651) XII: Armenian Leaders Establish WorldwidePoliticalOrganization, Support Violence & Terror Campaigns: Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armen

Armenian Leaders Establish Worldwide Political Organization to Support Campaigns of Violence and Terror . .

Establishing an Armenian "Central Committee in America" In volume II of his series of four books, Hovannissian devotes Chapter Nine to what he titles "Partisan Politics». Hovannissian provides extraordinary detail into the workings of the Armenian leaders. The Armenian historian provides proof the rebellion was indeed started by Armenians, which resulted in the Ottomans` removing the Armenians from the battle zone of World War I. Clearly, the Ottomans had good reason for removing all Armenians because they pretended to be friends by day but were terrorists by night behind the Ottoman army who was fighting the Russians.

“Armenian nationalists at the other extreme continued to revel in radical terminology; and the older intellectuals holding the middle ground, though inclined to discard revolutionary tactics, wavered because of concern that Turcophile sentiment in some ministries of Allied governments would prevent a satisfactory solution of the Armenian question (P 256)

Here is proof once again that the dictators of Armenia engaged in violence and terror dating back to 1890.

"The ninth Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation held its opening ceremonies in the parliament chamber on the evening of September 27, 1919, the stage was bedecked with flags and coats of arms of party and state, photographs of the founding triumvirate – Kristapov, Rostom, Zavarian – and banners inscribed with the slogans, `Long Live United and Independent Armenia` and `Toward the Socialist International"(P 257).

The Prime Minister

Alexander Khatissian, who landed the party’s role in establishing and defending the Republic and voiced confidence that the world would soon recognize Armenia’s right to independence and that peace would come to the Caucasus. Keynote speaker Nikal Aghkalian declared that loyalty to and participation in the allied war effort with volunteer units had entitled Armenia to join the family of sovereign states. The Dashnaksutiun, he added had united the Armenian people across international boundaries and had become so pervasive a force that the fate of the nation was inseparable from that of the party (P 258).

What an amazing statement in light of all the proof that has been recorded in this response to Hovannissian. These dictator leaders even attempted to lie to their own people. Volunteer units – Isn’t this a nice way to avoid the draft of troops used by the other Allies?

Moderated socialists attempted to create a balance among these different factions within the party. "The conciliation of divergent proposals was seldom accomplished, however, without recourse to ambiguous phraseology and all grievances could not be passed over in silence. The resentment of the ultra nationalist wing, composed principally of western Armenian warriors, was brought home in a thirty-three point petition submitted to the presidium by non-delegate Sinkat (Baroyan), who had been a staff officer under General Andronik. Each point bristled with insinuation» (P 258).

Some of these points are as follows:

• Who was responsible for abandoning the Armenians of Mush and Bitlis in 1915?

• For the collapse of the front in 1918?

• For the toleration of vendettas and "Mauserism" within the party and corruption in the state administration?

• For antidemocratic conscription procedures?

• For discrimination against Western Armenian soldiers, officials, and refugees?

• For the delay in repatriation?

• How long would the party remain mute, while Bureau members ignored the prescribed limits of their authority, and dictated ruinous policies, while prominent western Armenian comrades failed to account for funds entrusted to them, and for irresponsible deeds, while party journal sprinted conflicting and contradictory editorials, and while absurd socialistic propaganda obscured and distorted the patriotic struggle for national freedom?

• Was reborn Armenia to be the fatherland of one faction of the party or of the entire Armenian people?

Hovannissian comments as follows on these questions: "Unless the Congress settled these and other questions and avoided the customary halfway measures that veiled truth and perpetuated tyranny, the Armenian Revolutionary Federation would fail in its holy mission. Although filled with personal injury and exaggeration, the accusations nonetheless touched on very real issues» (P 259).

