Responses to “Dashnaks and Hunchaks…”
on November 29, 2007 at 5:30 pm
1 Paul
Note by MvdG: Although certain remarks certainly crossed the line he’s not banned. Let this be a warning though: we’ll control this section very aggressively, not least because of some friendly e-mails I’ve received.
Oh my God now you’re getting your info from the author of TallArmenianTale. You’ve completed the transition from alleged objective third-party only slightly-biased observer to unabashed propagandist.
What kind of a fair third party objective person takes his research from an ANONYMOUS “scholar” who is a certified Turkish propagandist. Saying Dashnak and Hunchak bands were bad is one thing- only focusing on how evil they (on the Armenian side) were and not looking at this in a wider scope and only posting information coming from one side is another.
Even your alleged third-party quotes came directly from a book of Turkish propaganda in which I showed the quotes in most cases went through a Turkish translation before reaching their published form, were often of a misleading or out of context nature, and in some cases like the alleged quote of the patriarch advocating a revolution is completely undocumented. It merely just states that he said it and so that’s good enough for you.
If you want to keep posting these links, that’s your choice as it is your blog, but don’t ever try to portray yourself as a fair third-party commentator again or someone with such credentials to look at this dispute fairly because you have only continued to show your complete revulsion for anything Armenian. You can’t seem to bring yourself to even look at a single source which might portray Armenians or their side of the story in a neutral or even slightly positive light- anything which isn’t demonizing Armenians or discussing how evil so many facets of their history and nationality are isn’t good enough for you.
Also I think I’ve criticized both sides enough, to continue to dismiss whatever I say because you claim I am unable to criticize Armenians is a cheap cop out.
on November 29, 2007 at 5:54 pm
2 Michael van der Galiën
Paul: continue your ‘I’m reasonable and willing to listen to both sides’ campaign. You’ve already made clear that you won’t criticize your fellow Armenians, no matter what.
And, what? Are you arguing that the Dashnaks weren’t that bad? Or that they were but that I shouldn’t point that out? What?
Your ancestors / co-Armenians even admitted that they were terrorists.
Under the heading “means” in the programs of the Dashnaks (1882):
“The Armenian Revolutionary Federation, in order to achieve its purpose through rebellion, organizes revolutionary groups.”
Method number 8: “To wage fight, and subject to terrorism the government officials, the traders.”
Dr. Jean Loris Melikoff - founder of the party - wrote: “The truth is the party was ruled by an oligarchy, for whom the particular interests of the party came before the interests of the people and nation. They made collections among the bourgeois and the great merchants. At the end, when these means were exhausted, they resorted to terrorism, after the teachings of the Russian revolutionaries that the end justifies the means.”
As for your ‘reasons’: don’t get me started. Their reasons were that the Armenian minority - 20% in most places, but always under 33% - wanted to oppress the majority who who Muslims. It’s why they joined forces with the Russians and ethnically cleansed the lands, including what today is called “Armenia.” Before the Armenians and Russian cleansed the lands, the inhabitants were mostly Muslim.
Anatolia: you know, the part Armenians wanted to ‘liberate’? Liberate what Paul? Liberate who? The far majority were Muslim Turks.
And yes - these people were terrorists. Just as like with Osama Bin Laden saying “but some people think highly of them” doesn’t make them any less terroristic. What’s more, Armenians celebrate terrorists as their heroes, just as Sunni extremists do with Bin Laden.
These happy Armenians killed entire villages, exterminated them, burnt down mosques, then the Ottoman were forced to react and then the Armenian ‘revolutionaries’ said “they attacked us! Just like that!”
Even the Westerners in the Ottoman Empire back then and later didn’t fall for it. The Armenians continued their terrorist acts well during the first world war even.
Admiral Mark Bristol, commander of American forces in the OE wrote in his diary: “I know from reports of my own officers who served with General Dro that defenseless villages were bombarded and then occupied, and any inhabitants that had not run away were brutally killed, the village pillaged, and all the livestock confiscated, and then the village burned. This was carried out as a regular systematic gettig-rid of the Muslims.”
