2341) Armenian Hacks & Propagandists By Michael Van Der Galien

Some Armenian propagandists and their Western puppets thought they could discredit scholar Michael Gunter who reviewed a work of Guenter Lewy. Both are enemies of Armenians because they believe that what happened to the Armenians was not genocide and that the Armenians themselves were guilty of horrible crimes for which they still have to take responsibility. The reaction to those horrible views? Try to smear the scholars involved!

You can read the attempts here. Sadly for the Armenian nationalists and their puppets Michael Gunter is not someone who shuts up when faced with criticism. Instead he fights back. You can read his reply to the smears of Keith David Watenpaugh (Western puppet) and Joseph A. Kechichian (just look at the name) at the same link.

---

Excerpts:
neither Guenter Lewy nor I deny the terrible suffering imposed upon the Armenians. Any objective reading of Lewy’s book and my review will make this obvious. What we do not agree with is the interpretation many Armenians and others make that what befell Armenians constituted premeditated genocide as defined by Armenians and their many supporters. My two critics notwithstanding, Lewy and I are not alone in this contention. Indeed, Edward J. Erickson’s review of Lewy’s book in the Middle East Journal 60 (Spring 2006) finds much to praise about it and concludes, “I highly recommend this book to anyone who is interested in the question of what really happened to the Ottoman Armenians in 1915? (p. 379). Writing in the prestigious Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on 23 March 2006, the distinguished German scholar of comparative genocide, Eberhard Jackel, also praised Lewy’s book. A number of years ago IJMES also published a heated exchange between Richard G. Hovannisian and the late Stanford J. Shaw, “Forum: The Armenian Question” (IJMES 9 [1978], 379–400). Such distinguished scholars of Ottoman history as Bernard Lewis, Roderic Davison, J. C. Hurewitz, and Andrew Mango, among others, have all rejected the appropriateness of the genocide label for what occurred. I guess this makes these other major scholars and publications also guilty of “fraud” and other related sins by daring to publish such thoughts!

Joseph Kéchichian furthermore incorrectly opines that “Gunter, the reviewer, occupies a central place in the massive campaign—ardently promoted by successive Turkish governments—to deny the Armenian genocide … even though he has not produced a single work with a focus on this subject.” As anyone who knows my work on the Kurdish and Armenian questions realizes, I often have taken critical stands against the Turkish government. (Maybe the Turkish government has hired me to throw its critics off the scent!) In contrast, Joseph Kéchichian and Keith Watenpaugh clearly are spokespersons for the longtime, massive Armenian campaign to trash any scholars who dare to disagree with their own particular version of history. Indeed, in France, Armenians have even succeeded in making it a crime to criticize them. In 1995 the highly respected scholar of Turkish studies Bernard Lewis was actually fined for questioning the Armenian version of history. Despite their pious denials, it is clear that my two critics would like to extend the French system to the United States.

As for Kéchichian’s erroneous assertion that I never “produced a single work with a focus on this subject,” I would like to call to his attention a lengthy article I wrote (in an Armenian journal no less) on “The Historical Origins of the Armenian–Turkish Enmity” in a special issue on “Genocide and Human Rights” (Journal of Armenian Studies IV, nos. 1–2 [1992], 257–88). A shorter, slightly different version appeared as “The Historical Origins of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism” (Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies 9 [Fall 1985], 77–96). He might also note my short piece, “Why Do the Turks Deny They Committed Genocide against the Armenians?” published in the leading German journal on Middle East politics and economics (Orient 30 [September 1989], 490–93).

Moreover, my being asked over the years to write five separate reviews in the two leading journals on Middle Eastern studies in the United States has further recognized my objectivity on this subject. In IJMES I reviewed (1) Merill D. Peterson, “Starving Armenians”: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915–1930 and After (May 2005) and (2) Richard Hovannisian, ed., The Armenian Genocide in Perspective and Akaby Nassibian, Britain and the Armenian Question 1915–1923 (August 1989). In the Middle East Journal I reviewed (3) Vahakn N. Dadrian, German Responsibility in the Armenian Genocide (Autumn 1998), (4) Jacques Derogy, Resistance and Revenge: The Armenian Assassination of the Turkish Leaders Responsible for the 1915 Massacres and Deportations and Ephraim K. Jernazian, Judgment unto Truth: Witnessing the Armenian Genocide (Spring 1991), and (5) Kamuran Gurun, The Armenian File: The Myth of Innocence Exposed (Winter 1987).

Furthermore, my book “Pursuing the Just Cause of Their People”: A Study of Contemporary Armenian Terrorism (1986) opened with an entire chapter comparing differing Armenian and Turkish positions on what happened in 1915. It received some of the following positive reviews. “This is in every respect a splendid book, which every university library and individual interested in the contemporary Middle East ought to purchase” (Middle East Studies Bulletin 21 [December 1987]). “Professor Michael Gunter’s study of contemporary Armenian terrorism is … carefully chronicled, and there is much material which helps to explain subsequent developments. … Well documented. … Gunter has made a notable contribution” (Middle Eastern Studies 25 [October 1989]). “The book is an important one for anyone requiring a systematic account of a terrorist movement that began attacking Turkish officials and offices” (Christian Science Monitor, 10 March 1987). Illustrating the egregiously shocking way he interprets facts, however, Joseph Kéchichian pontificates that my book deals with “alleged Armenian ‘terrorism.’” Alleged? If this is how Kéchichian views recent Armenian terrorism, how can one trust his version of earlier events?

