for the cause of Jesus Christ. The Armenians have enjoyed capitalizing on Christian prejudice, fear, and hatred of anything that was not Christian. (60)

The greatest tall tale being told by Armenians today is that more than 1.5 million of their forefathers were massacred by Turks in 1915 in what they claim was the first genocide of the twentieth century. These Armenians are coming up with more Armenians murdered than there were Armenians in Anatolia. Consider the numbers from the following sources:

M. Zarceshi, French Counsul at Van

Francis de Pressence (1895)

Torumnekize (1900)

Lynch (1901)

Ottoman census (1905)

British Blue Book fl 91 2)

L.D. Conterson (1913)

French Yellow Book

Armenian Patriarch Ormanian II
1, 579,000


The Reverend Doctor Cyrus Hamlin was the first president of the American missionary college in Istanbul (Robert College). He states a propaganda bureau was established in London in the 1870s which had, for its objective, the foreign spreading of news that made the Turks and Muslims look bad. He wrote that this ongoing attack on the Turks of this "one - sided and unreliable information" about any people would, after a long period of unchallenged time, would create hostility and hatred that would not be easily overcome». Dr. Hamlin went on to add, "Whenever I pick up a paper of western news I pray ? Lord, endow me with a suitable sense of unbelief» (61).

There can be no question but that from the beginning of the Armenian nationalist movement started in the 1800s. The early period was founded on the use of terrorism and violence. Not only did the Armenian Church not speak out as a voice of nonviolence and peace – it actively took part in and condoned the campaigns of terror.

During the 1970s and 1980s Armenian terrorists traveled the world assassinating seventy Turkish diplomats, their families and innocent civilians. The Armenian Church, in every nation but Turkey, stood silent while murder after murder was committed. By standing silent the Armenian Church condoned and approved of these worldwide acts of terror.

The 2001 Christian Encyclopedia provides some interesting information about Armenia and the Armenian Gregorian or Orthodox Church. This publication reports that Armenia claims to have a population of 3,520,000. There is information from other sources that reveal that more than 1 million Armenians left their tiny state between 1992 and 2001 and it appears that this population loss is perhaps not reflected in these population numbers.

Armenians claim that of the 3,520,000 people in their state, 2,959,051 are Christian. As of 2001 there were only 5,568 Muslims and 24 Jews remaining in Armenia. Six years before, in 1995, there were more than 150,000 Muslims in Armenia. Why did 145,000 Muslims move out of the country during the past six years? The answer is the ethnic cleansing efforts by the Armenian State and church. Today, some 94.5 percent of the population is "pure" Armenian. The balance of the population is 1.7 Northern Kurd, 1.5 percent Russian; 0.5 percent is Azerbaijani, and 0.2 percent Kurdish. The Armenians, by a sneak - surprise attack on its neighbor Azerbaijan, captured 20 percent of the latter and by force of arms drove out of their homes more than 1 million Muslims in 1992. This campaign of terror, murder, intimidation, and ethnic cleansing is why there are almost no Muslims left in Armenia.

Clearly, Armenia is seeking an ethnic pure state and this state is using well - known methods to ensure a pure race of nothing but Armenians. In the mid - 1800s European and American Protestant missionaries worked in Armenia with the vision of spreading the word of Jesus Christ. The Armenian Gregorian clergy opposed these foreign Christians and excommunicated any Armenian who followed them.

Because of the Armenian’s Church’s active opposition, the impact of foreign missionary efforts was small. The efforts of the missionary work of the Baptists reveals a clear picture of the power of the Armenian Gregorian Church. After working for many years, by 1996 there were only nine hundred Baptists in seven churches in Armenia. However, in 1930, there were thirty - eight hundred Baptists. If there is religious freedom for "all" Christians, why has the number of Baptists declined? There has also been a sharp drop in membership in the other Protestant churches as well.

The constitution of Armenia merges the state and church into one. The Armenian Gregorian Church leaders in 1993 pressured the state and an official state decree was issued, criticizing unregistered other Christian religious groups. The decree stated that other Christians were disruptive and charged that they opposed military service. The year 1993 is important because this was a time when Armenia was taking, by force of arms, its neighbor Azerbaijan’s lands, and ethnically cleansing these lands of the more than 1 million Muslims who lived there. Of course, the Armenians didn’t pay one red cent for these lands.

In these years state control over all religious groups, other than the Armenian Gregorian Church, was increased through the government council for Religious Affairs.

In 1995 the Armenian Minister for military affairs went on television and asked citizens to tell local authorities about were religious groups, other than the Armenian Gregorian Church, met to worship. Local police were directed to prepare a detailed list of individuals, other than Armenian Gregorian Church members, and state their religious affiliations.

Armenian police attacked and invaded the capital city offices of the Protestant American Missionary Association of America, harassed the employees and carried away records. The Armenian police also invaded Evangelical and Baptist churches and threatened worshipers during church services.

Outside of Armenia, the Armenian Gregorian Church enjoys total freedom of religion in more than one hundred countries of the world. It has a long history of foreign outreach in attempting to share its interpretation of Christianity. In other words, the Armenian Gregorian Church enjoys a double standard. Because the church and state are one, other Christian faiths are not allowed the freedoms this "official state church" enjoys in Armenia. However, the Armenian Gregorian Church enjoys the same freedom of religion as any other church in more than one hundred other nations throughout the world. Why do the Armenians fear other Christian denominations and refuse them the same freedoms as given to the official stated controlled Armenian Gregorian Church?

Since 451 a.d. the Armenian Gregorian or Orthodox Church shares communion with only three other "monophysite" churches. Those churches are located in Egypt, Syria, and Ethiopia. However, the Armenian Gregorian or Orthodox Church does seek out and ask for "humanitarian aid" from Christians and churches throughout the world even though it does not allow those churches total freedom of religion in Armenia. Monophysitism was declared heretical in the fifth century.

Contrast the closed ethnic Christian society in Armenia with the way the Armenian Church operates in the United States today.

The Armenian Church’s web site directs its American - Armenian members to do the following:

• Write/lobby your local, state, and national government officials to proclaim June 17, 2001, as Armenian Church Day.

• Organize lectures at non - Armenian Churches in your community to tell about the history and significance of 301 to 2001.

• Invite local clergy and their communities to your church.

• Visit churches in your community with your parish priest, tell them about the events in your parish, and invite their participation.

The Armenian Church appears to be friendly in the United States. However, there is no such openness in Armenia:

• The church and state are one.

• The Church and state have ethnically cleansed the lands of Muslims.

• It is all put impossible for any other Christian denomination to preach Jesus Christ in Armenia.

• The Church and State have stolen 20 percent of its neighbors` lands and forced more than 1 million Muslims to flee their homes.

• The Church and State publicly asked the population to report any religious services other than those of the Armenian Church.

• The Church and State police invade other denominations worship services, disrupt and harass those attending.

