Armenak Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Nigeria: Dink, Zion And the Armenian Genocide Daily Trust (Abuja) OPINION February 2, 2007 Posted to the web February 2, 2007 Adamu Adamu What a sad and painful irony that Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian journalist, would finally fall a victim to the genocide debate that he himself has done much to downplay. And last year, to his own astonishment, he fell victim to the laws of the Turkish Republic that had imposed on him a civic schizophrenia of sorts. He had been coping well, though, but it was not easy in a modern state that seemed to have so much anxiety about its own holistic integrity. With the result that Dink was on his way to prison for being such a good Turk. On 8 October 2005, a court in Istanbul sentenced him to six months in prison [suspended for good behaviour], for writing an article that 'insulted and belittled Turkishness'. And he was totally devastated by the conviction. "I guilty of racism!?" he asked. "How can this be? All my life I have struggled against ethnic discrimination and racism. I would never belittle Turkishness or Armenianness. I wouldn't allow anyone else to do it, either." But others before him had done exactly that to the Republic. The Young Turks, in particular Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal; Ziya Gokalp, Alparslan Turkes and, above all, Mustapha Kemal Ataturk had each in his own way belittled Turkey; and what was the result? Defeat followed defeat. With the help of Russia, Britain and France, Greece defeated Turkey in 1829. Russia forced Turkish withdrawal from Bulgaria in 1878. In 1908, the Young Turks untied Turkey from its past and the slide accelerated. In 1911, Ottoman provinces in North Africa were lost to Italy and in 1913, the Balkans had wrested their independence; and thereafter, Bulgarians and Serbians launched the original ethnic cleansing that saw about 5 million impoverished and bitter Muslim Turks fleeing from southeastern Europe to seek refuge in their Anatolian ancestral home, in the eastern parts of which Armenians had already taken up arms for independence. They collaborated with an invading Russian army against their homeland, an action that in any nation would have been regarded as treason. In 1915, the majority of Anatolia's two million Armenians were deported to Syria and Mesopotamia. And today, they constitute the largest unassimilated minority group in Syria; but according to Armenian sources that was not what happened. They said that hundreds of thousands [the highest estimate is 1.5 million] died or were killed in the process. But despite being an Armenian, Dink, the journalist, in a rare bout of candour, dismissed the genocide claim. He worked for reconciliation between Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks; and, along with Nobel Prize winner Orham Pamuk, had been prosecuted for their views about the genocide claim. They denied claims that one and half million Armenians had been killed in a systematic genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. They had argued that large numbers of people-both Muslim and Christian-had perished during the traumatic breakup of the Ottoman Empire, and, especially, during the actual deportations taking place amidst a war with Russia. And Turkey stand condemned for the unnecessary loss of lives; but there was never any policy by Sultan Abdul Hamid or even the godless Young Turks who replaced him. If anything, there is ample evidence to prove that the genocide claim was invented. But a parallel event was to happen in Russia itself under Joseph Stalin. Crimea, which had been under Turkish rule for 300 years, briefly became independent in 1774 before it was annexed and swallowed by Russia in 1783. After the October Revolution, it became the Republic of Taurida. During the Second World War, suspecting Crimean Tartars of pro-German sympathies, Stalin deported them to Siberia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and around 600,000 died en route. But today none of the great powers is accusing Russia of genocide as they properly do in the earlier case of the Ukraine Famine in which 7 million Ukrainians perished as a direct result of Stalin's deliberate policy to cause mass starvation, part of the estimated 70 million killed as sacrifice to the god of communism. By 1933 up to 25,000 were dying everyday in Ukraine as they bravely resisted the Bolsheviks. In all of the other well-known cases of genocide, paradoxically, except the most famous of them all-the Holocaust-there was always the essential element of deliberate policy that was lacking in the Turkish case. In the Rape of Nanking, in 1937, for instance, the Japanese Imperial Army deliberately murdered 300,000 Chinese. Between 1975 and 1977, Pol Pot exterminated 2 million Cambodians; and between 1992 and 1995, Serbians killed more than 200,000 Muslims. In 1945, Allied forces-United States, Britain and France-firebombed a target without any military value or significance. But, curiously, the world today does not remember as genocide the gratuitous