Will any non-Armenian believe this Armenian history professor who describes all the dictatorial Armenian conduct as "its holy mission"? At least he admits the Armenian Revolutionary Federation, founded in 1890, did, in fact, “perpetuate tyranny”. This Socialist political party convention did attempt to deal with the events of 1915 that modern day money grabbing Armenians deliberately misrepresent as genocide:

Rationalization also marked the debates on the volunteer movement. In retrospect it seemed that the formation of armed units on the Caucasus front in 1914 had removed any remaining Turkish hesitation to initiate deportations and measures. The re-indicators, on the other hand, maintained that the movement was the inevitable response to the fanatic Pan-Turanian and Armenophobe doctrines of the Iktihadists and a spontaneous manifestations of Armenians national aspirations, which the Dashnaktautiun could not ignore. The majority took the latter position, resolving `to reject decisively all those opinions that Armenian misfortunes had resulted directly from the volunteer movement and, on the contrary, to regard it as a historic episode in the self-defense of the Armenian people and as the clarion of their political freedom (P 2 59)

The terrorist organization that began in 1890 had by now, by their own admission, "volunteer" troops fighting the Ottomans. The Armenians called their conduct "self-defense». What else would one expect from bandit dictator politicians? Treason and disloyalty is the true description of what they did.

As with many political conventions, the Armenians passed resolutions. One such resolution passed in 1919 has reached out over the years and has worldwide implications today:

“...a separate resolution on Karabagh and Zangezur was necessary to guarantee the Republic’s permanent incorporation of `this inseparable sector of independent and united Armenia.` Anticipating the allied imposition of a harsh treaty on the Ottoman Empire, the Congress did not consider the possibility of diplomatic relations with the Turkish government; after all, after Koriun Ghagazian’s exposition on the perils posed by the Milli (Nationalist) movement, however, it did call upon the Bureau to make a concerted effort to thwart the Milli intrigues emanating from Turkey, Azerbaijan and Georgia” (P 262).

The 1919 dictatorial party resolution relating to Karabagh continues to this day. In 1992, Armenia, with the help of 1 billion dollars in Russian military equipment, according to a Congressional report (See "Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict," IB92109, June 7, 2001, by Carol Migdalovitz, Foreign Affairs, Defense, and Trade Division.) swept into this region, which makes up 20 percent of Azerbaijan, and by force of arms murdered and removed more than 1 million Muslims. Why is the United States rewarding the Armenian leaders, who perpetrated both aggression and ethnic cleansing in Azerbaijan, with 1.4 billion dollars?

During the years 1992 through 2001, the U.S. government has given this gang of land-stealing bandits more than 1.4 billion dollars in foreign aid money – perhaps more per capita than to any other nation on earth. At the same time, when Azerbaijan began defending itself, the U.S. government cut foreign aid to them. Why? Because of the political-money pressure lobby of Armenians in the United States.

Another "attitude" problem of the Armenians is that they refused to even consider establishing diplomatic relations with their neighbors in 1919. And these Armenians keep calling themselves the first Christian nation in the world. Perhaps the Armenian conscience hurt the Armenians because of their disloyalty and treachery in dealing with the Ottomans beginning in 1890 when the Armenian Revolutionary dictatorial party was established. While they were double-dealing the Ottomans, the dictators who called themselves "Armenians/` demanded fair dealing from everyone else. They wanted free lands belonging to someone else. They wanted cash and handouts from every Christian nation on earth.

The Armenians had paid agents in Christian nations all over the world beginning in 1918. In 1919 they attempted to interfere with relationships between Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. The reader will recall, time after time, that these dictators cried out in anguish and told stories about foreign interference in their land grab attempt. Yet, when they do it to other countries, it’s okay.

There was an Armenian resolution relating to internal affairs. It asserted that national independence was the only way to ensure physical security and political emancipation for the laboring masses, that the counter-revolutionary plots of the Turco-Azerbaijani beks and azghas were intended to eliminate the Armenian people, and that the Tatar working elements, because of cultural backwardness and undeveloped class consciousness, had served as unwitting destructive instruments for the beks and aghas. To remove this situation, Armenia had to propagate concepts of inter-racial harmony, class warfare, and enlightened internationalism among the people of the East. The ninth Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation advocated the following steps: To implement as quickly as possible the social reforms outlined in the party program; to root out every reactionary and anti-governmental movement, whatever its origin or source of support; to bring workers and peasants of all nationalities into a common class struggle against the exploiting elite… (P 262).

