|
|
Some Armenians can be so
sneaky. The entire community was mostly silent over the horrible period where
Armenian extremists were causing so much death and destruction, which meant
most condoned these criminal actions (as we know from the world of genocide,
"Silence is Compliance.") Yet even though too many Armenians loved
what their "freedom fighters" were doing (to the point of
establishing defense funds when a few were caught; Armenian culture is taught
to revere Armenian terrorists who have excelled in taking the lives of
innocents, such as Dro and Antranik), they made sure to publicly state that
they do not support terrorism. (Which, of course, they had to do... even
though most did not mean it. As Cyrus Hamlin wrote in one of his own rare displays of honesty: "Falsehood
is, of course, justifiable where murder and arson are.")
This fellow, Randy Baloian, surely follows the rule. ("I am not condoning the assassination of Turkish
officials.") But let's see how he felt no compunction in giving the green
light to the fanatics among his community to keep pulling their triggers.
|
|
|
| “As an
Armenian, I never condone terrorism, but there must be a reason behind this. Maybe the
terrorism will work. It worked for the Jews. They have Israel.“
Kevork Donabedian, the editor of The
Armenian Weekly, as quoted in the November 18, 1980 issue of The Christian
Science Monitor. |
Randy Baloian, “Assassinated Turkish Officials Are Innocent?” Asbarez
Newspaper, December 1, 1984, p. 14.
ASSASSINATED TURKISH OFFICIALS ARE INNOCENT?
It is common practice these days to ascribe the term of innocence to a Turkish government
official who has been assassinated by Armenian militants, whereupon I never fail to hear
that apologetic line, ‘he wasn’t even born during the time of the massacres.” But
let’s take a closer look at this application of innocence.
In this country we have a law which states—in so many words—that any person who
conceals a crime is guilty of being an accomplice.
Now assume for the moment we forget the Genocide Convention of the United Nations, which
states that the guilty party in the crime of genocide is the perpetuating state. (State
being defined as a politically organized body of people occupying a definite territory.
That is, the state continues even though its government may change.) By the way, the
Genocide Convention had been signed by Turkey.
For the moment, let us also forget that the Turkish government is presently carrying out a
policy of cultural genocide on the Armenian and Kurdish peoples within Turkey. A policy
that has imprisoned Reverend Manuel Yergatian for 14 years because of “evidence”
proving he undermined the Turkish government. The so-called evidence amounted to a map of
Armenia and an April 24th lecture given in Jerusalem.
Let us instead devote our thoughts to the idea of the Turkish government as an accomplice
to the crime of 1915.
Currently, the Turkish government is financing a movement to reinterpret Turkish history,
more specifically to distort the events of the 1915 genocide. Take for instance Stanford
Shaw’s book, History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey, 1808-1975 (1977). In it,
Shaw contends that the events of 1915—1918 were nothing more than misfortunes of war. He
also accounts for the death of only 200,000 Armenians, while holding the Armenians
responsible for the massacre of thousands of Muslim lives. In the future such distortions
of history will no doubt increase, due to the backing of the Turkish government.
Armenians are no longer faced with a Turkish government content to sit idly by. Now, it is
making an effort to sell its warped version of history—or at least instill doubts about
the events of 1915—1918 to the historians of the world.
As individuals there is no question that the assassinated Turkish officials are innocent
of the crime of 1915. It seems obvious they had nothing to do with the murders of
Armenians in 1915—1918. However, as representatives of a government which blatantly
denies and conceals the massacre of 1.5 million humans, I believe they can be considered
nothing less than guilty.
We are sometimes led to believe that individuals are only responsible for their personal
action. But as a member of an organization, an individual’s responsibility does not
cease to exist. In most cases, an individual—who is part of an organization—accepts
some of the responsibilities of that organization by overtly representing it.
I am not condoning the assassination of Turkish officials, but merely pointing out some
considerations people tend to forget. I’ve always felt that ascriptions of guilt and
innocence are dependent upon individual values and beliefs. However, a clearer
understanding of the issues can only serve to improve the evaluation of this ascription.
|
"No
sir, you will not find Armenians who will express disapproval or
distress for the assassination of Turkish governmental officials. It
is unfortunate that the attitude of the Turkish government vis-a-vis
Armenian demands dictates that more people have to die in pursuit of
justice."
