(BULLIED HISTORIANS) Tall Armenian Tale: The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide

HOME

SECTIONS

Quotes

COMMENT

The Armenians have perfected the art of presenting their case to the exclusion of all others to a tee. When a historian comes along and dares to write the version of events countering their own, it becomes open season on that historian. On an Armenian web site, pages were devoted to Princeton Professor Heath Lowry, supporting what a person of ill-repute he is. UCLA Professor Stanford Shaw's house was actually bombed by Armenian extremists in the late 1970s. (In fact anyone who participates in putting Turks in a possibly good light is fair game... as in the case of Antonio Banderas, who was set to play Ataturk in a proposed motion picture; the actor got intimidated after receiving scores of threatening letters, mostly from members of the Greek-American community. As of this writing, the actor has signed up to appear in an Armenian-friendly movie, The Forty Days of Musa Dagh... if you can't fight 'em, join 'em!) (ADDENDUM: It appears this project has been shelved, likely thanks to the poor showing of the movie, "Ararat.")

As difficult as it is to have the Western public consider the truth of what really took place, already as brainwashed as the masses have been... imagine how much more difficult this task becomes when historians are in fear of getting their reputations sullied, or even of physical dangers.

TABLE OF CONTENTS:

1) Bernard Lewis

2) Justin McCarthy

3) Heath Lowry

4) Stanford Shaw

5) Samuel Weems

THE TRIAL OF BERNARD LEWIS

On November 16, 1993 the French daily conservative Le Monde published a long interview with Professor (now emeritus) Bernard Lewis of Princeton University on occasion of the publication of his latest book The Middle East. The main topic of the interview was Islamic fundamentalism; however, given the preeminence of Professor Lewis, the interviewer touched on the so-called “Armenian Genocide” as well.

Professor Lewis is a world respected authority on the Middle Eastern and in the Ottoman history. His works have been translated in 22 languages. He has lectured in Europe, Asia, North Africa. and the United States, as well as many Muslim countries. Below, is the English translation of the segment of the interview that deals with the Armenian issue:

Le Monde—Why do the Turks always refuse to admit the Armenian Genocide?

Bernard Lewis— You mean, the Armenian version of the history? There was an Armenian problem for the Turks created by the advance of the Russians, and also there was a population with an anti-Turkish sentiment in the Ottoman Empire who sought independence, and they overtly sympathized with the Russians advancing from the Caucasus. Also, there were Armenian bands, the Armenians bragged about their heroic exploits in resistance, and the Turks had trouble to maintain order under the prevailing war conditions. For the Turks it was necessary to take the punitive and preventive measure against a hostile population in a region threatened by foreign invasion. For the Armenians it was liberating their land. However, both parties agree that the repression was geographically limited; for example, those measures did not affect the Armenians who lived in the other parts of the Ottoman Empire.

No one has any doubt that terrible events took place; the Armenians, as well as the Turks suffered and perished in equal measure. Yet, no one will be able to tell what the circumstances were like, and how many people died. Consider, for instance, the case of Lebanon [Beirut] that took place recently and in full view of the entire world. During their [the Armenians] relocation to Syria [an Ottoman province at that time] hundred thousands of Armenians died on account of famine and epidemics. However, when you brought up the question of “genocide”, you imply that there was a deliberate policy of extermination, to annihilate systematically the Armenian nation. This is very doubtful. The Turkish documents prove an action of relocation, not extermination.

L.M.— Do the Turks accept what you say?

B.L.— It depends on what Turk you talk about. The authorities do not accept it. Some Turkish historians will give you an answer somewhat different.

In the aftermath of this interview, four law suits by a group of Armenian organizations, and the International League Against Racism and Anti-Semitism were brought in Paris against Professor Lewis. Their spokespersons found the opinions of Professor Lewis (or, his legitimate doubts about the issue) objectionable, and they went to court to demand their suppression and punishment. One of the four cases was a criminal action brought under the French Gavssot Law, or as they call it the “hate speech law”. Under this law any attempt to deny crimes against humanity committed during World War II is a punishable crime. The court found that the Gayssot Law cannot be applied to the Armenian case, as in spirit and letter it was strictly against Holocaust deniers. For Americans, the Gayssot Law is an anathema as it violates our most cherished value, which is freedom of speech. How such a medieval law can be enacted in a supposedly progressive country like France is beyond imagination.

The verdict in this criminal case was given on November 19, 1994, and the case was dismissed. The other three were civil actions brought under clauses, of the French civil code making it a (tort?) in certain circumstances to cause distress to an individual or group. The verdicts in the three civil cases were given on March 1, 1995; June 21, 1995; and July 12, 1995. In two of the civil actions, the plaintiffs were represented by Tremolet de Villiers. a lawyer well known for his keen interests in Holocaust issues.

