Tall Armenian Tale


The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide


  After Taner Akcam's News: A Message from Holdwater  
First Page


Major Players
Links & Misc.



Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems




How do you like that. Taner Akcam has gone and “exposed” Holdwater.

He says I am Murad Gumen. And before anything could be confirmed, the Armenian extremists have gone to town with the information, performing what they do best: character assassination.

And then the Turkish press latched on to the idea. They accepted as a “fact” what Taner Akcam, of all people, has presented.

Are they right?

I can tell you right now I am not playing the pro-Armenians’ slimy game. It goes directly against what the TAT site has stood for, and one reason why I felt the need to hide behind a moniker. The pro-Armenians are aware their evidence to support their genocide myth is nonexistent. In order to silence opposition, they conduct no-holds-barred smear campaigns.

As I have always said, what we need to focus on is the message; not the messenger.

But let’s briefly look at the evidence Akcam has presented, to confirm my identity. He may not be able to understand this, because to truth-challenged people, preferred conclusions must exist in a vacuum. Thus, after some six centuries of living in relatively harmonious co-existence, all of a sudden, the Ottoman Turks decided to exterminate the Armenian people. (And whatever reasons the deceptive Armenian genocide industry has come up with to try and explain a murder motive strangely did not apply to the many other minorities of the Ottoman Empire.)

Similarly, what makes anyone think my life existed in a vacuum, before the creation of the TAT site?

Yes, I am from a generation where Turks who immigrated into the USA (generally from the professional class; the “lower” class ones were generally disallowed from entering, in accordance with U.S. immigration policy. Such restrictions were not in place for more “favored” ethnic groups, the ones who came in greater numbers and established a hateful stronghold, feeding even more greatly to the anti-Turkish prejudices in existence) assimilated into U.S. society, leaving the “old country” behind, much in opposition to the other ethnic groups with anti-Turkish axes to grind.

But am I the only one? Am I the only one who speaks “American” English, and who has become “Americanized”?

And even though I have had little to do with fellow Turkish-Americans (as I have written elsewhere, my best friends while growing up were Greek-American), is it conceivable that my family had no contact with other Turkish-Americans.... or after I became an adult, that I had no contact with other Turkish-Americans?

Before beginning the TAT site, do readers think I didn’t bat the idea around with friends from this crowd?

Couldn’t one of them have told me about his experience, which was so exciting — given that this particular example (cleaning up a poorly-prepared form letter originating from the Turkish Women’s League, sending it to the Holocaust Memorial Museum, and resulting in getting a request from its director to get contra-”Armenian genocide” evidence... to someone who was basically ignorant about the topic, and was put in the position of conducting research when such research was unavailable in the USA of 1980) demonstrated how woefully unprepared the Turkish side was, and still is — and I just had to put it up?

But does anyone think I was not going to protect the privacy of such a writer? Given how out-of-control the extremists among Armenians can famously be? Naturally, I had to write that it was I, as “Holdwater,” who submitted this letter.


Taner Akcam

Ironically, Taner Ackam’s exposition reveals exactly what the caliber of his “scholarship” is worth. For example, Akcam repeats the weasel history of his master Dadrian, in claiming that the Ottomans had a “two track” system. They wrote orders protecting the Armenians, but what they actually did — according to Dadrian/Akcam — was circumvent these orders with secret orders to exterminate Armenians. Not a single example of the latter has been found, although there are plenty of the former. Aside from the total lack of motive and lack of logic for this birdbrained speculation (which “assumes that the Ottomans deliberately confused their own officials in wartime so that future historians would be fooled,” as Prof. Justin McCarthy worded it), Dadrian/Akcam had to come up with SOME evidence to try and support their dishonesty. So they “cherry-picked” an example of telegram-cancellation from the memoirs of Talat Pasha’s secretary, regarding not an official telegram reflecting government policy, but a letter of recommendation regarding a job applicant. VOILA!

This is exactly what Taner Akcam has done, here. He found a link to my identity, and automatically concluded VOILA!

But as genuine scholars and truth-seekers know, the truth often lies beneath the easy surface. Taner Akcam is neither a scholar nor a truth-seeker, so whatever Dadrian-style “expedient information” that proves an agenda-ridden theory will suffice. Such is the role of the propagandist.

In Taner Akcam’s case, this kind of revelation is not harmless. Just as he has maligned his “own” people with deceitful Dadrian propaganda, helping to cause ignorant and already prejudiced folks throughout the world to further hate the Turks, making an announcement of my identity as though it were an established fact, without confirmation, is highly damaging, highly irresponsible, and highly unprofessional. Let’s hold this thought.

I’d like to address some of the points Taner Akcam has made in his circulated “AGOS” (an Armenian newspaper in Turkey) articles, the first being, “Holdwater: The mysterious name behind the ‘premier’ anti-Armenian website.”

Now note how creepy Taner Akcam is, even with the choice of his title. The TAT site is certainly not an “anti-Armenian” web site, but an “anti-Armenian GENOCIDE” web site. There is a huge difference.

For example, many Irish historians agree the Irish Famine did not constitute a genocide, as others — usually more emotional people — are too quick to conclude. The issue is open to debate. Those who disagree, such as the mentioned Irish historians, are certainly not “anti-Irish.” This point is so obvious, it should not even need to be spelled out.

Already Taner Akcam is signaling the less-balanced Armenians among the rank-and-file to “Get this guy.” He won’t be stopping there, but already we must ask: What kind of a morally-challenged man is Taner Akcam?


Before we get to the AGOS articles, I would like to address another essay Akcam wrote about this topic. I did not make a copy, and I have reservations about bringing this up, as I normally would not comment unless I have the “dead to rights” evidence. But I am breaking this rule, because I distinctly recall a line that was to the effect of:

“I know Holdwater is Ilyas Botas/Keenan Pars.”

When I read that line, I remember thinking, how could this man make such a definite conclusion, when there really was no way for him to “know”? (Naturally, I knew the answer, aware of what kind of man we’re dealing with; but I still couldn’t help thinking that.)

At any rate, as soon as Akcam’s Holdwater-related pieces appeared, some of the rank and file also repeated this contention that I am Ilyas Botas, but they left out the Keenan Pars part. And I very clearly remember reading “Keenan Pars” as well. This is what made me certain that I wasn’t imagining that Akcam had prepared a more vicious version of his “Holdwater” article, one that was subsequently removed. (But not before the damage was done.)

For the record, Ilyas Botas is another Turkish-American who writes in “Americanese,” has a sense of combativeness, and injects humor into his writings. I understand he has been harassed by Armenians, listening to rumors that he was Holdwater. (There have been plenty of rumors regarding who I really am; one even speculated I was Dr. Heath Lowry! Unfortunately, when too many Armenians are “told” something in favor of Hai Tahd, the Armenian Cause, they automatically assume it’s true. Here is a piece by Ilyas Botas featured on TAT, written under another of his pseudonyms.)

In this more aggressive essay, Akcam capped off by bragging in the conclusion that his discovery demonstrates what a great scholar he is. That’s when I remember thinking what he has done has nothing to do with “scholarship,” and everything to do with “detective work.”

Pro-Armenian propagandists love to remind us that they are “scholars” every chance they get. But just as repeating the word “genocide” (as Akcam did sixty-four times in what was his first Armenian-related English language article) does not make it so, these frauds should realize they are not fooling anybody. A real scholar is someone such as Prof. Guenter Lewy, who examined all of the relevant information, before reaching dispassionate conclusions. (In his book, “The Armenian Massacres in Ottoman Turkey: A Disputed Genocide”; by the way, the Journal of Genocide Research seriously compromised its credibility by having such an obvious Armenian agent as Taner Akcam review Lewy’s book. [March ‘07.] Akcam actually sniffed that Lewy’s exceptional book “was not a work to bother with” and that “Lewy’s book seems to be the work of someone who has not mastered the subject.” Of course his partisan game plan is to try and discredit a truly scholarly work, but can the reader believe the gall of Taner Akcam, the antithesis of true scholarship?)

