623) II: Who Has Better Claim To Lands Of Modern-Day Turkey –Great Civilizations Of Past Or Armenia?: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

. .

Modern-day Turkey is an ancient land. There is evidence that people lived here more than 400,000 years ago. Twenty-nine great civilizations have come and gone in this land the Christian Bible calls Asia Minor. The tiny kingdom of Armenia existed for only a brief moment in its history and then disappeared. It cannot be classed as one of the great civilizations that once was a part of modern-day Turkey. Consider who has a better right to Asia Minor than does Armenia.

Call it Hittite Turkey, Hittite Russia, or the Hittite Plateau. After all, the Hittites were an important culture in this land from 2000 to 600 b.c. The Hittites are mentioned in Genesis, the first book of the Christian Bible. The Armenians are not mentioned in the Bible anywhere. Shouldn’t the Hittites have a better claim to this land than do the Armenians?

If you use the Armenian professor’s logic:

• There could be Phrygian Turkey – Phrygian Russia and Phrygian Plateau.

• There could be Urartian Turkey – Urartian Russia and Urartian Plateau.

• There could be Lydian Turkey – Lydian Russia and Lydian Plateau.

• There could be Thracian Turkey – Thracian Russia and Thacian Plateau.

• There could be Galatian Turkey – Galatian Russia and Galatian Plateau.

• There could be Persian Turkey – Persian Russia and Persian Plateau.

• There could be Greek Turkey – Greek Russia and Greek Plateau. In fact, the Greeks attempted to recapture much of modern day Turkey after World War I but the new Nationalist Turkish army drove them out. The Greeks today do not call these lands Greek Turkey or the Greek Plateau.

• There could be Roman Turkey – Roman Russia and Roman Plateau.

• There could be Bithynia Turkey – Bithynia Russia and Bithynia Plateau.

• There could be Thrace Turkey – Trace Russia and Trace Plateau.

• There could be Aeolian Turkey – Aeolian Russia and Aeolian Plateau.

• There could be Ionian Turkey – Ionian Russia and Ionian Plateau.

• There could be Carian Turkey – Carian Russia and Carian Plateau.

• There could be Galatia Turkey – Galatia Russia and Galatia Plateau.

• There could be Cappadocia Turkey – Cappadocia Russia and Cappadocia and Cappadocia Plateau.

• There could be Lycia Turkey – Lycia Russia and Lycia Plateau.

• There could be Pamphylian Turkey – Pamphylian Russia and Pamphyliun Plateau.

• There could be Syrian Turkey – Syrian Russia and Syrian Plateau.

• There could be Commagene Turkey – Commageene Russia and Commagene Plateau.

• There could be Pontus Turkey – Pontus Russia and Pontus Plateau.

• There could be Byzantine Turkey – Byzantine Russia and Byzantine Plateau.

• Certainly there could be Ottoman Turkey – Ottoman Russia and Ottoman Plateau.

The list goes on and on.

Isn’t it ridiculous for a tiny band of people to call this land Armenian Turkey and the Armenian Plateau, and so forth? It makes no sense except for the Armenians` deception and use of such claims to deceive and fleece America and the world while they run terrorist campaigns while establishing their "genocide industry" to fleece and deceive the Christian world.

Here is a second example of how the Armenian professor "disguised" his statements in his books.

Throughout his four-volume history, Professor Hovannissian uses "Constantinople" rather than the modern-day proper city name of Istanbul. The name Constantinople was changed to Istanbul in 1453 – thirty-nine years before Columbus discovered the Americas. If Hovannissian doesn’t know this most basic piece of historical information, then how can he be trusted as a history professor?

The city of Istanbul was re-founded in 330 a.d. by Constantine I (and this was toward the end of the Roman Empire); it was referred to as Dentera Rome, or the Second Rome, and also as Nea Rome, which means New Rome. This was a high point in Christian history as St. Sophia, the largest church in the world at that time, was built there by Constantine and the center of the Catholic Church was re-established in this place.

The Byzantines of this period did not call the city Constantinople. Rather, because of its size, they called it simply polls (the city). When they wanted to say "to the city," they said "eist enpolin" (is-tin-o`polin), which was the origin of the name Istanbul. Recent research has shown the name Istanbul was used, if not during the Byzantine period, at least during the eleventh century and that the Turks knew the city by this name.

Istanbul was the name used by the people of the world for at least fifty years before Columbus discovered the Americas. To refuse to use the "civilized world" accepted name Istanbul is either ignorant or arrogant. To use the term Constantinople is a code word meaning "Christian," and since modern-day Turkey is more than 98 percent Muslim, it is a deliberate and calculated effort to insult the people of this great nation. This shows his Christian bias against the entire nation of Turkey. Would he call other places by their place names of 548 years ago? What kind of message does this deliberate misrepresentation send to his readers about the quality of his scholarship?

Hovannissian also writes about how the small band of Armenians, claiming to be the first Christian nation, secured financial support from around the world. In reality, he is reporting how the Armenians play the Christian/ethnic race card to deceive and fleece churches and national governments out of billions and billions of dollars while this tiny state conducts terror campaigns.