massacre of the inhabitants of Dresden and the destruction of Europe's most beautiful city by the leaders of the 'free world.' At any event, the claim of the Armenian genocide had never been taken seriously be any of the European powers except France, which had its own reasons for promoting it. From time to time, it would raise it as it did in 1998. That time, however, it was not raised as a foreign policy issue to be used against Turkish attempt to get into the European Union; but as French contribution to Armenia that was then locked in a bitter struggle over land with Azerbaijan after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The idea was that the genocide claim would do for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1994 what Holocaust claims did for the Zionists in Palestine in 1948. Both claims, however, have remained unproved; and to the discerning world they remain what they are-false claims. In order to better publicize their cause they took a leaf from the Palestinian struggle that resorted to spectacular acts of skyjacking and other desperate acts of terror to catch world attention. At the time the PLO was enjoying its heyday, they established the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia [ASLA] otherwise known as the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide. By the end of the 1970's more than two dozen Turkish diplomats had been assassinated by the commandos and many more injured. And the Armenian lobby, like the Holocaust industry before it, has accepted and come to value what Dr James J Martin, the doyen of historical revisionism, had said in relation to the invention of the word 'genocide' by Raphael Lemkin, the Americanized Polish Zionist Jew, in preparation for the charge that would be made against Germany after World War II: "that with vast labor and proper publicity, something can still be made out of nothing." And the Armenian lobby is relatively speaking, quite powerful and capable of vast labour that can get to places and mount the proper kind of publicity required. Just consider this: The Association of Genocide Scholars in its conference held in Montreal, June 11-13, 1997, reaffirms that the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters. Several US presidents had spoken about the Armenian Question. Some of them have included Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush. On April 24, 2000, President Clinton said, "Today we remember a great tragedy of the twentieth century: the deportations and massacres of roughly one and a half million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire. "I join Armenians around the world, including the Armenian-American community, in mourning the loss of those innocent lives. I also extend my sympathy to the survivors and their descendants for the hardships they suffered. I call upon all Americans to renew their commitment to build a world where such events are not allowed to happen again. The lesson we must learn from the stark annals of history is that we must forge a more humane future for the peoples of all nations. April 24, 2000." And it almost went beyond presidential speechmaking. Early in October 2001, the House International Relations Committee passed a non-binding resolution urging President Bill Clinton and future US presidents to recognize what it described as "the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide." However, owing to pressure from the Turkish prime minister, the Bill was withdrawn two weeks later. Bulent Ecevit sent a letter to Clinton thanking him for his efforts to shelve the resolution. It had become an object of diplomatic paper-chase. But even Henry Morgenthau, U.S. ambassador to Turkey at the time, would only report to Washington: "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race." The origins of the Armenian Genocide story has a far more intellectual basis that even the Holocaust; because it was invented by top-ranking scholars in the service of the British Foreign Office. The whole incident was a masterful fabrication built upon a real happening in order to embarrass the defeated Ottomans and use it to exert concessions. It was written by Professor Arnold J Toynbee, reputedly the greatest historian the world had ever known, though he himself was to say of ibn-Khaldun's Muqaddimah 'the greatest book ever written' by any man. But perhaps its greatest value was that when the Zionists came, they would have something to draw upon in inventing their own forgery. But perhaps, it should be admitted, though, that with Deuteronomy at their disposal, they probably wouldn't need Toynbee. The Holocaust is Israel's number one propaganda weapon creating a deep-seated guilt complex in Western society and unprecedented international sympathy, which has lead to an uncritical support for the Jewish [or, more correctly, Zionist] State, and made even the most deserved and most appropriate criticism of Israel impossible for Western statesmen, most especially in the US, where Zionist control of the media is total. When recently Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad