Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) is, as its site tells us in the "Who We Are" page: "A human rights organisation specialising in religious freedom. CSW works on behalf of those persecuted for their Christian beliefs and promotes religious liberty for all."

If this organization were truly for "religious freedom," they would strive to "promote religious liberty for all" by not choosing a particular religion. They don't want to come straight out and say that they are entirely a Christian advocacy group  — nothing wrong with that — and they would rather fudge the issue by appearing "democratic." Already we must wonder about the honesty of such an organization. Not only do we expect real Christians to be upfront, but a real Christian does not discriminate, particularly when presenting oneself as a "human rights" advocate:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal 3.28)

In their "Prayer Diary" section, under "Christians in the Middle East," we are told that "Christians based in the Middle East face a range of difficulties, from the stigma attached to conversion to losing homes and property during conflicts. Pray that Christians would be a beacon of God’s light in what can be desperate situations." Aren't the described problems rather universal in the Middle East? They don't care about the non-Christians, which again is fine, but why present a deceptive picture otherwise? Why not observe what they say they ought to be observing, on their own "About CSW" page:

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
Proverbs 31:8

At any rate, the beef isn't with this organization that is pulling a fast one with its tricky descriptions. What we want to see if Caroline Cox (who was described in several Armenian sites as CSW's "president," seconded by sources such as World Magazine's Dec 3 2004 article, "Baroness for battle": "Danger is a steady diet for the president of Christian Solidarity Worldwide"; the CSW site lists her under "partners," and perhaps she was a president at one time. Regardless, this faithful believer is obviously a strong part of the set-up) follows the above code of religious ethics. Does she speak for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of the destitute? Does she judge fairly, and defend the rights of the poor and needy? (That would be all the poor and needy, as poverty does not discriminate among religions.)

No Secret: In Line with Armenians

 
The "Office of of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic" page is batty for Ms. Cox, in a September 30, 2005 press release (emphasis below is Holdwater's):

Lady Cox poses with ANCA's Aram Hamparian  and NKR Rep. Vardan Barseghian, at center

Members of Congress and leading human rights activist, British House of Lords Vice-Speaker Baroness Caroline Cox, joined together on Capitol Hill September 28 to mark the 14th anniversary of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic’s (NKR/Artsakh) independence.

Now this page cannot make a justice-seeker any sicker. Armenians stirred trouble (that is, they fired the first shot, as they are famously known for doing) in 1987, expelling some 4,000 Azeris in 1987. Sent to Sumgait, a powder keg was created, and some Armenians were even killed by fellow Armenians. Naturally, Armenian propaganda points to Sumgait as an example of aggression against Armenians, neglecting that the violence would have never taken place if not for the actions of the Armenians.

Karabakh's Armenians filtered in beginning circa 1828 to their "ancient homeland," the result of Russian conquests, and Russian plans to fill up the neighborhood with friendly Christians. Karabakh was the territory of the Azeris for centuries. Stalin decided to keep it that way in 1923, although Armenian propaganda tells us Karabakh was transferred to Azerbaijan, as though Armenia had owned it previously.

It was Armenia's sneak, cowardly Pearl Harbor-style attack in 1992 (with one billion dollars of Russian military equipment/aid and some manpower, some of which is outlined in a Congressional report, "Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict," IB92109, June 7, 2001, by Carol Migdalovitz, Foreign Affairs Defense and Trade Division [Weems, "Armenia," p. 213; the manpower claim is not the thrust of this report, although it says: "Moscow shares Yerevan's distrust of Turkey and reportedly aided the Armenian war effort; the former chief of operations of the Soviet 7th Army in Armenia (a Ukrainian) is Karabakh defense forces' chief of staff." The one billion dollar claim derives mainly from the testimony of Russian General Lev Rokhlin, who was mysteriously murdered afterwards, with the wife taking the rap], along with millions in American taxpayer money, as well as private American aid) that left some 800,000 Azeris homeless, a good number still languishing in refugee centers today.  The familiar ethnic cleansing methods and crimes of the Armenians were this time witnessed by the West. (Only to be quickly forgotten. Although Cox's nation was the first European state in 2003 to commemorate the victims of the Khodjaly massacre.) 16% of Azeri territory has been stolen. The war was fought exclusively on Azeri soil, never in Armenia. Armenia has been condemned several times by the U.N.'s Security Council. Armenia is the aggressor here, Azerbaijan the victim. (Even though Armenian-influenced "imperialists" rule over the Minsk Group — led by Russia, France and America — deplorably finding the case to be the reverse.)