Finally surfeiting themselves with their badly conceived ad hominem attacks on my academic ethics and qualifications, these two Armenian gentlemen next turn their self-righteous diatribes against the accuracy of Lewy’s book. Although they make some valid points regarding the Armenian massacres that neither Lewy nor I deny, the two also commit several blunders and possibly outright falsifications in their haste to preach to the choir. For example, they maintain “that a host of Turkish historians” are now agreeing with the Armenian version of history. Kéchichian manages, however, to name only five. Although their position provides food for thought, it hardly amounts to a mass conversion of Turkish scholars to the Armenian line. Indeed, the claim by one of the five (Taner Akçam) that Kemal Ataturk accepted the Armenian version of history is simply not true. Rather, Ataturk criticized the incompetence of the Ottoman government for not alleviating the sufferings of both Armenians and ethnic Turks

As is usual with the Armenian puppets and propagandists they also argue that some scholars cannot be taken seriously because they have to hire translators (some cannot read Ottoman themselves). Strangely however, that does not seem to be a problem when the scholars agree with their version of history.

---

Comments
1
Armenian
February 11, 2008
Michael,

I wonder why do you have so much hatred and hostility against Armenians?

There should be a reason for that.

2
Babanian
February 11, 2008
I find it strange that you have dug up an old story and not reporting on the main story of today:
MEP warns Turkey time running out

A senior Euro MP has said that the EU is losing patience with Turkey over its promise to change its controversial law restricting freedom of speech.

Two days after Ankara relaxed the law banning Islamic headscarves in universities, Mr Lagendijk said he feared a public outcry over the decision would be used by the government as an argument against pushing through further reform.

"They’ve opened a Pandora’s box and nobody is quite sure where it will end," he said.

and Ethnic Armenian journalist’s murder trial continues in Turkey

Speaking outside the court, European Parliamentarian Joost Lagendijk said it was imperative that the Turkish government act on its promises to amend Article 301 of the criminal code, the same code that Dink had been found guilty of "insulting Turkishness".

"We don’t want any more statements from the government about changing 301. We want them to change it," Lagendijk said.

3
Babanian
February 11, 2008
I find it strange that you have dug up an old story and not reporting on the main story of today:

MEP warns Turkey time running out

A senior Euro MP has said that the EU is losing patience with Turkey over its promise to change its controversial law restricting freedom of speech.

Two days after Ankara relaxed the law banning Islamic headscarves in universities, Mr Lagendijk said he feared a public outcry over the decision would be used by the government as an argument against pushing through further reform.

"They’ve opened a Pandora’s box and nobody is quite sure where it will end," he said.

and

Ethnic Armenian journalist’s murder trial continues in Turkey

Speaking outside the court, European Parliamentarian Joost Lagendijk said it was imperative that the Turkish government act on its promises to amend Article 301 of the criminal code, the same code that Dink had been found guilty of "insulting Turkishness".

"We don’t want any more statements from the government about changing 301. We want them to change it," Lagendijk said.

4
Babanian
February 12, 2008
More relevant news!

Today Third Hearing in Dink Murder Case

The first time in Turkey that a hearing is recorded!

5
Lazlee
February 12, 2008
This only happened within the last six months, so not so old.

Besides, Armenians are so insanely obsessed with Turkey’s accession to the EU that there are more news stories about it in Armenian sites and so-called "news" sources, that adding to it would be superfluous.

Whereas, there’s a dearth of reporting on the dirty deeds pulled by Armenians on academicians. So it’s quite appropo.

Perhaps we should also discuss how Dadrian was dismissed from his academic post for sexual harassment, make that, repeated sexual harassment, of his young female students…

6
R
February 12, 2008
Fortunately some young Turks are adopting a fresh approach to the issue:

feistyturkishgirl.wordpress.com/2008/02/06/the-armenian-genocide-the-truth

7
P. Connolly
February 12, 2008
What we’re seeing here from these two individuals attacking Lewy’s book is the same tactics we see repeatedly coming from the Armenian Sides of the debate: 1. Relentless personal attacks on the opponent - Michael Gunter in this case.
2. Attack non-Turkish authors on the grounds of their being non-native Turkish speakers. Attack Turkish authors as Turkish "deniers".
3. Overwhelm the reader with "facts" which quickly fall apart under careful scrutiny (which most readers don’t do) such as the reference to the testimony of General Vehib - for which critical documentation is missing.This from the people who tell us they want to save the world from future genocides !!

