Tall Armenian Tale

 

The Other Side of the Falsified Genocide

 

  Armenian Intimidation to Suppress Free Speech  
HOME
First Page
Background
Scenario
End-of-argument

 

SECTIONS
Quotes
Thoughts
Census
Questions
Reviews
Major Players
Letters
Cumulative
Search
Links & Misc.

Translate

 

COMMENT
Mahmut Ozan
Edward Tashji
Sam Weems
Others
 


Turk vs. Armenian at a Forum:

Cem: There is absolutely nothing you can say that can justify the forced cancellation of a peaceful gathering!

Kevork: Oh yes there is. ARMENIANS will not 'fraternize' with known and vocal genocide deniers. End of story.


 It's what Prof. Heath Lowry referred to as the "Curtain of Fear," before that curtain came crashing down on him, thanks to the nefarious scheming of those such as Peter Balakian and his unethical "genocide scholar" allies. Dr. Lowry was referring to the difficulty for law enforcement to permeate the ranks of Armenian terrorists, "For Armenians know full well what their fate will be if they are labeled as 'informers' by the terrorists." (A classic example of which was the 1933 assassination in a New York church; in Ottoman times, the violence would be directed toward any loyal Ottoman-Armenian, in order to drive a wedge between the Armenian and Turkish peoples, such as with the 1912 assassination of Van's mayor.)  Dr. Lowry's reference was back in the days when Armenian terrorism was raging globally, in the 1970s-80s; while the fanatics among the Armenians have largely stopped pointing their guns in recent years, the kind of terrorism they and their willing allies engage in is of the character assassination variety... while the threat of physical attack is never far away.

It's what made Franz Werfel, author of The Forty Days of Musa Dagh, keep mum after he learned he had wrongfully blackened the image of the Turks with gullible reliance on Armenian propaganda. (As his friend, Rabbi Amateau, acknowledged.) It's what made the friends of Prof. Erich Feigl afraid, asking the professor (in a manner of speaking) whether he was nuts to write the book, "A Myth of Terror." (The book's foreword on p. 6 began with: "'Have you gone crazy?' — 'Are you tired of living?' These were the comments of friends and acquaintances when they heard that I was working on a book about the causes and historical context of Armenian terrorism."): It's what forced Prof. Stanford Shaw to eventually leave UCLA after his colleague, Prof. Richard Hovannisian, told his genocide-crazed followers that Shaw was a "criminal," leading to constant harassment in Shaw's classrooms; some even bombed his house in 1977. There are fanatics among the Armenians who will stop at nothing to preserve the sanctity of "Hai Tahd," or the Armenian Cause.

The obsessed among them are working day and night to perform their "patriotic duty," for example, infiltrating school boards of the United States, to censor the genuine version of historical events, having an easy go of it thanks to the deep prejudice against Turkish people in the Christian West, along with Turkish apathy. With the help of the horrid genocide forces pretending to be pursuing a noble goal, innocent sounding organizations such as "Facing History" and "Teach Genocide" are providing the naive school system with their propagandistic teaching materials, feeding impressionable youngsters with the notion Turks are no different than Nazis, thus ensuring what keeps the Armenians together — their hatred — will be shared by the non-Armenians among us.

This page will examine examples of Armenian intimidation tactics to suppress free speech. We will begin with a classic example going all the way back to 1896, just to start things off with a bang, and to set the pattern for what is to follow... which will concentrate on more modern day examples.


TABLE OF CONTENTS


1)  Armenians Threaten F. Hopkinson Smith
2)  An Armenian in Glendale: "They were like crazy."
3)  The Los Angeles Times finds some backbone!
4)  University Conference Deep-Sixed
5)  Was Ara Sarafian Leaned On?
6)  A Canceled Concert
7)  Armenians=1; Holdwater=0
8)  Banning Patriarch Mesrob II
9) TIME Magazine's Response to a DVD Distribution

 

  
Armenians Threaten F. Hopkinson Smith


The Cedar Rapids Evening Gazette, Dec. 7, 1896

 IMPORT THEIR IDEAS.

Armenians Seek to Suppress Free Speech In America.

Armenians Seek to Suppress Free Speech

New York, Dec. 7 — F. Hopkinson Smith, the author, artist and engineer, who has been vigorous in the use of his tongue and pen in defending the course of the Turks in the Armenian difficulties, has recently received a very unpleasant reminder that there are some persons who object to his statements. He has been, in fact ordered to cease giving his side of the story for publication under threat of dire consequences. While the threat was implied, still it was a threat, but Mr. Smith does not wish to consider it as such. He prefers to regard the affair as trivial, but his friends do not agree with him and are afraid something may happen to him.

Two men have called at his house and given him warning. The second said the Armenian revolutionary committee had sent word to Mr. Smith that he must stop defending the Turkish government. "They say I must stop, do they?" said Smith. "Well, I won't stop. I know the sultan is a broad-minded man, with a big heart that is filled with love for is fellow beings. I know the Armenians have goaded the Turkish people into committing the massacres with the view of arousing the sympathy of Europe. These things I know, and knowing them I am going to defend the sultan and his people."

F. Hopkinson Smith

F. Hopkinson Smith

F. Hopkinson Smith was an American of great integrity, taking the trouble to verify pro-Armenian claims, and going against the tide of Turkish vilification in his nation's press, led, for one, by The New York Times. Now we learn he was courageous in other ways as well. It was not only Armenians who came down hard on him, but the bulk of the 19th century racist bigots. The New York Times wrote one of its most unbelievable editorials as a result of their outrage against Mr. Smith's views. The reader may tune in on this page to learn more.



Thanks to Gokalp for the clipping.

An Armenian in Glendale: "They were like crazy."



In response to a charge of hatred against Armenians, I composed a ditty of denial (denial being one of my specialties, after all) but I defended my original words that brought forth the charge with a test: Find me an Armenian who goes public against the genocide claims!

No one has yet met the challenge, but I have found just such an Armenian. I have not spoken about him (Vahe Avetian), because he's alone and I did not want to invite any trouble for him. Yet he has not made a secret of his thoughts, this very brave Armenian, and his cover has been blown in other web pages... and it's obvious from the following article that the extremist factions are very well aware of him anyway... so I'm finally going to shed some light upon him. Especially because the story he tells here is such a frightening one.

The following was posted in a Yahoo group forum; as the author is not a native speaker and his account is sometimes difficult to follow, I have made corrections of a few (not all) typos and have put in my own paragraph breaks:


an armenian in Glendale

Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 20:10:06 +0100
Posted by: "arabaliozian@[withheld]"

Subject: Support Network of Friends - Vahe Avetian: Argent!

Hello Dear Friends,

Vahe Avetian
I write this letter to inform you, that I am in Glendale, Los Angeles, USA, where I came to visit some friends, artists, to look around, to hold literary meetings if possible. As soon I came, I was invited to a literary meeting dedicated to Vahe Oshakan, in the municipal library. As soon I came in and sat down a gentleman whom I don't know told from the scene:

 —"Hamazgayin" was always supportive to writers, to preserve of literature and the language. 