• The Church and State police raid American missionary headquarters in the capital city and carry off its records.

• The Church and State require individuals who do not belong to the Armenian Church to be registered by the church by state police.

• The Armenian Church excommunicates any Armenian who worships in any other Christian Denomination. The Armenian Church has condemned Armenians to hell for worshiping other than at the official church.

The great tragedy of the twentieth and twenty - first centuries is that Armenia and the Armenian Gregorian Church continue to live and act as though they are in the dark ages of history. The Armenian Gregorian Church, acting though the state, has created the "Armenian inquisition». Such as the Committees of Inquisition were widely used throughout Europe to seek out "heresy," just as the Armenian Gregorian Church continues to do today.

Heresy is defined as "a religious belief opposed to the Orthodox doctrines of a church; especially a belief specifically denounced by a church. An opinion opposed to official or established views or doctrines» (Inquisition is defined as "the general tribunal established in the thirteenth century for the discovery and suppression of heresy and the punishment of heretics».). Clearly the thirteenth century "inquisition" is alive and well in Armenia. The Armenian Gregorian Church is the tribunal to excommunicate Armenians who seek out any other Christian church. The church/state police list every person who worships God differently than the Armenian Gregorian Church. The Armenian Church/state police suppress "heresy" by disrupting other Christians` worship services and raiding American missionary organizations headquarters and carrying off records. In the case of Muslims, almost all of them have been killed or driven out of the state of Armenia in order that the state can be ethnically pure.

The state and church of Armenia, acting as one, since the beginning of their nationalist movement has resorted to the use of terrorism and the coveting of other people’s land. Peter wrote of such people in the New Testament: "Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander. Like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation» (1 Peter 2:1 - 2).

The Apostle James also wrote of actions such as those of the Armenians and what they must do to end their evil ways. James wrote (James 3:16 - 18): "For where jealousy and selfish ambitions exist, there is disorder of every evil thing. But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceful, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy. And the seed whose fruit is righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace».

Comparison of the American Civil Rights Movement to the Actions of the Armenian Church and Armenian State

The Armenian Church would do well to follow the example of African - Americans. Here are a people stolen from their "ancient" homeland by their own people and sold into slavery beginning in the 1600s. Black slaves sought their freedom from that time. The American Civil War was fought because of the issue of slavery.

It was not until 1955 when the Civil Rights Movement began in Montgomery, Alabama, that real - lasting victory would begin for these peoples. Dr. Martin Luther King headed this Civil Rights Movement. The reason Dr. King and the Civil Rights Movement had success is because it was based on the teachings of Christ and it was nonviolent. Regardless of the violence directed toward him (his home was bombed and many threats made against his life and he was murdered in the end) or his followers, King continually fought for the rights of all African - Americans in peaceful ways that were sometimes interrupted by not so peaceful police officers and white terrorists. Blacks were lynched, black churches were bombed, blacks were murdered; threats and vocal intimidation were commonplace, yet King and his followers waged a relentless campaign of nonviolence for the rights of African-Americans.

All Americans know this story and the success of the Civil Rights Movement that continues in peaceful ways today. Yet, there were Armenian - Americans during this period when African - Americans were using peaceful means in the 1950s and 1960s and until the present day waged their campaigns of terror here in the United States.

At the start of this chapter reference was made to the official Armenian Church web site. This church writes today "The two, nation and church, are so closely meshed that it appears that the phrase `national church` was specifically coined for the Armenians». When any fair - minded individual studies the actions of this state and church, joined as one, it is clear why the two cannot be one. Clearly the church is no voice of conscience in Armenia. The church never speaks out to condemn violence and terrorism but rather it takes an active part in such activities. Until there is a separation of church and state and the church stops its teaching of hate, revenge, and terror there will never be peace in the Near East.

In past years, Christians have made judgments about people based on religion and race. The "Christian" knights on the white horses many of us read about in our youth who rode into the holy land to save the Christian faith from the Muslims did more acts of violence and killed more people than did the Muslims. The true Christian story is not a pretty one.

Around 1800 in what today is the Caucasus, southern Russia, and the Balkans, the majority of people who lived there were Muslim. By 1923 all of this had changed and the Muslims were mostly gone. Between 1820 and 1923 millions of Muslims were driven from their homes and lands. More than 5.5 million died either by being killed in wars or driven from their homes and later dying from starvation or disease.

The story of Christian tragedy and deaths in these regions has been amply publicized in the Christian nations of the world. However, throughout the Christian world, the suffering of the Muslims has seldom been recorded.

When one looks closely at a map of Balkan, Anatolia, and the Caucasus regions of the world, one will discover the states existing there today are made up of fairly homogenous populations. These states were created in modern history because of wars and revolutions. They were created out of what was once a part of the Ottoman Empire. This singularity in ethnicity and religion and homogeneity in population came about because of ethnic cleansing. In simple terms, they were created on the suffering of Muslims.

Even though it is important to know and understand the truth, there is no historical mention in Western textbooks of this colossal Muslim loss. In the United States, for example, the Christian Armenian-American people have mounted campaigns in recent years to get the city, state, and national government to condemn Muslim Turkey for committing what the Armenians claim was “genocide” in 1915 of some 1.5 million of Christian Armenians. In addition, the Armenian-American Christians have successfully lobbied several state education departments to include classes for the children of their states, telling them of this alleged genocide.

After Five Hundred Years of Peaceful Coexistence, Armenian Terrorism Begins

The Ottoman Empire was vast. It stretched from Macedonia and Albania to European and Asian Turkey and then across the Middle East to the fringes of North Africa. The Ottoman government controlled twenty-two separate nationalities. None of those nationalities carries the hate, rage, and revenge attributed toward modern-day Turkey than the Armenians.

Nationalism came to the Ottoman Empire from western Europe. One reason the church was so involved in promoting nationalism within the minority communities in the Ottoman Empire was because the Ottoman government allowed religious freedom. Every religious community was permitted a great deal of autonomy. The Muslims made no special attempts to integrate members of other religions into the Muslim nation. The concept of "forced" conversion of Christians to Islam was almost nonexistent, which is contrary to what some textbooks and lobby groups say.

Christian people have never been told the rest of the story about the Ottomans and their tolerance and respect for other people’s religion. The truth is the Ottoman government gave the people in their empire the freedom to worship as they pleased without interference. Individuals calling themselves "Christians" used this freedom to build an anti-Ottoman nationalist sentiment and attitude among their people.

It was during the nineteenth century that the nationalist movement really began. Many Christians improved their economic condition and wished for political power as well. Such power was not to be within the empire. It was an easy step to argue that the Ottoman Muslims opposed God because they believed differently than Christians. This religious nationalism also made it simple to know just exactly who was the enemy. The religious difference would become the foundation for removal of millions of Muslims from the Balkans, Southern Russia, and the Caucasus, which were considered newly acquired Russian lands, which were taken away from the Muslims during nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

The Greeks were the first to begin a revolution in the region by wholesale murder and removal of Muslims. This became the example for others to use in their nationalist uprising within the Ottoman Empire. "The patriotic cry of the revolution, proclaimed by the Greek Archbishop Germanos, was `Peace to the Christians. Respect to the consuls. Death to the Turk" (l).