Professor Bernard Lewis

Two of the civil cases were also dismissed by the courts, and the plaintiff parties were ordered to make contributions to the defendant’s (Professor Lewis) costs. In the third civil case, the court ruled that it was “in no way established” that Professor Lewis had “pursued a purpose alien to his mission as a historian,” yet, he was found at fault in not having cited, in the course of the interview, “elements contrary to his thesis” and had thus “revived the pain of the Armenian community.” For this offense (!) Professor Lewis was ordered to pay 1 French franc (25 cents!) in damages to each of the two plaintiff parties as well as contribution to their costs. It is noteworthy to add that, while these proceedings were in progress, Professor Lewis was honored by being elected a Correspondent of the Institute de France.
This strange court actions in France touched off some reactions from prominent newspapers in this country, such as the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. The Wall Street Journal dedicated an editorial to this issue on August 28, 1995 under the heading of “A France for Your Thoughts.” The Editorial said that “... the whole controversy was dragged into court, indeed, by laws intended to silence nuts denying that Hitler exterminated all the Jews, and that the gas chambers never existed. When asked whether or not the same logic could be applied to the Armenians, the court refused to get involved in the arbitration and deciding about polemics on controversies triggered by events of history, and then proceeded to do precisely that! A court applying the Holocaust-denial precedent to a bonafide expert taking one side of a bonafide controversy shows how quickly restrictions on speech can spread. It also serves to obscure why France and Germany needed to enact such laws in the first place.”

The Washington Post editorial on the same subject dated September 9 1995 wrote that “.. a law court in Paris found the distinguished historian Bernard Lewis guilty of expressing doubts that the massacres of 1.5 million Armenians early in this century by the Ottoman Empire could be correctly termed a genocide... Amazingly, the court found Professor Lewis guilty for this offense while the same time declining to rule on whether his opinion as expressed was right or wrong... when a court is willing to punish a scholar for expressing an ‘insulting’ opinion on a historical matter, even when debate on the point in question has been raging worldwide for years, the absurdity and the perniciousness of such laws in on full display. Once a court or a disciplinary body can be enlisted in lieu of argument to silence an unpopular viewpoint, all manner of trouble can and will result.”
It did indeed. The whole episode is another desperate attempt by the Armenians to silence the eminent historians through intimidation and threat of lawsuits. Taking cover behind the laws protecting Holocaust against assaults, the Armenians enjoy an undeserved immunity from the scholarly scrutiny of their case. In the early 1970s, the Armenians launched a terrorist campaign killing more than 70 Turkish diplomats around the world [Holdwater, note: that figure may have been approached counting other victims, not strictly diplomats; here's an accounting], they created carnages in public buildings, airports, and shopping centers. They bombed the house of Professor Stanford Shaw at the UCLA campus, a well-known history scholar, just because he refused to go along with their revised version of history. Professor Shaw and his family had to leave the campus to save their lives. This senseless vendetta gave way to an academic bullying that tarnished the reputations of prominent scholars, like Bernard Lewis and Heath Lowry, also a Turkish history professor at the Princeton University. The Armenian tactics nowadays consists of recruiting big names, not necessarily any proven authorities in the field, fiction writers, naive congressmen obsessed with their re-elections, or some Jewish names figuring that by enlarging the base of the Holocaust their cause will gain strength. Nothing can be further from the truth. By equating the spurious Armenian Genocide with the well-documented Jewish Holocaust dilutes the meaning of the Holocaust, and it is an insult to the spirit of the six million Jews who perished in the most senseless crime of mankind.

The article above was written by Ayhan Özer, and probably appeared in The Turkish Times: the source was lost after the article was scanned. Since voices by Turks are kept to a minimum at this web site, as I realize readers will automatically conclude Turks are too biased to tell the truth, the following report by the Armenian-friendly Le Monde is also presented.

EQUAL TIME (of sorts):

AN ARMENIAN TRANSLATION OF A REPORT FROM LE MONDE

(from an Armenian Web Site)

LE MONDE/FRIDAY JUNE 23, 1995/Page 11

Bernard Lewis condemned for having denied the reality of the Armenian genocide

According to the court, the historian committed a "fault".

THE COURT of first instance in Paris sentenced the American historian on Wednesday, the 21st of June, to pay 1 franc of damages and interest to the Forum of Armenian Associations and to the International League Against Racim (sic) and Anti-Semitism. The first Civil Chamber, presided by Jacqueline Cochard, ruled that he had committed "a fault" by declaring, on the 13th of november 1993, to the daily "Le Monde" that the qualification of Genocide, given to the massacres perpetrated by the Turks in 1915, was nothing more than "the Armenian version of this story". Although the trial had proceeded in a tense atmosphere (see "Le Monde", 19 may), the sentence was accepted in the greatest calm by the 6 Armenian activists who had come. A bit of applause, a few hugs in the hall, nothing more. An attitude to the image of a decision, which, even if it constitutes a first, is certainly not moderated.

The judges refrained from judging history : "It is not up to the court to decide or to state wether (sic) or not the massacres committed from 1915 to 1917 constitute the crime of genocide", the sentence underlines, "as this concerns events which belong to history, courts do not have the mission of arbitrating and resolving polemics." Especially because, they add, "the historian, in principle, has all the liberty to present the facts according to his personal views".

