Turk vs. Armenian at a Forum:
Cem: There is absolutely nothing you
can say that can justify the forced cancellation of a peaceful
Kevork: Oh yes there is. ARMENIANS
will not 'fraternize' with known and vocal genocide deniers. End of
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
3) The Los Angeles Times finds some
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.
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 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.
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,
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
—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
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
—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.
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.
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 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
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.
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.
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
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."
"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."
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
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.)
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
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
Here's how a Turkish source described the following example of Armenian
"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
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
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 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
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
"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
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.)
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?
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.
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.
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
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?
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
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
"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
"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
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?
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
Yet the journalistically-challenged Harut Sassounian contradicted himself in another
column, "What Motivates Patriarch Mesrob's Political Rhetoric?" (The
"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
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.
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
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.