8
xenu
February 12, 2008
Wow, isn’t this just the feeling good blog title of the year? Next thing you know you’ll be comparing Armenians to rodents as Murad Guman / Holdwater did.

The way I see it, there are dishonest hacks on every side of every issue. Why dedicated reims of Internet space to those of a certain nationality. This type of singling out based on nationality makes you look just about as bad as the allegedly Turk-hating Armenian hacks you single out.

9
A. A. B.
February 12, 2008
I’d like to suggest a two-point-solution:

1) Freedom of speech for all positions, theses etc. of that topic (respectfully uttered, not racial slurs) worldwide.

2) Staten authorities such as governments and parliaments and the Turkish military stop holding "official positions" on that topic and leave the matter to historians.

10
LeaveItToTheHistorians?
February 12, 2008
The problem with the notion of leave it to the historians is that both sides have their pet historians, so to speak. The Armenian thesis is supported by the vast majority of historians and endorsed by the Association of Genocide Scholars. Turks point out in response that many of those scholars are not Ottomanists who instead study genocides at large and don’t focus in on specifics like the late Ottoman era. Turks claim that these historians merely adopt the "popular" position by default since they aren’t experts in it. Armenians retort meanwhile that the lists of ‘world class’ scholars Turks often produce with names like Michael Gunter and J.C. Hurwitz who frankly are hardly well-known names in the scholarly world. It’s also worth mentioning that many of the more well-known proponents of the Turkish thesis (Lewis, Shaw) are Jewish and the uniqueness of the Holocaust as genocide is envoked more times than I think we should be comfortable with as the main reason 1915 was not genocide. In fact, Gunter Lewy’s entire work is based on the thesis that the Holocaust is a unique event and therefore 1915 cannot be one and from there proceeds to investigate why that must be. Turkish lists are also populated with (who else) but Turkish scholars as well (and adopted-Turks like Norman Stone who has been known to make virulent and sometimes downright bizarre anti-Armenian comments- he recently esoterically described Armenia as the "Paraguay of the 20th century." For those who don’t realize what that means, which should be all of you, that is intended to be negative but also horrendously inaccurate). They claim these scholars should know best- totally ignoring the obvious conflict of interests, and also ignores the small but growing group of Turkish scholars and regular citizens who do recognize 1915 as genocide (yes there are more than just Taner Akcam), what does that make them?

In conclusion there really is no "perfect historian" and just about all of them come with some tainted baggage. The fallacy of the "let the historians decide" mantra heard eminating from one side seems to suggest that after 90 years there hasn’t been enough time to figure out what it was and we should leave this decision up to historians. It naively ignores the fact that the historians HAVE decided, and there are two clear camps- the large one who support 1915 as genocide and the small who which does not (as there are multiple ways to interpret just about every historical event- just ask any history major. "Let the historians decide" seems to suggest that at some point one side in this extremely entrenched debate will suddenly just come to realize they’ve been wrong all along and that the other is right and the debate will be over. Anyway whose waiting around for this better not hold their breath. Meanwhile I have often seen the Turkish side continue from Let the historians side the notion that "the historians have decided" and precede to list the same rehashed litany of 10 or so names of anyone who has ever made a statement questioning 1915. This a historical consensus does not make.

I also don’t think this means governments should decide, but this issue has been politicized since at least the late 1930s when the Turkish government created an international incident over MGM’s attempt to make a movie on the 40 Days of Musa Dagh. Since then the Turkish government has intervened against the Armenian side politically via governments at a time when no Armenian government even existed. I don’t think two wrongs make a right, but certainly the Armenians have just as much a right to defend themselves in the political realm via their lobby (only organized in the 1970s and has slowly built itself up to the powerhouse taken for granted as something which just naturally came to them by the Turkish side today) as Turkey does to use its diplomatic force to intervene with other governments.

11
A. A. B.
February 12, 2008
If politics ceases to be involved, historians would be less puppetted as well, and the better evidence would convince.

Now lobbying exists, but I do not think the governments doing this or even taking official positions helps solving this issue. Banning statements of opinion doesn’t help anything either. On the contrary: Turks feel "attacked" and thus unite instead of actually discussing the happenings. Politization must come to an end now so that people can start thinking about the victims and their stories, rather than about the "honor" of their country.

I would also hope for more objective study about the Turkish civilians who died in WWI in Eastern Anatolia. Turkish nationalists often cite this, frequently linked to claims that Armenians would have massacred Turks.

If any of the readers here can recommend me something from historians not considered "pro-Turkish" about these happenings, I would appreciate that.

12
P. Connolly
February 13, 2008
Response to #10 above: Certainly it’s true that different historians have different perspectives. I wouldn’t call it "tainted baggage" but that’s really just semantics. What matters is that each has his/her own perspective and we can agree 100% on that - that’s what historiography is all about.