—You are lying: I told from my place, and may be it was wrong.

— Thank you:  the answer was.

—You are welcome: was my answer.

After the gentleman a lady whom I also don't know spoke longer, more interesting and less ambitions so it was fun and I head the time to realize that situation was embarrassed and some explanations shall be given. As soon the lady finished her speech, I went up to the scene, came to the microphone on a something big, with golden "HAMAZGAYIN" letters on:

—My name is Vahe Avetian. I am an Armenian writer, author of 6 books on three languages and I am accused in crime in the motherland where I do not live 15 years already, because of books of mine.

—No one wants to hear you! Shut up:

some one shouted from the hall and a couple of dozen people started to shout and scream and they attacked me. I really became scared, couldn't see properly because of the strong lights directed towards me. Some one was shouting:

—Record, record, and don't stop the cameras.

I thought they'll attack me and I dropped the first microphone on the floor. I turned around to go away and that big something with the second microphone was on my way. Couple of dozen fat asses was breathing behind me already. I pushed the thing and it felled down. I went farther, not successful enough. Hostile tribe of mine surrounded me and started to push, to scrim on my face all kind of dirt. Couple of dozen hating people. They were like crazy. I was not allowed to go away from the hall.

—Keep your hands away: I shouted on some one who was trying to hold my hands and keep me there.

—Call police: some one shouted.

—Already done: another told.

The police came. A lady and a gentleman from our tribe told them that I hit them. I didn't. I was not asked something properly. I was arrested, was brought to the Glendale jail by an Armenian police officer, who put 20,000 $ bail on me, in difference to the previous amount, 5000$, which was told by the other colle[agu]es of our compatriot, to my friends Sev, Armen, Anush, Narine and Gayane, who were with.

My friends couldn't invest the needed amount to bond me out, until they didn't found David, who paid the bail and I was freed from the prison on Monday. The arrest was on Friday evening.

I probably will write stories about the jail in Glendale in some future: I have lot of material collected, but let us go back to our tribe and my self. The police officer has dashnak orientation: I've heard from concerned citizens, living here. I spoke about the matter to a guy; the name was Bill Hamparian or may be some thing else, am not sure. He is participating in congress elections and nominated from the democrats or greens. He is also an attorney and public servant since 1990 as he told me.

—Be careful with Glendale police and dashnaks:  was his resume.

—They are connected to the mafia.

I meet dozens in the streets of the Glendale each day and can't find out if those guys are commissars because of there convictions or they get salary from the motherland. Both cases are bizarre. Summary of the message: Every thing in Armenia is good, every thing in USA is bad and I shall keep my mouth shut, other wise it will be not OK and it is easy to kill a person in LA too. I am amused. The situation is so wearied, that  I am not even scared. I just look around and wait. The first hearing in the court is on 25th of October and will see what is happening. Until then: I need your support, brothers and sisters. That is what my lower Angela Barsegian is telling: I am in a need of support network of friends.

Please be with.

Vahe

P.S. My English is not of the best quality, but the network of my friends is international, so I am going to keep the communication in English, but all languages will be welcomed and translated.

2006.10

WHEW! Pretty scary, ain't it!

Let's hope this courageous man came out of this scrap intact. I guess it will be a while before he visits friendly Glendale again. (I'm reminded of several letters I have received from Californians who have not had the most pleasant encounters from the less nice Armenians among them.)

Vahe deserves a deeper look, but for the present, let's put a few of his other views from this forum, accessible on this page if the reader [clicks here.] In the last entry, Vahe confirms that Armenians are "silenced in the entire Armenian, controlled media," and implies he may be the only one going against the tide ("Show me an other one. Tell me the name.") As far as the "genocide" is concerned, he could be right.


Thanks to Fatma for forwarding the post.
The Los Angeles Times finds some backbone!


Unbelievable! There's a new sheriff in the L.A. Times who does not accept Armenian claims at face value, which is colossally brave of him, given the numbers of Armenians who live in California. (Cue above article.)

Kevin Roderick

Kevin Roderick of L.A. Observed gives us a rundown ("Armenian genocide dispute erupts at LAT," 4-24-07), following the tradition of reportage of this kind, not making any secret of his sympathies with the Armenian perspective. (Roderick is a former L.A. Times'er.) He quotes at length an attack by Harut Sassounian, activist and publisher of the California Courier.

As he did with a PBS executive (in his column, "VP of PBS Should Be Dismissed For Insulting Armenians") who was totally on the side of the Armenians (in relation to PBS' propagandistic documentary, it was her office that declared PBS accepted and acknowledged the "genocide," and she who said the "genocide" was "settled history"; the exec's sin was in opining the "genocide" was not exactly on the same level as the Holocaust), Sassounian demanded the LAT managing editor, Doug Frantz, be fired.

Harut
Sassounian

Naturally, the immediate question coming to mind is, Who the hell is Harut Sassounian to be demanding such a thing, and why is Kevin Roderick giving Harut Sassounian such importance?

From personal interaction on my end (within a forum), it became quickly obvious that Sassounian's historical knowledge, surprisingly, is very little for such a "widely quoted leader of the Armenian American community," as Roderick describes him. His style is that of a bully. He's got a few of the qualities that Sir Mark Sykes raised of Armenians, regarding "The pride of race [that] brings about many singularities." Arrogance is one, leading naturally to making threats.

Doug Frantz

Frantz's problem: he did not feel that the Armenian journalist, Mark Arax (who made Frantz's privately written e-mail available to Sassounian, which Sassounian published, of course) was objective. Well, DUH! Frantz was correctly trying to follow the newspaper's ethics guidelines, which took a lot of guts; regarding the "genocide," the L.A. Times has no ethics guidelines.

Sassounian had the gall to write that the Times' editor, Jim O’Shea, told Sassounian that  Frantz "has a very abrasive personality" (If O'Shea said such a thing, no doubt he did not suspect his fellow "journalist" would make such a private opinion public), and then charged, "No wonder he (Frantz) was short-tempered and abrupt during a phone conversation that he initiated, falsely accusing this writer of threatening him..." (What? Harut Sassounian would have made threats? Why, that is absolutely unheard of!), and follows up with writing of "the lack of freedom of speech in Turkey," and winds up comparing the distinguished historian, Andrew Mango, with "David Irving, the infamous Holocaust revisionist."

Jim O'Shea

Naturally, Sassounian knows no shame, and his genocider-brother-in-arms, Arax, threatened with a "Federal lawsuit for the possible violation of his civil rights." Meanwhile, Sassounian further tells us that the newspaper's publisher (David Hiller) and Editor O’Shea "reassured this writer last week that they would not tolerate any executive who has a bias against the Armenian Genocide and discriminates against Armenian-American employees." Hoo-boy!