Bristol War Diary, 14 August 1922, US 867.000/1540
Or what about this one, by British Colonel Rawlinson: “I had received further very definite information of horror that had been committed by the Armenian soldiery in Kars Plain, and as I had been able to judge of their want of discipline by their treatment of my own detached parties, I had wired to Tiflis from Zivin that in the interests of humanity, the Armenians should not be left in independent command of the Moslem population, as their troops being without discipline, and not being under effective control, atrocities were constantly being committed for which we should, with justice, eventually be held to be morally responsible.
Armenian reasons, Paul? Ethnic cleansing and racial hatred. Those were the reasons.
They even continue this today, with their occupation of 20% of the lands of a neighboring country. The one million Muslims there have been forced to live in camps. Do you deny that? Of course not. You can’t. It’s all true.
And this terrorism continues to this very day. That’s the sad part. In the 1970s Armenian terrorists blew up the home of one professor, they threatened several others and tried to got them fired, they prosecuted Bernard Lewis because he disagreed with their distorted version of history, they threaten people who dare disagree with them.
Or how about this one (Mark Sykes, Gwynne Dyer: Turkish falsifiers and Armenian deceivers from Middle Eastern Studies, January 1976, p. 101)
“Never were a people so fully prepared for the hand of a tyrant; never were a people so easy to be preyed upon by revolutionary societies; never was there a people so difficult to lead or to reform. That these characteristics are the rest of Muslim oppression I do not for one moment believe.”
Or the report from British colonel saying that your fellow Armenians “massacred between 300,000 and 400,000 Kurdish Muslims in the Van and Bitlis districts”? Irrelevant as well Paul? (FO 371/6265/E23: Report by Colonel Stokes on the situation in Armenia)
A British foreign office report from 2-21-1918: “I am afraid that there is no doubt that the Armenians have been massacring. Colonel Pine has reported it to CITS, and it is only natural. Possible the less attention called to it the better.” (FO 371/3400/36460 A. J. Toynbee, Intelligence Bureau, Dept of Information 2-18-1918.
And one Captain Charles Norman in 1895: “the Hunchak committee was directly responsible for all the bloodshed in Anatolia for the past five years.”
O, and there’s so much more…
on November 29, 2007 at 6:36 pm
3 Paul
“You’ve already made clear that you won’t criticize your fellow Armenians, no matter what.”
I just called you out on this claim and you go and make it again.
“Your ancestors / co-Armenians even admitted that they were terrorists.”
Same goes for this kind of absurd claim. This kind of assault needs to stop. I already said before this kind of “you’re ancestors are killers” sentiment which comes from both sides is disgusting. No one who claims to want to do a justice to this issue should stoop to such lows of what is truly an ad hominem attack (I know the accusation that one is being made is thrown around a lot- but what can be a clearer example than YOUR GRANDPARENTS- yes YOURS- WERE MURDERERS.) This is childish to the extreme, as I often point out the vast majority of Turks and Armenians had nothing to do with the events of 1915 and were peaceful civilians.
Meanwhile stop commenting and recycling propaganda on topics on which you have otherwise 0 knowledge. The true mark of someone who should be discussing this period is a real KNOWLEDGE of the events, not relying on and recycling Turkish propaganda to back up what you say. Clear examples:
“Under the heading “means” in the programs of the Dashnaks (1882):”
I don’t know what this means “the programs of the Dashnaks” but the party was founded in 1890 so I don’t know how they were publishing things in 1882.
“Dr. Jean Loris Melikoff - founder of the party said…”
I have no idea who this alleged figure was but this seems to be Turks ascribing importance to an otherwise unrelated figure. The Loris-Melikov family was quite well-known in imperial Russia and were descended from Armenian nobility. Meanwhile though, if you had even small bit of knowledge of the Dashnak party you would know there were three founders of the party and NONE of them were named Loris-Melikoff. Beyond a bunch of Turkish propaganda sites, the only reference I can find to a Jean Loris-Melikoff is in a 1904 NYTimes article in which it describes him as a delegate to Theodore Roosevelt’s peace conference, presumably the one at Portsmouth.