This liberty, however, has a limit : that of responsibility. Thus, someone who commits a "fault" and causes damage to a third party must compensate for it according to article 1382 of the civil code. Like others, maybe even more than others, a historian must tell the truth and nothing but the truth. And, especially, the whole truth. Thus, writes the tribunal, "it is only by hiding elements which go against his thesis that the defendant was able to state that there was no 'serious proof' of the Armenian Genocide". The sentence refers to the declaration, in may 1985, of the sub-commission of the United Nations charged with the repression and prevention of Genocide, the resolution of the European Parliament in june 1987, or the work of the International colloquium in Paris in August of 1984... A number of elements which, even if they are not indisputable, had to be mentioned in any case, and, absolutely exclude giving any credit whatsoever to the idea that "the reality of the Armenian genocide results from nothing more than the imagination of the Armenian people."

Thus, by ignoring these "elements with converging conclusions", which reveal that "the thesis of the extermination of the Armenian people is not only defended by [the Armenian people]", Bernard Lewis has committed a fault. The Tribunal refused, however, to follow the Armenian associations which accused the eminent orientalist of having acted as a "real propagandist". "Nowhere has it been established that he followed an aim foreign to his mission as an historian", the judges insist. Simply, "he failed in his duty of prudence and objectivity, by expressing himself so one-sidedly on a subject as sensitive as this one.". "His statements, prone to unjustly reviving the pain of the Armenian Community, are erroneous and justify damages." Minimal damages, much less than what was demanded by the Armenian forum. But on wednesday, not one of the activists, present at the Palace, was thinking of accounts. They were only there for the sake of principle.

Nathaniel Herzberg

Holdwater says: Looks like Le Monde will bend over backwards to appease Armenians. What a misleading article. The headline blares the historian was "condemned," when three of the four cases brought against him were dismissed, and in one of those cases, the Armenians were ordered to pay Mr. Lewis' court costs.

Earlier in his academic career, Bernard Lewis supported the Armenian version of events, an easy course of action since that was practically the only version around. Once he began studying the issue seriously, the voluminous evidence against genocide turned him completely around. (Vahakn Dadrian claims the main factor turning Lewis around was Kamuran Gurun's scholarly "The Armenian File.") If one is convinced of the truth, why play both sides of the fence even if the issue is a "sensitive" one?

Notice how the article makes it sound like there were actual damages, minimal as they might have been. One franc? ...TWENTY FIVE CENTS?

(ADDENDUM: I have subsequently read in an Armenian site that Lewis was also liable for paying the court costs of his accusers.)

This isn't the only time Armenians have taken advantage of anti-racism laws in European courts to try and stifle freedom of expression. Here is one where they tried with a Swiss court. They lost again.

THE ONE FRANC PUNISHMENT SEEMS TO HAVE STRAIGHTENED DR. LEWIS OUT

Question: The British press reported in 1997 that your views on the killing of 1 million Armenians by the Turks in 1915 did not amount to genocide and in this report in the Independent of London, says that a French court fined you 1 Frank in damages after you said there was no genocide. This obviously triggered a debate in Israel where this quoted article... (Moderator cuts in and asks him to ask his question as their running out of time) My question is, sir, have your views changed on this whether the killing of 1 million Armenians amounts to genocide and your views on this judgment?

Bernard Lewis responds: This is a question of definition and nowadays the word "genocide" is used very loosely even in cases where no bloodshed is involved at all and I can understand the annoyance of those who feel refused. But in this particular case, the point that was being made was that the massacre of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire was the same as what happened to Jews in Nazi Germany and that is a downright falsehood. What happened to the Armenians was the result of a massive Armenian armed rebellion against the Turks, which began even before war broke out, and continued on a larger scale.

Great numbers of Armenians, including members of the armed forces, deserted, crossed the frontier and joined the Russian forces invading Turkey. Armenian rebels actually seized the city of Van and held it for a while intending to hand it over to the invaders. There was guerilla warfare all over Anatolia. And it is what we nowadays call the National
Movement of Armenians Against Turkey. The Turks certainly resorted to very ferocious methods in repelling it.

There is clear evidence of a decision by the Turkish Government, to deport the Armenian population from the sensitive areas. Which meant naturally the whole of Anatolia. Not including the Arab provinces which were then still part of the Ottoman Empire. There is no evidence of a decision to massacre. On the contrary, there is considerable evidence of attempt to prevent it, which were not very successful. Yes there were tremendous massacres, the numbers are very uncertain but a million may well be likely.

The massacres were carried out by irregulars, by local villagers responding to what had been done to them and in number of other ways. But to make this, a parallel with the holocaust in Germany, you would have to assume the Jews of Germany had been engaged in an armed rebellion against the German state, collaborating with the allies against Germany. That in the deportation order the cities of Hamburg and Berlin were exempted, persons in the employment of state were exempted, and the deportation only applied to the Jews of Germany proper, so that when they got to Poland they were welcomed and sheltered by the Polish Jews. This seems to me a rather absurd parallel.

From booktv.org

On June 5, 1996, Dr. Bernard Lewis socked it to critics (including Deborah Lipstadt, Peter Balakian and the usual others) lambasting Heath Lowry and other Ottoman historians, in the letters section of the Princeton Alumni Weekly; his response explaining further details of his court case may be accessed on this page if you [Click here].

