1354) Armenian Genocide Allegations: A Subterfuge For Armenian Crimes in Azerbaijan?

To: letters@latimes.com
Cc: maura.reynolds@latimes.com
Sent: January 07, 2007

Letters to the editor
Los Angeles Times

Armenian Genocide Allegations: A Subterfuge For Current Armenian Crimes in Azerbaijan?

I take issue with Times Staff Writer's comments: "...Historians have long used the term 'genocide' to describe the murderous campaign against the Armenians in Turkey..." ( "Armenian genocide question hits home", By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer, January 6, 2007.) Historians of the AFATH community (Armenian Falsifiers and Turk-Haters) use the "g" term to describe a complicated civil war and human tragedy during World War One that had engulfed all the people of the area, not just the Armenians. Their biased approach to history seems to result one or more of various attitudes, among them a mis-placed need to show Christian-solidarity, persistent and unfortunate anti-Turkish bias, comfort of yielding to popular belief, irresistible urge to hold moral high grounds in the face of own past crimes, expectations of benefiting from the "genocide industry" as in votes, dollars, career advancement, recognition, sales, etc. and others.

There are many other historians, and I am not talking about Turkish ones, who categorically reject the AFATH characterizations of genocide. "... No signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering. We are likewise cognizant that it cannot be viewed as separate from the suffering experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the region. The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War..." said 69 historians who specialize in Ottoman and Middle East history in a public statement published in New York Times on May 19, 1985.

Professor Stanford J. Shaw (1930-2006), one of those signatories, had had his house bombed by Armenian terrorists in 1977 because the latter did agree with the informed opinion of the professor. Prof Shaw, BS and MS from Stanford, PhD from Princeton, taught for a decade in Harvard and for three decades at UCLA, had actually studied the Turkish archives, along with American, British, Russian, French, and Egyptian archives, before writing 10 books on this and similar subjects, gave his verdict: it was inter-communal warfare, not genocide. He was a hunted man after that until the day he died but never bowed to Armenian terrorism which claimed 3 Turkish diplomats' lives in Los Angeles since 1973.

Then there is world renown scholar, Prof. Bernard Lewis, who is one of the major advisors of President Bush. He, too, agreed with Prof. Shaw. He, too, was harassed by Armenian fanatics. Lewis was sued in France in early to mid 1990s, convicted for violating a strange French law of "...insulting the sensitivities of Armenians..." and given a fine of "1 Frank". There are more than 100 scholars who were similarly harassed by Armenian terrorists and some genocide scholars of the AFATH camp which is why few historians wish to talk on this subject. Guenther Lewy, professor. emeritus from the Univ. of Massachusetts, recently published a fantastic research on this subject and also came to the same conclusion that while the human tragedy was real, it was experienced by all the peoples of the area, not just the Armenians, and thus could not be labeled genocide.

I lost my father's side completely in those endless wars of 1911-1922 when the Ottoman Empire was fighting for its survival in five consecutive wars in three continents: Tripolitan War in 1911; Balkan wars, 1912-1913; First World War, 1914-1918; Armenia in 1920, and Greece in 1919-1922. More than 30% of the prewar population of the Ottoman Empire, including Armenians, was lost and every Turk lost a loved one or two, if not the entire family. Two and a half million Muslims perished during WWI and half a million of those, mostly Turks, met their ends in atrocities committed by the Armenian nationalists with support (arms, ammunition, training, supplies, money, etc.) from the West. yet, one hears not a word about the Turkish suffering as if Turks are not humans.

I still remember the days in 1970s,1980s, and 1990s when Los Angeles Times was objective enough to use the qualifier "alleged" before the term genocide, which according to the 1948 U.N. convention, ratified in 1951, requires the verdict of a "competent court" after "due process. Where is that competent court and its verdict to cause the Times editors to drop the qualifier "alleged"? In all fairness, the Times editors must either produce that "court verdict" or re-start using the qualifier "alleged" before the term genocide, if they do not wish to be labeled "biased".

Why is everyone so silent about the current ethnic cleansing, terrorism, and aggression Armenians are conducting in Azerbaijan, with US taxpayers' money? Why the obsessions with distorted history of 90 years ago? Who now remembers the 1+ million Azeri refugees expelled from their homes at gunpoint by armed Armenian thugs? Why such blatant double standards?

Those are the reasons why we, the Turkish-Americans, whole-heartedly and firmly believe that the allegations of genocide are both racist and dishonest history.

Peace,

Ergun Kirlikovali
9741 Irvine Center Dr.,
Irvine, CA 92618
Day phone: 949-788-1050

---

Armenian genocide question hits home
The former U.S. ambassador's use of the term leaves Congress poised for a battle between pragmatism and principle.

By Maura Reynolds, Times Staff Writer
January 7, 2007

WASHINGTON -- Nearly two years ago, John Evans did something no U.S. ambassador to Armenia before him had done: He used the word "genocide" — in public — to describe the deaths of about 1.2 million Armenians at the hands of Ottoman Turks.

