1670) Armenian Intimidation To Suppress Free Speech

Turk vs. Armenian at a Forum:

Cem: There is absolutely nothing you can say that can justify the forced cancellation of a peaceful gathering!

Kevork: Oh yes there is. ARMENIANS will not 'fraternize' with known and vocal genocide deniers. End of story. . .

It's what Prof. Heath Lowry referred to as the "Curtain of Fear," before that curtain came crashing down on him, thanks to the nefarious scheming of those such as Peter Balakian and his unethical "genocide scholar" allies. Dr. Lowry was referring to the difficulty for law enforcement to permeate the ranks of Armenian terrorists, "For Armenians know full well what their fate will be if they are labeled as 'informers' by the terrorists." (A classic example of which was the 1933 assassination in a New York church; in Ottoman times, the violence would be directed toward any loyal Ottoman-Armenian, in order to drive a wedge between the Armenian and Turkish peoples, such as with the 1912 assassination of Van's mayor.) Dr. Lowry's reference was back in the days when Armenian terrorism was raging globally, in the 1970s-80s; while the fanatics among the Armenians have largely stopped pointing their guns in recent years, the kind of terrorism they and their willing allies engage in is of the character assassination variety... while the threat of physical attack is never far away.

It's what made Franz Werfel, author of The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, keep mum after he learned he had wrongfully blackened the image of the Turks with gullible reliance on Armenian propaganda. (As his friend, Rabbi Amateau, acknowledged.) It's what made the friends of Prof. Erich Feigl afraid, asking the professor (in a manner of speaking) whether he was nuts to write the book, "A Myth of Terror." (The book's foreword on p. 6 began with: "'Have you gone crazy?' — 'Are you tired of living?' These were the comments of friends and acquaintances when they heard that I was working on a book about the causes and historical context of Armenian terrorism."): It's what forced Prof. Stanford Shaw to eventually leave UCLA after his colleague, Prof. Richard Hovannisian, told his genocide-crazed followers that Shaw was a "criminal," leading to constant harassment in Shaw's classrooms; some even bombed his house in 1977. There are fanatics among the Armenians who will stop at nothing to preserve the sanctity of "Hai Tahd," or the Armenian Cause.

The obsessed among them are working day and night to perform their "patriotic duty," for example, infiltrating school boards of the United States, to censor the genuine version of historical events, having an easy go of it thanks to the deep prejudice against Turkish people in the Christian West, along with Turkish apathy. With the help of the horrid genocide forces pretending to be pursuing a noble goal, innocent sounding organizations such as "Facing History" and "Teach Genocide" are providing the naive school system with their propagandistic teaching materials, feeding impressionable youngsters with the notion Turks are no different than Nazis, thus ensuring what keeps the Armenians together — their hatred — will be shared by the non-Armenians among us.

This page will examine examples of Armenian intimidation tactics to suppress free speech. We will begin with a classic example going all the way back to 1896, just to start things off with a bang, and to set the pattern for what is to follow... which will concentrate on more modern day examples.

1) Armenians Threaten F. Hopkinson Smith
2) An Armenian in Glendale: "They were like crazy."
3) The Los Angeles Times finds some backbone!
4) University Conference Deep-Sixed
5) Was Ara Sarafian Leaned On?
6) A Canceled Concert
7) Armenians=1; Holdwater=0

Armenians Threaten F. Hopkinson Smith

The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, Dec. 7, 1896


Armenians Seek to Suppress Free Speech In America.

Armenians Seek to Suppress Free Speech

New York, Dec. 7 — F. Hopkinson Smith, the author, artist and engineer, who has been vigorous in the use of his tongue and pen in defending the course of the Turks in the Armenian difficulties, has recently received a very unpleasant reminder that there are some persons who object to his statements. He has been, in fact ordered to cease giving his side of the story for publication under threat of dire consequences. While the threat was implied, still it was a threat, but Mr. Smith does not wish to consider it as such. He prefers to regard the affair as trivial, but his friends do not agree with him and are afraid something may happen to him.

Two men have called at his house and given him warning. The second said the Armenian revolutionary committee had sent word to Mr. Smith that he must stop defending the Turkish government. "They say I must stop, do they?" said Smith. "Well, I won't stop. I know the sultan is a broad-minded man, with a big heart that is filled with love for is fellow beings. I know the Armenians have goaded the Turkish people into committing the massacres with the view of arousing the sympathy of Europe. These things I know, and knowing them I am going to defend the sultan and his people."

F. Hopkinson Smith

F. Hopkinson Smith

F. Hopkinson Smith was an American of great integrity, taking the trouble to verify pro-Armenian claims, and going against the tide of Turkish vilification in his nation's press, led, for one, by The New York Times. Now we learn he was courageous in other ways as well. It was not only Armenians who came down hard on him, but the bulk of the 19th century racist bigots. The New York Times wrote one of its most unbelievable editorials as a result of their outrage against Mr. Smith's views. The reader may tune in on this page to learn more.

Thanks to Gokalp for the clipping.

An Armenian in Glendale: "They were like crazy."

In response to a charge of hatred against Armenians, I composed a ditty of denial (denial being one of my specialties, after all) but I defended my original words that brought forth the charge with a test: Find me an Armenian who goes public against the genocide claims!

No one has yet met the challenge, but I have found just such an Armenian. I have not spoken about him (Vahe Avetian), because he's alone and I did not want to invite any trouble for him. Yet he has not made a secret of his thoughts, this very brave Armenian, and his cover has been blown in other web pages... and it's obvious from the following article that the extremist factions are very well aware of him anyway... so I'm finally going to shed some light upon him. Especially because the story he tells here is such a frightening one.

The following was posted in a Yahoo group forum; as the author is not a native speaker and his account is sometimes difficult to follow, I have made corrections of a few (not all) typos and have put in my own paragraph breaks:

an armenian in Glendale

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:10:06 +0100
Posted by: "arabaliozian@[withheld]"

Subject: Support Network of Friends - Vahe Avetian: Argent!

Hello Dear Friends,

Vahe Avetian
I write this letter to inform you, that I am in Glendale, Los Angeles, USA, where I came to visit some friends, artists, to look around, to hold literary meetings if possible. As soon I came, I was invited to a literary meeting dedicated to Vahe Oshakan, in the municipal library. As soon I came in and sat down a gentleman whom I don't know told from the scene:

—"Hamazgayin" was always supportive to writers, to preserve of literature and the language.

