663) XXI: Armenia in Today’s World Still a Terrorist State & EndNotes : Secrets Of "Christian" Terrorist State Armenia

. .
An examination of the activities of the Armenian-Americans, beginning from the year1918, clearly shows that this group of people has worked tirelessly to support the Armenian public policy that aids and abets terrorism. Above all, they worked diligently to obtain more and more U.S. taxpayers` money, collected by the U.S. government and succeeded in granting it to Armenia, surpassing the figure of (1.4 billion dollars between 1991 and 2001). These colonists have also worked – and still do – very hard to obtain support and financial help from individuals, such as Christians, belonging to varied groups of denominational churches and their charitable institutions.

On September 11, 2001, the United States became the victim of the greatest terrorist attack in the history of the nation. Thousands of individuals lost their lives. The price in dollars to Americans in just the first sixty days was staggering:

• 40 billion dollars of emergency spending to help New YorkCity

• 15 billion dollars to help the airlines recover

• 90 billion dollars to help stimulate the economy

• 9 billion dollars for airline security

• 20 billion dollars to help the insurance industry

• 10 billion dollars to deal with bio-terrorism

• 5 billion dollars to help the postal service

• 200 billion dollars lost in the U.S. economy.

These 389 billion dollars was America’s loss in the first sixty days following the despicable work of nineteen terrorists, flying their hijacked airplanes into the World Trade Center’s twin towers in New York City and into the Pentagon building in Washington D.C.

This sum of 389 billion dollars represents only the federal losses. Additionally, each of the fifty states has lost huge amounts of money:

• Overtime pay for public-safety personnel

• Hazardous-material equipment

• Recruitment and training of new personnel

• Enhanced intelligence gathering

• Revision of emergency-preparedness plans

• Responses to threats and hoaxes

And the cost of terrorism continues to climb.

President George W. Bush worked to establish a coalition partnership around the world, joining forces with the United States in the war against terrorism. The nineteen men who hijacked the three airplanes used in the terrorist attack were Muslim extremists. President Bush sought and secured the crucial support and help of many Muslim nations in this fight against terrorism. He called this action of the U.S. government and the international coalition a "war».

Turkey, a Muslim nation, is a loyal friend and ally of the United States. Within thirty minutes of the third plane hitting its last target in Washington, D.C., the president of Turkey, Mr. Sezer, went on national television to tell the citizens of the country that he had placed the Turkish military on highest alert. He also

announced he had called the president of the United States only fifteen minutes earlier to tell him that if Americans went to war, they could count on the Turks to be there by their side.

Within the first sixty days a Turkish contingency of highly trained "Brown Beret" commandos were operating in Afghanistan. Turkey was the first Muslim nation to do so, as they had done earlier standing side by side with the United States in many world conflicts. During such times, Armenia was no where to be found when the United States needed help. When a new and friendly regime replaces the Taliban terrorists in Afghanistan, the importance of this gesture of the Turks will reinforce the U.S. Turkish friendship, and thus America will gain a most amicable profit margin within the Muslim world, all resulting from the correct decision taken by America’s staunch ally, the Turkish Republic.

It must also never be forgotten that Turkey was the foundation of America’s success in the 1991 Gulf War against Iraq. In 1991 Turkey joined with the United States to defeat Iraq by providing bases for launching pads for American air strikes in this military campaign. Today, Turkey provides the land bases for American aircraft to enforce no-fly zones in Iraq. Consider for a moment that Turkey, a Muslim state, took such an active role in a military campaign against another Muslim state next door. This is a tried-and-true friendship between Turkey and the United States.

Pakistan, a Muslim nation, was not on overly friendly terms with the United States on September 11, 2001. Pakistan is located next door to Afghanistan. Following the proper gesture given by the president of Pakistan, Pervez Musharraf, President Bush has reached out to this Muslim nation, and consequently, a partnership was established. President Bush also extended a friendly hand to Azerbaijan, another Muslim nation in the vicinity of Afghanistan. The president soon indicated he was in favor of repealing the law known as Section 907 Freedom Support Act of 1992. This unjust law has empowered the supporters

of the Armenians and hampered the U.S. government from helping the country of Azerbaijan.

A short review of the recent history of the Caucasus reveals that in 1992, "Christian" Armenia surreptitiously attacked its neighbor. The Armenian special forces swooped down from the surrounding hills into the Azeri villages and slit the throats of more than five thousand men, women, and children while they were sleeping in their beds. This attack by Armenia on its neighbor Azerbaijan did not create much commotion in the American media. It was the kind of attack, which had occurred once before by the Japanese in Pearl Harbor. The same kind of terrorist aggression would again take place this year in New York and in Washington, D.C., as a result of the Islamist groups. Thanks to the cleverly organized and conducted efforts of the Armenian organizations, the world has not learned about the Armenians` Azerbaijan invasion until much later in the game.

These "Christian" Armenians have driven more than a million destitute Muslims from their homes. To this day not a red penny has been compensated for taking over the lands and the property of the Muslim Azeris. The government of Azerbaijan fought back by closing all their Caspian Sea ports to landlocked Armenia. Thus, they were able to establish a much-needed blockade against their perennial enemy. Azerbaijan also refused to permit Armenia to use its soil to transport supplies. In other words, Azerbaijan stopped the most direct route for Armenians to receive any supplies, military or otherwise.

