After I got through analyzing Roger Smith and Robert Melson's testimonies before the United States Congress in support of yet another Armenian "Genocide" resolution, I decided to look into the backgrounds of these two gentlemen. My word! I had no idea they were such professional "friends" of the Armenians.
Then I found an article that I could not overlook examining for the purposes of this web site. Not only did it expose academic ethics, but it revealed a critical piece of genocidal "fact." Unlike Greek and Armenian sites, that is EXACTLY what I welcome... the FACTS. The facts are all that matter to people of integrity, in this case, studying whether a government-sponsored policy of extermination truly occurred.
Professor Robert Melson
There is just too much information to digest... in fact, I had come across Robert Melson before, but unbeknownst to me... I also had run into Roger Smith, as well. (His non-descript name prevented a bell from being rung.) This is when I criticized Professor Richard Hovannisian for being exactly in the same boat as what Professor Heath Lowry had been accused of... getting financed/supported by a partisan organization, throwing doubt into a professor's credibility for remaining objective.
Professor Richard Hovannisian's position at his university is not only supported by grants from an Armenian organization (AEF) since 1986, but Professor Richard Hovannisian also belongs to an organization (ANI) which makes no bones about being "dedicated to the study, research, and affirmation of the Armenian Genocide. Its overarching goal is affirmation of the worldwide recognition of the Armenian Genocide."
If a professor aligns himself with an organization whose sole purpose (pretty much) is to advocate a certain partisan view of history, then that professor declares his intention to close his mind to any other view. This runs in direct contrast with what an open-minded professor should be all about. If the professor specializes in history (this is true for all academic fields of expertise, but it is especially true for a professor of history) it is the business of that professor to constantly revise his or her view, on the basis of whether new information that constantly keeps cropping up is valid, or not.
I remembered Professor Robert Melson was also a member of the seven who serves on ANI's "Academic Council," but was I shocked to find Professor Roger Smith on this very same council as well! (Was I really shocked to discover this pro-Armenian professor... who would suspiciously drop everything to testify at Congress for a cause that seems too out of line to get so emotional about, for a non-Armenian professor... to be a member of these Seven Dwarfs? No.... not really.)
And yet, Roger Smith had the nerve to co-write the article I'll be discussing, questioning Dr. Lowry's integrity.
Professor Roger K. Smith
I would hope because Roger Smith must have a Ph.D., he would know how to spell the following: H-Y-P-O-C-R-I-S-Y... but I cannot be too sure that he does.
What I can be sure about is that these omnipresent Armenian organizations have money. Lots and lots of money.
Am I saying Roger Smith and Robert Melson are on the Armenian payroll? (Like Taner Akcam apparently has been?) No. I cannot say that. I have no proof. Saying such things without proof is the Armenian and Greek way.
I am only suspicious. It doesn't add up. Why would these men be so passionate about the Armenian cause, when any objective person can look at the voluminous evidence from Western and even Armenian sources that points to evidence in another direction (Western sources which have had no reason to love the Turks, so they would have no reason to lie).... and when any objective person who seriously examines the objective history of Armenian-Turkish relations can see the invalidity of clearly biased sources like British propagandists Bryce and Toynbee, Turcophobe American ambassadors and consuls like Morgenthau and Horton, Lepsius and the missionaries who were lying, anti-Muslim religious fanatics, and all the Armenian claims when Armenians historically have been known to (ahem) "exaggerate"?
Is it because they have become so convinced regarding the "raw deal" Armenians have gotten, and can't see past their blind love for Armenians? I don't know these men, so I cannot say. What I do know is if men and women are moved by people getting a raw deal, there are MANY examples of people getting an incomparably rawer deal (at least in terms of getting recognition) than the Armenians, regarding historic cases of "Man's Inhumanity to Man." Do Melson and Smith speak for the Gypsies of World War II, equally targeted as much as the Jews? Do they raise an outcry over the Tasmanians, who are much more deserving of our sympathy, since they got totally wiped out? What about the Hawaiians in their own country, who are slowly being usurped? And, of course, I have a sneaking suspicion these two gentlemen will be the last to shed any tears over Turks, but what about the millions of Turks who got ethnically cleansed by the Russians over the last couple of centuries... some of the remnants of which are still being felt today?
What of "Pro-Turk" Historians?
In fairness, let me go over to the other side of the coin... much of what I've said could equally apply to professors like Dr. Heath Lowry and Dr. Justin McCarthy (the latter of whom, I've just encountered in an Armenian site, happened to be labeled not as a history professor, but as a "Pro-Turkish historical revisionist." He has been called worse.)
To answer this question, I would like you to imagine the following scenario...
Imagine the Following Scenario
Everything the Armenians have been telling us is true!
(That shouldn't be so hard for some of you to imagine.)
Everything... including 1.5 million of them getting "annihilated" (a word Dr. Dennis Papazian loves) from a pre-war population of 1.3 million. All those horror stories... women's breasts being cooked and eaten, women throwing their babies into the river out of desperation, the prettiest women taken by the savage Turks for their "harems," priests getting their beards ripped off and toe/fingernails pulled out, the ever-present "red-hot irons" being applied to whatever Armenian flesh that happens to be nearby, the Ottoman-Armenian troops getting massacred after being used as "pack animals"... Talat Pasha saying things in telegrams like, "Don't leave a single Armenian alive".... everything!
However, now imagine THIS...
The Turks are the Christians, and the Armenians are the Muslims!!
After every atrocity the Christian Turks commit, they cry to America and Western Europe, "W-aahhhh! See what those barbaric Muslim Armenians did to US!"
Since the Western Christians have a pre-disposed prejudice against the Muslim Armenians, they believe everything, without question, that the Christian Turks tell them. Why, everyone knows those Muslim Armenians are barbarians!
For many, many years, the Western press ONLY reports how the poor, Christian Turks have been victimized... never considering the plight of the Muslim Armenians, since it's already been well established they can only be victimizers.
Flash forward some sixty years. Heath Lowry joins the Peace Corps, and gets to know the barbaric Muslim Armenians first hand. Why... Heath Lowry says to himself... these Armenians aren't barbaric at all. Could... could everything I've been led to believe have been the product of a giant CON JOB?
As the years pass, Heath Lowry gets into the education field, earning a doctorate. He devotes himself to learning the other side of the coin, that almost NO American historian has seriously applied him/herself to.
Heath Lowry emerges as one of a tiny handful of American academicians who has gotten to know the TRUTH. He has learned firsthand the injustice perpetrated upon the Muslim Armenians, who were really at the short end of the stick, contrary to what almost all his countrymen believe.
And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why I can see a man of integrity like Heath Lowry hooking up with officials of the people who have been wronged. Heath Lowry has come to believe in the injustice, and Heath Lowry knows if he doesn't lend a helping hand to the folks so pathetically incompetent with public relations, nobody else will. (Since there are no historians LIKE him. Just about every other scholar simply cannot let go of their deeply-rooted beliefs and prejudices.)
And this is why a Justin McCarthy has made it his business to testify at these Congressional hearings for meaningless Armenian resolutions. (Has any other "pro-Turkish" professor testified at these things? Dr. McCarthy must have concluded if he doesn't do it, nobody else will... since there practically IS nobody else.) Justin McCarthy is perhaps the best objective, American authority on Armenian-Turkish history, meticulously delving into Ottoman facts and figures like few, if any, other American scholars.
Armenians and their supporters will shout, McCarthy is not objective... McCarthy is "pro-Turkish."
NO.
McCarthy and Lowry are no more "pro-Turkish" than Admiral Bristol was. The only thing these men have in common is that they are pro-TRUTH.
This is why, as I stated on the "Lowry" page of this site, an honest historian like Heath Lowry can ironically wind up one day as the Armenians' best friend. Why? Because Ottoman history is his area of expertise, and he is always on the lookout for new facts and figures. As he already has said, if he comes across enough "genocide" evidence, he could change his mind.... and then the Armenians will have some REAL evidence for a change.
That's a lot of hogwash, Armenians will say. (Reading the language of Armenians on their web sites and guestbooks, I guess they would not use the word, "hogwash.") Everyone knows Heath Lowry is a tool of the Turks... why, Roger Smith, Robert Jay Lifton and Peter Balakian have said so. They even got some notable American authors and other famous names signing a petition declaring how dishonest Lowry is. Well, I would beg to differ, for the following reasons:
1) These men don't have any proof Lowry is a paid agent of the Turks (particularly at the expense of his beliefs); as usual, Armenians and their supporters only know how to express their opinions, and if a man's reputation gets harmed, it would be no skin off their unethical noses. (Dr. Lowry did work at the Institute of Turkish Studies for twelve years, but unless it's shown he drew a wildly exorbitant salary, don't tell me he couldn't have easily found a job elsewhere with his UCLA Ph.D., drawing the same conventional paycheck. Unless a person is desperate, it would take a lot of money to sacrifice one's beliefs. And that's really the underlying issue of the charges leveled against the professor: the Armenian "Genocide" is an undeniable fact... Dr. Lowry knows this... and Dr. Lowry has been bought off to lie otherwise.)
2) A common tactic of the Armenians has been to assassinate the character and conduct smear campaigns, especially against those whose views run contrary to the very essence of their being and life's blood, the Armenian "Genocide,"
3) From the articles I have read regarding the Smear Campaign conducted against Dr. Lowry, those who vouch for him... his fellow faculty members, and (more importantly) his students.... find him to be an excellent academician. (Even if there was something fishy going on between Dr. Lowry and the Turkish government, the ultimate resting stop is the quality of the man's research. Given his works that I have read, a few of which are presented on TAT [this site], I am sincerely impressed with his work... and I'm not just saying that out of an interest to defend him. Luckily, you don't have to take my word for it... read his words (a sample here, and here), look at his sources, and judge for yourselves.