questioned the Holocaust, international media took up the chorus of condemning him; and, in the process, unwittingly opened up the subject for debate. But it was not debate that was on their minds. What they wanted to do was to isolate Ahmedinejad. The most effective weapon of the Zionists against exposure has been what is called "the silent treatment;" but it is impossible to ignore the president of a leading nation who has decided to lend his weight to Holocaust denial. Otherwise that is what they would have done. That the media couldn't ignore Ahmedinejad's comments was more because they believed that by publicizing the denial in a world that had come to accept its "truth," they hoped to ridicule the president, and, in addition, use the reminder that his denial had afforded them and capitalize on the sympathy generated to write and push through the last remaining chapter of the Holocaust saga. Last Friday, they got their way when the United Nations adopted a resolution sponsored by the United States and co-sponsored by more than 100 other countries condemning Holocaust denial. And so, finally, the Holocaust has truly become a 'Holy Cause' as John Bennet of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties once feared. He questioned 'why in a country such as America where most people can say anything they like [the laws of obscenity here being what they are] and do practically anything they like, the one thing Americans can't do is to publicly challenge the Holocaust, or the "Holy Cause," as it may perhaps be more accurately described.' Ahmedinejad was not the first to deny the Holocaust, though he is the first president to do so publicly and to damn the consequences. Thousands before him have denied it and with good reason. But Holocaust denial as a science may be said to have properly begun with the publication of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz, distinguished professor of mechanical engineering at the prestigious Northwestern University, Evanston in the United States. No one who has read this book will ever again believe any shred of the Holocaust saga; but, of course, one should be ready to be up against a lie that has been so often repeated that it becomes a truth that can no longer be questioned. For, among the stoutest defenders of Holocaust are some of its most vulnerable victims. Such is the effect and power of a 60-year-old propaganda machine that has almost all the international news and entertainment media at its beck and call. The works of Professor Butz, Dr. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyon in France, Professor Udo Walendy of Verlag fur Volkstum he & Zeitgeschichsforschung, Dr. Martin A. Larson of The Spotlight in Washington, Swedish historian Ditlieb Felderer, and, above all, the pioneering works of Dr. James J. Martin set the tone for the founding of the Institute of Historical Review, which, in its own words, is in business "to bring history in accord with the facts." Its turf was the Second World War, and this immediately brought it into conflict with the Holocaust myth. Paul Rassinier, who was interned at Buchenwald, was the first to throw the salvo that began the demolition work of the Holocaust edifice; and it was as a result of his exposes that the Holocaust Establishment was forced to admit that no gassing of human beings took place in any of the concentration camps in Germany. They now concentrate on the concentration camps in Poland-Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Maidanek, Bitburg-before these too are demolished. Professor Walendy carried out a pictorial critique of Holocaust. He took each and every one of the better known pictures of Holocaust and painstakingly traced them to all the originals from which they were cleverly faked-with barbed wire, emaciated bodies and all. Books by the Institute, written in the highest tradition of historical scholarship and on scientific basis, have torn to smithereens the tales of soap from human fat, the gas ovens and the crematoria, the impossibility of using Zyklon-B to effect what they claim happened, and devastating exposes on the Nuremberg trials. But because these classic works of history will not be touched by the prestigious publishing houses nor be stocked by any of the reputable bookshops and other outlets, the weight of Ahmedinejad is of greater propaganda value than all the tomes of intellectual output that have been written to discredit many of the claims that people today regard as Gospel truth. But the Holocaust Establishment was not without its own intellectual effort. It commissioned the writing of The Diary of Anne Frank, ostensibly written by a young Jewish girl of her ordeals in hiding as her race was systematically liquidated. It was quickly exposed as a fake, though you never got to hear about it. For instance, you probably have never heard that Anne's diary was written with a ballpoint pen, something that had not yet been invented when the book was supposed to have been written. And Anne's father, Otto Frank, later had to pay off the diary's ghostwriter in order to duck a lawsuit. It is indeed a pity that Dink died as a result of a genocide that never took place, for a nation that didn't know where it was going, and on behalf of a people who didn't know who they were. But is it really then such a pity? http://allafrica.com/stories/200702020624.