You stated: "If the Turkish-Armenian conflict is not controversial, as you falsely claim, then what are we discussing here all these months? Hollywood movies? Cooking? Weather? Traffic?"

You try and interject conflict and/or controversy toward the Armenian Genocide. Do you believe I have been trying to bring out historical points to justify the Armenian genocide when it is already a historical fact? I don't need to defend something that is true, your challenge is to deny it and ramble on about points that justify denying it.

You stated: "You claim this issue is settled and that there is no room for investigation, or debate and you characterize the need to go to an international court on this a "stunt".  Was Nuremberg a "stunt"?"

Why would (as I stated before) the victimizer government or it's denialist apologists need to ask the victims (or representatives) to a court of any kind? Criminals do not like to ask to be tried in court this is a suspicious proposition from a government who has consistently denied the Armenian genocide.

I am sorry to hear your comments toward ethnic Armenians. It further justifies that you are not working toward humanity but working against it.

The difference between you and me from reading your posts is that I believe there are many humanitarian Turkish people today as there was during the Armenian genocide. My ill will is toward the government of Turkey's policies not it's people, per se.

Maybe if more focus was put on making Turkey more tolerant toward it's own citizens of differing religious and ethnic faith we would not be here.

Public relations must be a nightmare even the word "Turk" has a negative connotation by most, of their own doing, no one else. I don't have to hurl negatives toward Turkey they must lie in their own bed. I wonder how much time or concern you have for the Turkish citizens in Turkey who have been slain as of late?

Also as I have stated before my challenge is to readers of this post to weigh in on your denialist positions, and read the volumes of information on the Armenian Genocide from noted scholars, academics, and historians.

Posted by: Rich | April 20, 2007 2:25 PM

###

You stated:  "...Do you believe I have been trying to bring out historical points to justify the Armenian genocide when it is already a historical fact? "  Whose fact?   Not mine.   Not honest historians' either.  Look what 69 such experts and researchers of them said in a public statement:

" TO THE MEMBERS OF THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

The undersigned American academicians who specialize in Turkish, Ottoman and Middle Eastern Studies are concerned that the current language embodied in House Joint Resolution 192 is misleading and/or inaccurate in several respects.

Specifically, while fully supporting the concept of a "National Day of Remembrance of Man's Inhumanity to Man," we respectfully take exception to that portion of the text which singles out for special recognition:

". . . the one and one half million people of Armenian ancestry who were victims of genocide perpetrated in Turkey between 1915 and 1923 . . .."

Our reservations focus on the use of the words "Turkey' and "genocide" and may be summarized as follows:

From the fourteenth century until 1922, the area currently known as Turkey, or more correctly, the Republic of Turkey, was part of the territory encompassing the multinational, multi-religious state known as the Ottoman Empire. It is wrong to equate the Ottoman Empire with the Republic of Turkey in the same way that it is wrong to equate the Hapsburg Empire with the Republic of Austria.

The Ottoman Empire, which was brought to an end in 1922, by the successful conclusion of the Turkish Revolution which established the present day Republic of Turkey in 1923, incorporated lands and people which today account for more than twenty-five distinct countries in Southeastern Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East, only one of which is the Republic of Turkey.

The Republic of Turkey bears no responsibility for any events which occurred in Ottoman times, yet by naming 'Turkey' in the Resolution, its authors have implicitly labeled it as guilty of "genocide" it charges transpired between 1915 and 1923;

As for the charge of "genocide," no signatory of this statement wishes to minimize the scope of Armenian suffering. We are likewise cognizant that it cannot be viewed as separate from the suffering experienced by the Muslim inhabitants of the region.

The weight of evidence so far uncovered points in the direct of serious inter communal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and Christian irregular forces), complicated by disease, famine, suffering and massacres in Anatolia and adjoining areas during the First World War. Indeed, throughout the years in question, the region was the scene of more or less continuous warfare, not unlike the tragedy which has gone on in Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting death toll among both Muslim and Christian communities of the region was immense. But much more remains to be discovered before historians will be able to sort out precisely responsibility between warring and innocent, and to identify the causes for the events which resulted in the death or removal of large numbers of the eastern Anatolian population, Christian and Muslim alike.

Statesmen and politicians make history, and scholars write it. For this process to work scholars must be given access to the written records of the statesmen and politicians of the past. To date, the relevant archives in the Soviet Union, Syria, Bulgaria and Turkey all remain, for the most part, closed to dispassionate historians. Until they become available, the history of the Ottoman Empire in the period encompassed by H.J. Res. 192 (1915-1923) cannot be adequately known.