Fortunately, however, civilized societies have developed an answer to the problem of how to identify and punish perpetrators of crimes that have occurred in the past - even long ago in the past. This solution is called a "court". Different cultures have different variations of the court but in general, a party or parties bring a complaint before the court against another party or parties. The complainant (or "plaintiff") is required to bring proof before the court so as to establish that the perpetrator actually did commit the crime that he or she is accused of. Rules of Evidence are (or should be) strictly enforced by the court so as to prevent the introduction of fraudulent "evidence". Furthermore, the defendant is allowed to defend himself against the charges if he claims to be innocent of them. However in defending himself, he is bound by the same rules of evidence and the court normally blocks him from introducing evidence which might be fraudulent, incomplete or uncertain. Note however that historians are not normally a part of this process; instead "rules of evidence" are used to establish whether or not a charge is true.

A recent innovation in the 20th century is the concept of self-proclaimed genocide "scholars". It is unfortunate that this movement is peppered with flakes and charlatans who would have us believe that there’s no need -in some cases- for all those "rules of evidence" that courts require and that only their "scholarship" is needed to establish the "truth". According to this scheme, the "scholars" simply decide on the guilt or innocence and then the legislators of the country are pressured to pass laws condemning the perpetrators based on the findings of the "scholars". And of course, there are other examples of people who circumvent the judicial system. Sometimes they attempt to take the law into their own hands or to simply act out their own hatreds on whatever target they see as closest to the object of their vengeance. One example that comes to mind is the brutal murders of innocent Turkish Civil Servants in the two decades from the mid seventies to the mid nineties by the ASALA ("Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia") and similar Armenian Terrorists. Needless to say, such conduct causes disturbance and disruption in civilized societies and is bound to cause injustices and disorder.

13
John Rohan
February 13, 2008
I get the feeling that this blog has "jumped the shark". To say that MVDG cannot be objective on this issue is putting it mildly - why I don’t hear the same amount of criticism aimed at Turkey for shooting the messenger and attempting to stifle debate?

14
P. Connolly
February 13, 2008
Response to #13: Yeah sure! "objective" according to the Armenian definition means going along with their lying propaganda! And anyone who doesn’t is a "denier". Oh! and use plenty of relentless personal attacks to avoid real discussion of the issues. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion or do you just want to attack the Turkish side in the name of "objectivity" ?

15
Paul
February 14, 2008
Lol Mr. Rohan. I think the jumping the shark moment was MVDG and the other admins’ unabashed support of an unsubstantiated claim by the "Association Against Armenian Lies’ or something who claimed to find a mass grave of 20,000 skeletons. Even though the grave hasn’t even been fully excavated they already know the exact number of bodies and even more that they were "Turks killed by Armenians and Cossacks". Absolutely no evidence was given, but it was more than enough the people here needed to herald this as further proof of the Armenian Genocide of Turks. I’m sorry but this kind of blind devotion is just as bad if not worse than the most radical Armenians and an utter deserve to any kind of intellectual debate. No creditability here.

16 Babanian
February 15, 2008
P. Connolly,
Just to clarify one point.

One example that comes to mind is the brutal murders of innocent Turkish Civil Servants in the two decades from the mid seventies to the mid nineties by the ASALA ("Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia") and similar Armenian Terrorists.

The terrorist activities of ASALA stopped in mid eighties not nineties. You must also give credit to who stopped ASALA, see below.

"It was not the right wing militant and mafia boss Çatli or mafia boss Çakici that finished off the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia (ASALA). They are bragging in vain. It was the raid of Paris’s Orly Airport in 1983 that finished the ASALA off. Feeling ill at ease by the raid, the French and U.S. Armenians who used to support ASALA monetarily stopped the aid and the issue was closed."Thanks to Nuri Gündes
#

17 lazlee
February 15, 2008
"Association Against Armenian Lies’ or something who claimed to find a mass grave of 20,000 skeletons…even been fully excavated they already know the exact number of bodies"

Isn’t it odd how Armenian ultranationalist promoting genocide claims insist the skeletons of Armenians are "all over southeastern Anatolia." Yet, when a mass grave is uncovered, the government of Armenia doesn’t make a sound, does not request to be present (despite the invitation from Turkey’s PM to participate in a joint effort to investigate these disputed events), sends no archaeologists, no scientists, no observers, no nothing.

Just lots of nothing EXCEPT for bold brash statements that imply or argue the mass grave cannot contain the body of Ottoman Muslims massacred by Armenian insurgents during WWI.

Not only do they dispute the ethnic origin of the bones, they even dispute the existence of the mass graves (that they will tomorrow, or when people forget about this particular news story, again insist exist throughout southeastern Anatolia).

Oh yes, and genocide claimers to know the precise number of Armenians that were allegedly murdered in this "genocide" of theirs (as opposed to the number of Armenians that died due to rampant epidemics of disease, and starvation that resulted from the destruction of agriculture and the lack of food due to the Entente Powers’ blockade of trade with the Ottomans during WWI). Do they know this precise number because they don’t participate in such excavations?

Just more of the same ducking and weaking, smoke and mirrors, double talk, derogatory comments, disdain and contempt for the loss of others that we know we can come to expect from those who so self-servingly promoting genocide claims. No big surprise here.
#

18 lazlee
February 15, 2008
"why I don’t hear the same amount of criticism aimed at Turkey for shooting the messenger and attempting to stifle debate?"