The revolution expanded and more and more Muslims were massacred or tortured to death. The Greeks sought Russian help but it was not given and the Ottomans soon regained control.

There was also the widespread killing of women and children. There were several towns where the entire Turkish population was gathered together and simply slaughtered. Consider Tripolitza:

For three days the miserable [Turkis] inhabitants were given over to the lust and cruelty of a mob of savages. Neither sex nor age was spared. Women and children were tortured before being put to death. So great was the slaughter that [guerrilla leader] Kolokotrones himself says that, when he entered the town, from the gate of the citadel his horse’s hoofs never touched the ground. His path of triumph was carpeted with corpses. At the end of two days, the wretched remnant of the Muslims were deliberately collected, to the number of some two thousand souls, of every age and sex, but principally women and children, were led out to a ravine in the neighboring mountains, and they were butchered like cattle. (2)

The Greeks saw all Turks as being the cause of not being able to establish an independent Greece from out of the past. The cold-blooded murder of all Muslims was in reality nothing more than political acts shamefully justified by religion. It was estimated that more than twenty-five thousand Turks were killed before the Ottomans regained order. However, this failed Greek revolution would set the stage for future revolutions within the Ottoman Empire. The pattern would always be the same. There would be a clear-cut policy of ridding the region of the Turkish Muslim people so a new national Christian identity could be established. Because it was so easy to determine the difference between religions, this became the basis of the removal.

The Greek religious leaders were in the forefront of the rebellion. Bishops and priests often were leaders. There is doubt the revolution would have ever begun had the people themselves started the revolution. The Greek Orthodox Church dreamed of a Greater Greece to extend all the way to Constantinople [Istanbul] for a rebirth of the Christian Byzantine Empire.

The Armenians, Bulgarians, and Russians would each follow with their own revolts and rebellions. The Ottoman Empire was in a long period of decay, and this is why the opportunity for success was present to these different peoples. In looking back over time, one notices that had the Ottomans not allowed people who lived within their empire to keep their identity, religion, language, and traditions throughout many centuries, the nineteenth-century rebellions might not have taken place at all. It can be said, therefore, that the Ottoman Empire, in a way, became a victim of its own religious respect and tolerance.

The Russian empire began to expand westward in the fourteenth century. By the time of Peter the Great (1689-1725), Muslim influence had been greatly reduced. As the Russians expanded, they did not make the same mistake as the Ottomans. They were not tolerant of a people’s religion in a newly conquered territory that differed from their Christian beliefs. The Russians would clear the new lands they took from Muslims and simply replace them with Armenian Christians brought from elsewhere. This was the eighteenth century beginning of what Armenians would later call their "historic homeland", even though Muslims had occupied those lands for a much longer period of time and lived there longer than the Armenian Christians.

The first sizable group of Muslims to be removed was the Crimean Tartars. These people traced their descent back to Turkic tribes who came to the region between 1000 a.d. and 1300 a.d. during different periods of conquest. By 1774 the Ottomans realized the Russians had taken control of the Crimea and Christians began to be resettled on these lands.

This would be only the start of the Russian removal of Muslims as they expanded westward. Forced expulsion became official Russian policy. If Muslims did not leave on their own free will, military force was used to remove them. These "wars" began in the west with the Greek rebellion of 1821 and the Russian-Ottoman War of 1828-1829. Several wars would follow and it was this Russian removal of Ottoman Muslims that led to many of the problems today.

Each time the Russians moved west, seeking warm-water ports, Muslims were forced from their lands, and if they resisted, they were massacred as a matter of Russian policy. The nineteenth century was a period of terror for Muslims who began the century living in the Balkans, Caucasus, and Anatolia and ended up, after losing a major portion of their population to pogroms and ethnic cleansing, in Anatolia by the twentieth century. There were many massacres and forced removals. Throughout the Christian world the deaths of Greeks, Armenians, and Bulgarians have often been told as they shared the same religion. What hasn’t been told is what happened to the Muslims. Their suffering was much greater than the combined Christian losses.

To properly understand the establishment of the Armenian state, one must understand the region’s history in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. This historical account must be told as the point of beginning to truly understand how the terrorist state Armenia was formed. Noted historian and author Justin McCarthy evaluated the situation in these words.

Most of what has been called the history of the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries has in fact been mostly propaganda from the ethnic groups that vied for control of the region. While more than willing to exaggerate the losses of their own groups, the authors of such histories seem to have been unaware those enemy groups suffered losses as well. This has led to a tendency to label battles as massacres and wars as `genocide.` To do otherwise would be to admit that both sides were shooting and both sides died. (3)

There were Armenians cooperating with the Russians as early as the 1700s. Armenian Church officials encouraged and supported a Russian invasion of the Caucasus. In the 1790s the Armenian Church archbishop, Argutinskii-Dolgorukov, made a public proclamation that he hoped the Russians "would free the Armenians from Muslim rule» (4).

As the nineteenth century began, Muslims made up a vast majority of the population of Anatolia, the Balkans, the Caucasus, and southern Russia. By 1923, only Anatolia, eastern Thrace, and a part of southeastern Caucasus remained Muslim. Millions of Muslims had disappeared during a one-hundred-year period.

To have a full understanding of Anatolia, the Caucasus, and the Balkans of the nineteenth century, one must understand and appreciate the circumstances of the Muslims` historic homeland and their eviction from it. This is the foundation upon which Russian imperialism and Armenian nationalism is based.

The sad spin of history is that it has been written omitting the basic fact of Muslim contributions and Muslim losses. Justin McCarthy explains it in these words: "Despite the historical importance of Muslim losses, it is not to be found in textbooks. Textbooks and histories that describe massacres of Bulgarians, Armenians, and Greeks have not mentioned corresponding massacres of Turks.... The history of the Balkans, the Caucasus, and Anatolia has been written without mention of one of its main protagonists, the Muslim population» (5).

History notes that some Armenians supported the Russian army in the early 1700s. From this point in time to today, both the Armenian people and their church supported Russian invasions into the Caucasus. Christian Armenians were the eyes and ears of each Russian military campaign against the Muslim Ottomans.

During each of the Russian-Ottoman wars, the Ottoman Armenians crossed the battle lines on a regular basis to provide military information to the enemy, the Russians. Because of their active assistance of the Russians, thousands of Armenians left Anatolia when the Russians retreated, fearing natural retaliations by Muslims. This practice continued until the Ottomans finally removed all Armenians from eastern Anatolia in 1915 during World War I because of their active help of the invading Russian army.

Armenians established a revolutionary political organization in 1890 with the purpose of overthrowing the Muslim Ottoman government. The Russians supplied the arms and assistance to these Armenian revolutionaries.