In your issue of April 17, a number of distinguished writers joined the hue and cry against Professor Heath Lowry and now extend it to other historians of the Ottoman Empire. Since I am one of those named, I write to clarify the passage in their letter which concerns me personally. According to the writers of the letter, I "was found guilty in a French court last August under a French 'hate speech' law for denying the Armenian genocide . . . ."

The facts are as follows: In all, four suits were brought against me in Paris, all arising from an interview in Le Monde on November 16, 1993, and a brief (and abridged) subsequent clarification. Among other matters, the interviewers questioned me concerning the Armenian massacres of 1915. Knowing the hazards of any critical comment on these events, I was not happy discussing them in the narrow framework of a newspaper interview. But the question was fairly put and, having agreed to the interview, I did not feel that, as a professional historian, I could decently refuse to answer a question in my own field of specialization. In this, as in most other discussions of the subject, the question was not whether the massacres took place — this is universally accepted — but whether they took place in accordance with a previous decision and predetermined plan of the Ottoman government. Like many other historians of the Ottoman Empire, I expressed doubt about this and observed that there was no serious proof of such a decision. The attempt to deal with such doubts by litigation and vilification has not allayed them.

These actions were brought by several organizations whose spokesmen found my opinions, or to be precise, my doubts, objectionable and therefore went to court to demand their suppression and punishment. One of the four cases, presumably that referred to by the signatories of the letter, was a criminal action brought under what they call the "hate speech" law making it an offense to deny that there was any Holocaust. The other three were civil actions brought under clauses of the French civil code making it a tort in certain circumstances to cause distress to an individual or group. The verdict in the criminal case was given on November 18, 1994; the verdicts in the three civil cases on March 1, June 21, and July 12, 1995. In two of the civil actions, the plaintiffs were represented by Maître Tremolet de Villers, a lawyer well known for his interest in some legal problems arising from the Holocaust. The criminal action and two of the three civil actions were dismissed by the courts. In the remaining civil action, the court ruled that while it was "in no way established" that I had "pursued a purpose alien" to my "mission as a historian," I was at fault in not having cited, in the course of the interview, "elements contrary to my thesis" and had thus "revived the pain of the Armenian community." For this I was ordered to pay one franc in damages to each of the two plaintiff parties as well as a contribution to their costs. In the other civil actions, the plaintiffs were ordered to make contributions to the defendants' cost. I hope I may be forgiven for adding one other detail, since it throws some light on the character of the debate. While these proceedings were in progress, I was elected a Correspondent of the Institut de France.

The assumptions that your correspondents and some others have been persuaded to accept are (1) that the Armenian massacres of 1915 and the near extermination of the Jews in Nazi-ruled Europe between 1940 and 1945 are essentially events of the same type, and (2) that any critical discussion of any aspect of the first is equal to the neo-Nazi denial of the second. Anyone with even a minimal acquaintance with the historical evidence and the scholarly debate will know that both equations are, to say the very least, far-fetched.

I have written elsewhere about the Armenian massacres and their historical context. This is not the place to discuss the various interpretations of these events and the varying quality of the evidence adduced in their support. Your readers might, however, ask themselves whether someone who cannot get the facts right about lawsuits in Paris last year can be trusted on the decisions of the Ottoman government in Istanbul 81 years ago.

Bernard Lewis
Cleveland E. Dodge Professor of Near Eastern Studies,
Emeritus Princeton, N.J.

[Close]

Professor Justin McCarthy comments on the case, and Armenian harassment directed against himself

...Such attacks have had their intended effect. Fewer and fewer historians are willing to write on this history. A very senior and respected scholar of Ottoman history, Bernard Lewis, was brought to court in France for his denial of the Armenian genocide. After a long and successful career, Professor Lewis could afford to confront those who accused him. He also could afford to hire the lawyers who defended him. Could a junior scholar afford to do the same? Could someone who depended on university rectors, who worry about funding, afford to take up such a dangerous topic? Could someone without Professor Lewis's financial resources afford the lawyers who defended both his free speech and his good name?

Justin McCarthy, 1990

I myself was the target of a campaign, instigated by an Armenian newspaper, that attempted to have me fired from my university. Letters and telephone calls from all over the United States came to the president of my university, demanding my dismissal because I denied the "Armenian Genocide." We have the tenure system in the United States, a system that guarantees that senior professors cannot be fired for what they teach and write, and my university president defended my rights. But a younger professor might understandably be afraid to write on the Armenians if he knew he faced the sort of ordeal that has been faced by others.

To me, the worst of all is being accused of being the kind of politicized nationalist scholar I so detest. False reasons are invented to explain why I say this — my mother is a Turk, my wife is a Turk, I am paid large sums by the Turkish government. None of these things is true, but it would not affect my writings one bit if they were. The way to challenge a scholar's work is to read his writings and respond to them with your own scholarship, not to attack his character.
This excerpt is from ataa.org

Professor McCarthy reveals in a letter how the interpretation of the word "propaganda" resulted in Armenian harassment at his university.

ADDENDUM: According to this Dec. 2005 article by David Barchard: "Professor Justin McCarthy... was almost refused permission even to enter the European Parliament building... When he got inside, he found that the room booked for him to speak in had been cancelled. Nor is that the end of Professor McCarthy's difficulties. In France he's being prosecuted and publication of his books is actually illegal, because they deny the French version of Turkish history."