Stifle debate? How?

By inviting Armenia to engage in a joint effort to investigate the events of WWI?

By opening its archives while Armenia conceals its archives and those of the Dashnak insurgents who were fighting behind the lines against the Ottoman Empire during WWI?

By calling upon third party countries to open their archives and allow access to documents they have related to these events?

By insisting that Turkey is willing to account for its history, but only after a complete investigation of all the facts by a group of experts in various fields?

Let’s see:

Armenia refuses to respond to Turkey’s invitation to a full investigation of the facts.

Armenia continues to conceal its archives.

Armenian ultranationalists promoting genocide claims shout down anyone who dares to challenge their hypothesis, dehumanizes them by calling them liars, denialists, etc.

Armenian ultranationalists harass, defame and slander any historian of academic merit that concludes no genocide occurred, going so far as to also harass those who publish their works (i.e., freedom of speech is only for Armenians!).

Sounds like Armenians are the only ones stifling informed scholarly, academic and informed debate about this issue.

19 P. Connolly
February 16, 2008
Response to #16 above:First of all, thanks for submitting the information - however two points:
1. My original statement was "…by the ASALA and similar Armenian Terrorists". The murders did indeed continue through the mid 90’s though later ones were carried out not by the ASALA but by other Armenian Terrorists.
2. Doesn’t it give you as an Armenian some pause to know that U.S. Armenians supported these brutal murders first monetarily but later morally/ideologically ?

20
aylin ata
February 16, 2008
Armenia’s attitude towards Turkey’s land integrity: Article 11 of the Armenian Declaration of Independence of August 23, 1990; refers to Eastern Anatolia of Turkey as Western Armenia and as such beholds that this area is part of Armenia. Since the Armenian constitution recognizes as a basis “the fundamental principles of the Armenian statehood and national aspirations engraved in the Declaration of Independence of Armenia”, it likewise accepts the characterization of Eastern Anatolia as Western Armenia and this, albeit indirectly, translates into the advancement of territorial claims. The Armenian politicians and school books call Eastern Anatolia of Turkey, ‘invaded mother land of Armenia’ and in Armenia the school children are being grown up being conditioned to be patriots to rescue their invaded land. Even the marches they sing are about this condition. The Armenians who write comments in blogs like this one, mention that the Eastern Anatolia cities do not belong to Turkey, as if the present Eastern boundaries of Turkey was not determined by Treaties of Gumru (1920), Moscow (1921) and the whole boundaries by Lausanne (1923) Treaties; after the Turkish Freedom War.

Additionally Armenia refused Turkey’s recurrent offers to commit an agreement declaring that each country recognizes the other country’s land integrity, in 1992 and later. Why do the Armenians force Turkey to accept a genocide? The answer is hidden in a speech of the chief of Dashnak Party Hrant Markaryan who told that their efforts for the recognition of Armenian (so-called) genocide was not an isolated purpose but it was a part of the struggle for rescue of the Western Armenia (Armenian Forum Vol2 No 4; Armenian Weekly On-line, 18 June, 4 July 2003). The Armenian then prime minister Andranik Markaryan told that the internationally recognition of (so called) Armenian genocide and demanding land from Ankara as ‘compensation’ was possible only after Armenia had strengthened and the Armenians should not have told that they demanded land from Ankara loudly and everywhere (Arminfo 26 May 2004). On one occasion President Kocharian stated that since today’s Armenia does not have the clout to advance such demands, doing so should be left to future generations at a time when conditions would hopefully be better suited to this end’. The world should not forget that Germany’s claim on Zudetland and Gdansk just because they were its historical lands caused burst of World War II! History is full of wars which broke up because of claims of states on their historical lands. If an item like the aforementioned Armenian item were present in the law book of Mexico claiming that Texas, Arizona, New Mexico and California which were historical lands of Mexico, belonged to Mexico but invaded, would the American tolerate it? Therefore the world, should not overlook Armenia’s aggressiveness, which is hidden behind their role of victim and should think about the price of their support to the Armenians very well.