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phantom22 Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 (edited) What kind of convoluted KA-KA is this? Go to the eastern part of the present Republic of Turkey and see for yourself what has become of the Armenian provinces. Massive massacres are Genocide! How many ways can you split a pea? Nigeria: Dink, Zion And the Armenian Genocide Daily Trust (Abuja) OPINION February 2, 2007 Posted to the web February 2, 2007 Adamu Adamu What a sad and painful irony that Hrant Dink, the Turkish-Armenian journalist, would finally fall a victim to the genocide debate that he himself has done much to downplay. And last year, to his own astonishment, he fell victim to the laws of the Turkish Republic that had imposed on him a civic schizophrenia of sorts. He had been coping well, though, but it was not easy in a modern state that seemed to have so much anxiety about its own holistic integrity. With the result that Dink was on his way to prison for being such a good Turk. On 8 October 2005, a court in Istanbul sentenced him to six months in prison [suspended for good behaviour], for writing an article that 'insulted and belittled Turkishness'. And he was totally devastated by the conviction. "I guilty of racism!?" he asked. "How can this be? All my life I have struggled against ethnic discrimination and racism. I would never belittle Turkishness or Armenianness. I wouldn't allow anyone else to do it, either." But others before him had done exactly that to the Republic. The Young Turks, in particular Mehmed Talaat, Ismail Enver and Ahmed Djemal; Ziya Gokalp, Alparslan Turkes and, above all, Mustapha Kemal Ataturk had each in his own way belittled Turkey; and what was the result? Defeat followed defeat. With the help of Russia, Britain and France, Greece defeated Turkey in 1829. Russia forced Turkish withdrawal from Bulgaria in 1878. In 1908, the Young Turks untied Turkey from its past and the slide accelerated. In 1911, Ottoman provinces in North Africa were lost to Italy and in 1913, the Balkans had wrested their independence; and thereafter, Bulgarians and Serbians launched the original ethnic cleansing that saw about 5 million impoverished and bitter Muslim Turks fleeing from southeastern Europe to seek refuge in their Anatolian ancestral home, in the eastern parts of which Armenians had already taken up arms for independence. They collaborated with an invading Russian army against their homeland, an action that in any nation would have been regarded as treason. In 1915, the majority of Anatolia's two million Armenians were deported to Syria and Mesopotamia. And today, they constitute the largest unassimilated minority group in Syria; but according to Armenian sources that was not what happened. They said that hundreds of thousands [the highest estimate is 1.5 million] died or were killed in the process. But despite being an Armenian, Dink, the journalist, in a rare bout of candour, dismissed the genocide claim. He worked for reconciliation between Christian Armenians and Muslim Turks; and, along with Nobel Prize winner Orham Pamuk, had been prosecuted for their views about the genocide claim. They denied claims that one and half million Armenians had been killed in a systematic genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Empire. They had argued that large numbers of people-both Muslim and Christian-had perished during the traumatic breakup of the Ottoman Empire, and, especially, during the actual deportations taking place amidst a war with Russia. And Turkey stand condemned for the unnecessary loss of lives; but there was never any policy by Sultan Abdul Hamid or even the godless Young Turks who replaced him. If anything, there is ample evidence to prove that the genocide claim was invented. But a parallel event was to happen in Russia itself under Joseph Stalin. Crimea, which had been under Turkish rule for 300 years, briefly became independent in 1774 before it was annexed and swallowed by Russia in 1783. After the October Revolution, it became the Republic of Taurida. During the Second World War, suspecting Crimean Tartars of pro-German sympathies, Stalin deported them to Siberia, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and around 600,000 died en route. But today none of the great powers is accusing Russia of genocide as they properly do in the earlier case of the Ukraine Famine in which 7 million Ukrainians perished as a direct result of Stalin's deliberate policy to cause mass starvation, part of the estimated 70 million killed as sacrifice to the god of communism. By 1933 up to 25,000 were dying everyday in Ukraine as they bravely resisted the Bolsheviks. In all of the other well-known cases of genocide, paradoxically, except the most famous of them all-the Holocaust-there was