Observations of An American…
While I was in Turkey last month, making a video of the historic Christian sites in
Turkey, a country perhaps better known as “Asia Minor” in the bible, I could not help
notice a great injustice that was being done our Turkish friends by some Armenian
lobbyists. Now, I do not have a single drop of Turkish or Armenian blood in me -- I trace
my heritage to 17th century Scottish settlers. I thought I would give the point of view of
“pure" American on the subject of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation efforts underway.
My wife and I experienced a great adventure in Turkey during the past six weeks and whilst
there I read several articles in the Turkish press relating to the "Armenian"
movement seeking "reconciliation." I concluded that all that is a scam,
engineered by Armenians, and my reasons are as follows.
Frankly, when one looks back through history, as I have been able to do, one must conclude
the Armenians are at it again! When they can't win in the battlefield, they talk until
they get what they want, a process of “verbal attrition” if you like.
The establishment of a "Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Committee", or TARC for
short, is yet another example of Armenians trying to talk their way into “getting
something for nothing”. Consider these basic facts, as reported in the Turkish press,
concerning the way TARC is to operate:
The Armenians will continue to work to…
(1) Get the United States government to recognize a genocide that they say took place in
1915 for which the Armenian claim the Turks are 100% guilty.
(2) Get the US State Department to work to support Armenian claims for reparations from
(3) Convince the leaders of Turkish civil society that there was genocide as Armenians
(4) Get the elite of Turkey to accept that admitting genocide allegations is in the Turks’
(5) Educate the public at large in Turkey that there was genocide as the Armenians claim.
(6) Portray the Turkish government and its people as “not yet ready to behave according
to the norms of modern, civilized nations", if the Turks don't do these things "
(7) Test the Turkish kids at school to verify that they believe there was genocide in
On the other hand, Ozdem Sanberk, a Turkish member of TARC, states: "The intent is
not to find what the truth is, but to open new horizons for the future and enhance mutual
understanding." Another Turkish member of TARC, Ilter Turkmen, says, "The
commission's task is not to come to a historical judgment."
What this American observer sees, however, is totally different. First of all,
"reconciliation" means there are two sides that need to come together. The
Armenians have well stated their demands for the continuance of the reconciliation
meetings. Now it is the Turks’ turn to say, and so far failed to say, what it is that
the Armenians must do for ”reconciliation”. Here are my suggestions:
Armenians must do for ”reconciliation”:
(1) Since the Armenians boast of being the world's first
Christian nation, they should prove their faith by taking the first step toward
peace. A good beginning for them is to admit that the Armenians had worked for 30
years to overthrow the Ottomans prior to 1915.
(2) Armenians must admit they were disloyal to the Ottomans with whom they had lived
in peace and prosperity for more than 500 years. They must admit that they joined
forces with the Russians to take control of the Ottoman lands, so the Armenians
could get some of the land, where the Armenians were not even a majority.
(3) Armenians must admit the Ottomans had the legal right to defend themselves and
remove all Armenians because many of them were engaging in military acts to help the
Russians behind the Ottoman army lines--same right the United States used to remove
the Japanese-Americans from the west coast at the start of World War II.
(4) Armenians must admit that their people had engaged in massacres of Turks within
the Russian side of the combat zones prior to and after 1915.
(5) Armenians must acknowledge that the Armenian dictator-government of 1918 started
unprovoked wars with neighbors Georgia and Azerbaijan in a failed land grab attempt.
(6) Armenians must acknowledge that present day Turkey is open to all religions and
all people enjoy religious freedom, in the best tradition of the Ottoman Empire in
the last 7 centuries, and that there is no universal religious freedom in Armenia
today. Compare the extremely low number of Muslim mosques left standing in Armenia
with the huge number of Christian Churches still operational in Turkey, for example,
and you will quickly get the idea that Armenians are very intolerant of other
religions on their soil.
(7) Armenians must work to get the Armenian government to accept, respect, and
support the rights of minorities, so that Muslims may enjoy the same rights as
Christians in Armenia.
(8) Armenians must work to get Armenia to admit that Armenia has persecuted Muslims
since entering World War I and that Armenia’s persecution of Muslims continues to
(9) Armenians must guarantee that no TARC member has conflict of interest now or in
the future. Case in point: New York Armenian attorney, Van Krikorian, a member of
TARC, has made an issue of "conflict of interest." He states he has no
business dealings with Turks or Turkey. Will attorney Krikorian pledge also, that he
will not represent Armenian clients in attempting to get "reparations"
from Turkey—or the Ottomans or anyone else?