The above are the facts. Pure and simple.

So here we have in this article Armenian-supported political sell-outs such as Frank Pallone and Joe Knollenberg, shamelessly making horribly dishonest statements
.
The Congressional rhyme word for "baloney," Pallone, actually said Karabakh was declared independent "under international law and under Soviet law" and that it "truly is a democracy"— perhaps in the same vein as the Dashnak-controlled motherland that people can't leave fast enough.) Another sell-out, Rep. Adam Schiff of California supported “independence for NKR because," for one thing,  it is "consistent with American values" (!!!) and he made sure to cry a Burning Tigris River for the poor, innocent Karabakh Armenians "politically and militarily challenged by Azerbaijan and its powerful ally Turkey." How do these people look at themselves in the mirror?

But let's get to the star of our show:

World-renowned human rights activist and an outspoken champion of Karabakh’s right to self-determination, Baroness Caroline Cox gave the keynote address. Baroness Cox, who recently returned from her 60th trip to the region, provided an eye-witness account of Azerbaijan’s ethnic cleansing campaign, pogroms and outright war against the people of Nagorno Karabakh and spoke passionately about the incredible progress — both democratic and economic — Karabakh has made since the 1994 cease-fire accord.

That is the way "Lady Cox" was described, and this is what she was quoted as saying: 

“It is high time for the international community to address the challenges raised by the conflict of the principles of self-determination and territorial integrity. Surely, there must be some recognition of the rights of a vulnerable minority, threatened by a repressive state with attempted ethnic cleansing or genocide, to have the right to claim their independence in order to survive … The time for recognition of the rights of the people of Karabakh for self-determination is NOW – for the sake of justice, peace and, in due course, the economic prosperity and stability for all who live in the region.”

“If any people in the world today deserve the right to self-determination and the recognition of independence, it is the people of Nagorno Karabakh.”

Wow.

So Baroness Cox is telling us that the perpetrators of the massacres, the ones acknowledged by her own nation, are really the victims here. Not just victims, mind you, but victims of "a repressive state (that) attempted ethnic cleansing or genocide."

We have seen exactly what kind of a "human rights" activist this little lady actually is. Moreover, she couldn't make any clearer how she stands as a woman of good moral character. Not only is she turning a blind eye to the humans she has designated as worthier, but she is lying to make criminals of the real victims.

In other words, she is behaving exactly as the Westerners around WWI who accused the Ottoman Turks of committing a genocide, when it was the Turks forced to act out of self-defense, in response to Armenian aggression (as even some Armenian historians have documented.)

Lady Cox is a fine Christian practitioner of "Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy" (Proverbs 31:8), as her own CSW organization suggests she follow.

It's one thing to be a religious and racist bigot. Quite another to pretend to be moral, and for "human rights."

 
The aforementioned WORLD Magazine article informs us the lady is really a commoner, and got her fancy title when Margaret Thatcher recommended Cox "to Queen Elizabeth for a lifetime seat with title in the House of Lords." (Thanks to a book Cox co-authored, "The Rape of Reason.") This article, which gushes over Cox's "Christian sense of justice," sheds light on the former nurse's involvement with the Karabakh Armenians:

Muslim Azerbaijan annexed the region, historically home to 150,000 Armenians. A systematic campaign, backed by Soviet-made missiles and air defenses, sought to rid the region of the Christian Armenians, a tiny minority long persecuted by Turks in the east and now at the mercy of 7 million Azerbaijanis to the west. Moscow implicitly sided with Azerbaijanis...

In other words, the land Armenians started filtering into in 1828 became a "historic home," the Azeris were the ones with the super-powered missiles and other weapons, and the Armenians are once again presented as the poor, innocent lambs in danger of getting wiped out by the barbaric Turkish hordes. And in this version of the story, Russia was actually cast as Azerbaijan's ally!

Hearing of besieged Armenians hiding in root cellars, Mrs. Cox made the first of dozens of sorties to the remote enclave, setting out from England in cargo planes, then switching to smaller craft in Armenia to skirt radar across Azerbaijani airspace and the Caucasus. Throughout a conflict much of the world ignored, she smuggled cigarettes for the pilots, food for Armenians, and needed drugs for doctors performing surgery by candlelight and without anesthetics. She counted 17 pilots among her friends killed during that period. Still, she kept up steady jaunts to the region, often hunkering with families in bomb shelters.

She was more than a Christian sympathizer; this fine Christian woman was actually a participant who provided support for the crimes the Armenians were committing, no different than many of the missionaries of Ottoman times. Some might call that an "accessory to murder."