21
mustafa
February 16, 2008
The documents the Armenians present to prove that genocide occurred consists of many forgeries. For example: 1) The number of Armenians who were relocated:The number of the Armenians who were relocated was reported as 600-700 thousand by Boğos Nubar Pasha who attended to the talks of Sevres Treaty as a chief of Armenians. However the number of relocated Armenians is given as 1.5 million by some Armenian sources and 2 and even 2.5 million by some others. However, the total number of Ottoman Armenians including those who live in the West Anatolia (therefore who were not relocated) was reported as 1.5 million in Encyclopedia Britannica’s 1910 edition which was edited by an English editor. Surprisingly, the total number of Ottoman Armenians was increased to 2.5 million in 1953 edition of the same encyclopedia which was edited by an Armenian editor . 2) Aram Andonian’s book (The telegrams which were claimed to have been sent by Talat Pasha to order the massacre of the Armenians which were pressed in the book of Aram Andonian in 1920, in three languages): It was proven by both the Turkish and foreign historians that these telegrams were fake too.After these telegrams were published in Daily Telegraph in England, in 1922, the English Foreign Ministry made a scrutiny and denounced that they were prepared by an Armenian association. 3) Diary of American Ambassador Morgenthau published in 1918. Professor Heath Lowry, an American historian from Princeton University displayed that the events depicted in the book depended on lies or half true events, by comparing the information Ambassador Morgenthau sent to American Foreign Ministry, with those written in the diary, in his book entitled ‘The Story Behind Ambassador Morgenthau’s Story’, in 1990 .4) The cover photograph of the book of Tessa Hoffmann: Tessa Hoffmann printed the painting of Russian artist Vasili Vereshchagin depicting a mass of skulls which was painted in 1871, as if it were the photograph of 1915 Armenian genocide, in the cover of his book and had to admit his forgery during the trial of Doğu Perinçek held in Switzerland in March 2007, in which he was listened as a witness.

22
Babanian
February 16, 2008
2) Aram Andonian’s book (The telegrams which were claimed to have been sent by Talat Pasha to order the massacre of the Armenians which were pressed in the book of Aram Andonian in 1920, in three languages): It was proven by both the Turkish and foreign historians that these telegrams were fake too.


Is A Long Overdue Controversy Finally Settled: Aram Andonian’s Infamous Naim Bey’s Real Identity Is Now Considered Revealed

23
lazlee
February 17, 2008
Oh my gosh, an Armenian blog writer has solved the "mystery" and now knows someone named Naim Bey lived somewhere in southeastern Anatolia a hundred years ago.

Wow, that’s about as earth shattering as saying someone named William lived somewhere in Texas a hundred years ago.

That has nothing to do with the integrity of the documents, which, among other things, are MISDATED… big mistake.

24
zekiye
February 17, 2008
First it must be mentioned that ASALA was not the only terrorist organization founded by the Armenians. The others were JCAG (Justice Commandos for Armenian Genocide) and ARA (Armenian Revolutionary Army) which were responsible of dozens of murders and hundreds of terrorist activities including 208 bombing. Because of these Armenian terrorist organizations’ activities, 70 people died (39 of whom being innocent Turkish diplomats); 524 wounded; 105 were pledged during 1975-1986.And as a second point, the claim of the Armenians about that they did not approve violence and terrorist organizations like ASALA is not correct. Note the following events: When Armenian Yanıkyan murdered the Turkish diplomats Mehmet Baydar ile Bahadır Demir in Santa Barbara, California and surrendered the police (and inspired the formation of ASALA afterwards) within a short time, the Armenian Americans gathered around the district and SALUTED the murderer!!The Armenian criminal of Orly Airport massacre, Karapetyan, a member of ASALA, who was imprisoned for 18 years and set free at the 18th year, returned to Armenia in May 2001, he was welcomed by the then Armenian prime minister A.Margaryan, the Armenian people and journalists who applauded him with affection as if he were a hero. A. Margaryan told that he appreciated this hero’s service for his country. Armenian Yerevan municipality provided work and house for the murderer! Mourad Topalian, ex-leader of Armenian National Committee of America was sentenced to 36 months in prison for his complicity in bombing the Turkish mission at the United Nations. In spite of this, he was not labeled a terrorist by Armenian Americans. Here are other examples showing that the Armenians have adopted the language of violence as a life style: The Armenians committed sabotage upon the house of historian Stanford J Show just because he declared that ‘Armenian genocide did not occur’.Turkish historians, Turkish prime minister and Turkish Assembly several times suggested Armenia to discuss these events together with historians from both sides and even historians from other countries. Armenia persistently refused. Turkey is ready to face with its history but Armenia is not. By making the parliaments pressure to pass genocide resolutions, Armenia aims to bypass historical and scientific realities and wants to escape from facing with its own history and its own faults. Therefore, people and countries who support Armenia in its policy, foster and approve violence which had become Armenian national language, instead of supporting dialogue and peace for other countries.

25
zekiye
February 17, 2008
But, when Hrant Dink was murdered, all the Turkish people, president, all members of government, deputies, all bureaucrats from all levels, journalists sincerely mourned and condemned the murderer. Millions of Turkish citizens gathered in his funeral ceremony and shouted as ‘we are all Armenian’ with tears. Including the annual Press Freedom Award of Turkish Journalist Association, Hrant Dink was awarded with many prizes, after his death. Additionally, 60 000 illegal Armenian immigrant workers who are Armenian citizens are working throughout Turkey, at present. If Turkey and Turks also adopted the language of violence, how could these Armenians go on working in this country?

26
P. Connolly
February 17, 2008
And so I repeat the question I asked above of Mr Babanian:"Doesn’t it give you as an Armenian some pause to know that U.S. Armenians supported these brutal murders first monetarily but later morally/ideologically ?"