(10) Armenians must work to get Armenia and the Armenian state approved sole church
to admit they have supported terrorist activities, to pledge to stop such acts of
(11) Armenians must work to get Armenia and the Armenian state approved sole church
to say they are sorry for their overt and covert support for 30+ years for the
Armenian terrorist groups like ASALA, JCAG, and others in their world wide attempts
to murder Turkish diplomats.
(12) It seems to me, since the Armenian government made a long and emotional
presentation to the Paris Peace Commission in 1919, in an effort to get “reparations"
from the Ottomans, and the Peace Commission, after hearing all the evidence
including systematic mass murder allegations, said "no" and gave them “zero”,
the case was closed back in 1919. Armenians must admit this fact and state from the
start that this issue was settled in 1919 and must not be brought up ever again.
Last time I looked, “reconciliation” is a two way street. It is only fair,
therefore, that such points as I outlined above be a part of the TARC foundation and
work. TARC cannot be a one-way street to benefit only the Armenians.
American Ambassador to Armenia Michael Lemmon, who has been playing a key role in
the formation of business ties between Yerevan and Ankara, said TARC activities are
encouraged by the United States, according to a news report in Turkish Daily News
(September 18). With the experience of the last three years in Armenia, Lemmon told
Turkish journalists, that “…nothing should be off the table for the unofficial
gatherings between Turkey and Armenia…” which is all the more reason that my
suggestions above also be put on the table.
Ambassador to Armenia Michael Lemmon also said in the same interview: ”I have been
sincerely telling not only Armenia but also the diaspora that I don't agree with the
spending of a lot of time for the approval of parliamentary resolutions on genocide.
It is possible to form a dialogue between the people but this can be achieved
through the efforts of the two sides. An outsider can only encourage or support
this. But this is something to be achieved by the Turkish and the Armenian
When reminded that all talks between groups were being locked typically on the
alleged genocide issue, Lemmon said that this issue should be handled by serious
people, silently, without taking the issue to the public attention. But the same
ambassador Lemmon, in a speech at ANI Conference, on April 22, 1999, had this to say
very “publicly” and very loudly:
"... Allow me to
speak bluntly, but I hope, constructively. Turkey's democratic evolution will not be
complete until Turkey's scholars, politicians and even ordinary citizens understand
and accept as illegitimate the events that turned the multiethnic Ottoman Empire,
home of the so-called 'Loyal Millet' into the ostensibly mono-ethnic state we see
today. But such understanding is difficult and simply not possible without dialogue
in good faith among scholars of good faith. ..."
The good ambassador forgets,
or ignores which is just as bad, one simple fact:
Did the Ottomans choose to turn the 600+ years old, multi-religious,
multi-ethnic empire to a nation-state one sunny afternoon, sipping tea at some
wonderful tea garden in Istanbul, admiring the eternal beauty of the Bosphorus? Did the British, the French, the Russians,
even the United States have something to do with it?
What about the Italians, and the Greeks, and the Armenians, and the Arabs
under Lawrence of Arabia? Hint: Look up World War I.
fact proves that the Armenian betrayed, organized armed groups, and ruthlessly
slaughtered Turks, especially in the City of Van.
This is the kind of “selective reviewing” of facts related to an
issue that makes international issues fester. The
good ambassador seems to approach this issue assuming the alleged genocide is a foregone
conclusion. That is why he reasons
generously: “…Here is where I would differ with many who put so much time and
effort into the adoption of statements by politicians and parliaments. The process that I
have described will not, it seems to me, be best advanced by the issuing of public
declarations and attempting to try contemporary Turks before the court of public opinion
for the actions of their forefathers. Reconciliation cannot come about if one of the
parties does not recognize that there is anything to feel responsibility for, much less
remorse, and the other insists a priori on condemnation.
What is needed is a dialogue of civilizations, of peoples, perhaps best undertaken
by scholars, that takes us on not just an historic, fact-finding journey, but also on a
spiritual, transcendental path that allows us to comprehend, accept and proceed in an
effort to build a future where such events never occur again."
Now I will give you some references which will prove, beyond a shadow of doubt — and
believe me when I say this, because I am a former prosecutor and a retired judge — that
the ambassador is wrong in concluding that the alleged genocide is a fact and the
Armenians are wrong in insisting on their allegations be taken at face value.