The Armenian-American colonists went to work lobbying the U.S. Congress to cut foreign aid to Azerbaijan. There is no Azerbaijan-American lobby in the United States and it was a simple thing for Armenians to get a federal law passed, declaring that Azerbaijan had established an "illegal blockade" on Armenia. In this Armenian-American colonist legislation American foreign aid would be curtailed from Azerbaijan, as long as that government of Azerbaijan prevented Armenia from using Azeri ports and soil to replenish its military supplies to fight a war against Azerbaijan.

President Bush, in reaching out to establish a partnership with Azerbaijan, asked Congress to repeal the Armenian-sponsored Section 907 Freedom Support Act of 1992. The president made the decision that it was in the best interest of all Americans to help Azerbaijan. The president determined that Muslim Azerbaijan was an important ally to have on America’s side during the War on Terrorism because of the proximity of Azerbaijan’s geopolitical position vis-a-vis Pakistan.

One might ask what had Armenia done in the course of fighting against terrorism, since it was also as close to Afghanistan as was Azerbaijan? The answer is nothing. Armenia remains in need of all its troops, its supplies, and of its energy to fight Azerbaijan in an ongoing effort to retain illegally the lands it grabbed by force from its Muslim neighbor Azerbaijan in 1992.

In the meantime, the Armenian-American colonists have done a lot in the United States. Van Krikorian is a New York-based Armenian-American lawyer who chairs the board of the Armenian Assembly of America. Mr. Krikorian has gone on record saying that his organization opposes the repeal of "their" 1992 federal law, Section 907 Freedom Act, on the grounds that Armenia would have a great deal to fear from the establishment of a United States-Azerbaijan partnership that might harm their two-hundred-year-old "ancient" homeland.

The New York Armenian-American colonist accuses the Azerbaijani government for having invited some groups of people with ties to Osama bin Laden to help them in 1993 with their war with Armenia. Van Krikorian continues to play the Christian-Muslim card one more time by pointing out to the world that Azerbaijanis are Muslim and Armenians are Christian.

The allegation made by Mr. Krikorian concerning the bin Laden ties with Azerbaijan are devoid of any proof whatsoever. However, ABC ran a story claiming that Armenia was a place where bin Laden kept much of his money. As a result, the Armenian-American colonists sent off countless letters and e-mails and made many phone calls to the network, protesting the news story. The truth was not an important commodity for the Arme

nians. What was of crucial importance was that the story on the television screens had shown Armenia in a bad light.

This Armenian-American lawyer, when talking about the war on terrorism, made the following statement: "We understand the desire of the U.S. Administration in rooting out the world terrorism. Nevertheless, Armenia also is a front-line state. We want to see the U.S. efforts in relation to the war efforts against terrorism be applied to Azerbaijan also. The kind of assistance promised to be given to Azerbaijan would be counterproductive for Armenia, and would increase the security threats and risks to Armenia and to Nagorno-Karabakh».

It is clearly in the best interest of the United States to reach out in friendship to other members of the coalition in the course of establishing positive alliances with as many Muslim nations as possible. The chairman of the Armenian-American Assembly also has to do his part in this struggle. Instead, his organization is on record of launching a massive telephone and letter-writing campaign to the members of the U.S. Congress, attempting to get them to reject the President’s request to repeal the 1992 law Section 907. These selfish Armenian-American colonists do not want the United States to establish any friendly relationship with Azerbaijan. They are afraid the U.S. government would find out the truth about them, and consequently help Azerbaijan to take back the land the Armenians stole from them in 1992. These Armenian-American colonists believe it is more important for Armenia to hold on to their plundered lands than see the United States win the War on Terrorism.

The Armenian-American colonists have been very successful, since 1918, in obtaining monetary and moral support from the United States and from individual unsuspecting Americans. Between the years 1991-2001 they have procured for Armenia more than 1.4 billion dollars from the U.S. federal government. This amount constitutes perhaps more dollars per capita than to any other nation on earth. And to think that the Russians gave Armenia more than a billion dollars worth of military aid and weaponry during this same period of time is just mind-bog-

gling. Armenia invited the Russians to build and staff military bases in their so-called independent republic, allocating a large portion of their territory facing Turkey to the Russians free of charge, and the Russians gladly obliged the Armenians, of course.

There is also the oil factor for Americans. The events of September 11 proved that the steady rise in the price of oil during the past decade, vindicated President Bush in his efforts to befriend as many Muslim nations as he could where some of whom are in control of the petroleum reserves of the world. The U.S. president is also correct in attempting to reach out to all Muslim nations, in a true measure of friendliness. The time and the patience of everyone in this country are fast disappearing when it comes to standing up and refuting the selfish, and the un-American behavior of Armenian colonists, who want nothing more than spending the hard-earned tax revenues collected from the U.S. citizens to be given away as a gift to an alien country in the Caucasus, which used to be called Soviet Armenia not so long ago. Even today Armenians cannot stop from acting as if it still continues to be a satellite of Vladimir Putin’s Russia. The U.S. Armenian colonists have been rewarding their alien compatriots in Armenia with U.S. dollars.

Several human rights organizations have published their findings of events that have taken place within Armenia within recent years. Among those organizations are the United Nations Committee Against Torture, Amnesty International, World Press Review, and Human Rights Watch World Report.

These groups discovered that there is widespread suppression of political and personal freedoms within Armenia. Political party activity has been banned and candidates not allowed to seek public office. Popular dictator local officials are allowed as "stand-in" candidates for state office. Once the elections are over and the local "stand in" is elected, the dictators appoint who they wish to the office of the "stand-in" candidate.

Consider these abuses within Armenian judicial due process procedures:

• The state police can search and take property from acitizen’s home without a search warrant.