"It is hard to imagine how Frantz could continue working at a newspaper in a community where more than half a million Armenians reside..." Translation: who cares about the truth. What counts is to appease these genocide-obsessed Armenians.

Roderick followed up (April 26) by reproducing a memo O'Shea sent to staffers (isn't that sort of thing supposed to be kept in-house?), where O'Shea made clear his newspaper's Armeni-mania: "Over the past two years, the Los Angeles Times has run 67 stories on Armenia or Armenians, including 26 on the Armenian genocide resolution and 13 that dealt specifically with the political fate of the resolution. This does not include editorials, op-ed pieces and letters to the editor. No one is trying to censor anyone." (Unless, of course, if that "anyone" is aware the historical facts do not support genocide.) At least another reproduced letter, from Asst. Mng. Editor Simon Li to an LA Weekly writer, raises questions about Sassounian's tactics: "any innuendo that Doug is scheduled to moderate this panel (in Turkey) because he shares the views of any of its participants — or the particular views of one that Sassounian condemns — is at best reckless and at worse maliciously prejudicial."

Mark Arax

In another entry ("Dare we call it Genocidegate?" Apr. 26), the very Armenian-cooperative L.A. Observed gave us a taste of an Arax e-mail to his colleagues at The Times: "Because his logic is so illogical, questions must be raised about Frantz’ own objectivity, his past statements to colleagues that he personally opposes an Armenian genocide resolution and his friendship with Turkish government officials, including the consul general in Los Angeles who’s quoted in my story. Frantz is heavily involved and invested in defending the policies of Turkey." Particularly with the last sentence, the Armenian writer is presenting a claim as a fact without proof. What kind of "journalism ethics" is that?

Notice how the L.A. Times' bigwigs are simply shivering in their timbers, at the slightest threat from extremist Armenians... instead of commending Frantz for shielding whatever little credibility left with this newspaper. (Particularly since the shake-up with their top editor from not long ago, bending to corporate whims completely; expensive international reportage was to be left to other newspapers, such as The New York Times, and the L.A. Times' emphasis would now largely cater to the news of local Angelenos.) That's Armenian intimidation at work.

("Don't stop 'till you make 'em say" ANCA soon got into the act, mobilizing a campaign to oust the "unfit" and "disreputable" Frantz. The fearful Jim O'Shea, in his memo, even went so far as to commend a petition Arax and other Armenians prepared, reminding the newspaper that "genocide" should be stressed, not only by going against Frantz's terming of this petition as a petition, but gratefully acknowledging the reminder-favor performed by Arax and the rest of his hateful crew: The L.A. Times' guidelines specify the matter should be labeled a genocide, and, by God, there should be no deviation from this sacred policy no matter the facts. It is as though the spineless and/or prejudiced editor-in-chief rolled over on his back to be fed a biscuit by Arax and Sassounian. Mustn't upset the precious Armenians.)

ADDENDUM, 5-07: In an article ironically entitled, "Turkey & L.A. Times’ Douglas Frantz Conspire to Undermine Freedom of Speech In America" (as usual, the Armenians do the crime, and then blame their victims with committing the same crime), Appo Jabarian, Publisher/Editor of "USA Armenian Life Magazine," wrote that "According to Sassounian, as of Monday May 8, 2007, 'more than 4,000 e-mails were sent to Hiller, O’Shea and Managing Editor Leo Wolinsky.' Let’s increase the 4,000 to tens of thousands. Vigilance on the part of the Armenians is of utmost importance. Armenians and for that matter the general readership of the Los Angeles Times in Southern California and beyond, can not afford to let Frantz undermine freedom of expression: the bedrock of the American Constitution.”

ADDENDUM, con't: A reader claiming to know Arax commented on this page: "I happen to know a lot about Mark Arax...  Arax is a hack journalist who has written some ridiculous articles in the past, and his own roots are DEEP in the Armenian communities of Central California where he is from. Frankly, he suffers from exactly the same 'conflict of interest' (for lack of a better description) as he attributes to Frantz. Arax is completely incapable of writing about the Armenian genocide any more objectively than he claims Frantz is with respect to the Turks."

-----
A reader, Stephen, commented:

Well, at least Frantz wasn't accused of being in the pay of the Turkish Gov't.

It is interesting how historians, like Andrew Mango, who disagree with the genocide characterization of the events of that time, are always characterized as notorious genocide "denialists". It seems to me that when ethnic Turks and Armenians are removed from the discussion, that independent historians researching and writing on the issue, on the whole, tend to favor the Turkish position on those events. Given the pressure in the West (violent ASALA type in the past, more political and financial today) for historians to comply with the Armenian position, it is rather surprising that any support the Turkish position at all.

Mr. Frantz seems largely to be guilty of having lived in Turkey and discovered that there is another side to the story, one that is perhaps a little more convincing than the one that he had hitherto been exposed to — and worse to be honest enough to say so.

In any case, this Sassounian seems to be quite the extremist, if his statements were quoted accurately. I suspect that he has personally seen to it that the Turkish position has been purged from the history departments of California universities.


(Holdwater: Of course, that is not the "Turkish" position, but the "Truthful" position.)

ADDENDUM, 7-07:

Editor Jim O'Shea wrote the following memo, beginning with:

"I regret to announce that Doug Frantz has decided to leave the Los Angeles Times. I am sure everyone agrees that Doug's departure is a loss to the newspaper. As Managing Editor, Doug has proved a solid leader, guiding the editorial department through some troubled and rugged days. He is an extraordinary journalist and a dedicated editor who cares deeply about the newspaper and the staff..."

Hoo-boy! Wonder why brave Jim left out the "abrasive personality" part.

ANCA-WR Board member Zanku Armenian added (in ANCA's June 29 update, "Genocide Controversy Leads L.A. Times Managing Editor to Resign"): “The Los Angeles Times... deserves better than to have a genocide denier as a member of its senior staff. The fact that Frantz is returning to Istanbul tells the full story of where he stands.”

Frantz has accepted a position with the Wall Street Journal, and will be stationed in Turkey.

University Conference Deep-Sixed



Here's how a Turkish source described the following example of Armenian intimidation:

"Ambassadors Gunduz Aktan and Omer Engin Lutem arrived
in the USA to give a conference at the University of Southern California on March 28, 2006. However, the scheduled event was canceled with one day's notice, without any reason, just due to pressure by the Armenian Associations." (Here is the Armenian, or ANCA, version.)

I learned of correspondence a reader had with Joshua S. Fouts, of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy, which had organized the event. Copies were sent to other USC personnel.

Joshua Fouts

Joshua Fouts

Mr. Fouts was reminded that the aim of USC's Public Diplomacy Council lies in believing "that understanding and influencing foreign publics, and dialogue between Americans and the citizens of other countries, are vital to the national interest and the conduct of 21st century diplomacy." Dialogue cannot take place if only one party demands its voice be exclusively heard. So why was there a lack of backbone, in the face of Armenian intimidation? How is it that in the United States of America, with our amazing Bill of Rights guaranteeing Freedom of Speech, a university conference as this can be canceled?