By the way, the above comes from the "dependent on God" publication which strives for "factual accuracy and biblical objectivity." Isn't the Ninth Commandment somewhere in the Bible? You know, the one that says "Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Thy Neighbor"?

BBC reporter was live on line and he claimed that he saw more than 100 bodies of Azeri men, women and children as well as a baby who are shot dead from their heads from a very short distance.

BBC1 Morning News, 3 March 1992; there were plenty of such reports coming from British media sources. Note Cox will tell us in the next couple of paragraphs that "This article reflects the conclusions we have reached during all our visits since 1991." So she surely must have gotten a good taste of the Armenians' bloodthirsty ways during the 1992 Khojaly period.

 
After those two initial visits, the members of the international independent delegation came to the conclusion that Azerbaijan was the primary aggressor and that its policy of attempted ethnic cleansing of the Armenians was a gross violation of human rights. Subsequently, CSI became involved, initially as a human rights organisation; later, in 1992, with a commitment to try to meet some of the urgent needs for humanitarian aid required by the Armenians in Karabakh.

That's one heck of a human rights organisation, caring for those "regardless of their colour, creed or nationality." Near East Relief, anyone? Let's not even go near the repulsiveness of Azerbaijan being found the "aggressor," by this oh-so-neutral "international independent delegation."

At the time of writing, CSI is preparing to undertake the 29th mission to Karabakh. This article reflects the conclusions we have reached during all our visits since 1991. It will be clear that our position has changed from impartiality to advocacy.

What a dishonest, dishonest woman. She chooses the side she prefers based on propaganda and her prejudice, and then she shamefully tells us she was a shining example of "impartiality." The whole idea was "advocacy" to begin with.

She continues to assure us her conclusions were based upon "first-hand evidence and our analysis of the situation which has led us to conclude that Azerbaijan has been the primary aggressor in this tragic conflict." We're told that the Azeris' sufferings have been "deeply" regretted, and her gang performed "some humanitarian aid work for them." But the "overwhelming" blame must fall upon Azerbaijan.

 A brief review of events will demonstrate the grounds on which we base our conclusions and recommendations. After the historic Armenian land of Karabakh was relocated by Stalin, in the 1920s, as an enclave (oblast) within Azerbaijan, the Armenians who lived there (then approximately 94.5 per cent of the population) suffered not only from Soviet but also from Azeri repression. For example, also in the 1920s, Azeris brutally massacred and evicted Armenians from the town of Shushi....

It's truly stomach-turning. She provides this "impartial" information entirely from Armenian propaganda, such as the 94.5% population which probably came from the same source telling her over 1.5 million were killed in the "Armenian genocide." Not that a population reduction of Azeris isn't believable.

The 1926 Great Soviet Encyclopedia (that nation's "Encyclopedia Britannica") lays the blame on the Armenians. Our good lady might say the Soviets were in cahoots with the Azeris (as she actually contended for the 1990s period), but this time the Soviet information is reliable; we are told that Armenians were told to leave Karabakh and other Azerbaijani areas alone in July 1920, but "the Yerevan government began guerilla actions on the above mentioned territories," beginning in September 1920. The "Dashnaks, having received weapons from Britain, organized pogroms of the Moslem [mainly Azerbaijani] population in the whole of Kars province and Erevan district reducing Shuragel, Sharur-Daralagez, Kaguzman, Surmanly, Karagurta, Sary Kamysh regions to ashes. Having secured such a rear they attacked Olta and Kaguzman acquiring the support of Makin Sardar."

What makes the above aggression all the more despicable is that it came roughly at the tail end or as a continuation of the real genocide Armenia had perpetrated, roughly beginning in 1919. From "The Jewish Times" (June 21, 1990):

"An appropriate analogy with the Jewish Holocaust might be the systematic extermination of the entire Muslim population of the independent republic of Armenia which consisted of at least 30-40 percent of the population of that republic. The memoirs of an Armenian army officer who participated in and eye-witnessed these atrocities was published in the U.S. in 1926 with the title 'Men Are Like That.' Other references abound."

Lady Cox is not saying anything about this real genocide, one that even Professor Libaridian expressed a tiny bit of sorrow for. Her "omissions" are not easy to take; if Karabakh Armenians actually constituted 94.5% of the population in the early 1920s, the reason resulted from great evil, and the ones who neglect to mention this evil in an attempt to whitewash preferred humans become agents of evil themselves. Let's see how she described the period of the Khojaly massacres:

"The war raged from January 1992 to April 1994, bringing death to tens of thousands of Azeris and Armenians. Massively outnumbered, the 150,000 Armenians who inhabited Karabakh had to defend themselves against 7-million strong Azerbaijan, assisted by Turkey. At one stage in the hostilities, the Azeri government also hired several thousand mujahideen mercenaries."