I just don’t understand why everything for you is to vilify Armenian. Turkish propaganda does to Armenians, Armenian propaganda does it to Turks. There’s a reason I despise propaganda. For someone who claims to be a third-party observer above the fray, you seem more than in the thick of things and always with your trusty Turkish government supplied quotes at hand. Why can’t you break off and do something on your own, instead of just recycling Turkish propaganda works only to exclaim you’ve single-handedly debunked the entire Armenian myth. Meanwhile you don’t know a single thing about the many (usually inaccurate) quotes or the people who allegedly said them. You are completely incapable of being an actual historian or critiquer until you start doing some of your own independent research and attempt to verify your sources you’re nothing but a mouthpiece for Turkish propaganda.
on November 29, 2007 at 6:40 pm
4 Michael van der Galiën
Sure Paul, that’s it. I hate Christians. Good Lord man: why I criticize the Armenian nationalists? Because they committed the gravest crimes and then went out of their way to convince the world that the Turks suddenly turned against them and brutally murdered all of them.
The real story is that the Armenians rebelled and killed tens of thousands of innocent Muslim Turks because they wanted to create a nation-state of their own, which sadly meant that they had to cleanse the lands of Muslim Turks (who formed the majority). The Ottomans then deported them, out of self-defense.
That’s what happened, and the world should know it.
on November 29, 2007 at 7:02 pm
5 Paul
“Sure Paul, that’s it. I hate Christians.”
I said Armenians, why did you turn it into Christians?
“The real story is that the Armenians rebelled and killed tens of thousands of innocent Muslim Turks because they wanted to create a nation-state of their own, which sadly meant that they had to cleanse the lands of Muslim Turks (who formed the majority). The Ottomans then deported them, out of self-defense.”
My, that’s quite a simple way to package an extremely complicated period of time. The fact that you came to this conclusion based, in no small part and especially lately, on quotes provided to you by Turkish propaganda sources may or may not have something to do with that simplicity, but I digress.
It is a complicated time. I resent any Armenian who tries to portray all Armenians as innocent and resent anyone who tries to portray all Armenians as people who were treated royally by an excellent government and for no other reason but greed all decided to rebel at once because they were a bunch of evil fascists. Besides ignoring the fact that most Armenians were not revolutionary and peaceful citizens, I take special offense, as always, to this line:
“The Ottomans then deported them, out of self-defense.”
OK, I’ve asked this a million times but ONCE more.
If the problem was with revolutionaries, why did women, children, and the elderly all have to pay collectively. Are you suggesting that the women and children were all heavily armed and killing their neighbors- or that by merely being Armenian they got what they deserved with death in the desert. Not only were women and children not a threat, but why did their deportation (coincidentally?) have to be to the most inhospitable part of the empire? Was there no other place they could have been sent, the place without food or water just HAD to be chosen for ‘their safety’? And why were they not allowed to bring proper supplies, as if it was possible to properly supply yourself for months of walking around in circles in the desert.
Sorry Michael you aren’t getting off that easily. It is the question above that you continue to avoid answering and which puts a major wrench in your arguement. Even if Armenians were all a bunch of fascists, the above question is still outstanding and needs to be factored into your narrative of brutality.
on November 29, 2007 at 7:02 pm
6 Paul2
“Sure Paul, that’s it. I hate Christians.”
I said Armenians, why did you turn it into Christians?
“The real story is that the Armenians rebelled and killed tens of thousands of innocent Muslim Turks because they wanted to create a nation-state of their own, which sadly meant that they had to cleanse the lands of Muslim Turks (who formed the majority). The Ottomans then deported them, out of self-defense.”
My, that’s quite a simple way to package an extremely complicated period of time. The fact that you came to this conclusion based, in no small part and especially lately, on quotes provided to you by Turkish propaganda sources may or may not have something to do with that simplicity, but I digress.
It is a complicated time. I resent any Armenian who tries to portray all Armenians as innocent and resent anyone who tries to portray all Armenians as people who were treated royally by an excellent government and for no other reason but greed all decided to rebel at once because they were a bunch of evil fascists. Besides ignoring the fact that most Armenians were not revolutionary and peaceful citizens, I take special offense, as always, to this line:
“The Ottomans then deported them, out of self-defense.”
