Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  Comparing the Black Liberation Army to the Dashnaks  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems


Ambassador Morgenthau gives an idea of what happens to Americans committing high treason in the United States:

"But I am told," said Von Jagow, "that there will be an insurrection of German-Americans if your country makes war on us."

"Dismiss any such idea from your mind," I replied. The first one who attempts it will be punished so promptly and so drastically that such a movement will not go far. And I think that the loyal German-Americans themselves will be the first to administer such punishment."

"Ambassador Morgenthau's Story," 1918, page 40.




An article in the Jan. 24, 2007 issue of The New York Times was thought-provoking, when applied to the "Armenian Question." Entitled "8 Arrested in 1971 Killing of San Francisco Police Officer." The reporter, Jesse McKinley, opened the piece up with: "Eight men, including seven described as members of the radical Black Liberation Army, were arrested on Tuesday on charges of murdering a police officer here in 1971 and waging a violent five-year battle against the police and federal authorities."

The Black Liberation Army (BLA) was described as "a violent offshoot of the black nationalist Black Panthers, which operated from the late 1960s until the early 1980s." (Coincidentally paralleling somewhat closely, the terror spree of Armenian groups such as ASALA and the JCAG, from 1973 until the early 1990s.)

We're not going to get into the motivation or history of the black movement, other than to remind readers that African-Americans were still not allowed to be part of American society by the 1960s, which led to rightful protest. The civil rights movement was led by activists as Martin Luther King, Jr., which followed Gandhi-like strategies of non-violence. Naturally, fringe groups stressing violence — such as the BLA — also sprang up.

So let's apply this parallel by going back to the Ottoman Empire of the late 1800s. The first couple of Armenian committees, getting a whiff of the great trouble their nation was in... with European imperialists circling to cash in on its riches, and arch-foes like Russia instigating Ottoman Christians... started to harbor thoughts of abandoning ship, and to get a piece of the pie. The first group did not openly advocate violence; established in 1860, the "Benevolent Union"'s aim was to restore Cilicia, and some members were connected with the 1862 Zeitun troubles. As the years passed, Armenians started turning to terror, as with the establishment in Van of the Black Cross, a "Ku Klux Klan" like group. Come 1887 and 1890, the Hunchaks and Dashnaks were born, and there was no turning back. Their aim was revolution, implemented by means of murder, arson, extortion... pure terrorism.

While deceptive Armenian propaganda tells us the poor, innocent Armenians were always picked on, the fact is
Armenians and Turks co-existed with relative harmony for centuries, and that Armenians were allowed to prosper to the extent of being, to a degree, the masters of Ottoman society. And as imperialists pretending to be protectors of Ottoman Christians kept leaning on the Sick Man for their own evil ends, Armenians received greater and greater freedoms, which only led to their committing greater and greater mischief, since nothing was going to satisfy the fanatics among them but to carve eastern Anatolia into a "Greater Armenia."

So to make it clear: Ottoman-Armenians were far from oppressed, as American blacks. Let's cut to the chase:

Let me draw a parallel imaginary case. Suppose that Mexico was a powerful and rival country with which we were at war, and suppose that we sent an army to the Mexican border to hold back the invading enemy; suppose further that not only the negroes in our army deserted to the enemy but those left at home organized and cut off our line of communication. What do you think we as a people, especially the Southerners, would do to the negroes? Our Negroes have ten times the excuse for hating the whites that the Armenians have for their attitude toward the Turks. They have no representation, although they have an overwhelming majority in large sections of the South, and have nothing to say in the making or administration of the laws under which they are governed. South of the Mason and Dixon line they are practically a subject race, while the Armenians in Turkey have not only full representation but special privileges not accorded by any other country.

The Turkish Government ordered the Armenians deported from the districts they menaced That they did not have railways and other means of transportation was not their fault, and the deportation had to be carried out on foot. That this was not done in the most humane manner possible is undoubtedly a fact, and the Turkish Government has condemned the unnecessary cruelties that occurred; but I feel confident that if America had been put in the hypothetical situation above referred to, it would have stopped that insurrection if it had had to kill every negro in the South, and would not have gone to the tedious and laborious defensive act of deportation, in spite of our extensive means of transportation.