It has long been a sore point with Armenian Americans that the U.S. government does not refer to the killings that began in 1915 as genocide, and Evans' use of the word did not signal a change in that policy. It did set off a slow-boiling controversy that eventually cost him his job.

Now, the issue is preparing to boil over again, setting up a clash between the Democratic-controlled Congress and the Republican White House. The dispute has stalled the confirmation of Evans' successor and strained U.S. relations with Turkey, a key U.S. ally in the Middle East.

"Based on what I've seen, this is headed to a confrontation," said a senior Democratic congressional aide. "It's an issue that's a flashpoint of controversy for both parties."

It started at UC Berkeley, in February 2005, soon after Evans took up his ambassadorship.

"I will today call it the Armenian genocide," Evans said, according to a transcript by one of the groups attending the gathering hosted by the university's Armenian studies program.

Evans' comments floored — and pleased — his audience, even though he made it clear that he was articulating a personal view, not U.S. policy.

"I recall being surprised at that moment," said Stephan Astourian, executive director of Berkeley's Armenian Studies program, who organized the session.

Though Armenian Americans and others consider Evans' statement an act of courage for which he has been unfairly punished, policymakers call it a misjudgment that could fuel anti-Western sentiment in Turkey.

Historians have long used the term "genocide" to describe the murderous campaign against the Armenians in Turkey. Nearly the entire population of Armenians was executed, starved or forced into exile on the orders of the ruling Young Turk Party. Outside Turkey, there is little debate over the facts or the use of the word "genocide."

In Turkey, however, official history has long disputed the use of that term. As a result, American officials have used all sorts of others — "mass killing," "massacres," "atrocities," "annihilation" — but have stopped short of "genocide."

"We have never said it wasn't genocide," explained a senior State Department official, who agreed to discuss formation of U.S. policy in detail on condition he not be further identified. "We just haven't used that word."

State Department officials believe that Turks will come to their own acceptance of the term from internal debate.

"That debate needs to happen, but it needs to be a Turkish debate," the official said. "It has been our view that our position of encouraging that debate — and not allowing Turks an easy out to say, 'This is foreign pressure' — is more effective."

Most Armenian Americans and many members of Congress disagree, arguing that the U.S. government should call the killings "genocide."

In a short interview, his first since leaving the State Department, Evans declined to discuss his motives in making the genocide statement, but said that "it wasn't a slip of the tongue."

"I knew it was not the policy of the United States" to use the word "genocide," Evans said.

"Ninety years is a long time," Evans added, referring to the decades since the genocide began. "At some point you have to call a spade a spade."

In the months after Evans' remark, the State Department made clear its displeasure. By July 2005, "it was absolutely crystal clear" that he would be forced out, he said. Still, it took more than a year more for him to leave.

"Evans was a career foreign service officer, and you do not go after a career foreign service officer lightly," said a second State Department official.

Evans left Armenia in September and formally retired from the State Department last month.

Meanwhile, the American Foreign Service Assn., the organization that represents U.S. foreign service officers, granted Evans its 2005 award for "constructive dissent" by a senior diplomat. But weeks later, the group rescinded the prize, arousing suspicion that the State Department had intervened.

Foreign Service Assn. officials who agreed to discuss the matter said they took back the award after learning that Evans apparently did not first go through internal channels of dissent before publicly stating his views.

"Ambassador Evans' action — admirable as it was — did not fit the category of 'constructive dissent,' " the group said in a statement.

State Department officials said they felt blindsided by Evans' genocide remarks.

The unanswered questions about Evans' departure have stalled the nomination of a successor.

In May, President Bush nominated Ambassador Richard Hoagland, who most recently served as ambassador to Tajikistan. But in September, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) put a parliamentary hold on Hoagland's nomination, blocking it until the end of the congressional session, when the nomination expired.

Some Armenian Americans took issue with Hoagland, complaining that in written responses to questions from the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he was dismissive of the Armenian genocide. Last month, Menendez and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) demanded the administration send over a new nominee.

Bush will have to decide whether to renominate Hoagland. The administration appears to be standing behind him, and complains that he has been turned into a scapegoat over Evans' dismissal.

"Senators can say that our policy on the Armenian massacres is wrong, but it's wrong to punish the president's nominee for adhering to the president's policy," said the senior State Department official, adding that some of Hoagland's opponents had "twisted" his responses on the genocide.

"He's being tarred as a [genocide] denier," said the senior State Department official. "And the only reason it's being done is that they are angry about Evans for the wrong reasons."

Not all Armenian Americans oppose Hoagland's nomination. The Armenian Assembly of America has said that although it opposes administration policy, it would support Hoagland. And the Armenian government has said that policy on the genocide issue should take second place to more immediate problems, including diplomatic relations with Turkey.

