Over the years I have certainly encountered further information about the subject matter and have kept my eyes open for solid evidence in EITHER camp. The problem was, the only information that could readily be found was from the Armenian camp. When the "Assembly of Turkish American Associations" finally got going in the early 1980s, I breathed a sigh of relief.... and ate up their magazine's (ATA-USA, which later transformed into The Turkish Times) "historical record" articles, some of which I've dusted off and scanned, for inclusion at this web site.

 

ADDENDUM, 3-06:

I've received comments regarding the above paragraph: "Armenians can typically be aggressive, ill-informed, single-minded, and just plain unreasonable..." being an indication of my "hatred" of Armenians. Just got such a message from an American professor residing in Mexico, who worships reporter Robert Fisk. He went for the "personal attack," instead of focusing on any historic issues.

People are going to see hatred where they want. And those who prefer ad hominem attacks are going to set as their priority to attack the arguer instead of the argument.

Let's make this clear: I have zero hatred of Armenians; I was reared to look upon Armenians as my brothers and sisters. I have 100% hatred of the deception of Armenians' age-old propaganda.

It is true when I first started this site, I was so overwhelmed by the real hatred that is out there against Turks, in Internet-land, I decided to strike back in a manner that was not the typical nicey-nicey, take the high road, style of the Turkish sites I had been seeing. Sure, you can attract more flies with honey than vinegar, in general. But in the case of this genocide business, the ones who squawk the loudest keep getting the attention, and voices of moderation — as usual — get laid by the wayside. (Not that getting laid is that bad, of course.) This is why I have decided to use colorful language. At times I've regretted that decision, because this site does not come across as "academic," with the colorful language and humor that has been interjected. In reality, sources are always provided when available, so the site is plenty academic. People who don't like the verified sources are going to find reason to be critical, no matter what.

But I calmed down after getting much of the frustration out of my system, and later writings became more tempered. When I come across times I've gone overboard, I've "revised" (gasp!) older pages, to soften things up. I'm now usually adding modifiers to the word "Armenians," such as "genocide-obsessed," and the like. (The problem is, when the word "Armenians" is used in every other sentence, sometimes modifiers are not always going to be possible.)

If you'll notice how the paragraph above ends, it is clear I'm not talking about all Armenians. Only about the ones who have gone cuckoo for genocide puffs.

When "Armenians" are being referred to on this site, we are almost always talking about the ones who are genocide obsessed.

Of course there are Armenians who don't believe in this big fraud. I recently came across a press report in an Armenian newspaper, where Armenians from Armenia were being criticized for speaking the unspeakable... that the events in question occurred because of the violence and provocation of the revolutionary leaders. (Just as First Prime Minister Hovhannes Katchaznouni admitted.) Does anyone believe out of the seven million or so Armenians worldwide, there aren't going to be Armenians who know and accept the truth?

But these Armenians don't speak up publicly. They know better. They know the roots of their own people's terrorism, the kind that claimed 2 out of 3 victims as Armenians in the time span of 1904-06, directed against the Armenians who didn't play along.

Today, the slightest stepping out of line is a cause for attack, as Vincent Lima and Ara Sarafian discovered. Armenians who say anything that goes off-track are immediately accused of being agents of the Turkish government, or another example of character defamation; the typical smear campaigns begin. Physical dangers are never out of the question, either, if we are to be reminded of "tradition."

The only ones who speak publicly are the ones who have been poisoned by the Dashnak mentality. That includes the diaspora, and unfortunately, the nation of Armenia. (The first leader after post Soviet independence tried to keep the Dashnaks at bay. He failed. An Armenian author provides much revealing insight, regarding these issues.) Just go to any Armenian forum, and you'll see what I mean. Most of these genocide-obsessed Armeni-Lemmings' minds are simply hermetically sealed; no rhyme or reason will work with them, because they are approaching the topic not from reason, but from faith. They are the equivalent of religious fanatics.

We must assume most Armenian professors know the truth, but are deliberately falsifying the issues... proponents of "Hai Tahd" as they are. Most exhibit the same characteristics as stated in the paragraph above. (As Prof. Guenter Lewy summed up, after being attacked by a whole bunch of pro-Armenian "scholars": they exhibit a "superb arrogance.")

Conclusion: anyone who feels the paragraph in question is indicative of "hatred" can try this simple test: point to an Armenian who publicly goes against the tide. Aside from the late Edward Tashji, and possibly a few Armenians from Turkey, if you can't find one, then explain how it could be possible Armenians can so typically be aggressive, ill-informed, single-minded, and just plain unreasonable. If you fail, then please restrain yourself from going for the cheap shot.