Arthur Tremaine Chester, Angora and the Turks, 1923

 In our more "modern" example, we are not talking about the "negroes" of 1923, but the freer, yet still not truly free, American blacks of the 1960s. One didn't find many blacks in the government of the 1960s, for example, while Ottoman-Armenians had attained important governmental posts for generations.

So let's build this parallel up. Let's imagine the USA was not as powerful during the Cold War of the 1960s, and the Soviet Union had a freer hand to destabilize the United States, as it did with the Turkey of the 1970s. (And as it did with the Ottoman Empire from the 19th century onwards.)

The Russians had given the "Turkish Armenians" 242,900 rubles, as reported in a February 1915 Dashnak conference, for the initial cost of arming their Armenian allies within the Ottoman Empire. This translates to over 13 million of today's dollars to "start riots" during WWI, and who knows how much more money Russia provided in the months to come.

Now let us imagine the Black Liberation Army operated similar to the Armenian Revolution Federation (ARF, or Dashnaks), and had a history of gaining control over most American blacks; over the last few decades, the BLA had succeeded in silencing opposition, by murdering fellow blacks seen as loyal to the American government, and poisoning the minds of the bulk of African-Americans, by drilling them with "the white man is the devil" propaganda. Things boiled up to the point where polarized whites and blacks were forced to choose sides.

The Soviet Union declares war on the USA. Remember, the USA, we are imagining, was not very strong; the nation's manpower and resources would be limited, and they'd be getting attacked on all sides by the Soviets and their satellites; most Americans would be convinced if the Soviets were to succeed, the Soviets would engage in an ethnic cleansing policy (as the Russians had attained an expertise in the Muslim-polishing off business, strategies the Armenians would go on to wholeheartedly embrace). In other words, this would be a true life-or-death war; if the Americans should lose, that would not only be the end of their country, but... as the dismal years progressed under conquest... possibly the ultimate end of Americans.

Cleverly, the Soviet Union makes sure to provide the BLA with over 13 million dollars to finance their rebellion. The Soviet Union promises the eastern coast to the black Americans, as a new homeland... a promise the Soviet Union certainly does not intend to keep, but the fanatical BLA leaders can't think straight, and delude themselves into believing the Soviets are their friends. (Exactly paralleling the situation with Tsarist Russia and the Ottoman Armenians.)

In the thick of this nightmare, blacks all over the United States, now totally beholden to the views of the BLA or too afraid to challenge them, conduct operations of treachery all over the United States. Sometimes they militarily rise to detract the resources and energies of the American Army, paving the way to a Soviet land invasion. When blacks succeed in gaining control of territories, they wipe out the residents not like them (an easy feat, considering most able-bodied Ameicans are defending the homeland on multiple fronts), having succumbed to the racist propaganda of the BLA.

Now, what would the United States government and people do, in this situation?

Everyone knows the answer to that question. What we don't know is how far the U.S. government and the American people would go. That is, would they find the wherewithal to actually conduct a temporary resettlement process as the Ottomans did, what Prof. Guenter Lewy correctly called a "relatively humane" process... in order to contain the threat by the treacherous black American community? Or would it be "shoot first, ask questions later"?


Remember too, the truth in Chester's words:

"Our Negroes have ten times the excuse for hating the whites that the Armenians have for their attitude toward the Turks."

American blacks have suffered immensely. Their history is one of slavery. Surely some would see such "payback" as a just course of action, giving white Americans a taste of their own murderous, oppressive medicine.

Now let's drop the imaginary scenario, and concentrate on the America of the 1960s and later, as it was.

These BLA terrorists were killing police officers.

No matter how "just" some would think their cause, what people on earth would tolerate such acts of violence, and of disturbing societal peace?

What people would not expect their government to do their duty, and to put down such violent terrorists, to practice the real "self-defense"?