We believe that the proper position for the United States Congress to take on this and related issues is to encourage full and open access to all historical archives and not to make charges on historical events before they are fully understood. Such charges as those contained H.J. Res. 192 would inevitably reflect unjustly upon the people of Turkey and perhaps set back irreparably progress historians are just now beginning to achieve in understanding these tragic events. ...        ( 69 signatures by historians, experts, and/or reserachers)..."
…

As the above comments illustrate, the history of the Ottoman-Armenians is much debated among scholars, many of whom do not agree with the historical assumptions embodied in the wording of H.J. Res. 192. By passing the resolution Congress will be attempting to determine by legislation which side of the historical question is correct. Such a resolution, based on historically questionable assumptions, can only damage the cause of honest historical inquiry, and damage the credibility of the American legislative process.

You stated:  Why would (as I stated before) the victimizer government or it's denialist apologists need to ask the victims (or representatives) to a court of any kind? "

Because they feel they are innocent of the baseless Armenian charges.

You stated: " Criminals do not like to ask to be tried in court this is a suspicious proposition from a government who has consistently denied the Armenian genocide."

Criminals don't. That is one more proof that Turks are not criminals.

Also, Armenian claims of genocide are bogus; something that does not exist cannot be denied. If you want to be credible with your bogus genocide charges, then you had better produce a verdict by a competent court as the U.N. definition of genocide requires.

Armenian claims cannot be substantiated with historical evidence. They are little more than wartime propaganda.

You don't have to take my word for it. Look what the missionary George M. Lamsa, well known for his research on Christianity, says in his book on those wild stories published in the media without checking facts (The Secret of the Near East, The Ideal Press, Philadelphia, 1923, page 133)

"...In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies..."

You stated:  "...My ill will is toward the government of Turkey's policies not it's people, per se."

How do you explain the Armenian terrorism and hate crimes in our midst today then? Two Turkish diplomats were killed in Santa Barbara in 1973 by an older Armenian assassin and another Turkish diplomat was slain in Los Angeles in 1982 by a teenager Armenian assassin. Many attacks, bombings, bomb threats, assault and batteries, and violent hate crimes were committed by Armenians in California in the last 30+ years. Some of the victims were Turkish-Americans who had nothing to do with any government. Why this intense hatred then? Why cultivate such intense negative feelings? Why teach Armenian kids to hate Turks? Why? Why? Why?

You stated:  " Public relations must be a nightmare even the word "Turk" has a negative connotation by most, of their own doing, no one else."

This is an incredibly racist remark. How can the name of a people be given a wholesale, defamatory, derogatory like that in this day and age? You stated it because you obviously believe it. That makes you racist. Since when racial slurs and stereotyping accepted as PR yardsticks?

For your information, Turks are proud of their heritage and that includes this writer. We have been around for more than 5000 years; with written alphabet since first millennium, perhaps even earlier. Turks have established 16+ empires and states, with the Ottoman Empire lasting 623 years. The Republic of Turkey is the last state, established in 1923, and already the 16th largest economy in the world.

Armenians on the other hand never had their sovereignty and were rules by almost every empire in the region (Romans, Greeks, Persian, Byzantium, Seljuk Turks, Arabs, Ottoman-Turks, Russians, Iranians, and a few others that I cannot recall this second.

Armenians have no culture of statehood. This is proven by the fact that they have trouble with all of their neighbors today because of irredentist Armenian policies, coveting lands from neighbors: Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. As a result, the first chance Armenia got when the Soviet Empire collapsed, Armenia chose to attack her neighbor and engage in ethnic cleansing in Karabagh (black vineyard in Turkish) and Western Azerbaijan. And the Armenia you created is a basket case. Imagine a land-locked, poverty-stricken, corruption-ridden, violent country whose major exports are Armenian terrorism and illegal aliens and major import is foreign aid.

You stated:  " ...don't have to hurl negatives toward Turkey they must lie in their own bed..."

I am stating here in no uncertain terms that Turks are very happy with their bed and have very clear conscience about their history and culture. Furthermore, Turks are extremely proud of their accomplishments; and very self-confident and positive about life and future (as you probably gathered from my postings.)

