643) IX: Bloodthirsty Armenian Bandits A Despotic Armenian Regime: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

. .

In the summer of 1919, Armenia started yet another war, this time with neighbor Azerbaijan. This is odd coming from a people every allied nation realized was incapable of governing themselves. Hovannissian calls this time “a summer of insurgency”. This is a misnomer, as it was his native Armenia who started the war in yet another land grab attempt.

Throughout 1919 the Republic of Azerbaijan proclaimed its rights to the entire province of Kars and much of Erevan. Although tacitly acknowledging the obstacles to winning Kars, the Baku government proposed that, pending a settlement by the Paris Peace Conference, all non-allied military forces he excluded and that an administration reflecting the will of the majority supplant that of the `bloodthirsty Armenian bandits`. No such concession could be made, however, regarding the southern half of the Yerevan Gubernia, a crucial link between Azerbaijan and the Ottoman Empire. Nasih Bek Usukkokov’s cabinet denounced the Armenian policy of sword and fire in the Turco-Azeri districts and accused the partisans of Van and Sasun of shedding the blood of innocent victims and leaving thousands of widows and orphans. Only when Azerbaijan ruled in Karabagh, Zangezur, Ordutad, Julfa, Nakhichevan, Sharur, Surmala, and Vedihaser could relations with Armenia be normalized (P 63-64).

In 1992 Armenia invaded Azerbaijan for a second in time in the twentieth century in its attempt to gobble up someone else’s land for free. And so it is this antagonism continues today, because of Armenian greed. The passing of nearly a century, including seventy-plus years of harsh Soviet rule, has done nothing to diminish the historical Armenian arrogance, medieval expansionist policies, and appetite to devour neighbors` lands.

In 1919 the Armenians made every attempt to get Allied support for their land grab attempt in Azerbaijan. They knew they must have outside help to acquire the lands they coveted. They were such poor soldiers, that without outside help, there was no way they could get this land by themselves.

The Muslim Council of Nakhichevan, meanwhile, protested to allied authorities and the Paris Peace Conference against the introduction of "the despotic Armenian regime». The cunning Armenians donning `European attire` were scheming to vilify the Muslims and even foment rebellion and lend credence to their accusations. Incapable of ruling themselves, they (the Armenians) could not govern a people alien in race and religion. The Armenians, as well read ‘students of Abdul-Hamid`, justified their opposition by evoking the bogey of Pan-Islamic agitation and tried to set one segment of the population against the other. The peaceful inhabitants of Nahcivan therefore begged to be freed from Armenia mastery and placed for the time being under any Muslim government not inimical to the allied powers (P 65).

The Armenians had learned well the art of undercutting people from within during the five hundred years they were peaceful citizens of the Ottoman Empire because they became disloyal to the Ottomans when they first joined up to help the Russians conquer the Ottoman Empire around 1827. They would continue to help the Russians throughout the nineteenth century. This tiny band of dictators, calling themselves "Armenians," continue their warlike warrior complex to this day. The only difference is these "terrible" warriors use other nations` money, manpower, and weapons to attack helpless neighbors.

In 1919 the Armenians attacked Azerbaijan. "Throughout the crisis Khan Tekino kept his government informed about Armenian military movements and called for energetic counter measures. On July 14 he cabled that Armenian forces were converging upon Vedihaser and that even `the priests are appealing in their sermons for an attack against Back-Vedi as a holy crusade" (P 68).

This is the "official" church of Armenia calling for a "holy crusade" to kill and remove Muslims for one basic reason – so the good Armenian Christians could grab up the terrible Muslims` land – for free. It is no wonder, therefore, that the so-called "official, constitutional Armenia Gregorian Church" remained silent while Armenia swept the world with terrorist attacks, a policy which continues to this very day. Between 1973 and 2001, the Armenian terrorists racked more than one hundred terrorist attacks on Turkish targets, killing more than seventy people, most of them Turkish diplomats, but many unsuspecting bystanders too, without a single condemnation from the "official" church of Armenia.