OK, I’ve asked this a million times but ONCE more.
If the problem was with revolutionaries, why did women, children, and the elderly all have to pay collectively. Are you suggesting that the women and children were all heavily armed and killing their neighbors- or that by merely being Armenian they got what they deserved with death in the desert. Not only were women and children not a threat, but why did their deportation (coincidentally?) have to be to the most inhospitable part of the empire? Was there no other place they could have been sent, the place without food or water just HAD to be chosen for ‘their safety’? And why were they not allowed to bring proper supplies, as if it was possible to properly supply yourself for months of walking around in circles in the desert.
Sorry Michael you aren’t getting off that easily. It is the question above that you continue to avoid answering and which puts a major wrench in your argument. Even if Armenians were all a bunch of fascists, the above question is still outstanding and needs to be factored into your narrative of brutality.
on November 29, 2007 at 8:53 pm
7 Michael van der Galiën
I’ve already answered that: they overreacted. On the other hand, they couldn’t know who did what and was going to do what. What’s more - they wanted to move the Armenians of Eastern Anatolia as a whole, because they couldn’t just pick out the ones directly responsible for the fighting: the idea was; we’ve got to move all of them. That way we won’t have problems, and they can live together.
This had been done more often in human history.
Let me say this: if I were in the Ottoman government back then, I may very well have decided to do exactly the same thing. The revolutionaries were hiding behind women and children, they couldn’t afford to send the army in and fight a guerrilla war, simply because they were attacked by the Russians. They had to do something, the most humane solution, in their opinion, was to deport all of them. Also because the Armenian Church - the leadership of the Armenians basically - called on Armenians to rebel. The Armenians people in Eastern Anatolia couldn’t be trusted any longer.
Did they overreact? Yes, but they were fighting for their survival. The Armenians, on the other hand, weren’t fighting for their survival, they were fighting to exterminate the Muslim population of Anatolia (which they refer to as their ‘homeland’ even though they’ve never been a majority there).
The Ottomans couldn’t afford to take the time to sort things out carefully - if they would’ve tried to do that, they would, most likely, have lost everything… and they knew it. That’s why they decided to choose the broad solution: deport all Armenians of Anatolia.
Was it tragic what happened to many of the deportees? Of course it was. But the Ottoman government couldn’t do more than she did. She ordered her army to protect the armenians, to feed them, to take care of them. Sadly, Turkish thugs and Kurdish bands went in and killed Armenian deportees. It’s well known that the Ottoman government found out about this quickly and tried to protect the Armenians. Sadly they were under attack at the time and fighting for their survival, partly because the Armenians rebelled against them and tried to cleanse the lands of all Muslims. This meant that they couldn’t do what they wanted to do.
As Professor Justin McCarthy says: the Ottoman government had to protect all of its citizens. Sadly, she failed in that regard. Not because she didn’t try, but because she couldn’t.
Tragic? Hell yes. Genocide? Hell no.
And then, yes, we’ve got to talk about what the Armenians did. I talk about the Armenians, in this regard, because it were the Armenian leaders - and the Church - who called on their fellow Armenians to rebel, to rape and to plunder. They committed treason and tried to oppress Muslim Turks.
What’s interesting about you and people like you, is that you only focus on what the Armenians went through and then say “genocide!” That while the Armenians were the ones who actually tried to commit some ethnic cleansing of their own (and succeeded in doing so to a degree). Of course, the Turks recovered and, under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, were able to prevent the Western powers from dividing Turkey between them and able to prevent the Armenians from creating their precious greater-Armenia. For Americans: Greater-Armenia remains the goal for many members of the Armenian diaspora today. Sadly, these lands they claim as their ‘ancient lands’ aren’t their ancient lands at all. The majority there has always been Muslim. That wasn’t a problem for the merry Armenian terrorists, though, they just decided to kill off the entire Muslim population or force them to move out.
What’s more, however, is that it’s interesting to see that someone like Paul tries to make it go back to the deportations of 1915 without taking responsibility for the fact that Armenians themselves committed massacres, mass murders, and tried to ethnically cleanse the land before, during, and after the deportations.