If you go to Turkey today, you would be startled to find out that Turks really don't care about the Armenian lies of genocide at all. The Armenian issue is not the reason-d'etre for them, the way it clearly is for Armenians. Until a few years ago, if you asked about the Armenian allegations of genocide in Turkey, most Turks would not even know what you are talking about. That is because Turkey, in the years of nation building, chose to educate its children with love, hope, tolerance, and optimism. When you teach 6+ centuries of history of a multi-continent empire, Armenians do not even appear on the radar screen.

Turks feel Armenians betrayed during a war of survival for Turks; they could no longer be trusted; and those who were engaged in treason were relocated. There was suffering due to starvation, epidemics, war, and this suffering did not discriminate on the basis of religion. Consequently, all suffered, including the Muslims. The West only sees the Armenian suffering and dismisses my suffering. And that kind of selective morality and discriminations is not acceptable in this day and age.

Armenians ask why send women and children to TERESET (Temporary resettlement). They say what harm could they possibly do. Historian Prof. Stanford Shaw of UCLA explained it by saying that it was no longer possible to differentiate between loyal Armenians and disloyal ones (Could the U.S. tell who was hostile (Viet Kong) and who was friendly (South Vietnamese) in all the years of Vietnam War?) Armenians terrorists would use women and children as human shields. Other "innocent families" would "aid and abet" Armenian terrorists. As a result, most were subjected to TERESET.

Not all Armenians were subjected to TERESET though. For example, those in the capital Istanbul were not relocated. Neither were the Armenians in Edirne, Izmir, and other Western regions (save a few activists and gang leaders). Armenians of Aleppo were also not moved. Catholic and Protestant Armenians were also excluded. And those who served in the Ottoman Army could stay with their families. Those in city centers could also stay. Those who were bakers, doctors, etc. could also stay if they were not involved in treason. Those who could afford, could buy train tickets. In most areas away from train stations, oxen pulled carriages, horses, donkeys were provided. Food and medicine rations were planned. Property was recorded for safe keeping and for returning to their owners after the war. We can prove all of these things with countless documents and corroborating paper trails. You see, it was a wartime measure. Not a wholesale annihilation like you portray.

Why relocation? Because it is an effective wartime measure that every Western country, including the U.S., France, and the U.K. have used many times before. Let's read what the French lawyer and a specialist on the Armenian question Georges de Maleville, writes on military justification of resettlement in his book ( La Tragédie Arménienne de 1915, -The Armenian tragedy of 1915 -, Editions F. Sorlot-F. Lanore, Paris, 1988, p 61-63) :

"...In all the countries, under all the regimes, the staff of the armies in the field evacuate towards the back, the populations which live in the zone of fights and can bother the movement of the troops, especially if these populations are hostile. Public opinion does not find anything to criticize to these measures, obviously painful, but necessary. During winter of 1939-1940, the radical - socialist French government evacuated and transported in the Southwest of France, notably in the Dordogne, the entire population of the Alsatian villages situated in the valley of the Rhine, to the east of the Maginot line. This German-speaking population, and even sometimes germanophil, bothered the French army. It stayed in the South, far from the evacuated homes and sometimes destroyed until 1945....And nobody, in France, cried out for inhumanity..."

It was a temporary wartime measure taken purely in self-defense ; not a planned annihilation of a people.

And that is the plain truth.

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 20, 2007 4:09 PM

###
I find it appropriate to post valuable information that is lacking for the benefit of our readers:

WHY DO PEOPLE DENY THE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE?

The scholarship of the Armenian genocide and attempts to repudiate it through denial need to be addressed giving our readers various reasons why the latest form of denial are taking place such as the posts above.  Here is a compilation of information I have sourced to inform our readers as to the reasons of Armenian genocide denial.  ( Ergun Kirlikovali's note: Here, "Rich" cuts-and-pastes a LONG LIST of works by the so-called "Genocide Scholars", yet another invention of the Armenian lobby .. I will save the pain of repeating that pseudo-scholarly mumbo-jumbo here.  They are readily available all over the Armenian sites anyway.)  

Posted by: Rich | April 20, 2007 9:33 PM

###

You stated:  Why would (as I stated before) the victimizer government or it's denialist apologists need to ask the victims (or representatives) to a court of any kind? "

Answer: Because
1- they feel they are innocent of the baseless Armenian charges and smears
2- and they want to expose the Armenian deception for all to see.

You stated:  " Criminals do not like to ask to be tried in court this is a suspicious proposition from a government who has consistently denied the Armenian genocide."

Answer: Criminals don't. That is one more proof, therefore, that Turks are not criminals. If Turks were guilty as you baselessly charge, would Turks wish to chance the scrutiny of a court room? Turks are self-confident that Turks can expose the Armenians fraud in a court room easily and effortlessly.