• Defendants in criminal cases are often not allowed to select the lawyer of personal choice.

• The state police often harass defense lawyers.

• Defense lawyers are refused proper contact with their clients who are kept in jail.

• Defense lawyers are not permitted to examine all the evidence before a case goes to trial.

• There is harassment of defendant’s family members. Statepolice often torture defendants while in custody to securea confession. In addition, there is the presumption that adefendant is guilty as charged and the burden is on thedefense to prove innocence.

There is little that can be called the free press in Armenia. The state government does the actual printing and distribution of newspapers. Newspapers have been shut down after printing articles unfavorable to the government. Newspaper reporters have been arrested and even killed. TV stations have had their state owned power cut off when running information about opposition candidates for public office.

Armenia claims to be the oldest Christian nation in the world although the church’s practices are suspect to world Christianity. Perhaps this is why there is such widespread indifference to the state religion in Armenia. After all, Armenians, for all practical purposes, attend the state official church or attend no church at all because other Christian denominations are not permitted. Throughout Armenia, churches are poorly attended and most church buildings are in a poor repair.

Any Christian denomination, other than the official state-church, is subjected to harassment and violence if they attempt to practice their individual-independent faiths in Armenia. The state constitution gives the "official" church the absolute right

to subject Armenians to its brand of Christianity and there is little room for any other view of Christ but theirs.

Political assassinations are common place in Armenia today. The mayor of Yervan, the capital city, complained about the corruption within state government, and was murdered. Many individuals who have attempted to object and speak out about state government abuse have been assassinated.

The Prime Minister, Vashen Sarkisyan, and seven members of the Armenian Parliament were shot and killed right in the heart of the legislative chambers of the capital city

The state prosecutor, the deputy defense minister, and the interior minister were all assassinated

The "election process" is flawed and has a record of abuse and illegal acts by state officials. Perhaps this is why so few Armenian citizens bother to vote in such a corrupt election system.

Often, opposition political party demonstrations are broken up by police and leaders arrested and held in jail for long periods of time. Opposition party candidates are often simply removed from the official election ballots. Violence and intimidation of political opposition opponents are commonplace.

In one recent state election, international observers received 1,019 complaints before the election was held. When the votes were cast there were 1,770 election observers at the polling places throughout Armenia. The conclusion was there was "barely manageable chaos" within the election stations. There were several clashes between public and election officials. There was pressure put on voters before entering the voting stations as well as on them once inside as to how to vote.

It was common for the government to have surveillance officers in and around the voting stations. There were also government officials inside the voting stations claiming to the "observers».

There is also a serious question as to the actual number of voters on the official government list. Even though as much as 25 percent of the population has fled Armenia, the "qualified" voter list continues to grow.

Armenian law requires all voters to register by name and date of birth. Most of the new increase in the growth of the official state voter list does not provide the date of birth with the name of the individual who has registered. The government explains that these individuals were born before the revolution and there is no documentary evidence as to when they were born. Of course, with such phantom voters it is a simple matter to "fix" an election by casting ballots for such names.

It is common in voting stations for candidates, approved by the state, to have political posters both inside and outside the building. If the dictators do not approve a candidate, they are refused the right to place posters even near where citizens vote.

It is also common to not allow opposition candidates or their supporters to be present when votes are counted. It is also difficult to get an accurate number of registered voters, how many voted or how many ballots were cast for each candidate.

Nagorno-Karabakh

The history of Karabakh is rooted in antiquity. It is one of the historic provinces of Azerbaijan. This region is (or perhaps better stated) was an important political, cultural, and spiritual center.

Ever since Armenia became a tiny state in 1918 it has made bogus claims on lands belonging to its neighbors – Georgia, Ottoman Empire, and Azerbaijan. The so-called "Karabakh problem" is a creation of the false claims made by Armenians.

From the fourth century b.c. to the eighth century a.d., the territory of the current Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan was one of the provinces of Caucasian Albania, the most ancient state of Northern Azerbaijan. Karabakh has never been a part of the Armenian state until the Armenians captured it by brute force in 1992.

Armenians love to claim they are descended from Hayk, the great-great grandson of the Biblical patriarch Noah. Because Noah’s arc is supposed to have come to rest on Mount Ararat, Armenians conclude that all of eastern Anatolia must have been

the original Armenian ancient homeland. This wild claim is based on nothing other than fables, certainly not on any scientific or archaeological evidence. Historian Auguste Carriere summarily dismisses this claim.

The actual truth is there were few Armenians even in the Caucasus region at all in 1800. Christian Armenians were brought into the Caucasus by the Russians starting in the early to mid-1800s and given free lands – lands the Russians had taken from Muslims after forcing them out of the region at gunpoint.

Russia began annexing the Caucasus in 1826. According to Russian documents of this period there were ninety thousand people living in Karabakh. There was 1 large town and 600 villages, only 150 of them were Armenian. By the end of the nineteenth century and after the forced removal of most Muslims, Armenians became a majority population. The reason the Russians brought in more than 130,000 Armenians between the years 1828 and 1830 and gave them Muslim lands and homes was they knew they would support the Russian Christian church as contrasted to Muslims who would not do so.

Between 1907 and 1912 the Russians assisted more than 500,000 Armenians to move from Iran and other Ottoman Empire lands into Kars, Erivan, and the Yelizavetpol districts where most of the population was Azerbaijani Muslims. This action was designed by the Russians to make an inter-ethnic situation even more tense and strengthen Russian dominance of the regions. In other words, Russia changed the demography in the area by force merely to serve Russia’s geo-political interests. Azeris and other Muslims were victimized in the process and Armenians were more than happy recipients of confiscated lands and properties of the victims.