David Davidian, "professional Armenian patriot,"
and part of "The Genocide Archive Project" in recent years, from a Google
usenet group on Turkish culture, circa 1989. In response to another Armenian who
thought similarly (while stating that terrorism cannot be condoned, of course), Deniz
Akkuz replied (May 2 1989): "Mr. Bedrossian, I am quite frankly appalled at
your refusal to feel anything for people killed on duty. Unless there is a basic
respect for human life, which I see that you lack, your cause is nothing more than
howling for revenge and more blood."
|
 |
|
Randy
Baloian |
As a California State University undergrad in Fresno,
Randy Baloian was part of the "Armenian Studies Program,"
and served as an assistant editor and, later, editor, for their newspaper, Hye Sharzhoom,
between 1984-1986, the latter year when he graduated; he may
not be as active these days with the beloved genocide, working
in anthropology as he appears to be doing. So let's try not
to hold examples of his hot-blooded youth against him, even
though we have to wonder whether his views have significantly
changed in the years that followed... as deeply involved in
Hai Tahd as he was. ("Armenian Studies,"
based on victimhood and the need to blame villains, can too
often represent a license for teaching hatred.)
It's not as much the person behind this article we need to
focus on, as much as the incredible justification used for
murder... since Mr. Baloian served as the rule, and not the
exception, for the vengeance-minded in his community.
Take a look at the appalling reason being employed, here.
A Turkish diplomat, whose multi-layered job is far from defined
by the "Armenian genocide" serving as the obsession
for so many Armenians, may only be identified as an "accomplice"
to the "crime" of not recognizing the events of
1915 as a systematic extermination policy.
If someone is a murderer, and another assists in the crime
in some tangential way but does not pull the trigger, should
the punishment for this "accomplice" be execution?
That's what poor Randy Baloian apparently believed in. (Even
though he did not condone assassinations... of course.)
(Let's say Mr. Baloian's baloney got through to the
weaker-minded Armenian extremists, and the "logic"
paved the way for some to kill innocent people. Would that
not have made Mr. Baloian an "accomplice" to the
crime? Certainly he would serve as a much more legitimate
accomplice than what he is accusing these diplomats of, of
concealing a crime. In order for them to have been concealing
the truth of genocide as Armenians believe it, these diplomats
would have needed to be experts in history — at least one-sided
history; yet, as Fatma Muge Gocek herself revealed,
the Turkish school system did not even cover the genocide
topic. So unless the point is these diplomats were guilty
simply as representatives of the Turkish government, which
the author later alludes to, then most of these historically
ignorant diplomats were completely innocent of concealment...
in short, they were not even qualified to be "any
person who conceals a crime... guilty of being an accomplice."
Since Mr. Baloian served as a much deadlier accomplice, let's
hope [especially if his words encouraged terrorists to follow
through] he would not believe he'd deserve the same fate as
the one he handed down to Turkish diplomats.)
Naturally, the "murderer" in this case is the Turkish
government; even though this is the government that had overthrown
the Ottoman government. (Mr. Baloian knew he was in trouble
here, and tried to tell us the UN Genocide Convention holds
the "state" responsible, even if a successor state.
That is not what the UN Genocide Convention says at all; only
individuals may be found guilty of the crime of genocide,
not nations.) And let's face it; all the real evidence points
to the Ottoman government as not being behind a "Final
Solution, " but instead tried to safeguard Armenian lives.
(Failing in some cases because of shortages and actions of
renegades & other locals.) The Armenians who lost their
lives mainly died from famine and disease, as did the bulk
of the 2.5 million other Ottomans who died, the ones who don't
rate as human beings, since no one cares about them.
(As a side note, while I don't know anything about the case
of Reverend Manuel Yergatian... Mr. Baloian's
striking example of modern Turkey's policy of "cultural
genocide" against Armenian Turks... if Yergatian was a citizen of the Turkish nation and
advocated part of his nation should become "Armenia"
— as it sounds like he was doing. — then he should have been
careful about the laws of his country. These actions would
be looked upon as treasonous by any nation.)
After Mr. Baloian engages in the typically blind take on genuine
history that any graduate of an Armenian Studies program would
be susceptible to (such as ignoring the vast and devilish
crimes of mass murder committed by his people against Turks
and other non-Armenian Ottomans; this would be a "distortion
of history" to a brainwashed party, regardless of the
eyewitness testimony of the allies of Armenians, the Russians,
French, British and Americans, along with other westerners),
he would be perfectly content in signing the death warrant
of innocent Turkish diplomats:
"...[A]s representatives of a government which blatantly
denies and conceals the massacre of 1.5 million humans, I
believe they can be considered nothing less than guilty."
Is that not incredible? And Mr. Baloian completely ignored
the fact that the victims of his terrorist heroes were not
confined to Turks. Even Mr. Baloian's fellow United States
citizens were killed by them, and many hundreds worldwide
were injured, along with much property destruction.
Yet, the mind of a fanatic cannot see clearly. And racist
fanatics in the Armenian community who all too willingly decided
on becoming murderers found articles as this one the perfect
elixir, in case their consciences were somewhat troubled by
the crimes they were anxious to commit... in support of a
cause that is "nothing
more than howling for revenge."
|
| |
|
|