The better question to ask is, if Akcam were a real scholar, why is he engaging in such unscholarly work as tracking someone down, instead of committing himself to find the irrefutable evidence that the Ottoman government set about to exterminate the Armenians? (Of course, such would not necessarily make him a real scholar either, because he would be working to affirm a pre-arranged conclusion, the opposite of the way a respectable scholar would operate.)


I remember other aspects of Akcam’s more aggressive article, but I’ll bring up only one more: Taner Akcam claimed that I, Holdwater, called Armenians “rodents.”

I remember thinking, that was way below the belt... even for Taner Akcam. Of course, I noticed there was no source. That was one whopper of an accusation.

That kind of thinking would be so in contrast to my character, it simply left me speechless. As I have written elsewhere, I was brought up to look upon Armenians as my brothers and sisters. My parents never said a single negative word about Armenians, ever. Many Turks have written me since, and I can easily conclude I am not an isolated example; this is a very typical Turkish upbringing.

I love all peoples. Yes, that includes Armenians. I have no hatred in my heart for anyone, not even those Armenians (and those like Taner Akcam) who totally throw away their morality, in their dishonest genocide affirming pursuit. (As Admiral Mark Bristol, and perhaps Mr. T, I may pity them; but I certainly don’t hate them.)

I have received the nastiest, most racist letters from Armenian readers, exhibiting the same mentality that we often see in hateful Armenian forums, and I have always replied civilly, hoping to reach out to their humanity. I have written many pages for the TAT site, and I believe even Armenian readers (save for the loopiest ones) are aware I have no malicious feelings toward the Armenian people, whatsoever. Quite the contrary; I am a humanist, and I have the warmest feelings toward Armenians. (Thanks to my upbringing, and helped, of course, by wonderful Armenians I have met along the way.)

Even if I were capable of hating the extremists among Armenians, I would stop myself. The reason: I am fully aware that once I sink into the snake pit of hatred, I will become no better than them. That is when they will have won.

What I don’t like is dishonesty. There is a world of difference between being against a ferocious falsehood such as the “Armenian genocide,” and being, as Akcam worded his headline, “anti-Armenian.”


Of course, what extremist Armenians and their supporters are unethically capitalizing on is that we often think of Holocaust deniers as neo-Nazi types; their struggle against what is an obvious genocide often derives from anti-Jewish feelings. But there is a world of difference between the very real Holocaust and the evidence-challenged “Armenian genocide.” What these dishonest “patriots” and their prejudiced supporters are attempting to do, of course, is to try and stifle debate. It was bad enough to brand contra-genocide believers as “deniers”; now the buzzword of choice is becoming “racist.”

(The mentality goes across-the-board, even affecting those on the academic level; for example, in PBS’s “Current” Magazine, Prof. Peter Balakian actually likened Prof. Justin McCarthy to a “white supremacist.”)

But it is not good enough for Taner Akcam to simply encourage the nut jobs in his flock to call me a racist; he has to point to some kind of “evidence,” and thus he tells the nuts that I have called Armenians “rodents,” without providing a source.

(Bear in mind I can’t prove Akcam has written this, as the essay I believe I read has been removed. But ask yourselves: before Akcam got his piece[s] through, there was no mention anywhere that I had called Armenians “rodents.” But after this news debuted, the fanatical flock zeroed in on this sensationalistic “rodents” point, and it has been reproduced all over. One even decided to change the word into “rats.” Where did they get the idea from, all of a sudden?)

I searched for the word “rodents” in the TAT site, to see if Akcam may have actually based this charge on anything; is it possible that he got it from the “Armenian Psychology” page, which describes the famous “Lemming Effect”? An article written by someone else, and that happened to include the word “rodents”?

The idea here was that genocide-obsessed Armenians mindlessly and religiously play follow-the-leader, without capacity for individual thought. I had come up with a cute, and now actually rarely used (when I began the site, and was outraged to discover the massiveness of Armenian propaganda, there was more flippancy to my tone) phrase to describe the phenomenon, “Armeni-Lemmings,” which of course would not describe all Armenians; only the irrational genocide fanatics. We could have as easily been talking about another group from the wild, exhibiting similar characteristics, assuming that there was a psychological term named after them, such as birds mindlessly following each other in a pattern, or a school of fish.

The idea was, as Professor Norman Itzkowitz insightfully put it: "[A]ll of this ethnic conflict business I think we have to understand at the bottom is irrational; it has nothing to do with rationality. They don't want to know anything, and they will not take the time to inform themselves about what is going on."

I don’t know whether this is where Akcam came up with the notion that I have called Armenians “rodents,” but if so, I am at a loss to imagine how he could earn our contempt in greater fashion.

Addendum, 8-07:

When Marmaduke Picktthall took apart Arnold Toynbee's Blue Book in an article for The New Age (December 16, 1915, Vol. XVIII. No. 7), he wrote::

I have never been a hater of Armenians; I had always hoped, with Mr. Toynbee, that they and other Christian populations would contribute to the progress and regeneration of the Turkish Empire. It has always struck me as horrible that Greeks and Syrian Christians, no less than Kurds and Muslim Arabs, should regard that race as vermin: it amounts to that. And I must say that I have never met a Turk who took that view of them; for the Turk they are the millet-i-sadikeh (the loyal sect), most favoured in old days, which has turned against its patrons and become an enemy.

While putting up this addendum, allow me to add that weeks after this response to Akcam appeared, Akcam has written another Holdwater-related essay featured in the "Blogian" site, entitled "Shoot the Messenger." You see, he is now the innocent messenger in line to get hurt by crazy fanatics. This is the only idea that he has ripped off from my message, while naturally ignoring all the rest, still repeating his same falsehoods. I have been told that a Turkish publication, Yeni Aktuel, has also featured an Akcam article, where Akcam basically says that he is in fear for his llife. In effect, he pulls the trigger, and then becomes the victim — fittingly, in traditional "Armenian" style! Frankly, for the moment at least, I have neither the energy nor the interest to keep rebutting this pathetic soul.

What Akcam was striving for was to drum up memories of those horrid Nazi propaganda movies, where footage of scurrying vermin was juxtaposed with Jews. He was trying to incite the less stable Armenian fanatics; Akcam was telling them in barely concealed “code” to “Go get this guy.”

In other words: Taner Akcam designed to cause terror. What a reminder that there are times when it can be difficult to shake one's roots.

And one need not have a terrorist background in order to engage in this kind of practice. Once I was corresponding with Dr. Dennis Papazian, with cc’s to a professorial Armenian-American woman and two genocide scholars. Suddenly, I received a message from the hateful Armenian-American doctor from Chicago who operates the “turkishdenial” web site, asking me whether I owned a gun. Now why would the likeliest suspect in this group of four have shared my letter with the nut job? Similarly, Dr. Richard Hovannisian reportedly called his fellow UCLA colleague, Dr. Stanford Shaw, a “criminal,” inciting the fanatics to harass Shaw (some bombed his house), ultimately turning Shaw into a nervous wreck, and forcing his retirement.

Hitler could not afford to get his hands directly soiled on his rise to power, so he created the S.A. in 1924 to conduct his violence and terror for him. Similarly, these Dashnak “professors” (and their Turkish lackey), can’t afford to overtly blemish their respectability; fortunately for them, there is no shortage of the fanatical faithful that they can resort to, in order to carry out their campaigns of intimidation.

We’ll sum up what else Taner Akcam has wrought with his move later on. Let’s now address a few points from his AGOS articles.


Taner Akcam has quoted extensively from a July 27, 2005 Yeni Safak newspaper “interview” (in my book, an interview would be in question and answer format; I supplied information, but I was not interviewed for this article), “The Mysterious American Who Drives the Armenians Mad.”

My idea was simply to tell the Turks of Turkey to WAKE UP. I didn’t share anything about my personal life, save for (at the journalist’s insistence) a couple of throwaway tidbits. There was embellishment in the article; I suppose the journalist, whom I happened to like a lot, felt the article would have been boring otherwise. Please do not take this article, and its quotations, at face value; it served to disenchant me, and one may understand why I have not granted an interview since.