This fact proves that Armenians did take part in a war with well organized, armed, and
trained Armenian armies and that the bloody "Armenian war effort" was
deliberately, shamelessly, and unfairly disguised as "genocide"
letter to Times of London, dated January 30, 1919, signed by, Boghos Nubar, the head of
the Armenian National Delegation to the Paris Peace Conference, held by the victors of the
WWI, to divvy up the spoils and the loot of the war, the Armenian leader begs the allied
powers to reward the Armenians for their "service". In a most damning
documents, perhaps of the whole era, here is what he says and I quote directly from the
letter published: "…The Armenians have been, since the
beginning of the war, de facto belligerents - since they fought alongside the Allies on
all fronts - in Palestine and Syria, where the Armenian volunteers, recruited by the
Armenian National Delegation at the request of the French government, made up more than
half of the French contingent. In the Caucasus, where, without mentioning the 150,000
Armenians in the Imperial Russian Army, more than 40,000 of their volunteers offered
resistance to the Turkish Armies."
proves that the Armenian betrayed, organized armed groups, and ruthlessly slaughtered
Turks, especially in the City of Van. Even
anti-Turkish, anti-Muslim Henry Morgenthau, Ambassador to the Ottoman Empire in 1915-1916,
whom the Armenians love to quote, says in his otherwise very anti-Turkish
book, Ambassador Morgenthau's Story, Doubleday, Page & Co., Garden City,
New York (1918), page 301: "...In the early part of 1915, therefore, every
Turkish city contained thousands of Armenians who had been trained as soldiers and who
were supplied with rifles, pistols, and other weapons of defense. The operations at
Van once more disclosed that these men could use their weapons to good advantage..."
Armenians can't fool
all the people all the time.
This one reveals the other side of the “my
grandmother told me” stories so widely publicized in the West. On Armenian atrocities victimizing Turks of
Erzerum, consider this fact: Rafael de Nogales, A Venezuelan adventurer
who joined the Ottoman army to fight in WWI and later became a Venezuelan general
says in his book Four Years Beneath the Crescent, (translated from
Spanish by Muna Lee from the original Spanish version: Quatro Anos Bajo La Media
Luna), Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, London, 1926, page 45, and I quote:
"...After hostilities had actually commenced, the Deputy to the Assembly
for Erzerum, Garo Pasdermadjian, passed over with almost all the Armenian troops and
officers of the Third Army to the Russians; to return with them soon after, burning
hamlets and mercilessly putting to the knife all of the peaceful Mussulman villagers
that fell into their hands."
If you think everything you know, everything you
heard from the Armenians is right, therefore everything you know must be right,
think again. Look at this reference on
Armenian distortions, propaganda, and misrepresentations. George M. Lamsa, a missionary well known for
his research on Christianity, says on page 133 of his book The Secret
of the Near East, The Ideal Press, Philadelphia (1923), and I
quote: "...In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and
thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed,
about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left
destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a
well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish
cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these
conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine
guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies…"
And if you think Armenians
were sucked into a war they did not want and that the “poor starving Armenians”
as we were led to believe, were victims of an alleged genocide, think again.
Armenians planned every step of their heinous crimes.
Here is the proof of Armenian plans to ethnically cleanse all Turks.
William L. (Langer), Professor of History, Harvard, in
his book The Diplomacy of Imperialism 1890-1902, Alfred a. Knopf, New York
(1935), Volume I, page 157, says the following: "…One of the
revolutionaries told Dr. Hamlin, the founder of Robert College, that the Hentchak
(i.e. Armenian) bands would watch their opportunities to kill Turks and Koords, set
fire to their villages, and then make their escape into the mountains. The enraged
Moslems will then rise, and fall upon the defenseless Armenians and slaughter them
with such barbarity that Russia will enter in the name of humanity and Christian
civilization and take possession…”
Armenians can't fool all the people all the time. What Armenians allege as genocide
was in fact a bloody civil war, started by Armenians, at a time of weakness of the
Ottoman Empire, when the latter was fighting a world war (WWI) for nothing less than
Recent court decision in Switzerland where the Swiss Court cleared Turks who
disputed genocide, show that there are two sides to every story, Armenian genocide
More importantly, though, look what the British Embassy in Ankara, Turkey, said in a
press release dated July 23, 2001:
"...The British Government of the day and successive British
Governments viewed the massacres of 1915-1916 as an appalling tragedy. We
understand the strength of feeling on this issue given the loss of life on both
sides. But we do not believe the evidence demonstrates that the events
should be classified as "genocide", which has a specific meaning
under the 1948 UN Convention on Genocide.
Responding to a parliamentary question in February, the then Foreign and
Commonwealth Office minister Baroness Scotland told the House of
Lords "The Government, in line with previous British Governments, have
judged the evidence not to be sufficiently unequivocal to persuade us that these
events should be categorised as genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on
Genocide as defined by the 1948 UN Convention on genocide, a convention which is in
any event not retrospective in application. The interpretation of events in Eastern
Anatolia in 1915-1916 is still the subject of genuine debate amongst historians..."
not this selective morality?