Now everyone knows the answers to these questions.

So why are the people who support the Armenians completely blind to the realities that led to their so-called "genocide"? Why do they accept that when Armenian Dashnaks murdered Ottoman officials, that was justified, and whenever the Ottoman government tried to defend themselves against such terrorism, the government was committing "massacres"?

(Of course, most non-Armenian supporters of the "Armenian genocide" only believe in the propaganda they are spoon-fed, and don't know of these factual realities, which does not say much about their intellectualism. But what of the "genocide scholars" and other learned people who have a pretty good idea of the goings-on, and still apply a double-standard to the Turks? There are several reasons why these prople feel the way they do, and the core lies in racism.)

These pro-Armenians not only support the notion that Ottomans killed by Armenians was a perfectly defensible concept, but when Armenian terrorists killed Turkish diplomats during their terror spree of the 1970s-80s, most believed that the innocent Turks, born years after the events, deserved what they got. These pro-Armenians must have believed in the rationale of hateful Armenians of the period, such as this one, added to their existing feelings of racism.



The San Francisco police chief, Heather Fong, at a news conference yesterday with photographs of Sgt. John V. Young and Ronald S. Bridgeforth, who continues to be sought in the murder case from 1971. (Photo: Chiu, AP)

We're not getting into the specifics of the black movement, but the article we opened up sheds further light. An excerpt:

"It is a good day for police officers in New York and San Francisco and everywhere else," Mr. (NY Police Commissioner Raymond) Kelly said in a telephone interview from Washington. "It underscores the fact that the law enforcement community is never going to forget."

Particularly in these terrorism-intolerant times, most Americans, including most black Americans, are going to say, GOOD. These murderers got what they deserved. After all, they killed police officers. Who the hell did they think they are, killing police officers? We don't give a damn about their "cause," nobody has the right to resort to such violence, threatening the security of us all.

And they would be right to express such outrage. It is the outrage all people would feel in their own societies.

(In this case, to be precise, one cop was killed, and a civilian was wounded. And to repeat, these men were additiionally charged with
"waging a violent five-year battle against the police and federal authorities," further described as a Dashnak-style " 'conspiracy to kill law enforcement officers' from 1968 to 1973, a plan that included the murders of two New York police officers, four attempted murders of law enforcement personnel, the bombing of a police officers' funeral at a San Francisco church and the attempted bombing of another San Francisco police station, as well as three bank robberies...")

On the other hand, we know the police can sometimes abuse their power... in the United States, and in all countries of the world. In their rush to convict, particularly against criminals who hurt their fellow police, some police detectives may not go about their business in an honorable fashion.

For example, we are given a taste of the "other side" in this article:

A lawyer who represents Mr. Bell, Stuart Hanlon, said he thought that the case against Mr. Bell was based on a 30-year-old confession by a suspected Black Panther member that a judge threw out in the mid-'70s because it had been physically coerced. "I think the police are outraged, and rightfully so, that one of their own was gunned down," Mr. Hanlon said. "They believe they are right. But the belief does not make it so."

Now (not knowing any of the other details, but approaching the matter solely from what this article is telling us), some of us would have alarm bells going off at this point. You mean one of these men was probably arrested on the "say-so" of someone else that had already been rejected in a courtroom of law? Something could be fishy. Is it possible that revenge-minded police rushed to judgment, and did not do their professional duty?

But you know what? Most Americans are not going to think that way. Most Americans are going to say. "GOOD. These murderers got what they deserved. After all, they killed police officers. Who the hell did they think they are, killing police officers?"

Now there were times when Ottoman-Armenians were no doubt arrested and sentenced unfairly. Police officers are human; aside from the handful who are corrupt, they can make mistakes.

Most people, however, apply a zero tolerance to Ottoman authorities having made mistakes in the case of Armenians, or more importantly, against Armenians who really were guilty. (Ironically, many Armenian terrorists were given sentences not commensurate to their murderous crimes, as Hamparsum "Murad" Boyadjian, or allowed to go free, like "Armen Garo" Pastermadjian [see last link]... only to come back and commit their murderous crimes anew. Mainly because of the protection of the imperialists.) Isn't that interesting.