Isn’t it just like Taner Akcam to go to a secondhand source, in an attempt to shed light on me... when there are so many words I have written myself that he could have easily attempted to take out of context; when I shed light on him, I mainly go directly to the source: Taner Akcam. (It is his research I target, not his personal life — save for his terror background, which is relevant to his lack of character.) Secondhand sources, that is, “hearsay,” is what Akcam and his ilk have largely relied upon, to prove their “genocide.”

Let’s focus on this paragraph:

While afraid to disclose his own name because his peace will be disturbed, Holdwater does not hold back from publishing the photographs of intellectuals such as Halil Berktay and Müge Göcek... and parading them as targets in his articles full of animosity and hatred. It is quite difficult to understand how someone who is afraid of being attacked can organize such ruthless campaigns of belligerence against others.

How does one define “organize”? I am not aware of having organized anyone to go out and antagonize Berktay and Gocek. Is Akcam suggesting I operate as a sort of ANCA, instructing like-minded others to send faxes and letters, and operating “ruthless campaigns of belligerence”?

The page for Gocek, for example, may be accessed here. What I am doing is primarily focusing on her statements and “facts,” to expose her propagandistic dishonesty. Berktay, too; when he makes dumb statements such as “In 1915, Anatolia was unknown by the Turks,” naturally I have to call this “intellectual” on his own brand of propaganda.

My only concern is for the truth. When people distort the truth in order to serve a propagandistic agenda, and lie in bed with the adversaries of their country, of course they will earn my animosity. They should earn the animosity of any honorable person. But I certainly have no “hatred” for anyone.

By the way, is Akcam suggesting people who are dishonest should never be criticized, because someone may physically go after them? And among the “Fascist Turks,” what kind of educated, English-speaking TAT reader would seriously contemplate going after Berktay or Gocek? Furthermore, if normally apathetic and hatred-free Turks can’t bring themselves to make even the most minimal efforts to defend their national honor, how many would actually consider committing acts of violence?

And lastly, these opportunistic Turks were already being exposed for the comforting of their nation’s adversaries well before TAT came into existence, as with this 2000 example regarding Berktay. This is one where Berktay appears to have claimed only one to ten thousand Muslims were killed in the First World War, instead of some 2.7 million.

I haven’t made up anything about the scholarly frauds criticized on TAT, such as charging them with calling a human group “rodents.” I mainly use their own words to sink them. As far as photographs, one great thing about the TAT site is that all discussed personalities, when possible, offer pictures to match the faces. Re-using photographs of folks like Gocek and Berktay, photographs that have already been made available, does not offer a “Go get them” instruction in the same fashion of exposing a face characterized as “anti-Armenian,” for the first time, to a fanatical crowd. (When I use a photo of a contra-genocide personality, and a genocide fanatic reads that page, does that mean I would be encouraging harm against the contra-genocide person?) Naturally, Akcam knows all of this. He will make his awful implications, nevertheless.


Akcam continues:

I too am among Holdwater’s priority targets. He leads the campaign against me, along with institutions such as the Assembly of American Turkish Associations (ATAA) and the Turkish Forum. He publishes articles on his site which claim that I am a terrorist; that I am responsible of the death of Americans in Turkey ; and even that I have planned and organized murders of American civilians. He lists my “terrorist activities” from the years 1974 to 1975, including precise dates and locations. These amount to nothing more than ordinary, small-scale arrests during student demonstrations of the era, which didn’t even make the press at the time.

There is a world of difference between exposing what a propagandist and scholarly fraud that Taner Akcam is, and “leading a campaign” against him. Where is this campaign? Again, am I supposed to be operating as ANCA?

The purpose of the TAT site if to present truthful information. Nothing more. Akcam can’t stand the truth, so he must make unfounded accusations.

The articles he is referring to were written by others; primarily Mustafa Artun (“From Terrorism to Armenian Propagandist:
The Taner Akcam Story,”
2001.) Of course I am going to publish articles that are going to expose Akcam’s shifty personality, particularly if the articles appear to be responsibly written.

The only major time I got “personal” with Akcam on TAT is when he made unfounded allegations against the TAT site. The result was Taner Akcam: A Shameful Liar. Here, we looked closer at the Artun article, where we learned at least one fact (regarding Akcam’s prison sentence) was more truthful about Akcam than Akcam has been about Akcam. But I wound up downplaying Akcam’s terrorist period from the 1970s, because I don't have much information regarding the group he belonged to, DEV-YOL. (And unlike Robert Jay Lifton, I am going to try and avoid making definitive conclusions about something so serious, based upon just one source.) It is not so difficult to determine, however, that DEV-YOL was indeed involved in terroristic activities, likely Soviet-backed, in an effort to destabilize Turkey during those turbulent times. Naturally, America was this leftist organization’s enemy, and Akcam was a key component of this organization. (Lazy Turkish journalists ought to dig into Akcam’s old articles; Artun wrote: “...as the editor of DEV-YOL's magazine, he [Akcam] wrote numerous articles exhorting DEV-YOL militants to engage in violence to bring down ‘the oligarchy’, to punish ‘the fascists’, and to get rid of ‘American imperialism.’")

What I have done, as the reader may ascertain with a study of the page (where the links for all of the following have been provided), is largely disregard the 1970s period, as far as confirming Akcam’s terroristic past. Corroboration of Akcam’s terrorist status comes from Akcam himself. He admitted having collaborated with Abdullah Ocalan’s PKK from 1981-1984, a terrorist organization responsible for over ten times the toll of 9/11. Akcam further corroborated his involvement in a Canadian radio interview, albeit indirectly, when we learned the PKK tried to kill him in Germany. Akcam also belonged to another (likely Kurdish) group with Abdullah Ocalan, ADYOD (1975), the intentions of which were probably not peaceful in nature. While we must pause before accepting the word of a terrorist at face value, Ocalan has accused Akcam of having much blood on his hands.

It doesn’t take too much intelligence to guess who might have passed to Holdwater the police records of these insignificant arrests, whose dates even I had forgotten.

Unfounded conspiracy theories aside, I found them on the Internet; it was as simple as that. And for God’s sake! We’re only talking about three relevant entries, here. Note how the author of these entries, whose information probably is not as reliable as Artun’s, disagrees with Artun on the DEV YOL issue. (Scroll up on this link for the Artun article.)

Once I was arrested for an issue regarding the Cyprus landing. As the Student Association, we were distributing authorized leaflets against the [Turkish] military invasion of Cyprus [1974].

“Invasion”? Did not Greek Cypriot violence and massacres against the Turkish minority in hopes of “enosis” (union) with Greece lead to the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, enabling the mother countries to protect their respective minorities? The Turks thus exercised their legal right in 1974 to intervene, in order to prevent the Turkish Cypriots from getting exterminated, as the coup leader admitted was his goal (in 1981). How remarkable that the welfare of Akcam’s “own” people meant, and still mean, nothing to him.


In addition, whoever transferred to Holdwater the information about my arrests forgot to send him my photograph. For a long time, therefore, Holdwater represented me on his site by a photograph of a PKK member.

Once again, no one transferred this information, and even if someone had, they would not have been obligated to provide a photograph. As for the wrong photograph, Taner Akcam is well aware that it was removed immediately, and not after “a long time”; I had written him on March 2004 (See “Open Letter Number Three” on this page): “I did away with that photograph the day I read your letter. My intention is never to falsely represent you, as that is what separates those such as myself from those you have become so warmly chummy with.”

I had no interest either in his writings or in his website—until he took on a key role in the campaign against me.

Let us all then raise our voices in unison to thank Taner Akcam for corroborating what a scholarly fraud he is. As Prof. McCarthy wrote: “Uncomfortable facts, facts that disagree with one's preconceptions and prejudices must be considered, not avoided or ignored: Any book on the history of the Turks and the Armenians that does not include the history of the Turks who were killed by Armenians cannot be the truth. This is obvious.” In order to get at the truth, a genuine scholar looking into Turco-Armenian matters would hungrily examine the many diverse and honest historical sources featured on the TAT site. Naturally, what Akcam is trying to get away with here is the notion that any facts getting in the way of his vile propaganda should be dismissed, exactly as he attempted when he sized up Guenter Lewy’s invaluable book as “not a work to bother with.”