Armenians created a political organization – Dashnaksutyan – in 1890. This organization used terrorism and armed rebellion to achieve its goal of unifying territories with Armenian migrant populations from Iran and Turkey.

The Azerbaijan Democratic Republic, the first democratic state in the Muslim world, was established on May 28, 1918.

The sad facts are these pitiful Armenians believe that by driving defenseless Muslim Azerbaijanis from their homes, they are winning a war against the Turks. In the misguided Armenian mind-set, Muslim Azerbaijanis are the same as Muslim Turks. Armenians say "we are a nation of believers and have always fought the Turks». This is not quite the truth because the Armenians haven’t always fought the Turks. They lived at peace with Muslim Turks for five hundred years before a small band of dictators began coveting Muslim lands for themselves beginning around 1890. Even then, the Armenians never fought the Turks alone – they always had Russians helping them.

Armenians claim to be the last real Christian state in the Caucasus and that they are surrounded by enemies. They don’t mention that Georgia is a Christian state and the fact Armenians started a war with this Christian neighbor too.

Armenians learned their lesson that the basic reason no one supported their wild claim to Karabakh in years past was because there was no road between them. Today, the best road in Armenia is a new one constructed from Yerevan, the Armenian capital, to the de facto Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. If Armenia didn’t help Karabakh become a new state – why did they build a fine road to them?

To drive on this new road through Karabakh is to see abandoned and destroyed Muslim Azeri villages. This land today has been totally "cleansed" of Muslims village by village. One observer sadly said, "I looked around at the shattered walls of a cleansed village and was overtaken by an overwhelming nausea.

The Armenian leaders claim "approved" visitors to Karabakh can go anywhere and photograph anything. The truth is "approved" visitors are escorted and neither allowed total freedom of movement nor freedom to photograph. One of the first steps this new republic did was to attempt to establish good relationships with its neighbors. The second day of its existence, Azerbaijan gave the town of Yerevan to the Republic of Armenia, which had declared independence but had no political center. The new state of Armenia was composed of only the Erivan and Echmiadzin districts and had only 400;000 residents. Whereas Azerbaijan worked for cooperation and peace, the Armenians worked to get more free land by the use of terror for their tiny state.

After Armenians lost a war with Georgia, it launched a second attack on Azerbaijan. During this war the Christian Armenians destroyed 115 Azerbaijani villages, murdered more than 7,000 Azerbaijanis, and forced more than 50,000 Muslims from their homes. The Azerbaijanis fought back, and the Armenians retreated.

Even after being thrown out of Azerbaijan, the Armenian leaders continued their land grab attempts in Azerbaijan in 1920 by launching guerilla punitive activities in Karabakh, Nahcivan, and Zangegur. That same year the Russian Bolsheviks invaded Azerbaijan, and soon afterward took Armenia without having to fire a shot.

Even the Russian Communists agreed that Karabakh was a part of Azerbaijan. The Russians made a common sense decision. The only road into Karabakh ran to Baku in Azerbaijan. There was no road from Karabakh into Armenia.

As the Soviet Union broke up in the late 1980s, the Armenians began to clamor that Muslim Azerbaijan was discriminating against the Christians in Karabakh. This simply is not true. The real reason was the Armenians wanted to expand their tiny state.

Armenians, living within Karabakh, assisted their Armenian state friends once the Muslims were driven out by declaring a state of their own – a de facto, non-recognized state called the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian leaders claimed they had nothing to do with the rebellion within this region. This is yet another Armenian tall tale in an attempt to deceive the world of their real ethnic cleansing actions.

The former Azeri city of Agdam is but one of many examples of Armenian total destruction. Ten years ago it enjoyed a large Azerbaijan Muslim population. Today what is left is completely deserted. A looted ruin is all that remains. This is typical of every Muslim Azerbaijani city and village in Karabakh.

After World War I Armenia demanded that the Allied Peace Conference give them reparations from the Ottoman Empire. The Allies heard them out and gave them nothing. Today’s generation of Armenians now demand that Turkey give them reparations from World War I. The Armenians have proposed that a self-appointed reconciliation commission be formed with both Turks and Armenians as members.

The Armenians are attempting to use the proven Russian tactics of the nineteenth century – remove the Muslims from their homes and lands by force, pay them nothing, then resettle the lands with Christian Armenians. Now that Armenia has Azerbaijan lands they want to talk the matter to death while they strip and steal everything they can carry away. In the meantime, Armenians knowing they can’t terrorize Turkish Muslims like they have the Azerbaijani Muslims want to talk through their reconciliation commission.

The establishment of a Turkish-Armenian commission is yet just another example of Armenia trying to talk its way into "getting something for nothing». There is no way tiny Armenia can bully Turkey the way it is trying to do Azerbaijan.

In the 1970s and 1980s Armenian assassins traveled the world murdering many Turkish diplomats, several of them here in the United States.

In 1992, when Armenia became independent again after being a part of the Soviet Union for 70 years, they received more than a billion dollars in military arms and supplies from the Russians and made another unprovoked on neighbor Azerbaijan. These Armenian Christians, by force of arms, removed more than a million poor Muslims from their homes and captured some 20 percent of their neighbor’s land. Over the past ten years these same Armenians have conned the American government and out of 1.4 billion dollars in "foreign aid" – perhaps more per capita than to any other country on earth. This

doesn’t count the millions of dollars American Christian groups have poured into this terrorist state in the name of Jesus Christ.