The activities of the revolutionaries were greatly facilitated by the relationship to the Armenian Church. As a body, the church naturally crossed the Ottoman-Russian border, because its two centers were in Echmiadzin, in Russian Armenia, and in Istanbul, and clerics, bishops, and ideas freely crossed between the two ecclesiastical jurisdictions. Using the facilities of the church, revolutionary clerics easily kept up communication between revolutionaries in the southern Caucasus and Anatolia and the Russian government. The presence in the Armenian revolutionary movement of priests and bishops brought together the two foci of Armenian identity – the church and modern nationalism. It also gave religious blessing to secular nationalism and presented Armenian nationalism in a religious context easily understood by eastern Anatolian Armenian villagers. Moreover, church officials also gave practical assistance to the revolution. For example, the monastery of Derik, on the Persian side of the Ottoman-Persian border, was organized by it revolutionary abbot (Bagrat Vardapet Tavaklin, or Akki`) into an arsenal and infiltration point for Armenian revolutionaries acting in the Ottoman Empire (6).

The Armenians have long been experienced in building organizations to support their cause of obtaining free lands from someone else. Armenian organization building can be traced back to 1860 when the Benevolent Union was founded in Istanbul to what was titled “Restore Cilicia”.

In 1878 revolutionary organizations were founded. The Black Cross was organized in Van. This group has been compared to the Ku Klux Klan in the United States. In 1881 the Defenders of the Motherland was founded in Erzurum. There is a detailed Russian military account in Chapter Eleven of this book that shows additional proof Armenians were nothing more than terrorists in this region of the Ottoman lands. The Armenian Party was founded as a revolutionary political party.

In 1885 an Armenian Newspaper was founded in France by Migirdich Portakalian, a former school teacher from Van. There would be several foreign Armenian newspapers to follow. In addition, countless numbers of Portakalian’s former students became revolutionaries.

The Revolutionary Hunchak Party was founded by the youth of wealthy Armenian families who had sent their children to Paris, France, to obtain an education. Several of these young people adopted the Marxist theory of government. Six students were responsible for the founding of the organization and also a new foreign-published newspaper. They asked for and received help from the Mekhitarist Monastery in Vienna.

The Official Beginning of Armenian Terrorism

The Hunchak’s call of action or their "manifesto" is found on pages 432-439 URAS book as translated from the text published in London in 1887. (See Uras, Esat, Tarihte Ermeniler Ve Ermeni Meselesi, 1976.) The students published in Armenia their party manifesto in the October-November 1888 issue of their newspaper. It is of interest to note that middle- and upper-class Armenians in both Turkey and Russia did not support the student cause. The Hunchak organization published a series of steps to be taken:

1. The present order must be removed by a revolution and must be replaced by a new society.

2. The first goal of the party is to obtain the political and national independence of Turkish Armenia. (Armeniansmade up less than a third of the population.)

3. The methods to be used to reach this goal are propaganda, provocation, terror, organization, and the peasant and worker movement. The propaganda will consist of explaining to the people the basic reasons and the appropriate time of the revolt against the government. Provocation and terror are necessary to increase the people’s courage. The main methods of provocation will be demonstrations against the government, not paying taxes, not wanting reform, and creating hatred against the aristocratic class. Terror will be the method for protecting the people and obtaining their trust in the Hunchak program. The party’s aim is to use terror against the Ottoman government, but the government will not be the only target. Terror will also be used against dangerous Turks and Armenians working for the government, spies, and informers.

4. A special branch will be formed to organize these terrorist activities.

5. The party shall include a central committee. Two large revolutionary groups shall be formed by workers and peasants. In addition to these groups, bands of guerrillas shall be formed.

6. The most appropriate time to realize the revolution will be when Turkey is at war.

7. After independence of the Armenia of Turkey, the revolution will be extended to the Armenia of Russia, and Iran, and a Federative Armenia will be established.

This "revolutionary program" adopted the views of Russian revolutionaries. The Armenian students founded their "workers and peasants" Hunchak Party in Geneva in August 1887. This student "revolutionary" party changed its name in 1890 to become the Revolutionary Hunchak Party, as this was the name of their newspaper.

The student leaders established their headquarters in Istanbul and organizers were sent to establish party support in Bafra, Merzifon, Amassya, Tobat, Yozgat, Arapkir, and Trabzon. These young people also expanded their operations into Russia and Iran. The Revolutionary Armenian Federation, or Dashnaksutyun as it is known in Armenia, was formed in Russia in 1890. In the beginning the leaders lived in the city of Tiflis in modern-day Georgia. The official "program" of this group was adopted during a General Congress meeting in 1892. This organization, like the Revolutionary Hunchak Party, also began to publish a newspaper, Droshak.

The official party manifesto stated the organization would form revolutionary groups and stage revolts to achieve its objectives. The basis upon which the revolutionary groups were organized was published in their official manifesto:

1. To organize fighting bands.

2. To use every means, by word and deed, to arouse the revolutionary activity and spirit of the people.

3. To use every means to arm the people.

4. To organize revolutionary committees and establish strong links between them.

5. To stimulate fighting and to terrorize the government officials, informers, traitors, usurers, and every kind of exploiter.

6. To establish communication for the transportation of men and arms.

7. To expose government establishments to looting and destruction.

(See The Armenian Revolutionary Movement by Louise Nalbandian, 1963, p. 168.)

The Revolutionary Armenian Federation was a terrorist organization from day one. This would be the organization that would take control of Armenia after the end of World War I; they have continued state-sponsored terrorism to the present day.

As pointed out in Chapter One, the Armenian Church has been a sponsor of Armenian terrorism from the start. Consider this: In December 1882, seventy-six Armenians were arrested in Erzurum. Those arrested were members of the Defenders of the Motherland Society.

The Ottoman government convicted forty of the seventy-six defendants; they received prison sentences of five to fifteen years for their terrorist activities. However, most of the defendants were pardoned by the sultan the next year at the request of Patriarch Nerses and Bishop Ormanian. Those remaining in prison were pardoned in 1886.

From the year 1895 onward there was a constant series of terrorists acts instigated by Armenians. The Ottoman government reports that 1,828 Muslim men, women, and children were killed and 1,433 more were wounded; 8,828 non-Muslim men, women, and children were killed and 2,238 were wounded. (See Hazinei Evrak, Carton 302, Number 111, file 6, No. 74.)

In the years after 1895, there were constant Armenian rebellions or attempts at rebellion throughout eastern Anatolia. When World War I began on September 6, 1914, the Ottoman government sent a message to the provinces in Anatola directing officials to keep close watch on Armenian leaders. At this time the Ottomans were at war with Russia.

February 25, 1915, marks the date the Ottoman Supreme Military command sent orders regarding Armenians because many of them in the army were deserting. Other orders state that preparations were being made by Armenians to begin a rebellion. The day before, the ministry of interior directed that the Armenian committee centers be closed, their documents seized, and leaders arrested.