Professor Heath Lowry

Dr. Heath Lowry

A two year hate and smear campaign directed against Professor Lowry forced him out of a chair in Princeton University, and out of the "Armenian Genocide" debate. The media, always mindlessly on the side of pro-Armenians, were willing accomplices in this "gang up," and the university probably gave the professor a gag order, on the Armenian topic. Lowry was likely bitter to be left alone in this feeding frenzy, with no support from the apathetic Turks, and he probably felt it was just as well.

Go to the Heath Lowry page.

Professor Stanford Shaw

Professor Stanford Shaw

As mentioned above, the (at the time) UCLA professor's house was bombed by Armenian extremists on October 4, 1977, and he and his family were forced to go into hiding for a while.

Dr. Ezel Kural Shaw, 1990

Fellow UCLA Professor Richard Hovannisian agitated his Armenian students, reportedly referring to Shaw as a "criminal." These were the years of Armenian terrorism, and those as Hovannisian, in the pursuit of spreading false and hateful propaganda, were and are not without responsibility for fueling the fanaticism factor, causing so much death and violence. It is not inconceivable to suspect the ones behind the house bombing were Hovannisian's students, as "normal" terrorists of the period strictly went after Turkish targets, and not academicians. Regardless, Hovannisian's students made life hell for Prof. Shaw, disrupting his classes constantly and making who knows what kinds of psyche-shattering threats. The university was cowed in the face of such hysterical extremism, and offered almost no support. Shaw, his nerves understandably affected, was forced into early retirement and he and his wife, Ezel Kural Shaw, moved to Turkey; he was effectively knocked out of the debate. Prof. Shaw has been teaching at Bilkent University.

George Lucas consulted the history of Stanford Shaw for the making of a few "Young Indiana Jones" television episodes.

ARMENIAN ATTACKS ON SAMUEL A. WEEMS

Thank goodness brave men can be found who are willing to take on the formidable power of established Armenians, in the interest of letting the truth be known. One such man was Samuel Weems, a former district attorney and judge from the state of Arkansas, and a Baptist. (Not that a person's religion should normally matter, but in this case part of Mr. Weems' interest was in exposing the false Christianity of extremist Armenians.) While Mr. Weems was not a historian in the traditional sense, he had made it his business to explore this subject matter, traveling to study the archives in half a dozen nations... winding up as a person more knowledgeable (in this issue) than most historians. Certainly, his experience as a D.A. and judge qualified him in a much better way (than the average author) to weigh the pros and cons of the issue. When the news was announced of the publication of his book, ARMENIA: SECRETS OF A "CHRISTIAN" TERRORIST STATE, the Armenian outcry against Mr. Weems (and the resulting assassination of his character) was deafening. The following press release sums it up:

Armenian Assembly of America
122 C Street, NW, Suite 350
Washington, DC 20001
Phone: 202-393-3434
Fax: 202-638-4904
Email: info@aaainc.org
Web: <www.armenianassembly.org>

PRESS RELEASE
February 8, 2002

CONTACT: Joan Ablett
Phone: (202) 393-3434
E-mail: jablett@aaainc.org

(The full text of the Armenian Assembly's Issue Brief on
this issue can be found here):

http://www.aaainc.org/researchinfo/IssueBriefWeems.pdf

ASSEMBLY EXPOSES LATEST ATTEMPT AT GENOCIDE DENIAL Discredited Author of Soon-To-Be-Published "Armenia: The Great Deception" Sinks Denier Category to New Low

WASHINGTON - The Armenian Assembly today called the latest attempt at
Genocide denial, a soon-to-be published book on Armenia written by
first-time author Samuel Weems, unconscionable.

At a time when Turkish society is increasingly learning and accepting the
facts of the Armenian Genocide, the New-York-based Federation of Turkish
American Associations (FTAA) and the on-line TurkishForum.com are
promoting a book entitled "ARMENIA: THE GREAT DECEPTION. Secrets of a 'Christian' Terrorist State." It essentially regurgitates some of the most
outrageous and racist anti-Armenian propaganda issued to date. At
present, it is for sale only through the Turkish Forum, which is printing
excerpts of the book on line.

Assembly research indicates the following:

The author has no academic or practical qualifications. According to his
hometown newspaper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, he is a retired
"industrial development specialist" working in a small Arkansas town, a
disbarred lawyer and a convicted felon.

In a year when Armenia celebrated its 1700th anniversary of the adoption
of Christianity and world religious leaders, including the Pope, visited
Armenia, Weems' statements that "the religion of the Armenians is fake"
and that "Armenians cannot be real Christians" are ludicrous. Furthermore,
the U.S. Congress adopted a resolution, in which it congratulated Armenia
on this occasion and joined "the people of Armenia in celebrating the
ideals and values they share with the people of the United States" (H.
Con. Res. 139 5-21-01).

Weems claims there was no Genocide, further promoting racism and repeating a long-held Turkish claim that there was no Genocide because the "1.5 million they claim is more Armenians than were in the region in 1915, but then the Armenians have never been known as truth tellers."

