665) Armenia And Christianity : The Holy Mess

Dear Reader,

The AFATH lobby always loves to use the "religion card" and this, their 90th year of their mass deception is no exception to this rule. They never miss an opportunity to let anyone who is even minutely interested know that they are the first Christian nation on earth. They do that to capitalize on the instant recognition, sympathy, and above all, credibility, that this brings from other Christians. What the Armenians lack in historical evidence to substantiate the AAG, they hope to make up for in the solidarity of co-religionists. After all, who is a good Christian going to believe; another Christian (Armenian) or a Muslim (Turk)? That is the Armenian plan; whatever is lacking in the “truth” department, make up for it in the “faith” department.

But how does one reconcile Christianity with well known fact of international Armenian terrorism, that started at least 150 years ago and lasted, with occasional periods of slowdowns and flare up, until today?

How does "politics of religion" mix with "politics of violence"?

And what about that undeniable Armenian culture of agitation, sabotage, destruction, assassination, and pogrom of Muslims?

Let's not forget also, that today, Armenia has hostile relationships, to put it lightly, with most of her neighbors. Armenia, directly or indirectly, demands land from two of her neighbors, namely Turkey and Georgia, while already occupying by force the lands of the third, Azerbaijan, causing untold misery to one million Azeri refugees in the last decade.

How does all this Armenian tradition of scheming around hatred, vengeance, aggression, and senseless violence fit in with the concepts of peace, forgiveness, and tolerance, as preached by Christianity?

Is it love-thy-neighbor as Christianity preaches or kill-thy-neighbor as the Armenians practice? Can they co-exist? If no, how can the Armenians be regarded as "Christians", let alone "first Christians"? Was the "first Christian nation", Armenia, built on violence 1700 years ago? And how can "Christian Armenia" today justify their state terrorism and ethnic cleansing policies? How is such a thing possible?

How can anyone explain, let alone justify, Armenian practice of ethocide for the last 90 years?

For answers, let's go to a Christian researcher, a Southern Baptist, member of Calvary Baptist Church, Hazen, Arkansas, and a former district attorney and a judge from the same city, Samuel A. Weems, who wrote the book titled Armenia: Secrets Of A "Christian" Terrorist State. Below, please find selected excerpts from his book, reflecting his research findings, comments, and vision. This will be a three part mini-series, with references for all three parts provided at the end of part III.

Peace,
Ergun Kirlikovali
**********************************
Legend:
AAG = The alleged Armenian genocide
AFATH = Armenian Falsifiers and Turk Haters
Ethocide = Extermination of ethics via pre-meditated and malicious mass deception for political, economic, social, and/or moral benefits
WWI = The World War One
**********************************

ARMENIA AND CHRISTIANITY : THE HOLY MESS Part I

Excerpts from: Armenia: Secrets Of A "Christian" Terrorist State, By Samuel A. Weems
St. John Press, Dallas, 2002, ISBN 0-9719212-3-7 (can be purchased from www.turkishforum.com)

PREFACE , P XIII-XVIII

"… Because there are so few Muslims in the United States, Armenian-American lobbyists have free rein here. No one has checked to determine if Armenia is a true Christian state, as it claims. This book will explore the efforts and activities of the Armenians to establish what they claim is an independent and free state. This book will also examine the merits of the Armenian claim they are Christian. Are they really?

… Christians throughout the world must stop taking the word of Armenians at face value and examine the truth for themselves. This Christian, in making an independent examination, has discovered the truth cannot be found on Armenian web sites or in books and articles written by Armenians. Most Muslims have been forced out of the country. Now Armenia is one of the most closed Christian societies on earth. It has just one "official" church, which is a part of the state and given authority by the Armenian constitution. There is no such thing as the separation of church and state in this tiny land.

Contrast this fact with the Turks, whom the Armenians love to hate. It is interesting to note that there are more Armenian churches in Turkey than there are in Armenia… I have recently been to Turkey. I witnessed with my own eyes that Turks and Armenians live and worship together in great freedom, harmony, and friendship. This is quite a contrast with the Armenian-Americans' ugly misrepresentations and evil efforts to plant the seeds of hatred and rage, here in the United States, against Turks! Just what kind of Christianity do these Armenian-Americans practice?

Why, for example, does the Armenian church continue to use animal blood sacrifices? Why does the Armenian church not believe in the total forgiveness of sins as taught by Christ? Why have Armenian Christian leaders called out publicly for the blessing of mythical gods?

The long list of deception, fraud, abuses, massacres, and terrorist acts Armenians have committed are documented in this book. These are Armenian secrets they don't want the Christians of the world to know about, but they are revealed and documented in Armenian sources. These reports are factual reports by Armenians themselves!

Every Christian and every public official should read this book before agreeing to either give money or vote for meaningless resolutions attacking modern-day Turkey, solely based on the Armenian tall tales …

Direct evidence will be provided, several times, from Armenian sources that the Armenia's government directed terrorist attacks as official state policy. There have been Armenian terrorist attacks and murders within nations all over the world in recent years.

I am not Azerbaijani, Georgian, or a Turk; I am not Armenian! I am a Scottish-American, whose first Scottish ancestor came to America in 1686. I am a Southerner, a lifelong Baptist, and an American taxpayer. I have written this book under the light of extensive research in locations such as Washington, D.C., Rome, London, Moscow, and Istanbul. It would have been helpful to research in Armenia, but their archives are not open to the public. The archives in Istanbul, Turkey, are very much open, however, and have been for sometime. The irony is that the files in Armenia's capital of Erevan and Armenian Revolutionary Federation offices in Boston are still closed to researchers and the public. What are they hiding? Why does Armenia have an Armenian Revolutionary Federation office in the United States?

The pages to follow are based on the pen of the chief historian of the self-called Republic of Armenia. The historians' own words and the sources he sited prove, beyond a shadow of doubt, that his beloved Armenia is a bogus rogue state! The observations revealed in the pages to follow are written by a neutral seeker of fact and truth behind events that date from 1890 and continue to the present day.…. the facts that are presented in the text of the book speak directly and honestly for themselves… Samuel A. Weems, member of Calvary Baptist Church, Hazen, Arkansas, November 7, 2001…"

********************
INTRODUCTION, P 1-6

"…The beginnings of what can be called modern-day Armenia is filled with blood - Muslim blood. In 1820, czarist Russia began the first of several attempts to expand its empire westward in an attempt to obtain an age-old dream of warm water ports. The czars began a conquest to obtain Ottoman Empire lands all the way to the Mediterranean and open seas.

Before the Russian armies began their campaigns of conquest, the czar's agents were sent into Ottoman lands to organize Christians in an effort to undermine the Ottoman Muslims from within. The Russians reasoned that because they were Orthodox Christians, they would have much in common with other Orthodox Christians such as the Greeks, the Slavs in the Balkans, and the Armenians.

The Russians were not able to secure a warm water port, but they did move their boundaries westward. In the years that followed 1820, the Russians promised the Armenians they would help them establish their own state. At that time, the Ottoman Empire was in a final period of decline and decay. Other foreign powers saw this as an opportunity to establish their presence in this part of the world. Both England and France sponsored missionary activities there. All too frequently throughout history, nations have used Christianity to promote the state's best interest and the religious people sent into different parts of the world worked for both Christ and the state's best interests. This would be the case within the Ottoman Empire.

Russia, trying not to be outdone by the English and French, sought to gain Armenian support in destroying the Ottoman government. The Russians promised to create a "Greater Armenia" in eastern Anatolia. The Russian promise was substantially more lands between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean than the Armenian people had ever occupied at anytime in their history. In fact, there had never been a truly independent Armenia. Perhaps three thousand years ago there was a tiny kingdom but it did not last long

This "dream" of a "Greater Armenia" that the Russians created in the minds of a few Armenians in the mid-1800s continues to this day. The Armenians took this Russian promise (that Russians had no intention of keeping) and expanded upon it. Today, Armenians claim all this land between the Black and Mediterranean seas as their "historic homeland." Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The English fanned the flame by calling the Asia Minor of the Bible Armenia. It was Prime Minister William E. Gladstone, in the early 1880s, who concocted the idea that it was in the British's best interests to break up the Ottoman Empire. He wanted to create a number of small friendly states under England's influence in place of the large Ottoman Empire. One such small state would be called Armenia. Gladstone asked the British press to refer to eastern Anatolia as "Armenia". British consulates were opened throughout the region, and their purpose was to make contact with the local Christian population. An Anglo-Armenian Friendship Committee was organized in London with the express purpose of influencing public opinion. Many more Christian missionaries were sent into what England had started calling "Armenia."

