The Internet is awash
with lazy-thinking individuals who accept the ubiquitous Armenian propaganda
at face value, and once in a while... as time permits... I make an effort to
set these misled masses straight. I recently came across an essay entitled “Genocides
and Denial” by Randy McDonald, writtten on May 18, 2004, on the “livingineurope”
site (http://www.livingineurope.net/archives/000272.html), also repeated on
what appears to be a sister site.
This is one of those sites that invites readers to post their feedback, and I
composed my rebuttal, countering the simple-minded arguments the author had to
offer. Moreover, I brought up information the author probably never heard of,
such as the Russians’ booting five million Muslims in the century up to and
including WWI, and killing another five-and-one-half million more, citing
Professor McCarthy’s “Death and Exile.” (Since the author is a proud
Irishman who listed Sinead O’Connor — and her conclusions about the Irish
Famine — as a favorite, I thought that might be a source he would especially
respect.) I also informed him — most likely he was hearing it for the first
time — that over one-half million Ottoman Turks/Muslims were killed at the
hands of Armenians, more than the Armenians who were killed by Turks. I
reminded him that it is not proper to harp on one unproven and so-called “genocide,”
valuing the lives of one people as more meaningful than another’s.
The next day, I noticed the post was gone. It was stunning. After all, one
comes to expect such censorship from Armenian sites that offer forums/guestbooks...
but why would Randy McDonald feel so emotionally involved that he would resort
to an outright deletion? It struck me as unethical on various levels; the “livingin”
sites seem friendly, and in their bylines is a little rule that seems to go
against the idea of such dishonest alterations (“Producers do not alter the
essence and structure of entries”); moreover, if Randy McDonald is so
convinced about the strength of his argument, why didn’t he feel secure
enough to counter my points the way I did with his?
At this point, I decided to give him a comeuppance... and I discovered another
surprise. When you sign your name, you get the option of filling in your
e-mail address (if I remember correctly), and I decided to put in the URL of
the TAT site, instead. In other words, I did not include the site’s URL in
the body of my message, but very indirectly... so if one hovered the mouse
over my name, they would get the URL rather than an e-mail address.) When I
filled in the URL again in my second message, a window came up saying the URL
had been banned, as it offered “questionable” material.
Hoo-boy! Now I was getting a good glimpse into the hopelessly dogmatic
character of Randy McDonald.
Here was my second message (starting out by responding to a new
defensive message he put up after his deletion, reproduced later below, that partly
stated, “it's no more intrinsically anti-Turkish...”):
It is anti-Turkish to talk about Ottoman Turkey's so-called genocide, when the proof is
based on hearsay and fabrications, and only one side of the story is intentionally told.
Furthermore, "genocide resolutions" presented by interest group-catering
politicians with a one-sided knowledge of history are meaningless, when people have an
agenda... as, now I can see, does Randy McDonald. He must be very insecure to have removed
the detailed rebuttal to his points that I took the valuable time to compose, believing a
fair exchange of ideas and facts was the idea behind this page. What are you afraid of,
Randy? You should be ashamed of the censorship you have performed... if you are so certain
about your arguments, then the presentation of other facts and figures should not have
fazed you... particularly those coming from non-Turkish sources, having no reason to lie.
An honorable person would have let them stand, and tackled them point by point.
Randy McDonald displayed his unerring courage by promptly deleting this second passage, as
I’ve run into this kind of absolutist behavior from hypocritical genocide scholars with
whom I’ve communicated, especially after their arguments had been obliterated... and
these “respected” scholars resort to a childlike sticking out of tongue at the end,
stating in effect: “There was TOO an Armenian genocide! Nyaaaah-nyaaah.”
But what would compel this “nobody” to be so passionate about the subject, as to
resort to censorship?
(Randy McDonald is a Canadian; his claim to fame is that he runs a blog site, named “Randy
McDonald's Livejournal.” Yes, one of those folks who believe his/her life is so
fascinating, that people would actually be interested in the minute details of his comings
(One of his interests is “alternate history.” Hmmm. There are two ways of taking his
view of the Armenian “Genocide.”  His view is that of the brainwashed West, having
been subjected to the near-unilaterally presented Armenian perspective of history... which
would then make him untruthful — in this example — of being interested in “alternate
history.” [Or, as pro-Armenians like to tell it, “revisionist history.”]  The
second way of looking at this claim of his is that the Armenian perspective is such a
falsified one, even though the mainstream unthinkingly accepts it, it’s not REAL
history.... therefore, Randy McDonald is being truthful when he lists “alternate history”
as an interest.)
Here’s the way I see the psychology of those such as Randy McDonald who exercise such
intense and dogmatic belief in Armenian propaganda that he would go so far as to censor
While I hate labels, I say the following with
the admission that I am a progressive person, identifying with “liberal” causes.
Taner Akcam, the ex-communist and former terrorist turned Armenian mouthpiece, wrote
in a forum recently that those who support the Armenian “Genocide” are mainly
“liberal” people. The Wall Street Journal (not what we would call a “liberal”
publication) presented an excellent
article explaining why it’s people in the liberal camp who love to point to
the Turks as their favorite whipping boy.
Extremists in the liberal mode can be really goofy people, not unlike those who are
conservative extremists. Months ago I was waiting on a line and there was this
fellow with a deliriously wild hairstyle in front of me. When it was my turn, making
a reference to this crazy hair was irresistible, and the attendant and I enjoyed
some satisfyingly cheap laughter. From the background protested a woman... whom,
from her dress, appeared as a stereotypical radical feminist type... saying, what
about your haircut?
In other words, we all have the right to wear our hair the way we want it. This is
the kind of strict, humorless and diehard “liberal” that helps make me think
Jerry Falwell isn’t such a bad guy, after all.