Legal defense fund-raising campaigns were launched by the Armenians immediately after the assassinations and bombings by Armenian terrorists, with knowledge and support of the "official" church of Armenia. What is the difference between brainwashed Armenian youth, trained and guided to commit hate crimes in the name of religion, and the terrorists who plunged hijacked passenger planes into the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon? Aren’t both brainwashed, religious fanatics who see absolutely nothing wrong with killing innocent people in order to advance their sick causes? If we treat one as "good terrorist", the other one as "bad terrorist/` aren’t we inviting more hate crimes into our midst?

A British military officer on the scene in 1919 reported: "The crisis, he said, had been caused by external interference, the Armenian expedition against Baouk-Vedi...the distortion of facts in such matters as the Armenians attempt to register arms, and, perhaps most important, the mutual `congenital inability on the part of both sides to settle any point except by murder or massacre" (P 69).

The penetration of "Christian" Armenian military forces into Azerbaijan sent thousands of Muslims fleeing across the frontier and caused many settlements to petition nearby Turkish commanders for protection against the invaders. General Karabekir angrily reported stories of Armenian pillage, murder, and rape to Colonel Rawbinson and broadcast them throughout Anatolia. Based on these dispatches, the Turkish press forecast what might be expected in lands falling under the control of the `helpless` and `civilized` Armenians. The Ottoman general staff distributed a booklet detailing the record of Armenian atrocities in Transcaucasia… (P 80).

This same Armenian practice of driving Muslims off their lands so they can become a majority population continues to this day as evidenced by their 1992 ethnic cleansing campaign of Azerbaijan. Captain Prosser, a British officer, reported:

The Armenians are undoubtedly depressed at the withdrawal of the British to whom, in spite of frequent assurances to the contrary, they had looked to the last for assistance on behalf of the allies. They talk about fighting to the death, etc., but I think that most of the fight in them went with our departure. He ended with the following ominous prediction: `Taken all round the position of the Armenians in Kars province is not a happy one at the present moment... they are surrounded by a hostile population and with the advent of the Turk, Kars as a portion of Armenia will most likely cease to exist (P 86).

As the British began to withdraw, the Armenians made an all-out effort to get the United States to take their place in protecting and giving them someone else’s land from sea to sea. A major reason for the noninvolvement by the Americans was, as Hovannissian alleges, "a loud dissenting voice" heard from "Constantinople" from U.S. Admiral Mark L. Bristol.

The admiral expressed vehement opposition to the formation of a united Armenian state and to the American political involvement with the Armenians in communications to naval colleagues, government departments, the American peace delegation, and to businessman, philanthropists, missionaries, and politicians of many hues. Bristol, scornful of all minorities, hoped to reeducate responsible Americans who had been taken in by the popular portrayal of the `terrible Turk` and the torments suffered by Oriental Christians. He protested to the naval advisor of the American delegation: `There is no doubt in my mind of an influence continually exerted to involve America with Armenia and divert our attention from the big question of the whole Near East.` The Armenians had brought many of their woes upon themselves, and the encouragement of the British authorities and American missionary – relief interests – had emboldened the unscrupulous Armenian leaders to employ aggressive tactics. The United States should not let itself be maneuvered into Armenia. `England should be compelled to remain in the Caucasus. She went to the Caucasus for selfish reasons and she is leaving now for selfish reasons`. Bristol denied being pro-Turkish. T do not believe I am pro-anything except what I believe is absolutely right, and I try to follow that road and not give a damn for anybody else that don’t agree with me. If I am considered pro-Turk because I believe there are 20 million of Muslims out there that should be helped to gain modern civilization as well as 2 millions or so of Armenians, I would like this fact to be known then I am willing to stand on that basis (P 90-91).