On May 30, 1915, the Ottoman Council of Ministers approved the removal of all Armenians from behind their army battle lines. The order was as follows: "It is absolutely necessary to annihilate and destroy by effective operations this harmful activity which has a bad effect on the war’s operations which are designed for the benefit of protecting the state’s security and existence». Details of the Armenian removal will be discussed in depth in a later chapter. There is no genuine proof the Ottomans desired to do anything but remove this very real threat to their army and this is why the Armenians were removed. It is noted that Armenians have produced fake documents in an attempt to prove otherwise. This is a part of the Armenian "genocide industry" that extorts money from the Christian world. In a report delivered by the ministry of the interior on December 7, 1916, there is a statement that "702,900 Armenians had been relocated and that in 1915, 25 million kurush had been spent for this purpose and until the end of October 1916, 86 million kurush had been spent; and until the end of the year the year 150 million kurush more would be spent» (See Genelkurnay, Vi, KLS361, file 1445, F. 15-22.).

If the Turks had wanted to massacre the Armenians why didn’t they just do it rather than spend 261 million kurush to remove the Armenians? The Ottoman government was in terrible financial condition and didn’t have this money to throw away. It makes no sense for them to spend a fortune to remove the Armenians and then massacre them along the way. Several American and British eyewitnesses actually saw the Armenians leaving the country (more on this in later chapters). Who is to be believed? Armenian terrorists or American and British officials?

The church participation also gave the religious blessing and approval to the armed rebellion. There are numerous examples of the church giving direct aid and assistance to help in an effort to overthrow the Ottoman Muslim government. There are several time periods in the region between 1827 and 1923 when there was inter-communal violence between Christian Armenians and Muslim Ottomans. It is likely the history of incidents are incomplete at best, because Armenian attacks on Muslims are not published. However, when Muslims attacked Armenians, the reports almost always were intensely exaggerated, claiming the Turks were making unprovoked attacks on Christians.

The actual truth is that Armenians attacked Ottomans more often than the Ottomans attacked the Armenians. Both Christians and Muslims knew each side was killing the other in growing numbers as the years passed. They also knew that as the ebb of battle flowed back and forth, the civilians on first one side and then the other would be forced to flee for their lives. They understood, firsthand, when inter-communal war came to them, they would surely be killed.

The animosity that began to grow between Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks started when the Russians began their military conquests into the Caucasus. The Armenians were widely scattered throughout the southern Caucasus and eastern Armenia. In 1800 the Armenians were not a majority population in any region of any size, including the area known as Armenia today. The Armenians realized that without Russian help, they could never create and establish what they would later call their "ancient” homeland. It is interesting that the self-called Armenian "ancient" homeland had far more Muslims living there in 1800 than there were Christian Armenians.

Throughout the 1800s the Russians attempted to move ever westward by military conquest. When they took Muslim Ottoman lands, there were always two results: the forced removal of the Muslims regardless of how many generations they had lived there, and the moving of the Christian Armenians into the vacated Muslim lands to replace the fleeing Muslims.

There was almost one hundred years of warfare between the Russians and the Ottomans that began with the Russo-Turkish war of 1827-1829. In this, and each war to follow, the pattern was always the same. The Russians sent attacking armies into established Ottoman lands. The Armenians, living within this Ottoman territory, always supported the attacking Russians. The Russians acquired lands by force and the large Muslim majority population living there was forced out without compensation. The Russians then gave the Muslim lands to Armenians, who moved in right behind the departed Muslims.

In the 1827-1829 war, there was a massive population exchange between the Muslims and Christians of the Erivan region of the Caucasus. By the time the Russo-Turkish wars of 1855-1856 and 1877-1878, so many Christian Armenians had moved in from the Ottoman Empire they became, for the very first time, a majority population in a land called Armenia today. Thus the so-called "ancient" homeland dates from the mid-1850s.

By 1864 the Russians controlled the Caucasus. It was at this time the Russians began in earnest their program of forced removal of remaining Muslims. It was their objective to establish a Christian land that would be loyal to the Russian church.

"The Russians adopted a system of attack and repression that made it impossible for the Muslims to remain in their homes. Villages were plundered, then destroyed. Cattle and anything else necessary to survival were taken. The Russian method was a classic system of forced migration that would later be repeated again and again in the Caucasus and the Balkans – destroy homes and fields and leave no choice but flight or starvation” (7). The Armenians continue this brutal scheme in their invasion of present-day Azerbaijan.

In 1867, Grifford Palgrave, British consul, rode through the Abhazian region of the Caucasus. He reported: "It is very painful to witness the extinction, as such, of a nation whose only crime was not being Russian» (8).

Once the Russians forced the Muslim Turks out of their homes and off their lands, these poor people faced other enemies – disease and malnutrition. The Christian Russian conquerors gave the departing Muslims no provisions or assistance as they left their "ancient" homelands. It is no wonder so many of these destitute Muslims died before reaching safety within the Ottoman Empire.

When the Ottomans threw the Armenians out of the country for starting a rebellion and killing Turks in 1915, the Armenians cried they were mistreated because no one gave them supplies and provisions. However, when they were given Muslim lands and the Muslims were forced out with no supplies or food, the Armenians did not raise a finger to help them. Quite a double standard.
The Armenian dictatorial political organizations believed that once they helped the Russians defeat the Ottomans, the Russians would allow them to create an independent state within Russia. British Ambassador Layard viewed this situation correctly. He realized the Christian Armenian revolutionaries were deceiving themselves. The ambassador understood that if Russia did defeat the Ottomans, the Russian bear would swallow up the Armenians (9).

Because of this ill-founded belief, there were Christian uprisings and inter-communal battles between Ottoman Armenians and Ottoman Muslims throughout eastern Anatolia during the last twenty years of the nineteenth century. Armenian guerrillas slaughtered the inhabitants of Ottoman villages, and when the Muslims responded, Armenians would be killed in return. There is no way to know how many people died on each side during this civil war. However, the massacre and counter-massacre were sufficient to establish the hatred between Christians and Muslims in the region.

The war that led to the Ottoman government’s removing of all Armenians behind Ottoman battle lines began on November 2, 1914. This was the date Russian troops occupied Ottoman border regions. By the following spring, few Ottoman forces stood in the way of a Russian inland advance.

As the Russians continued their attack on Ottoman lands, Armenian rebels, in a coordinated effort, staged uprisings throughout eastern Anatolia. On April 13, one Armenian band took control of the Ottoman city of Van and massacred almost all its Muslim inhabitants until the Russians arrived on May 31, 1915. On August 4, the Ottomans were able to send enough troops to Van to drive the Russians and Armenians out of the city. Because the Armenians had taken such an active role in the capture and turning over of Van to the Russians, the entire Armenian population followed the Russians when they evacuated and retreated home. The Ottomans found a burned-out city when they entered Van.