The Ottoman authorities were exposed to increasingly wide scale Armenian disturbances, treachery and violence over the span of some forty years, and any cop in similar circumtances would find it a challenge to maintain their professional objectivity. Yet here, the BLA, fighting for a "cause" they had real historical reasons to flip out over, killed a few people, and it will be hard going today to find folks to look at them sympathetically.









"West" Accounts


Armenian Views


Turks in Movies
Turks in TV


This Site

...Is to expose the mythological “Armenian genocide,” from the years 1915-16. A wartime tragedy involving the losses of so many has been turned into a politicized story of “exclusive victimhood,” and because of the prevailing prejudice against Turks, along with Turkish indifference, those in the world, particularly in the West, have been quick to accept these terribly defamatory claims involving the worst crime against humanity. Few stop to investigate below the surface that those regarded as the innocent victims, the Armenians, while seeking to establish an independent state, have been the ones to commit systematic ethnic cleansing against those who did not fit into their racial/religious ideal: Muslims, Jews, and even fellow Armenians who had converted to Islam. Criminals as Dro, Antranik, Keri, Armen Garo and Soghoman Tehlirian (the assassin of Talat Pasha, one of the three Young Turk leaders, along with Enver and Jemal) contributed toward the deaths (via massacres, atrocities, and forced deportation) of countless innocents, numbering over half a million. What determines genocide is not the number of casualties or the cruelty of the persecutions, but the intent to destroy a group, the members of which  are guilty of nothing beyond being members of that group. The Armenians suffered their fate of resettlement not for their ethnicity, having co-existed and prospered in the Ottoman Empire for centuries, but because they rebelled against their dying Ottoman nation during WWI (World War I); a rebellion that even their leaders of the period, such as Boghos Nubar and Hovhannes Katchaznouni, have admitted. Yet the hypocritical world rarely bothers to look beneath the surface, not only because of anti-Turkish prejudice, but because of Armenian wealth and intimidation tactics. As a result, these libelous lies, sometimes belonging in the category of “genocide studies,” have become part of the school curricula of many regions. Armenian scholars such as Vahakn Dadrian, Peter Balakian, Richard Hovannisian, Dennis Papazian and Levon Marashlian have been known to dishonestly present only one side of their story, as long as their genocide becomes affirmed. They have enlisted the help of "genocide scholars," such as Roger Smith, Robert Melson, Samantha Power, and Israel Charny… and particularly  those of Turkish extraction, such as Taner Akcam and Fatma Muge Gocek, who justify their alliance with those who actively work to harm the interests of their native country, with the claim that such efforts will help make Turkey more" democratic." On the other side of this coin are genuine scholars who consider all the relevant data, as true scholars have a duty to do, such as Justin McCarthy, Bernard Lewis, Heath Lowry, Erich Feigl and Guenter Lewy. The unscrupulous genocide industry, not having the facts on its side, makes a practice of attacking the messenger instead of the message, vilifying these professors as “deniers” and "agents of the Turkish government." The truth means so little to the pro-genocide believers, some even resort to the forgeries of the Naim-Andonian telegrams or sources  based on false evidence, as Franz Werfel’s The Forty Days of Musa Dagh. Naturally, there is no end to the hearsay "evidence" of the prejudiced pro-Christian people from the period, including missionaries and Near East Relief representatives, Arnold Toynbee, Lord Bryce, Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, and so many others. When the rare Westerner opted to look at the issues objectively, such as Admirals Mark Bristol and Colby Chester, they were quick to be branded as “Turcophiles” by the propagandists. The sad thing is, even those who don’t consider themselves as bigots are quick to accept the deceptive claims of Armenian propaganda, because deep down people feel the Turks are natural killers and during times when Turks were victims, they do not rate as equal and deserving human beings. This is the main reason why the myth of this genocide has become the common wisdom.