Weems' racist rhetoric is not limited to Armenia. He accuses Armenian-Americans of trying to "colonize" the United States. He writes: "Isn't it past time for all you to just go to [Armenia] and stay there? Just go home!"

The book will be available at St. John Press (www.stjohnpress.com),
registered in December 2001 in Hazen, Arkansas solely for the publishing
of Weems' book (reportedly due out April 6). As of now, the book can only
be purchased through the Turkish Forum.

The Federation of Turkish American Associations is a non-profit
organization "established for the purpose of uniting and supporting the
Turkish community within the United States."

The Turkish Forum is an online digest of news and commentary and is "a
non-profit educational public service site" supported by private donors,
including many past and present members of FTAA.

The Armenian Assembly of America is the largest Washington-based
nationwide organization promoting public understanding and awareness of
Armenian issues. It is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt membership organization.

Holdwater adds: According to Steven Mufson of The Washington Post (October 9, 2000), the organization was founded in 1972. “Today it has 7,000 individual and organizational members and a budget of $2.5 million. It grades members of Congress on votes concerning Armenia. On the genocide resolution, it has retained the lobbying services of former representative Susan Molinari (R-N.Y.). The Armenian Assembly has also made allies with Greek Americans and human rights groups, longtime critics of Turkey. In Congress, Sen. Paul S. Sarbanes (D-Md.),a Greek-American, has been a strong supporter. The organization has chalked up a string of victories. Armenia, with just 3.4 million people, receives $102.4 million in aid from the United States.” The rest of the article may be read here.

Libelous & Slanderous Attacks Made Upon Me By:
ARMENIAN ASSEMBLY OF AMERICA
122 C STREET, NW
SUITE 350
WASHINGTON, DC 20001
Info@aaainc.org

Reaction By: SAMUEL A. WEEMS

I am making this public statement and asking questions of the Armenian Assembly of America because of this organization's personal attack made upon me in their February 1, 2002 press release (a copy attached here for your convenience).

The Armenian Assembly of America has publicly called me a "convicted felon." Let me only say that such a character attack is exactly what Armenians have been doing for years to individuals who do not agree with them. It is their modus operandi and style to attack anything and anybody that is not to their liking!

Judge Sam Weems

I shall merely make this very public promise to the Armenian Assembly of America: I shall employ a lawyer and sue you for this slander/libel! In this way both of us shall be in an American court of law at the same time, and you can prove to the world what you claim and if you can't, you shall pay me damages. I defy you to prove I am a convicted felon! How can I vote in each election if I am a convicted felon? How could I have been elected to the Hazen City Council in 1996 if I was a convicted felon? This personal attack on me is nothing more than children's play ground "trash talk" and is not true and the Armenians know it!
I shall see you in court! You be sure about that!

Now dear Armenian Americans, let's get down to the real reason you made this wild and libelous and slanderous attack on me. Permit me now to ask a few questions of the Armenian Assembly of America, since they are the ones who deliberately misrepresented me to the public with their concocted tall tales about me. I absolutely refuse to permit you to divert public attention from Armenian evil actions! I am going to give you the opportunity to prove your concocted tall tales in court. Perhaps, until then, you will be so kind as to respond in detail to my questions of you, since you attempted to make my "sinful life" an open book to the world.

Dear Armenians, let the Christian world determine which of us has something to hide and which of us does not! I am honored that the Armenian Assembly of America has placed me in such good company of very distinguished American, British, French and Russian citizens Armenians have attacked, and made up tall tales about since 1918. Your "distinguished" historian Richard G. Hovannisian mentions all these people. How do you explain the following few examples I shall now share with you FROM HIS PEN? Is your historian a truth teller?

- Armenians attacked future American President Herbert Hoover while he headed US efforts to help rebuild Europe at the end of World War I. Professor Hovannisian reports that Mr. Hoover stated that Armenian corruption, "if made public, would become the greatest scandal in American charitable history."

- Nasih Bek Usubbekov, an Azerbaijani public official said of the Armenian sneak, cowardly, surprise and unprovoked attack of 1919 that Armenians were "shedding the blood of innocent victims and leaving thousands of widows and orphans."

- France's Prime Minister Clemenceau stated that "the Armenians were a dangerous people to get mixed up with; particularly as they required a great deal of money and gave very little satisfaction."

- Philippe Berthelot, secretary of the French peace delegation stated in 1919: "the great difficulty in establishing Armenia is that the Armenians practically nowhere constitute a majority." Yet the Armenians begged, whined, mooched and attacked anyone who refused to give them someone else's land. That is what Armenians did in 1919.

- John Oliver Wardrop, British Chief Commissioner in Trans-Caucasia stated there was evidence that regular Armenian Army units had attacked many unarmed Muslim villages. He also stated that the Armenians wereresponsible for most acts of aggression.

- American Army Colonel William Haskell was sent to Armenia as the High Commissioner for Relief. He resigned his position in disgust in 1920. He concluded that the Armenians were "ungrateful, professional beggars." He went on to add of the Armenians that "they are thieves and liars, utterly debased incapable of helping themselves, unwilling to help each other and entirely lacking in gratitude." The Armenian response was to call him a crook as you have said of me. The Armenians made up one of their famous tall tales and accused this United States Army officer of stealing from the relief efforts. Of course there was no proof offered!