Today, the Armenians want to have what they call "reconciliation" with Turkey for their own disloyalty to the Ottomans. However, in keeping with true Armenian tradition, the Turks can’t talk about nor consider Armenians bad acts. The Turks are to accept and believe the tall tales on the word of Armenians because only the Armenian version of fact (unsupported by and never based on the truth) is to be considered.

A major news story about the "reconciliation commission" was published by the Turkish Times on August 8, 2001. In a joint statement by commission members, they stated, "We all agree that this commission is not focused on determining whether or not there was a genocide. The international community and we have already taken that as a non-negotiable fact, and this fact is the basis for our discussions». This is an incredible position.

The following is the agenda established by the Armenians for the reconciliation commission to consider: This so-called commission is a self-appointed group with no official approval by anyone:

1. Get the U.S. government to recognize a genocide the Armenians say took place in 1915 for which Armenia claims the Turks are 100 percent guilty. This first point is a direct contradiction. The commission just said in their Turkish newspaper interview that the genocide was a nonnegotiable fact; so why do the Armenians want to continue to drag America into this question? In addition, the Armenians just said in their Turkish interview that the genocide was an international community accepted fact. If this is a true statement why are the Armenians wanting to have U.S. approval? Apparently, the Armenians don’t consider the United States to be a part of the international community of nations even though they have begged 1.4 billion dollars in aid from America over the past ten years.

2. Get the U.S. State Department to work to support Armenian claims for reparations from Turkey. Why should theUnited States become involved in this matter at all?

3. Convince the leaders of Turkish civil society there was genocide, as the Armenians claim.

4. Get the elite of Turkey to accept that admitting genocide isin the Turk’s best interest.

5. Educate the public at large in Turkey that there was genocide as the Armenians claim.

6. Test Turkish schoolchildren on a regular basis to verify that they believe their forefathers committed the first genocideof the twentieth century in 1915.

7. Portray the Turkish government and its people as "not yetready to behave according to the norms of modern civilizednations if the Turks don’t do each of the above dictated commission directives.

Ozdem Sanberk, a Turkish member of the commission states: "the intent is not to find what truth is, but to open new horizons for the future and enhance mutual understanding». Another Turkish member, liter Turkmen, says, "the commission’s task is not to come to historical judgment».

What this American observer sees, however, is totally different. First of all, this author does not even understand why in the world Turks even agreed to sit down and discuss such an issue in the first place based on only the Armenian agenda. A "reconciliation" means there are two sides that need to come together. It is crystal clear the Armenians have stated well their demands for the continuance of the reconciliation meetings. Now it’s the Turks` turn to say what the Armenians must do for "reconciliation». Here are suggestions to be considered before the Turks can consider the Armenian demands:

1. Since the Armenians boast of being the world’s first Christian state, they should prove their faith by taking the first step toward peace. A good beginning for them is to admit

their forefathers worked for thirty years to overthrow, by force of arms, the Ottoman Empire wherein they had lived in peace for more than five hundred years.

2. Armenians must admit they were disloyal to the Ottomansby joining forces with the Russians to take control of theOttoman territory, so Armenians could get free Muslim landswhen the Armenians were not even the majority population.

3. Armenians must admit the Ottomans had the legal right todefend themselves and to remove all Armenians behind thebattle lines because many Armenians were engaging in military acts to help the Russians. This is the same right theUnited States used to remove Japanese Americans from theWest Coast at the start of World War II.

4. Armenians must admit that their people engaged in massacres of Turks within the Russian side of the combat zonesprior to and after 1915. Clearly both Armenians and Turkspaid a terrible price with their lives. This was not a onesided war as the Armenians claim.

5. Armenians must acknowledge that the Armenian dictator-government of 1918 started unprovoked, cowardly warswith neighbors Georgia and Azerbaijan in a failed land grabattempt.

6. Armenians must acknowledge that present-day Turkey isopen to all religions and all people enjoy total religious freedom, in the best tradition of the Ottoman Empire over thepast seven centuries, and that there is no universal religiousfreedom in Armenia today. Compare the fact there are noactive Muslim mosques left open in Armenia (none are permitted to operate on a regular basis) with the large numberof Christian churches that operate in Turkey today. It is clearthat Armenians are very intolerant of other religions on theirsoil. They don’t even allow other Christian denominationsto come into their land to share Jesus Christ. Armenia hasone state-approved official church and it is written into their

constitution. There are more Armenian churches in Turkey today than there are in Armenia.

7. Armenians must work to get the Armenian government toaccept, respect, and support the rights of minorities, so thatMuslims may enjoy the same rights as Christians in Armenia. Civilized states do not engage in ethnic cleansing intoday’s modern world. Armenia must renounce and stopthe practice of getting rid of Muslims just because they believe differently than they do.

8. Armenians must admit they have persecuted Muslims sincethe mid-1800s and that Armenia’s persecution and terrorism of Muslims continues to this day.

9. Armenians must guarantee that no commission member hasa conflict of interest now or in the future. Case in point:Van Krikorian, a member of the commission, has made anissue of "conflict of interest». He states he has no businessdealings with the Turks or Turkey. Will attorney Krikorianpledge also, that he will not represent Armenian clients inattempting to get "reparations" from Turkey the Ottomansor anyone else in the future? The question must also beasked: What is an American lawyer doing on this commission anyway?

10. Armenians must work to get their government and the stateapproved only church to admit they have supported terrorist activities since 1890 and promise to end such acts ofterror.