Now we all know “genocide” is bad. In fact, it’s the worst crime against
humanity, so one would hope responsible people would be extra careful with their
evidence before going around pinning blame. The liberal, who are known as
compassionate, identifying with human struggle, immediately identifies with the
suffering of the Armenian people. Especially since the liberal is bombarded by
Armenian propaganda from every corner, and the only voice of dissent appears to be
the Turkish government (helped by pro-genocide forces, trying to give the impression
that it’s only the Turkish government objecting). The liberal knows the official
voice of any government cannot be trusted, especially when it’s the government of
those barbaric Turks... the liberal has probably seen MIDNIGHT EXPRESS, for one
So when someone comes along saying, “It ain’t so,” the liberal’s automatic
defense mechanism goes into gear. “How DARE you,” says the liberal. “Why
EVERYONE knows those monstrous Turks persecuted the poor, innocent Armenians. See,
even the dictionary says the word ‘Turk’ means ‘savage’ and ‘tyrannical’.”
(Of course, the fairness in liberals would not allow words such as “monstrous”
to be said out loud, but for all practical purposes, this is what the liberal
However, the really scary part of this process is that no matter how much sense you
talk into dogmatic zealots such as this brand of liberal, their ingrained belief
system is so deep, you’re going to make as much headway as a tse-tse fly planning
a trans-Atlantic flight. With too many Armenians, you can excuse the fact that it’s
like talking into a brick wall... the “genocide” has become their cause, their
religion, their reason for being. But how can these non-Armenian “Armenians” be
I mean, look; Randy McDonald has actually taken the radical step of snuffing out the
presented counter-evidence. (Of course, his argumentation came across as
particularly weak and he personally came across as foolish.... but doesn’t it
state somewhere in the Marquis of Queensbury rulebook that censorship is not the
honorable way to respond to a challenge, particularly in a format that invites
At least Randy McDonald has an excuse, since he’s a “nobody.”
He’s not a recognized expert in this field. In contrast to those such as Professor Adam
Jones, who runs a gimmicky site dealing with “Gendercide” (get it? Another version of
“genocide,” this time targeting the rubbing out of the sexes. Rudy Rummel is the king
of defining subsets of genocide, coming up with democide, schlemocide, saladonthecide...)
Adam Jones has written an absolutely awful paper on the Armenian episode (first covering
the "gendercide" of Armenian men, then the "gendercide" of Armenian
women. So... uhhh... if both men and women were targeted, wouldn't that be called, simply,
"genocide"?), mainly resorting to Henry Morgenthau (Jones actually calls
Morgenthau, who never left Istanbul and relied on his Armenian assistants, as a
"Witness to genocide"!) as the main body of “evidence”; the professor
received a detailed letter from me in the summer of 2003 pointing out the
untrustworthiness of his interest-conflicted references, which he predictably ignored. Did
he stop and objectively and scientifically consider the other side of the story? Not if
the fact that his piece still remains at his silly site is any indication. No, his
response probably was, ““How DARE you! Why EVERYONE knows those monstrous Turks
persecuted the poor, innocent Armenians.”
A man like Adam Jones has no excuse, because he’s supposed to be a “professor.” His
responsibility is to ascertain the facts, no matter how painful they may seem. (That is
the responsibility of all honorable humans, but especially those of duty-bound
professors.) Why are these genocide scholars so guilty of ethocide?
Scientist Ronald Grigor Suny
Back in 2000, there was a big to-do when
Microsoft’s Encarta Encyclopedia wished to revise the Armenian allegations. I don’t
know why Microsoft would have chosen to go with such biased “scholars” in the first
place (I do know: these genocide scholars come across as “good” and “honorable” to
the unwary, just as the missionaries did during Ottoman times), but Prof. Helen Fein,
along with Armenian-American Professor Ronald Suny, who were hired to write the original
pieces, objected. Suny claimed a Microsoft representative said the Turkish government had
threatened to arrest local Microsoft officials and ban Microsoft products, unless changes
were made. Steve Young of CNN reported, however: “When we asked, Microsoft denied
receiving such threats.”
Common sense: would any government representative actually make such threats? Since
Microsoft is just a tiny sliver in the forest mindlessly repeating Armenian claims, if the
Turkish government were to arrest local Microsoft personnel in Turkey, what about all the
other foreign company representatives stationed in Turkey that are associated with the
omnipresent Armenian claims? Could one imagine the fallout if any of these company
employees were arrested?
So somebody is lying here, and unless the named Microsoft worker (Frank Manning) had bats
in his belfry, I’m afraid the odds are with the ethically-challenged “genocide scholar”
pair. They know lazy-thinking people have been well conditioned, and will accept the
evilness of the Turkish government at the drop of a hat. Do these people have any
An ANCA release spotlighting a "Chronicle of Higher Education" (a
publication that serves university faculty members and administrators) article reproduced
in http://www.greeksunited.com/newsletter/feature/microsoftcontr.html reported Prof. “Fein
says Encarta wanted her to include a few lines on the ‘other side of the story’- the
Turkish government's side.” Here’s the deception: if the Turkish government also
happens to see a version of history as truthful, that does not make it “the Turkish
government's side.” I have nothing to do with the Turkish government, and frankly,
whatever they have to say wouldn’t sway me. We have to make up our minds for ourselves
based on impartial facts... that’s what people of integrity do.
The resolution: “When Ms. Fein and Mr. Suny threatened to remove
their names from the article and to publicize Microsoft's censorship, however, Encarta
editors backed down. Ms. Fein and Mr. Suny agreed to add that the Turkish government
denies the genocide, but held firm to the facts of its occurrence.”
Adding “that the Turkish government denies the genocide” actually made the matter
worse, because the reader will have no cause to believe what any government has to say,
let alone one with such a bad reputation. But that was the closed-minded goal of these two
“genocide scholars.” They preferred to present the picture that Microsoft was under
pressure from the “evil” Turkish government, but it was they doing the actual
pressuring, by threatening “to publicize Microsoft's censorship.” (“CENSORSHIP”?