- Lord Hardinge, the British Undersecretary of State, wrote of Colonel Haskell's report: "Knowing the Armenian character I am not the least surprised by this account."

- Even the Russians, close friends of the Armenians, objected to their state sponsored terror directed toward Muslims: The Russian People's Commissar sent a formal protest to the Armenians stating that the Armenian armed forces, after plundering Zangibasar and expelled its Muslim inhabitants, have begun to attack the Sharur-Nakhikevan district.

- US Senator Reed from Missouri objected on the floor of the Senate and stated his objections to America giving 3/4s of a billion dollars and sending 70,000 American troops to give Armenians the Muslim lands from sea to sea that the Armenians craved. He said, "A more monstrous proposition was never put before the American people." Had Armenia had its way with the United States Senate they would have dragged America into the first Vietnam of the 20th century!

- President Wilson did all in his power to help Armenia and what were his thanks — A Sam Weems style character attack upon the President of the United States!

- Countless numbers of Christians and churches raised $50 million dollars to help Armenia after World War I. What was the Armenian response? A Sam Weems type of character attack claiming that the Americans had not done enough to help Armenia!

- British Naval Commander Harry Lake stated that the Armenians betrayed Great Britain by joining the Bolshevik Revolution and this was "an act of treachery" after the Armenians had begged hundreds of thousands of dollars of military aid from his country.

- Dwight Osborne and Randal MacDonnell of the British Foreign Office wrote many reports that "brimmed with sarcasm about the cowardliness, unworthiness, and pretentiousness of the Armenians who continued to clamor about the right to Turkish Armenian provinces at a time when, despite having been armed by the British, they were unable to hold on to the Russian Armenian districts that constituted the existing state."

- And just how did the Armenians run their "existing tiny state" that they had whined, begged and mooched to get? They printed worthless paper money that wasn't backed by anything! The Armenian people paid a terrible price for this action by their dictator leaders.

The Armenian Assembly of America's personal attack on me is nothing more than a continuation of this long and unbroken string of character attacks. Shame on you!

All of the above stated specific examples are listed in YOUR DISTINGUISHED Armenian Professor Richard G. Hovannisian's four volume of books on a mere two and a half years of history of Armenia. If the good professor isn't a truth teller, with regard to any one of these examples, I shall be delighted to make a public apology as to HIS TALL TALES!

I am in very good company to now be attacked by the Armenian Assembly of America! Armenian Americans never cease to amaze me with their telling of tall tales and their waging of hate campaigns! Because the Armenian Assembly of America has chosen to attempt to divert public attention from the real issues by making their character attack upon me, it is only fair and right that I now be permitted to ask questions of this Armenian hate group! I ask these good Armenians, who comprise the Armenian Assembly of America, to answer a few very real questions for me as an American Christian taxpayer because they have questioned me. Now it is my turn. This is only fair an just:

[1] How can you attack a book that you have never read? What kind of people are you? Not one of you have bothered to contact me about what you claim some Turkish organization published? Do you believe everything anyone prints without verification? Don't you agree that at least one Armenian should have asked me, if what a third party said was true, before you ruthlessly attacked me?

[2] You object to my using the term "Armenian Colony" that Armenia established in the United States in 1918. How do you explain the fact that this term in my book it is a direct quote from your own Armenian history professor Richard G. Hovannisian in his four volume history titled "The Republic of Armenia?" Had you asked, you would have learned that more than 90% of my book comes directly from the pen of your very own Armenian history professor!

[3] You make a personal attack on me. You honor me by putting me into a group of very distinguished American, French, Russian and British citizens Armenians have attacked over the years. You will read the statements these distinguished individuals made (a few are listed above) in your good professors four volume of books. Why do Armenians resort to such hate tactics year after unending year?

[4] The Armenian Assembly of America, by making an attack on this Baptist American taxpayer, attacks EVERY Christian taxpayer in the United States who dares to ask questions. I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to answer why the United States should give Armenia billions of dollars while Armenians have invited the Russians to come in, build military bases and station Russian troops in their tiny, land-locked, poverty stricken state? Why not let the Russians keep up your self-claimed 200 year-old "ancient homeland"?

[5] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to explain in detail how Armenians used the more than one billion dollars in military hardware they obtained from the Russians while they were begging and mooching $1.5 billion dollars from the United States?

[6] What specific benefit does the United States of America receive in return for giving billions of dollars to Armenia and by offending nearby Muslim states?

[7] As a Baptist, I want the Armenian Assembly of America to explain why Armenian state police goon squads attacked and broke up the 3 or 4 remaining Baptist church services in Armenia? Just why won't Armenia allow other Christian faiths to come into their tiny state? You want our Christian church money but refuse us the right to reach out on behalf of Christ in your state — Why?