27
Babanian
February 17, 2008
P.Connolly,

“2. Doesn’t it give you as an Armenian some pause to know that U.S. Armenians supported these brutal murders first monetarily but later morally/ideologically ?”

Monetarily supported, yes some did. But if they were morally/ideologically motivated they would not have stopped.

28
P. Connolly
February 17, 2008
Babanian,

"Monetarily supported, yes some did. But if they were morally/ideologically motivated they would not have stopped."

Are you saying that it was not morally reprehensible for the Diaspora Armenians to have morally/ideologically supported these terrorists’ actions since the terrorists would have gone ahead and done the very same actions regardless of whether they had the moral support of the Diaspora Armenians?

29
lazlee
February 17, 2008
"Mourad Topalian, ex-leader of Armenian National Committee of America was sentenced to 36 months in prison for his complicity in bombing the Turkish mission at the United Nations. In spite of this, he was not labeled a terrorist by Armenian Americans."

Better yet, this particular terrorist ( Murad Topalian ) was lobbying on behalf of H.R. 106 –meeting with U.S. Congressional Representatives while the U.S. is in the middle of fighting war on terror.

How utterly ironic … Americans should be outraged and representatives to Congress who met with this convicted terrorist publicly censured.

30
P. Connolly
February 17, 2008
Yes, the answer is clear… Mr. Babanian is saying that those Armenian Terrorists would have gone ahead and committed their brutal murders whether or not the Diaspora Armenians had supported them. As Laslee points out that’s an answer that’s significant -not only for Americans but for citizens of the "26 countries" (Europe mostly) so often mentioned by Armenians as having passed legislation labeling the 1915 events as "genocide". Do Americans and Europeans want their legislators to be beholden to constituencies with such clear ties to terrorism ? After 2001, gone are the days when the West looked at terrorism as isolated acts committed by crazed terrorists. Today we know that like mosquitoes from a swamp, a terrorist’s ideological support network cannot be held blameless.


31 Babanian
February 18, 2008
P. Connolly,

"Are you saying that it was not morally reprehensible for the Diaspora Armenians to have morally/ideologically supported these terrorists’ actions since the terrorists would have gone ahead and done the very same actions regardless of whether they had the moral support of the Diaspora Armenians?"

No one said what you are saying. You are just arguing with yourself. Your intent is so obvious. You are hanging by the threads of your imagination. Happy arguing. You are not worth responding to.


32 P. Connolly
February 18, 2008
Babanian’s answer is clearly evasive. As we have stated here often before, evasiveness and deceitfulness are typical tactics of the Armenians agitators. They are unwilling to face the reality of their complicity with these Terrorists. They deceive themselves but the rest of us are not so easily deceived.

33
Babanian
February 20, 2008
Figure out this!

Turkey Should Recognize The Assyrian Genocide 1915

http://nl.youtube.com/watch?v=7IdqdQQ0cKI

34
Babanian
February 21, 2008
In their haste to become Turkey’s denial apologists, the denial historians Lewy, Lewis, Mc Carthy, Stone, Hurewitz, Davison, Mango, invented a history which does not match with reality. But the chickens are coming home to roost. Now they have to reinvent another one to cover the Assyrian Genocide 1915. What a sham!


35
akasya
February 22, 2008
The Armenians are sure that these events were Armenian genocide and claim that Turkey does not want to face with her history and so she does not scrap article 301 which restricts freedom of speech. However, Turkish articles obviously do not have any power of sanction on Armenians. Then what is the reason of Armenians’ insistent refusal of Turkey’s suggestions to discuss these events together with historians from both sides? For example: *In 2004, the Viennese Armenian-Turkish Platform (VAT) was founded to exchange documents about the 1915 events by Austrian, Turkish and Armenian historians. After receiving 100 Turkish documents, the Armenians refused to send their documents which they promised, to the Turkish historians and afterwards the Armenian foreign minister announced that they did not want to discuss the 1915 events with historians. *Armenia refused the Turkish prime minister’s and the Turkish Assembly’s invitation announced on 13th April 2005 which suggested to establish a Joint Commission composed of historians from both sides and discuss the events which took place during the 1st World War. *Turkey sent full page ads to five popular newspapers of the United States (US) calling on Armenia to ‘bring light the events of 1915 together with Turkey and to establish a joint commission composed of historians from both sides in addition to historians from other nations’, in April 2007. *Why did the Armenian historian Sarafyan, who accepted the invitation of the chief of Turkish History Foundation, Halachoğlu, for cooperation to investigate Harput events, abandon the project, after talking with the Armenian diaspora? *Why are the Armenian archives still closed? *The archives of Dashnak Party is present in Zoryan Armenian Institute in Boston. The institute directors told that they did not have enough money to open these archives. Both Turkish government and Turkish History Foundation offered financial support to enable them open these archives. Why did the Armenians refuse this suggestion too? (On the other hand it is striking that the same institute has quite enough money to support Taner Akçam who works in Minnesota University and supports Armenian views).