According to these reports, Microsoft wanted everything to remain the same; they merely
wanted the word “genocide” to be removed.)
And even when these two ethically challenged hypocrites had their
way with their threats, guess what: the episode wound up being publicized anyway. Do these
people have any scruples, whatsoever?
We have an idea of how these dishonorable genocide scholars behave. They’re so wrapped
up with their zealous cause, just like the missionaries during Ottoman times, they resort
to underhanded methods that would have made Machiavelli's "The Prince" proud.
A “liberal” zealot like Randy McDonald is off
the hook on one hand, compared to his professional counterparts. Yet, in another
way, he is even more guilty.... since the professionals are also influenced by their
inflated sense of purpose that has been providing them with a living, the overblown
“field” of genocide studies. Randy McDonald has nothing to lose if he were to
look at the equation fairly and determine there really was another side to the
story... whereas someone like Prof. Adam Jones would have to snip away from his
repertoire such an easy and “sexy” genocidal episode that adds to his
One good thing about liberals is that a sense of conscience still manages to emerge,
and Randy McDonald actually made reference to the reason for the deletion of my
posts. He gave three:
1. He doesn’t care for “the assignation of collective guilt to people on the
grounds of their ethnicity... attempts to attribute a non-existent prejudice to
critics, attacks on their personal character.” On my first post, there were no
attacks on Randy McDonald’s personal character, aside from a lack of respect for
his lazy-minded, simplistic acceptance of one side ot the story. And note the
hypocrisy: genocide perpetrators are often seen not as an isolated bunch of
rabble-rousers, but as an entire people. You had better believe the Armenian “Genocide”
is so instantly acceptable because Turks have had the bad rap of being savages in
the West, since the days of the Crusades. Whether he realizes it or not, Randy
McDonald is assigning “collective guilt to people on the grounds of their
2. “Also, when you make arguments, don't introduce extraneous arguments
irrelevant to the issue at hand which serve only as emotional distraction, i.e.
identifying Armenians as Naziphile and Turks as anti-Nazi.” I guess when he
visited the TAT site, he noticed the one page on Armenian-Nazis... as I don’t
recall bringing up that issue in my first post. This comprehensive site covers many
different topics, and the Nazi issue... aside from being ironic, since the Armenians
prefer to portray themselves as victims of the Holocaust... is not irrelevant. One
of the main leaders of Armenian-Nazis was Dro, who got his practice slaughtering
innocent Muslim woman and children during WWI. An open-minded researcher would
investigate and see whether there were any connections... but Randy McDonald has
made up his mind who the villains are, and the idea that his solidly established
victims actually perpetrated systematic extermination is enough to give him
3. “Did I mention that for three years, I debated at the university level? Perhaps
this is a prejudice, but I most respect debates, and debaters, who treat their
partners and positions with a certain basic respect, even as they dissect their
positions.” If Randy McDonald was such a professional debater, he should have
welcomed the opportunity to put his mettle to the test, instead of putting his tail
between his legs and refusing to take up the challenge. The time I became
disrespectful with Randy McDonald was with my second post (which you’ve read
above), after I noticed he had removed my initial “scholarly” rebuttal. If Randy
McDonald desires respect, he must earn it... and the way to earn respect is not to
censor someone’s dissenting views, in cowardly fashion.
Isn’t that exactly what genocide conferences do, operating behind closed doors,
not daring to give the floor to those with dissenting views?
the Irish Famine a genocide?
For the rest of this
essay, in case you’ve checked out the link and read what Randy McDonald had to
say, let’s examine his position.
He starts out by telling us the Irish Famine was a genocide. My feeling: only among
those who have a chip on their shoulder. Now I wasn’t there, and I can’t tell
you conclusively whether the British had a master plan to wipe out the Irish in such
a diabolical way... any more than I was there during the Armenian “genocide.”
This is why we have to keep our minds open to any possibility, and the only thing we
can count on are cold, hard, impartial facts.
However, I do know many Irish historians regard the representation of the Irish
Famine’s planned genocide potential as bunk. Could the English have done more to
save the lives of the Irish? No doubt. Yet, that is a far cry from concluding there
was a purposeful strategy in place to kill people in droves.
One can’t compare with how other peoples fared in other famines of the period (as
Randy McDonald quotes John Dolan): “[W]hile the potato crop failed in France,
Germany, and many other European countries, there were no deaths from starvation.
Only in Ireland did genocidal authorities decide to use a crop problem to kill off a
troublesome peasant population.”) The difference is, unlike the variety of
available crops/livestock in other countries, the potato was the mainstay of the
Irish... given their generally cooped up living conditions, they could primarily
only grow the potato in their little yards. And Dolan’s proof?
“(A) direct quote from Lord Trevalyan, spoken at the time this artificial
famine was at its height: ‘This famine is a judgment of God on a stubborn and
indolent people, and we must not ameliorate it.’.”
You can’t take an isolated quote or two from a few prejudiced representatives and
derive foregone conclusions, particularly regarding such an important crime against
humanity. How batty!
Henry Morgenthau had his ghostwriter report in the racist ambassador’s phony book
that thousands of Turks were dying daily from starvation, because all the men were
mobilized into the army, and few were left to till the fields. He estimated an
entire quarter of the Empire’s population was lost to famine. Even Ottoman
soldiers were dying en masse from famine. Does that mean the Ottoman government was
guilty of genocide... against the Turks?