[8] As a Christian I want the Armenian Assembly of America to explain why Armenia made a sneak, cowardly, surprise and unprovoked attack on Azerbaijan in 1992? You call my statement "primitive phraseology." You can call it anyway you like it but you are not able to cover the truth of the horror and terror your government created with that attack. Countless thousands of unarmed Muslims were massacred, and Armenia drove more than one million of them from their homes just so Armenia could make a free land grab? This isn't a Christian act! Why did Armenia do such horrible things to fellow human beings? Christ would not approve of such a terrible thing! Why did Armenia do this?

[9] In the Armenian Assembly of America's press release attacking me, they brag about how the American Congress passed a meaningless resolution congratulating Armenia on marking its "1700th anniversary of Christianity in that country."

The Armenian American community is just like Enron! They have poured millions of dollars into trying to buy American politicians. The answer to the Armenian Assembly of America statement is this: Mega bucks buys meaningless resolutions! And they hardly ever change the truth!

[10] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to explain to the American taxpayers the benefits they receive for the $1.5 billion dollars they have given to Armenia in the last decade? American taxpayers want and demand to know what, if anything; they are getting for their hard-earned money!

[11] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to tell the American people the truth why they opposed President Bush's effort to win the War on Terrorism of reaching out to Muslim countries of the world?

[12] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to tell the American people why they lobbied to obtain $1.5 billion of their dollars for their tiny land-locked state that in truth is less than 200 years old? There are no restrictions on Armenia for the use of these mega dollars against Muslim Azerbaijan. You lobbied to prevent President Bush from helping Muslim Azerbaijan and lost. Next, you lobbied to restrict any money the United States gave Azerbaijan to make certain it could not be used against your Armenia. Please explain your logic in undercutting America's War on Terrorism by your conduct, by your double standard?

[13] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to take the lead in asking for Armenia to make restitution to Muslim Azerbaijan for the stealing of their lands! This is the right and Christian thing to do. How can Armenia demand that Turkey make restitution for a wild made up tall tale of massacre that is claimed to have happened in 1915 when Armenia stole Muslim lands by force of arms today? Isn't this a double standard?

The truth is the good Armenian Professor, Richard G. Hovannisian, gives the names of both American and British eyewitness who prove that there could not have been a massacre/genocide as Armenians claim. Frankly speaking, I choose to believe the Americans and British rather than self-seeking, scheming, lying Armenian lobbyists!

[14] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to explain why their Armenian Revolutionary Federation archives that are located in America is not open to the general public for research?

[15] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to explain why this self-admitted terrorist organization (Armenian Revolutionary Federation) is even located within the United States of America? There is no place in America for terrorist organizations of any kind!

[16] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to publicly denounce the Armenian assassination of Turkish diplomats around the world. Armenians murdered 4 Turks here in the United States of America. No Armenian organization has condemned these murders of United States guests. There is no place in today's society for terrorism and the Armenian Assembly of America should welcome the opportunity to denounce such terrible murders!

[17] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to denounce the bombing of an American university professor's home by Armenian terrorists!

[18] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to denounce the Armenian terrorist threats of bombing that caused a Turkish cultural group to be forced to cancel American performances!

[19] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to denounce Armenian disruption of an American filmmakers attempt to show a movie relating to Christian heritage in Turkey. America has no place for such terrorist activity and the Armenian Assembly of America should welcome the opportunity to denounce such Armenian thug activity!

[20] I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to practice their claim of 1700 years of the Christian faith they claim to follow. I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to follow the teachings of Christ when He calls out loudly over 2000 years of history to say FORGIVE -- AND LOVE THY NEIGHBOR!

The Armenian Assembly of America makes the wild and made up typical tall tale that I am a Turkish lackey. THE QUESTIONS I AM ASKING SHOW JUST WHO I AM A LACKEY FOR — ALL AMERICAN CHRISTIAN TAXPAYERS! NO MORE — NO LESS! It is none of any American Christian taxpayer's business relating to relationships the Armenians have with Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia or any of their neighbors. I do object as an American Christian taxpayer, to paying for evil acts committed by Armenians and I call upon the Armenian Assembly of America to read books before foaming at the mouth! I call on the Armenian Assembly of America to practice the teaching of Christ and stop begging and mooching my tax money for the use of evil acts!

In the meantime, Armenian Assembly of America, I shall see you in the courtrooms of this great land. In a libel suit truth is a perfect defense AND I WELCOME PROVING TO YOU THAT I HAVE NEVER BEEN CONVICTED OF A FELONY! Armenians are big on wanting damages. The only question will be in my lawsuit is how much of a cash award I will receive as damages from the
Armenian Assembly of America!

In the meantime dear Armenians — let's you and I deal with the real issues. I look forward to your direct and honest answers to my questions. So — stop the playground "trash talk" and be honest and direct if you can! The real issue for Americans is not if Sam Weems is a sinner because he is. The real issue is that Armenia deceived and fleeced the American Christians, their churches and their government out of billions of dollars while pretending to follow Jesus Christ! I think I now understand how Christ felt when he threw the unscrupulous money changers out of the temple because their only concern was making money just as Armenians are making money from Christians, Churches and Christian governments around the world.

Since September 11th the world in which we live has changed. The Christian world must reach out to the Muslim world regardless of whether Armenians like it or not! This is the real issue whether the Armenian Assembly of America likes it or not!