One of Holdwater’s important arguments in this campaign was that a complaint should be filed with American immigration authorities, denouncing me as a “terrorist.” Now, I don’t know if he actually did such a thing.

Naturally, there was no “campaign” against such small potatoes as Taner Akcam; the three bodies he has accused (the others being ATAA and the Turkish Forum) work independently of each other (at least TAT has certainly operated independently); Akcam is attempting to inflate his importance. Please consult the “Shameful Liar” page to get a better understanding of Akcam's “campaign” fantasy. And while I certainly have wondered how an ex-terrorist and communist got past immigration authorities, I would consider such “snitching” to be dishonorable, as much as Akcam might have difficulty in understanding the concept.

Taner Akcam informs us that he “had his prison sentence annulled with changes made to the Turkish Criminal Code in 1991 and also has a document stating he has a ‘clean record.’”

Patty Hearst as Tania

Revolutionary poster girl: Patty Hearst as
"Tania," committing armed robbery, after
being brainwashed by the SLA.

Obviously Akcam and others in the position of advocating or participating in armed struggle against Turkish “fascism” benefited from what sounds like a declared amnesty policy; otherwise Akcam could never have returned to Turkey, having escaped from prison as he did. Yet it seems to me that there is a world of difference between letting bygones be bygones in a positive national effort to forge ahead, and presenting oneself as being guilty of nothing more than the innocent activities “of leafletting and postering,” as Akcam sarcastically wrote of his “crimes.” The Artun article tells us, for example, that DEV-YOL militants “set up a so-called ‘liberated zone’ in the town of Fatsa on the Black Sea coast ... for several months before being routed by the security forces.” They outperformed the Symbionese Liberation Army (the militants who had kidnapped Patty Hearst in 1974, along with committing robberies and murder, in their violent struggle against the “fascist” United States) a good many steps better.


... I did mention Holdwater and the campaign in an article I wrote on the detention. [See “A Shameful Campaign,” cited above.] Holdwater wrote a 30-page rebuttal, full of lies, insults and attacks.

This must be “A Shameful Liar” that Akcam is complaining about. (Which is one long page, not thirty.) The reader may determine where the “lies” are, since Akcam has not presented a single example.

Interestingly, since Akcam admits to having read the “Shameful Liar” page, how highly dishonest of him to keep making the same contentions, such as the mistaken photograph being kept for a long time, the “campaign” against him, and ignoring his self-confessed PKK connection. If one makes a claim or a charge, and these claims/charges are countered, it is very dishonorable to ignore the explanations and to keep on making the same claims/charges.

Taner Akcam ends his piece by scolding me for removing the name of the one whose identity I had a responsibility to protect, as such enters the realm of “distortion and alteration,” and that he was “rectifying the alteration... made on a document presented to the public.” Is he trying to tell us the copy I had put up on the site was taken from public records... instead of the private and original copy that was used? Naturally, the letter would have never been put up in the first place had I been aware of its public retrievability. But this fellow is going to be so low as to grasp at whatever advantage he thinks he possesses, further writing, “As you may know, we scholars don’t particularly appreciate the alteration of documents. Such distortion is an occupation reserved for the Turkish Historical Society.” Brother!

The above cartoon appeared in Turkey's Cumhuriyet newspaper.
The character in the white hood, so perfectly representative of
 pro-Armenian extremists who love to make unfounded charges of
"racism," says to the effect: "Would a democratic person
offer thoughts without revealing his real identity? We will
immediately expose such a person."

“Attacking others, and insulting them, while concealing your own name, does not fit moral conduct at all,” Akcam concludes, now having the audacity to lecture us on what is “moral.” His last line: “Believe me, I am still quite curious as to why you think that I, and many others in my position, do not deserve a right you so readily claim for yourself.”

Of course, Taner Akcam is not such a dope that he does not know the answer to the question he poses. But let’s make sure there is no misunderstanding:

1) Concealing one’s name does not automatically mean that one can write things with impunity. How one conducts oneself is entirely a matter of character. If one is honest to begin with, writing anonymously is not going to make a bit of difference. Conversely, if one is dishonest to begin with, one will feel free to mislead even when one chooses to reveal one’s name.

We don’t need to look far for examples of when Akcam has practiced mendacity. A dramatic example was when Taner Akcam, under his own name, actually stated in the 2006 PBS Debate show: “Muslims killing ... by the Armenians, it is a legend. It is not true...” Assuming the former PKK collaborator is Kurdish, Akcam succeeded here in betraying his own. While the figure is overstated, the 1968 anti-Turkish book, "The Kurds," tells us that the Armenians were responsible for the destruction of at least 600,000 Ottoman-Kurds.

Meanwhile, one would be hard-pressed to find anything on the TAT site that is not solidly backed up by reliable evidence. (Mainly, sources without reason to be untruthful. In fact, here is a recent page examining a section of Akcam’s “Shameful” book; check out whether his mostly Dadrian claims hold up.) There are times I have been wrong, of course; but readers are aware from the addendums that I often admit to having made a mistake before putting up the corrections. The TAT site has been prepared with an accent upon total honesty; I would be a fool to do so otherwise, realizing that I am operating from the disadvantage of not having disclosed my identity, and defending an ethnic group with a devastating negative image and one already perceived in this prejudiced world as dishonest.

Knuckleheaded propagandists only get theirs after they have been shown to be deceitful or amateurish. Akcam can charge this site with “lies” all he desires, but I don’t see him offering specifics. (Akcam had a perfect chance to show me up, once he had accepted membership to a Yahoo group I happened to be a part of. Yet he turned tail so fast, the members could almost see his smoke. If he is so certain of his facts, why did he refuse to seize the opportunity?)

2) I only wish the atmosphere of genocide politics would allow for my not needing to hide behind a moniker. We all know what happened in the 1970s-80s, after the Turks finally began to speak up in the wake of global Armenian terrorism. The Armenians and the genocide scholars began their smear campaigns, intimidating  the real historians away. Activist Armenians do not wish for their genocide myth to be exposed, and thus embark on age-old bullying tactics to stifle debate. By contrast, Taner Akcam and the “many others in [his] position” operate with the backing of a compliant world.

 Armenian Extremists React

Let’s take a quick look at what happened here, after Akcam’s AGOS articles were translated into English by Nazim Dikbas: a campaign of the most vile character assassination and hatred one can imagine, as Akcam knew all too well would take place.

Two key participants to date fueling this campaign of hatred have been Simon Maghakyan, who also goes by the name of Blogian, and Ruben Izmailyan.

These two poor souls are the kind that the Dashnak historian Mikael Varandian could have had in mind when he wrote of “the seed of the poisonous flower of racism and nationalism... sown and carefully cultivated in the minds of the (Armenian) youth.” The scary thing is, Varandian wrote his words back in 1910 (“The Rebirth of a Nation and Our Mission,” p. 144). Like many other young Armenians, Maghakyan and Izmailyan have been taught, as Varandian further put it, “a rabid and delirious form of nationalism,” appearing “in the form of inordinate pride and arrogance,” producing “scandalous excesses, obviously found in the most intense pleasure in indulging in the most irreconcilable scorn and hatred of the Turks.”

Izmailyan has it a little more under control (he was spotlighted on TAT as an Armenian-American evidently diaspora-bullied, forcing the cancellation of a long planned Turkish-Armenian musical event; it’s jarring to learn of him now in the role of intimidator), but Maghakyan is far too gone into mind trip-ville.

Both are young (Izmailyan is slated to graduate from Brown University in 2009; Maghakyan is a recent transplant from Armenia, aged 17 at entry into the USA in 2003, to begin in earnest the waging of his “patriotic” war. Soghoman Tehlirian, Talat Pasha’s assassin, was 17 as well when he betrayed his Ottoman nation in 1914 and crossed over to the Russians, eager to practice his own brand of patriotism), bringing to mind how the minds of Armenian youth are poisoned by “the fetish-culture of diasporan Armenians,” as described in Meline Toumani's “The Burden of Memory.”