It’s interesting, in that regard, to take a closer look at the state of Armenia. It’s one of the most oppressive and least religiously tolerant countries in Europe.
This while Turkey is a secular democracy, for people of all faiths are welcome (yes, really!).
No, the Armenians have a bloody history. Armenia itself is created by mass murder, massacres and ethnic cleansing.
Those are the facts, and that’s what some people want us to talk about.
As for your ‘vilify Armenians’: just stop it. That’s one of those strategies. “You hate Armenians!” Sure I do, I’m a bigot ok?
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Question to you Paul (you won’t answer it but I can always try): is it or isn’t it true that many Armenians grow up hating the turks? That they’re taught to hate and despite them? This, while Turks don’t hate Armenians at all? True or not?
on November 29, 2007 at 9:42 pm
8 Michael van der Galiën
Paul, short response:
- there are some Turks who - undoubtedly - dislike Armenians. They’re so rare, however, that I can truly say I haven’t met one of them - and I’ve met a lot.
- there are many members of the Armenian diaspora (those who let their voices be heard anyway) who ‘dislike’ (as in “Dogs!” “Whores!” “They should all be killed”) Turks.
Hrant Dink is one example and the response of many Turks was: “we’re all Armenians now.”
I haven’t seen Armenians protest en masse when an opponent of them was murdered by their radical brethren.
on November 29, 2007 at 9:50 pm
9 Paul2
“I haven’t seen Armenians protest en masse when an opponent of them was murdered by their radical brethren.”
That’s because there’s no comparable figure in Armenia or the diaspora. Hrant Dink’s murder spoke to the entire Turkish people, he was a voice which went far beyond the issue of 1915. As Erdogan said, the gun of the murderer was aimed at the heart of the Turkish state. This is in no small reason why there was such an outpouring for him- he said what needed to be said in Turkey and was taken away in a move which clearly was a blow to the entire nation. It’s a complicated nation and a very special circumstance- trying to portray Armenians as somehow lesser beings for not doing something similar is absurd because there is no comparable situation.
on November 29, 2007 at 9:54 pm
10 Michael van der Galiën
And why did it hurt the heart of the nation?
Because Turkey wants to be a full-grown democracy.
And why don’t things like that hurt the Armenian diaspora and Armenia?
Because they don’t aim for anything like that.
And - stop pretending I’m saying ‘mean things’ about all Armenians. I’m not. I already said on several occasion that I’m talking about the vocal members of the Diaspora, who’ve made it their sole goal in life to force governments into declaring that what happened to Armenians constitutes genocide.
O, and those who passionately hate Turks.
O, and those who never condemn their fellow Armenians.
O, and - indeed - those who don’t speak out when Armenian nationalists threaten and kill political opponents.
O, and…
Yes, those people I criticize. Whether you feel insulted depends on whether you think you belong to any of the above or not.
on November 29, 2007 at 10:12 pm
11 Nihat
I’m sorry but I have to ask: what happened to a long comment by Paul? (It was #8 and the last one when I read it, and was gone when I refreshed the page). Hope it’s a technical glitch.
on November 29, 2007 at 10:16 pm
12 Michael van der Galiën
I have no idea Nihat. Your comment didn’t show for a while either.
on November 29, 2007 at 10:18 pm
13 Michael van der Galiën
Here’s Paul’s response: I found it in my inbox (i get e-mails with comments). I’ve got no idea what the hell’s happening right now.
“is it or isn’t it true that many Armenians grow up hating the turks? That they’re taught to hate and despite them? This, while Turks don’t hate Armenians at all? True or not?”
Yes many do not like Turks. This is most profound because our peoples have not had contact for 90 years and while Turks just mainly forgot about Armenians in general, Armenians were in exile and reminded by that very fact of how they got there. You continue to maintain that the deportations were completely vital- yet seem to discount the fact that sending them to the most deadly place of the entire empire was certainly aimed at eliminating the vast majority of them en masse. The argument that “they wanted to keep them all together” or whatever because they didn’t know who to trust so they ALL had to go to the desert (meaning the women and children) continues to operate on the notion that the women and children posed an imminent danger to the government, which is laughable. The men were taken care of first, taken outside of the villages and shot before the deportations. The deportation aspect only seems to have accomplished liquidating the lands of Anatolia of their entire Armenian
populations and thus solving the Armenian question for good, so to speak.