4) Finally, the most important reason why I believe an honest historian like Dr. Lowry could one day turn out to be the best friend the Armenians ever had, and that he could change his mind based on conclusive new evidence, is because....
I AM EXACTLY THE SAME WAY.
If you've been through a little of this site already, you can see I'm not impartial. That derives from my frustration against the terrible prejudice against Turks that I have experienced living my life as a Turkish-American. That also derives from my knowledge of how successfully Armenians, Greeks and their sympathizers have been mainly behind a massive campaign to sully the reputations of the Turks, unfairly and through their typically deceitful ways.
However, my loyalty to my "tribe" has NOTHING to do with the truth. The Truth supersedes ALL. I believe, of what value is a man or woman without honor, and integrity?
If I come across actual proof, I will change my mind. Can Armenians say the same? If they say they do, they might be fooling themselves (or, more likely, trying to fool others).... Armenians NEED the genocide. I can live with the knowledge that the Ottoman Turks committed a genocide; sadly, too many Armenians cannot live with the knowledge that there was no genocide.
Granted; the "proof" required will need to be beyond a shadow of a doubt. Here, at this late stage of preparing TAT... while doing further research on Professors Smith and Melson... I came across one of the few bits of "real" evidence regarding Ottoman government participation in an actual genocide.
GENOCIDE PROOF!
STOP the PRESSES!
Within the first few paragraphs of the following paper designed to "expose" Professor Heath Lowry is the evidence Professor Roger Smith alluded to (actually, it was confusingly presented) during his congressional testimony for H. Res. 398 (in 2000), when he mentioned "explicit Ottoman documents."
In fact, this is the very paper it sounds like he based his entire testimony on.
The beginnings of this paper read as such:
The following is an article concerning Heath Lowry that appeared in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Vol. 9, Number 1, Spring 1995, pages 1-22
Professional Ethics and the Denial of Armenian Genocide
By: Roger W. Smith
College of William and Mary Williamsburg, Virginia
Eric Markusen
Southwest State University Marshall, Minnesota
Robert Jay Lifton
The City University of New York
This article examines Turkish efforts to deny the Armenian genocide of 1915-17. Specifically, it exposes an arrangement by which the government of Turkey has channeled funds into a supposedly objective research institute in the United States, which in turn paid the salary of a historian who served that government in its campaign to discredit scholarship on the Armenian genocide. After a short review of the Armenian genocide and a range of Turkish denial efforts, three documents are reproduced in full. They include a letter that Robert Jay Lifton received from the Turkish Ambassador to the United States, and two documents that were inadvertently included with the Lifton letter, a memorandum to the Turkish Ambassador and a draft letter to Lifton for the Ambassador's signature. After a critical analysis of each document, we discuss the harmfulness of genocide denial and explore why intellectuals might engage in the denial of known genocides. The article concludes with reflections on the relationship between scholars and truth..
(Here is the web site for the rest.)
"The relationship between scholars and truth." Hoo-boy. I don't know much about the middle author (which I subsequently went on to rectify, at page bottom), but the other two one-sided gentlemen are fine ones to lecture about "scholars and truth."
At any rate, let's get to the juicy genocidal evidence. I'll be getting back to the gist of this article afterwards.
Here it is:
From 1915 to 1917 the Young Turk regime in the Ottoman Empire carried out a systematic, premeditated, centrally-planned genocide against the Armenian people. One of the documents authenticated by Turkish authorities in 1919 is a telegram sent in June 1915 by Dr. Sakir, one of the leaders of the secret organization that carried out the planning and implementation of the genocide. He asks the provincial party official who is responsible for carrying out the deportations and massacres of Armenians within his district: "Are the Armenians, who are being dispatched from there, being liquidated? Are those harmful persons whom you inform us you are exiling and banishing, being exterminated, or are they being merely dispatched and exiled? Answer explicitly...." [3].
Well, there you have it. A smoking gun. As clear as can be.
However, before we close the books on the existence of The Armenian Genocide, let's take a look at that footnote...
Vahakn N. Dadrian, "A Textual Analysis of the Key Indictment of the Turkish Military Tribunal Investigating the Armenian Genocide," Armenian Review, 44:1 (Spring 1991), pp. 26-27.
Vahakn N. Dadrian?
(Dr. Smith: Warning! Warning!)
Professor Malcolm E. Yapp wrote an excellent, objective analysis of Dr. Dadrian's methods and motivations:
...Although Dadrian produces many reports tending to suggest that members of the Ottoman government wanted to destroy the Armenian, he fails to find any document which constitutes a definite order for massacre...
In the last sections of the book, Dadrian describes the various post-war efforts by the Ottoman and Allied authorities to bring those responsible for the massacres to book. The 1919 courts martial, however cannot be taken entirely at face value because they were conducted by a government which was anxious to pin any blame on the CUP leaders...
Despite the numerous documents cited and the careful assembly of information about individuals and organizations, there is no decisive evidence to support Dadrian's case.... Of course one may argue that even without clear unambiguous documentary evidence the weight of so many pieces of indirect and circumstantial evidence brought together could be persuasive, even conclusive, but one must enter a caveat. The author's approach is not that of an historian trying to find out what happened and why but of a lawyer assembling the case for the prosecution in an adversarial system. What he wants are admissions of guilt from the defendants, first Germany as the easier target and then Turkey. What is missing is any adequate recognition of the circumstances in which these events took place; the surge of Armenian nationalism, the ambitions of Russia, the fears of the Ottomans and the panic and indiscipline of war. Dadrian is so obsessed by his theory of the long plan that he too often overlooks the elements of the contingent.
In fact, when I examine the footnotes of these three professors, gleefully attempting to pin ethical blame on Dr. Lowry, here are the names that crop up: Rouben Adalian; Hovannisian; Minasian; Housepian; Jernazian; Koutcharian; Bardakjian; oh, I see there are a few non-Armenian sources listed as well... such as Henry Morgenthau.
You guys are writing an essay on ethical, truthful scholarship, and you are mainly relying on Armenian sources?
For another example: Dr. Lowry wrote an exemplary article examining the questionable nature of the Hitler Quote, which you can judge on TAT's "Hitler Quote" page. These fellows' rebuttal:
"For a thorough discussion of the Hitler remark, and its authenticity see Kevork B. Bardakjian, Hitler and the Armenians (Cambridge, MA Zoryan Institute, 1985).."
...From the Zoryan Institute? Oh, that's a really impartial source.
Do NOT insult your readers' intelligence.
Evidently, Dr. Smith has cavorted around with Dr.Dadrian in the past; Professor Türkkaya Ataöv examined the two's scholarly chops (along with that of a Dr. Richard Falk) in a treatise entitiled The 'Armenian Question': Conflict, Trauma and Objectivity, which begins with:
None of the three writers presents a combination of interrelated factors. Scholars are not only expected to keep in mind opposing views, but also to utilize interdisciplinary approaches. Final judgment in history, especially in a very controversial case like the Armenian-Turkish conflict, cannot be surrendered to an ethnic participant in a dispute. In most cases, one side will be painted as an "idealized white", and the other as a "gruesome black."
In all his presentations. Professor Dadrian portrays the Turks as wild, cruel, ferocious, uncivilized and barbarous savages, and the Armenians as simple victims, prey in the hands of their fierce enemies. In the publications of many Western authors, like Dadrian, the Turks are never the sufferers. This approximation is an oversimplification inconsistent with historical phenomena.
Getting Back to the "Evidence"...
Am I suggesting that nothing by Armenians can be trusted? Such a racist thought goes against the essence of my being... I prefer to judge matter on the merits of the matter itself, and not the source.
However, I am hampered, when it comes to trusting Armenians, by my knowledge... that is proven over and over and over again... that the Armenians are as one-willed a monolithic voice that may have ever existed. (Not that I don't believe there are Armenians who have good thoughts about their Turkish roots, and wish the obnoxious, loud-voiced hate-mongers among them could just go away. However, you won't find too many Armenians bucking the tide, especially not publicly. To do so has historically meant risking your reputation, and even your life. (Many Armenian deaths blamed on the Turks came by the hand of the Armenian revolutionaries/terrorists themselves. Go to any Armenian web site, and death threats by Armenians are never far behind, when they encounter thoughts they don't like. Many are empty threats resonating from the cowards these people are, but you can bet there are a number of real maniacs among them.)
Armenians will lie, deceive, falsify, discredit... anything, as long as their beloved "genocide" can appear legitimate.
Dr. Dadrian can be trusted by any real truth-seeker as far as he can be thrown. However, permit me to look further into this quote of Dr. Sakir's. The following questions come to mind.
1) Who translated this quote into English?
This quote must have originated from the Ottoman archives, and somehow Dadrian must have gotten a hold of the document before the Turks had a chance to "purge" it, as Peter Balakian and many other Armenian apologists love to tell us. (Dr. Dadrian has also claimed the same, but he also goes on to absurdly state that despite the fact the archives are no longer good, there is still evidence to prove the genocide.) If so, it was written in the old Turkish style (handwritten a la the Arabic style, not using the Roman alphabet as modern Turkish does... as this forged example by Aram Andonian demonstrates), which one has to be a real expert to understand properly. Even "Turkish Turncoat" Halil Berktay totally misconstrued a Talat Pasha telegram, making it look "bad," when in fact, it was "good." (When I say "good," I don't mean good for the Armenians. It showed Talat Pasha cared for the Armenians, which, of course, the Armenians would not even consider bringing themselves to believe.) (Further note: "Even" may not have been the correct word to use, since Halil Berktay is an "Armenian in Turkish clothing," and uses the facts as he sees fit.)