In 1877 and 1878 there was another war between the Ottoman Empire and Russia. As the war neared its end, the Christian Armenian patriarch of Istanbul, Nerses Varjabedyan, asked the Russian czar to retain the lands his troops occupied in east Anatolia. Once the war ended the patriarch asked Grand Duke Nicholas, the Russian military commander, to annex all eastern Anatolia into Russia and to help establish an autonomous Armenian state, much like what was being established for Bulgaria. Of course this didn't happen as it was not in the Russians' best interest. In Bulgaria, there was a majority Christian population. In Ottoman Anatolia, Armenians amounted to less than a quarter of the population.

The British feared such Russian influence with the Armenians. They concluded that Russia would be a greater threat than the Ottomans. They realized a Russian-dominated "Greater Armenia" would open up the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean, where the British possessions in India could be threatened.

Greater Armenia did not come into being as the Armenians wanted. However, the Armenian officers in the Russian army continued working to stir discontent among the Ottoman Armenians by suggesting they work by themselves to secure the same sort of independence as that secured by the Christians in the Balkans.

It must be noted that in 1800 Armenians were scattered within and beyond a region that today marks Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Iran, and eastern Turkey. Everywhere, except in a few small pockets of influence, Armenians were a small minority population. As the Russians acquired lands south of the Caucasus Mountains, they removed the Muslim populations that came under their control. The Muslims were replaced with Christians whom the Russians thought would be loyal to their Christian government. Christian Armenians were the focal point of this policy and were given lands the Russians obtained without paying any compensation. Armenians were moved in once they had removed the Muslim owners.

A large number of Armenians resented being under Muslim rule and they were drawn to the Russians by the offer of free land and becoming a part of a Christian state.

In the Erevan Province, which is the heart of modern-day Armenia, the majority of the population were Muslim before they were removed. The Russians replaced them with Armenians. This is how Armenia acquired what it today calls its "historic homeland," not as direct descendants from the biblical Noah, as many claim, but by Russians between the years 1827 and 1878.

In each of these Ottoman wars the Armenians helped the Russians. This was the beginning of the ethnic hatred between Christian Armenians and Muslim Ottomans. This conflict was caused by the Russians and their success in pushing the hot button of human greed by giving Armenians free Muslim lands.

During the Russian-forced Muslim removal, it was not uncommon for up to one-third of the Muslims who were forced off their property to die. Today, the Armenians never admit they obtained their free land on the account of widespread deaths of Muslims.

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

In the 1890s there were Armenian rebellions in eastern Anatolia. The end result was many Muslims and Christians were killed. …

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

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

For centuries, Christians have been told stories about the "terrible Turk" and the evils of Islam. These tales date back to the Crusades when the purity of Christianity opposed the black Muslims. The horrible truth is men, acting in the name of Christ, were more brutal and committed more terrible acts during this time than did the Muslims. The Muslims were simply defending their lands, which were invaded by a horde of profit-seeking men in the name of Jesus.

The Balkans, Anatolia, and Caucasus regions of the world are made up of fairly homogenous populations because the once-majority populations were forcibly removed. These states were created out of what was once a part of the Ottoman Empire as a result of wars and revolutions. In simple terms, these new states were built on a foundation of Muslim suffering.

There is no historical mention in textbooks of this colossal Muslim loss. These textbooks tell the stories of massacres by Muslims of Christian Armenians, Christian Bulgarians, and Christian Greeks. But there are no written accounts of the Muslim losses and massacres committed by Christian peoples upon them.

In the United States, the Christian Armenian-American people have mounted campaigns in recent years to get cities, states, and the national government to condemn Muslim Turkey for committing what the Armenian claim is a genocide in 1915 of some 1.5 million of Christian Armenians. If such a story is made up by Armenian-American Christians to support Armenian agendas, other Christians must oppose them…."

In the United States, the Christian Armenian-American people have mounted campaigns in recent years to get cities, states, and the national government to condemn Muslim Turkey for committing what the Armenian claim is a genocide in 1915 of some 1.5 million of Christian Armenians. If such a story is made up by Armenian-American Christians to support Armenian agendas, other Christians must oppose them…."

***************************

ARMENIA AND CHRISTIANITY : THE HOLY MESS (Part II)

Dear Reader,
This is the second installment in a 3-part mini-series highlighting the scheming, agitation, violence, and terrorism dimensions of the Armenian church as researched by a Christian scholar, a Southern Baptist, member of Calvary Baptist Church, Hazen, Arkansas, and a former district attorney and a judge from the same city, Samuel A. Weems, who wrote the book titled Armenia: Secrets Of A "Christian" Terrorist State

The AFATH lobby has used for 90 years and continues to use today the "religion card" to dupe millions of Christians around the world into believing that the AAG is true. The AFATH wants everyone to trust the Armenian views that what the Armenians had started during the WWI as armed rebellions, continued as indiscriminate terrorism against Muslims, and climaxed as supreme treason at a time of war, ultimately causing their temporary evacuation from the theater of war by the Ottoman Empire was actually a genocide.

And why should anyone trust them? Because, the Armenians say, the Armenians are the first Christian nation on earth. How can the Christians lie?

It is no coincidence that the AFATH lobby never talks about the Armenian terrorism, aggression, armed revolts, and betrayals. They never acknowledge, either, four times worse suffering and loss of the Muslims, mostly Turks, during WWI. You’ll never hear about Ottoman-Armenians slaughtering Ottoman-Muslims while wearing the uniforms of the invading enemy armies -- Russian uniforms in the East and French uniforms in the South. That is because mentioning any of these rock solid facts would automatically devoid the AAG.

How can anyone reconcile such ethocidal behavior for 90 years involving lies, distortions, and subterfuges, with Christianity? Let’s read and find out. Peace,

Ergun Kirlikovali
**********************************

EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 1 (P 7-46) :

HOLY TERROR, THE ARMENIAN APOSTOLIC OR ORTHODOX CHURCH,

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

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

… There has been much written about how the Ottoman Empire forced Christians to embrace Islam. This is nothing more than fiction. The granting of religious freedom within the Ottoman Empire, in fact, is what ultimately contributed to its dawn fall. The Russians learned from this Ottoman mistake and acted accordingly as they expanded their own empire

The Russians were the first to play the Christian versus Muslim ethnic/religion card. As the Ottoman Empire began to decline, Russia, Austria, Italy, and others began to take Ottoman lands. Wars were fought and treaties were signed. In 1774 the Ottomans and Russians entered into one such treaty. In it, the Russians were given the right to intervene on behalf of Christians living within the Ottoman Empire. This right opened the doors to increased European influence regarding Ottoman internal affairs. This was the beginning of Christians within the Ottoman Empire establishing closer friendships with the Western world. This would be the birth of nationalist movements within minority populations living within the Ottoman Empire.

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

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

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

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

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

In 1818, Tsar Alexander I (1801-1825) presented Daniel, the Catholicos of the Armenian Church with the order of St. Anne, first class, for his espionage work helping the Russians. In the years that followed, the Russians pushed ever westward into Ottoman lands, always with the help of the Armenian Church, which repeatedly called on the Russians to save them from ‘Muslim oppression.’ (3)

The hatred that developed between the Christian Armenians and the Muslim Ottomans had its roots in the work and efforts of the Armenian Church. After all, once the Russians captured Ottoman lands, they removed the Muslim population with no compensation, and working with the Church, moved Armenian Christians into the former Muslim owned homes and lands.

Much is written today about the unprovoked attack the Armenians, with Russian military arms and supplies, made in 1992 upon Karabagh, which is a part of neighboring Azerbaijan. In the early 1800s, this land was populated by a large majority of Muslims. After the Russians took this land from the Ottomans, Armenians moved into Muslim homes. Today, the Armenians claim Karabagh as a part of their ‘ancient homeland.’ The Armenian definition of ‘ancient’ in this case is barely two hundred years old.