The Republic of Armenia became an independent state after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, and today has a population of about 3 million.

To both Democrats and Republicans, support from Armenian Americans is important. There are an estimated 1.4 million Armenian Americans, with the largest population center in Glendale.

In the end, Democrats now in control of Congress may need to decide between pragmatism and principle.

"To the extent that Armenia goes without a U.S. ambassador, that's a bad thing by anyone's standard," said a Democratic staffer involved in the confirmation process. "We're 1,000% supportive of the Armenian community on the genocide issue. But in this case, the [State Department] policy is going to be very tough to change, and I don't think holding up an ambassador is going to get them to change their policy."

maura.reynolds@latimes.com

---

---

c/o L.A.Times/USA
Dear Maura Reynolds,

Re: What about the Turkish massacres by the rebelling treacherous Armenians?

Please take this our email and confront the first American Armenian you come across and ask them to explain themselves in the light of below. Also be kind enough to publish our email in your 'letters to the editor' column. By the way, we British Turks are ready to confront the American Armenians in a public debate.

We have read your following article with interest.. to the extend we must now expose the economical truth and attempted gaggings by the American Armenian organisations in America. It is our opinion that raw propaganda is getting in the way of freedom of speech and that's against what we hold dear to our hearts.

Given that both the Turks and the British are the allies of America, there can be no harm to expose the machinations of a mischievous American minority living amidst us. We are talking about some members of the Armenian minority in America as well as in the United Kingdom. Whereas most of the Turkish Armenians living in Turkey are adopting a more constructive stance.. Mischievous minorities have no right to manipulate their Government's policies for their benefit alone. In the Armenian case, some American Armenian organisations are attempting to manipulate the American Government policies whilst Armenians in Armenia and Russia are manipulating the Russian Government policies in a pincer movement that can only be beneficial to minority at the expense of majority. Their end game may be a no-lose outcome but the policies of America and her allies does not always tally with that of Russians nor the best interests of world peace should be allowed to be hijacked by mischievous minority interests.

Whatever name one chooses to describe the terrible events of circa 1915 in Eastern Anatolia, nobody has the right to propagate their own story in the expense of the other. If truth is truth, it can not be economical but full truth. Tall tales of Armenian stories is not the only version of Anatolian history we wish to witness either.

The full truth is that the Ottoman Armenians, with the aid of invading or scheming Russians (to be precise since the early beginnings of Ottoman-Russo wars) rebelled against their own government (then the Ottoman Empire) and committed acts of high treason. It reached a crescendo in 1915 where they have murdered in cold blood 521,000 innocent and defenceless Turks. They have sided with the Russian Army to cause death by freezing of 90,000 Ottoman soldiers in Sarikamis. There are well documented stories of Armenian treachery against the Ottomans from 1821 till 1919 and beyond. There are also instances of faked documentation to support the faked Armenian claims. Have you lately confronted any Armenians that you may know with these events? Infact what do you think the American Government would have done then if the German Americans in 1939-45 murdered 521,000 innocent Americans in America?

Have you also wondered why the Armenian claims have never been accepted at the United Nations (we mean by the United Nations Secretariat) and there has never been a claim against Turks at the International Court of Human Rights in Hague? So for the last 90 odd years why weren't the Armenians keen to take their claims to a proper court of law? to an International tribunal? what was their problem? why are they now interfering instead with the proper workings of the American Government?

Indeed, there has been a Military Court convened back in 1921-2 to hear the Armenian case. Even the American Government then had been approached to supply documentation by way of proof. The accused Turks were kept captive in the Island of Malta to answer the accusation. It was a properly convened British Military Court, with powers to try and pass a judgement. The verdict was "not guilty"

In short, some in America are immersed in lop sided tall stories of alleged Armenian genocide. It must be the only one of its type in the world where murderers of 521,000 innocent people and terrorists who have claimed the lives of 42 Turkish diplomats from 1970's onwards are called the victims of an alleged genocide! how if we call the 9/11 perpetrators innocent victims?

We ask you to help us expose the whole truth, nothing but the whole truth; so help us GOD.

Kind regards
H Savas MBA

British Citizens' Proclamation of Turkish Rights
&
British Committee for the Protection of Turkish Rights,

CPTR
PO Box 43666
London SE22 9XW also in Swansea - Wales and Edinburgh - Scotland
England

[cptr-news@yahoogroups.com]

w h e n t r u t h h a s t o b e t o l d, d e f e n d e d a n d r i g h t s p r e s e r v e d f o r t h e c o m m o n g o o d

Committee for the Protection of Turkish Rights is a non-profit making British group, acting against unfair and unfounded propaganda, unjust initiatives and alike against the people of Turkey, her land, her culture and integrity. The primary purpose of existence of the Committee is to promote multi-cultural, tolerant society, respecting human rights and the conventions of United Nations. It is not affiliated to any political party or any Governmental institution.