ANCA-WR Chairman Steven
J. Dadaian shares the same
name as an LA-5 terrorist.

ANCA-Western Region Chairman (he is now a board member) Steve Dadaian put the pressure on Fouts by writing a letter to him, dated March 22, partly stating: "USC has an Armenian-American student body of over a thousand students whose families are the direct descendants of the Armenian Genocide perpetrated by Turks and now officially denied by the Turkish government," with the not-too-subtle threat that there may be hell to pay if the event were to go forward. (USC's Armenians can potentially be a force to contend with.) Not that the threatening wasn't clear, as near the letter's conclusion ANCA's chairman grrr'ed: "...if USC chooses to proceed with this program, our organization will be forced to take further action to protest the University's complicity in providing a forum for genocide deniers."

Also in the letter, Mr. Dadaian shamelessly equated the Turkish ambassadors as "neo-Nazis," and — irony of ironies — pointed to yet another Armenian-embracing editorial of The Los Angeles Times (we just covered them above) as the "evidence" for genocide. (The "editorial clearly states, the facts surrounding the Armenian Genocide are not in dispute.")

In his reply, Mr. Fouts explained the reason for the cancellation was "simple," implying Armenian intimidation was not a factor. The originally proposed topic was a different one, he explained, dealing with public diplomacy, and a discussion of genocide would not have applied.

Our reader wrote back, saying he was now confused. The event was on the books and the stage for negotiating the topic was well past. An announcement was made, the Turkish ambassadors were on a tight schedule in their visit to the USA (they happened to give a talk in New York City on March 26, and their flight to California for this March 28 appearance must have already been set), prompting ANCA to have written their protest letter. (The opening paragraph of the ANCA press release stated: "The Armenian National Committee of America ... learned on March 22nd that a planned conference at the University of Southern California [USC] featuring leading deniers of the Armenian Genocide was canceled," adding the conference entitled “Turkish-Armenian Relations: The Turkish Perspective” was scheduled to take place on March 26th; the date was likely a misprint.) In short, the decisions were already made.

In his following response, Mr. Fouts elaborated that the topic he agreed on with the Turkish Consulate on Feb. 27 was to be on "'Turkish Public Diplomacy,' specifically the role of Civil Societies in improving Turkish-Armenian relations." What transpired was Mr. Fouts happened to be out of town "when an intern received the event description and posted it on our website without consulting me." Worse, the title referenced by ANCA was not seen by Mr. Fouts until "three days before the scheduled event. It was at that point that I notified the consulate that this was not the event we agreed on and was not central to the topical interests of a Center on Public Diplomacy."

Regardless of whomever posted the event description on the site (could the intern's name have been Rosemary Woods?), isn't it true that the event description had to be prepared from the inside? That was the question posed by our reader in his follow-up letter. After all, the Turkish Consulate would not have worded the USC web site's description and the control was entirely in the hands of USC's Center on Public Diplomacy. So the decision to cancel had nothing to do with the Turkish Consulate's doing anything wrong, as in making a last-minute demand that the topic needed to focus on genocide. If someone from the inside made a mistake, chances are the Turkish Consulate would have been cooperative, and the event still could have been held with the necessary descriptive corrections. At any rate, "genocide" was not even part of the event description (as one gathers from Dadaian's protest letter; Fouts did claim in a TMCNet article [referenced below] that genocide was mentioned in "The final description that was e-mailed," but that is different from the description posted on the web site that Fouts stressed in the correspondence with our reader), and the title referenced by ANCA ("Turkish-Armenian Relations: The Turkish Perspective") still could have fallen within the realm of Mr. Fouts' title description (highlighting "the role of Civil Societies in improving Turkish-Armenian relations"). So isn't it true what really happened here is that the Armenians flipped out when they read "The Turkish Perspective," as that is one perspective the Armenians cannot tolerate?

In any event, our reader reminded Mr. Fouts, if a talk was to be held with Turks and Armenians as the subject, the genocide matter would have been inevitable, as that is what the Armenians and their allies have forced Turkish-Armenian relations to boil down to.

Mr. Fouts replied that he wasn't sure of what else he could add, and concluded with the assurance that his center has had "an excellent relationship with the Turkish Consulate and we do intend to work with them to schedule a session on the topic we originally discussed."

A wrap up article ("Canceled USC event featuring Turkish ambassadors draws controversy," TMCNet, April 14) quoted the Consul General of Turkey in Los Angeles, Engin Ansay, as saying that the USC Center for Public Diplomacy "enthusiastically welcomed our efforts," and upon hearing of the cancellation, "We were astonished, flabbergasted, because where is the freedom of speech?" Evren Ugurbas, former president of the USC Turkish Students Association, wrote in an e-mail to USC administrators that the cancellation "was a grave and embarrassing mistake (the university) made by cowardly resorting to censorship under partisan pressure by local activists." Fouts insisted, however: "As much as the Armenian community would like to take credit for (the cancellation), it was just a coincidence."

In his final letter, our reader politely informed Mr. Fouts that precisely because Fouts is a specialist on diplomacy, he probably did not wish to come out and say the Turks had reneged on the deal; as that would have been the only way in which a cancellation would have been justified. It just seemed too unlikely, however, for the Turkish Consulate to have had the power or even initiative to have dictated their own wording. Therefore, if the error of putting up a notice without having checked with Mr. Fouts belonged to Mr. Fouts' department, then curtailing the forces set in motion at the last minute would have been unduly harsh. "It just would not have been normal to pull the plug entirely."

The reader added that the positive manner in which Mr. Fouts described relations with the Turkish Consulate indicated the Turks would have been cooperative, and thus would not have rudely demanded that the talk center strictly on genocide.  Conclusion: "The timing of the ANCA protest letter, along with other Armenian pressure tactics, leading directly to the last minute cancellation could not have been a mere coincidence."

At this writing, over a year has passed, and there appears to have been no sign of this event being rescheduled.

One of the other USC bigwigs, who was and still might be the USC Vice Provost for Globalization, was cc'd copies of the correspondence (he seems like an amazing fellow, where students were falling over themselves in praising him, in usc.profguide.com; "the best professor in the world," is how one described him), sent a refreshing response to Joshua Fouts:

"You are a hell of a diplomat......."
Was Ara Sarafian Leaned On?


As we have seen, it's to be expected for zigzag maneuvers to result after being hit with Armenian intimidation; few of us would want to admit being scared, or if the victim of the intimidation is an Armenian genocide activist (or even a plain Armenian), even to make it seem as though there are Armenians who serve as bullies.