—You are lying: I told from my place, and may be it was wrong.

— Thank you: the answer was.

—You are welcome: was my answer.

After the gentleman a lady whom I also don't know spoke longer, more interesting and less ambitions so it was fun and I head the time to realize that situation was embarrassed and some explanations shall be given. As soon the lady finished her speech, I went up to the scene, came to the microphone on a something big, with golden "HAMAZGAYIN" letters on:

—My name is Vahe Avetian. I am an Armenian writer, author of 6 books on three languages and I am accused in crime in the motherland where I do not live 15 years already, because of books of mine.

—No one wants to hear you! Shut up:

some one shouted from the hall and a couple of dozen people started to shout and scream and they attacked me. I really became scared, couldn't see properly because of the strong lights directed towards me. Some one was shouting:

—Record, record, and don't stop the cameras.

I thought they'll attack me and I dropped the first microphone on the floor. I turned around to go away and that big something with the second microphone was on my way. Couple of dozen fat asses was breathing behind me already. I pushed the thing and it felled down. I went farther, not successful enough. Hostile tribe of mine surrounded me and started to push, to scrim on my face all kind of dirt. Couple of dozen hating people. They were like crazy. I was not allowed to go away from the hall.

—Keep your hands away: I shouted on some one who was trying to hold my hands and keep me there.

—Call police: some one shouted.

—Already done: another told.

The police came. A lady and a gentleman from our tribe told them that I hit them. I didn't. I was not asked something properly. I was arrested, was brought to the Glendale jail by an Armenian police officer, who put 20,000 $ bail on me, in difference to the previous amount, 5000$, which was told by the other colle[agu]es of our compatriot, to my friends Sev, Armen, Anush, Narine and Gayane, who were with.

My friends couldn't invest the needed amount to bond me out, until they didn't found David, who paid the bail and I was freed from the prison on Monday. The arrest was on Friday evening.

I probably will write stories about the jail in Glendale in some future: I have lot of material collected, but let us go back to our tribe and my self. The police officer has dashnak orientation: I've heard from concerned citizens, living here. I spoke about the matter to a guy; the name was Bill Hamparian or may be some thing else, am not sure. He is participating in congress elections and nominated from the democrats or greens. He is also an attorney and public servant since 1990 as he told me.

—Be careful with Glendale police and dashnaks: was his resume.

—They are connected to the mafia.

I meet dozens in the streets of the Glendale each day and can't find out if those guys are commissars because of there convictions or they get salary from the motherland. Both cases are bizarre. Summary of the message: Every thing in Armenia is good, every thing in USA is bad and I shall keep my mouth shut, other wise it will be not OK and it is easy to kill a person in LA too. I am amused. The situation is so wearied, that I am not even scared. I just look around and wait. The first hearing in the court is on 25th of October and will see what is happening. Until then: I need your support, brothers and sisters. That is what my lower Angela Barsegian is telling: I am in a need of support network of friends.

Please be with.


P.S. My English is not of the best quality, but the network of my friends is international, so I am going to keep the communication in English, but all languages will be welcomed and translated.


WHEW! Pretty scary, ain't it!

Let's hope this courageous man came out of this scrap intact. I guess it will be a while before he visits friendly Glendale again. (I'm reminded of several letters I have received from Californians who have not had the most pleasant encounters from the less nice Armenians among them.)

Vahe deserves a deeper look, but for the present, let's put a few of his other views from this forum, accessible on this page if the reader [clicks here.] In the last entry, Vahe confirms that Armenians are "silenced in the entire Armenian, controlled media," and implies he may be the only one going against the tide ("Show me an other one. Tell me the name.") As far as the "genocide" is concerned, he could be right.

Thanks to Fatma for forwarding the post.

In a series of early June 6-7, 2006 posts, an Armenian left a message for Vahe in Turkish.

Vahe: What is this? I don't understend Turkish. Can you

[The answer]: It translates as follows :

Vahip Bey...oops..sorry Vahe the donme ( turncoat) this video is for you.

Vahe: Why these men call me like that?
...Have any one any idea why this man is angry at me?

Macreau: It is possible that you might have expressed yourself like a Turk..maybe?????

Vahe: Is there any special way that Turks express them

I met only few of them and they were not different from other human beings and were good fellows...

The rest I know from "history", which is totally manipulated.

So the question remains and the coward is not answering...


P.S. Turks and Armenians can't reconcile, until they haven't cured the sick in head people in respective tribes and judging from forums there are plenty of them.


June 5, 2006

Why every body is possessed by this guy (Orhan Pamuk)

Turkish Author Pamuk Calls For Free Debate Of Armenian Issue (a Journal of Turkish Weekly article that was posted on the forum)


Why every body is possessed by this guy and no body writes about my double repression in my double motherlands: Armenia and Sweden?

I have double so shity now then Pamuk, but still every body is keeping silence in spite of the fact of having the maximum amount of readers almost in all Armenian forums during the last three years.

I haven't read Pamuk yet. I am busy with writing my self. He may be good for sure, but may I be better? Is there any chance? I don’t know. Have you read my books? How one chooses to read this or that book in general? Or may be this guy talk right things, in right places, in right time?
Don't I?

I confess, I am jealous...

I have double governments after me, and steal [still] no one
cares to admit that some where…


April 3, 2006

--- Macreau@... wrote:
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH...Fatma.....you are tottaly under
the spell of Turkish bullshit........my life would not succide to teach you your history....once brainwashed ...always barinwashed with mkae beleive history......

I read your post, and see everything my grand mom told me about evil Turks, I read Fatma's post, and I see all Christian tolerance there.

I definitely want to be one in a nation with Fatma more, then with you.

You call me Turk, and you call yourself Armenian.

If you are Armenian, then yes, I agree, I am a Turk and Fatma is my sister.



April 2
Genocide Commemoration Events - I am out of the crap

> Locate Worldwide Armenian Genocide Commemoration
Events in your area and GET INVOLVED!

I am out of the crap. The only people who massacred me
and continue doing so, were and are Armenians.