always the essential element of deliberate policy that was lacking in the Turkish case. In the Rape of Nanking, in 1937, for instance, the Japanese Imperial Army deliberately murdered 300,000 Chinese. Between 1975 and 1977, Pol Pot exterminated 2 million Cambodians; and between 1992 and 1995, Serbians killed more than 200,000 Muslims. In 1945, Allied forces-United States, Britain and France-firebombed a target without any military value or significance. But, curiously, the world today does not remember as genocide the gratuitous massacre of the inhabitants of Dresden and the destruction of Europe's most beautiful city by the leaders of the 'free world.' At any event, the claim of the Armenian genocide had never been taken seriously be any of the European powers except France, which had its own reasons for promoting it. From time to time, it would raise it as it did in 1998. That time, however, it was not raised as a foreign policy issue to be used against Turkish attempt to get into the European Union; but as French contribution to Armenia that was then locked in a bitter struggle over land with Azerbaijan after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The idea was that the genocide claim would do for the Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1994 what Holocaust claims did for the Zionists in Palestine in 1948. Both claims, however, have remained unproved; and to the discerning world they remain what they are-false claims. In order to better publicize their cause they took a leaf from the Palestinian struggle that resorted to spectacular acts of skyjacking and other desperate acts of terror to catch world attention. At the time the PLO was enjoying its heyday, they established the Armenian Secret Army for the Liberation of Armenia [ASLA] otherwise known as the Justice Commandos of the Armenian Genocide. By the end of the 1970's more than two dozen Turkish diplomats had been assassinated by the commandos and many more injured. And the Armenian lobby, like the Holocaust industry before it, has accepted and come to value what Dr James J Martin, the doyen of historical revisionism, had said in relation to the invention of the word 'genocide' by Raphael Lemkin, the Americanized Polish Zionist Jew, in preparation for the charge that would be made against Germany after World War II: "that with vast labor and proper publicity, something can still be made out of nothing." And the Armenian lobby is relatively speaking, quite powerful and capable of vast labour that can get to places and mount the proper kind of publicity required. Just consider this: The Association of Genocide Scholars in its conference held in Montreal, June 11-13, 1997, reaffirms that the mass murder of Armenians in Turkey in 1915 is a case of genocide which conforms to the statutes of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide. It further condemns the denial of the Armenian Genocide by the Turkish government and its official and unofficial agents and supporters. Several US presidents had spoken about the Armenian Question. Some of them have included Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton and George Bush. On April 24, 2000, President Clinton said, "Today we remember a great tragedy of the twentieth century: the deportations and massacres of roughly one and a half million Armenians in the final years of the Ottoman Empire. "I join Armenians around the world, including the Armenian-American community, in mourning the loss of those innocent lives. I also extend my sympathy to the survivors and their descendants for the hardships they suffered. I call upon all Americans to renew their commitment to build a world where such events are not allowed to happen again. The lesson we must learn from the stark annals of history is that we must forge a more humane future for the peoples of all nations. April 24, 2000." And it almost went beyond presidential speechmaking. Early in October 2001, the House International Relations Committee passed a non-binding resolution urging President Bill Clinton and future US presidents to recognize what it described as "the systematic and deliberate annihilation of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide." However, owing to pressure from the Turkish prime minister, the Bill was withdrawn two weeks later. Bulent Ecevit sent a letter to Clinton thanking him for his efforts to shelve the resolution. It had become an object of diplomatic paper-chase. But even Henry Morgenthau, U.S. ambassador to Turkey at the time, would only report to Washington: "When the Turkish authorities gave the orders for these deportations, they were merely giving the death warrant to a whole race." The origins of the Armenian Genocide story has a far more intellectual basis that even the Holocaust; because it was invented by top-ranking scholars in the service of the British Foreign Office. The whole incident was a masterful fabrication built upon a real happening in order to embarrass the defeated Ottomans and use it to exert concessions. It was written by Professor Arnold J Toynbee, reputedly the greatest