(That kind of thing would go against Hai Tahd, where the whole idea rests upon Armenian victimhood. The fact that there are "bad" Armenians or even Armenians who act as aggressors, is a possibility that must remain hidden to the outside world's odars, in order to best sustain the genocide con job. Arthur Derounian explained the phenomenon of maintaining the Armenians' Myth of Innocence: "Unfortunately, some timid souls are horrified at the exposure of (bad) Armenian prototypes... This attitude is based on the premise that our faults should remain unpublicized to 'outsiders.' Why? Are we not at least as human as our native-born American brethren who themselves claim no monopoly on virtues? Are we Armenians 'superior' to all other ethnic groups? Are we a 'race' apart, free of weakness? Denying that self-analysis is a virtue, the timid souls would even deny that our frailties are common to humanity everywhere.")

In Feb. 23, 2007, Azg (mainly relying on the reportage from the Turkish Sabah, Feb. 21 ) informed us Ara Sarafian "accepted" the offer of the Turkish Historical Society's Yusuf Halacoglu to "study together the Armenian allegations of genocide." (There were flirtations between the two around the same time, regarding the coverage of mass grave excavations, as peeked at in TAT.) Sarafian was reported as explaining that he had accepted Halacoglu's idea at an Istanbul conference in March 2006, and Halacoglu appeared excited, opining that Sarafian's openness was unprecedented, given that no preconditions were insisted upon. (Usually, Armenians demurely refuse to come to the table unless the other party accepts their genocide.)

But the party was over before it began. In "Sarafian bows to diaspora pressure, says Prof. Dr. Halacoglu" (March 10, 2007, The Turkish Weekly); Sarafian wanted out because of his disappointment that Ottoman records — ones Halacoglu had previously "qualified as meticulously kept," according to Sarafian — would not be ponied up (sounds like there might have been preconditions after all), after getting the news from a Halacoglu TV interview where the latter said Sarafian might come up dry in the Ottoman archives.

Halacoglu reacted in a press conference by "urging" Sarafian to specify which documents Sarafian said Halacoglu had, adding, "Mr. Sarafian has probably been subject to pressure." He pointed to the Armenian-Turkish newspaper Agos as mentioning "that the Armenian diaspora was very angry with Sarafian because of his proposal to study together with Turkish historians."

As the soap opera continued (Zaman, March 16; "Turkish, Armenian historians quarrel over failed study initiative"), Halacoglu insisted that he "never said that we could not open some of the archives or that we cannot show some documents." Meanwhile, Sarafian stuck to his guns because the documents he wanted were not in the archives. "This is an incredible statement. I expect Halacoglu to clarify what this means."

"A joint Armenian-Turkish study on the Genocide is proposed — but will it go forward?", written by Chris Zakian (managing editor of the Armenian Reporter, which is probably where the article appeared) informs us that Sarafian (in his press release of Feb. 26) required a look at the "deportation" records, "village by village, person by person, showing when people were deported, where they were sent, and how they were resettled. There should be records of their original properties and how they were compensated at their places of exile." Sarafian explained that "The Turkish official thesis maintains that the deportations of 1915 were an orderly affair and all relevant records on those deportations can still be found in Ottoman archives in Turkey."

In return, Sarafian would present the relevant records for Harput that would explain "abuse," "massacre," and "genocide," and not simply "deportation." (Of course, if the Armenians were truly "deported" — that is, banished outside Ottoman borders — the Ottomans would not have records as to "where they were sent, and how they were resettled," since the Armenians would have been in lands outside Ottoman control. Sarafian has already not displayed the best intentions, contradicting himself with the wrong terminology. In addition, "abuse/massacre" is one thing and "genocide" is another. Nobody is saying some Armenians were not abused and/or massacred.)

So let's see... who is getting the better of this deal? Sarafian is going to offer his "relevant records" already widely available in Armenian propaganda, such as the opinions of Harput's U.S. consul, Leslie Davis, and missionary Maria Jacobsen; those are what fair-minded folks would call "irrelevant records." (If Sarafian were in possession of factual proof demonstrating an extermination policy, there would have already been huge headlines, and there would be no need for this song-and-dance.)

Sarafian copied 3,000 documents from the archives. (Sari Gelin.)

Meanwhile, Sarafian, who has already combed through the Ottoman archives on his own in previous years, is after the juicy stuff that we are to presume has not been made publicly available. The question is, has Halacoglu or another representative of the "official Turkish thesis" (that would be every single Turkish historian save for the Taner Akcam variety, because we are told that all Turkish historians dishonestly and mindlessly march to a nationalistic drumbeat) actually promised these detailed "deportation" records were available?

Ara Sarafian

The page where this shot of
Ara Sarafian was taken tells
us he received his M.A., and
will be receiving his Ph.D in
history from Papazian's
University of Michigan, with
"history professors" as
Libaridian in on the racket,
in order to give genociders
a scholarly shoo-in. Not
unlike how Taner Akcam
received his Ph.D, with
Vahakn Dadrian allowed to
perform the blessing.

(To quickly digress, Zakian's article quotes Professor Gerard Libaridian as opining that "Halacoglu... does not inspire confidence as a historian." This comes from the former Zoryan director, now working as a history professor in Dennis Papazian's University of Michigan stronghold, who tried to pass off Aram Andonian's forgeries as genuine history.)

Returning to the Zaman article of March 16, Halacoglu defended himself by noting "that he did not have the legal authority to impose restrictions on archive documents," which sounds correct, since Halacoglu does not run the archives. He went on to blame "the Armenian diaspora for failure of the initiative and said Sarafian bowed to pressure from the diaspora."

It seems to me that if Sarafian's condition was this critical, he would have made sure to get a guarantee, before he gave his okay in February. (At the time Halacoglu reported "no preconditions" by Sarafian. Someone isn't telling the truth, regarding this point.) It also seems to me that if Ara Sarafian was sincere about a joint operation, there would need to be good faith to begin with (In March 16's Zaman, Sarafian was quoted as saying, "I am not a supporter of the Armenian diaspora who criticizes Turkey without talking to Turkish historians and looking into the archives. I am in favor of trying to work in and with Turkey as much as I can"), which means preconditions would be out of place, and in bad taste — particularly when Sarafian has nothing of value to offer. When you agree to work as partners, you go in there to see what the both of you can do for each other (and, much more importantly, in the area of real scholarship, for the aim of finding the truth). At that point, if you sense a level of dishonesty from your partner, you can always bow out.

Yusuf Halacoglu

The Zakian article spelled out the Armenians' fear: "...the prospect of such a joint collaboration has received mixed reactions — especially in Armenian quarters, where some insist that it could play into the hands of Genocide deniers who would relish the opportunity to claim that the historicity of the Genocide is in some sense an 'open' scholarly question." (If the Armenian side does not have the proof, of course this nonsense would constitute an "open" question.)