The only massacre I witnessed with my own eyes, was
the one, which my people went through the last 15
years and the first instance to demonstrate against is
Armenian self appointed authority.


April 2

> Vahe, Are you sure you are Armenian?

I am not only Armenian, but also I am an Armenian writer, damn good one, since Armenian authorites charged me in crimes because of my books, which means that I am going to be Armenian after 1000 years too and even more...


> You do not know what you are talking about.,

Sure I do.

> or you do not have a good command of this written language and that is why you do not know the meaning the word of "genocide".

I am Armenian; English is not mother tongue, but I have a book written in English. No American or English complained about the language. What ever. The important thing is that I do not need
English to understand the word, since it is taken from Greek "genos" = "race" = "tsegh" (in Armenian.
(see gen- in Indo-European Roots + -cide)

> Please open Webster's Dictionary or Encyclopedia Britannica and learn the meaning of "genocide" then come...we will discuss.

If I will be so lucky that you read my books, you'll probably will understand my attitude towards "authorities". I do not let others to think instead of me, even Webster and Britannica and not less:
brainwashed Armenians, Turks and all others for that matter.

Genocide means - "race killing" - "Tsegh - spanel"

Killing of a person only because of his or her ethnicity is that killing: GENO CIDE, and that is what I, me, an Armenian writer, an going to teach even Webster and Britannica.

I have much more in my thought.



April 2, vahe

Re: [TURKISHARMENIANFRIENDSHIP] I want to try brotherhood


This group is called Turkish-Armenian friendship. I don't see any reason for those who promote hate, to be here, if not for keeping silence and learn.

Trust me, we all were ottoman in 1000 years, and escalating hate was and steal is an integral part of ours, no mater Turk, Armenian or Kurd.

To all patriot Armenians who don't see Turks and Armenians as almost the same in almost everything, I tell:

Idiots! Shall I believe to what I see, or to your mambo-jumbo? These correspond equally to Turkish, Kurdish "patriots" and to all others who read these lines.

I tell this not only because I am a dreamer, which I am for sure and even more: I tell to every body that has " ears: to see, mouth to hear and eyes to talk: be careful with those who do not dream: they shall be very, very sick or they are no humans. Friendship can never be promoted by hate, not at least if it is not redirected towards a common enemy.

When I number the enemies of Armenians, I sea a legion already gathered for a fight, and among the problems we face now, Turks are becoming the problem number 6596576595876587574875 and even farther in the queue.

I don't think that things in Turkey are much better and in some way, they are much more complicated then ours and people living there, are one of the hardest working, but steal poorest in Europe, with all brutal consequences of inerrableness.

This corresponds to all of us, and if there are patriots out there, who are very proud of their performance and declare that they are a success and not less economically, I tell:

Istanbul and Ankara are not Turkey, Yerevan is not Armenia, Baku is not Azerbaijan, and Diarbekir is not Kurdistan.
More: our behavior is designed specially the way, to not let those things to become one. Our masters divide us and rule us. How many generations this words shall be repeated, to make
sense once. I am pretty sure that they were pronounced once, to
make sense some time.

May it be now?

My information is not coming only from Armenian and Turkish sources, but also from Swedish, where I am a citizen and politician, and I think that I am a damn good politician, and I welcome more comments about my being megalomaniac, since that is the best PR I can get for free, and the most important thing is: those who write, pay for their internet and invest their time.

Perfect for me!

I am damn good politician, because I was with to demolish Soviet Union, was a successful and victorious commander who won a war against soviet army, and was driven out among the first ones, when Soviet Union took over Armenia again: which is the case now, and promoted and promote hate towards Azeri and Turks.
I was driven out because I dared to pronounce then, that the enemy of our independence is Soviet Union or RF, no mater how you call the fascisms, but not Turkey and in no way poor Azerbaijan, which is sitting in the same shit as we.

I am damn good politician, because I was with to implement and lead a party which has the power in so many years. Quality sucks for sure. I never had the time to fulfill that part.

I am damn good politician, because it took only two years for me to declare that I am going to challenge the Swedish Royal Parliament, where I found refuge in exile, and I participated in the elections there, in 2002.

I lived as a politician so long and in so different surroundings, that I may tell today as simple as it is:

I am damn good politician, who is charged for crimes because of books he wrote.

What do I need to know more, and what I need to present, to prove my being right?

Those who do not agree, I call idiots and brainwashed dupes beforehand. The only way to prove the opposite is to show me a
single Armenian citizen, who challenged the congress of Untied States or any other parliament of the world in couple of years.
There isn't a single one. You may check.

I am a megalomaniac?

Can be. I think that I am just a reasonable man and a
damn good politician and that is exactly why I am exiled, charged, and not aloud to enter the country, participate in the process and am silenced in the entire Armenian, controlled media. Show me an other one. Tell me the name.

I do not tell all this to prove that I am good. I know I am. I have been told about that by so many wise people in so many countries, that I don't even fill [feel] ashamed to speak about that as more or less objective factor. I am telling this, with hope that you may realize that a professional is talking now, not just an armature [amateur] form www, and I am constantly hindered to tell, to expose, to prove what I tell now:

Once we seat down, learn the history together, put all facts we have together, we are going to see that we all were and are a bunch of idiots, sheep who were slaughtered, are slaughtered and are meant to be slaughtered.

Once we learn the history together, we are going to find out, who were our masters and the enemies and those who masterminded killings. We are going to find so many enemies, that we are going to look like “snow whites” to each other.

Armenia is occupied. The self appointed leadership is not representing people and their opinion. What you hear and read, are designed by KGB/FSB.

So never tell Armenians tell. Armenians are hindered to speak.

All those Armenians, who promote genocide business and keep silence about the occupation of their country by Russians, are KGB agents, if not, then even worse: They are pathological idiots and dupes.

Turkey has more diplomatic experience; it is almost 100 years old republic. There should be professionals for sure who are aware of the things I write about. If they don't speak today, that only means that they are corrupt and criminal. I am not surprised. I told already: I do not see differences in us.

If we will not cooperate now, we all are going to vanish as states, or become miserable.

Kurds, Assyrians and the rest: Keep dreaming.


Those who can't get enough of Vahe may sashay to the following links to read a biography, and an interview.


The Los Angeles Times finds some backbone!