Also, since Armenian claims of genocide are bogus; something that does not exist cannot be denied. If you want to be credible with your bogus genocide charges, then you had better produce a verdict by a competent court, as the U.N. definition of genocide requires.
Armenian claims cannot be substantiated with historical evidence. They are no more than wartime propaganda. In that sense, Armenians are still fighting World War I; they are stuck in a warped time zone... The Armenians still live in the twilight zone.

You don't have to take my word for any of it. Look what the missionary George M. Lamsa, well known for his research on Christianity, says in his book on those wild stories published in the media without checking facts (The Secret of the Near East, The Ideal Press, Philadelphia, 1923, page 133)

"...In some towns containing ten Armenian houses and thirty Turkish houses, it was reported that 40,000 people were killed, about 10,000 women were taken to the harem, and thousands of children left destitute; and the city university destroyed, and the bishop killed. It is a well-known fact that even in the last war the native Christians, despite the Turkish cautions, armed themselves and fought on the side of the Allies. In these conflicts, they were not idle, but they were well supplied with artillery, machine guns and inflicted heavy losses on their enemies..."

Case in point: The New York Times published 145 anti-Turkish stories in 1915 without giving even one chance to Turks to rebut the wild accusations. Can you imagine today a newspaper making allegations over 135 days and not even once letting its readers learn the other side of the story? Such was the anti-Turkish bias then. Armenians simply rode those waves. But this kind of media bias and bigotry got Armenians nowhere. Here we are, in 2007, Armenians still waging a war of terror (1973 to present) and propaganda (1915 to present.)

You stated:  "...My ill will is toward the government of Turkey's policies not it's people, per se."

How do you explain the Armenian terrorism and hate crimes in our midst today then? Two Turkish diplomats were killed in Santa Barbara in 1973 by an older Armenian assassin and another Turkish diplomat was slain in Los Angeles in 1982 by a teenager Armenian assassin. Many attacks, bombings, bomb threats, assault and batteries, and violent hate crimes were committed by Armenians in California in the last 30+ years. Some of the victims were Turkish-Americans who had nothing to do with any government. Why this intense hatred then? Why cultivate such intense negative feelings? Why teach Armenian kids to hate Turks? Why?

An Armenian kid who has never seen or met a Turk in his/her life is ready to kill one. How is that possible? Who is poisoning thee young minds? It is people like you who do, with your mindless, baseless, endless, hate-filled monologues. That's who.

You stated:  " Public relations must be a nightmare even the word "Turk" has a negative connotation by most, of their own doing, no one else."

I am not the one WHO IS HIDING BEHIND A FIRST NAME, am I?
I am proud of my family name, my heritage, and my history. I proudly display them all for all to see. As you can see, I have nothing to hide.

Nevertheless, you made an incredibly racist remark. How can the name of a people be given a wholesale, defamatory, derogatory like that in this day and age? You stated it because you obviously believe it. That makes you racist. Since when racial slurs and stereotyping accepted as PR yardsticks?

Turks having been around for more than 5000 years; with written alphabet for 2000+ years, Turks are proud of their multi-continent, multi-culture, multi millennium rich heritage. Turks have established 16+ empires and states in much of the known world in history, with the Ottoman Empire alone lasting 623 years. The Republic of Turkey is the last state, established in 1923, and already the 16th largest economy in the world and rising. Turks are skilled empire and nation builders. Turks have very strong characters of highly self-confident nature which make them legendary in the art of warfare and statesmanship. That is why anti-Turkish plans can never be successful.

Armenians on the other hand never had their sovereignty (save a few years here and there) and were mostly ruled by other empires in the region (Romans, Greeks, Persian, Byzantium, Seljuk Turks, Arabs, Ottoman-Turks, Russians, Iranians, and others.
Armenians can be excused, therefore, for having no culture of statehood or nation building. . This is proven by the fact that they have trouble with all of their neighbors today because of irredentist Armenian policies, coveting lands from neighbors, namely Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Georgia. As a result, the first chance Armenia got when the Soviet Empire collapsed, Armenia chose to attack her neighbor and engage in ethnic cleansing in Karabagh (black vineyard in Turkish) and Western Azerbaijan. And the Armenia created as a result of aggression and ethnic cleansing is, understandably, a basket case. Armenia today is a land-locked, poverty-stricken, corruption-ridden, violent country whose major exports are Armenian terrorism and illegal aliens and major import is foreign aid and Russian soldiers. After reading a Los Angeles Times article on Armenia, I remember writing a letter with the title "Armenians are creating the hell they created".