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

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

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

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

Tsar Nicholas I (1825-1855) is the individual who first said that the Ottoman Empire was the ‘sick man of Europe.’ He claimed to be the supreme protector of all Christians living within the Ottoman Empire. It was the Russians who invaded and captured the Erivan province, where today’s capital of Armenia is located. Before 1828, the date of Russian occupation, more than 80 percent of the population was Muslim as was all Trans-Caucasian at that time. The entire region was both Muslim and anti-Russian. It was the Russians, together with the Armenians they brought in, who ruthlessly suppressed the majority population.

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

When the tsars needed help, they recruited Armenians, making promises and showering them with compliments. When the tsars no longer needed the Armenians, they never fulfilled their promises. However, Armenian Christians continued to support the Russians.

Catholicos Nerses Asdarakes received only a letter of thanks from Tsar Nicholas I for all he had done against the Ottomans. In spite of all the Russian broken promises to the Catholicos at Etchmiadzin, this church continued its loyalty to Russia.

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

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

Russia was using the Armenians in its quest to reach the warm waters of the Mediterranean so it could cut off England’s route to India. Britain was attempting to use Protestant Armenians to protect its lifeline to India by holding back both Russian and France. The French made use of Catholic Armenians for its own interests in the Near East. Only the Americans didn’t have a clear-cut national objective. (Writer’s note: The American plan was actually to use the missionaries as a way of getting around the Monroe doctrine, which had originally been designed to keep the European imperialists powers out of Americas but which started having the opposite effect of keeping America out of the rest of the world, especially the riches of the Middle East. Thus, what the Americans couldn’t do with soldiers, forts, and weapons, due to limitations imposed on American foreign policy by the Monroe Doctrine, would be done with missionaries, schools, and “education” and by creating a pro-American elite in Anatolia and beyond. Therefore, the Americans did have a ‘clear-cut national objective’, after all. )

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

In June 16, 1880, Lieutenant-Colonel C. W. Wilson, British Consul General for Anatolia, reported to his government his experience with the Armenians. He described them as ‘being greedy of gain, mostly entirely without education. Immoral, fanatic, bigoted, and completely under the influence of an illiterate, ignorant and sensual priesthood who opposed all education and advancement.’ (9)

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

Harold Armstrong described the Armenians as a ‘most vigorous and pushing people; envied and ill-spoken of.’ He says they have men of good business ability, who are thrifty and able to negotiate a hard bargain. However, they ‘are also argumentative, quarrelsome, and great know-it-alls.’ Armstrong concludes his evaluation of Armenians by saying they are ‘crafty, grasping, secretive, acquisitive, and dishonest, making a great pretence of religion, but using it as a cloak for treachery and greed.’ (9) In 1876, just before the Ottoman-Russian war of 1877-1878 the Armenian Patriarch, Archevique Nerses Vartakedian met with British Ambassador Elliot to ask that the Armenians be given the same privilege that was given to the minorities who had staged a rebellion against the Ottomans in the Balkans.

As the twentieth century approached, the Ottoman Empire declined more rapidly. European powers sensed the end was near for the ‘sick man of Europe,’ increasing their activity throughout the Ottoman lands to benefit from the death of the Empire. The Armenians, especially their church, also sought benefits.

Armenian Patriarch Archevique Nerses Vartahedian met with the British ambassador before a series of meetings were held in Istanbul between December 12, 1876, and January 20, 1877. These meetings were held to discuss the Balkans. The patriarch wanted Armenians to receive the same benefits as those granted in the Balkans. The patriarch indicated the Armenians were very aroused and that if ‘necessary to rise in insurrection’ to gain the sympathy and support of the European Powers, there would be ‘no difficulty in getting up such a movement.’ (10)

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

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

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

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

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

In 1887, Armenian Avedis Nazarbekian founded a new political movement in Geneva called Huntchak (Bell). This organization was based on Marxist-Socialist principles. In 1890 the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktantium) was organized in Tiflis on national socialist principles. The founders were Kristapor Mikalian, Stepan Zaian, and Simon Zavarian. Each of these individuals was educated in Russian universities. Both of these groups wanted an independent Turkish Armenia in the six eastern provinces so it would become a national socialist state … Nazarbekian became one of the most ruthless and militant Armenian leaders. It was his objective to so stir the Christian Armenians and to inflame the Muslim Turks to react, so Christian European powers would become involved and establish an Armenian state. Armenian terrorists would provoke Muslims by ongoing acts of violence. Where the Muslims would respond, Nazarbekian and other Armenians would cry out that ‘the barbarous Muslim Turks were massacring the innocent Christian Armenians’. (13)

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

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

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

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

In the fall of 1889, the British vice consul reported to the consul that Armenians had created violence between Christians and Muslims in places where Armenians were a very small minority. The Armenian terrorists killed several Muslims and stirred up those who remained alive. The purpose of such acts was to provoke the Muslims into attaching the minority Christians and the terrorists would then cry out ‘fanatical Muslims’ were massacring Armenian Christians. (17) Once the Armenian terrorists made up and told these stories, they knew it would be spread by the different Armenian organizations throughout Europe. Just one of the many examples was a story published by the London Daily News on December 11, 1889. The newspaper stated an Armenian living in the village of Zitzan had been roasted to death by Muslims. British vice consul Devey called the newspaper article ‘absurd’. (18)

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

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

Province Muslim Greek Armenian Other Total
Erzurum 500,782 3,725 135,087 22 636,616
Sivas 839,514 76,068 170,433 -- 1,086,015
Diyarbakir 337,644 9,440 79,189 45,233 471,506
Harput 504,946 650 69,718 -- 575,314
Van 247,000 -- 79,998 103,002 430,000
Bitlis 257,862 210 131,390 9,162 398,624
Total 2,687, 748 90,093 665,815 157,419 3,601,075

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In February 1895, Sir Ellis Bartlett, a member of British parliament, published a pamphlet about the Armenian campaigns of terror. He stated that ‘most of the tales so widely circulated in connection with the Turco-Armenian incidents, were manufactured and directed by the most imaginative and malevolent spirit. The deliberate object of the agitators was not to obtain redress for the Armenian sufferings, but to excite feelings in their country (England) against Turkey and the Turks.. … The tall tales were the wicked inventions of Armenian Revolutionary Committees and had been wantonly spread over Europe in the interests of these mad agitators and their paymasters, the Russian Pan-Slavic societies.’ After the Turco-Bulgarian incidents of 1876, the same war game was being played with these so-called Armenian atrocities in 1894 and 1895.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, a number of Armenians and Armenophiles in Christian countries these colonists had organized, began extensive lobby campaigns to pressure their governments to actively support their fifty-year-old ‘ancient homeland.’

In England, Ambrose Hopkins sent a report of Armenian actions to British Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey dated September 24, 1908. Hopkins attached a copy of a resolution passed ‘at a large public meeting held at the High Street Baptist Chapel at Abenzychan. The resolution expressed sorrow that nothing had yet been done by the European powers for the ‘suffering’ Armenians. The Baptist Chapel stated its conviction that the solution to the Armenian problem lay in the ‘separation of Armenia from authority and influence of the cruel Turk.’ (30)

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

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

There was an American missionary present at one such sermon preached by Bishop Moushed. The American got up and walked out of the church. This bishop toured the entire region preaching that any Armenian who had a coat should sell it and go buy arms.’ (31)

Certainly acts of revenge were never taught or accepted by Jesus Christ. Perhaps this Armenian Church doctrine of revenge is why Armenians of today hate Muslims so much.

Moushed was the Armenian bishop of Adana. A British report states he made inflammatory speeches,’ paraded around carrying arms and had his photo taken in clothing of the type worn by Armenian revolutionary leaders.’ The British ambassador in a report to London on May 4, 1909, stated that Bishop Moushed must assume great responsibility for the outburst of violence by Armenians. (32)

There are press reports that the Armenian Church in the Kozan subprovince also played an important role in the Armenian rebellion in Adana. This Armenian Church was the headquarters of the terrorists who planned and carried out the revolt. Terrorists used the church, with the approval of church officials, to wait for the order to revolt.(33)

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

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

Needless to say, the Russians never intended to give the Armenians the free Ottoman lands they coveted. The naive Armenian Dashnaks continued to try to make deals with Russia. R. Mc Dowell of the British foreign office reported that Russian leaders made great use of Armenian terrorists when the war began. Mc Dowell stated that the Russians ‘made very considerable use of the Dashnak Society for secret service purposes in Turkey; and for creating disturbances and opposing the Turks in Asia Minor.’ (35)

This is but one of the countless examples of how the Armenian Church worked as one with the terrorist dictator Armenian Revolutionary Federation. This joining of church and terrorist political action that began early in the twentieth century continues to this very day.