(Well, why not? The Turks have been accused of genocide against the Armenians, the
Greeks, the Assyrians, the Kurds, the Klingons... might as well add the Turks to the
Randy McDonald offers:
Honesty about the historical record is important, not only in order to develop an
accurate historical record but in order to provide some sort of basis for
reconciliation between peoples divided by differing interpretations of the same
historical events. If, for instance, French and German schoolchildren were still
taught about the innate warmongering evil of their neighbour country across the
Rhine in the First World War, the European Union would be a less viable proposition.
How very ironic. After the war, Ataturk stressed brotherhood and love so as not to
have generations of Turks grow up with hatred in their hearts against the Armenians
and the Greeks, who committed such dreadful atrocities and acts of betrayal against
their home country and fellow people. (In marked contrast to how too many Armenian
and Greek parents have raised their children.) This is the primary reason why so
many Turks are ignorant of the facts of the genocidal episode, whereas the
pro-genocide fanatics hold the upper hand.
Randy McDonald cites a Turkish study:
The Ottoman Empire exiled Armenians living particularly in the East and Central
Anatolia to Syria and Northern Iraq regions belonging to the Ottomans at the time. During
this exile, a certain number of Armenian people died due to disease and inconvenient
conditions. However, this loss never amounted to the deaths of 1.5 million Armenians and
it did not even reach thousands. Thus, documents that indicate the Armenian population in
the whole of Anatolia were just that. The number of exiled Armenians was nearly 500,000
and most of the exiled ones returned to their old places after 1918.
Then he goes on to sarcastically pooh-pooh it:
Presumably, the Armenians who never returned--the families, communities, entire
regional populations never heard from again--travelled to, say, Antarctica, or Mars, or
Alpha Centauri, some location beyond the reach of civilization where they could prepare
for future waves of migrants mysteriously vanished from known realms. Perhaps they were
joined by Ukrainian kulaks in the 1930s, central and eastern European Jews in the 1940s,
Stalinist political prisoners in the 1950s, and the missing tens of millions from China in
that country's 1960s. A pity we haven't found that place yet.
If Randy McDonald yearns for respect, he must earn it. He’s doing a very poor job here,
by refusing to open his mind to facts he is uncomfortable with. As I pointed out to him in
the first message that he deleted, there couldn’t have been 1.5 million Armenians
murdered because neutral population statistics estimated a pre-war figure that ranged from
1 million to 1.6 million. The Armenians say 1 million survived. Subtract.
And of those who died, not all died from massacres. Richard Hovannisian, for example,
reported some 150,000 Armenians (of the total Armenian mortality of 300,000-600,000,
figures most Turks recognize) died of famine while accompanying the Russian retreats, with
the Turks nowhere in sight. (“Armenia On the Road to Independence,” 1967.) A few
thousand similarly died accompanying the French retreat in Marash. Most of the exiled
Armenians did indeed survive, even according to the worst Armenian propagandists: Arnold
Toynbee (in his “The Treatment of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire”) agreed with
Morgenthau (private diary, dishonestly not mentioned in his ghostwritten propagandistic
book, regarding the visit of Zenop Bezjian) when both believed 500,000 displaced Armenians
were alive (and “fairly well satisfied... settled down to business and are earning their
livings,” according to Morgenthau), a number that must have surely grown by 1916’s
end, as the relocation policy came to a close.
Yes, these are the facts and figures Randy McDonald decided to censor.... sources the
pro-genocide crowd cannot argue with, as they don’t derive from “The Turkish
government.” Now, it wasn’t like I was saying, “Your mama wears army boots, Randy
McDonald!” No, my first post simply gave him these kinds of facts that blew away his
biased and weak position. Now, why would his first reaction have been to delete these
facts, instead of facing them like a man?
Randy McDonald’s conclusion: “Certainly in excess of a million Armenians were killed,
possibly as many as 1.5 million. The scale of the massacres, and the degree of planning
involved, is enough to qualify it as the first of the 20th century's genocides.” How
could his numbers rate a “certainly”? In order for over a million Armenians to have
been “killed” (he doesn’t allow for the majority of Armenians who died from famine,
disease and the combat of the treacherous), and possibly as many as 1.5 million, there
would have needed to exist over two million to 2.5 million Ottoman-Armenians. (Since the
Armenians say, once again, that one million survived.) The only ones who say that many
existed were Armenians. Who are we going to believe, the Armenians... so known to
exaggerate the facts... or over a dozen Western estimates, none who could be called
Randy McDonald is also ignorant of what happened to the Hereros, and to the Filipinos,
both between 1900-1910, while eager to give title to “the first of the 20th century's
perhaps not looking too hard for a genocide?”
He then tells us the Turks
should stop “the absurd pretense that there was no genocide at all.” We’re
talking about a systematic extermination policy a la what the Nazis did to the Jews,
correct? If the British couldn’t come up with the proof that such a genocide
occurred with W.W.I’s Nuremberg, the Malta Tribunal, what kind of delusion is
Randy McDonald suffering from by using a term such as “absurd pretense”? He is
so wrapped up with his conclusion, without objectively considering the real facts,
he is going to hold his breath and stomp his feet, all the while insisting there was
TOO an Armenian “genocide.” We’ll be getting to his “proof” in a moment.
The one dissenter whom Randy McDonald allowed a presentation from was “Ikiz,”
“When I read the article you provided the link for, it states that the
conclusion was based on various documents found in differen(t) countries. ‘The TTK
issued the results of the study it conducted using documents in the U.S., England,
Germany, Ottoman archives, and missionary documents. The results of the two year
study have been published in a book entitled, Exile and Emigration'. What is wrong
about this study? Are we perhaps not looking to(o) hard for a genocide?”
So these were facts from Western (and therefore pro-Armenian) sources, and Randy
McDonald presented them as “conclusion of Turkish scholars.” Yes, but what are
those conclusions based on? It’s the sources we have to look at, and if the
sources come across as impartial... why can’t Randy McDonald bring himself to open
up his liberal, compassionate mind to the other side of the story?