Unbelievable! There's a new sheriff in the L.A. Times who does not accept Armenian claims at face value, which is colossally brave of him, given the numbers of Armenians who live in California. (Cue above article.)
Kevin Roderick
Kevin Roderick

Kevin Roderick of L.A. Observed gives us a rundown ("Armenian genocide dispute erupts at LAT," 4-24-07), following the tradition of reportage of this kind, not making any secret of his sympathies with the Armenian perspective. (Roderick is a former L.A. Times'er.) He quotes at length an attack by Harut Sassounian, activist and publisher of the California Courier.

As he did with a PBS executive (in his column, "VP of PBS Should Be Dismissed For Insulting Armenians") who was totally on the side of the Armenians (in relation to PBS' propagandistic documentary, it was her office that declared PBS accepted and acknowledged the "genocide," and she who said the "genocide" was "settled history"; the exec's sin was in opining the "genocide" was not exactly on the same level as the Holocaust), Sassounian demanded the LAT managing editor, Doug Frantz, be fired.


Naturally, the immediate question coming to mind is, Who the hell is Harut Sassounian to be demanding such a thing, and why is Kevin Roderick giving Harut Sassounian such importance?

From personal interaction on my end (within a forum), it became quickly obvious that Sassounian's historical knowledge, surprisingly, is very little for such a "widely quoted leader of the Armenian American community," as Roderick describes him. His style is that of a bully. He's got a few of the qualities that Sir Mark Sykes raised of Armenians, regarding "The pride of race [that] brings about many singularities." Arrogance is one, leading naturally to making threats.

Doug Frantz

Frantz's problem: he did not feel that the Armenian journalist, Mark Arax (who made Frantz's privately written e-mail available to Sassounian, which Sassounian published, of course) was objective. Well, DUH! Frantz was correctly trying to follow the newspaper's ethics guidelines, which took a lot of guts; regarding the "genocide," the L.A. Times has no ethics guidelines.

Sassounian had the gall to write that the Times' editor, Jim O’Shea, told Sassounian that Frantz "has a very abrasive personality" (If O'Shea said such a thing, no doubt he did not suspect his fellow "journalist" would make such a private opinion public), and then charged, "No wonder he (Frantz) was short-tempered and abrupt during a phone conversation that he initiated, falsely accusing this writer of threatening him..." (What? Harut Sassounian would have made threats? Why, that is absolutely unheard of!), and follows up with writing of "the lack of freedom of speech in Turkey," and winds up comparing the distinguished historian, Andrew Mango, with "David Irving, the infamous Holocaust revisionist."

Jim O'Shea

Naturally, Sassounian knows no shame, and his genocider-brother-in-arms, Arax, threatened with a "Federal lawsuit for the possible violation of his civil rights." Meanwhile, Sassounian further tells us that the newspaper's publisher (David Hiller) and Editor O’Shea "reassured this writer last week that they would not tolerate any executive who has a bias against the Armenian Genocide and discriminates against Armenian-American employees." Hoo-boy!

"It is hard to imagine how Frantz could continue working at a newspaper in a community where more than half a million Armenians reside..." Translation: who cares about the truth. What counts is to appease these genocide-obsessed Armenians.

Roderick followed up (April 26) by reproducing a memo O'Shea sent to staffers (isn't that sort of thing supposed to be kept in-house?), where O'Shea made clear his newspaper's Armeni-mania: "Over the past two years, the Los Angeles Times has run 67 stories on Armenia or Armenians, including 26 on the Armenian genocide resolution and 13 that dealt specifically with the political fate of the resolution. This does not include editorials, op-ed pieces and letters to the editor. No one is trying to censor anyone." (Unless, of course, if that "anyone" is aware the historical facts do not support genocide.) At least another reproduced letter, from Asst. Mng. Editor Simon Li to an LA Weekly writer, raises questions about Sassounian's tactics: "any innuendo that Doug is scheduled to moderate this panel (in Turkey) because he shares the views of any of its participants — or the particular views of one that Sassounian condemns — is at best reckless and at worse maliciously prejudicial."

Mark Arax

In another entry ("Dare we call it Genocidegate?" Apr. 26), the very Armenian-cooperative L.A. Observed gave us a taste of an Arax e-mail to his colleagues at The Times: "Because his logic is so illogical, questions must be raised about Frantz’ own objectivity, his past statements to colleagues that he personally opposes an Armenian genocide resolution and his friendship with Turkish government officials, including the consul general in Los Angeles who’s quoted in my story. Frantz is heavily involved and invested in defending the policies of Turkey." Particularly with the last sentence, the Armenian writer is presenting a claim as a fact without proof. What kind of "journalism ethics" is that?

Notice how the L.A. Times' bigwigs are simply shivering in their timbers, at the slightest threat from extremist Armenians... instead of commending Frantz for shielding whatever little credibility left with this newspaper. (Particularly since the shake-up with their top editor from not long ago, bending to corporate whims completely; expensive international reportage was to be left to other newspapers, such as The New York Times, and the L.A. Times' emphasis would now largely cater to the news of local Angelenos.) That's Armenian intimidation at work.

("Don't stop 'till you make 'em say" ANCA soon got into the act, mobilizing a campaign to oust the "unfit" and "disreputable" Frantz. The fearful Jim O'Shea, in his memo, even went so far as to commend a petition Arax and other Armenians prepared, reminding the newspaper that "genocide" should be stressed, not only by going against Frantz's terming of this petition as a petition, but gratefully acknowledging the reminder-favor performed by Arax and the rest of his hateful crew: The L.A. Times' guidelines specify the matter should be labeled a genocide, and, by God, there should be no deviation from this sacred policy no matter the facts. It is as though the spineless and/or prejudiced editor-in-chief rolled over on his back to be fed a biscuit by Arax and Sassounian. Mustn't upset the precious Armenians.)

A reader, Stephen, commented:

Well, at least Frantz wasn't accused of being in the pay of the Turkish Gov't.

It is interesting how historians, like Andrew Mango, who disagree with the genocide characterization of the events of that time, are always characterized as notorious genocide "denialists". It seems to me that when ethnic Turks and Armenians are removed from the discussion, that independent historians researching and writing on the issue, on the whole, tend to favor the Turkish position on those events. Given the pressure in the West (violent ASALA type in the past, more political and financial today) for historians to comply with the Armenian position, it is rather surprising that any support the Turkish position at all.