The revolt in Van was the only Armenian success. During their other uprisings, they were not able to hold any of the Ottoman cities they attacked, but they surely killed many more Turks. These Armenian acts did significant harm the Ottoman war effort.

Even though the Ottomans were able to drive the Russians and Armenians back, Armenians who continued to live among the Turks in eastern Anatolia kept up their attempts to help the Russians by the use of guerrilla-style hit-and-run raids behind the Ottoman battle lines. This act was the final straw that caused the Ottoman government to order the removal of all Armenians from within their country. Wouldn’t any nation do the same when acting in self-defense?

It can be said that the beginning of World War I was also the beginning of the last phase of the inter-communal war between the Armenians and Turks – such warfare having first begun in the 1820s. All kinds of atrocities had been committed between Armenians and Turks in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolia for one hundred years. During World War I, there was little the Ottoman government could do to end the violence because of the Armenian aggressive behavior.

Historian Justin McCarthy observes that evidence from Muslim survivors of the Armenian attacks indicates a long-term hatred was at work. Brutal rapes and torture were evident everywhere and murder was common. Unlike atrocities against Muslims in Europe in the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878 and in the Balkan Wars, attacks by Armenians on the Muslims of the east during World War I seem to have been focused on murder rather than on causing flight.

The Armenian rebels were well organized and equipped with Russian arms and ready to launch their revolution within the Ottoman Empire by March 1915. When the signal was given, Armenians in Van began to shoot at police stations and Muslim homes. The Armenians had secretly brought their weapons into the city and the attack was a total surprise.

Armenians quickly advanced through the city of Van, burning the Muslim section and killing any Muslim captured. The Armenians used the same tactics to attack throughout eastern Anatolia.

These attacks were carried out in the same manner as those carried out by the Christians in the Balkans – kill first the individuals who could organize opposition. Everything Muslim was destroyed. All mosques were burned. The entire Muslim section of each city was burned to the ground. Only a handful of buildings were left standing.

Smaller Muslim villages were also attacked. The Muslims were forced to flee with whatever property they could carry. On the roads out of the villages other Armenians waited to rob, kill, and rape women. Survivors were left to continue their escape from the Christian Armenians without food or adequate clothing. At this time there were few young men in the villages because most had been drafted into the Ottoman army.

The Ottomans were quick to respond. Government officials realized Armenian guerrillas were helpful to the Russians. Local Armenian communities also supported these guerrillas. Because of the well-planned and coordinated attacks throughout eastern Anatolia, the Ottoman government solved their problem of how to deal with a disloyal people. On May 26, 1915, the first orders were issued to begin the removal of all Armenians living within the war zone.

It is clear when reading the orders of the Ottoman government what they intended to do – the peaceful moving and resettlement of Armenians. Armenians "claim" today that there were other secret orders issued to massacre the Armenians. History proves this is an absurd allegation and nothing more than a story told to help Armenians get more money and aid from the Christian people of the world.

In reality, the basic problem was that the Ottoman government was so weak it didn’t have the manpower to move the Armenians. The responsibility of moving and protection of Armenians was left up to local officials who also had the problem of having too few troops and supplies.

Local officials were expected to supervise a huge movement of people while they were in the middle of a guerrilla war with Armenian rebels and also in a shooting war with the Russians. All local officials had been a small number of, what can be called, "regular policemen" under their command.

Local officials had a choice to make. They could send off well-guarded large groups of Armenians and leave their cities and villages unprotected against Armenian guerrillas or retain protection for their loyal citizens who remained. The locals did the common sense thing. They refused to send away their small police force to protect the treasonous and deported Armenians, so that when the guerrilla bands of Armenians did attack later, they would not find defenseless Ottoman cities and villages.

The actual responsibility of protecting the Armenians was that of the Ottoman government. However, the Ottomans had the same problem as the local officials. They had too few soldiers to send to protect the disloyal citizens who had created the problem in the first place. There is no question but that Armenians were disrupting supply lines behind the Ottoman battle lines. Every Ottoman soldier was needed to help stop the advancing Russian army. This transfer of much needed Ottoman troops to protect disloyal Armenians just wasn’t going to happen. The Ottoman government knew full well, based on almost one hundred years of Russian wars, what would take place if they lost the war. The Muslims would be forced out of the country again and there would be no Russian troops to protect them either. It was a war for survival.

The lack of security for the deported, disloyal Armenians opened the door for bad things to happen, similar to what happened to Muslims forced out of their homes over the years by the Russians. There are reported cases of local Ottoman officials stealing from the Armenians. Many local Muslims saw the chance to even old scores and make huge profits in dealing with the property of the Armenians forced to leave. Fair is fair, because Christians had done exactly the same to Muslims when the Russians moved in and forced the Muslims out.

The greatest danger facing the Armenians came from nomadic Kurdish tribes who raided the convoys. The few local policemen sent with each exiting group were not strong enough to protect them. As a general rule, the Kurds didn’t resort to mass slaughter of the Armenians, though many were killed, women were abducted, and the people were robbed. Little food was provided and the Kurds took that. Mortality thereafter came about from starvation and disease.

Professor McCarthy documents 1,397 criminal cases that were filed after the war and when the British controlled the Ottoman government. These charges were pressed against Turks who were alleged to have committed crimes against the Armenians. Some of the individuals received the death penalty for their crimes and were executed. (10)

Contrast this Ottoman justice to the fact there are no reported cases where either the Russians or Armenians charged, tried, or convicted any of their own people for official war crimes against the Muslims. The evidence is clear there were many more widespread crimes committed against the Muslims as evidenced by Muslim losses of almost four times more people than Armenians during this same period of time. No Russian or Armenian was ever punished for the horrible actions against defenseless Muslims.

The Ottomans made a sound military decision in removing all Armenians from the battle zone because widespread Armenian attacks all but ended behind their battle lines once the Armenians were gone. Once the Ottomans cut off the local support, the Armenian guerillas could not operate. Countless thousands of Armenian citizens paid a terrible price for their leaders` decision to betray their Ottoman government and cooperate with the Russians by attacking the Ottomans in their rear guard areas.

It is true that the Ottoman government was trying to protect all the civilian population. However, because of the attacks on them by both the Russians and Armenians, they just didn’t have the manpower to do so.

The only thing that saved the Ottoman Empire from being overrun by the Russians and Armenians was the Russian Revolution of 1917. Once the revolution began in their homeland, most of the Russian troops deserted and returned home. Once the Russians pulled out, their authority was taken over by the Armenians and their guerrilla bands. The historical record is clear that with the Russians gone, nothing held the Armenians in check in their dealings with Muslims.

McCarthy writes: "The events of the first period of the short Armenian rule were a type seen all too often in that time – murder of unarmed Muslim villagers, kidnapping of villagers, who were never seen again, destruction of Muslim markets, neighborhoods, and villages, and ubiquitous plunder and rape» (11).