The days of racial and religious hatred should be long past. The days of ethnic cleansing are over in the civilized world. The truth is, Armenia, even today, is attempting to rid 20 percent of its neighboring country of Azerbaijan of more than 1 million Muslims. They are accomplishing this objective with 1 billion dollars of military aid from Russia (1988-1994) and more than 1.4 billion dollars in general assistance aid money from the U.S. government (1991-2001) and countless millions of dollars from church charity worldwide. With this money and military support, Armenia attacked Azerbaijan and removed more than 1 million Muslims to "cleanse" the land of non-Christians and grab their land for free. The Armenians called such a forced removal of their people in 1915 "genocide». However, when they do it to the same number of Muslims in 1992 – this is a "cleansing" of the land of non-Christians and thus acceptable conduct.

Hovannissian claims that 2 million Armenians lived in Russia in 1914, living in peace among Russians, Georgians, and Muslims. He goes on to add (P 2) "...the approximately 2 million Armenians of Turkey were even more widely dispersed than those of the Russian empire. They made up a sizeable element in Constantinople, the coastal cities, and in Cilicia, that fertile region along the Mediterranean Sea where the Armenian principality and kingdom had held sway from the eleventh through the fourteenth centuries. Yet, despite this broad distribution, most Turkish Armenians still inhabited their historic plateau lands, which formed the six eastern Ottoman vilayets (P rovinces) of Sivas, Erzurum, Kharput, Diarbekir, Bitlis, and Van» (Note to readers: Due to the large number of references to Hovannissian’s four-volume series, the first instance in each chapter will be cited, followed by references to page numbers only, following the excerpt.) He has clearly inflated the historical record by adding perhaps as many as 500,000 Armenians who were not even in existence in 1915. Consider the fact Hovannissian does not give a source where he obtained his 2 million Armenians living within the Ottoman lands. The reader is referred to more than a half dozen historians who, in the 1915 era, documented the number of Armenians in Anatolia, and this listing is presented in the first chapter. No historians of the 1915 time period list the number of Armenians as more than 1.5 million in total. The 2 million "Armenian numbers," which are not based on historical fact, represent nothing more than fiction presented by Hovannissian to inflate his massacre claims.

Hovannissian notes:"…By the latter part of the nineteenth century the Armenian party in Van had begun to advocate constitutional and economic reforms, the Hunchakian Revolutionary (subsequently Social Democrat Hunchakian) party, especially influential in Constantinople and in Clicia, was clamoring for the creation of a separate Armenian state, and Dashnaksutiun, having extended its network from the Caucasus into Turkish Armenia, was pressing for Armenian self-administration and far-reaching social and economic changes within the structure of the Ottoman Empire» (P 9).

Professor Hovannissian writes that the Ottoman government (P 1 1) "…seized the opportunity provided by World War I to rid the empire of the Armenian question by ridding it of the Armenians». He concludes that in "April of 1915, using the pretext that the Armenians inhabited the war zones, offered aid and comfort to the enemy, and plotted a national rising against the Ottoman Empire, Talat Pasha, the Minister of Interior, supported by the entire council of ministers, ordered their deportation from the Eastern vilayets [cities]» ( P12).

The truth of the matter is, there were large numbers of Armenians attacking the Ottomans behind the battle lines where large numbers of Armenians lived. These Armenians became masters of the time-proven hit-and-run tactics that have worked so well for different armed resistance movements for thousands of years. The Ottomans had good reason to have concern about the loyalty of all Armenians. Hovannissian ignores this basic historical fact.

He claims "...there was no distinction made between "deportation" and "massacre» (P 13) He also alleges "...countless women and children were apportioned to Muslim households and compelled to embrace Islam» (P l 3) He goes on to say "nearly 200,000 Armenians of the vilayet [of Van] poured into Transcaucasia, overwhelming the Russian Armenians with the magnitude of the tragedy that had unfolded beyond the border».

How can Hovannissian’s numbers be correct? He says there were some 1 million Armenians in these six provinces within the war zone, who were removed by the Ottomans. In later chapters, Hovannissian states 500,000 refugees moved to Russian Armenia. In addition, "countless women and children were apportioned to Muslim households and compelled to embrace.

It is interesting to note that in Erivan Province, the heart of modern-day Armenia, a majority of the population was Muslim before they were removed. The Russians replaced them with Armenians and this is the true fact of how Armenia acquired what they today call their "historic homeland" not as direct descendants from Biblical Noah as many claim, but by Russians between the years 1827 and 1878.

During the time of Russian forced Muslim removal there were massive Muslim deaths. It was not uncommon for up to one-third of the Muslims who were forced off their property to die. Today, Armenians never mention how they obtained their "ancient" homeland. They never once tell the account of the widespread Muslim’s deaths that gave them this free land.

The Russians forcibly removed some 1.3 million Muslims between 1827 and 1878. Russia started wars with the Ottomans in 1828, 1854, and 1877. Each time the Russians would advance and then be forced to retreat. When the Russians retreated, the Armenians, fearing Muslim retaliation for the violence they had done to the non-Christians would flee with the Russians. Hatred grew on both sides.