Had it not been for Admiral Bristol’s vision to reconstruct what would become modern Turkey, much, if not all, of Turkey would have become part of Communist Russia during the Cold War Era. Turkey would not have become a U.S. friend and NATO partner. Who knows how the history might have unfolded, as the Soviets would finally have had the "warm ports" in the Aegean and Mediterranean, along with the crucial straits of Bosphorus and Dardanelles, that Russians desperately wanted for more than three centuries.

Modern-day Turkey has been a true and good friend of the United States since the modern republic was formed in 1923. Turks fought shoulder-to-shoulder with Americans in the last fifty years in Korea, the Gulf, Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and in the current war against terrorism. Admiral Bristol was important in founding this relationship over the objections of the Armenians and their self-serving friends. America is the better because the admiral stood tall in 1918 and 1920.

Hovannissian calls Admiral Bristol "a master of manipulation"(P 91) because he does not approve of the U.S. government’s appointment of Bristol as high commissioner in Istanbul on August 12, 1919, "a post that gave him control over both naval and diplomatic offices» (P 92)

As the British prepared to leave, the Armenian leaders became frantic. In the Armenian Parliament, the sole party controlled by the dictators, Avetik Sahakian "spoke of the iron chain closing in on Yerevan and summoned the nation to bring forward its every last resource. In mid-August the parliament declared a state of national emergency, sent emissaries to encourage the men at the front, and appeal for help to the legislators of the Great Britain, France, Italy, the United States, Greece, Romania, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Persia, China and Japan» (P 93).

To read this statement, one would think Armenia was surrounded by enemies who wanted to destroy it. The truth of the matter is, the Armenian leadership first provoked a civil war with the Ottoman Empire and their people suffered terribly because of the greed and misjudgment of the Armenian leaders. They started a war of aggression with neighboring Georgia and lost. The Armenians started a war with Azerbaijan and lost. The Armenian people paid the price in horrible human suffering.

Think about this great lie the Armenian leadership sent around the world: "Thus, even after the Allied triumph, there remains for the Armenian people no other means of safeguarding its physical existence than to take up the worst possible condition of unequal combat against the secular enemy of the Armenians and of civilization». Unfair, harsh, and unjustified words from Hovannissian. Hovannissian continues to explain the "big lie" as put forward by the Armenian leaders: "Although the call to arms would heighten suffering, increase famine and epidemic, create new orphans, lead to more exoduses, and further deplete the nation, it was the only alternative to perishing at the hands of the Turks». Hovannissian doesn’t stop there. He continues: "If it is reserved for the Armenian people to be exterminated at the moment when thousands of Allied soldiers are located at Constantinople, Trebizond, Batum, Tiflis, Baku, at a moment when they can easily stay at the hand of the butchers of the Armenian people, then it remains only to forward to the conscience of humanity its agonizing cries and to go to its fate with a firm resolution to fall with honor" (P 93-94).

This is an outrageous statement.

They started the war they were now losing. They had started the war with Azerbaijan, yet they blamed the Turks – "the butchers of the Armenian people». The Armenian leaders made the claim they would "fall with honor».

Fall with honor? By being disloyal to the Ottoman Empire, by being hostile to its neighbors in Georgia, and by being hateful and aggressive to its neighbors in Azerbaijan? What manner of honor is this in a civilized world? The answer rings out through the centuries – this Isn’t honor, it’s treason. Such conduct cannot be called Christian.

It is not honor to operate with unprovoked attacks behind the Ottoman battle lines by night and pretend to be the trusted Ottoman friends by day with whom they had lived in peace for more than five hundred years

Yet "such messages of despair spurred Armenian representatives and Armenophile societies abroad to greater activity. They wrote hundreds of letters in August 1919 to heads of states, foreign ministers, and lesser officials asking for interviews so they could once again present the Armenian case» (P 94) The truth is the Armenians were terrible and unreliable soldiers but masters of deception and deceit to achieve their objective of getting something for nothing. What they billed to the unsuspecting Christian world as "the first genocide of the twentieth century" was in fact no more than "the first mega con-job of the century," because the suffering was universal and indiscriminate, and absolutely not limited to "poor, starving Armenians" as Christians were all duped to believe. In fact, more Muslims perished as a result of atrocities between 1915 and 1922 than Armenians, at a ratio of four Muslim casualties for every Armenian casualty, in the same area, due to same reasons, in the same war. Some genocide.