historian the world had ever known, though he himself was to say of ibn-Khaldun's Muqaddimah 'the greatest book ever written' by any man. But perhaps its greatest value was that when the Zionists came, they would have something to draw upon in inventing their own forgery. But perhaps, it should be admitted, though, that with Deuteronomy at their disposal, they probably wouldn't need Toynbee. The Holocaust is Israel's number one propaganda weapon creating a deep-seated guilt complex in Western society and unprecedented international sympathy, which has lead to an uncritical support for the Jewish [or, more correctly, Zionist] State, and made even the most deserved and most appropriate criticism of Israel impossible for Western statesmen, most especially in the US, where Zionist control of the media is total. When recently Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad questioned the Holocaust, international media took up the chorus of condemning him; and, in the process, unwittingly opened up the subject for debate. But it was not debate that was on their minds. What they wanted to do was to isolate Ahmedinejad. The most effective weapon of the Zionists against exposure has been what is called "the silent treatment;" but it is impossible to ignore the president of a leading nation who has decided to lend his weight to Holocaust denial. Otherwise that is what they would have done. That the media couldn't ignore Ahmedinejad's comments was more because they believed that by publicizing the denial in a world that had come to accept its "truth," they hoped to ridicule the president, and, in addition, use the reminder that his denial had afforded them and capitalize on the sympathy generated to write and push through the last remaining chapter of the Holocaust saga. Last Friday, they got their way when the United Nations adopted a resolution sponsored by the United States and co-sponsored by more than 100 other countries condemning Holocaust denial. And so, finally, the Holocaust has truly become a 'Holy Cause' as John Bennet of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties once feared. He questioned 'why in a country such as America where most people can say anything they like [the laws of obscenity here being what they are] and do practically anything they like, the one thing Americans can't do is to publicly challenge the Holocaust, or the "Holy Cause," as it may perhaps be more accurately described.' Ahmedinejad was not the first to deny the Holocaust, though he is the first president to do so publicly and to damn the consequences. Thousands before him have denied it and with good reason. But Holocaust denial as a science may be said to have properly begun with the publication of The Hoax of the Twentieth Century by Arthur R. Butz, distinguished professor of mechanical engineering at the prestigious Northwestern University, Evanston in the United States. No one who has read this book will ever again believe any shred of the Holocaust saga; but, of course, one should be ready to be up against a lie that has been so often repeated that it becomes a truth that can no longer be questioned. For, among the stoutest defenders of Holocaust are some of its most vulnerable victims. Such is the effect and power of a 60-year-old propaganda machine that has almost all the international news and entertainment media at its beck and call. The works of Professor Butz, Dr. Robert Faurisson of the University of Lyon in France, Professor Udo Walendy of Verlag fur Volkstum he & Zeitgeschichsforschung, Dr. Martin A. Larson of The Spotlight in Washington, Swedish historian Ditlieb Felderer, and, above all, the pioneering works of Dr. James J. Martin set the tone for the founding of the Institute of Historical Review, which, in its own words, is in business "to bring history in accord with the facts." Its turf was the Second World War, and this immediately brought it into conflict with the Holocaust myth. Paul Rassinier, who was interned at Buchenwald, was the first to throw the salvo that began the demolition work of the Holocaust edifice; and it was as a result of his exposes that the Holocaust Establishment was forced to admit that no gassing of human beings took place in any of the concentration camps in Germany. They now concentrate on the concentration camps in Poland-Auschwitz, Sobibor, Treblinka, Maidanek, Bitburg-before these too are demolished. Professor Walendy carried out a pictorial critique of Holocaust. He took each and every one of the better known pictures of Holocaust and painstakingly traced them to all the originals from which they were cleverly faked-with barbed wire, emaciated bodies and all. Books by the Institute, written in the highest tradition of historical scholarship and on scientific basis, have torn to smithereens the tales of soap from human fat, the gas ovens and the crematoria, the impossibility of using Zyklon-B to effect what they claim happened, and devastating exposes on the Nuremberg trials. But because these classic works of history will not be touched by the prestigious publishing houses nor be stocked by