“In this culture, many diaspora Armenians are reared to hate Turkey with a fervor that seems completely at odds with their daily lives as typical — even liberal — American citizens... often it is the later-generation descendants who take up the cause most ardently, suggesting that something besides a simple interest in justice fuels their behavior.”

Simon Maghakyan

Simon Maghakyan

Maghakyan is a rising star among Armenian extremists, fiercely on the front lines of the Armenians’ beloved genocide. For example, he sent an angry letter to The Jewish Advocate, criticizing them for identifying a photo as “alleged victims of the Armenian genocide.” He was praised by fellow extremists Harut Sassounian, Appo Japparian, and Prof. Dennis Papazian (“Good show Simon,” Papazian wrote; “we have to mock them”) for Maghakyan’s exercise in hysteria. The fact of the matter is that “Armenian genocide” photos are undocumented, even Armin Wegner’s; some Armenian sites have sunk so low as to use documented photographs of Ottoman Muslims slaughtered by Armenians, in order to represent Armenian victims. While I don’t know which photograph The Jewish Advocate made use of, if the source of the photograph cannot be verified, an ethical journal must use a word such as “alleged.” The “journalists” Harut Sassounian and Appo Japparian have no concept of such ethical practices; their genocide must be affirmed before all else. Unfortunately, Dr. Papazian is no different; a real professor would need to ask many questions of an unverified photograph of the dead (such as, who are the victims, who killed them, and why). The last thing Dr. Papazian wishes to serve as in this out-of-control and genocide-sappy bunch is a voice of conscience, because he too is just another propagandist. (Maghakyan’s goal is to become a “professor.” He has one fine role model.)

Taner Akcam actually solicited this young kid (Maghakyan may have reached the age of 21; but he has a long way to go before becoming a man), working in cahoots for their exercise in character assassination. (Maghakyan wrote, “Prof. Akcam told me about this finding on April 15, 2007 and promised me to send the English version as soon as it was published in Turkey’s Agos.”) It is truly astounding, not to mention so very embarrassing, that Genocideland’s aptly nicknamed “village idiot,” this self-professed “scholar,” would so openly collaborate on his latest terror campaign with such a young fideist. (And let’s keep in mind the audience for such a fanatic are other bent-out-of-their-minds zealots; Akcam knowingly chose a most dangerous audience to appeal to. In effect, he instructed his more radical followers to hitch a ride on the bullet of the gun that Akcam fired.)

Naturally, Maghakyan pulled no punches, calling Akcam’s victim an “anti-Armenian idiot” and “one of the most anti-Armenian Turkish-Americans on Earth and the webmaster of tallarmeniantale.com, a hate website that denies the Armenian Genocide and compares Armenians to rodents.” The kid is out of control, further writing that TAT’s webmaster has “an unbelievably ‘wonderful’ hate for the Armenian people.”

He is engaging in a not-so-hidden “Go get him” message of his own; has he no comprehension that sort of language can put him in, as he put it, “hot waters”? And here we go again with the “rodents” charge, as Akcam guided his flock:

“...[T]he covert webmaster of tallarmeniantale.com, a website that denies the destruction of over a million Christian Armenians by Ottoman Turks during World War I. Gumen has been using the pseudo name “Holdwater” in denying the Armenian Genocide and comparing Armenians to rodents.”

I haven’t the heart to tell the kid that the Armenians themselves put the toll of Ottoman-Armenians at “more than 200,000“ (at the Preliminary Peace Conference in Paris, 1919). That is considerably less than what I regard as the true figure, around half a million. But there is simply no way of reasoning with someone who has gone off the edge. For example: a Turkish reader reminds Maghakyan that the recently discovered cave with the mass grave said to be of Armenian victims has been confirmed by European scientists to have been a Roman site. Maghakyan exhibits his future professorial chops by spending not a second wondering whether the claim might have merit, but by responding that the Turk is a “racist.”

Apparently, anyone who says anything against the Armenian genocide religion is a “racist,” according to Maghakyan, blissfully unaware that anyone with objectivity can clearly see where the real hatred and racism is coming from.

(If we follow Maghakyan’s brand of reasoning, when the United Nations' highest court in the Hague, the International Court of Justice, declared in February 2007 that what Serbia and Bosnian Serbs did to the Bosnian Muslims, save for Srebrenica [where only the Bosnian Serbs were blamed for the act of genocide], did not constitute a “genocide,” then should we ask whether the Hague officials were “racists”?)

Simon Maghakyan is obviously an extremely intelligent person (sporting a near 4.0 grade average; only a few years in the USA, and his English is already much better than Taner Akcam’s ever will be), and what a dreadful, dreadful shame that he has allowed himself to become so psychologically warped. He also has no moral recognition of the hurt caused by his vicious insults, relying totally upon Taner Akcam’s speculative conclusions, and the harmful repercussions that could well follow.

“The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
Albert Einstein

On June 11, 2007, hetq.am (the site for the Investigative Journalists of Armenia) published Ruben Izmailyan’s “Internet Slander's Identity Revealed by Favorite Victim.” (Shouldn’t this Ivy League University student be aware that the word needed to read “slanderer”? More importantly, when in print, the word is libel, not slander.)

Let me say off the bat that Taner Akcam (given that he likely agrees with this essay’s title) once again overstates the case if he really thinks he is my “favorite victim.” Anyone who engages in deceit or ineptitude regarding the “Armenian genocide” is in my sights. If Akcam is going to make more of a spectacle of himself than others, naturally he will receive more attention. But Akcam can’t help himself; as his old friend Abdullah Ocalan indicated, Akcam is too much of a “showman.” (“He wants to be on the front pages all the time.”)

Izmailyan faithfully follows Akcam’s “Go get him” lead with: “Besides spreading anti-Armenian rhetoric and at times comparing Armenians to rodents...”

And continues:

“...[T]he site is also famous for belittling and vilifying some of the most notable scholars and individuals that have spoken or written about it. Holocaust survivor and Nobel Peace Prize winner Elie Weisel, historians Richard Hovhanissian [sic], Vahakn Dadrian, genocide scholar Israel Charny and many others have been subject to accusations of bias, incompetence, bribery, promoting ‘Armenian propaganda’ and other similar misdeeds.”

Note the clever “political” positioning of Elie Wiesel at the top of the list, as if Wiesel has been targeted anywhere near the level of the others mentioned. Regardless of how wonderful and revered a personality Wiesel might otherwise be, if he lends his substantive voice to Armenian genocide propaganda productions, of course he is going to be called upon it. Particularly because he is so revered, he is going to be listened to far more seriously than the average genocide spokesman. If Wiesel irresponsibly refuses to conduct impartial homework and unwittingly contributes to prejudice (by unjustly equating Turks with Nazis), then not criticizing him, because of his saintly reputation, would be the ultimate in hypocrisy. (Naturally, what Izmailyan is slyly banking on is that anyone who dares criticize Wiesel must be regarded as a “Nazi” in his own right.)

As far as criticism of the others, what is being said? That, without offering explanation, someone such as Vahakn Dadrian wears army boots? No; it is their statements and research that display their “bias, incompetence... promoting ‘Armenian propaganda’ and other similar misdeeds.” (I don’t recall accusing any of these gentlemen of “bribery.” But Izmailyan might as well throw that one in there, as well. What difference does it make?)

Of course, a “patriot” as Izmailyan can’t stand his heroes getting called for the scholarly frauds that they are. If he had integrity, instead of coming after the messenger, he would dissect the message. The evidence demonstrating the dishonesty of those such as Dadrian and Hovannisian is incontestable. Thus, for one as Izmailyan, it becomes much easier to conduct the familiar smear campaign. (If Izmailyan is so certain of the validity of his own history, why has he evidently never bothered to criticize TAT’s historical dissection of these personalities before? Why is he only publicly speaking up when he feels the identity of TAT’s webmaster has been revealed?)