It was the descendants of these people who make up the diaspora today and all are keenly aware of what happened. You won’t believe this but there was almost no talk about the events within Armenian families- most of that generation refused to talk about it and many of the younger family members didn’t even know about it. It was not until a full 50 years later- as awareness of the more recent Holocaust increased- that these younger generations started asking questions and finding out more.
There have always and will always be hateful people in all groups. I am in no way saying no Armenians ever learned hate from their parents- but the Turkish propaganda notions that the survivors could do nothing but sit around and talk about what happened and how horrible it was to see their entire family die and instructing their kids to hate Turks forever is far off the mark. Most of this resentment came in the past few decades as frustration over the complete silence on the issue angered more and more people and the helplessness they felt over it got to them.
Meanwhile I had to laugh at your last comment: “This, while Turks don’t hate Armenians at all?”
If you believe that, you’re downright naive. There are hateful people in all groups- and I have a stack of death threats derived from my on-line comments to prove it. Not even talking about the genocide in all cases, but most recently I made some posts in Turkish at a group regarding one of my ancestral towns letting them know that my ancestral church is in disrepair. The small Armenian community left there made a request to the government just this year to use it again for worship and were rejected, the final nail in it’s coffin dooming it to destruction. I wanted to spread awareness, and while I did get quite a few sympathetic responses, I also got one which told me if I ever showed my face in that down he’d see to it that I got my head cut off. I’ve had others tell me they are looking forward to the day when their fellow Turks “carry out for real what Armenians accuse them of having done in the past”, etc. etc.
What have we learned from Hrant Dink’s story? That there are a lot of hateful people in Turkey and, hopefully, even more good ones. The same goes for Armenia. Your inability to perceive this is nothing but sorrowful.
on November 29, 2007 at 10:41 pm
14 Nihat
Thank you Michael. Hope the new PoliGazette won’t suffer from such mysteries.
One reason why I asked about the disappearance was that Paul makes important observations about ‘hate’ in that comment (re: how it’s a relatively recent phenomenon of younger generations with no real experience of one another, etc.). They are very credible and valuable observations. Though such is not new to me (I had prior conversations on the topic with Armenians), I wanted to acknowledge Paul’s contribution here.
on December 1, 2007 at 2:29 pm
15 KPLazlee
“As Erdogan said, the gun of the murderer was aimed at the heart of the Turkish state.”
You clearly have no idea what this means. What Erdogan was saying, and what everyone in Turkey understands is this: the murder of Dink is a potent weapon in the hands of the diaspora and will be used to promote their genocide claims and demands for land reparations from Turkey. And he was right, the diaspora, a large portion of which reviled Dink due to his calls to drop the genocide claims, has used his murder as a new rallying cry and to promote their genocide claims. Just look at recent ANCA press releases. It’s revolting.
The protests in Turkey in response to Dink’s murder were intended to show unity between Turks of all ethnicities with Turkish Armenians.
The Armenian diaspora, however, has used his death to promote and create an even larger divide between Turks and Armenians.
“This is in no small reason why there was such an outpouring for him- he said what needed to be said in Turkey and was taken away in a move which clearly was a blow to the entire nation.”
Wrong again. Most Turks vehemently disagreed with many things Dink said and wrote.
What they were protesting against was the promotion of hatred based on racism, something a very large portion of the Armenian diaspora excels at.
There are a very large number of different ethnic groups in Turkey. In that respect, the ethnic make-up of Turkey is more like the U.S. than just about any other nation. Turkish society, indeed the Republic itself, cannot flourish and be maintained if hatred based on ethnicity is allowed to flourish. Those protesters, while truly grieved by the death of an innocent man, were marching in protest to show their opposition to any form of nationalist movement based on “ethnic purity.”
“Armenians as somehow lesser beings for not doing something similar is absurd because there is no comparable situation.”