So what do you think? Do you think Sarafian bowed out (as soon as he agreed to go ahead, "considering that cooperation in this study will be a firm background for further researches," as Feb. 23's Azg reported) because Halacoglu did not come clean? (And it doesn't sound like Halacoglu promised Sarafian anything to begin with.) Or do you think Sarafian couldn't take the pressure from his fanatical tribe, as he already experienced in his past, when he made a go at scholarly integrity? "Genocide" is, after all, Sarafian's livelihood, and to become an outcast in Genocideland is the kiss of death for a genocider; Sarafian's old buddy, Hilmar Kaiser, is currently paying a price for his loose cannon ways.

A Canceled Concert



Brown University's Daily Herald reported a concert featuring Turkish and Armenian musicians was abruptly canceled "after the Armenian musicians and the president of the Armenian Students Association received threats from members of the Armenian community." ("Turkish-Armenian Concert Canceled Due to Threats," Debbie Lehmann, 4/9/07.) The Armenian Students Association (ASA) and the Turkish Cultural Society (TCS) "organized the concert, titled 'The Armenian Composers of the Ottoman Period,' to promote dialogue between their communities... dedicated to Hrant Dink." A TCS member claimed the operation had its roots six months prior, "to encourage conversation."

"The TCS member wrote in an e-mail to The Herald that the Armenian musicians and the president of the ASA did their best to resist the 'warning messages' they received. However, he wrote that 'the situation got serious,' and the musicians, followed by the ASA, withdrew from the event. The musicians and the ASA are now 'in a very difficult position against some parts of their community,' he wrote."

The president of the ASA, Ruben Izmailyan, "said he was disappointed the event was canceled but declined to comment further."

We've been through this ground many times before. Yet another clear case of Armenian intimidation.

But hold on! Armenians don't like to be "outed" with their intimidation practices, so naturally Izmailyan decided to loosen his lips afterwards. (And, of course, whenever there is "unfairness" against the Armenians in the press, the press bends over backwards to let the Armenian views be known. In this case, not only did the follow-up article quickly appear the very next day, but a disclaimer was put at the top of the first article. This is the exact opposite of how the press usually behaves when there is unfairness against Turks.)

"Concert Not Canceled Due to Threats, ASA president says" reported Izmailyan as stating "that he was not in any way 'threatened, intimidated or even asked to pull out."'

Let's keep in mind the concert had been planned for about six months, and was scheduled for Friday the 13th; The Herald reported the cancellation took place in its edition of the 9th, with only four or five days to go. So something dramatic must have happened to cause this cancellation which both groups were so gung-ho about.... right?

Let's take a look then, at Izmailyan's explanation. He " told The Herald the cancellation was a joint decision between the two groups after the Armenian musicians decided not to participate."

(A "joint decision." As though the Turkish side would have had any say in the matter, at that point.)

Okay. So the Armenian musicians decided not to participate, after half a year of enthusiastically working toward such an end, in the interest of Turkish-Armenian friendship. We are to assume they received pressure during this time, and were doing a good job of resisting such pressure, as the TCS member believably reported.

Why did the Armenians suddenly wish to drop out?

"[B]ecause many members of the Armenian community expressed concern about the 'potential misuse of the event.' The musicians 'did not wish to participate in an event that the Armenian community was not united behind.'"

While it's a sure bet no one stuck a note to Izmailyan's front door, attached to a threatening A.R.F.-style dagger, reading "BELIEVE ME, YOU DIE" (as in the glorious days of old), who does he think he's fooling?
Armenians=1; Holdwater=0


Back in September 2005, I wrote a letter to Dr. Sam Vaknin for having composed the usual mindless article (entitled "The Armenian Genocide," 9-6-05, The Global Politician, "an independent magazine providing objective, in-depth analysis of events in the world today.") thanking him "for being such an enthusiastic  propagandist mouthpiece." I also sent a copy of the  letter to the editor, adding, "I believe the responsible thing to do would be to engage in genuine fact-checking before allowing an article that is hateful and propagandistic." Usually, editors ignore such communications from the contra-genocide side, but this one did not. He wrote back, in a Sept. 25  e-mail that his publication does not publish letters to the editor, but "If you would like, you can revise your letter into an article and we'll publish it."

That was one offer I wouldn't refuse; the article, "The Armenians: Suffering, or 'Genocide'?" was sent off. At this point, the editor, David Storobin, asked for my name. I replied, explaining I thought he understood the sensitivity of my situation. There was no response, so a couple of months later, I followed up with another letter, ending with:

There are times a pseudonym can be acceptable, as with the Clinton expose by "Anonymous," as you may recall.

Regardless, I'm a man of my word, and even if I make the mistake of forgetting a condition at the time of the deal, I feel what should take precedence is the deal — once my word is given. You stated flat out that I can convert my letter into an article, and that you would publish it, without any conditions. Regardless of whether the "rules" occurred to you afterwards or not...

...I feel the honorable thing for you to have done was to keep your word.

The only exception would have been if you felt the article was not up to par, which I don't believe was the problem.

On May 2, 2006, Mr. Storobin responded, "Ok, fair enough," and agreed to go ahead with the publication of the article. He asked whether I can submit the piece again, as he had lost the version sent in September. It was a lucky break, allowing me to perfect the article even more, and on Jan. 15, the article was sent off, with a note:

"Thanks again for agreeing to put this up. If 'Global Politician' has at all an image of being cutting-edge, not to mention courageous, I don't think this article will hurt it. And those who know the real truth about this matter will regard your publication with much respect."

Once the article appeared, I wrote to a friend on Jan. 20: "The Global Politician editor did a little chopping up, as he excised references to the original article that I had originally responded to. He did a very sloppy job, that's why there are mistakes. But the article is mostly intact, and I am happy about that."

On Jan. 22, I received a letter from a reader titled: "Your article has vanished from the GP."

I wrote the editor, making sure to thank him for his courage, even if he ultimately faced too much heat from the forces of intimidation. He replied, "Everyone, including some writers who have nothing to do with Armenians complained" that an article should be published without revealing the name, and that such does not look good for the article, ending with the worry that his publication will suffer. 

I replied, "Everyone has an opinion, and it is easy to become
influenced by people's opinions. But you are the editor/publisher, and you made the decision. Every rule has an exception. I don't feel you needed to explain yourself to anyone...

Of course, you are entitled to change your mind. But, again, if you spell out conditions and seal the deal with your word, it is not honorable to go back on your word. If the credibility of your publication was such an important factor, the time to have dealt with it would have been at the time you made the deal."

I reminded the editor of the 60 Minutes story that the producers got
cold feet on, sacrificing 60 Minutes' reputation as a crusading beacon of journalism, and then continued:

"What separates the men from the boys in journalism is to have the courage to report the facts, no matter the repercussions," as Ben Bradlee with Watergate and Edward Murrow with Senator McCarthy.  "There is a news black-out on the direction that I'm coming from. If you believe these genocide forces are not always truthful, and they perpetuate racism and hatred in the perpetuation of their own agendas, then you would have performed a valuable service in helping to crack their facade."