The sources McCarthy provides reveal specific widespread Christian Armenian atrocities of Muslims. Even though the Armenians were well equipped with Russian arms and equipment, they were not equal to the Ottoman troops that followed the Russians as they withdrew. The first time Ottoman soldiers attacked the Armenian forces, the Armenians immediately began a retreat. This would be the pattern in which the Armenian forces would repeat again and again in the years to come. The first time they faced real troops, they threw down their weapons and ran.

Once the Armenians began to retreat, they realized their cause was lost and neither they nor the Russians would occupy eastern Anatolia. The Armenian reaction was to make certain the Muslims would have as little as possible to occupy and use. The result was the Armenians killed, plundered, raped, and destroyed everything that was Muslim as they ran to get out of eastern Anatolia.

Erzincan is but one of the many examples of terror Armenians left in their wake as they escaped from the Ottoman Empire: "Erzincan is a scene of tragedy. Wells are full of the corpses of Muslims. Dismembered bodies, hands, legs, heads are still spread all over the gardens of homes` The soldiers found three hundred-twelve unburied bodies, 606 were found buried in wells and ditches; and, of course, many more than that number had been killed. The fate of 650 Muslims who had been taken from the city, ostensibly for road building, was unknown» (12).

Armenians suffered terribly during and after World War I because of the terrible decisions of their leaders. Starvation and disease were widespread and there was much loss of life. The direct cause of death was undoubtedly the flight of Armenians removed from the country and the flight before the Ottoman armies. These deaths cannot be called "massacre" or "genocide," as claimed by the Armenians.

To serve history correctly and to be fair, the deaths of Muslims must be recorded as well as those of Armenians. Because those people were Muslims and not Christians, little of the truth of their horror has been told. The historical reality is that before the Armenians ran after their Russian fellow Christian allies, they massacred tens of thousands of Muslims. They did this in revenge and with the hope they could cleanse the region of Muslims and thus are able to sneak back into eastern Anatolia at a later time to claim a majority population. The truth is more than four times more Muslims perished than the Armenians.

"Even the British, who were powerfully committed to the Armenian cause and the creation of an Armenian state, formally warned Armenians about the massacre of Turks in Armenia proper` and in Baku. They told the Armenians they would lose the world’s sympathy if such massacres went on» (13).

British Colonel A. Rawlinson observed the terrible conduct of Armenians toward Muslims. The colonel wrote:

“I had received further very definite information of horror that had been committed by the Armenian soldiery in Kars Plain, and as I had been able to judge of their want of discipline by their treatment of my own detached parties, I had wired to Tiflis from Zivin that in the interests of humanity, the Armenians should not be left in independent command of the Moslem population, as their troops being without discipline, and not being under effective control, atrocities were constantly being committed, for which we should, with justice, eventually be held to be morally responsible” (14).

Admiral Mark Bristol, commander of American forces in the Ottoman Empire, wrote in his personal diary, "I know from reports of my own officers who served with General Dro that defenseless villages were bombarded and then occupied, and any inhabitants that had not run away were brutally killed, the village pillaged, and all the livestock confiscated, and then the village burned. This was carried out as a regular systematic get-ting-rid of the Muslims» (15).

The actual true facts of history records that the Russian Czars started the process of ethnic cleansing of Ottoman lands. Thereafter, a bitter hatred grew between Muslim and Christians because the Russians took the Muslim homes and lands time after time for almost one hundred years and gave these lands to Christian Armenians.

What would anyone’s emotions have been, had they been a Muslim and under such conditions?

In this chapter and the chapters to follow there will be references to Dr. Richard G. Hovannissian and the four volume, two-and-one-half-year history he wrote titled The Republic of Armenia. The Armenian professor’s biased opinion shows throughout his work. He states in the preface to volume I, "My father, Kaspar Hovannissian, was a continuous source of inspiration. The sole survivor of a large family that perished during the massacres of 1915, he began life anew in the United States but infused into that life a strong spiritual bond with his historic homeland».

In the preface to volume III, Hovannissian writes, "When I – the historian of the Armenian Republic – was elected in 1990 to membership in the esteemed National Academy of Sciences of Armenia – the implications of that act were profound». This experience was so profound that when considered in connection with his family experience in what is known today as Armenia, he is not objective. It must also be noted that Hovannissian’s four-volume history has been paid for by the taxpayers of California rather than by the dictatorial government of Armenia.

Nationalism came to the Ottoman Empire from western Europe. One reason the church was so involved in promoting nationalism within the minority communities in the Ottoman Empire was because the Ottoman government allowed religious freedom. Every religious community was permitted a great deal of autonomy. The Muslims made no special attempts to integrate members of other religions into the Muslim nation. The concept of "forced" conversion to Islam was almost nonexistent, which is contrary to what some textbooks and lobby groups say. Just before the beginning of World War I, Professor Hovannissian makes reference to what he calls the Armenian Plateau in the Ottoman Empire and in Russia. He describes these lands as beginning in the west at the Euphrates River then to the Pontus and Taurus mountains and on to the highlands of Karabagh (Garabagh). Even though Armenians had no government there in more than eight hundred years, they were still Armenian lands. Even eight hundred years before, when there was a small kingdom of Armenia, it was a vassal state of the Byzantine empire and before that a vassal state of the Romans. There hadn’t been a true independent kingdom for perhaps three thousand years. In spite of this historical fact Hovannissian admits the Armenians were never a majority population in what he calls Turkish Armenia. (16)

As the storm clouds of World War I became blacker, Professor Hovannissian admits Armenians had organized political organizations with the avowed purpose of liberating Turkish Armenia. If the Armenians hadn’t been a majority population for more than eight hundred years – even in a small part of the Ottoman Empire – what was it they were liberating?

He goes on to add that the Armenians placed their full efforts of liberating eastern Anatolia where Armenians began to claim was the cradle of the state they planned to establish. Armenians organized a political organization they named the Armenian Revolutionary Federation. The avowed purpose of this political organization was to overthrow the Ottoman Empire and claim what Armenians called Turkish Armenia. The Armenians thought these lands would be the center of their state. The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, from its inception in 1890, advocated the use of terror to achieve its goals and objectives. These bands of terrorists still maintain this terrorism attitude today.

Hovannissian’s Armenian history could well be titled Campaigns of Terror – The Armenian Deception. The facts provided by the Armenian professor show that Armenia continues its campaigns of terror while deceiving the United States and the world. Clearly, the Armenians prepared themselves for war against the Ottomans with whom they had lived in peace for more than five hundred years. The great advantage the Armenians had was that they lived behind the Ottoman battle lines and were accepted as friends and neighbors. They used this position of trust to wreak havoc on Ottoman troops who were defending their country from a Russian invasion.

He deceives his readers by making the statement that the `Armenian Revolutionary Federation, though formed in Tiflis, should dedicate itself to the emancipation of Turkish Armenians». The following proves Hovannissian’s Armenian Revolutionary Federation was nothing more than a terrorist organization.