Mr. Frantz seems largely to be guilty of having lived in Turkey and discovered that there is another side to the story, one that is perhaps a little more convincing than the one that he had hitherto been exposed to — and worse to be honest enough to say so.

In any case, this Sassounian seems to be quite the extremist, if his statements were quoted accurately. I suspect that he has personally seen to it that the Turkish position has been purged from the history departments of California universities.

(Holdwater: Of course, that is not the "Turkish" position, but the "Truthful" position.)

University Conference Deep-Sixed

Here's how a Turkish source described the following example of Armenian intimidation:

"Ambassadors Gunduz Aktan and Omer Engin Lutem arrived
in the USA to give a conference at the University of Southern California on March 28, 2006. However, the scheduled event was canceled with one day's notice, without any reason, just due to pressure by the Armenian Associations." (Here is the Armenian, or ANCA, version.)

I learned of correspondence a reader had with Joshua S. Fouts, of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, which had organized the event. Copies were sent to other USC personnel.
Joshua Fouts

Joshua Fouts

Mr. Fouts was reminded that the aim of USC's Public Diplomacy Council lies in believing "that understanding and influencing foreign publics, and dialogue between Americans and the citizens of other countries, are vital to the national interest and the conduct of 21st century diplomacy." Dialogue cannot take place if only one party demands its voice be exclusively heard. So why was there a lack of backbone, in the face of Armenian intimidation? How is it that in the United States of America, with our amazing Bill of Rights guaranteeing Freedom of Speech, a university conference as this can be canceled?

ANCA-WR Chairman Steven
J. Dadaian shares the same
name as an LA-5 terrorist.

ANCA-Western Region Chairman (he is now a board member) Steve Dadaian put the pressure on Fouts by writing a letter to him, dated March 22, partly stating: "USC has an Armenian-American student body of over a thousand students whose families are the direct descendants of the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by Turks and now officially denied by the Turkish government," with the not-too-subtle threat that there may be hell to pay if the event were to go forward. (USC's Armenians can potentially be a force to contend with.) Not that the threatening wasn't clear, as near the letter's conclusion ANCA's chairman grrr'ed: "...if USC chooses to proceed with this program, our organization will be forced to take further action to protest the University's complicity in providing a forum for genocide deniers."

Also in the letter, Mr. Dadaian shamelessly equated the Turkish ambassadors as "neo-Nazis," and — irony of ironies — pointed to yet another Armenian-embracing editorial of The Los Angeles Times (we just covered them above) as the "evidence" for genocide. (The "editorial clearly states, the facts surrounding the Armenian Genocide are not in dispute.")

In his reply, Mr. Fouts explained the reason for the cancellation was "simple," implying Armenian intimidation was not a factor. The originally proposed topic was a different one, he explained, dealing with public diplomacy, and a discussion of genocide would not have applied.

Our reader wrote back, saying he was now confused. The event was on the books and the stage for negotiating the topic was well past. An announcement was made, the Turkish ambassadors were on a tight schedule in their visit to the USA (they happened to give a talk in New York City on March 26, and their flight to California for this March 28 appearance must have already been set), prompting ANCA to have written their protest letter. (The opening paragraph of the ANCA press release stated: "The Armenian National Committee of America ... learned on March 22nd that a planned conference at the University of Southern California [USC] featuring leading deniers of the Armenian Genocide was canceled," adding the conference entitled “Turkish-Armenian Relations: The Turkish Perspective” was scheduled to take place on March 26th; the date was likely a misprint.) In short, the decisions were already made.

In his following response, Mr. Fouts elaborated that the topic he agreed on with the Turkish Consulate on Feb. 27 was to be on "'Turkish Public Diplomacy,' specifically the role of Civil Societies in improving Turkish-Armenian relations." What transpired was Mr. Fouts happened to be out of town "when an intern received the event description and posted it on our website without consulting me." Worse, the title referenced by ANCA was not seen by Mr. Fouts until "three days before the scheduled event. It was at that point that I notified the consulate that this was not the event we agreed on and was not central to the topical interests of a Center on Public Diplomacy."

Regardless of whomever posted the event description on the site (could the intern's name have been Rosemary Woods?), isn't it true that the event description had to be prepared from the inside? That was the question posed by our reader in his follow-up letter. After all, the Turkish Consulate would not have worded the USC web site's description and the control was entirely in the hands of USC's Center on Public Diplomacy. So the decision to cancel had nothing to do with the Turkish Consulate's doing anything wrong, as in making a last-minute demand that the topic needed to focus on genocide. If someone from the inside made a mistake, chances are the Turkish Consulate would have been cooperative, and the event still could have been held with the necessary descriptive corrections. At any rate, "genocide" was not even part of the event description (as one gathers from Dadaian's protest letter; Fouts did claim in a TMCNet article [referenced below] that genocide was mentioned in "The final description that was e-mailed," but that is different from the description posted on the web site that Fouts stressed in the correspondence with our reader), and the title referenced by ANCA ("Turkish-Armenian Relations: The Turkish Perspective") still could have fallen within the realm of Mr. Fouts' title description (highlighting "the role of Civil Societies in improving Turkish-Armenian relations"). So isn't it true what really happened here is that the Armenians flipped out when they read "The Turkish Perspective," as that is one perspective the Armenians cannot tolerate?

In any event, our reader reminded Mr. Fouts, if a talk was to be held with Turks and Armenians as the subject, the genocide matter would have been inevitable, as that is what the Armenians and their allies have forced Turkish-Armenian relations to boil down to.

Mr. Fouts replied that he wasn't sure of what else he could add, and concluded with the assurance that his center has had "an excellent relationship with the Turkish Consulate and we do intend to work with them to schedule a session on the topic we originally discussed."

A wrap up article ("Canceled USC event featuring Turkish ambassadors draws controversy," TMCNet, April 14) quoted the Consul General of Turkey in Los Angeles, Engin Ansay, as saying that the USC Center for Public Diplomacy "enthusiastically welcomed our efforts," and upon hearing of the cancellation, "We were astonished, flabbergasted, because where is the freedom of speech?" Evren Ugurbas, former president of the USC Turkish Students Association, wrote in an e-mail to USC administrators that the cancellation "was a grave and embarrassing mistake (the university) made by cowardly resorting to censorship under partisan pressure by local activists." Fouts insisted, however: "As much as the Armenian community would like to take credit for (the cancellation), it was just a coincidence."