"This journalistic duty makes the credibility issue pale in comparison. You would have been helping to add balance to the scale, working toward the time when someone as myself would not need to hide behind a moniker."

Naturally, I didn't expect a reply and didn't receive any. This example is not as straightforward as the others, representing Armenian intimidation, but from the editor's answer to me, it sounded like he was hit mostly by Armenians. For example, an Ara Sarkis Ashjian sent a call to arms in the Yahoo group, Azad-Hye, writing  "Global Politician" ought to be hit for compromising "its credibility by publishing for persons concealing their identities and distorting historical facts."

Harut Sassounian appears to have approached the editor after the fact, writing about the "vicious revisionist article denying the Armenian Genocide" on the Global Politician site, asking for an explanation as to the removal. "If it is for his fake name, I thank you for your wise decision." Naturally, Sassounian made the editor's private response (of Jan. 25) public. A gloating Armenian has reproduced the response here, which was basically what the editor had told me directly. Interestingly, there is the additional claim that the Jewish Advocate also removed a genocide article which dared to use the qualifier, "alleged."

"Both Global Politician and the Jewish Advocate, by the way, had published materials on the Armenian genocide before publishing denialist lies. It seems they both admitted their mistakes by removing the denialist writings."

No, it has nothing to do with realizing the facts are incorrect, and everything to do with not being able to stand up to pressure.

A few other sites reproduced my article before Global Politician iced it (which I also mentioned to the credibility-conscious editor, adding, "Won't it raise eyebrows if readers find the article has disappeared from the source?") one of which is flash-bulletin.de/2006/eJanuary17.htm#4. (I see the article has also been posted at the forum of armeniangenocide.com, but the moderator has wisely removed it.)

 Banning Patriarch Mesrob II



Patriarch Mutafyan’s speech cancelled over Armenian pressure?
22.09.2007

PanARMENIAN.Net/ A planned speech at a Washington university yesterday by Patriarch Mesrob II Mutafyan, religious leader of Turkish Armenians has been canceled.

Mesrob II, who arrived in the U.S. capital earlier in the week, was scheduled to deliver a speech called "The Impasse between Turks and Armenians Must Be Broken" at Georgetown’s University’s Woodstock Theological Center. But an announcement on the center’s Web site said Wednesday the speech was "postponed due to logistical conflict."

Turkish Daily News reports that “the event has been cancelled following pressure on the university by U.S. Armenian groups over Partiarch’s opposition to the Armenian Genocide Resolution.”

Asked by reporters if his speech was canceled because of U.S. Armenian pressure, the patriarch said, "it may have been."

The Armenian National Committee of America recently sent a letter to all 535 Congressional offices regarding the upcoming visit of Patriarch Mutafyan of Constantinople. As ANCA Executive Director Aram Hamparian told a PanARMENIAN.Net reporter, the letter stresses that: "the Patriarch - like the leaders of all religious minorities in Turkey - lives in constant fear of acts of discrimination and retribution by a Turkish government that actively persecutes those who speak freely on human rights and other “sensitive” issues. As a virtual hostage, the Patriarch - whose life has been threatened on many occasions - will, as has in the past, be forced to follow the Turkish government’s line. It is truly shameful that Turkey has resorted to using coercion - cynically taking advantage of the concern of Patriach Mesrob for the safety of his flock - in a last ditch bid to block the adoption of the Armenian Genocide Resolution."

------------------------------------

"Constantinople"? (Emphasis above was Holdwater's.) Where is that?

-------------------------------------

AZG Armenian Daily, 20/09/2007 (reprinting Harut Sassounian's "ARMENIAN PATRIARCH OF TURKEY IN U.S. ON TURKISH PROPAGANDA TOUR ONCE AGAIN"), added the above was the Patriarch's second visit in six months, the first "highly controversial" one at the Southern Methodist University, in Dallas. (Titled, "Turkish-Armenian Question: What to do Now?")

" Despite intensive efforts by various Armenian-American groups to persuade the Patriarch not to speak at that conference, he went ahead with his speaking engagement. All other Armenian invitees, for one reason or another, refused to take part. The concern was that the Turks would use the conference as a ploy to convince the outside world that Armenians and Turks were 'reconciling' with each other, and therefore, there was no need to pressure Turkey into genocide recognition."

An "incensed" Archbishop Khajag Barsamian, the Primate of the Armenian Church of America (Eastern Diocese), protested ("The Primate aptly described the Patriarch as "a virtual ‘prisoner of conscience’ of the Turkish government.") and "The University complied with the Primate’s request and withdrew its support from the conference."

Harut Sassounian finished his piece by actually writing "Armenian religious and secular leaders have an obligation to point out that the Patriarch does not speak for the Armenian Church" (an Armenian Patriarch who does not speak for the Church? In a Sept. 17, 2007 Today's Zaman article, "Diaspora Deaf to Turkish Armenians," the question posed to the Patriarch: "Doesn’t your religious identity mean anything to the [diaspora]?" and the answer: "It seems like it doesn’t.") and "that his political statements are made under Turkish pressure and do not reflect his true views on the Armenian Genocide."

Yet the journalistically-challenged Harut Sassounian contradicted himself in another column, "What Motivates Patriarch Mesrob's Political Rhetoric?" (The California Courier):

"Despite the fact that the Patriarch knew full well that the Turkish government and various Turkish ultra-nationalist groups would strongly object to his statement that 1.5 million Armenians were killed, he went ahead and posted his remarks in Turkish and English on the Patriarchate's official website. Not surprisingly, several Turkish denialists immediately criticized him and questioned his facts on the Genocide. It is not clear why the Patriarch chose to make such candid remarks to the congressional delegation and then proceeded to make them public? Could this be his way of retaliating against the Turkish government's lack of responsiveness to his repeated pleas on behalf of the local Armenian community?"

Sassounian wrote the above after pointing to what an unreliable "agent of the Turkish government" the Patriarch was (citing "oppressive Turkish free-speech laws.") So what happened after the Patriarch reflected thoughts completely in line with Armenian propaganda, like the 1.5 million killed from an original population of some 1.5 million, with — as Armenian propagandists agree — 1 million survivors? Was the Patriarch thrown in prison? Were his feet bound in red hot iron shoes, as Armenian propaganda likes telling us? Nothing happened. Of course; contrary to Sassounians's dishonesty, it is very "clear" why the Patriarch made such remarks. The Patriarch is free to speak his mind.

However, when Tulin Daloglu interviewed the archbishop for her Washington Times column (entitled "Being heard on campus"), he explained, "It is all lie. I am here with my own free will." He was also sad. "I learned that the speech is cancelled due to threats to my security... America should have been the country of freedom, but things do happen here, too," he said. In other words, not that we needed the confirmation, but we are reminded propagandistic men like Harut Sassounian, Archbishop Barsamian, and ANCA's Hamparian all engage in shameless mendacity, in pursuit of Hai Tahd.