She is deceptively giving the idea that the Karabakh Armenians were holding out on their brave lonesome, 150,000 against 7 million "strong" (!) and it sounds like even Turkey was a participant, the first I'm hearing of that claim. (She offers no proof; a little later she will claim retired military officers helped, but whether they did so on their own initiative or whether they did so at all is anyone's call, as there appears to be no reliable proof. [The Migdalovitz brief does make reference to this point, as reported in the Turkish media of late 1993; there's probably some truth here, but we don't know if this claim has been substantiated; just because something appears in a newspaper doesn't mean it's true, as we'll be powerfully reminded in the "A Habit of Allegations" section, coming up below.] What the lady is really doing here is capitalizing on the stigma Turkey has, thanks to the relentless, hateful anti-Turkish propaganda ongoing for years. Connect Azerbaijan with Turkey, and Cox will have an easier time in getting others to swallow her allegations, because the main thing the Christian world knows about Turkey is that Turkey loves to slaughter innocent Christians.)

The fortunes of war vacillated. In May 1992, the Armenians of Karabakh won two significant military victories: they opened a corridor through Lachin to Armenia, allowing supplies to come overland from Armenia to Karabakh.

No mention of Armenia's aggressive action, supported by one billion dollars in Russian arms and some Russian manpower. No, the Karabakh Armenians were all alone. Horrible! (Yet note she is finally letting on Armenia was involved, and it wasn't just 150,000 poor, innocent Karabakh Armenians facing a Turkish horde of 7 million, after all.)

The international community criticised the Armenians for this violation of the integrity of Azeri territory. But the blockades of both Armenia and Karabakh were themselves violations of human rights, yet the international community was largely passive and silent about these. If there had been no blockades, it would not have been necessary to create a corridor.

The woman is hopeless. The idea of that territory's conquest by Armenia had nothing to do with establishing a "corridor" for the simple passage of supplies; it was all in the grand plan for Armenia to perform yet another of her famous land-grab schemes, and this time in history, it worked. And of course the international community was not going to squawk over the blockades, as they were fully aware the blockades were placed in response to Armenian aggression. Using Cox's words, "If there had been no Armenian aggression, it would not have been necessary to create a blockade."

She also apologizes for the takeover of Shushi.
Secondly, the Armenians of Karabakh successfully regained control of Shushi: "The Karabakhi Armenians were also criticised by the international community for taking this 'Azeri' town." (Why is she putting "Azeri" in quotation marks? To her, apparently everything in sight must be designated as Armenian property.) You see, the fault was the Azeris', as they "retaliated" against this Armenian aggression, "assisted by recently retired Turkish Army officers." (Since she can't let go of the idea that Turkey was again salivating to commit a genocide on her beloved and innocent Armenians, let's assume it was true that some Turkish military personnel lent a hand to Azerbaijan. Did they do so at the outset, as part of a grand Turkish scheme to attack Armenians, as the Russians joined the Armenians in attacking Azeris? Or did the Turks come in after noticing the Azeris were getting creamed by the Armenians and Russians, and felt they had to do something to curtail the monstrous massacring and other crimes being committed upon the Azeris? There's a big difference there, and if Turkey was involved, it would have been on the same humanitarian level exhibited by the allied coalition [including Turkey] that tried to curtail the ethnic cleansing practices of the Serbs in Bosnia. It's morally corrupt for anyone to give the impression that Turkey was engaged in aggressive or oppressive behavior, as our little lady is trying to go for here.)

 In June, massive Azeri forces over-ran Armenian villages in Shaumyan to the north of Karabakh and occupied 40 per cent of Karabakh itself, coming to within a few miles of Stepanakert. Armenians who did not escape from their homes in time were murdered: I have seen the headless corpses of decapitated Armenians....In August 1992, the Azeris started aerial bombardment of civilians in Karabakh. In January 1993, they even resorted to the use of ground-to-air missiles against civilians."

"The Armenians of Karabakh fought back, using mainly captured weapons. They eventually regained much of their own territory, but were still vulnerable to continuing bombardment from Azeri towns around the perimeter."

So that was her explanation of how Armenia massacred and mutilated hundreds of civilians, and chased nearly one million people from their homes, stealing their land and property. Note how a relative handful of Armenians armed with "mainly captured weapons" beat back 7 million Azeris. That is amazing.