K. S. Papazian wrote of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation: "The purpose of the A. R. Federation (Dashnak) is to achieve political and economic freedom in Turkish Armenia, by means of rebellion». Terrorism has from the first, been adopted by the Dashnak Committee of the Caucasus, as a policy or a method for achieving its ends. Under the heading "means" in their program adopted in 1892, it reads as follows: The Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnak}, in order to achieve its purpose through rebellion, organizes revolutionary groups». Method number 8 is as follows: "To wage fight, and subject to terrorism the government officials, the traders». Method number 11 is: "To subject the government institutions to destruction and pillage».

Dr. Jean Loris Melikoff, a founder of the Armenian Dashnak political organization, wrote: "The truth is the party (Dashnak Committee) was ruled by an oligarchy, for whom the particular interests of the party came before the interests of the people and nation. They (the Dashnaks) made collections among the bourgeois and the great merchants. At the end, when these means were exhausted, they resorted to terrorism, after the teachings of the Russian revolutionaries that the end justifies the means».

There are eyewitness accounts of Armenian terrorists terrorizing their own people. Consider the affidavit signed by Albert J. Amateau, a Jewish Ottoman citizen. This gentleman signed a sworn statement on October 11, 1989, before a notary public in Sonoma County, California. Mr. Amateau stated that in 1906 a number of wealthy Armenians in Izmir were assassinated. Mr Hayik Balgosian and his friend, Mr. Artin Balokian, had been shot by two men in front of the Balogosian mansion in Karatash, an affluent section of Izmir. Days later, the large establishment in the center of the Izmir Bazaar, the Sivri-Ssarian, wholesale dry goods warehouse and store, was bombed. Mr. Agop Sivri-Ssarian and a number of his Armenian employees were killed. The perpetrators then sent secret messages, in Armenian printed lettering, threatening a number of Armenian merchants, doctors, lawyers and architects – unless they "contributed" the sums the leaders of the secret societies had assessed, the recipients would suffer the same fate as Balgosian and Sivri-Ssarian.

The Russian consul general in Bitlis and Van was General Mayewski. He reported the following to Moscow in 1912: In 1895 and 1896 Armenian revolutionary committees created such suspicion between the Armenians and the native population that it became impossible to implement any sort of reform in these districts. The Armenian priests paid no attention to religious education, but instead concentrated on spreading nationalist ideas, which were affixed to the walls of monasteries, and in place of performing their religious duties they concentrated on stirring Christian enmity against Muslims. The revolts that took place in many provinces of Turkey during 1895 and 1896 were caused neither by great poverty among the Armenian villages nor because of Muslim attacks against them. In fact these villagers were considerably richer ad more prosperous than their neighbors. Rather, the Armenian revolts came from three causes:

1. Their increasing maturity in political subjects;

2. The spread of ideas of nationality, liberation, and independence within the Armenian community;

3. Support of these ideas by the western governments and their encouragement through the efforts of the Armenian priests.

It can easily be seen that the basis for the Armenian revolts was not poverty, nor was it oppression or the desire for reform. Rather, it was simply the result of a join effort on the part of the Armenian revolutionary committees and the Armenian Church, in conjunction with the Western powers and Russia, to provide the basis to break up the Ottoman Empire. In Europe, the state-sponsored missionaries and the Armenian revolutionary committees spread stories of the unprovoked massacre of Christians by Muslims. These tales were often printed in the press as truth when just the opposite had taken place.

The Armenians made up a very small minority of the population in the territories they claimed as their "historic Armenia». The Encyclopedia Britannica of 1910 provides information that the Armenians made up only 15 percent of the area’s population they claimed. It seems unlikely they could achieve independence in any part of the Ottoman Empire without the massive foreign assistance that would have been required to push the out Turkish majorities and replace them with Armenians.

Professor Hovannissian repeatedly calls all the lands Armenia covets as Armenian Turkey, Armenian Russia, Armenian plateau, and so forth. This is but one of the "disguised" statements Hovannissian makes in his books. These claims of "Armenian land" have been used since the 1890s to deceive America and the world. Hovannissian’s claims are not founded on truth, fact, or the historical progression of modern civilizations.

Sydney Whitman, a reporter for the New York Herald, wrote in 1895 of an interview with the British counsel in Erzurum. Whitman asked, "If no Armenian revolutionary had come to this country, if they had not stirred Armenian revolution, would these clashes have occurred?" The British official’s answer was, "Of course not. I doubt if a single Armenian would have been killed». Whitman is one of several Armenian writers who freely admit that the goal of their revolutionary societies was to stir revolution, and their method was terror

02 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/623-2-who-has-better-claim-to-lands-of.html

03 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/630-iii-armenia-founded-as-dictatorship.html

04 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/631-iv-armenian-numbers-game-and-their.html

05 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/632-v-armenia-loses-unprovoked-war-on.html

06 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/639-vi-admiral-sees-armenians-claims-as.html

07 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/640-vii-what-kind-of-christians-are.html

08 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/642-viiicorrupt-armenian-statetheir.html

09 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/643-ix-bloodthirsty-armenian-bandits.html

10 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/647-x-what-can-be-expected-from-armenia.html

11 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/649-xi-armenia-refuses-to-help-muslims.html

12 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/651-xii-armenian-leaders-establish.html

13 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/653-xiii-paid-armenian-agents-mold.html

14 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/654-xiv-armenians-dangerous-to-get.html

15 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/655-xv-armenians-establish-american.html

16 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/658-xvi-armenians-lose-sneak-attack-on.html

17 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/659-xvi-armenians-are-professional.html

18 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/660-xviii-armenian-american-lobby.html

19 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/661-xix-armenia-voluntarily-joins.html

20 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/662-xx-armenians-join-hitlers-nazi.html

21 http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2006/05/663-xxi-armenia-in-todays-world-still.html



Post a Comment

Would You Please Update/Correct Any Of The
3500+ Posts by Leaving Your Comments Here
- - - Your Opinion Matters To Us - - -

We Promise To Publish Them Even If We May Not Share The Same View

Mind You,
You Wouldn't Be Allowed Such Freedom In Most Of The Other Sites At All.

You understand that the site content express the author's views, not necessarily those of the site. You also agree that you will not post any material which is false, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of any law.

Please read the post then write a comment in English by referring to the specific points in the post and do preview your comment for proper grammar /spelling.

You need a Google Account (such as Gmail) to publish your comments.

Publishing Your Comments Here:
Please type your comment in plain text only (NO Formatting) in an editor like notepad first,
Then copy and paste the final/corrected version into the comment box here as Google/Blogger may not allow re-editing/correcting once entered in some cases.
And click publish.
-If you need to correct the one you have already sent, please enter "New Comment" as we keep the latest version and delete the older version as default

Alternative way to send your formatted comments/articles:

All the best