At any rate, yet another example of Armenian intimidation. (Actually, two examples; the first university in Dallas was reported by Mr. Sassounian to have withdrawn its support for their own conference) ANCA put on the pressure, and Georgetown’s University buckled, citing "logistical conflict." Isn't that absurd? If "logistical conflict" was an issue, why wasn't these problems addressed during the planning of the conference? (Or why was the conference planned in the first place?) Naturally, the ones who are intimidated are never "man" enough to provide the real reason for these cancellations, and insist on providing the flimsiest excuses. By the way, a reader (Miran Termanian) responding to Dalaoglu's column (in a Washington Post letter entitled, "Don't whitewash Armenian genocide"), wrote: "Similarly troublesome is the false contention that the Armenian National Committee of America blocked Archbishop Mutafyan's speech. This is preposterous."

The deception goes all around. More than a third of the Congress is now composed of Armenian stooges, and when ANCA writes them a letter, they snap to attention. To the Congressional protest that surely resulted (A lead stooge, Rep. Adam Schiff, was quoted by ANCA as saying, "In order to perpetuate its campaign of denial, Turkey seeks to intimidate all Armenians worldwide, but especially the Armenians in Turkey who must live with daily threats." [Emphasis Holdwater's.] How do you like that? "They" do the crime — intimidation — and then accuse Turkey of the same crime), add an avalanche of faxes and communications that ANCA directs the faithful to send, the faithful who get riled up by Harut Sassounian's vicious columns, and an institution such as Georgetown University suddenly misplaces its backbone.

Armenian power in the United States to implement censorship is uncanny. As Daloglu pointed out in her column, even Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has become a personification of evil in some American quarters, was allowed to give a speech at Columbia University.

TIME Magazine's Response to a DVD Distribution

 
The Ankara Chamber of Commerce decided to counter in some small measure the avalanche of Armenian propaganda by paying TIME Magazine a reported one million dollars for a DVD insert within the June 6, 2005 European edition, which featured the documentary entitled "Sari Gelin" (available today on YouTube). It’s not even easy to get the truth regarding WWI Turco-Armenian affairs out by paid advertisements anymore; the New York Times reportedly rejected such an advertisement, a few years ago. (Which is terribly sad, as what may be regarded as the world's most prestigious newspaper was instrumental in the spreading of this propaganda; these horrible old New York Times articles are still being put to propagandistic use today.)

Harut "The Enforcer" Sassounian once again went on the attack (curiously, if one should ever challenge Sassounian on historical facts, one will find his knowledge to be surprisingly limited; he mainly knows how to bully), and in one of his essays entitled “TIME Prints Full-Page Letter To Rectify Turkish DVD Flap,” Sassounian claimed that once the threat of a lawsuit beckoned, TIME Managing Editor Jim Kelly “apologized profusely,” criticizing the DVD’s “distorted view of history”; Kelly was quoted as stating the magazine’s “standards for fairness and accuracy” were not met and and that the DVD would have been rejected “had we been aware of the content.”

The odds are, Jim Kelly never viewed the DVD's "Sari Gelin" documentary. All he knew was that the Armenians’ genocide was accepted as the common wisdom, and that anything challenging the notion must be false; almost certainly, no objective research was conducted by Kelly or other TIME personnel to back up the claim that the DVD did not meet the magazine’s “standards for fairness and accuracy.”

Such amateurism may have been acceptable for a man guided by his personal prejudices, but he had a responsibility to uphold the standards of a world class newsmagazine. He did not care. Yet it is not like he can be blamed too much, since TIME is part of the lazy and prejudiced media that has had a tradition in reporting the "genocide" as a fact. One of TIME's most unforgivable offenses was its Aug. 23, 1982 report on an Armenian terrorist attack in Ankara which killed nine and wounded 72. No tears were shed for the victims, and the terrorists practically appeared as heroes. The brunt of the article was pure Armenian propaganda, validating genocide with an Aram Andonian forgery. The passage of a near quarter-century has not made TIME any more responsible or truthful, regarding the Armenian myth.

TIME finally got it right by unwittingly distributing a DVD explaining the real historical facts, but then blew the opportunity by meekly surrendering to the Armenians. If TIME needed to make an apology, it was to the Turkish nation and people for repeating these dreadful lies in genocide-related articles that any TIME reader can read today and still stake belief upon. And TIME needed to apologize to its general readership for forsaking its journalistic duties, by relying on propaganda for its genocide reportage.

Aside from Sassounian, TIME got other pressure in the form of Bernard Jouanneau of "Memoire 2000," representing "French associations whose aim is to fight against racism, anti-Semitism and for the memory of the Armenian genocide." (Including Le Conseil de Coordination des Organisations Armeniennes de France (CCOAF), Le Comite de Defense de la Cause Armenienne (CDCA), J'Accuse and Le MRAP.)

In their lengthy letter (entitled "DVD Segment on Armenia") appearing in the Oct 17, 2005 issue, Jouanneau pointed out a few examples of the DVD's points that were "unacceptable" (via the usual dishonest methods; they misreprsented a statement of Justin McCarthy's ["...he thinks that the events were not genocide because some Armenians survived. Can you imagine the same words being said about the Jewish Holocaust?"], and kept on making the inevitable comparison of a real genocide with a false one: "The narrator of the DVD says [over images of the genocide monument in Yerevan] that historical facts were falsified when they were transmitted to the young generation. Can you imagine a DVD presenting images from the Yad Vashem monument, together with an explanation that young Jews don't have to honor the memory of their people?"), and with his fellow "human rights" groups, arrogantly demanded that 1. TIME explain its standards for accepting advertisements (for example, would TIME have accepted "a similarly hateful DVD denying the Holocaust"), "2. Distribute for free of charge, a DVD prepared by the European Armenian Federation for Justice and Democracy (EAFJD) regarding the history and modern-day consequences of the Armenian genocide. 3. Donate the advertisement receipts from this campaign to nonprofit organizations advocating the truth about the Armenian genocide and other genocides."

After obliterating its notions of courage, honor and truth by offering an apology to the magazine's "Armenian community and to our readers,"
TIME reportedly complied by distributing ("to 500,000 subscribers in more than a dozen European countries," as Jouanneau put it) an Armenian genocide DVD free of charge. TIME, backed up by a colossal corporation (the magazine's brass, including Mr. Kelly, received communications explaining the historical realities, and they chose to ignore them; they did not even attempt to challenge these hateful groups with irrefutable facts, likely in the knowledge that doing so would invite further agitation), donated the equivalent of one million dollars to racist propagandists.
ARTICLES
Analyses
"West" Accounts
Historical
Academic
Crimes
Terrorists
Politics
Jewish
Miscellaneous
Reference

 

REBUTTAL
Armenian Views

 

MEDIA
General
Turks in Movies
Turks in TV

 

ABOUT
This Site
Holdwater
  ©  


THE PURPOSE OF TALL ARMENIAN TALE (TAT)
...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.