It's criminal, what this "impartial" and "Christian" prevaricator is doing here. She is trying to paint the picture of hopelessly outnumbered Armenian civilians besieged by a professional force possessing super-weapons, just as propagandists did during the WWI period, where the rebellious Armenians in Van, for example, with their superior machine gun-like "Mauser" and other weaponry, were portrayed as innocent civilians engaged in "self-defense" against extermination-minded Ottoman Turkish hordes... when in reality, it was the well prepared Armenians who attacked first (as almost always), treacherously hoping to hold the ground for their Russian allies, and it was the outnumbered Turks (with most of their men away on the multiple wartime fronts) engaged in the real self-defense.

The situation in Azerbaijan in the early 1990s was as such: the Soviet Union had recently dissolved, and this poor nation was trying to get its bearings, not at all prepared for the aggression committed by Armenia and her Big Bear brother. Baroness Cox prefers to reverse the roles here, but Azerbaijan's lot was actually on a very similar parallel as with the earlier part of the century, as Armenian Army Officer Ohanus Appressian reported:

"In the Armenian-Tartar War of 1905 the Armenians had much the better of the fighting. Many of our men had served in the Russian Army, and were trained soldiers. We Armenians were rich and possessed arms. The Tartars had never received military training. They were poor, and possessed few arms beyond knives."

Okay, finally! Some word on Azeri victims:

"Such operations had the inevitably tragic consequences of displacing tens of thousands of Azeris from their homes. But the responsibility for the suffering of their own people must lie with the Azeri government. If they had not continued to pursue military offensives, even after cease-fires had been agreed; and if they had not continued to kill and to wound civilians in Karabakh by bombardment from outside Karabakh, it would not have been necessary for the Armenians of Karabakh to respond by taking these bases."

From nearly a million to just "tens of thousands," and note how hysterically defensive she is of her poor, defenseless Christian martyrs. No matter what wrongs the Armenians commit, it always must be the other guy's fault. Lady Cox might have become more Armenianized than she would care to admit.

The madness of sheer, blind prejudice! It's not the poor Armenians we may need to pity as much as poor Lady Cox. Here she goes again; her ravings are becoming as hard to pull away from as the need to witness a gruesome traffic accident:

One option is quite definitely not open; namely, any attempt to declare Nagorno Karabakh to be part of Azerbaijan. That would be to reward those who indulged in aggression and invasion of a neighbouring independent state, as well as to cause gross violations of human rights in total defiance of treaty obligations.

And this woman, completely distorting history the way she has, actually has a seat on the British Parliament. God Save the Queen!

Her last line:

 "Today, it is still possible to find a solution for the Karabakh conflict and to save Armenia on the basis of the principles of defending human rights."

"Save Armenia." (Only Armenia.)

"Human rights." (Only Armenians'.)

False Christian Double-Talk Exposed by a True Christian

 
Samuel Weems covers the banditry tactics of the Armenians when Armenia launched guerilla punitive actions in Azerbaijan's Karabakh, Nahcivan and Zanzegur regions in 1920 (not to be confused with the brief "sneak attack" war Armenian fought with Azerbaijan a year or so earlier, soon after the Dec. 1918 war Armenians began in Georgia, and only a year after Armenia had signed a treaty recognizing Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan). Pointing to Hovannisian's history (the "P123" reference below), Weems wrote on p. 276 of "Armenia":

The Allies investigated and concluded that some "dirty work was taking place in Kars [P123]." These self-styled Christians were getting rid of Muslims, so the terror campaign was okay in their minds. The same is true today of the horrible terror campaign Armenians are waging to take 20 percent of Azerbaijan and rid the area of more than 1 million Muslims.

Jesus had something to say about such people, didn't he?

"Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.

"You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?

"Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

"Therefore by their fruits you will know them.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.

"Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in your name, cast out demons in your name, and done many wonderful works in your name?'

"And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness." [Matthew 7:15-23]

Christians have to ask themselves if the attacking of defenseless Muslim villages counts as the Lord's work. Would any Christian want to stand in the "Christian" Armenian leaders' shoes before Christ on judgment day?


Holdwater Adds:

Given the manipulation of truth Baroness Cox feels free to engage in with her "Christian sense of justice," exactly as the missionaries of the Ottoman Empire before her in what they also regarded as a Holy Crusade, the question may be rephrased outside of the Armenian leaders:

Would any Christian want to stand in the "Christian" Baroness Cox's shoes before Christ on judgment day?