11. Armenians must work to get Armenia and the Armenianstate approved only church to say they are sorry for theovert and covert support for thirty-plus years of Armenianterrorist groups such as ASALA, JCAG, and other such terrorist organizations in their world-wide attempts to murderTurkish diplomats and an American historian.

12. The Armenian government made a long and emotional presentation to the Paris Peace Commission in 1919 when they made their case to get "reparations" from the Ottomans.

The Peace Conference, after hearing all the evidence, including systematic mass murder allegations said "no" and gave the Armenians "zero». This issue was settled back in 1919. Armenians must now admit this fact and state in public this issue was settled in 1919 and must not ever be brought up again.

Reconciliation can only happen if both sides are honest, fair, and just.

On October 16, 2001, Attorney Krikorian was a guest on the Armenian Radio Hour of New Jersey. This attorney is a former Director of Government and Legal Affairs of the Armenian Assembly of America in Washington and in 1992 was the Republic of Armenia’s Deputy Permanent Representative to the United Nations. He currently serves as Chairman of the U.S.Armenian Business Council and Chairman of the Armenian Assembly’s Board of Directors.

Attorney Krikorian stated that because of the Soviet Union and the genocide and a lot of other reasons, Armenians and Turks have not had the kinds of mature discussions they needed to have to resolve their differences. He says they lobbied the U.S. government to accept the Armenian position and impart that to the Turkish government and other countries.

How can he be fair as a member of this commission when he is working to get the U.S. government to support a made-up genocide? The Armenian attorney stated that the International Center for Transitional Justice was going to aid in working on the legal issues that divide Armenians and Turks. He has based this so-called reconciliation commission in New York, where he lives. He claims the reason for the base in New York is because the International Center for Transitional Justice is located there. Based on the outline of what Armenians demand the Turks must do, this question must be asked: Just what kind of International Center is this that support such a one-sided false position from a tiny state that has nothing to offer Turkey? How can they, if they support only the Armenian position in the interest of fairness just so Armenia can get its dirty hands into the pockets of

Turks? The Turks don’t need reconciliation – they only need for their neighbor to act like a "civilized" state and stop its terrorist actions.

Krikorian talks about Armenians` "permanent bonds with the United States – bonds we hope to develop even more – and permanent bonds with Russia». What this lawyer is saying is that Armenia has played all sides since the tiny state was established by dictators in 1918 and this policy of working both sides of the street to get something for nothing will continue. Consider this: The Armenian government claims to have invited the Russians into their state to protect them from the Turks. Now this New York Armenian lawyer claims they have an opportunity to work with both the United States and Russia. This is another classic case of Armenians speaking out of both sides of their mouth at the same time.

Sadly to say, these Armenian tactics of trying to get someone else to give them something and do something for us for free has been going on and will continue for generations to come. Consider what Krikorian says about this: "Why do any of us show commitment to those we consider our family? At one particularly heated moment, I found myself thinking about my kids; for a very long time, we have been doing this lobbying work in Washington. When my kids grow up, are they doing the same things, using the same strategies, and hitting the same brick walls? Or will there arise something that may change the path they take and the path available to Armenians in Armenia who are being strangled by the blockade in Turkey on account of current relations?" Clearly, with Krikorian’s attitude and teaching of his children things will not change.

The Muslims of the world realize how the United States is backing Armenia at the price of truth and honesty. Muslims of the world understand that America has cut foreign aid to Azerbaijan simply because Armenian-American lobbyists have gotten Congress to declare an illegal embargo on Azerbaijan for refusing to allow Armenia to continue to receive military supplies in its ports and to transport those supplies across Azerbaijan land. What business is it of the United States to make such a decision and cut foreign aid to Azerbaijan? Wouldn’t the United States have done the same thing had Mexico attacked us and then wanted to use Texas ports to receive their military supplies? Any fair-minded person would agree that the United States would never allow Mexico to receive and transport supplies from our ports while we were at war with them.

This book began with the terrorist actions of Armenia. It is only proper that this book end with the same theme. On October 5, 2001, the British Broadcasting Corporation reported a tragedy that had occurred in the Azerbaijan/Karabakh border village of Qusca-Ayrim of the Qazax District {western Azerbaijan} On 1 October. According to villagers, an Armenian sniper killed thirty-three-year-old shepherd Hamid Valiyev.

Arsen Teimurov was born in Karabakh in 1978 to Armenian parents. As a youth, he moved to Ukraine and while there became a Baptist. In early 2002, he returned to Karabakh to live with his mother. On February 25, 2002, Arsen hosted a small group of visiting Baptists in his apartment in the city of Stepanakert. Several local citizens were also invited to attend what became a home worship service.

The next day, February 26, 2002, local police raided his apartment and searched it, taking all religious material, audiotapes, and films as evidence. Arsen and all the visiting Baptists were arrested and forcibly taken to the local police station for questioning. The visiting Baptists were later released but Arsen was held in jail until deportation documents were prepared; then he was ordered out of the state of his birth. The sole reason he was deported from Karabakh was because he shared his Baptist Christian faith with his family and friends.

Every American Christian must ask him- or herself what manner of place is "Christian" Armenia and Karabakh? Based on the facts, all Christians must ask themselves should their billions of tax dollars continue to be given to Armenia? Should the United States continue to discriminate against Muslim Azerbaijan just because "Christian" Armenians spent 14 million dollars attempting to buy and influence members of the U.S. Congress during elections?