Randy McDonald’s response:
Contesting the fact of the Armenian genocide is rather like the fact of
contesting the Holocaust. There's far too much historical data, existing inside and
outside of Anatolia and the Caucasus, demonstrating the existence and execution of a
systematic plan to kill as many Armenians as possible. Only hundreds of Armenian
civilians died? That contention is risible, at best, contemptible at worst.
For the love of God. Bringing up an example of a genuine genocide to prove the
existence of a falsified one. Does Randy McDonald realize the damage he is doing to
the Jewish victims of the Holocaust, by dishonoring them in such a fashion?
Now we’re getting somewhere with our champion debater. The voluminous “historical
data... demonstrating the existence and execution of a systematic plan to kill as
many Armenians as possible.”
Is it fair of Randy McDonald to say the Turks claim “Only hundreds of Armenian
civilians died?” (Basing this contention on someone’s opinion that Armenian
deaths “did not even reach thousands.” While engaging in debate, we can’t look
at what one isolated person claims, but on what the consensus is. For example, one
Armenian site claimed 35 million Armenians were killed. The consensus is 1.5
million, so when I present my own arguments, it would be dishonest for me to say the
Armenian position is that 35 million were killed.)
Turks don’t close their eyes to the immense suffering of the Armenian people, the
way the Armenians and Randy McDonald close their eyes to the immense suffering of
the Ottoman Turks/Muslims. No: 300,000 to 600,000 Armenians may have died from all
causes combined. Famine, disease, harsh weather, combat.... and massacres.
As a probable Turk, Ikiz confirms this, by replying: “I don't proclaim that there
where no atrocities, but as far as (I) know, these atrocities were conducted on both
sides. But just to say that these atrocities conducted by the Ottoman Empire were a
genicode, I think is too simple.”
That’s where the discussion died down, until I added my thoughts. Randy McDonald
deleted them, and decided to get busy by providing us with his one-sided evidence.
Let’s see what he came up with.
Genocidal Evidence of Randy McDonald
He quoted the findings of a newspaper (The Guardian, from the U.K.;
an article entitled, "A People Killed Twice") reporter (Julia Pascal),
who simple-mindedly cut and pasted from the tons of Armenian genocide material that is out
there, without questioning the legitimacy of any of it.
“The Reverend Henry H Riggs was an American missionary in the Ottoman Empire. His
book, Days Of Tragedy In Armenia, is one of the most detailed genocide histories in
The testimony of missionaries is not admissible. If you read the prayers of the
missionaries, they considered it their Godly duty to do onto the heathen Turk. It is
highly upsetting that in this day and age seemingly intelligent people still insist on
pointing to the testimony of biased missionaries as their genocidal proof. (For more on
these false Christians, turn here).
“Mehmet Sherif Pasha, former Turkish envoy to Sweden. Writing to the New York Times
in 1921, he says, ‘The Armenian atrocities perpetrated under the present regime surpass
the savagery of Genghis Khan and Tamburlaine’.”
Now that’s the kind of testimony that’s much more respectable, on the surface: A Turk’s.
However, let’s keep in mind that the pro-Armenians have had a tendency to put words into
the mouths of Turks (as they did with the 1926 Ataturk interview conducted by an unknown
Swiss journalist in the Los Angeles Herald Examiner)... and some Turks, especially from
the post-war period, were slavishly saying all kinds of things the Allies wanted to hear.
Ferit Pasha established a new Ottoman government on March 4, 1919, going out of his way to
“admit” crimes, hoping to butter up his foes for the oncoming peace talks... knowing
the Turks were on the short end of the stick regarding the merciless Allies; the latter
would go on to pronounce a death sentence upon the Turkish nation, the Sevres Treaty, that
Ferit Pasha’s government would eagerly sign. Was this “Turkish envoy to Sweden” part
of this illegitimate government? I don’t know. If he was in Sweden, how would he have
known about genocidal goings-on, anyway?
It could be that this “Mehmet Sherif Pasha” knew something. First, however, we should
find out more about the man, and what he wrote... otherwise, he could be just another
person with an opinion, just like Lord Trevalyan who pronounced a “genocide” upon the
Irish. I’m aware Armenian sites have put up practically everything damning about the
Turks that has appeared in The New York Times from those days,
but an Internet search failed to come up with the original.
I find it highly suspect that a Turk would accuse his countrymen of crimes surpassing “the
savagery of Genghis Khan”; even if 600,000 Armenians were directly murdered, anyone who
says that would be worse than Genghis Khan’s mass rub-outs already is suspect. And we
are told Mehmet Sherif Pasha wrote his letter in 1921, accusing the “present regime,”
which would be the short-lived administration of Ferit Pasha, established in 1919... Huh?
The “Armenian atrocities” took place in the “1915” period, did they not?
One item I found, in a chronology of events: “1919 (November, 20) Two Armenian high
category bureaucrats of the Ottoman government, Bogos Nubar Pasha and Sherif Pasha signed
Armenian-Kurd independence document.” Could that be the same Sherif Pasha?
Let’s see; if Mehmet Sherif Pasha was an envoy to Sweden, that would make him part of
the Ottoman government... so that little fact fits. If Mehmet Sherif Pasha went way
overboard by dragging his country through the mud in his country’s most trying time, by
taking the extraordinary step of writing to a foreign newspaper... that sounds like he had
a propagandistic agenda. It doesn’t seem to me like Mehmet Sherif Pasha was what he
appears to be, on the surface. This is all speculation, but the point remains the same:
genuine truth-seekers cannot afford to take things at face value.
Next: “Dr E Lovejoy of the executive board of the American Women's Hospital wrote to
the Times, ‘I was the first American Red Cross woman in France, but what I saw there
during the Great War seems a love feast beside the horrors of Smyrna. When I arrived at
Smyrna there were massed on the quays 250,000 wretched, suffering and screaming women
beaten and with their clothes torn off, families separated and everybody robbed’.”