Therefore, could Dadrian have "hired" someone to translate this "evidence," assuming the masterly Armenian scholar is not an expert in reading old Turkish? Who could he have gotten to translate? Well, what are the odds of his turning to a non-Armenian (or Armenian friendly) source?
In conclusion... who among us can vouch for the accuracy of the translation?
2) The Ottomans were aware crimes were being committed against the Armenians, and took measures to try and secure the safety of the Armenians (done in as they were by the shortage of manpower and resources; they did not do a very good job, and they certainly can be blamed for that. Nor did they do a particularly good job in saving the many Turks who were massacred by the Armenians, and they can be blamed for that, as well.)
If you read this Talat Pasha telegram, the Minister of the Interior begins with citing statistics he has heard where Armenians have suffered... and then he tries to go on and insure their safety. Is it possible that the telegram of this "evidence" could mean the same?
"Are the Armenians, who are being dispatched from there, being liquidated? Are those harmful persons whom you inform us you are exiling and banishing, being exterminated, or are they being merely dispatched and exiled? Answer explicitly...."
So, whomever translated this from the confusing old Turkish... could the real meaning NOT have been, "Are you making sure to follow our genocide orders and liquidating the Armenians?" but instead, "Look, we keep getting reports that Armenians are getting massacred. These are the people you are responsible for relocating ("exiling and banishing"? How could anyone be exiled and banished within a nation's own borders?) , but are you or someone else actually killing them?"
You think I'm grasping at straws? I know there are incriminating words like "merely dispatched," indicating getting dispatched and exiled weren't good enough, and the Armenians needed to get "exterminated".... but I don't know what biased force was involved in twisting the words in its translation, and neither do you.
Read it again, and think of this logic:
We must presume that when "Dr. Sakir, one of the leaders of the secret organization that carried out the planning and implementation of the genocide... asks the provincial party official who is responsible for carrying out the deportations and massacres of Armenians within his district," he is doing so because the order for the genocide has already been given out. Right? That's the idea. The genocide order had to already have been given out, and since nobody has discovered any reliable documents whatsoever substantiating this order, we have to assume all the local officials got these orders through smoke signals, or some other mysterious method of communication.
Regardless of how the party officials got their orders, we are asked to believe they already got them. This is why Dr. Sakir is writing, trying to find out whether the genocide order is being carried out... this is what we're being asked to believe.
SO WHY DOES EVEN THE THOUGHT OF THE ARMENIANS' GETTING BANISHED, "DISPATCHED" OR "EXILED" EVEN ENTER DR. SAKIR'S MIND?
That makes no sense whatsoever. If the order was given by this "secret organization" to liquidate the Armenians, how could Dr. Sakir even think about whether the official is allowing for the Armenians to be "merely dispatched and exiled," when the insinuation is they must have received a previous order where the Armenians were to be outright killed. Did the party official take it upon himself to go against the extermination order, and instead took on the comparatively more humane tack by "banishing" them? And if the party official decided to go against the extermination orders, why would he reveal his disloyalty by INFORMING Dr. Sakir? ("...Are those harmful persons whom you inform us you are exiling and banishing, being exterminated, or are they being merely dispatched and exiled? Answer explicitly....")
By the way, what was this secret organization? (The Teşkilat-i Mahsusa [the Ottoman secret service].) Was this an organization of Ottoman SS men out to apply the Final Solution on the Armenians, as the Armenians and their supporters would have us believe... in their desperate quest to tie in the Holocaust with the Armenian "Genocide"? Or could its real purpose have been that it was set up during WWI to garner the support of Indian, Egyptian and Russian Muslims for the Ottoman State? If there is any LEGITIMATE evidence that this organization was given any tasks during the forced migrations, I have yet to see it.
(Here is another example of a translation ambiguity that Dr. Dennis Papazian had some "trouble" with.)
3) It is as dishonest for these professors to classify this telegram as "One of the documents authenticated by Turkish authorities in 1919," as it was for Robert Melson to suggest the Turkish scholars in an Armenian conference were average, objective Turks (and not Turks who made the decision, for one reason or another, to join the Armenian club... which is what these scholars were exclusively comprised of), during his 2000 H. Res 398 testimony. Just another way to try and pull the wool over the eyes of the unwary.
As Professor Malcolm E. Yapp wrote (above), "The 1919 courts martial, however cannot be taken entirely at face value because they were conducted by a government which was anxious to pin any blame on the CUP leaders.";
These 1919 "Turkish authorities" were illegitimate. This is why the whole nation abandoned this unelected, spineless government, scared out of its wits... and selfishly anxious to hold on to whatever little power that remained. They were the puppets of the Allies, the reason why the Sevres document they went on to sign spelled the death sentence of the Turkish nation, eliminating whatever negligible support they might have had, among the population.
These kangaroo courts cooked up whatever evidence that was presented, and their purpose was mainly political retribution. Almost every defendant was found guilty... sentenced for things as mundane as leaving a post without permission... and a good several were executed. About the only value of these courts was that at least the Ottomans attempted some form of justice for crimes against Armenians (DURING the war, they also meted out punishment to Turks who misbehaved with the Armenian relocations... executing twenty of them in 1915, and punishing many more in less extreme ways; the figure is a whopping 1,397, according to Gurun's "The Armenian File"), while neither Armenia (the country) nor Armenian guerillas ever tried their own criminals for horrible acts against Turks that are documented even by Armenians.
If you show me a document presented for the purpose of these phony-baloney courts, you have to go the extra mile by substantiating what the person has claimed within the document.
4) THE NUMBER ONE ARGUMENT AS TO WHY THIS "EVIDENCE" IS FAR FROM COMPELLING IS...
If this incriminating telegram was presented in 1919, in British-occupied Istanbul, where all archives were available to the British and their Armenian team of researchers, why then did Lord Curzon desperately resort to actually contacting the British Ambassador in Washington a full two years later, while desperately searching for evidence.... ANY evidence... that would prove to be incriminating to the Turks, for the planned "Nuremberg" of the Armenian "Genocide," the Malta Tribunal? What could have been WRONG with this telegram, for the British not to have latched on to it, but fast?
5) By the way... can you imagine Heinrich Himmler adopting two Jewish boys and lovingly raising him as his very own? Here's a little more insight on Dr. Bahaddin Sakir, regarding his personal life... see if he could be behind the extermination of the Armenians, like another Himmler or Adolf Eichmann.
The Rest of Roger Smith's Paper
As promised, I'm getting back to the gist of the article, Professional Ethics and the Denial of Armenian Genocide.
The above telegram was these gentlemen's big ejaculation regarding "proof" of the Armenian "Genocide." Some of the rest I already responded to when I examined Dr. Smith's genocide resolution-testimony. There is some more blabbity-blah-blah desperately trying to lay out a case for "Turkish Denial" (are these men suggesting were they to be accused of a crime they did not commit, they would not have the right to deny committing the crime?) marred by inaccuracies, such as stating there are fewer than 60,000 Armenian-Turks in Turkey (ten thousand somehow vanished in the two years since the writing of this article from The New York Times; of course, the latter source is the one that could have been wrong. Regarding Turco-Armenian matters, The New York Times often is), that more than one million Armenians perished as a result of a deliberate extermination policy (that's what they must be implying, since the reasons for the deaths they cite also largely applied to Ottoman Muslims) when the number was no more than 600,000, and that the Armenians "lived in eastern Turkey for nearly 3,000 years." The loophole word is "nearly," but coming up with an extra six hundred years is overdoing it.
The professors also have a problem with Turkey's pressuring "the U.S. State Department into preventing MGM Studios from producing a film based on Franz Werfel's The Forty Days of Musa Dagh," in the 1930s. We (that is, ALL right-thinking people of integrity) owe a debt of thanks to Ahmet Ertegün's diplomat dad for managing this. Franz Werfel was tricked into believing the Armenians' side of the story for writing his fictional book, and then was too afraid to distance himself from his work, afraid of Armenian reprisals. Meanwhile, like MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, the book has caused severe damage to the Turks' reputation, since people have regarded this story as true history. People like mental midget Yossi Sarid, Israel's Minister of Education..!
The professors go on to claim:
Turkish officials also tried to force cancellation of a 1982 conference in Tel Aviv, "if the Armenian genocide were to be discussed, demands backed up with threats to the safety of Jews in Turkey."
Uhhhhhh... right. Turkey is known as one of the Jews' only true historic friends for centuries, and because of one rinky-dink genocide conference, Turkey was going to risk the wrath of The United States and its powerful Jewish lobby, not to mention worldwide condemnation, by threatening Turkish Jews. (That's what it sounds like, doesn't it? How else would the safety of these Jews have been threatened? What were the Turks suggesting, that they were going to massacre their own Jews?) The co-source is Israel W. Charny, one of the Jewish scholars who signed this petition.
Well, why not? Turkey has been accused of just about every other genocide, so why not a genocide of the Jews?