The Armenians are still at it, the cleansing of Muslims, simply because Muslims believe in God differently than Armenians do. By using snipers to terrorize Azerbaijanis along the border and forcing them to flee, the Armenians can sneak in and, inch by inch, continue to gobble up Azerbaijan lands without paying a red cent to compensate the Muslims they have murdered and their cattle they have killed. There is no place for such conduct in a civilized world and America must cease giving handouts to such a terrorist state.

---

ENDNOTES

Chapter One

1. Douglas Dakin: The Unification of Greece, 1770-1923. London, 1972, p. 6: Barbara and Charles Jelanick: The Balkans, New York, 1965, p. 27-28.

2. Muriel Ann Atkin: The Khanates of the Eastern Caucasus and the Origins of the First Russo-Iranian War, Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University 1978, p. 144.

3. Ibid, p. 49-50.

4. Churches Committee on Migrant Workers in Europe: Christian Minorities in Turkey, Brussels, September 1979, p. 7.

5. G. H. Chopourian: The Armenians Evangelical Reformation, Causes and Effects, New York, 1972, p. 40.

6. A. P. Vartoogian: Armenian Ordeal, New York, 1896, p. 37.

7. FO 424/104/Conf. 4367, No. 2460 Goschent to Grainville, 22.6. 1880, attaching a copy of a conference memo by Lieutenant Colonel C. W. Wilson.

8. Ibid.

9. Harold Armstrong: Turkey in Travel, London, 1925, p. 224.

10. FO 424/46/Conf. 3003, No. 336 Elliot to Derby 7.12.1876.

11. FO 424/132/Conf. 4789, Part VI No. 36 Everett to Suffering, 3.1.1882, p. 48-49.

12. S. R. Sony el: The Armenian Question, unfinished agenda of a de-Ottomanisation, Impact International, Volume 13, No. 19, London, 14-27 October 1983.

13. Nalbandian, p.110-111; Hunchak, Volume 1, No. 1, November 1887, No. 11-2, October-November 19885; see also Avetis Nazarbek: Through the Storm, London 1999.

14. Leo, The Ideology of the Turkish Armenian revolution, 2 Volumes, Paris 1934-45

15. AP.5376XVCI,TurkeyNo..l (1890-1) Chermside to White, 29.8.1889, White to Salisbury, 14.9.1889, p.17-21.

16. Ibid: Boyadjian to Chermside, 10.8.1889.

17. Ibid: Boyadjian to Devey, 10.8.1889; Devey to Chermside, 29.8.1889; Chermside toFO.12.9.1889, p. 21-23.

18. Ap.41 LXXXII Turkey, No. 1 (1889) Devey to Lloyd, 2.1.1890, p. 2-3.

19. Dskari H.H. Dashnagtzontian, 1892; Papasian, p. 9-15; Nalbandian, p. 168.

20. FO 371/4239/164676, PID Geographical Section memo, received on 24.12.1919.

21. AP, Turkey No. 144 (1896) C80115: Rosebery to Nicholson, 14.6.1893 p. 128-129.

22. Religious sedition, an interview on the Armenian question: The Methodist Recorder, 22.2.1894.

23. Armenia and the Armenians, The Presbyterian, 23.2.1894.

24. Turkey No.6 (1896): Currie to Kimberly, 28.3.1894, p. 57-58.

25. Turkey No. 6, Currie to Kimberly, 27.4.1894, p. 53.

26. Trakkaya: The Armenian Question – Conflict, Trauma and Objectivity, Ankara, 1897, p. 8 quoting from Charles Norman: The Armenians Unmasked. Copy of a handwritten manuscript, 1895, preserved at the Institute of Turkish Reform, Faculty of Languages and History, Geography, University of Ankara.

27. Turkey No. 1 (1895) No. 119; FO 424/178/Conf. 6583, No. 479.

28. FO 371/560/37689: Dickson to Lowther, 30.9.1908.

29. FO 371/762/3123: Lowther to Grey 18.1.1909.

30. FO 371/533/33333 Hopkins to Grey, 24.9.1908.

31. FO 424/220, No. 48 enclosure.

32. FO 424/219, No. 83.

33. Hurriyet newspaper of 24.9.1982.

34. H.H.H. Katchaznani: Dashnaksutiun Anelik Chumiailes, Vienna, 1923, p. 7.

35. FO 371/4974/E 2404 Memo by R. McDonnell on the Dashnaksutiun, FO dated 25.3.1920

36. Horizon, Tiflis, 30.11.1914.

37. FO 371/4376/PID 206: Paris Peace Conference, 26.2.1919.

38. DOOA, p. 63-64; Doc no 1906 (102): Commander, Special Service Volunteers Battalion to the Third Army Commander, cira, 15.2.1915.

39. Dis Politika Enstitusu, p. 24.

40. FO 371/2488/590960 McMahon to FO, 12.5.1915.

41. Bagur, Belleton XXX, No. 117, part 3, p. 37; from the minutes of the Council of Ministers dated 30.5.1915, p. 213.

42. FO 371/4221/170751: Robeck to Cuzzon, 29.12.1919, and FO minutes.

43. FO 371/2488/51009: Russian Ambassador to FO, 27.4.1915.

44. Ibid.

45. Ibid, Doc no 51010: Russian Ambassador to FO 27 4 1915- FO to Spring Rice 29.4.1915.

46. Ibid, Doc no 58387: Buchanan to FO 11.5.1915.

47. Ottoman archives, Cipher Desh, no: 5314.

48. FO 371/2488/96760: Nourbar to Nicholson, 15.7.1915.

49. FO 371/2485/1067960: McMahon to Grey.

50. 181D. Doc no 125295: McMahon to Grey, 16.8.1915; FO to Maier, 14.9.1915.