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

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

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

It was the ever-increasing Armenian hit-and-run attacks throughout eastern Anatolia, that caused the Ottoman Army military command to realize the Armenians were planning an organized rebellion. The Ottoman Army officers were right.

In the middle of February 1915, the Armenian Dashnak terrorist organization established a war command made up of thirty members. The Armenian bishop of Karahisar headed this terrorist war command. On February 20 an Ottoman military unit was attacked from the Arak Monastery where Armenian priests were hiding and protecting terrorists. (38)

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

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

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

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

There were situations where individual Turks did take advantage of the Armenians and atrocities were committed. However, the record is clear the Ottoman government later brought criminal charges and convicted 1,397 Turks for crimes against the Armenians. Since the Ottoman government punished 1,397 of its own officials for committing atrocities against Armenians, how can the Ottoman government be guilty of genocide?

The Armenians presented their ludicrous demands for reparations against the Ottoman government to the Paris Peace Conference at the end of World War I. The victorious Allies gave the Armenians nothing. Now, almost ninety years later, Armenians continue to tell the same old worn-out tale and demand reparations, atonement, penance, self-condemnation, an apology, and indemnity from the Turkish government.

Based on non-Armenian and non-Turkish sources, the evidence clearly shows the Armenians are still not entitled to reparations. Armenia has continued to seek a foreign power, such as the United States, to not only give it billions of dollars in handouts, but to also use its influence to get even more money and lands from Turkey.

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

If, after almost ninety years, a typical Armenian earns only seventy dollars a month, the United States is throwing good money after bad, to keep up this little state. The Armenians invited the Russians to come into their state and build and maintain Russian troops after 1992 when Armenian invaded Azerbaijan. Russian soldiers are stationed in Armenian today. Let the Russians keep up this some 3 million destitute people.

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

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

Consider the importance of Etchmiadzin to the Armenian Church. It is called their ‘holy city.’ It was the gathering place of the 1,700-year anniversary of Armenians claiming to be the first Christian state on earth. The Armenian Church’s web site states the ‘Mother Church of Holy Etchmiadzin was completed in the year 303 A. D. This place was chosen after the Holy Vision of St. Gregory the Illuminator. He claimed to have seen Jesus’ descent from heaven to the holy place, hence the name Etchmiadzin; site of the Lord’s descent, or the descent of the only begotten Son of God. This was the place where the chief priest of the Armenians would be the first to start the tall tale of a Turkish massacre of Armenians, many weeks before the event could have actually taken place. Examine the facts and the chief priest’s timetable:

Consider this historical fact: The Ottoman government made the decision to remove the Armenians on April 24, 1915, in Istanbul. Three days later, before there was a start of the actual removal of the eastern Anatolia Armenians, the Catholicos of Etchmiadzin told the Russian government the Ottoman government was committing a massacre of Armenians. How can a massacre take place when the government had not started the actual removal and not a single Armenian had yet to pack a bag to leave home?

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

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

George T. Clerk of the British foreign office was uneasy about the Russian request. He expressed doubts when he wrote, ‘Before we take action such as is here suggested, it would be well to find out what we can about these reported massacres. I think, therefore, we might begin by instructing our ambassadors at Rome and Washington to support their Russian colleagues, if they find that the Italian and the U.S. governments accept the statements of the Catholicos as credible. And if they do, we will prepare a communication to the Ottoman government such as here suggested.’ Two days later, on April 29, 1915, the British foreign office in London sent the following instruction to Sir Cecil Spring-Rice, their ambassador in Washington: ‘If the government to which you are accredited [United States] consider the case as presented by the Catholicos justifies their intervention, you may support your Russian colleague.’ (44)

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

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

On May 23, 1915, the Ottoman government sent its first relocation order to the 4th Army Command stating that Armenians were to be removed and to where they would be sent. (47) It would take time to begin the actual removal of Armenians.

On May 24, 1915, the allies did publish such a declaration, warning the Ottoman government it would be held responsible for the ‘Armenian massacres.’ The Ottoman government issued a prompt denial of the allied governments allegations.

It was not until May 30 that the Ottoman Council of Ministers approved the relocation of the Armenians from behind the battle lines of the Ottoman army in eastern Anatolia - six days after the Allies of Russia, England, and France told them they would be held accountable for the ‘Armenian massacres’ that had already taken place because of the relocation that hadn”t even started.

All this foreign government activity was started by an Armenian priest, weeks before the actual order to deport Armenians had been issued. Is this claim of a ‘massacre’ an Armenian tall tale started by an Armenian priest without basis or fact? Certainly it was made up by an Armenian priest to try to get foreign nations to intervene and help Armenians make a land grab of Ottoman Muslim lands from sea to sea. This was nothing more than a ‘big lie’ made famous by the German Nazi and Russian Communist leaders. The only difference between the Germans, Russians, and Armenians is the fact this tiny band of Armenians is nothing more than a ‘wannabe’.

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

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

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

Naubar proposed that there would be both political and economic advantages - especially to England because ‘by establishing this new Armenia, the British would secure a neutralized terminus for its overland route to India’. Noubar proposed that ‘this new Armenia should be under the protection of all three Allied Powers and not just Russia alone.’ (48)

This is two months from the time the Ottomans began moving all the Armenians from the six provinces coveted by the Armenian Church because they were so active in helping the Russians. The Armenian Church wasn”t concerned about the Armenian refugees - the church was only interested in talking the European Allies out of these same lands so Armenia could establish its own dictator state. This attitude proves the intent of the Armenian leaders and shows yet again there wasn’t a Turkish massacre as the Armenian priest claimed back in April (1915).

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

In July 1915 the Armenian Church patriarch sent out telegrams to all the Christian nations of Europe, telling them of the horrible conditions facing the Armenians in eastern Anatolia and how they were being forced out of their homes and removed from the Ottoman eastern Anatolia lands. Of course, the patriarch never once mentioned the Ottomans had asked his help to stop terrorist activities in this region by his church members and he had refused to help the legal government maintain peace.

The British saw this ‘Christian’ letter as a public relations opportunity to create even more anti-Turkish attitudes. Lord Robert Cecil, under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, thought the American press should know of the patriarch’s letter. He sent a copy to the British embassy in Washington, D.C. and the ambassador to perhaps ‘arrange to put it into the right hands.’ Lord Cecil admitted, ‘We cannot vouch for all the particulars given.’ (50)

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

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

J.H.S. Dessez was the commanding officer of the U.S. Navy warship the U.S.S. Smith Thompson. On May 3, 1929, he reported to his commanding officer, Admiral Mark Bristol (U.S. Dept of state Decimal File 860.00/1288) that American missionaries were creating problems. He describes one such missionary: ‘Dr. Nichols I consider a very dangerous man who can do a great deal of harm if given a free hand. He is a religious fanatic apparently, anxious to have something sensational take place between the Turks and Armenians, in order to influence public opinion in the United States. He impressed me as rather glorying the fight between Armenians and Turks…’

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

Turkish police found anti-Muslim propaganda publications together with weapons and ammunition, hidden in American missionary centers in several places, in a police report dated May 25, 1921.

General Hamelin requested that the Armenian Legionaries be replaced by French troops. Wherever they went, they terrorized the civilian population, killing, raping, and robbing Muslims.

British officers in Cilicia complained that the Armenians lacked all sense of discipline and refused to follow the orders of their own officers. In due course, these Armenians turned on the French.

Admiral Bristol reported that his intelligence officer advised him all Athe killings going on in Cilicia were due to the French treatment of the Turks as uncivilized colonies and the French mistake of arming and supporting the Armenians.’ (This information from Stanford Shaw; From Empire to Republic, Vol II, P 882, Ankara)

After the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 began, Russian troops fighting in the Ottoman Empire quickly deserted and returned home. The Armenians occupied the Turkish territories evacuated by the Russian.