Uhhh... does “Smyrna” (which is “Christian
code” for Izmir; why wasn’t this city called by what its owners had called their city
for centuries, “Izmir”?) constitute evidence for the Armenian “Genocide”? Sharply
in contrast, “Smyrna” gives us evidence against the possibility of the genocide. If
the Turks were bent on exterminating the Armenians, why did they largely exempt from the
relocation policy the Armenians who resided in this city and in other cities of the east
and northeast (like “Constantinople,” which was “Christian code” for Istanbul?)
Again, like the untrustworthy missionaries, we have testimony from an individual who wears
her Christianity on her sleeve, as the Red Cross was more religiously inclined during
those days. They arrived in what was left of the Ottoman Empire as did the Near East
Relief, not caring a darn about the equally suffering Muslim population. (Assuming she
arrived after the war was over. Don’t the pro-Armenians love to claim the Turks burned
their own city in retarded fashion, and massacred all the Greeks and Armenians? How could
a quarter of a million women have survived under such circumstances?)
After the Greeks invaded “Smyrna,” weren’t the British so disgusted with the
slaughtering ways of their designated attack dogs, that they deserted the Greeks? Why is
latter day British journalist Julia Pascal focusing on the suffering of one people at the
expense of another... just like her unscrupulous counterparts did in the old days?
Next, Randy McDonald
offers the recognition of the Armenian “Genocide” from the European Parliament.
(His co-conspirator, someone named “Georg,” would also cite the Swiss Parliament’s
recognition a few posts later.) Sorry; opinions of biased non-historian politicians
who are weaned on a one-sided version of events offer as much legitimacy as Randy
McDonald, and does not prove an extermination policy by the Turks.
Next, there is a Washington Post account whose non-historian reporter journeyed to
the myriad Armenian and “genocide scholar” sites, and picked up the random
nonsense we get everywhere. As a source of evidence, we are treated to the testimony
of racist U.S. Ambassador Henry Morgenthau, who wrote a dishonest book for
propaganda purposes. We’re even treated to the ubiquitous Hitler quote that Hitler likely never
Is this what Randy McDonald offers as the voluminous “historical data...
demonstrating the existence and execution of a systematic plan to kill as many
Armenians as possible”? Who is he fooling here?
Next, he ridicules the site of the Turkish Ministry of Culture, offering the
following highlights: The Ottoman Turks are not to be confused with the Republic
of Turkey; both Turks and Armenians died, as well as Kurds and Jews; the charge of
genocide doesn't fit the crime; the country was at war and feared Armenian
disloyalty; there are no hard numbers to justify the case of genocide; evidence used
to support the claims of genocide may have been fabricated; and because the Ottoman
empire was on the wrong side of the First World War from the point of view of the
United States and Britain, sources from those countries can't be trusted.
He opines: The Turkish argument throws out a lot of firsthand testimony as
Let’s see now: the imperialist allies hold secret treaties during the war to divvy
up the carcass of the dying Sick Man. I’d say British, French and Russian
testimony were pretty tainted, wouldn’t you? And as Peter Balakian reported in his
“Burning Tigris,” we got first-hand information as to how Armenian colonists
infiltrated dewy-eyed American intellectual circles, already conditioned by
centuries of prejudicial accounts against the Terrible Turk. The British operated a
chapter of their propaganda division, Wellington House, on U.S. soil, after cutting
the cable from Germany, further influencing the media’s wholesale swallowing of
anti-Turkish propaganda. All one needs to do is read the accounts of the brave few
who knew better than to be suckered. Many, like the Briton C. F. Dixon-Johnson, are featured on this
As one other example, the American writer E. Alexander Powell ("The Struggle
for Power in Moslem Asia," 1923) was painfully aware of the wholesale deception
practiced in the West: “Now I can readily understand and make allowance for the
public's errors and misconceptions, for it has had, after all, no means of knowing
that it has been systematically deceived, but I can find no excuse for those
newspapers which, clinging to a policy of vilifying the Turk, failed to rectify the
anti-Turkish charges printed in their columns even when it had been proved to the
satisfaction of most fair-minded persons that they were unjustified.”
Let’s take a moment with our champion debater and see exactly how convoluted the
Turkish site’s claims are.
Answer True or False to the following:
1) The Ottoman Turks are not to be confused with the Republic of Turkey
2) Both Turks and Armenians died, as well as Kurds and Jews.
3) The charge of genocide doesn't fit the crime
4) The country was at war and feared Armenian disloyalty
5) There are no hard numbers to justify the case of genocide
6) Evidence used to support the claims of genocide may have been fabricated
7) Because the Ottoman empire was on the wrong side of the First World War from the
point of view of the United States and Britain, sources from those countries can't be
To back up the answer of “True” for all of the above, I can present evidence from
unbiased sources that has nothing to do with “Turkish propaganda.” If Randy
McDonald can’t do the same (that is, use UNBIASED sources... unlike the unreliable
sources he has been pointing to thus far [with the possible exception of the
mysterious Sherif Pasha]) while insisting on answering “False” to the above, then
why in the world would he still stomp his feet and hold his breath, childishly
insisting there was TOO an Armenian “genocide”?
Randy McDonald smart-mouths: “If it were a legal argument, say pro-Armenian
scholars, it would be rather like saying that my client wasn't there, couldn't have
done it, has been charged with the wrong crime and it was self-defense.”
Guess what: Not all charged criminals are automatically guilty. Yes, there are actual
court cases where the accused “wasn't there, couldn't have done it, has been charged
with the wrong crime and it was self-defense.” This is why we have to look at
evidence that is truly impartial; sure, it’s easy to take the say-so of whomever
just because you’ve made up your mind based on your own prejudices... but making the
evidence fit the crime is not an honorable thing to do.