Sounds like communism. Is it any wonder Armenia was taken over in just a few more months without a whimper from the Armenian Christian dictators? Just a few months before these words were written, the Communist Party in Armenia presented its government with a petition signed by more than 1 million of the 2.7 million people in the country, asking that Armenia return to become a part of Russia. It is also of interest to note that more than 1 million Armenians have fled their country during the past ten years. If this rate continues no one will have to be concerned with this tiny country twenty years from now.

There was one basic flaw in the demands the Armenians were making on the Allies during the Paris Peace Conference. The Armenians were demanding an equal seat at the conference table. The only problem was the Allies didn’t know who to seat because there were two different groups of Armenians in Paris making different demands on behalf of their country and each demanded the same seat.

Hovannissian explains the situation in this manner: "Although the presence of two Armenian delegations at Paris could be explained by the centuries long division of the country, this dualism accentuated the sectionalism that would have to be overcome. Many Western Armenians were perplexed that the road to independence had surfaced in Russian Armenia, when Turkish Armenia had been the center of the emancipatory movement for nearly a half a century» (P 277).

Translated into plain language, Hovannissian is saying that Armenians had been plotting and scheming to overthrow the Ottoman government for about fifty years. That means Armenians began being disloyal and betraying a government with whom they had lived in peace since about 1869. This is twenty-one years before the dictators` Armenian Revolutionary Federation was born in 1890.

There were clearly two different factions attempting to gobble up the dictatorial power in Armenia. The power struggle continued throughout the entire party Congress. The final version was held on November 16. Both sides knew that failure to reach agreement would cause dissension among the communities abroad, yet neither would give way. Vahan Tehayan, stated that the disappointing reception of the National Delegation’s plan left the mission no alternative but to halt the negotiations and let the National Delegation decide what to do next. Simon Vratzian, also sullen, reported that the counterproposals and concessions made by his side had not satisfied the National Delegation. The meeting was adjourned with mutual expressions of hope that in the absence of a formal accord would not prevent close collaboration in the common struggle for a free, united, and independent Armenia (P 277)

However, as with all dictatorial power plays, mere words would not satisfy these "Christian" Armenian bandits. Rather than a united government, the negotiations simply brought greater distrust and confusion. Before leaving Yerevan on November 24, Tebeyan and Ter-Stepanian released a public statement revealing their anger and frustration and promising that the National Delegation would continue to seek unification. On the other side, Vratzian wrote the Dashnakist central committee of America that the failure of the conference would evoke recriminations, and he urged his comrades `to participate in no-way – or at least with extreme caution and reserve – in this campaign.` If the attacks became vicious, publication of the conference minutes without comment would be the most effective response. It was shameful, he continued, that the Armenians had been unable to show the world that they were united.(P 278)

What was this gang of self-named Christian Armenian bandits doing with a "Central Committee of America?" What was this committee doing and who was paying the bills for it? No one has ever confronted the un-American behavior by Armenians and exposed them for what they are – un-Christian bandit terrorists who covet other people’s land and take it by covering themselves with the blood of Jesus Christ.

"Fears about the exacerbation of intra-Armenian discord were not unfounded. Shortly after Tekeyan and Ter-Stepanian had reported to Boghos Nubar, the Ramkavar press bitterly accused the Dashnaksutiun of an insatiable lust for power and the Dashnakist spokesmen in Paris of duplicity, for even while publicly calling for unity they had secretly been undermining the negotiations in Erevan» (P 278)

This is proof of a dictatorial government that would double-deal anyone who disagreed with it – even its own party members.