The Armenians made a special effort to get free aid, free handouts, and free military protection from Great Britain. Hovannissian writes about how the Armenian leadership worked to "cover up" and "hide" their own misdeeds and demanded help from someone else when they blundered and were afraid of losing a third war.

Since Great Britain was the only power with both men and arms in Transcaucasia, the world outcry was mainly directed at London. As appeals flowed into 10 Downing Street, supporters of`Armenia in the House of Commons pelted the cabinet with questions.... Had there been fresh massacres of Armenians by Turks and Tartars in Asia Minor and the Caucasus? Had allied representatives reported that large-scale massacres of Christians would follow withdrawal of occupation troops? Were Kurds, Tartars, Turks, and Georgians attacking, or preparing to attack, the Armenian Republic of Erevan? If so, would the Armenians, as England’s friends in the late war, be rendered any assistance, or would they be left to their fate? Would the government report to the Paris Peace Conference on "the universal feeling of horror" that would be aroused, should the Armenians, who had already lost a million people through war and massacre, be once again handed over to the same people who were guilty of "those foul and wholesale massacres"? (P 94-95)

Here, as they did again and again, Armenians played the Christian ethnic card about the terrible Muslims Turks and Tartars of Asia Minor. "Asia Minor" is just another Christian code word he deliberately uses – like Constantinople and Smyrna – because it is a biblical term to define a part of the Ottoman Empire. Using such terms from the Bible, he hopes to establish a quick common ground with the unsuspecting Christian reader and convince him or her that he "must be telling the truth", after all, “Armenians are Christians”.

"The Armenian leaders raised the question of Muslim Kurds, Tartars, Turks and Georgians attacking, or preparing to attack, the Armenian Republic of Erevan?" Wait a minute. There is something wrong with this statement. The Georgians were not Muslims – they were fellow Christians with the Armenians. Clearly, once again, truth did not matter to the Armenian leaders – or the Armenian professor. This is just another example of saying anything to get something for nothing.

After World War I, the Allied nations began to demobilize and think about peace. Not the Armenians. The Armenian leaders saw an opportunity to get military supplies for free from these countries. However, there was one small problem. The Allies were not giving away their surplus military supplies – they were selling them for a greatly reduced price.

Hovannissian complains, "The White Armies of Russia received thousands of tons of supplies; the smaller Allied countries and particularly the new states that had gained recognition also benefited, as the goods were sold at or below cost and largely on credit. Armenian representatives in Europe hoped to get provisions for refugees and troops, who were in dire need of underclothing, boots, and overcoats. Despite Allied reluctance to grant credit to countries still without established boundaries, the Armenians believed that their special circumstances warranted the waving of technicalities» (P 96).

"Technicalities" of not having "established boundary" for their tiny dictatorial, aggressive state. Armenia hadn’t had a land boundary of its own for more than three thousand years, according to information listed on their official web site.

"Credit" – the Allies knew the Armenian leaders had fired up their old printing press and manufactured worthless paper that they called money. Armenia had no credit. These dictators were no more than "deadbeats" who would not pay their debts.

Armenian agents attempted to make a purchase from the U.S. Liquidation Commission in Europe, "which was disposing of surplus goods of the American Expeditionary Force». A draft contract was prepared for the delivery of uniforms, blankets, medications, office equipment, and other noncombatant material valued at nearly 4 million dollars, payable in installments commencing in 1922. But disappointment quickly followed... the Armenian foreign agents were told that was not adequate time to get the contract approved in Washington and all remaining AEF stocks, including the goods earmarked for Armenia were being transferred to the jurisdiction of the French government. The French, however, had already shown that they would sell only "for hard currency or for merchandise in exchange» (P 96).