In the 1890s there were Armenian rebellions in eastern Anatolia. The end result was many Muslims and Christians were killed. The same thing happened again during the Russian Revolution of 1905 in Azerbaijan.

A civil war broke out again between Christians and Muslims when World War I began. Armenian revolutionaries, many trained in Russia, attempted to take, by force of arms, major Ottoman cities in eastern Anatolia. They did manage to capture the unarmed city of Van and hold it until the Russians arrived. The Armenians killed all but a very few Muslim civilians in the city and in the nearby villages. Such killings by both sides went on until 1920, two years after the war officially ended. Most of the Muslim Ottoman Turks and Armenian Christians died from starvation and disease.

There are many examples of proof presented by firsthand European officials of "official" Armenian terrorism tactics used in eastern Anatolia. There were many Western diplomatic and consular representatives (including American) who reported what was actually happening there. They concluded it was the Armenian revolutionary societies doing the revolting, slaughtering, and massacring of Muslims. These officials believed that one reason for all the Armenian massacres was to secure European intervention on their behalf. The Armenians always managed to send reports they were being killed when the truth was they were doing the killing and massacring of civilians. According to Professor Hovannissian.

...The Armenians of Russia, in contrast with those of Turkey, initially welcomed the outbreak of war. Suppressing the memory of Romanoff Armenophobe policies, they now pledged fealty to Czar Nicholas, who promised to free the Turkish Armenians and guaranteed them the opportunity of unrestricted progress. Full of optimism, the Russian Armenians, in addition to contributing more than 100,000 men to the regular Czarist armies, formed seven volunteer contingents specifically to aid in the `liberation` of Turkish Armenia. The partisan tactics of the volunteers and their knowledge of the rugged terrain proved important assets to the Russian war effort. But Armenians hopes were rudely shaken in 1916. Russian authorities abruptly ordered the demobilization of the volunteer units, proscribed Armenian civic activity, and imposed stringent press censorship. This sudden reversal left the Armenians aghast.

. ..Russian archival materials subsequently published by the Soviet government have shown that the Czarist strategy was quite logical. By mid 1916 Russia, Great Britain, and France had completed negotiations for the partition of the Ottoman Empire. These agreements reserved for France the westernmost sector of the Armenian Plateau, Cilicia, and the Syrian coastline, allotted most of Mesopotamia and inland Syria to Great Britain, and awarded Constantinople, the shores of the Bosphorus, and the bulk of Turkish Armenia to Russia. It is now evident that Russian postwar plans for Turkish Armenia, did not, by any interpretation, include autonomy. On the contrary, the region was marked for annexation as an integral unit of the Romanoff Empire and for possible re-population by Russian peasants and Cossacks. With Russian armies` infirm control of most of the Armenian Plateau by the summer of 1916, there was no longer any need to expend niceties upon the Armenians (P 14).

Why were the Armenians surprised to learn that Russia invaded Ottoman lands for their own national designs? This is how wars have been fought since the beginning of time – to acquire someone else’s land. It is interesting to note that this would not be the only time Armenians begged another country to come fight for them and then give Armenia the land that was fought over. That was never ever going to happen, of course, but Armenians continue to this day to try to get someone else to come fight their wars for them.

Just as the Armenians were happy to have the czar bring his huge army and fight Turks to get land for the Armenians, the Armenians were disappointed to learn that was not why the czar came. In 1917, the Armenians were happy to see the Communists overthrow the three-hundred-year reign of the Russian Romanoff. Now the Armenians believed the new Communist Soviet Russian government would come and help them take Ottoman lands they coveted. Of course that did not happen either, and in just four short years, the Communists would take Armenia into the Soviet Union.

It is interesting to read where Professor Hovannissian reveals the fact the Armenians had been proposing "schemes" since 1905 to take Ottoman lands (P 18): "... In 1917 they continued to adopt various ‘schemes` as to what specific Ottoman lands would belong to Armenia». During the winter of 1918, the Communist Russia Government "...recognized the right of the Ottoman Empire to reoccupy Turkish Armenia and to extend into Kars, Ardahan, and Batum» (P 23).

The Armenians were outraged. Why? After all, the Ottoman Turks had occupied these lands for more than five years. The Turks sent their army to take possession of this territory. The reason for this quick action is, as Professor Hovannissian states, "...Turks were being murdered and the Ottomans stated that Armenian bands had perpetrated atrocities against Muslims in the occupied Eastern vilayets» (P 24)

There can be no question but that Armenia used the excuse, because they claimed to be Christians, that they should eliminate the nonbelieving Muslims. After all, Muslims believed in God differently than they did – thus it was their Christian duty to kill off the Muslims. However, when the Ottomans defended themselves from the disloyal Armenians, they were accused of committing a terrible genocide. At least that is what the Armenians alleged while they were coveting their neighbors` lands.

It is past time for the Christians of the world to examine each Armenian statement and learn for themselves if what they claim is nothing more than a shop-worn tale told for no other reason than to fleece and deceive the Christian world out of mega-millions of dollars. It just Isn’t fair or honest for Armenians to claim they are doing the work of Jesus Christ in their tiny land while carrying out terrorist activities in the name of their state.