Did this trio of "professionally ethical" genocide scholars misrepresent the facts, regarding the 1982 Israeli conference? According to Dr. Sedat Laciner's essay entitled "Armenia's Jewish Skepticism and Its Impact on Armenia-Israel Relations," the government officials involved trying to limit the Armenians' claims were not Turkish:
In 1982, when some Armenian researchers aimed to participate in an international conference on the subject of the Holocaust and Genocide in Tel Aviv (Israel), the Israeli Government saw this attempt as a part of the politically motivated propaganda campaign. For the Israeli Foreign Ministry, the Armenians were trying to manipulate the public opinion by using the conference in Israel. As a result the Foreign Ministry rejected the Armenian applications and tried to limit the subjects regarding the Armenian claims. However the Armenian applicants started an international campaign against Israel and blamed the Israeli Government of damaging academic freedom.
Sources: Israel Charny, ‘The Conference Crisis. The Turks, Armenians and the Jews’, in The Book of the International Conference on the Holocaust and Genocide. Book One: The Conference Program and Crisis, (Tel Aviv: 1982); on, The Banality..., pp. 354-355; Leora Eren Fruncht, ‘A Tragedy Offstage No More’, The Jerusalem Post, 15 June 2000. Also see: Amos Elon, ‘Their Holocaust’, Har’aretz, 11 June 1982; Yad Vashem, ‘We and the Armenians’, Ha’aretz, 29 June 1982; Israel Amrani, ‘A Little Help for Friends’, Ha’aretz, 20 April 1990; Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry, Reflections on Exploitation of Jewish Suffering, (Verso Books, 2001), Chapter 2.
Incidentally, Mr. Charny, it is reported later in the article, sent a questionnaire to the sixty nine scholars who offered a different view of the Armenian "Genocide." Seventeen responded, and from those, Mr. Charny was able to designate the mindset of the Denialist. For example, he classified as "definitionalism" the
acknowledging of deaths, but "denying that they were the result of
'genocide,' thus shifting responsibility for the genocide away from the Turkish government and trivializing the killing of over a million Armenians as the inadvertent result of famine, war, and disease."
Well, Mr. Charny might spend his time in such interesting ways and tack on fancy names to whatever theories he can come up with... but the last time I checked, not every death needs be the result of "genocide." It's possible people can be killed en masse without the reason being genocide, as with the My Lai massacre during Vietnam. And let us not forget the definition of genocide by the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention of the Crime of Genocide... where not only "intent" must be proven (no such evidence exists, in the case of the Armenian "Genocide"... unless folks feel the dubious telegram above would do the trick)... and, furthermore, the Convention does not protect "political groups" — as exactly what the Armenians were, when they politically and violently allied themselves with the Russian forces... and the Armenians' ethnic or religious identity had nothing to do with their being subjected to the relocation.
I realize why Armenians and their supporters bald-facedly lie about the revolting Armenians, as these professors will do in a few paragraphs, showing their true, subjective stripes; once the truth gets out as to the traitorous nature of the Armenians, they cannot classify what happened to them as a genocide.
It's remarkable how some Holocaust-driven folks like Mr. Charny are so obsessed with the topic, seeing genocides everywhere. Well, Turks have been the victims of genocide as well... not just at the hands of the Russians, but through the Armenians. " The Jewish Times" declared in its June 21, 1990 issue:
"An appropriate analogy with the Jewish Holocaust might be the systematic extermination of the entire Muslim population of the independent republic of Armenia which consisted of at least 30-40 percent of the population of that republic. The memoirs of an Armenian army officer who participated in and eye-witnessed these atrocities was published in the U.S. in 1926 with the title 'Men Are Like That.' Other references abound."
When I opened up the "69 Scholars" page, the first name on the list's second column happened to be Avigdor Levy. Dr. Levy, like Israel Charny, happens to be Jewish... but unlike Israel Charny, Avigdor Levy is what some might call "Pro-Turk." ("Pro-Turk" is a reverse-euphemism meant to protect Turcophobes from having epileptic seizures when they come across irrefutable facts. For the rest of us, substitute "Pro-Truth" for "Pro-Turk.") Let us take a moment to examine what possible reasons Avigdor Levy might have for being a "Denialist," other than the actual reason, which is championing the cause of truth. Could Avigdor Levy be a "Denialist" because he has a blind love for Turks? Well... in contrast to Christians, studied Jews do have a reason to love Turks... since out of almost continuous dark chapters in Jewish history, Turks were one of the very, very, VERY few beacons that provided light. However, let's be realistic here; it's extremely unlikely that Avigdor Levy could be a "Denialist" because he is slavishly devoted to all things Turkish. So what could the other rational explanations be, other than the obvious one, which is that Professor Levy is doing what any true scholar would do, sorting out the evidence and drawing conclusions upon the truth? (Something that Israel Charny ought to try one day... what was that about "...and trivializing the killing of over a million Armenians"... where did you get that "million" figure from, Israel Charny?) The only other two explanations I can think of is that Dr. Levy is in need of psychiatric help and is prone to delusions... which I think we can all safely agree may be counted out... or that Dr. Levy KNOWS there has been a genocide, and for some peculiar reason... maybe the "sinister" Turkish government has "bought" Dr. Levy?...Dr. Levy is covering it up.
Is that what Israel Charny is telling us, that the distinguished professor, Avigdor Levy, is a liar?
A surviving eyewitness to Armenian atrocities
Mr. Charny can amuse himself with all the "Double-Killing" theories he wants, such as later in the paper ("Genocide does not end with its last human victim; denial continues the process"), but the all-importance of "closure" doesn't apply to everyone. (Forget about the systematic extermination plan the Armenians conducted during World War I, you won't find many Armenians admitting they even massacred Turks. Turks then must be suffering from a "Triple Killing.") If sympathy-seeking people get off on boo-hoo'ing themselves to death, that's their psychological problem. Turks prefer to look ahead. This is exactly why Turks made the mature decision of not dwelling on the crimes of the Armenians, when the Turkish Republic was formed... it was more constructive to stress the issues that bound us, and not the ones that divided us.
On a personal note, it is heartbreaking for me to see Jewish people so blindly supportive of anti-Turkish forces, having been raised in New York City, where I have seen firsthand experience of anti-Turkish Jewish attitudes. (And I don't mean most American Jews are that way; no, most are good, kind and extremely "cool.") I am not blaming American Jews — even though they are The Chosen, they have just as much right to be as gullible and ignorant as the average American. American Jews are also prone to clumping Turks with Arabs (no differently than the average American), which adds special weight to the anti-Turkish bias the average American normally carries, when we refer to Jewish-Americans.
Since so many Americans generally have blinders on regarding the rest of the world, I'm especially disappointed when Israeli Jews express such ignorance, because I (unrealistically, I know) expect Israeli Jews to be a little more savvy and enlightened. I don't know if Israel Charny is Israeli or American (he's based in Jerusalem, so most likely he is Israeli... very possibly, he could be both), but how naive can one be, expecting the simple admission of genocide will bring closure? Despite Germany's giving billions of dollars in "reparations" to Israel and the fact that a lot of Germans are wallowing in guilt, those like Mr. Charny are still obsessed with the Holocaust. In the Armenians' case, does anyone believe these people will put the "Armenian Genocide" behind them if Turkey should say "sorry"? (Should the Turks ever truly be proven to have committed state-sponsored genocide, I am not saying they should not say "sorry.") Especially since the "Genocide" has sadly served as the very cause for most Armenians' existence? That wouldn't bring Armenians "closure"... that would serve as a renewed "opener."
Israel Charny and other Jews who are so driven to join their falsely-perceived Armenian "brothers-in-genocide" might do well to remember these words, spoken by an Israeli in an interview conducted back in 1956 (according to mediamonitors.net):
"I don't know something called International Principles. I vow that I'll burn every Palestinian Child (who) will be born in this area. The Palestinian Woman and Child is more dangerous than the Man, Because the Palestinian Child existence refers that Generations will go on, but the man causes limited danger. I vow that if I was just an Israeli Civilian and I met a Palestinian I would burn him and I would make him suffer before killing him. With One hit I've killed 750 Palestinians (in Rafah, 1956). I wanted to encourage my soldiers by raping Arabic Girls as The Palestinian Woman is a slave for Jews, and we do whatever we want to her and Nobody tells us what we shall do but we tell others what they shall do."
The speaker? Ariel Sharon, who set up a secret death squad within the Israeli Defense Forces known as "Unit 101," in 1953. The very Ari Sharon whom Israelis had no moral problem with electing to lead their government, when years ago most decried Austrians for electing as their leader Kurt Waldheim (once the U.N. secretary general), who was discovered to have Nazis in his closet (although apparently without personally-committed blood on his hands, according to an international investigation clearing him of complicity; the Nazis were horrible monsters by and large, but don't tell me every single human being who got caught up in the prevailing corrupt and evil system was a comic book villain; one incredible example was the anomaly of a diplomat-Nazi Schindler who saved many Chinese lives against the Japanese).
A contemporary of Sharon's, Menachem Begin, was criticized by outraged American Jewish intellectuals, including Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt, in a December 4, 1948 letter to the editor of The New York Times, for being a "fascist" and a "terrorist," and for being involved in a terrible massacre of innocents that Begin and his Freedom party were proud of, inviting "all the foreign correspondents present in the country to view the heaped corpses and the general havoc at Deir Yassin." Clean up your own back yard, Israel Charny, before you lecture the Turks.
Sadly, for those of us who firmly believe that the Holocaust took place, some scholars of the Genocide of the Jews have attacked any reconsideration of Armenian-Turkish relations out of a fear that this will somehow give comfort to those who, against all evidence, disavow the Holocaust. It must also be admitted that we academics have been unwilling to undertake studies of Armenian-Turkish relations, because of problems with career advancement and even physical dangers.