Simplistically, Randy McDonald concludes: “Suffice it to say that the case seems
very strong for a genocide of the Armenians ... as a legacy of earlier outbursts of
mass violence directed at the country's Armenian minority (the attacks of the 1890s,
for instance).” Yes, if one has already made up one’s mind without leaving one’s
mind open for the truth, the case would appear very strong. Unfortunately, none of
these excerpts would convince the genuine truth-seeker.
I wonder if Randy McDonald is even aware that the Armenian revolutionary groups began
forming in the late 19th century, inciting violence, hoping for Muslims to return the
favor, so that the Armenians could go to their European Christian protectors and get
the free goodies they were looking for? Otherwise, why would the Turks have suddenly
directed “mass violence... at the country's Armenian minority,” a minority that
lived and prospered for around six centuries as the “loyal millet”? You become
disloyal, you pay for the consequences... same as in any other country. Indeed, these
events were also reported in the Western press as poor, innocent Armenians getting
killed right and left by vicious Turks, just as with the 1915 events.... always
ignoring the thousands of Turkish victims. This is why the truth-seeker must try to
dig beneath the surface, as much as it hurts and goes against one’s prejudiced
“And--addressing someone else--it's no more
intrinsically anti-Turkish to talk about Ottoman Turkey's genocide of the Armenians
than it is anti-German to talk about Nazi Germany's genocide of the Jews.”
That someone else he is haughtily addressing would be me. The difference is, the
genocide of the Jews is a proven fact, while “Ottoman Turkey's genocide of the
Armenians” is far from a done deal. Randy McDonald certainly hasn’t proven
anything. If he wishes to point to “evidence” of hearsay from those with an
agenda, that is no way for him to get the respect that he desperately craves.
Randy McDonald then complains:
“Turkey and individual Turks seem to be almost absurdly defensive about the
situation, identifying any mention of Ottoman Turkish complicity in the genocide--or,
indeed, of any origins for the slaughters of the Armenians--as tantamount to an
annhilationist anti-Turkish racism. That's, well, off-putting.”
He’s a sensitive soul, isn’t he? How tragic that he’s so easily put off. Another
example of "off-putting," I'd say, is someone's accusing another of a
particularly heinous crime without the legitimate evidence to support the charge.
Let’s see: the Christian West regards the Turk
as almost beyond the realm of humanity since the Crusades. This is the chief reason
why the Armenian “Genocide” — and whatever other handy genocide the Turks are
accused of — can be so easily believable. The Turks are barbarians, of course they
are guilty of genocide. Someone like Randy McDonald can’t understand this, because
he’s a liberal, and his friends can tell us there’s not a racist bone in his body.
Well, it’s not so simple. If one relies strictly on the evidence of parties who
jumped to such conclusions because of their own ingrained beliefs against the Terrible
Turk, and can’t manage the objectivity to look at the matter honestly because of
this cradle-to-grave imprinting, OF COURSE that’s racism.
He goes on to demonstrate his bias by paying lip service to what he has not done (“The
full context of the genocide should be explored”), only to settle on his main point:
“(The Turks’) intellectually dishonest approach to the genocide. (‘What
genocide? It was self-defense, anyway.’)”
Self-defense? I’d call it a matter of outright survival. When the mightiest world
powers are knocking at your bankrupt gates in multiple fronts, and a rebellious
minority rises up and hits your beleaguered armies in the back, how would any nation
have reacted? The United States did no less with the Japanese for much less valid
reasons, since Japanese-Americans were loyal and there was no immediate threat of
And the odd thing is... Randy McDonald needn’t take MY word for any of this; the
evidence is right there, from the same kinds of sources he uses to prove his beloved
genocide. Has he read Boghos Nubar’s 1919
Times of London letter demonstrating the belligerence of the Armenians? What compels a
person like this to remain so steadfast, despite the overwhelming evidence
demonstrating there could have been no state-sponsored extermination policy?
“I feel obliged to reply to Randy's statement that Turks react ‘absurdly defensive’
about this subject. Is this strange? How would an American citizen react to a same
accusation? Or a UK citizen? ... Since the day I have read this article on your blog, I have
done some reading on the internet (and there are really a lot of sites, defending both
viewpoints) and to repeat myself, I am not convinced by the documents/articles I have read.
I just found out that there were victims at both sides. A lot of Ottoman turks were also
massacred. Why isn't this mentioned anywhere?”
What could the reason be besides “anti-Turkish racism”? Turkish lives simply are not
considered as meaningful as Armenian/Greek lives. Otherwise, why hasn’t liberal and
compassionate Randy McDonald wasted a breath on these Muslim victims, while he’s
aggressively convinced about the injustice against Armenians?
Ikiz requests: “Pls take the effort to read objectively,” Well, that would take
Here is Randy McDonald’s explanations; first, to “How would an American citizen react to
a same accusation? Or a UK citizen?":
If Americans, or Britons, committed similar acts, then perhaps you'd expect similar
defensiveness. But then again, in Germany--another country which lost badly in a world war,
suffering tremendous devastation and loss of life at home in the context--you don't see that
defensiveness over the fact of the genocides committed, against Jews, Poles, and other
Oh, was there a genocide committed by the Nazis against the Poles and other Europeans? The
Nazis certainly mistreated Europeans in occupied countries, but that’s a far cry from what
the Nazis committed against the Jews and Gypsies in systematic fashion. Perhaps Randy
McDonald’s definition of the word “genocide” is “mistreatment”? The word has
become so watered down, anyone can make “genocide” mean whatever they want it to mean.