In his final letter, our reader politely informed Mr. Fouts that precisely because Fouts is a specialist on diplomacy, he probably did not wish to come out and say the Turks had reneged on the deal; as that would have been the only way in which a cancellation would have been justified. It just seemed too unlikely, however, for the Turkish Consulate to have had the power or even initiative to have dictated their own wording. Therefore, if the error of putting up a notice without having checked with Mr. Fouts belonged to Mr. Fouts' department, then curtailing the forces set in motion at the last minute would have been unduly harsh. "It just would not have been normal to pull the plug entirely."

The reader added that the positive manner in which Mr. Fouts described relations with the Turkish Consulate indicated the Turks would have been cooperative, and thus would not have rudely demanded that the talk center strictly on genocide. Conclusion: "The timing of the ANCA protest letter, along with other Armenian pressure tactics, leading directly to the last minute cancellation could not have been a mere coincidence."

At this writing, over a year has passed, and there appears to have been no sign of this event being rescheduled.

One of the other USC bigwigs, who was and still might be the USC Vice Provost for Globalization, was cc'd copies of the correspondence (he seems like an amazing fellow, where students were falling over themselves in praising him, in usc.profguide.com; "the best professor in the world," is how one described him), sent a refreshing response to Joshua Fouts:

"You are a hell of a diplomat......."

Was Ara Sarafian Leaned On?

As we have seen, it's to be expected for zigzag maneuvers to result after being hit with Armenian intimidation; few of us would want to admit being scared, or if the victim of the intimidation is an Armenian genocide activist (or even a plain Armenian), even to make it seem as though there are Armenians who serve as bullies.

(That kind of thing would go against Hai Tahd, where the whole idea rests upon Armenian victimhood. The fact that there are "bad" Armenians or even Armenians who act as aggressors, is a possibility that must remain hidden to the outside world's odars, in order to best sustain the genocide con job. Arthur Derounian explained the phenomenon of maintaining the Armenians' Myth of Innocence: "Unfortunately, some timid souls are horrified at the exposure of (bad) Armenian prototypes... This attitude is based on the premise that our faults should remain unpublicized to 'outsiders.' Why? Are we not at least as human as our native-born American brethren who themselves claim no monopoly on virtues? Are we Armenians 'superior' to all other ethnic groups? Are we a 'race' apart, free of weakness? Denying that self-analysis is a virtue, the timid souls would even deny that our frailties are common to humanity everywhere.")

In Feb. 23, 2007, Azg (mainly relying on the reportage from the Turkish Sabah, Feb. 21 ) informed us Ara Sarafian "accepted" the offer of the Turkish Historical Society's Yusuf Halacoglu to "study together the Armenian allegations of genocide." (There were flirtations between the two around the same time, regarding the coverage of mass grave excavations, as peeked at in TAT.) Sarafian was reported as explaining that he had accepted Halacoglu's idea at an Istanbul conference in March 2006, and Halacoglu appeared excited, opining that Sarafian's openness was unprecedented, given that no preconditions were insisted upon. (Usually, Armenians demurely refuse to come to the table unless the other party accepts their genocide.)

But the party was over before it began. In "Sarafian bows to diaspora pressure, says Prof. Dr. Halacoglu" (March 10, 2007, The Turkish Weekly); Sarafian wanted out because of his disappointment that Ottoman records — ones Halacoglu had previously "qualified as meticulously kept," according to Sarafian — would not be ponied up (sounds like there might have been preconditions after all), after getting the news from a Halacoglu TV interview where the latter said Sarafian might come up dry in the Ottoman archives.

Halacoglu reacted in a press conference by "urging" Sarafian to specify which documents Sarafian said Halacoglu had, adding, "Mr. Sarafian has probably been subject to pressure." He pointed to the Armenian-Turkish newspaper Agos as mentioning "that the Armenian diaspora was very angry with Sarafian because of his proposal to study together with Turkish historians."

As the soap opera continued (Zaman, March 16; "Turkish, Armenian historians quarrel over failed study initiative"), Halacoglu insisted that he "never said that we could not open some of the archives or that we cannot show some documents." Meanwhile, Sarafian stuck to his guns because the documents he wanted were not in the archives. "This is an incredible statement. I expect Halacoglu to clarify what this means."

"A joint Armenian-Turkish study on the Genocide is proposed — but will it go forward?", written by Chris Zakian (managing editor of the Armenian Reporter, which is probably where the article appeared) informs us that Sarafian (in his press release of Feb. 26) required a look at the "deportation" records, "village by village, person by person, showing when people were deported, where they were sent, and how they were resettled. There should be records of their original properties and how they were compensated at their places of exile." Sarafian explained that "The Turkish official thesis maintains that the deportations of 1915 were an orderly affair and all relevant records on those deportations can still be found in Ottoman archives in Turkey."

In return, Sarafian would present the relevant records for Harput that would explain "abuse," "massacre," and "genocide," and not simply "deportation." (Of course, if the Armenians were truly "deported" — that is, banished outside Ottoman borders — the Ottomans would not have records as to "where they were sent, and how they were resettled," since the Armenians would have been in lands outside Ottoman control. Sarafian has already not displayed the best intentions, contradicting himself with the wrong terminology. In addition, "abuse/massacre" is one thing and "genocide" is another. Nobody is saying some Armenians were not abused and/or massacred.)

So let's see... who is getting the better of this deal? Sarafian is going to offer his "relevant records" already widely available in Armenian propaganda, such as the opinions of Harput's U.S. consul, Leslie Davis, and missionary Maria Jacobsen; those are what fair-minded folks would call "irrelevant records." (If Sarafian were in possession of factual proof demonstrating an extermination policy, there would have already been huge headlines, and there would be no need for this song-and-dance.)

Sarafian copied 3,000 documents from the archives. (Sari Gelin.)