Prof. Justin McCarthy, 1996 Congressional testimony
---------------
"Finally, in the 1980s the Turkish government supported the establishment of 'institutes', whose apparent purpose was to further research on Turkish history and culture."
I'd say it was way past due, after the Armenian and Greek contingents' unchallenged monopoly on information regarding Turkish affairs.
"The Institute of Turkish Studies, Inc., located in Washington, D.C., was established in 1982... The organization itself has a staff of two: an executive director and a secretary."
I believe this is really what Kurtz in Joseph Conrad's “Heart of Darkness� (film version: APOCALYPSE NOW) had in mind when he said, “The horror! The horror!� ... Wow. A staff of two, huh? I wonder how many people Roger Smith's organization, the Armenian National Institute (ANI), has working for them? What about the Zoryan Institute these three professors used as a reference in one of their footnotes? Combine all the zillions of Armenian organizations with the folks working for them, and this Turkish organization is a veritable juggernaut with that huge staff of two.
It's precisely because of a reason like this that Heath Lowry lent his talents to The Institute of Turkish Studies... the Turks are just so woefully overmatched. If the Turks are going to hire an academic expert, who are they going to hire? Richard Hovannisian? I'm sure Heath Lowry drew a paycheck (who would have spent all that valuable time without some compensation? We all have our causes, but we also must earn a living), but was that because he sought to sacrifice his principles, or because he believed in them?
At any rate, Professor Heath Lowry was no longer working for the Institute in 1995, the year of the writing of this article... that hoped to smear him. Since the authors know Dr. Lowry's paycheck was coming from Princeton University and not the Turkish government, it is their motivations (and not Dr. Lowry's) that become the issue. We'll be getting to that, in the case of at least one of them.
"Neither I nor any other scholar specializing in Ottoman history would deny or condone the widespread death, destruction, and decimation affecting a large portion of the Ottoman Armenian citizenry which occurred in the course of the First World War ... However, I and many other scholars in the field cannot accept the characterization of this human tragedy as a pre-planned, state-perpetrated genocide ... unless and until the historical records of the Ottoman state ... are studied and evaluated by competent scholars."
Professor Heath Lowry, referring to his "crime," in the eyes of these three Armenian supporters... who hoped to wreck his reputation with the writing of their paper.
...The Institute "shall continue to play a key role in furthering knowledge and understanding of a key NATO ally of the United States, the Republic of Turkey, among citizens of our country." [17] Unfortunately, the phrase "furthering knowledge and understanding" includes measures that have been construed as denial of the Armenian genocide.
As much as these three stoog... that is, professors would like us to believe that it is a crime to deny the Armenian "genocide," if they have failed to prove this SO-CALLED genocide, then it is the RIGHT of the accused to deny the crime. The way Professor Lowry speaks above is the way we would expect any normal, objective scholar to speak; first, there must be PROOF. If you fellows can't find the proof, or if you actually believe citing biased sources like Morgenthau and Dadrian is going to make your case (that worked for years... no longer; not for genuine truth-seekers, anyway), then you really don't know what a scholar does. What kind of an agenda do you have, and what nerve do you have to preach on "Professional Ethics," when I have yet to see evidence of ethics on your end?
The Professors' True Stripes Emerge
"...ARMENIAN VOLUNTEER UNITS SERVED IN THE RUSSIAN ARMY, AND THERE WAS AGITATION FOR A HOMELAND IN AND AROUND THE ANATOLIAN CITY OF VAN..."
WILLIAM L. CLEVELAND, A HISTORY OF THE MODERN MIDDLE EAST, 1994, PP.142
"...ARMENIAN VOLUNTEERS CERTAINLY STARTED KILLING MOSLEM CIVILIANS AS SOON AS RUSSIAN TROOPS CROSSED THE OTTOMAN FRONTIER..."
DAVID NICOLLE, PH.D, THE OTTOMAN ARMY 1914-18, 1996, PP. 38
"... MOREOVER, THROUGHOUT EASTERN ANATOLIA THE TURKS WERE THREATENED BY THE INSURRECTION OF THEIR EMBITTERED ARMENIAN SUBJECTS, WHO DISRUPTED COMMUNICATIONS AND FORMED VOLUNTEER GROUPS TO HELP THE RUSSIANS. OTHERS JOINED THE RUSSIAN ARMENIAN FORCES...",
PETER MANSFIELD, A HISTORY OF THE MIDDLE EAST, 1991, PP. 150
"...A FEW THOUSAND ARMENIANS JOINED THE RUSSIAN ARMY; THERE WERE ARMENIAN DESERTIONS FROM THE OTTOMAN ARMY AND GUERILLA ACTIVITY BEHIND THE OTTOMAN LINES...",
ERIK J. ZURCHER, TURKEY, A MODERN HISTORY, 1993, PP. 120
The executive director of the Institute from its inception to 1994 was Dr. Heath W. Lowry, who received his doctorate in history from UCLA. His mentor at UCLA was Professor Stanford Shaw, whose history of Turkey strenuously denies the reality of the Armenian genocide, while, at the same time, blaming the victims, who are depicted as disloyal, rebellious, and terroristic. [18]
Wow.
These guys are getting themselves in trouble deeper and deeper, with each successive line.
Are you getting the feeling these "ethical" professors are either not in tune with reality, or... that they are inextricably married to the "cause," for some mysterious reason?
No, gentlemen. Nobody is blaming the real victims in the Ottoman Empire, during the time of the Armenian "Genocide." The innocent Turks, Kurds, and other Muslims who got snuffed out by murderous and treacherous Armenians didn't do anything wrong. As far as the other victims, the innocent Armenians who got dragged into the relocations, we have to remember who fired the first shot. If the leaders of these people (and most average Armenians, the majority of whom followed the leaders) were not:
DISLOYAL
REBELLIOUS
and TERRORISTIC,
not one of them would have been touched... exactly like the loyal Jews of the Ottoman Empire.
It is clear now (not that it wasn't so clear before) that you three are not on the up-and-up. If there was a trace of any objectivity in your allegedly-scholarly bones, there is no way you could have implied such an outrageously false statement... the context of which is clearly your "belief" in that the Armenians were poor, innocent lambs being led to the slaughter.
The end-all argument against the Armenian "Genocide" is the Malta Tribunal. Since these men are anxious to find parallels to Nazi Germany, here is a parallel they suspiciously go out of their way to overlook: the Allies set up Nuremberg at the end of World War II to punish the Nazis for committing genocide; as a result, all (or almost all) of the accused Nazis were punished in one form or another... because evidence against a systematic, government-sponsored plan to eradicate Jews was irrefutable.
The Allies set up a "Nuremberg" at the end of World War I to punish the Ottomans for committing genocide; NONE of the accused Ottomans were punished, not only for genocide, but for ANY war crime... despite a feverish and desperate search for REAL evidence, that took nearly TWO-AND-A-HALF years, headed by a crack team of Armenian researchers, to boot. Moreover, they had access to every single document in Allied-occupied Istanbul, and the British, under Lloyd George, planned to wipe Turkey off the face of the earth.
Do these professors have no idea of the Malta Tribunal, and other overpowering evidence that turns the Armenian "Genocide" on its ear? If they truly have not done their homework to that extent, then what business do they have being called "professors"? No, ladies and gentlemen... we must believe these so-called professors know very well of such incontrovertible evidence that fly in the face of the view they obediently support, but they out-and-out make statements they know are not true. The question is... Why?
In the footnote to the false implication of their statement, the authors express their displeasure regarding: "(Stanford) Shaw accuses some Armenians residing in Turkey during World War II of being pro-Nazi and antisemitie [sic]." Why, Armenians who were pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic? I never heard of such a thing... this is an OUTRAGE. (Well, maybe not the "anti-Semitic" part. I guess these fellows don't visit Armenian guestbooks.)
Anyway, no point in rebutting their ridiculous paper any longer... these three have proven their stripes, as far as I'm concerned.
However, what I'd like to do is examine the scholarly merit of one of them, Dr. Robert J. Lifton, based on the very same evidence they hoped to hang Dr. Lowry with.
Allow me to repeat what I already wrote about Dr. Lifton, in the Lowry page of TAT.
---------------------------
The man who "blew the whistle": Dr. Robert Jay Lifton. In response to his 1986 book, "The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide," in which he treats the Armenian genocide as historical fact, Dr. Lifton reported he was "surprised" to receive a letter in 1990 from Turkey's Ambassador to the United States, Nuzhet Kandemir, denying the Armenian genocide. (I guess he was surprised because the professor probably only considered — or only seriously considered — the Armenian side of the story, like so many others. Good objectivity, Prof.!) Then he was "shocked" to discover an American academic had drafted the Ambassador's letter. He was further shocked when he learned that the same scholar had been named to a chair at Princeton University that the Turkish government had helped to endow. "We feel strongly that there's been a violation of academic standards," he is reported to have said. (Who is "WE"?) The picture is from PBS' "The Armenians, A Story of Survival." (Ah. "We" must mean "My Armenian pals and I.")
At the time I wrote what you have read above, I knew nothing about Dr. Lifton except what I read in the Princeton student newspaper articles slamming (for the most part) Dr. Lowry... in addition to Dr. Lifton's talking head on the pro-Armenian PBS program, where the picture you see is from.
However, thanks to this report by Dr. Lifton and his two fellow Armenian-loving buddies, I have an excellent insight as to the scholarly methods the professor preferred to use, at least for his "Nazi Doctors" book.