any of the reputable bookshops and other outlets, the weight of Ahmedinejad is of greater propaganda value than all the tomes of intellectual output that have been written to discredit many of the claims that people today regard as Gospel truth. But the Holocaust Establishment was not without its own intellectual effort. It commissioned the writing of The Diary of Anne Frank, ostensibly written by a young Jewish girl of her ordeals in hiding as her race was systematically liquidated. It was quickly exposed as a fake, though you never got to hear about it. For instance, you probably have never heard that Anne's diary was written with a ballpoint pen, something that had not yet been invented when the book was supposed to have been written. And Anne's father, Otto Frank, later had to pay off the diary's ghostwriter in order to duck a lawsuit. It is indeed a pity that Dink died as a result of a genocide that never took place, for a nation that didn't know where it was going, and on behalf of a people who didn't know who they were. But is it really then such a pity? http://allafrica.com/stories/200702020624.html Edited February 4, 2007 by phantom22 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurderer Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 they should be turks or jews Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armenak Posted February 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 they should be turks or jews Put them together and what have you got? "Young Turks." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neko Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Want to go to the only place in the world that still has real racism, real genocide, as an everyday reality, then go to Africa. But who cares - every African in sub-Sahara Africa could drop dead tomorrow and it wouldn't do the World the slightest harm (and probably do it a great deal of good). Nigeria, btw, is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism - that will be the "intellectual" origin of that article. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zurderer Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Put them together and what have you got? "Young Turks." Hazar turks. Young turks may have some jews ancestors but we have not realy proof about this. So let elder ladies gossip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arpa Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Will someone please remind this Adamau Adamu , Adam Adam, Man Man, Kakamu Kakamu, or whatever the kakamu/afrucken his name, who may think that the Garden of Adam/Eve//Eden is somewhere north of Lagos, at the banks of the Niger River.Will someone remind this afrucken to mind his own business. Will someone remind this idiot the fate of the Nigerian Christian minority, the Ibo and their genocide, (One of many) http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/012205.php the Darfur genocide, the genocide of the South African natives? And if that is not enough, let us remind them how their own people were virtually genocided by their Muslim overlords, the Muslim Arabs who, all but genocided their African heritage an culture, and now they don’t even know where their Muslim/Ottoman African/Nigerian asses are. What and who is a Nigerian? Is that a tribe of Mohamed whose progeny call all dark skinned people “abid” to mean “SLAVE/servant “ to this day? Let Africans be Africans , Arabs , Muslims be they whatever the h…. they are. We are Armenians. We don’t like the Turks. If Nigerians like the their bothers in faith, the Turks so much why don’t they invite them to Africa/afrucka? No one will even notice the difference under that turban and the hijab. Btw. Do Nigerian women cover their hair on the head and expose the hair below the belt? Is the above racist? Is it anti-semitic? You bet! The largest so called semitic tribes live way south of TelAviv. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubépine Posted February 4, 2007 Report Share Posted February 4, 2007 Sudan will probably "solve" the Darfur problem their own way. Those people are good as dead already with all the oil concessions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Want to go to the only place in the world that still has real racism, real genocide, as an everyday reality, then go to Africa. But who cares - every African in sub-Sahara Africa could drop dead tomorrow and it wouldn't do the World the slightest harm (and probably do it a great deal of good). Nigeria, btw, is a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism - that will be the "intellectual" origin of that article. It's funny you think that since I think likewise for UK. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Must be the latest form of the Nigerian letter scam. I don't like to promote generalisations, but a Ghanaian friend of mine said that Nigerians were known to be notorious, pathological liars. I don't know what Nigerians say about Ghanaians, though. I'm sorry, I couldn't read it after I read the last paragraph. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.