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

The Armenians quickly began a campaign of murder, destruction, and rape to rid these lands of Muslims because they were the overwhelming majority of the population. The Armenians believed this would help them establish an Armenian state in Muslim lands because there would be no Muslim remaining. This was their reason for a campaign of terror and this policy continues today in Azerbaijan. Terror and violence have been official policy of Armenians since the beginning of their nationalist movement.

An Armenian Russian author wrote of this time that Armenian political leaders had organized a campaign, not for building a state for their people, but rather, worked to ‘exterminate’ the Muslims who lived in the region and also to steal and plunder the Muslims” property. (52)

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

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

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

Later, on March 20, 1918, British Brigadier-General F. Clayton of General Headquarters Egyptian Expeditionary Force forwarded to the Foreign Of

*******************************************************
ARMENIA AND CHRISTIANITY : THE HOLY MESS (Part III)

Dear Reader,
In this last installment in the 3-part mini-series highlighting the centuries old cultivation of the hate-based crimes in the Armenian church, a Christian scholar, a writer, and a former district attorney and a judge, Samuel A. Weems, is asking in his book titled Armenia: Secrets Of A "Christian" Terrorist State the following pertinent question:

What kind of Christians are the Armenians who claim to be the first Christian state?

The AFATH lobby has used, for 90 years, this very "religion card" to dupe millions of Christians around the world into believing that the AAG is factual. With the patronizing attitude of a (please excuse the popular phrase) “used car salesman”, the AFATH lobbyists seem to say to the doubting minds: “Hey, I belong to the first Christian nation in the world… Would I lie to you?”

And yet, that is exactly what they are doing.

In fact, the AFATH lobby’s ethocidal distortions of history are so snarly, that it is becoming more and more difficult to see the big picture, the truth, behind the smoke screen they create. So much so, that I have had to formulate the following slogan to spark interest in the fair-minded people who are otherwise sold on the Armenian propaganda:

The truth is not in what Armenians say, but in what the Armenians don’t say.

The Armenians, for example, never talk about the facts that they resorted to armed uprising, terrorism, betrayal, and treason, and more, in order to establish a Greater Armenia on Turkish soil. . Nor do they talk about the uniforms of the invading armies (Russian in the East and the French in the South) that they shamelessly wore during WWI to attack, torture and kill their Muslim neighbors, their fellow Ottoman-citizens. They never talk, either, about 2.5 million Muslim dead, mostly Turkish, during WWI, or the 523,000 Turks whose deaths are directly attributable to the Armenian nationalists’ hate crimes… There is more, but I think you get the point.

These are the reasons why I think, after reading what follows, you will agree with me, that while the Armenians may be the first Christian nation, more significantly, they are also the first “terrorist” Christian nation on earth, like the writer documents… Sort of like the El Kaida of the Christian world…

Peace,
Ergun Kirlikovali
*********************************

EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 7 (p 137-152)

WHAT KIND OF CHRISTIANS ARE THE ARMENIANS WHO CLAIM TO BE THE FIRST CHRISTIAN STATE?

ARMENIAN TERRORIST ACTIVITIES

On coveting neighboring Georgia’s lands; after listing a few of the hypocritical actions of the Armenians, Weems comments:

“… (The Armenian professor) objects to the Georgians’ removing Armenian officials, military men, and government employees from their positions of influence, to ensure loyalty of all citizens at a time of war. The Armenian professor objects to this measure. What would the professor have Georgians do - welcome with open arms those Armenians who deliberately attempted to betray, back-stab, and undermine Georgia? Armenians, once again, bit the hand that fed them and then cried ‘foul’ when the master reacted. … The professor objects to Georgia”s requiring that only its citizens could vote. Why should Armenians, Russians, or anyone else vote in the Georgian elections, especially if they choose to refuse to register as Georgian citizens? Armenia, at this point in time, remained a true dictatorship, pure and simple…”

**********************************

On Armenians’ blasphemous actions, Weems opines:

“…More importantly and more troubling for Christian,s is Armenians’ comparing themselves to the ‘crucifixion’ and ‘resurrection’ of Jesus Christ; this is blasphemy. Webster”s New World Dictionary defines blasphemy as ‘any remark or action held to be irreverent or disrespectful.’ This is especially true ‘to the calling down of evil upon someone or something… The Armenians consider Muslims as not being human. However, by Webster’s definition, no such exclusion is permitted. Blasphemy is blasphemy and another’s religion or race has nothing to do with it.

**********************************

On coveting neighboring Azerbaijan’s lands, Weems writes:

“… After Armenia was driven out of Georgia, the Armenians turned their attention to try to take land from Azerbaijan. Armenia, as always, first tried to talk their way into obtaining the land they coveted. … ‘… a constant dialogue was maintained through several special commissions and through informal meetings involving two or more of the delegations. The political combinations, however arranged, and the prolonged interviews produced meager results, if indeed results were anticipated or desired. Rivalry flared on nearly every topic. Azerbaijan demanded additional summer pasturage in the mountains of Armenia and the repatriation of all Muslim refugees who had fled in the face of Armenian bands lead by such guerrilla fighters as Andranik. Armenia called for unhindered transit privileges throughout Transcaucasia and the withdrawal of Azerbaijan military forces from Karabagh.’ (1)…”

**********************************

On coveting neighboring Turkey’s lands; Weems discloses:

‘… The creation of an independent Armenian state on the borders of the Ottoman Empire raised many new questions regarding the future of Armeno-Turkish relations. The Armenian government undoubtedly recognized the need to dispel the intense hatred and bitterness directed toward the masters of more than four hundred years. The perpetuation of old grievances could in no way serve the Republic (of Armenia). Turks and Armenians, Muslims and Christians, were destined to live as neighbors, whether as friends or as enemies. Yet, Armenia would not be able to rise above the past, until recompense had been made and the great plateau of eastern Anatolia restored to her.’ (2)

Common sense cries out that neighbors should get along with each other as they did for five hundred years - before the greed of Armenian dictators destroyed that peace. However, with Armenia, they will never be satisfied and will only demand more and more land from neighboring nations. The Armenian attitude is just this… ‘ We will hate and despise our neighbors forever and kill them to get their land.’ Armenian actions prove, time after time, this is a true observation. What about the teaching of Christ? The Armenians just don”t want to live the life they claim to follow…”

**********************************

On hate crimes and acts of terrorism committed by Armenians around the world, Weems observes:

“… Think about this fact: Armenian terrorists took it upon themselves, to travel the world in the early 1920s committing assassination after assassination of Turks. These lawless murders took place in several nations. The Armenians became prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner. This is typical of Armenian justice as they continue to murder Turks throughout the world today. Armenians have even invaded the United States to assassinate Turks in recent years. Three Turks were assassinated in California and one Turk in Massachusetts and there were hundreds of cases of bombings, bomb threats, assault and battery (cases), threats, and an assortment of other such(hate) crimes all committed by Armenians. Is this what Jesus Christ taught? Revenge. Terrorism. Of course not. Is this acceptable conduct in a civilized world? No….”

**********************************

On lack of freedom of religion in Armenia, Weems points out:

“… There is no real freedom of religion in Armenia today. Consider the following: The constitution of Armenia grants the Armenian Apostolic Church official status as the national church. In 1991 the Armenian government passed a law that strengthened the position of the Armenian Church even more. The law directs the government’s Council on Religious Affairs to investigate the activities of the representatives of registered religious organizations and to missionaries who engage in activities contrary to their status.

The Armenian Apostolic Church is not subject to restrictions on religious freedom imposed on church members of other faiths. In particular, the 1991 law forbids ‘proselytizing’ (undefined by law), except by the Apostolic Church and requires all other religious denominations and organizations to register with the State Council on Religious Affairs.

In 1997, the Armenians changed their laws to tighten registration requirements by raising the minimum numbers of adult members required to qualify for registration from fifty to two hundred The law also bans foreign funding for foreign-based churches. The law also mandates that religious organizations other than the Apostolic Church must secure permission from the State Council on Religious Affairs to engage in religious activities in public places, travel abroad, or invite foreign guests into the country.

In plain language, the Armenians just don’t want freedom of religion because they do not want any other kind, brand, or flavor of another Christian faith in their tiny land, except for their very own official state church - the Armenian Apostolic Church.