The evidence the professors refer to is a memorandum from Dr. Heath Lowry, to Nuzhet Kandemir, Turkish Ambassador to the United States, on September 26, 1990... which the professors wrote was included "inadvertently," along with the ambassador's letter to Dr. Lifton. Inadvertent? Far from it.... the ambassador deliberately wanted to demonstrate to Dr. Lifton that his irresponsibly conducted research has been analyzed by a fellow American academician. If the shopping list from the ambassador's wife were included in the envelope, that would have been inadvertent.
Here is what Dr. Lowry wrote, regarding Dr. Lifton (the "bold" highlighting is my work):
HE IS A WELL KNOWN AUTHORITY ON THE TRAUMA OF WAR AND HIS MAJOR WORKS INCLUDE:
_DEATH IN LIFE_ (1968)
_HOME FROM THE WAR_ (1973)
_THE LIFE OF THE SELF_ (1976)
_THE BROKEN CONNECTION_ (1982)
IN SHORT, LIFTON IS A RECOGNIZED AUTHORITY IN HIS OWN FIELD WHO CLEARLY KNOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT THE SO-CALLED "ARMENIAN GENOCIDE." INDEED, A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF HIS BOOK, REVEALS THAT IN ITS 561 PAGES HE MAKES THE FOLLOWING FEW REFERENCES TO THE SUBJECT:
_P. XII._ "BUT I FOUND THAT NAZI DOCTORS DIFFERED SIGNIFICANTLY FROM THESE OTHER GROUPS, NOT SO MUCH IN THEIR HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION BUT IN THEIR CENTRAL ROLE IN GENOCIDAL PROJECTS . . . _(PERHAPS TURKISH DOCTORS, IN THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE GENOCIDE AGAINST THE ARMENIANS, COME CLOSEST, AS I SHALL I LATER SUGGEST) . ."
[NOTE: LIFTON DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY SOURCE FOR THIS STATEMENT FOLLOWING THIS PASSAGE;
Well, this is the first time I have heard of Turkish Dr. Mengeles, conducting horrifying medical experiments on Armenians. The reason why Dr. Lifton does not provide a source for this figment of his imagination is that none exists. (And if anything does exist, I'll give you one guess as to whether it would be based on fact.) Dr. Lifton, unless you actually based this assertion on some true, reliable evidence, how in the world can you have the professional ethics to make up something like that?
_PP.466-7_: I SHALL REFER TO OTHER GENOCIDES -- NOTABLY THE TURKS' ANNIHILATION OF ABOUT ONE MILLION ARMENIANS IN 1915- _NOT WITH ANY CLAIM TO COMPREHENSIVENESS_ BUT ONLY TO
SUGGEST WIDER APPLICATION
NOTE: AGAIN NO FOOTNOTED SOURCE. MORE IMPORTANTLY IS LIFTON'S ADMISSION THAT HE DOESN'T CLAIM ANY EXPERTISE ON THE SUBJECT HE IS GOING TO ADDRESS;
Sloppy? Irresponsible? What other words come to mind?
Professor Robert Jay Lifton's book
_P. 470_: THERE SEEM TO HAVE BEEN DEFINITE PARALLELS IN TURKISH HISTORICAL EXPERIENCE PRIOR TO THEIR MASS MURDER OF ARMENIANS IN 1915. WITHIN THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE, THROUGHOUT THE LATTER PART OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, THERE WAS AN ATMOSPHERE OF PROGRESSIVE 'DECAY AND DISINTEGRATION', ALONG WITH A CONTINUOUS IF LOSING STRUGGLE FOR SPIRITUAL AND POLITICAL UNIFICATION. THE TURKS ALSO EXPERIENCED HUMILIATING FORMS Of FAILED REGENERATION IN THEIR DISASTROUS MILITARY ENTERPRISES DURING THE 1912 BALKAN WAR (IGNOMINIOUS DEFEAT AT THE HANDS OF THEIR FORMER SLAVES AND WARDS, THE GREEKS AND THE BULGARIANS) AND THEIR ABORTIVE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN IN 1915 AS A GERMAN ALLY. _VAHAKN N. DADRIAN_ OBSERVES THAT THE TURKS MOVED CLOSER TO GENOCIDE AS THEIR PERCEPTION OF THEIR SITUATION PROCEEDED 'FROM THE CONDITION OF MERE STRAIN, TO THAT Of CRISIS, TO A PRECIPITATE CRISIS, AND EVENTUALLY TO THE CATACLYSM OF WAR.' [19]
_FOOTNOTE 19_: VAHAKN N. DADRIAN, "THE ROLE OF TURKISH PHYSICIANS IN THE WORLD WAR I GENOCIDE OF OTTOMAN ARMENIANS," _HOLOCAUST AND GENOCIDE STUDIES_ I (1986, FORTHCOMING); DADRIAN, "THE COMMON FEATURES OF THE ARMENIAN AND JEWISH CASES OF GENOCIDE: A COMPARATIVE VICTIMOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE," IN ISRAEL DRAPKIN AND EMILIOI VIANO, _VICTIMOLOGY; A NEW FOCUS, VOL. IV (LEXINGTON, MASS: D.C. HEATH, 1974, PP. 99-120. SEE ALSO, HELEN
FEIN, ACCOUNTING FOR GENOCIDE: VICTIMS -- AND SURVIVORS -- OF THE HOLOCAUST (NEW YORK: FREE PRESS, 1979, PO. 10-18.
_NOTE_: THE SOLE SOURCE FOR LIFTON'S COMMENTS IS THE ARMENIAN AUTHOR: VAHAKN DADRIAN.
Son of a Gun! You learn something new, every day... I honestly have never heard of "Nazi Doctors" in the case of the Armenian "Genocide." So what did these Ottoman doctors do, set up a secret camp to conduct their inhuman experiments? And how did they "recruit" their human victims... did they march alongside the relocating Armenians, point, and say, "You"? Or did they merely have to break into some Armenian homes, Gestapo-style, and pull people out?
And who is the sole authority Dr. Lifton chooses to rely on? Yep... Mr. Professional "It's my duty to dig up any dirt on the Turks I can manage, verifiable or not" Dadrian, himself. WOW! Dadrian actually has even gone after Turkish Physicians..! He covers just about every conceivable ground to keep spreading the hatred he does... you've got to give him credit for that.
The thing I don’t understand is, there was a time when Dadrian felt the complete opposite of what he feels today. There was a time when Dadrian loved the Turk. Everyone regarded the Turk as a brute... and yes, there were times when the Turk applied muscle in order to maintain his living, even though his heart wasn’t always in it. Dadrian saw through all that, and recognized the Turk as an honorable being, in fact, one with a heart of gold. The Turk could be naive and trusting in others, maybe even dim-witted at times... while possessing a wisdom and sense of fairness/ethics rarely to be found in his contemporaries... but despite the fact that he had no real friends, he had a way of persevering, on the basis of his courage and great spirit. I don’t know why Dadrian made such a hundred-and-eighty degree turn, because I heard Dadrain actually fell in love with... oh.
Adrian, with the big lug
Sorry, my mistake. I was thinking of “Adrian,� from ROCKY.
We might be able to excuse Dr. Lifton for being gullible during 1986, and accepting whatever Dadrian presented as the God-Honest truth... since he didn't know much about the Armenian "Genocide"... but in the ensuing near-decade, what is his excuse to co-author a paper that makes a point of citing such untrustworthy, biased Armenian sources as Dadrian? There is no excuse. For whatever reason, Dr. Lifton is not being motivated by the pursuit of Truth. (Regarding the subject of the Armenian "Genocide," anyway. In his own field of expertise, I'm sure... or I'd hope... he must do a good enough job.)
I hope Dr. Dadrian has done a thorough job in coming up with all possible parallels to the Holocaust. Here are some others, in case he has missed a few.
P. 473: "AGAIN, THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS OF SIMILAR CURRENTS IN THE TURKISH SITUATION. THE YOUNG TURKS' WHO SOUGHT TO REFORM THE OTTOMAN EMPIRE SPEARHEADED 'A MAJOR CAMPAIGN TO CHANGE
THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE OF OTTOMAN SOCIETY AS AN ANTIDOTE TO INTERNAL DISCORD AND CONFLICT, AND ALSO AS A MEANS OF RECAPTURING. IMPERIAL, PANTURKIC GLORY.' THEIR CURE INCLUDED AN ADMIXTURE OF RELIGIOUS AND POLITICAL IDEOLOGIES,' AND GENOCIDE BECAME A MEANS FOR [ BRINGING ABOUT ] A RADICAL ..... CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM.'" [34]
_FOOTNOTE 34_: SEE DADRIAN, "TURKISH PHYSICIANS" AND "COMMON FEATURES" [19]
_NOTE_: AGAIN, LIFTON'S SOLE SOURCE FOR HIS VIEWS ON THE TURCO-ARMENIAN QUESTION ARE THE TWO ARTICLES OF DADRIAN CITED IN FOOTNOTE 19.
It's too much. Dr. Lifton, a professed scholar, draws conclusions strictly (as it appears) on the basis of one book (added to what must have been his pre-disposed, deeply-ingrained anti-Turkish belief system, where he would have been far from the only American afflicted... but, he is a professor, and ideally he should have had an open mind)... and the source book of his choosing happened to be written by an Armenian notorious for not entertaining an objective brain cell, regarding the genocide matter.