What the British are saying is nothing less
than remarkable, for at least 2 reasons:
1. There was loss of life
on both sides. How come
then the Turkish suffering is always ignored and never even once acknowledged by the
Armenians and their sympathizers like Ambassador Lemmon? Is not this
religious/ethnic discrimination based on hatred? Is not this selective
morality? Is not it an insult to the silent memory of million of Turkish dead
who cannot rise and defend themselves in Swiss court rooms or TARC meetings against
shameless Armenian allegations?
2. Events should not be
classified as "genocide".
The term "genocide" was coined in 1948, some 33 years after the
event, drawing from the terrible experience of Jewish Holocaust in Nazi Germany, and
it is neither retroactive nor applicable to the Turkish-Armenian civil war. Armenians know this full well, which
is why they do not dare sue Turkey in the international court. Such courts
need hard facts and evidence, not hype or propaganda.
The British occupied Istanbul, the capital of the Ottoman Empire, for four
years (1918-1922) after winning WWI. They had complete access to all Ottoman
documents and scanned them diligently to find the "smoking gun" or
anything remotely similar to use in courts of law. The British found
nothing and they had to let the Ottoman leaders, who had been detained on the Island
of Malta awaiting trials, go free. That should have been the end of that.
But, then you are dealing with some hate merchants here, who are so used to begging,
crying, and getting something for nothing, who have kept the lucrative propaganda
machine pumping "poor, starving Armenians" stories in the Christian
world, unopposed by any Muslim, of course! Unsuspecting Christians, in the
belief that they were helping their persecuted brethren showered Armenians with
money, thus financed the reverse: the Armenian war of aggression against Turks,
during WW1 and Azerbaijanis in the 1990s. This despicable scenario goes on
even today. But with fast and unlimited circulation of knowledge, thanks to
press, TV, and Internet, Armenian lies are being exposed one by one.
deliberate misrepresentations were bought lock, stock, and barrel
The truth is plain, simple, and sad. Armenians, enjoying the highest
living standards under Turkish rule since Seljuk Empire (10-13th Century) and then Ottoman
Empire (13-20th Century) for close to a millennia, who were even bestowed with the honor
of "the most loyal nation" by the Sultan in the multi-religious, multi-ethnic
Ottoman Empire, resorted to violence and aggression between 1890-1922 in order to
overthrow Turkish rule and establish Armenia on lands that always had a Muslim majority.
Propaganda, agitation, and terror, in that order, were used to provoke the Turks into a
retaliation, which, according to Armenian plans, would trigger a military intervention by
the Christian allies (mostly Britain, France, Russia).
Once the allies won, Armenians reasoned, then they would turn the eastern parts of the
land over to the Armenians. Armenian atrocities and Muslim victims were largely ignored by
Western sources (Christian diplomats, missionaries, news reporters, military agents,
etc.). Armenian para-military hoodlums (Armenian Revolutionary Federation and Hunchaks)
cold bloodedly slaughtered countless Muslims, until regular Armenian armies under various
uniforms (deserters in Ottoman, volunteers in Russian and French) took over this gory task
enthusiastically. When the Allies did win the war in 1918, Armenians wanted their reward:
reparations and land from the Ottoman Empire. Neither came!
The French and the British did not even so much as give the Armenians a place at the Paris
peace conference, which started in January of 1919. They were not sold on the Armenian
claims. The civil war cost Turks and Armenians dearly. Turkish suffering fell on deaf
ears, while Armenian suffering was blown out of proportion with "my grandmother told
me" stories. Armenians played the "Christian" card to the hilt, because
they rightly figured that they were simply unopposed in church circles. No Muslim would go
to a church to oppose the Armenian tall tales. As a result, Armenian deliberate
misrepresentations were bought lock, stock,
Armenians also tried alternative routes to realize their impossible dreams. Among them are
international terrorism (1922-2001) including in recent years 100 attacks worldwide which
left 70 diplomats and innocent bystanders dead mostly in Europe and USA; media and
politics; and hate monuments.
All of these could easily be interwoven. Assassinate a Turk; media will come; world will
hear your story; collect money; erect monument; and then repeat the whole cycle. The more
biased the coverage, the more political power. Normally, such an intense struggle over
such a long period should have succeeded, but it didn't. The reason was, the fact that the
Armenians were fighting against the truth! No one can fool all the people all the time.
Armenians fought against the truth, but instead of reparations and land, all they got was
"selective morality" in pockets of communities where Armenians live.
Reconciliation can only emerge if both sides are honest, fair, and just.
Former Prosecutor, Retired Judge, and a Christian Scholar