On the other side of the coin, this ‘official’ Armenian Apostolic Church works the world to get money from other Christians. The Armenian Apostolic Church is a member of the World Council of Churches and despite doctrinal and legal standing differences, has friendly official relations with many Christian denominations, including the Eastern Orthodox churches, the Roman Catholic Church, and major Protestant churches. Relations between certain religious groups, including the Mekhitarist Catholic Order, the Methodists, and the dominant Armenian Apostolic Church are also strengthened through cooperation in assistance projects. Various registered Christian humanitarian organizations, including the United Methodist Committee on Relief, the Armenian-Georgia-American Partnership Endeavor, and the Mekhitarist Cultural Center are working with the Armenian Apostolic Church to distribute humanitarian assistance and educational religious materials.

Let us get this straight: The Armenians, by their Constitution, made it almost impossible for any other Christian group to come into their country to preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, the official Armenian Church works on Christians around the world to send ‘humanitarian’ help because we are brothers in Christ.

The link between religion and Armenian ethnicity is strong. As a result of the Armenian invasion of its neighbor, the Azerbaijan’s Karabakh region, almost all of Armenian’s Muslim population was forced to leave the country. Antipathy toward Muslims is a serious problem in Armenia today. For example, there is not a single mosque that operates normally in all of Armenia. There is one surviving eighteenth-century mosque in Erivan that has recently been restored by Iranian funding. It is open for prayers on a tenuous legal basis. The Muslims have no freedom of religion in Armenia.

Because of the religious discrimination laws of Armenia, many religious group members have joined the wave of emigration from the country for religious, social, economic, and philosophical reasons.

What about the United States in all this? Over the past ten years Congress has sent more than 1.4 billion dollars to this tiny place called Armenia. But not to worry. The U.S. government is engaged actively in promoting freedom of religion in Armenia. The U.S. government directs its embassy in Armenia to maintain regular close contact with leaders of the major religious and ecumenical groups in Armenia. Embassy officials meet regularly with all major denominations. So, the only denominations the Armenians, in truth, let into the country are those bringing ‘Christian humanitarian’ aid to them. (3)

**********************************

On the Armenian Church’s silence in the face of relentless violent activities of the international Armenian terrorist groups, Weems remarks:

Now that the world knows and understands that the Armenian Apostolic Church speaks for Jesus Christ in the country, the following question must be raised: Why is the Armenian Apostolic Church so silent about the activities of its nation’s terrorist groups, such as:

Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA)
Justice Commandos for the Armenian Genocide (JCAG)
New Armenian Resistance Group (NARG)
Armenian Group 28 (AG28)
New Armenian Resistance (NAR)
Front for the Liberation of Armenia (FTLA)
Commandos of Armenian Militants Against Genocide (CAMAG)
New Armenian Resistance of the Armenian Secret Army (NARASA) Black April (BA)
October 3 (O3)
Ninth of June Organization (NOJO)
Sixth Armenian Liberation Army (SALA)
September 24 Suicide Commandos (S24SC)
Orly Organization (OO)
Armenian World Punishment Organization(AWPO)
Armenian Red Army (ARA)
Armenian Revolutionary Movement (ARM)

These are just a few of the names these cowards use after making sneak attacks on people around the world. There are so many of these Armenian terrorist attacks that a book could be written on their activities alone. Armenian terrorist groups have killed and wounded people around the world in:

Paris, Beirut, Vienna, Frankfurt, Essen, Cologne, Zurich, Rome, Brussels, Madrid, Geneva, Copenhagen, The Hague, Milan, Amsterdam, Teheran, Bern, Marseilles, Athens, Lyon, Interlaken, Strasbourg, Sydney, Lausanne, Toronto, Ottawa, Dortmund, Lisbon, Rotterdam, Ankara, Burgoy, Belgrade, Rennes, Bonn, Istanbul,…

The United States has been a target twenty-one times during the period this writer examined the records. Just think - Armenian thugs, operating out of the shadows of our society, attacked individuals in the United States twenty-one times. Such conduct is an outrage. Individuals and business were attacked in the following cities: Santa Barbara, California; New York, New York; Los Angeles, California; Cambridge, Massachusetts; Tampa, Florida; San Francisco, California; Anaheim, California (Writer’s note; Weems lists each act of terrorism by date, location, and victims. A similar list is provided elsewhere in this book.)

America was not alone because Armenian terrorists attacked their targets all over the world on a regular basis. Who is directing such a widespread and organized terror campaign? Who is paying the bill to carry out such a terrorist organization? Who is training these terrorists? In recent years the Armenian terrorist organizations, regardless of what they call themselves, have murdered 71 people and wounded another 387.

Why does the Armenian Apostolic Church remain so silent about all these sneak, unprovoked attacks of terror in the civilized world? Certainly, Jesus Christ would not approve of such conduct. Why can”t the Armenian Church condemn such conduct by Armenians? Jesus Christ never taught revenge and hate of anyone.

Why isn’t the Armenian government using its good offices to hunt out and condemn such acts of terror and help stop them? The Armenian government plays slight lip service to these terrible crimes against humanity and does nothing to help stop the murders and terror. Isn’t it odd that the Armenian government can send agents all over the world seeking handouts but can’t help stop terror attacks by Armenians? Why is this?

The reader will want to note that all of the Armenian hate crimes that took place in the United States were in regions where there are large concentrations where Armenian-Americans live. Why have these ethnic communities remained silent about these terrorist attacks that have taken place near them?

Why does the U.S. government give this tiny state billions of dollars in foreign aid when such attacks have been made on American soil by Armenian terrorists?

Why do American church groups pump millions of dollars into so-called ‘Christian humanitarian relief’ when the Church and State of Armenia are silent and do nothing to stop these outrages of terror around the world?

…. It is clear why, even though Armenia calls itself the first Christian nation in history, it doesn’t follow the teachings of Jesus. Armenians adopted Christianity for no other reason than to cover all the bases and worship all gods. Perhaps American Christians would not be so eager to open their checkbooks to Armenia if they knew this tiny state boasted of worshiping a pagan god in addition to Jesus Christ. Many Armenians today name their children after their god, Vahagn….”