“But one of the biggest recipients of Holdwater's finger pointing is Taner Akcam himself, a renown [sic] human rights activist and Professor of History...”

Oh, boy. Taner Akcam, a “human rights activist.” Now I have heard everything. A true believer in human rights, of course, must never consider one human group to be more valuable than another; as we covered above, Akcam does not shed a single tear for the hundreds of thousands of Ottoman Muslims, Jews, and others massacred by the Armenians. And Taner Akcam is not a “professor” (when he landed his first job in the USA, he was more correctly a “visiting scholar,” not that Taner Akcam is a scholar, either; how did he magically become a “professor”? His German Ph.D. surely does not entitle him to professorial status in Germany), and certainly not a specialist in “history.” (Akcam’s Dadrian-approved degree was in sociology.)

“Labeling Akcam a ‘former terrorist leader’ and an enemy of America ‘responsible for the deaths of American citizens’...

These are quotations from the Mustafa Artun article; I have never written either of these two particular phrases Izmailyan has ascribed to me. How ethical is that? Who does the kid think he is, Ambassador Morgenthau’s ghostwriter? No wonder we are not surprised when he goes on to charge that TAT has:

...indiscriminately and shamefully slander[ed] dozens of other individuals including various historians, academics, politicians, activists, ambassadors and students.

For example?

Remember, it’s not libel if it’s true. If these people who have been criticized on TAT are shown up for their dishonesty with the real facts, the ones engaged in actual libel are the ones who make unsubstantiated charges as the above.

"It is in our blood to hate the Turks. "

Narek Mesropian, Golos Armenii, August 5, 1997

Dr. Gwynne Dyer beautifully wrote back in 1976:

The deafening drumbeat of the propaganda, and the sheer lack of sophistication in argument which comes from preaching decade after decade to a convinced and emotionally committed audience, are the major handicaps of Armenian historiography of the diaspora today.

What can one do with someone as “convinced and emotionally committed” as Ruben Izmailyan? Give him the real facts, and he would not want to know about them... any more than the religious fanatic who cannot stomach the fact that dinosaurs did not co-exist with humans. This is why he believes he has the license to write such character-assassinating statements as the above.

Izmailyan then goes on to try and discredit Samuel Weems and his book, “Armenia: The [sic] Secrets of a Christian Terrorist State.” Naturally, Izmailyan has likely never read the book, not that it would have mattered. Many of Weems’ claims within this book, of course, were based upon the history of Richard Hovannisian. Izmailyan then attempts to discredit the TAT site by providing Weems as a primary example of the Western sources used. (“Considering that Mr. Weems is one of Holdwater's favorite ‘scholars’ it is easy to see the substance behind Tall Armenian Tale.”) Funny. Samuel Weems is only one of the countless voices featured on this site that turn the Armenians’ genocide on its ear.

Yet there is one big difference with Weems. He served as I have been serving. That is, he was the very rare researcher who gathered the facts and then “politically” analyzed them. (He performed historical analysis as well, of course.) This does not make Weems the typical example of the Western sources used on TAT. In order to determine whether Weems was being truthful, one does not simply take his opinions, any more than one should simply take my opinions. What the honest person does is look at the sources Weems used to back up his claims. For the most part, Weems did what I have been doing: mainly utilizing the sources that had no reason to lie for the Turks, and frequently despised the Turks. This is in marked contrast to the bulk of the sources used in Armenian propaganda, who had every reason to lie for the Armenians.

Again, the idea is to smear; such is a far easier course than to demonstrate why Weems, as a devoted Baptist, Christian scholar and Southerner (i.e., a far less likely person to defend Turks), would have been motivated to write his book. Did he get rich? From what I understand, he got much poorer. (It is not as though HarperCollins was his publisher.) Weems’ only motivation was to tell the truth, and while he may not have possessed a Ph.D., his approach to scholarship was leagues beyond the pro-genocide professors Izmailyan feels duty-bound to defend.

“Thus since Holdwater is no longer anonymous he can not spread unfounded lies and harass people any more.”

Let me address Ruben directly, sure as he is to be reading this page (and since I’d like to believe he hasn’t gone off the deep end completely); you have done your personal honor a severe disservice, by penning this dishonest and defamatory piece. You cannot make statements such as “unfounded lies” and “comparing Armenians to rodents” without providing the evidence. And even if my identity should be definitely confirmed one day, how in the world could you possibly think that would make a difference, as far as keeping the truth from being told?

Stop being a “professional patriot,” and start being a “human being.” Remember: once you lose your honor as a man, you have nothing.

What has Taner Akcam Wrought?

One can imagine Taner Akcam suffered from a momentary incontinence, with the joy of his discovery; his genocide network was well in place to perform such research, and perhaps the one who brought him over to the USA, Dennis Papazian, asked his Holocaust Memorial Museum friend, Set Momjian, to look into these records. Regardless, Akcam won a victory with this linkage to my identity, and no doubt he felt that his Dashnak masters would appreciate him all the more... perhaps making a difference with the Armenian foundation funds and honorariums he receives from traveling around, with deep-pocketed organizations such as the Zoryan Institute paying all of his expenses, and dutifully spreading Armenian propaganda.

But what has he achieved, really?

If the webmaster of this site actually is the one he has fingered, then we have learned:

1) Born and bred in the United States, Holdwater has no connection with the Turkish government; what hateful forces would like to portray as such an “evil” and Stalinist government, practicing mind-control over simple-minded Turks, would have had absolutely no effect on the mind of Holdwater. His conclusions were obtained from independent research (mainly constituting English-language sources) with genuine objectivity, since the nation of Turkey has absolutely no hold upon him. It goes without saying that Holdwater would not be a right-wing, nationalistic, “fascist” type. (Taner Akcam himself wrote it: “Ignorant as Holdwater is about Turkey...”)

2) Holdwater does what he does for no glory, and for no money; his only guiding principle is the furtherance of the truth.

(And I will state categorically the above points apply exactly to the “real” Holdwater, as well.)

In other words, what Taner Akcam has done is legitimize Holdwater.

And how could Taner Akcam’s chosen victim be possibly more hurt than he already has been, with the tarnishing of his name and reputation, what with calling Armenians “rodents,” and with being such a “racist”?

Particularly if these kinds of attacks continue, did Taner Akcam have the intelligence to weigh what the outcome could be?

I don’t know... it just seems to me that when a person has nothing more to lose, then there would be no reason not to come out officially. Then the sky would be the limit, and the (Hai) tide could possibly begin to turn.

All of this as opposed to working in the shadows, writing the truth as a phantom voice, with understandable limits upon respectability.


I think we can safely begin moving away from Akcam’s clownish image as the “village idiot” of Genocideland, and start considering his entry into the realm of serious idiocy. He did not consider that his actions could trigger a chain of events seriously hurting “Hai Tahd,” rather than helping it.

He probably thought his revelation would have me, assuming he had me pegged correctly, put tail between the legs and disappear. I suppose the fighting spirit well in evidence from my writings had escaped his level of intellect.

And let’s examine the ultimate possibility of the opening of, what appears on the surface to be, Akcam’s Pandora’s Box. With all of these not-so-hidden “Go get him” messages that Akcam has initiated, what if a fanatical, foaming-at-the-mouth genocide believer takes it upon himself to follow in the footsteps of the criminal fedayis so irresponsibly glorified in Armenian propaganda?

I have it in good word one of the incidents wearing Prof. Stanford Shaw down was that he even became apprehensive about visiting the UCLA restroom. There were times Prof. Richard Hovannisian would actually spit on Prof. Shaw. (Let’s add the word “alleged” to that sentence, just in case; but thanks to my impeccable source, I have no trouble believing the story.) Now, if a “respectable professor” can’t manage to contain himself and acts so uncivilly, how could the mad dog genocide fanatics out there be kept under control?

It just boggles the mind that Taner Akcam would have been so outrageously irresponsible as to let his speculation out of the bag, presented as an actual fact. But we can’t expect someone with the grisly past of Taner Akcam to exercise such delicacy of thought.