Could Dr. Lifton have been so naive as to believe Dr. Dadrian would be such a reliable source? It is truly mind-boggling... well. Maybe not. I am disappointed because I would have expected more from the intelligent man I sense Dr. Lifton to be. However, I am aware there is no shortage of American professors who are all too comfortable with strictly and irresponsibly and lazily accepting the Armenian claims as pure fact.
P. 475: IN THE CASE OF THE TURKS, WHATEVER THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARDS SCIENCE, THEY DID PUT FORWARD A MYSTICAL VISION OF PAN-TURANIANISM (OR 'TURKIFICATION') _WHICH ALLEGED A PREHISTORIC MYTHIC UNITY AMONG TURANIAN PEOPLES BASED ON RACIAL ORIGIN_' [43] AND ONE CANNOT DOUBT THE EXPERIENCE OF TRANSCENDENCE OF TURKISH NATIONALISTS IN THEIR REVERSION TO FUNDAMENTALIST MOHAMMEDANISM AS A CALL TO AN ANTI-ARMENIAN-CHRISTIAN CRUSADE --
ALL ON BEHALF OF A NEW VISION OF OTTOMAN GLORY."
_FOOTNOTE 43_: DADRIAN, "TURKISH PHYSICIANS" [19].
_NOTE_: ONCE AGAIN, LIFTON'S _SOLE_ SOURCE ID DADRIAN
"One cannot doubt...the reversion to fundamentalist Mohammedanism (who uses that word, these days?) as a call to an anti-Armenian-Christian Crusade..."? Correction, Dr. Lifton. Obviously, YOU could not have doubted this conclusion, in your own biased and uninformed mind.
This very false "Muslim vs. Christian" issue is what the Armenians and their supporters (like Morgenthau) were banking on to fool the American public during W.W.I, and it is tragic... TRAGIC.... that a supposedly enlightened intellectual as Dr. Lifton would accept so whole-heartedly this irrelevant factor as to why what happened, happened. It's really unbelievable.
"Lord Bryce himself has said that there was no religious fanaticism."
C.F. Dixon-Johnson, British author of the 1916 book, "The Armenians."
Especially since Dr. Lifton appears to be Jewish, I'd say it's particularly appropriate to ask him why he thinks if the Turks were motivated by their fanatical "Mohammedanism," why weren't the Ottoman Jews targeted? Maybe Dr. Lifton, once he outdoes Porky Pig while stuttering for an answer, can consult The Dean of Disinformation, Dr. Richard Hovannisian, when he was asked (in an unguarded moment) why the Young Turks’ so-called policy of Pan-Turanism was so inconsistent.
P. 493: "ONE CANNOT SAY THAT ANY PARTICULAR LEVEL OF TECHNOLOGY IS REQUIRED FOR GENOCIDE: THE TURKS KILLED ABOUT A MILLION ARMENIANS BY MEANS OF SHOOTING, CLUBBING, BEATING, SLAVE LABOR, STARVATION, AND OTHER FORMS OF TORTURE,"
_NOTE_: THERE IS NO FOOTNOTE APPENDED TO THIS STATEMENT, BUT IT IS CLEARLY TAKEN FROM THE DADRIAN ARTICLES AS WELL.
Most likely. Dr. Lifton seems like such a believer, if one's got Dadrian, who needs any other source?
And I'd say even at a low level of technology, it would take a lot more effort than the reasons cited (save for starvation) if a true campaign to murder a million people is begun in earnest... especially when a nation is without manpower and resources in a desperate life-and-death struggle, with every man needed at the five or so simultaneous fronts. Even the Germans, known for their order and efficiency, had severe problems in perfecting the art of genocide, at the beginning of their Final Solution.
The "starvation" method of genocide would be a lot more convincing if a lot of Armenians did not survive. (In a recent anti-Turkish "proclamation" that Dr. Lifton salivated to add his name to, the Armenians claimed one million Armenians survived. Out of a pre-war TRUE population [based on OVER half a dozen NEUTRAL sources of the period] of 1,000,000 to 1,500,000, over two-thirds survived. Listen to me: If you're going to have a genocide where the intention is to exterminate a population, and if you choose starvation as a method, how could you not kill off the pesky ones who refused to die from lack of nourishment? In addition, this argument becomes a lot less convincing when one considers so many Turkish citizens died of starvation and disease; even the Armenian God, Henry "Holier-than-Thou" Morgenthau, claimed in his phony book (assuming he was being uncharacteristically truthful), that thousands of Turks were dying daily... he estimated a quarter of the Turkish population suffered, as a result (of all causes, combined... a figure Justin McCarthy has confirmed). German commander of the Turkish forces, General Liman von Sanders, testified (as a witness for the defense in the trial of Talat Pasha's Armenian assassin) thousands of Turkish SOLDIERS died as a result of famine and disease.... soldiers, the desperate land's only line of defense against the obliteration the Imperialist powers had long planned for; conditions were that deplorable.
So why is Dr. Lifton still harping on this?
A Truth-Seeker does not continue to cite a professional disinformation minister such as Vahakn Dadrian... a real scholar looks at every side of the issue, and resists the temptation of simplistically boiling an issue down to white hats and black hats.
So what's up with Dr. Lifton?
Well, it's possible he honestly believes all the B.S. the Armenian propaganda mill has been feeding him. However, I hope not. That would make him a totally irresponsible scholar, but he sounds much too intelligent for that. Besides, he is an expert on "Professional Ethics"... I mean, he even co-wrote a paper on that very topic.
I don't know the answer. Unless he has an undying racist belief against Turks that psychologically disallows him from objectively considering the weighty evidence against his Dadrian-directed conclusions, perhaps he was hurt when his credibility was called on, and his poor research methods were revealed... and his having taken up spicy Kama Sutra moves with the Armenians is a form of revenge.
If that's the case, he would be no different than The New York Times. Dr. Dennis Papazian says the reason why the newspaper reverted to a policy of referring to the Armenian "Genocide" as a "genocide," rather than an "alleged genocide," is (I will put it into my own words here... Professor Papazian's perspective is slightly different) because they couldn't stomach looking like shoddy researchers when they blindly accepted all the lies and propaganda they were fed during the W.W.I days, through the likes of Morgenthau, the missionaries, the Armenians, and Britain's American branch of Wellington House. They have a whole backlog of biased articles that they would now have to recant, admitting they published News That Wasn't Fit to Print. (Of course, these old "news" articles are featured in Armenian web sites as proof of the "Genocide"; that's how I got to read them. Thanks, Armenian web sites!)
The New York Times couldn't bear to stand up and admit they were wrong. Better to perpetuate a falsehood than to face up to one's responsibilities; this is what America's most prestigious newspaper apparently decided was the safer course... concluding that "Honor" must be a four-letter-word.
The will to truth is cowed by pressure of numerous kinds, reasons of state on the one hand, economic necessities on the other, and, not least, the pure careerism of intellectuals who put their expertise in the service of power as a matter of course. When governments and professional elites find reward in the sophistries of might makes right, truth is bound to suffer.
Terrence Des
(A quote presented by the three professors... that some non-Armenian scholars who whole-heartedly accept the Armenian view, with no seeming consideration for any other view, would do well to bear in mind.)
The Third Toady of this Triumvirate
After writing the above, I looked into the background of the other co-writer of "Professional Ethics"... Eric Markusen. In addition to being a tenured professor of sociology at Southwest State University, Dr. Markusen has also been recruited as Research Director in Copenhagen's Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies. He has a long association with Robert Jay Lifton, having co-written several papers, beginning in 1984.
On the "Education" page of the Danish site, historic genocides are examined; the Armenian "Genocide" is not only presented as established fact, but heads the top of the list, after "The Holocaust," and before "Rwanda and Burundi," "Cambodia," and "Former Yugoslavia." The "Other Genocides" page isn't yet constructed, but when it's worked on, how many of you suspect the Armenians' systematic extermination policy toward the Turks, or the Russians' centuries-long ethnic cleansing of Turks, will be paid heed to? Ah, I see no hands going up... you're all on the ball.
A page is also handily provided outlining the U.N. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (dchf.dk/about/un_convention.html), where somebody didn't bother to consult Article 2 ("In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group...") and Article 7 ("Genocide and the other acts enumerated in article III shall not be considered as political crimes for the purpose of extradition.")
Dr. Markusen (credited at the page's bottom) appears to have at least partially arranged a May 10-11, 2002 conference called "The 'Armenian Question': Allegations and Denial":
The Danish Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies holds an international two-day conference at Copenhagen University on a historic event which still has great political relevance. Prominent researchers and politicians from the USA, France, Germany, Switzerland, Belgium, Turkey, Sweden and Denmark will present their interpretation of the largely forgotten massacres of 1915, when several hundred thousand Armenians were slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire. Furthermore – for the first time in Denmark – leading Turkish and Armenian speakers will participate in a conference...
There goes that ingenuous "largely forgotten massacres" idea again... the Armenians and their worldwide big bucks constantly remind us about the Armenian "Genodice": it's the real genocides such as "Rwanda and Burundi," "Cambodia," and "Former Yugoslavia" that few of us are reminded of to mourn. To the Center's credit, at least they kept the numbers down from the typical 1.5 million to the more accurate "several hundred thousand"... but to the Center's discredit, they claimed all of these people were directly "slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire."
I wonder who these " leading Turkish speakers" happened to be... were they the Turncoat Turks required to be a member of the Armenian "Genocide" club?
ADDENDUM
Holdwater here. Subsequently came across the identities of some of the participants.
1) Richard Hovannisian
2) TANER AKCAM..!
3) VAHAKN DADRIAN..!