**********************************

REFERENCES FOR EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 1

Douglas Dakin, The Unification of Greece, 1770-1923, London 1972, p 6
Muriel Ann Atkin, The Khanates of the Eastern Caucasus, PhD dissertation, Yale U., 1978, p144
Ibid. p-49-50
Churches Committee On Migrant Workers In Europe, Brussels, Sept. 1979, p 7
G.H.Chopourian, The Armenian Evangelical Reformation, New York, 1972, p 40
A.P. Vartoogian, Armenian Ordeal, New York, 1896, p 37
FO 424/104/Conf. 4367, No 2460, Goschent to Grainville, 22.6.1880
Ibid.
Harold Armstrong, Turkey In Travel, London, 1925, p 224
FO/424/46/Conf. 3003, No 336, , Elliott to Derby, 7.12.1876
FO/424/132/Conf. 4789, Part VI No 36, Everett to Suffering, 3.1.1882, p48-49
S.R.Sonyel, The Armenian Question, Impact International, Vol 13, No 19, 14-27 Oct 1983
Nalbandian, p 110; Hunchak, Vol 1, No 1, Nov 1887; Avetis Nazarbek, Through the Storm, London, 1999
Leo, The Ideology of Turkish Armenian Revolution, 2 Volumes, Paris, 1934, 1945
AP.5376XVCI, Turkey No.1 (1890-1) Chermside to White, 29.8.1889, White to Salisbury, 14.9.1889, p17-21
Ibid: Boyadjian to Chermside, 10.8.1889
Ibid: : Boyadjian toDevey, 10.8.1889; Devey to Chermside , 29.8.1889, Chermside to FO 12.9.1889, p 21-23
AP.41LXXXII Turkey,No 1 (1889)Devey to Lloyd, 2.1.1890, p2-3
DskariH.H., Dashnagzutiun, 1892; Papasiza, p 9-15; nalbandia, p 168
FO 371/4239/164676, PIDGeographiacl Section memo, received on 24.12.1919
AP, Turkey No.144 (1896) C80115: Rosebery to Nicholson, 14.6.1893, p 128-129
Religious Sedition, an interview on the Armenian question,: The Methodist Recorder, 22.2.1894
Armenian and the Armenian, The Presbyterian, 23.2.1894
Turkey No.6 (1896): Currie to Kimberley, 28.3.1894, p 57-58
Turkey No.6 (1896): Currie to Kimberley, 28.4.1894, p 53, (not used)
Turkey No. 1(1895) No 119; FO 424/178/Conf.6583, No 479
FO 371/560/37689: Dickson to Lowther, 30.9.1908
FO/371/762/3123
FO/371/533/33333: Hopkins to Grey, 24.9.1908
FO 424/220, No 48 enclosure
FO 424/219, No 83
Hurriyet Newspaper of 24.9.1982
H.H. Katchaznuni,: DashnaksutiunAnelik Chumiailes, Vienna, 1923, p 7
FO 371/4974/E 2404 Memo by R. .McDonnell on the Dashnaksutiun, FO dated 25.3.1920
Horizon, Tiflis, 30.11.1914
FO 371/4376/PID 206: Paris Peace Conference, 26.2.1919
DOOA, p 63-64; Doc No 1906 (102): Commander, Special Service Volunteers
Battalion To The Third Army Commander, cira, 15.2.1915
Dis Politika Ensttusu, p 24
FO 371/2488/590960 McMahon to FO, 12.5.1915
Bagur, Belleton, XXX, N. 117, part 3, p 37, from the minutes of the Council of Ministers dated 30.5.1915, p 213
FO 371/4221/170751; Robeck to Curzon, 29.12.191 and FO minutes
FO 371/2488/51009: Russian Ambassador to FO, 27.4.1915
Ibid, Doc No 51010: Russian Ambassador to FO 27.4.1915, FO to Spring Rice. 29.4.1915
Ibid, Doc No 58387: Buchanan to FO 11.5.1915
Ottoman Archives, Cipher Desh, N. 5314
FO 371/2488/96760: Noubar to Nicholson, 15.7.1915
FO 371/2485/1067960: McMahon to Grey
181D, Doc No 125295,: McMahon to Grey, 16.8.1915; FO to Maier, 14.9.1915 Borian II, p 82
Gen. G.J. Harbord,: American Military Mission Tp Armenia, International Conciliation, No 151, June 1920, New York, p 25
McCarthy, p 196, Interview with Col. Wooley of the British Army, 12.9.1919, US Archives 184.021/265
FO 371/6265/E23: Report by Col. Stokes on the situation in Armenia, 24.2.1920
FO 371/3400/36460 A.J. Toynbee, Intelligence Bureau, Dept of Information, 18.2.1918
Mark Sykes: The Calif’s Lust Heritage, London, 1915, p 372
Ibid p 409
Ibid p 416-418
Gwynne Dyer: Turkish Falsifiers and Armenian Deceivers, Middle Eastern Studies,
S.R. Sonyel: How Armenian Propaganda Deceived the Christian World, Bulletin, Vol. XLI No 161, Ankara, Jan 1977, p 157-175
Ibid

******************************

REFERENCES FOR EXCERPTS FROM CHAPTER 7

Turkey No.7 (1880), No 3, p 195, Layard to Her Majesty’s Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Constantinople, 27 April 1880, in British Documents 1, No 354.
Ibid, p 199
Ibid, p 211

******************************

ARMENIA AND CHRISTIANITY : THE HOLY MESS (Epilogue)

Dear Reader,
In the 3-part mini-series just ended, highlighting the centuries old cultivation of the hate-based crimes in the Armenian church -- ranging from discrimination, racism, and agitation, to sporadic violence, organized armed uprisings, continuous terrorism and all out aggression – were documented. Thanks to the works of a Christian scholar, a writer, and a former district attorney and a judge, Samuel A. Weems, presented in his book titled Armenia: Secrets Of A "Christian" Terrorist State , we have been able to understand for the first time “… just what kind of Christians the Armenians who claim to be the first Christian state are…”

Now we know, that while the Armenians may be the first Christian nation, more significantly, they are also the first “terrorist” Christian nation, like Samuel A. Weems documented so brilliantly.

So, the next time the AFATH lobby makes an attempt to use this “religion card” to score quick points in Christian forums, mainly to recruit their support for the bogus Armenian genocide, you can easily bring the AFATH down to earth with the findings of Samuel A. Weems presented here, concluding with a reminder to the same audience that the Armenians are also the first “terrorist Christian nation, sort of like the “El Kaida of the Christian world”. If they don’t believe you, you can wave Samuel A. Weems’ book with that same title. That should quickly “level the playing ground” for all Turks and Armenians and take the wind away from the AFATH sails.

THE JEWISH CONNECTION

How often do the AFATH community use this “religion card”? More often than any reader thinks… almost daily in some circles.

How do we know? From the AFATH literature.

Do the AFATH lobby use the “religion card” directly or indirectly? Both. You see, it is rather easy to refute Armenian claims if they come from the Armenians. After all, any decent, self-respecting individual who has enough sense of fairness to figure out that the Armenians are a party to a controversial dispute will readily expect to hear the other side of the story prior to coming to a decision on any dispute.

What is most dangerous, in my opinion, is when the AFATH lobby seeks out and locates recruits from disinterested third parties whose characterizations may not have the same partisan flavor for, and therefore be more credible to, the intended audiences. Case in point: The Jewish-Americans.

For decades, the AFATH lobby passionately solicited the support of the Jewish community, both in the U.S. and in Israel, without much success – other than a few ill-informed individuals, highly pressured museum directors, and others all of whom necessarily had financial backing of the AFATH lobby one way or another. The Israeli government made it clear many times to friend and foe -- most recently during the Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan’s visit there earlier this month, that they found the Armenian claims of genocide “meaningless” and that the self-inflicted civil war and its aftermath during the WWI, while tragic in terms of human loss and suffering, can not be characterized as genocide. Israel offered Turkey help and support on battling the unfair defamation campaign waged by the AFATH community around the world. The Jewish community in the U.S. is the strongest ally the Turks have and they have amply proven this numerous times in the last couple of decades.

The AFATH lobby, however, never gave up. They continued to look for other avenues to recruit the Jewish support for the bogus Armenian genocide. What follows is one such example. The AFATH community, by no means limited to those in the Armenian Diaspora who feel nothing but hatred for Turks, along with those non-Armenian, crusader-minded, anti-Turkish bigots, scored another point in 2001 in their ethocidal campaign with the public declaration below, marking the 1700th anniversary of Armenia's adoption of Christianity, signed by some Jewish intellectuals and rabbis, insinuating by the clever language they use, that they represent the Jewish community. First, let's read their public declaration:

' We, the undersigned, are scholars, rabbis, teachers, community leaders, and students of Jewish heritage. As Jews, we share many similarities with the Armenian people. We were both victims of genocide during the twentieth century and have survived despite those who would deny us our right to exist. On this year, 2001, which marks the 1700th anniversary of Armenia's adoption of Christianity, we as Jews salute our Armenian friends and their contributions to western society and culture.'

(The identities of the signatories are withheld as I am interested in the message, not the messengers.)

Jewish salutation to someone else's adoption of Christianity?

Especially that of Armenians', who massacred not only Ottoman-Muslims en masse, but also Ottoman-Jews and Caucasus-Jews during the WWI?

That of Armenians', who joined the Nazis during WWII as trusted, motivated, and efficient 'Jew hunters' ?

Now I have seen it all. Those Jewish signatories must be clearly confused about their own Jewish history and heritage, but that is their problem. The immediate task here is to refute their spurious claims, which have all the telltale signs of being actually penned by the AFATH hate lobby.

How is that for mixing religion, bigotry, and politics, at the cost of historical truth, honesty, and fairness?

How is that for using the “religion card” to score quick points against the Turk?

How can we foil such sad, sneaky, and malicious attempts to distort history for political (and other) benefits?

The answer, ironically, rightfully, and blissfully, came from another Jew, whom I am honored to call an esteemed friend of mine and a fellow compatriot: Rachel Sharon Krespin. Yes, when most Muslims, including many highly educated Turkish-American friends of mine, did not bother to confront the deliberate, virulent, and spiteful misrepresentations in the above 2001 public declaration, Rachel Sharon Krespin. courageously faced down the signatories in a brilliant way. Please read, enjoy, and learn from this response and quote its contents, with full credit to Rachel Sharon Krespin, of course, in your personal letters against the AFATH propaganda in Jewish circles in future.

The directors of the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles and the Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C., are you listening?