Yet, one never knows. And if such a grim scenario should come into play, did Taner Akcam actually stop to consider how far that would set back “Hai Tahd”?

Now, what if his speculation was wrong?

Did Taner Akcam ever bother to consider, by presenting his finding as such an absolute fact and not the speculation that it actually is, the ramifications he would be personally responsible for? By accusing someone of being a racist “anti-Armenian,” he really set himself up for a big character defamation charge. That would only be the beginning, what with the other damage he has caused, influencing death threats and interference with livelihood. Perhaps Akcam would not be off the hook in any event, right or wrong.

Taner Akcam would be wise to consider attempting to undo the damage he has caused. A public apology to his victim would serve as a start.

Any way one looks at it, Taner Akcam has already greatly publicized the TAT site; wherever the ball lands, the TAT site could get publicized even more, potentially with the kind of audience that extremist Armenians would dread seeing educated. I cannot tell you the number of “neutral” people who have written in, thanking me for helping open their eyes. This site, save for the hopelessly prejudiced, throbs with truth.

We know the PKK chillingly turned against their one-time brother-in-arms. The Dashnaks, finding “loyalty” to be a foreign concept, historically also have been known to turn against their allies or champions. (Such as President Woodrow Wilson. The Rev. James Barton. Even Andrew Goldberg, producer of several PBS Armenian propaganda films, complained of facing the wrath of ungrateful Armenians.) If Akcam is going to conduct himself so brainlessly, thinking only of short-term gain, his Dashnak masters could well decide that Akcam has outlived his usefulness.

“CONFESSION” of Ara Baliozian, June 22, 2007

There is a type of mediocrity who will sell his soul to see his name in print. This is well known to our editors who operate on the assumption that the views of these mediocrities are representative of the majority. The truth of the matter is, these charlatans don’t write what they really think and feel but what will have a better chance to be printed. If anti-Turkish venom and pro-Armenian crapola have a better chance than objective, impartial, and critical assessments, they will produce venom and crapola. As a result, what we see in our weeklies is not a multiplicity of views but a uniformity of predictable and unreadable nonsense. I know what I am saying because I was there once; that’s when I was popular with our editors and my things appeared everywhere.

Could the wonderful Ara Baliozian have had Taner Akcam in mind?
You decide.

Taner Akcam’s mischief came at a bad time for me; “real life” headaches happened to take unusual priority, and this baggage hit hard. There are a number of wonderful contributors to the TAT site, some inadvertently having offered a one-time deal, and others sharing regularly. Many do not wish their identities revealed, in full knowledge of how dirtily Akcam’s team plays, as has been all too apparent in this case. Naturally, I have a responsibility to protect them all, and thus the Akcam development did not make for happy times.

Then the Turkish side took this ball and ran away with it. I was startled by that, as well; the best thing the “nationalists” could have done was to ignore this nonsense altogether. (Looks like we have learned there is more variety among the Turkish people, after all.) Naturally, journalists are always on the look-out for a scoop, but come on. Look at the source of this information... the “Shameful Liar” himself, Taner Akcam. Simply accepting an Akcam claim without corroboration was very irresponsible. And the respectful way some of these Turkish newspaper articles treated Akcam, for example, identifying him as a “historian,” was unbelievable. I only know what I know from the handful of articles a few people shared with me (I don’t keep track of the Turkish press), but some of the coverage was really something. One strange example from an Akcam stronghold (Radikal; the author was Ismet Berkan, "Hedef Gostermek, Gosterilmek," June 23, 2007) even claimed the TAT site was causing harm to Turkey. Since “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,” the next thing you know, the TAT site could well be championed by genocide-obsessed Armenians.

In the last few articles I have written, I was becoming increasingly aware of how repetitious the arguments were becoming. When shedding light on the latest genocide scholar or organization’s shenanigans, you can see they are simplistically and thoughtlessly accepting the claims of Armenian propaganda without conducting research of their own, and thus showing them up becomes an exercise in tedium as well. Researching and responding to these frauds does not offer much entertainment value, and such are the times I wonder why I have been going on. One reason is that I am not seeing many others performing this kind of necessary research, and this is beginning to get upsetting.

Let me quickly add that I don’t mean to say I am the only one at the game. As Sam Weems wrote, “I know a few Turkish Americans who are true champions for Turkey. Sad truth is that they are too few and they have little funding to compete against a well-oiled and funded Armenian lobby organization.” (By the way, I would not classify myself as a champion for Turkey; when Turkey does wrong, I will not defend Turkey, any more than I would defend America when America does wrong. In a sense, I am certainly defending Turkey, because Turkey is getting pounded relentlessly by its haters without adequate defense. But the bottom line is that I’m interested in defending the truth, not Turkey.) And I certainly have come to know some amazing Turks/Turkish-Americans who are tirelessly and consistently doing their part. Mainly, the efforts of these wonderful people boil down to writing defensive letters, in response to the never-ending anti-Turkish, anti-truth assaults. Letter-writing serves an invaluable function, but it only goes so far.


What concerns me is that there are almost no analysts out there, at least writing in the English language. (Mustafa Artun, whomever he is, was a real anomaly among Turks. And he appears to have stopped after penning just a couple of articles.) The contra-genocide Turkish sites keep on rehashing the historical facts, which of course is not unimportant. Some are simply copying and pasting articles of interest, which is highly useful as well. Yet hardly anyone is performing the important task of “political” research. And very few are taking on the villains of the genocide industry for the hateful propagandists that they (the ones speaking for the Armenians, at any rate) are.

Now a great thing about one of Ruben Izmailyan’s fall guys, Samuel Weems, was that Weems filled a very necessary void. As mentioned earlier, he performed the hard work of not just historical research, but original “political” research; he dug up the facts and analyzed them. Why are there hardly any Turks/Turkish-Americans doing the same, in regards to "genocide" matters?

(It’s pretty peculiar that non-Turks have become better known for this vitally-needed role. That includes, to an extent, Turkish-Americans as myself who have lost touch with the “old country,” or who were never familiar in the first place.)

Since the practically unchallenged genocide industry has become so omnipotent, more Turks are finally seeing the light and are awakening from their great slumber. Yet the situation is not that different today than when Sam Weems had written his early 2000s article, “And Just Where in the World are the Turks?”:

"I am stupefied, and I am wondering where in the world are the Turks? What is the Turkish government doing? Where in heaven's name is the Turkish Foreign Service? No one seems to be doing a darn thing in defending truth and the Turkish interest. If a non-Turk American, like me, can research and find such unbelievable data so destructive for the Turks' and Turkey's vital interests, I ask myself why in the world don't the Turks..?"

“It saddens me to see the Turks, sitting back and doing nothing.
I am declaring to every Turk who loves his homeland or to every Turkish-American who is ready to help his country of origin, to wake up to reality and rid himself or herself of this corrosive apathy, and of this masochistic sense of self-destruction.”

Yeow. “Corrosive apathy” and “masochistic sense of self-destruction.” Not pretty words to hear, but so much the truth.


And just to drive home the point, Weems continued:

“If a non-Turk American, like me, can research and find such unbelievable data so destructive for the Turks' and Turkey's vital interests, I ask myself why in the world don't the Turks do such research and realize that time is running out for their action and response?”

Yes, why don’t they? Why should an educated “good ol’ boy” like Samuel Weems have spent hours and hours performing such stupendous research? His sole motivation was that he was fired up from the unbelievable dishonesty of pro-Armenians, and the injustice against Turkish folk. Why aren’t the “Picnic Turks” fired up? “Why in the world don't the Turks do such research”??

The TAT site has been around since 2003. You’d think some Turks/Turkish-Americans would have been inspired to get down and dirty, and to have written the kind of hard-hitting exposés Samuel Weems used to write, and the kind of articles that may be found on this site. There may be a few such people, but their output is irregular, and they are not easy to find.