This is an absolutely absurd and ignorant statement. ASALA and other Armenian terrorist groups objectives were to murder innocent Turks. They murdered not only Turkish diplomats, but members of their families, including children. And, it is only when they began bombing airports and killing innocent nationals of other nations, that Europe began to object to their activities.
In response to Armenian terrorist activity, rather than voicing their objection to the terrorists in their midst, the Armenian diaspora collected money amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars to support efforts to defend those heinous murderers. They held masses and candle light vigils, not to mourn the innocent Turks murdered by their compatriots, but instead to show their support of Armenian terrorists.
Not only that, Armenians to this day continue to hold masses and ceremonies to remember Armenian terrorists who were killed while committing acts of terror.
Today, there are people in high levels of the ANCA and AAA Armenian organizations whose names are precisely the same as Armenians arrested for committing acts of terror during the period between 1973-1985.
You are absolutely correct in one respect. The response of the Turkish community cannot compare to that of the Armenian diaspora. Turks do not revere those involved in Dink’s murder as heroes, whereas the Armenian diaspora continues to celebrate Armenian terrorists as heroes.
You write like you are an American. Do you not realize your country is currently engaged in “the war on terror”? Do you realize that the first acts of terrorism in recent history that were committed in the U.S. were by Armenians celebrated as heroes in your churches and community today?
Yes, without a doubt, on a moral and human level, the response of the one community is at a much higher level than the other.
on December 1, 2007 at 2:59 pm
16 Michael van der Galiën
KPLazlee: and lets not forget that Armenia attacked Azerbaijan in 1992 (as it did right after the world war, after which it also attacked George) and killed and forced 1 million Muslim Azerbeijanis off their lands and out of their homes - ironic isn’t it?
It never ceases to amaze me how hypocritical Armenia, many members of the Armenian diaspora and lobby are. It’s utterly amazing. These people have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Muslims - at the very least - and have committed some serious ethnic cleansing (arguably the first massive ethnic cleansing of the 20th century) yet they pretend that it’s the other side who has done everything.
O man, the more I study this subject the more I wish that there would be an international effort to find out what exactly happened, which would then be shared with the world.
on December 1, 2007 at 10:32 pm
17 KPLazlee
Michael, it’s the Russians. Like the Wizard of Oz, if you pull back the curtain behind the diaspora today, you will see Putin. This issue has always been about power, oil and money.
If someone could dive into the Russian archives, we would know a lot more about these events. Someone needs to do it kick too because the Russians are turning away from the west, probably because they know Iraq is about to fall apart and they aren’t going to get a piece of it. It wouldn’t be surprising to see the iron curtain come crashing down after Iraq disintegrates, and at that point Armenia will become the Soviet Armenia of old, and sadly, we may see a revival of Russian sponsored terrorism from the diaspora at that point since that is how Russia traditionally deals with outsiders it wants to obtain control over.
on December 2, 2007 at 6:36 am
18 Paul
Uhh I don’t understand KPLazlee’s ideas or where they came from but they are unanimously bizarre.
Russia controls the diaspora? Do you know ANYTHING about Armenian diaspora history or are you just talking out of your…
Everyone thinks their an expert on the subject don’t they. Do you know anything about diaspora history though beyond “they are terrorists” and “they hate Turks”?
on December 2, 2007 at 11:26 am
19 Michael van der Galiën
Paul: umh. Yeah. You’re an active part of the Diaspora, and I think that KPLazlee - and myself for that matter - knows more about the Armenian Diaspora than you think. But don’t let that stop you from attacking people and never dealing with the substance.
on December 3, 2007 at 1:00 pm
20 KPLazlee
“Russia controls the diaspora? Do you know ANYTHING about Armenian diaspora history or are you just talking out of your…”
my hat, perhaps, you meant to say? Surely you wouldn’t say something rude, would you? After having criticized others of being impolite, you wouldn’t sink to that level yourself would you?
If you had any understanding of world history and politics, you wouldn’t make such foolish statements. The diaspora is one of several pawns used by Russia in an effort to destabilize countries in the middle east in its never ending quest to control access to natural resources (hint: OIL).
Source: The Van Der Galiën Gazette
November 29, 2007