Meanwhile, Sarafian, who has already combed through the Ottoman archives on his own in previous years, is after the juicy stuff that we are to presume has not been made publicly available. The question is, has Halacoglu or another representative of the "official Turkish thesis" (that would be every single Turkish historian save for the Taner Akcam variety, because we are told that all Turkish historians dishonestly and mindlessly march to a nationalistic drumbeat) actually promised these detailed "deportation" records were available?

Ara Sarafian

The page where this shot of
Ara Sarafian was taken tells
us he received his M.A., and
will be receiving his Ph.D in
history from Papazian's
University of Michigan, with
"history professors" as
Libaridian in on the racket,
in order to give genociders
a scholarly shoo-in. Not
unlike how Taner Akcam
received his Ph.D, with
Vahakn Dadrian allowed to
perform the blessing.

(To quickly digress, Zakian's article quotes Professor Gerard Libaridian as opining that "Halacoglu... does not inspire confidence as a historian." This comes from the former Zoryan director, now working as a history professor in Dennis Papazian's University of Michigan stronghold, who tried to pass off Aram Andonian's forgeries as genuine history.)

Returning to the Zaman article of March 16, Halacoglu defended himself by noting "that he did not have the legal authority to impose restrictions on archive documents," which sounds correct, since Halacoglu does not run the archives. He went on to blame "the Armenian diaspora for failure of the initiative and said Sarafian bowed to pressure from the diaspora."

It seems to me that if Sarafian's condition was this critical, he would have made sure to get a guarantee, before he gave his okay in February. (At the time Halacoglu reported "no preconditions" by Sarafian. Someone isn't telling the truth, regarding this point.) It also seems to me that if Ara Sarafian was sincere about a joint operation, there would need to be good faith to begin with (In March 16's Zaman, Sarafian was quoted as saying, "I am not a supporter of the Armenian diaspora who criticizes Turkey without talking to Turkish historians and looking into the archives. I am in favor of trying to work in and with Turkey as much as I can"), which means preconditions would be out of place, and in bad taste — particularly when Sarafian has nothing of value to offer. When you agree to work as partners, you go in there to see what the both of you can do for each other (and, much more importantly, in the area of real scholarship, for the aim of finding the truth). At that point, if you sense a level of dishonesty from your partner, you can always bow out.

Yusuf Halacoglu

The Zakian article spelled out the Armenians' fear: "...the prospect of such a joint collaboration has received mixed reactions — especially in Armenian quarters, where some insist that it could play into the hands of Genocide deniers who would relish the opportunity to claim that the historicity of the Genocide is in some sense an 'open' scholarly question." (If the Armenian side does not have the proof, of course this nonsense would constitute an "open" question.)

So what do you think? Do you think Sarafian bowed out (as soon as he agreed to go ahead, "considering that cooperation in this study will be a firm background for further researches," as Feb. 23's Azg reported) because Halacoglu did not come clean? (And it doesn't sound like Halacoglu promised Sarafian anything to begin with.) Or do you think Sarafian couldn't take the pressure from his fanatical tribe, as he already experienced in his past, when he made a go at scholarly integrity? "Genocide" is, after all, Sarafian's livelihood, and to become an outcast in Genocideland is the kiss of death for a genocider; Sarafian's old buddy, Hilmar Kaiser, is currently paying a price for his loose cannon ways.

A Canceled Concert

Brown University's Daily Herald reported a concert featuring Turkish and Armenian musicians was abruptly canceled "after the Armenian musicians and the president of the Armenian Students Association received threats from members of the Armenian community." ("Turkish-Armenian Concert Canceled Due to Threats," Debbie Lehmann, 4/9/07.) The Armenian Students Association (ASA) and the Turkish Cultural Society (TCS) "organized the concert, titled 'The Armenian Composers of the Ottoman Period,' to promote dialogue between their communities... dedicated to Hrant Dink." A TCS member claimed the operation had its roots six months prior, "to encourage conversation."

"The TCS member wrote in an e-mail to The Herald that the Armenian musicians and the president of the ASA did their best to resist the 'warning messages' they received. However, he wrote that 'the situation got serious,' and the musicians, followed by the ASA, withdrew from the event. The musicians and the ASA are now 'in a very difficult position against some parts of their community,' he wrote."

The president of the ASA, Ruben Izmailyan, "said he was disappointed the event was canceled but declined to comment further."

We've been through this ground many times before. Yet another clear case of Armenian intimidation.

But hold on! Armenians don't like to be "outed" with their intimidation practices, so naturally Izmailyan decided to loosen his lips afterwards. (And, of course, whenever there is "unfairness" against the Armenians in the press, the press bends over backwards to let the Armenian views be known. In this case, not only did the follow-up article quickly appear the very next day, but a disclaimer was put at the top of the first article. This is the exact opposite of how the press usually behaves when there is unfairness against Turks.)

"Concert Not Canceled Due to Threats, ASA president says" reported Izmailyan as stating "that he was not in any way 'threatened, intimidated or even asked to pull out."'

Let's keep in mind the concert had been planned for about six months, and was scheduled for Friday the 13th; The Herald reported the cancellation took place in its edition of the 9th, with only four or five days to go. So something dramatic must have happened to cause this cancellation which both groups were so gung-ho about.... right?

Let's take a look then, at Izmailyan's explanation. He " told The Herald the cancellation was a joint decision between the two groups after the Armenian musicians decided not to participate."

(A "joint decision." As though the Turkish side would have had any say in the matter, at that point.)

Okay. So the Armenian musicians decided not to participate, after half a year of enthusiastically working toward such an end, in the interest of Turkish-Armenian friendship. We are to assume they received pressure during this time, and were doing a good job of resisting such pressure, as the TCS member believably reported.

Why did the Armenians suddenly wish to drop out?

"[B]ecause many members of the Armenian community expressed concern about the 'potential misuse of the event.' The musicians 'did not wish to participate in an event that the Armenian community was not united behind.'"

While it's a sure bet no one stuck a note to Izmailyan's front door, attached to a threatening A.R.F.-style dagger, reading "BELIEVE ME, YOU DIE" (as in the glorious days of old), who does he think he's fooling?