51. Borian II, p. 82.

52. General J. G. Harbord: American Military Mission to Armenia, International Conciliation, No. 151, June 1920, New York, p. 25.

53. McCarthy, p. 196. Interview with Colonel Wooley of the British Army, 12.9.1919, U.S. Archives 184.021/265.

54. FO 371/6265/E23: Report by Colonel Stokes on the situation in Armenia, 24.2.1920.

55. FO 371/3400/36460 A. J. Toynbee, Intelligence Bureau, Dept of Information 18.2.1918.

56. Mark Sikes: The Caliphi Lust Heritage, 1915, London p. 372.

57. Ibid p. 409.

58. Ibid p. 416-418.

59. Gwynne Dyer: Turkish falsifiers and Armenian deceivers Middle Eastern Studies, January 1976, p. 101.

60. S. R. Sonyel: How Armenian Propaganda Deceived the Christian World: Bulletin, Vol. XLI No. 161, Ankara, January 1977, p .157-175.

61. Ibid.

Chapter Two

1. W.Alison Phillips: The War of Greek Independence, 1821-1833, New York, 1997, p. 60-61.

2. Ibid p. 61.

3. Justin McCarthy: Death and Exile the Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims 1821-1922, Darwin Press, Princeton, New Jersey 1995, p. 23.

4. Ibid p. 27.

5. Ibid p. 28.

6. Ibid p. 28-29.

7. Ibid, p. 34.

8. British Documents on Ottoman Armenians, Ankara, 1983, Vol. I. Palgrave to Stanley, Trebizod, 16 May 1867.

9. Turkey No. 7 (1880), No. 3, pp.2-8, Layard to Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Constantinople, 27 April 1880, in British Documents I, No.

354.

10. Ibid, p. 195.

11. Ibid, p. 197.

12. Ibid, p. 199.

13. Ibid, p. 211.

14. A Rawlinson, Adventures in the Near East, 1918-1922, London, 1924, p. 227.

15. Bristol War Diary, 14 August 1922, US 867.000/1540.

16. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 1.

Chapter Three

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia. Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 34.

Chapter Four

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 65.

Chapter Five

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p .109-110.

Chapter Six

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 292.

2. Woodrow Wilson His Life and Work, Easton, Read and McKennan, p. 403-404.

3. Ibid, p. 406.

4. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 294.

5. Bristol Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress.

6. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 294.

Chapter Seven

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 342.

2. U.S. Department of State Annual Report on International Religions Freedom 1999-Armenia.

3. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume I, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 448.

Chapter Eight

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 1.

2. U.S. Congressional Report on the Caucasus, Spring 2001.

3. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 48.

4. 66th Congress 2nd Session, 1920, Doc no 291.

5. Congressional Record Senate 1920, p. 7968.

6. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 57-58.

Chapter Nine

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 62.

Chapter Ten

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 140.

2. U.S. Congressional Report on Caucasus, Spring 2001.

3. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 146.

4. Testimony of Justin McCarthy, House International Affairs Committee.

Chapter Eleven

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 169.

Chapter Twelve

Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume 11, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 254-255.

Chapter Thirteen

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 316

2. Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, p. 224.

3. U.S. 867.0011005 Philip Brown of Princeton University to William Carr, Princeton, 10.11. 1919.

4. Justin McCarthy, Death and Exile: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922, p. 224-225.

5. Ibid, p. 225.

6. Ibid

7. Ibid, p. 230.

8. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 334.

Chapter Fourteen

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume II, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 404.

Chapter Fifteen

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume III, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 12.

2. British Embassy, Ankara, July 23, 2001.

3. British House of Lords, February 2001.

4. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume III, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 112.

Chapter Sixteen

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume III, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 113.

Chapter Seventeen

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume III, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 235.

Chapter Eighteen

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume IV, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 1.

2. 66th Congress 2nd Session, Doc. No. 791

3. Ibid, p. 10.

4. Ibid, p. 13.

5. 66th Congress 2nd session Doc. No. 281.

6. Ibid.

7. Ibid, p. 14.

8. Ibid, p. 15.

9. Ibid, p. 17.

10. Ibid, p. 18.

11. Congressional Record, 1920 P. 7875

12. Ibid, p. 7877.

13. Ibid, p. 7889.

14. Ibid, p. 7889.

15. Ibid, p. 7896.

16. Ibid, p. 7896.

17. Ibid, p. 7897.

18. Ibid, p. 7897.

19. Ibid, p. 7897.

20. Ibid, p. 7898.

21. Ibid, p. 7898.

22. Ibid, p. 7899.

23. Exhibit #2

24. Congressional Record, 1920 p. 7891.

25. Ibid, p. 7891.

26. Ibid, p. 7891.

27. Ibid, p. 8055.

28. Ibid, p. 8056.

29. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume IV, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 16.

30. Ibid, p. 17.

31. Ibid, p. 16.

32. Ibid, p. 16.

33. Ibid, p. 18.

34. Ibid, p. 18.

35. Ibid, p. 24.

36. Ibid, p. 24.

37. Ibid, p. 24.

38. Ibid, p. 25-26.

39. Ibid, p. 25.

40. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume IV, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 26.

Chapter Nineteen

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume IV, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 45.

Chapter Twenty

1. Richard G. Hovannissian, The Republic of Armenia, Volume IV, University of California, Los Angeles, p. 293.