Is it unbelievable that these pseudo-professors should even be considered as genuine scholars? Hardly. The three professors who co-wrote this "Professional Ethics" smear job have already shown that they swear by the likes of them.
At least the conference wasn't entirely one-sided. In an article entitled "Enforced Forgetfulness Does not Help a Nation Conquer the Future" (that appeared in The National Herald on June 8-9, 2002), Greek writer Takis Michas sounded outraged:
"The aim of the organizers of the Copenhagen conference was to create the framework for a meaningful dialogue among all the interested parties. But unfortunately this was not to happen.."
Of course, a meaningful dialogue can only take place if the parties maintain objectivity. You don't earn marks for credibility when you give credence to dishonest pseudo-scholars who are prosecutors rather than professors.
"From the very first moment the Turkish officials started denouncing the organizers and the institutions hosting the conference. Bulent Akarcali, deputy leader of the Turkish ruling Motherland party accused the Danish Universities as being 'instruments of evil' and the few Turkish researchers who took part in the conference as 'national traitors'. As one can easily surmise , the conference quickly degenerated into a chorus of mutual recriminations while the goal of a meaningful dialogue, which the organizers had hoped for, remained as elusive as ever.."
When you look at the genuine FACTS of this genocide situation, how could anyone with intelligence and integrity not conclude the Armenian "Genodice" is as "phony as a three dollar bill" (as Sam Weems put it)? When you know what a repulsive charade this genocide industry is, anyone who supports it becomes nothing less than "instruments of evil"... especially in this day and age, when the actual facts are within reach, and when the book needed to be closed on the Falsified Genocide, after the Malta Tribunals. The Turkish Turncoats like former terrorist Taner Akcam are nothing less than "national traitors." The Turkish deputy leader was speaking nothing less than the truth.
"During the conference the Turkish ex-ambassador Pulat Tucar indicated another possible reason for the Turkish attitude of going into denial: The fear of social instability which a recognition of the event might cause.. 'Your campaigns' he said addressing the participants of the conference 'destroys the peace in my country. You always think of the past, never of the future'.
This of course is also nonsense. Because as the American philosopher Santayna pointed out, if a country fails to recognize the errors and crimes of the past, it is bound to repeat them.
Enforced forgetfulness is, more often than not, the source of instability, not critical remembrance."
The only reason in this case for "going into denial" is because when one is accused of a crime one knows one did not commit, the natural recourse would be to deny it. Does the writer, Mr. Michas, actually believe if the Armenian "Genocide" were to be genuinely proven, Turkey would go into "social instability"? Now THAT is the true nonsense. By the same token, the Turkish ex-ambassador's statement that Armenians and their bedfellows always think about the past and not the future is, unfortunately, 100% true... and far from "nonsense."
What the American philosopher said is all too true. However, I'm sure Santayna... when he referred to a country failing to recognize the errors and crimes of its past... was referring to actual errors and crimes committed. When someone says you have committed a crime, that does not automatically make it a crime. It would be necessary for the accuser to truly prove the crime took place. (Duh!)
Santayna has been proven correct in the following manner: As The Jewish Times has opined, the true parallel to the Holocaust during the World War One era was provided by the Armenians, and not the Turks; it was the Armenians who bloodthirstily waged an extermination campaign against defenseless Moslem villagers. (Genocidal skills they later put to use for Der Fuehrer in W.W.II.) Since the Turks never called the Armenians on their crimes in the interest of moving on, and since the West never called the Armenians on their crimes because the Armenians are the Christian darlings of the West, the Armenians were slated to repeat their crimes... as they went on to do, in their sneak attack of Azerbaijan some seventy-five years later, slaughtering defenseless Moslem villagers.
"Enforced forgetfulness"? I know the writer is a naturally sympathizing Greek, but is he for real? The Turks TRIED to forgive the Armenians (for their treachery and massacres), and forget... by pursuing the mature course of looking ahead to the future, the very reason why the Turks never bothered to defend themselves against these genocide charges seriously, until the early 1980s... but nobody in Turkey is NOW forgetting about the Armenian "Genocide." Especially since the "Genocide" is all over the place in Turkish society, where books written in Turkish by Taner Akcam and Levon Marashlian are freely available, and other Turk-hating Turkish Turncoats are teaching the Armenian perspective within Turkey itself (like Akcam's buddy, Halil Berktay). (Apparently, even some teachers in Turkish high schools have been affected by the relentless Armenian propaganda, and have begun teaching about the Armenian "Genocide" from the Armenian perspective.) Once Armenians activated their genocide business in full force in the 1970s and 80s with their terrorism, Turks were forced to look into this genocide business... ascertain the genuine truth... and now they are never going to forget.
The page also goes on to state: "There were Danish missionaries in the Ottoman Empire in 1915 who witnessed massacres. How did Denmark react?"
Holdwater's personal experience with Danes has left him with the highest opinion; they are a true stand-up, honest people. I didn't even know there were Danish missionaries, and they might not have had the same unscrupulous agenda as American missionaries, appealing to Christian sympathies to raise money. However, missionaries in general were zealous in their outlook (otherwise, why would anyone become a missionary?) and had their sympathies clearly laid out... especially in a land ruled by (in their view) oppressive, barbaric Moslems. These Danish missionaries (or missionaries of any nationality) did not "witness" massacres being committed.... remember, the evil Turks were slaughtering Christians because they were Christians! Does anyone believe a missionary could have been in the middle of such a bloodbath spurred by fanatical "Mohammedanism," and have been spared?
No, the only thing the missionaries might have come across were bodies of the massacred, if that; mainly, they just took the word of their beloved fellow Christians, the poor, defenseless Armenians.
There is no question the Armenians suffered, but unquestionably, so did the Turks/Muslims... for the exact same reasons, famine, disease, and massacres. Why did the missionaries discriminate, and why did they only observe the suffering of the Armenians? Were the missionaries true Christians?
On the Danish site, there was a beautiful message from a Pastoral Letter of Danish Bishops, dated 29 September 1943:
Because persecution of Jews opposes the view of human beings and the love of one`s neighbour which is a consequence of the gospel that the church of Jesus Christ has the task to preach. Christ knows of no respect of persons, and he has taught us to see that every human life is costly to God. "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3.28)
Now THAT, to me, is what a Christian should ideally be about. Most missionaries in the Ottoman Empire were anything but true Christians. They not only kept their eyes closed to the suffering of the Turks, many deliberately bore false witness against their neighbors.
Admit or deny that you Armenians teach your children to hate Turks from birth? This isn't a Christian act now is it?
Devout Baptist Sam Weems, in response to Armenian Hate Mail
Dr. Eric Markusen
My original purpose was to spotlight Eric Markusen, and instead I digressed to a look at this organization he works for. Now Eric Markusen may have put himself on record as a co-writer of this false "Professional Ethics and the Denial of Armenian Genocide" paper for the same reasons as Doctors Smithian and Liftonian... sloppy scholarship and a possible prejudice against the Turks, among others.... but as a "genocide scholar," it justifies his purpose to make the Armenian "Genocide" appear as an established fact. Forget about unheralded and "unsexy" genocides, as those against the Gypsies, Tasmanians and especially Turks... it's just so comfortable and easy to point to the popular Armenian "Genocide," and then come up with scholarly genocidal conclusions.
On the Danish site's "Armenian Question" conference page which Dr. Markusen perhaps had a hand in preparing, there is a line that states: "The Turkish government refuses this label (of genocide)." But don't you see, Dr. Markusen? It's not just a case of "The Turkish government says..." which is Armenian code for "Everybody knows you can't trust what a government says... especially the evil, totalitarian Turkish government"... there are PROFESSORS WHO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS TO BE A PROFESSOR, COMPARED TO YOU — WHICH IS TO EXAMINE ALL SIDES OF A HISTORICAL EVENT BEFORE REACHING EASY, IRRESPONSIBLE CONCLUSIONS — who ALSO refuse to label what took place in W.W.I's Ottoman Empire as a "genocide."
Who CARES what the Turkish government says.... I sure don't. All I care about are the FACTS. Not the "facts" that Vahakn Dadrian gives, that a gullible and ignorant amateur would accept at face value... but the real, cold, objective, hard facts that should be almost impossible to argue with.
Because you don't like what these other professors say, you willingly become a party to the Armenian-directed smear campaign of one of them?
Even if Heath Lowry was guilty as charged... let's say the evil Turkish government bribed Heath Lowry with millions of dollars... why are you not looking at the validity of his research? For that matter, why have you overlooked all these many sources of non-Turkish origin this web site has only partially provided? Isn't the truth all that matters? What kind of a professor are you??
Shame on you, Dr. Markusen, for being a part of this ugly paper... when the words within are examined by your IMPARTIAL peers, it becomes clear who is really devoid of "Professional Ethics." You owe Heath Lowry an apology... and because Heath Lowry refuses to be a lazy thinker and has the courage and integrity to go beneath the easy surface, perhaps you should ask him for lessons on what it means to be a true professor.
----------------------------------------------------------
© Holdwater
tallarmeniantale.com/lowry-smith-lifton.htm
----------------------------------------------------------
.
0 comments:
Post a Comment
Please Update/Correct Any Of The
3700+ 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 Would Not 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 FIRST then enter YOUR comment in English by referring to the SPECIFIC POINTS in the post and DO preview your comment for proper grammar /spelling.
-Need to correct the one you have already sent?
please enter a -New Comment- We'll keep the latest version
- Spammers: Your comment will appear here only in your dreams
More . . :
http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/05/Submit-Your-Article.html
All the best