Armenians=1; Holdwater=0

Back in September 2005, I wrote a letter to Dr. Sam Vaknin for having composed the usual mindless article (entitled "The Armenian Genocide," 9-6-05, The Global Politician, "an independent magazine providing objective, in-depth analysis of events in the world today.") thanking him "for being such an enthusiastic propagandist mouthpiece." I also sent a copy of the letter to the editor, adding, "I believe the responsible thing to do would be to engage in genuine fact-checking before allowing an article that is hateful and propagandistic." Usually, editors ignore such communications from the contra-genocide side, but this one did not. He wrote back, in a Sept. 25 e-mail that his publication does not publish letters to the editor, but "If you would like, you can revise your letter into an article and we'll publish it."

That was one offer I wouldn't refuse; the article, "The Armenians: Suffering, or 'Genocide'?" was sent off. At this point, the editor, David Storobin, asked for my name. I replied, explaining I thought he understood the sensitivity of my situation. There was no response, so a couple of months later, I followed up with another letter, ending with:

There are times a pseudonym can be acceptable, as with the Clinton expose by "Anonymous," as you may recall.

Regardless, I'm a man of my word, and even if I make the mistake of forgetting a condition at the time of the deal, I feel what should take precedence is the deal — once my word is given. You stated flat out that I can convert my letter into an article, and that you would publish it, without any conditions. Regardless of whether the "rules" occurred to you afterwards or not...

...I feel the honorable thing for you to have done was to keep your word.

The only exception would have been if you felt the article was not up to par, which I don't believe was the problem.

On May 2, 2006, Mr. Storobin responded, "Ok, fair enough," and agreed to go ahead with the publication of the article. He asked whether I can submit the piece again, as he had lost the version sent in September. It was a lucky break, allowing me to perfect the article even more, and on Jan. 15, the article was sent off, with a note:

"Thanks again for agreeing to put this up. If 'Global Politician' has at all an image of being cutting-edge, not to mention courageous, I don't think this article will hurt it. And those who know the real truth about this matter will regard your publication with much respect."

Once the article appeared, I wrote to a friend on Jan. 20: "The Global Politician editor did a little chopping up, as he excised references to the original article that I had originally responded to. He did a very sloppy job, that's why there are mistakes. But the article is mostly intact, and I am happy about that."

On Jan. 22, I received a letter from a reader titled: "Your article has vanished from the GP."

I wrote the editor, making sure to thank him for his courage, even if he ultimately faced too much heat from the forces of intimidation. He replied, "Everyone, including some writers who have nothing to do with Armenians complained" that an article should be published without revealing the name, and that such does not look good for the article, ending with the worry that his publication will suffer.

I replied, "Everyone has an opinion, and it is easy to become
influenced by people's opinions. But you are the editor/publisher, and you made the decision. Every rule has an exception. I don't feel you needed to explain yourself to anyone...

Of course, you are entitled to change your mind. But, again, if you spell out conditions and seal the deal with your word, it is not honorable to go back on your word. If the credibility of your publication was such an important factor, the time to have dealt with it would have been at the time you made the deal."

I reminded the editor of the 60 Minutes story that the producers got
cold feet on, sacrificing 60 Minutes' reputation as a crusading beacon of journalism, and then continued:

"What separates the men from the boys in journalism is to have the courage to report the facts, no matter the repercussions," as Ben Bradlee with Watergate and Edward Murrow with Senator McCarthy. "There is a news black-out on the direction that I'm coming from. If you believe these genocide forces are not always truthful, and they perpetuate racism and hatred in the perpetuation of their own agendas, then you would have performed a valuable service in helping to crack their facade."

"This journalistic duty makes the credibility issue pale in comparison. You would have been helping to add balance to the scale, working toward the time when someone as myself would not need to hide behind a moniker."

Naturally, I didn't expect a reply and didn't receive any. This example is not as straightforward as the others, representing Armenian intimidation, but from the editor's answer to me, it sounded like he was hit mostly by Armenians. For example, an Ara Sarkis Ashjian sent a call to arms in the Yahoo group, Azad-Hye, writing "Global Politician" ought to be hit for compromising "its credibility by publishing for persons concealing their identities and distorting historical facts."

Harut Sassounian appears to have approached the editor after the fact, writing about the "vicious revisionist article denying the Armenian Genocide" on the Global Politician site, asking for an explanation as to the removal. "If it is for his fake name, I thank you for your wise decision." Naturally, Sassounian made the editor's private response (of Jan. 25) public. A gloating Armenian has reproduced the response here, which was basically what the editor had told me directly. Interestingly, there is the additional claim that the Jewish Advocate also removed a genocide article which dared to use the qualifier, "alleged."

"Both Global Politician and the Jewish Advocate, by the way, had published materials on the Armenian genocide before publishing denialist lies. It seems they both admitted their mistakes by removing the denialist writings."

No, it has nothing to do with realizing the facts are incorrect, and everything to do with not being able to stand up to pressure.

A few other sites reproduced my article before Global Politician iced it (which I also mentioned to the credibility-conscious editor, adding, "Won't it raise eyebrows if readers find the article has disappeared from the source?") one of which is flash-bulletin.de/2006/eJanuary17.htm#4. (I see the article has also been posted at the forum of armeniangenocide.com, but the moderator has wisely removed it.)

© Holdwater
 © www.tallarmeniantale.com The source site of this article gets revised often, as better information comes along. For the most up-to-date version, and the related photos, the reader may consider reviewing the direct link as follows:



Post a Comment

Would You Please Update/Correct Any Of The
3500+ Posts by Leaving Your Comments Here
- - - Your Opinion Matters To Us - - -

We Promise To Publish Them Even If We May Not Share The Same View

Mind You,
You Wouldn't Be Allowed Such Freedom In Most Of The Other Sites At All.

You understand that the site content express the author's views, not necessarily those of the site. You also agree that you will not post any material which is false, hateful, threatening, invasive of a person’s privacy, or in violation of any law.

Please read the post then write a comment in English by referring to the specific points in the post and do preview your comment for proper grammar /spelling.

You need a Google Account (such as Gmail) to publish your comments.

Publishing Your Comments Here:
Please type your comment in plain text only (NO Formatting) in an editor like notepad first,
Then copy and paste the final/corrected version into the comment box here as Google/Blogger may not allow re-editing/correcting once entered in some cases.
And click publish.
-If you need to correct the one you have already sent, please enter "New Comment" as we keep the latest version and delete the older version as default

Alternative way to send your formatted comments/articles:

All the best