Peace,
Ergun Kirlikovali

PS: I will write about the intolerance in the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles in one of my upcoming columns for you to see how the AFATH skillfully uses the Jewish connection to unfairly defame the Turkish culture, heritage, and history. I assure you that you will be stunned to read about it!

**********************************

STRANGE REMARKS BY SOME JEWISH MEMBERS OF THE AFATH COMMUNITY ON THE 1700TH ANNIVERSARY OF ARMENIA’S ADOPTION OF CHRISTIANITY…

' We, the undersigned, are scholars, rabbis, teachers, community leaders, and students of Jewish heritage. As Jews, we share many similarities with the Armenian people. We were both victims of genocide during the twentieth century and have survived despite those who would deny us our right to exist. On this year, 2001, which marks the 1700th anniversary of Armenia's adoption of Christianity, we as Jews salute our Armenian friends and their contributions to western society and culture.'

( The identities of the signatories are not important here, and hence, taken out, as my displeasure, objections, and complaints have nothing to do with the messengers, but everything to do with the message itself. )

… And here is that textbook refutation of that AFATH declaration, which is blatantly insensitive to the history of 500 years of Turkish-Jewish friendship and amicable Turkey-Israel relations, by someone for whom this writer has the utmost respect and admiration: Rachel Sharon Krespin of Fairfield, CT, USA. In her e-mail letter dated September 4, 2001, she first introduces herself to the co-authors of the above declaration as a Jewish/Israeli/American woman who feels compelled to respond. She then informs, educates, and alerts them.

******************************

…AND A MOST BRILLIANT REFUTATION PENNED BY A JEWISH/ISRAELI/AMERICAN FRIEND OF TURKEY

'… Since you represent the 'learned', and your titles carry the names of many honorable academic institutions, and you claim to be the 'students of Jewish heritage', I believe you would have no problem in embracing further 'knowledge'.

At the time of the birth of Christianity, my people, exiled from 'Erez Yisrael' after the destruction of the Second Temple, found themselves in Spain. I will not attempt to chronologically account for the many centuries of Jewish suffering in our exile in Europe, but will initially refer to that one place. Indeed, at those dark ages of our history, the only place my people lived and prospered was Spain, the Moslem Spain of the Moors, where they had their 'golden ages' and raised the many scholars, philosophers, doctors and scientists (Halevy, Ibn Gvirol, Maimonides to name just a few). That is until Christianity and its Holy Inquisition swept through this peninsula, bringing with it: blood, tears, oppression, forced conversions, torture and death. First, my people were not allowed to live there as Jews. After years of suffering, my people could not live there, at all. In 1492, they were all forced to leave, leaving their lands and homes, to a 'galut betoch galut'(exile within exile). Where would they go? Christian Europe had sealed all the doors. No need to mention how many thousands perished on the long journey (in rowing boats in the Mediterranean or by foot on a hostile continent).

But we survived. Thanks to the Ottoman Empire and her honorable Sultan Beyazid II. He said: 'Their loss is my people's gain' and opened the doors of the Empire, the only country to do so, and welcomed my people, in the tradition of Turkish hospitality. My people have been living in Turkey for 509 years now. We lived there in safety, and for most, in prosperity. We lived and existed, enjoyed tolerance and acceptance and we maintained our Jewish identity. Of course, we served the country well and have always been loyal, reliable citizens, as were our brethren in Europe. But thanks to the Turks, the tragedies that befell upon Jews in Europe, in the way of ghettos, rapes, pogroms, blood libels, and executions never happened to us. Sometimes there were hostilities. Every year at Passover, hatred used to surface among other minorities of Turkey. Those were the times when members of the Christian Greek and Armenian minorities would target the Jewish community, with rumors of missing children. And those who always guarded and protected the Jewish minority would be the Turkish authorities. If we had anything in common with any nation, it was with the Turks. The Christian world hated the Moslem Turks just as much as they hated us. They tried to eliminate them and their State in the very same manner they tried to eliminate us.

End of World War I: Ottoman Empire is breaking apart. She is being attacked on all fronts. The Allies, like vultures, want their share of the cadaver of this 'dying, sick man of Europe'. Those were horrible times. One would think Turkey would stand one and strong against her enemies. Unfortunately this was not the case. Some communities like the Armenians and Greeks would rather join Turkey's enemies and try to break her apart from within, forcing the Turks to fight a war on all fronts and a civil war at the same time. Millions of people died. Everybody suffered. Nobody denies Armenians suffered. But Turks suffered more. Nobody denies there were atrocities. They were committed on both sides. And it was not the Turks who started it.

Coming back to my story: My family fought Turkey's War of Independence. My grandfather, Nesim Bey of Bursa, fought too. He was a key figure in the struggle to liberate Bursa from the Greek occupation. He went underground. Greeks posted 'wanted' signs for his head, with a handsome award attached to it. Towards the end of the war, my grandmother, in hiding at the basement of a house, was sawing the Turkish flags that would be flown on every roof in Bursa, on the day of Liberation. And it happened. They were not the only ones, of course. My people lived up to their covenant. First with God and then with the State.

This segment of the Jewish people, the Sephardim, values the historical, cultural and moral ties with the Turkish people. We share a rich and honorable history.

Let's briefly look at the destiny of European Jewry and those Sephardim who lived on the once Ottoman lands that later became Greece, Yugoslavia, Rumania, etc. World War II made Europe a huge Jewish cemetery. Six million of us perished. All of the Jewish population in (once Ottoman) Selonika and the Aegean Islands found themselves in death camps. When visiting Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial in Jerusalem, one can find on the big map of Europe only one place clean of Jewish blood - Turkey.

Now I'll respond to the wording of your declaration, in more detail:

1) '…As Jews, we share many similarities with the Armenian people…'

You cannot talk 'as Jews''. You do not represent the Jewish people, therefore, you can only speak for yourselves, 'as individuals who happen to be Jewish'. Millions of Jews do not agree with you and harbor only feelings of friendship and of gratitude towards the Turkish people. We share nothing with the Armenian people, other than music, food and some customs, which all are Turkish. If anything, we, too, have been victims of Armenian atrocities (both in Anatolia and in the Caucasus).

2) '…We were both victims of genocide during the twentieth century and have survived despite those who would deny us our right to exist…'

I am outraged by the comparison of our sufferings. Your words not only defame Turkish people, but also defile the sacred memories of millions of Jews who lost their lives during the Holocaust, the only one of its kind in human history. Those millions of Jews were innocent, loyal citizens of the countries where they perished. They never betrayed or committed any treason. Jews never armed themselves to fight their state or its citizens. Jews never raped and murdered. When it comes to Armenian suffering: it came upon them in the midst of a war when they threatened the very existence of the Turkish State. If you define measures taken by the Turks, to defend their land, sovereignty, and independence, as 'genocide', you would be justifying the despicable language used against Israel, by UN Conference on Racism taking place in South Africa as we speak. That was in no way a 'genocide'. It was self defense at times of war. If Armenians want acceptance and sympathies for loss of lives, they too should accept responsibility and express sorrow on sufferings they inflicted upon Turks. As for denial of our rights to exist, lets remember: We, children of the hundreds of thousands of Sephardic Jews, exist today, thanks to the Turks.

3) '… On the year 2001, which marks the 1700th anniversary of Armenia's adoption of Christianity, we as Jews salute our Armenian friends and their contributions to western society and culture'

Again, you don't have any right to speak on behalf of Jews. How far are we going to go? Jewish people saluting Armenia's adoption of Christianity?!! Are you now celebrating the beginning of the era of Jewish suffering? Of all the peoples of the world, should it be for us to mark that occasion? It is very sad. 'We, the Jews' have not forgotten the centuries of pain inflicted upon us, and 'you' call Armenians 'our friends', after only 60 years since the only Holocaust, forgetting about the evidence of their collaboration with and admiration of the German Nazis. It is very sad indeed.

Leaving the history behind, I will conclude with the 'present':

The modern Republic of Turkey, founded by the Great Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, is a western secular democracy, the only one in the Islamic world. She is a strong and loyal ally of America and of Israel. Any attack on her does not bring you honor. Instead of becoming instruments in yet another 'Crusade' to defame and isolate her, every effort should be made to embrace her. For Turkey is an asset to us and to the world.



------------------------------------------------------------------
© Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
ergun@turkla.com

This article is kindly permitted by Mr Ergun KIRLIKOVALI
------------------------------------------------------------------