Have you ever seen a victim who passionately accuses somebody of committing crime and giving great him but strictly avoids of bringing his proofs before the referees or going to court? And have you ever seen a criminal who persistently calls the victim to bring his evidences? And what else should Turkey do, to FACE WITH HER HISTORY? Who is afraid of facing with her history? Turkey or Armenia and those who support them?

36
akasya
February 22, 2008
The Armenians obviously have been trying to rewrite the history as they wish to have been and want to cast the role of innocent victims of a so-called genocide as if they had not performed hundreds of revolts against the Ottomans, being organized by Armenian committees Hınçak and Taşnaksütyan (24 revolts only in September to December 1895). Here are evidences from English and Russian Archives which contradict with the Armenian allegations:* ‘The Armenians ejected sulphuric acid to the faces of the Turkish people, fired their houses and killed them using knife and bullet, in Gaziantep’ (Report of English Ambassador Henry D. Barnhamof Aleppo –Halep-, dated 16 November 1895).

* In 1905, the Armenians killed all the Turks and Muslims who lived in Susha in Azarbaijan (Russian newspaper Novoye Obozrenye 6 September 1905).

* Armenian Soviet historian A.A.Lalayan stated that the Dashnaks displayed extreme courage to massacre Turkish women, children and ill and old people (Contrarevolyutsionnıy ‘Dasnaktsutyun’ I Imperialisti-cheskaya Voyna 1914-1918 gg.’, Revolyutsionnıy Vostok,
No.2-3, p.92, 1936).
* V.A. Gurko-Kryajin declared that the Muslim folk around Yerivan and Kars were eradicated and the districts Shuragel, Kağızman, Karakurt, Sarıkamış, Surmali were fired and destroyed so that the folk were forced to escape, in his book entitled ‘Neareast and the States’ (V.A. Gurko-Kryajin, Blijniy Vostov i Derjavı, p.93, Nauçnaya
Assotsiatatsiya Vostokovedeniya Pri TsİK SSSR, Moscov, 1925).

* ‘150 000 Armenian volunteers in Russian Army were the only forces against Turks’ told Armenian Boghos Nubar, in Paris (Times of London , 1919 Jan 30 Link:
http://armenians-1915.blogspot.com/2007/10/2013-150-000-armenian-volu…)

*’The Turks who had been slaughtered like animals were buried in large holes in the Eastern Anatolia’ writes Russian Lieutenant Colonel Twerdo-Khlebof in his diary
(www.tsk.mil.tr/ermeni_sorunu/arsiv_belgeleriyle_ermeni_faaliyetleri/p…)

*T. Hachikoglyan, in a speech he delivered, told that the Dashnaks eradicated thousands of Turks with their bloody hands (T. Haçikoglyan, 10 Let Armyanskoy Sttrelkovoy Divizii,p4-6. İzdatelstvo Polit. Uprav. KKA, Tiflis, 1930).

* Ovanes Kachaznuni (the first prime minister of Armenia) declared that all the tragedies they lived was the Dashnaks’ responsibility and originated from their lack of foreseeing the realities in the report he presented to Dashnak Party’s Conference in 1923. (’There is Nothing that Dashnak Party Can Do’)



37
Sefer Tan
February 22, 2008
Babanian writes (#31): Happy arguing. You (P. Connolly) are not worth responding to. I thought I would respond to this unfortunate, this miserable statement. However, reading P. Connolly’s honest reply (#32), there was no more reason for me to respond. And yet, there was a new desperate attempt for new nonsense from Babanian (#33): Figure out this! Turkey Should Recognize The Assyrian Genocide 1915. And relentlessly he continues with #34….. It seems that when you miserable liars are ‘bankrupt’ with your Armenian slander, you jump in vain onto other topics. Who is next after ‘The Assyrians’? The Greeks, The Kurds, The Bulgarians, The Arabs, The Romanians, The Indians, The Chinese, The Japanese, The Tasmanians, The Zulus? Is it not ironic that those who lie and support your hysterical show, the greatest lie of the 20th century, the ‘so-called Armenian genocide’ are all ‘true historians’, and those who refuse such fabricated lies are in one breath labeled as ‘denial apologists and the denial historians’?? But you know what; the day will come when you will also get tired of your own sickening lies about your fabricated genocide fables. I feel confident and I feel positive about that Mr. Babanian. That day will come, sooner than you do not even want to think about, Mr. Babanian….

38
arabic movies
March 17, 2008
arabic movies…

Thanks for the nice read, keep up the interesting posts…..

39
antonio banderas bio
March 18, 2008
antonio banderas bio…

I Googled for something completely different, but found your page…and have to say thanks. nice read….

40
Universities For Economics In Uk
April 5, 2008
Universities For Economics In Uk…

The TrackBack specification was created by Six Apart, who first implemented it in their Movable Type blogging software in August…

41
Flavia
April 11, 2008
Flavia…

Remember not only to say the right thing in the right place, but far more difficult still, to leave unsaid the wrong thing at the tempting moment….

---

February 11, 2008 PoliGazette

---