While I was looking into Ruben Izmailyan’s “patriotic” contributions, I was led to a genocide-defending letter he had written to Brown University’s newspaper. This is how I accidentally discovered a letter written by Fulya Apaydin and Feryaz Ocakli (entitled, “Nobel-winner Pamuk thin on political substance,” 11/20/06).  I was very impressed with how articulate and intelligent these two were. My intent is not to single out Fulya Apaydin and Feryaz Ocakli personally, implying that they are slackers or anything of the kind (we all have our lives to lead, and some can do more than others); I am merely trying to point out that there are many highly intelligent Turks who can manage the most proficient English. Why aren’t at least some of them creating web sites which can feature the fruits of hardnosed research?

Weems continued:

“Even though we hear and witness phenomenal Turkish-American success stories here in America, and Turks should be proud of that fact, I would say that there are too many apathetic Turks who may read this and agree, and still do nothing. No person of Turkish descent should find himself or herself in that dubious unpleasant category. No true-blooded Turk can be proud of their personal success here in America if they find no reason to be proud of defending their great nation—Turkey!”

Remarkable, isn’t it, ladies and gentlemen? There are truly so many Turkish-Americans who have “made it” in the USA, not that one needs to have made millions of dollars to join in substantially combating the tremendous racism and hatred being directed against their kind. (Taner Akcam may have developed illusions of grandeur to think there is an actual “campaign” planned against him, as if there wouldn’t be much bigger fish to fry for these nonexistent campaign-planners. The real campaign is the one Taner Akcam has wholeheartedly joined, and one that has been going on for years... presenting the Turks as the worst people on earth.)

Message to the Turkish people

My message to Turkish people is this:

1) Study. Then learn some more. The learning process never ends. Become as expert as you can in the genocide issue, and all the other issues designed to contribute to anti-Turkish hatred. You have a duty to become a historian in your own right.

2) Do not make the mistake most Armenians make, listening as they do only to their propagandistic professors. Read everything, not simply what Turkish historians have to say.

3) Do not falsify anything; do not sink to the level of the unethical pro-Armenian propagandists. Check your facts; don’t be sloppy. If the Turks have done wrong, don’t hide it. That does not mean you need to go out of your way to emphasize Turkish wrongdoing, because there are too many others who specialize in that field. The point is, no whitewashing allowed.

4) Armed with your knowledge, go out and engage. With others, organize. By yourself, create a web site. Don’t always rehash the cobwebbed old information. Do the research; the “Armenian genocide” world is vast, and there is no end to the uncharted waters of prejudice, misinformation and disinformation. Let the world know about your findings. When you encounter yet another propaganda article by amateurish or bigoted journalists or historians, let your voice be heard. And not just once or twice; you must keep at it. When writing letters, take the extra time to dig up direct contact information for the person(s) involved, rather than the generic “letter to the editor” e-mail address.

And mostly:

Get off your lazy butts. Don’t expect others to do your fighting for you.

This means you.

Message to the Armenian people

My Message to Armenian People:

I wish I could be appealing to all Armenians here, but I know too well that the extremist monomaniacs are simply lost causes. The Armenian people I am referring to are the moderate and “normal” Armenian people, the ones who keep quiet, like the lazy Turks, but of course, you keep quiet for different reasons. A) You know the trouble you’re going to be in for from the looney fanatics if you speak up, and B) Your own “patriotic” side would prefer to advance Hai Tahd, much as you know what the fanatics are doing is morally wrong.

I know there is a good number of you who know there was no “genocide” from a tragic time where each side had victims and villains. I know many of you are aware that your Dadrians, Hovannisians, Balakians and Akcams are not operating from an honest perspective.

If you are a proud Armenian, you’ve got to remember Armenian history did not begin in 1890, with the coming of the A.R.F.; the A.R.F. only cared about themselves, and not about the Armenian people. Imagine subjecting the innocent Armenian people to Dashnak terror and robbery, and to massacres by Muslims, incited by Dashnak violence, in order to pull the Europeans in. It is these criminally-minded who have taken hold of the diaspora, and the Republic of Armenia. Their terrorist mentality still allows them to commit falsehoods without blinking an eye, because as the Turk-disliking missionary Cyrus Hamlim wrote (referring to those other terrorists, the Hunchaks), “Falsehood is, of course, justifiable where murder and arson are.”

The deceitful Dashnaks are impugning Armenian honor. If you are a real Armenian patriot, it is time for you to embrace what you know is right and good. You have to start speaking up against the venom that has taken hold of poor souls such as Simon Maghakyan and countless others, at the helm of these hateful forces in charge.

The Turks do not hate you. Based on my exposure to Turks who have written in, I can honestly say most Turks have warm feelings toward you, given the centuries of peaceful coexistence and brotherhood. They don’t care for the maniacs among you, of course, but even here hatred would be a rare commodity. You can see the lack of hatred even from your "evil" Turkish government, that has evidently gone to the extent of refusing to boot out the thousands of Armenians from Armenia who have tried to better their lives in Turkey, even after their visas have expired. I realize it’s difficult for you to get over what you have been culturally taught, as Rafael Ishkhanian helpfully spelled out:

"[T]o curse at Muslims and especially at Turks, to talk much about the Armenian Genocide, and to remind others constantly of the brutality of the Turks are all regarded as expressions of patriotism.”

But this is wrong, and you know it. Such hatred and racism serve as negative and harmful energy. You’ve got to get over this religion of hatred, even the small degree that has seeped into your more reasonable mind. You’ve got to push for love and brotherhood. These are the positive qualities for humanity.


 "Where is the voice of what surely must be the overwhelming majority of Armenian communities everywhere denouncing such brutality?"

Bruce Laingren (former hostage at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Iran), The Washington Post, July 21, 1983, excerpt from letter to the editor. (For full letter on this page, click here.)

And as far as your genocide religion, don’t forget what the rare Armenian-American scholar of integrity said, the amazing Dr. Robert “Hate hurts the hater and hated” John (truly, a man ahead of his time back in 1984, and still ahead of this time):

“The time has come to stop psychologically damaging ourselves and our children by ‘Holocaust studies’ and ‘Holocaust museums’...The Armenian, the Jew, or the African, should not damage their development with a continual conditioning of hate, neither should spurious guilt be visited upon others. These negative preoccupations and obsessions are obstructing our evolution.”

Be proud of being an Armenian, but remember: you are a human being first. Your tribal loyalty must never supersede your humanity. Your honor as a member of the human family must always take precedence. If you lose your honor, you are nothing. And if you are really proud of being an Armenian, then you must fight to regain the Armenian honor that the bullying Dashnaks have appropriated, and trampled under their feet. This honor includes the recognition of the great crimes the Dashnaks have committed, not just against fellow Armenians, but against the hundreds of thousands of non-Christian Armenians that the Dashnaks and others systematically “cleansed.” These would be from the Ottoman Empire, and later, from the newborn Armenia itself.

Taner Akcam will tell you I am “anti-Armenian,” but Taner Akcam has made a career out of being wrong. I only wish the best for the Armenian people, but the best can only come once the Armenians rid themselves of this collective hatred. With the hatred, the Armenians will remain slaves. Today’s Dashnak leaders, along with their hired agents such as Akcam, wish only to keep the Armenians in chains... in order to best serve themselves, no different than the pioneering Dashnaks.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote: “I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s greatest stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Councilor or the Ku Klux Klansmen, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to ‘order’ than to justice.”

At this juncture, the greatest stumbling block to Armenian freedom is not the Ku Klux Klan type of terror group maintaining a stranglehold on Armenians as a whole, but the Armenian moderate. Start paying attention to justice rather than “order,” and then the best will come. The Armenian moderate is the hope of the Armenian people. If he or she truly loves the Armenian people, the Armenian moderate must start speaking up.

I once tried to get through to the hermetically-sealed mind of Harut Sassounian with the following message, and the results were predictable. These inspiring words closed the 2004 film, HELLBOY:

What makes a man a man?
A friend of mine once wondered
Is it his origins
The way he comes to life
I don’t think so
It’s the choices he makes
Not how he starts things
But how he decides to end them.





"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.