Let’s get this straight: If I, as an American, came across charges that I know weren’t
true (for example, that my government had a “Wannsee Conference” like extermination plan
against all Vietnamese because there were massacres committed by isolated troops who went
berserk, as in My Lai), you had better believe I would be defensive. Randy McDonald resorts
again to the German parallel, comparing his unproven Armenian genocide to the real fact of
the Holocaust. What kind of a “debater” does that make him? He could only use such an
argument with an opponent who already puts the Armenian “Genocide” on the same plane as
the Holocaust. However, the position of his opponents is that there was no Armenian “Genocide.”
(And he has done a highly unsuccessful job of proving it.) Is he existing in this planet’s
As far as why Turkish massacres are ignored:
Well, I've mentioned it above in the thread. More to the point, the deaths of
Ottoman Turkish and other Muslim civilians aren't covered in the literature on the
Armenian genocide simply because that literature deals with the Armenian genocide, not
with the deaths of non-Armenians in the First World War.
If he mentioned it above in the thread, I easily missed it... just as he misses the
point about paying lip service is not the same as holding murdered Turkish lives as
importantly as the Armenian ones he harps on.
And can you get a load of that simple-minded logic!
The Armenians revolt. The Armenians commit wholesale massacres of the defenseless
Turkish population, because every Turkish man is needed at the front. Meanwhile,
50,000 (mainly Ottoman) Armenian guerillas operate freely behind-the-lines, slicing
and dicing to their heart’s content... especially after the Russians come in with
150,000 more Armenian fighters (according to Boghos Nubar), and more especially after
the Russians leave. More Armenians kill Turks than the other way around. These are the
very actions that lead to the Armenians’ relocation. The Armenians who die from
massacres are mainly targets of Kurds (usually vengeance-minded for what the Armenians
had done to Kurdish families) and Arab bandits, along with a few criminal Turks. Most
die from famine and disease, as do the nearly 3 million Turks, and if you believe
these Armenians died as a result of genocide, I can tell you a story about the Irish
These events are inextricable from the Armenian “Genocide.” How chauvinistic of
Randy McDonald to tell us they’re a whole ‘nother story. It’s like Justin
McCarthy teaches us... if we were to relate the Americans’ Civil War by telling only
the deaths of the north or the south, then that historic episode would also come
across as a genocide.
This is what’s called looking at ALL sides of the story, and that’s what Armenian
historians and false genocide scholars (as Helen Fein, who sneers at even the idea of
the “other side of the story,” as you read above) deliberately don’t do. Neither
does Randy McDonald, because he has already made up his mind who were the bad guys,
and who were the innocents. That’s why he doesn’t feel comfortable with letting
convincing facts and figures stand... he dishonorably deletes them, so his reader
would mostly read his preferred side of the story.
He concludes, as of this writing, by pointing to an article (in http://www.stradigma.com/english/special/articles_02.html)
and objects to the following passage:
"Atom Egoyan's ‘Ararat’ is a million-dollar propaganda endeavor in which every
scene from those things the Armenians tried to make a symbol of for themselves for years
like Noah's Ark to Mount Agri, from the innocence of ASALA to allegations of genocide, from
the Armenian spirit to words attributed to Hitler, from Lake Van to employing a Turk to play
the homosexual Cevdet smells hatred, rancor and revenge with a view to creating an obscene
image of the Turk on the viewer."
Here’s what Randy McDonald tells us:
Inasmuch as I'd be classified by the author as homosexual, and inasmuch as how I fail to
see how employing a Turkish actor to play someone who's gay "smells [of] hatred,"
um. That the site's description of Armenians suggests that they consistently acted as a
unified and subversive population is somewhat suspicious, particularly as contrasted to more
recent narratives of the Armenian genocide which emphasize the role of sympathetic Turks in
saving Armenian lives.
Once again, Randy McDonald is in a different sphere of reality. He prefers to dismiss the
intelligence conveyed in the entire article by conveying the idea that the writer is a
homophobic bigot. Does that translate to... “cheap shot”?
Unfortunately, we don’t live in a utopian world where people of all sexual preferences are
treated equally. The reason why “Rambo” isn’t gay, along with just about every other
movie hero, is because practically no society exists where homosexuality is seen without
stigma. This was the clever notion behind the now famous line in the TV series “Seinfeld,”
once a “negative” comment is made about gays: “Not that there’s anything wrong with
that.” Yes, more advanced societies tell us we need to be tolerant, but we are not yet at
the point where gays are perceived as role models.
So can anyone question why Atom Egoyan decided to add one more propagandistic blow by making
his main Turkish character a homosexual? Homosexuals are largely not seen as “normal,”
whether some of us like to admit to that fact or not; thus, in other words, even those of us
who would defend the rights of gays would not ordinarily welcome the sight of two men
French-kissing on the subway as “natural.” (Now that is very unfair, as to the
homosexual male, such would be very natural; but we’re talking about the perception of the
masses, not the gay perspective.) This was one of the Armenian-Canadian director’s ways to
“creating an obscene image of the Turk on the viewer."
Ottoman-Armenians “consistently acted as a unified and subversive population”? Why, it’s
shocking! Randy McDonald is in disbelief!
No one doubts many Ottoman-Armenians wanted nothing to do with their fanatical revolutionary
leaders. Unfortunately, once they got a sampling of what happened to them (“Ka-Pow!” “Ka-Pow!”),
they had no choice but to comply. Whether Ottoman-Armenians were coerced or whether they
joined their rebellion actively, the fact remains: the Ottoman-Armenians as a community
proved untrustworthy during a desperate life and death struggle. Any nation would have moved
them out of the way, under the same circumstances. Many nations would probably have done far
worse, as Arthur Tremaine Chester gave as a hypothetical
example with America’s blacks.
Randy McDonald concludes: “Balance, here and elsewhere, in arguments is important.”
Brother! So easy to say... and we all know talk is cheap.