Note how the Armenians distort the truth. "Goods earmarked for Armenia». There were no goods earmarked for anyone. It was a buyers and sellers market. The French could buy while the Armenians "with worthless money, no credit and a reputation for not making their word good" could not. The French knew the Armenian money was all but worthless and would not accept it. They also had good reason to know the Armenian leaders would not pay their debts.

After the Armenians were refused a seat on the Allied Peace Conference when it started in Paris in January 1919, the Armenian agents continued to hang around in the hope they could pick up a few free crumbs. At one point, an Armenian paid agent reported to the dictators back in Armenia that he could not receive any official communication "from any British government agency». He went on to add "that everyone seemed bored and tired of listening to Armenian spokesmen» (P 100). Is it any wonder that the British were tired of listening to such deadbeats?

"The minutes and correspondence of British officials in September occasionally suggested that predictions of imminent massacres and Turkish military involvement in Armenia were exaggerated» (P 102). Clearly, the British, learned that the Armenian leaders were acting like children crying “wolf”.

During the war, there were reports of "Turkish-Armenian volunteer bands putting the torch to Muslim settlements through which they passed, condemning the villagers to the misery of refugee existence along the Bayazit frontier» (P 105).

Such acts were nothing more than terrorist actions against helpless people. Such destruction was carried out in the name of Jesus Christ, because the Muslims believed differently than the "so-called" Christian Armenians.

British politicians began to feel the pressure generated by Armenian agents in their own country. In an effort to get out of the warring region gracefully, the British made an attempt to get the United States to take their place. The American ambassador to England was John W. Davis. His position was this: "Scarcely 100,000 American troops remained in Europe, most of them under orders to return home, and it would be difficult to put together a force sufficient to police the Caucasus. In any event, Congressional assent would be required. Davis did not believe that humanitarian considerations alone would induce the American people to abandon the Monroe Doctrine» (P l 16)

Consider what the Monroe Doctrine was to American foreign policy: On December 2, 1823, President James Monroe sent his annual message to the U.S. Congress. This message became known as the Monroe Doctrine and became the basis of American foreign policy. The Monroe Doctrine was fundamentally the assertion of an American sphere of influence. The American foreign policy from 1823 forward would be as follows:

1. North and South America were closed to further colonization by European powers.

2. The United States must not involve itself in the wars of Europe.

3. The United States would view any attempt by a European power to extend its political system to `any portion of this hemisphere as dangerous to our peace and safety”.

Here, in 1919, almost one hundred years later, the little state of Armenia, controlled by corrupt dictators, was demanding that the United States abandon its century-old foreign policy. Armenia demanded that the United States provide American soldiers to police their neck of the woods, give the Armenians millions of dollars in "aid," and protect the Armenians – all at the cost of Americans lives and American dollars.

Hovannissian objects, on behalf of the Armenian leaders, because the United States continued with its one-hundred-year foreign policy. Hovannissian never explains why the United States should protect this tiny gang of dictators when America had never gone to war against the Ottoman Empire. A mere handful of supporters of the corrupt Armenian leaders were members of the British parliament. These few, however, were very vocal in demanding that the British "protect" the Armenians. They made an attempt to commit British troops and money to aid Armenia.

"It fell upon Andrew Bonar Law, Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons to respond. Although every member in Parliament, he said, wanted to prevent further atrocities in Armenia, the government’s first responsibility was to its own people, not `to securing good order in countries like this, with which we have no connection at all.` He believed the danger was exaggerated...» (P 120).

The British government continued to press the United States to take their place. The American government responded firmly it would not do so. There was a good reason the Americans would not accept a mandate to protect the Armenians: "…the United States had not signed the Treaty of Paris in 1856, the Treaty of Berlin in 1878, or any other international agreement that had perpetuated Turkish rule over Christians, America could not be held responsible...» (P 122).

The British began to withdraw on August 15, 1919, leaving two thousand troops in Batum. Of course, the Armenian leaders` cry that their people would be massacred if the British left didn’t happen.