That is the difference between Turks and Armenians (I can expand on this with facts, figures, dates, and sources, if you wish, to make it clearer for you.)

You stated:  " ...don't have to hurl negatives toward Turkey they must lie in their own bed..."
Then what was "...even the word 'Turk' has a negative connotation"
And what do you think blaming Turkey with a fraudulent genocide is all about?
But I have long since given up expecting straight answers from you, much less getting them.

Turks are quite happy with their bed, thank you, and have a clear conscience about their glorious history and unique culture. Furthermore, Turks are extremely proud of their accomplishments; and very self-confident and positive about life at present and in future. In fact, they scored the highest in "happiness index" according to a poll carried out in all EU countries. (There are about 100,000 illegal Armenian aliens working in Turkey as we speak. As you defame and demonize Turkey and Turks, your brethren are happy to work and make a living in Turkey. These are Armenia Armenians now, not Turkish-Armenians, who already live rich, prosperous lives in Turkey.)

If you go to Turkey today, you would be startled to find out that Turks really don't care about the Armenian lies of genocide at all. The Armenian issue is not the reason-d'etre for them, the way it clearly is for Armenians. Until a few years ago, if you asked about the Armenian allegations of genocide in Turkey, most Turks would not even know what you are talking about. That is because Turkey, in the years of nation building, chose to educate its children with love, hope, tolerance, and optimism. When you teach 6+ centuries of history of a multi-continent empire, Armenians do not even appear on the radar screen.

Turks feel Armenians betrayed during a war of survival for Turks, so they could no longer be trusted. Those who were engaged in treason were temporarily relocated as a wartime measure for national security. Most of them arrived at the destination, as you can see even in Armenian sources (I can provide them if you wish.) There was suffering due to starvation, epidemics, war, and this suffering did not discriminate on the basis of religion or ethnicity. Consequently, all peoples of the area suffered, including the Muslims. The West only sees and grieves the Armenian suffering and dismisses Turkish and Muslim suffering. This kind of selective morality and discriminations is unethical, unjust, and unacceptable in this day and age.

Armenians ask why send women and children to TERESET (Temporary resettlement). They say what harm could they possibly do. Historian Prof. Stanford Shaw of UCLA explained it by saying that it was no longer possible to differentiate between loyal Armenians and disloyal ones (Could the U.S. tell who was hostile (Viet Kong) and who was friendly (South Vietnamese) in all the years of Vietnam War?) Armenians terrorists would use women and children as human shields. Other "innocent families" would "aid and abet" Armenian terrorists. As a result, most were subjected to TERESET.

Not all Armenians were subjected to TERESET though. For example, those in the capital Istanbul were not relocated. Neither were the Armenians in Edirne, Izmir, and other Western regions (save a few activists and gang leaders). Armenians of Aleppo were also not moved. Catholic and Protestant Armenians were also excluded. And those who served in the Ottoman Army could stay with their families. Those in city centers could also stay. Those who were bakers, doctors, etc. could also stay if they were not involved in treason. Those who could afford, could buy train tickets. In most areas away from train stations, oxen pulled carriages, horses, donkeys were provided. Food and medicine rations were planned. Property was recorded for safe keeping and for returning to their owners after the war. We can prove all of these things with countless documents and corroborating paper trails. You see, it was a wartime measure. Not a wholesale annihilation like you portray.

Why relocation? Because it is an effective wartime measure that every Western country, including the U.S., France, and the U.K. have used many times before. Let's read what the French lawyer and a specialist on the Armenian question Georges de Maleville, writes on military justification of resettlement in his book ( La Tragédie Arménienne de 1915, -The Armenian tragedy of 1915 -, Editions F. Sorlot-F. Lanore, Paris, 1988, p 61-63) :

"...In all the countries, under all the regimes, the staff of the armies in the field evacuate towards the back, the populations which live in the zone of fights and can bother the movement of the troops, especially if these populations are hostile. Public opinion does not find anything to criticize to these measures, obviously painful, but necessary. During winter of 1939-1940, the radical - socialist French government evacuated and transported in the Southwest of France, notably in the Dordogne, the entire population of the Alsatian villages situated in the valley of the Rhine, to the east of the Maginot line. This German-speaking population, and even sometimes germanophil, bothered the French army. It stayed in the South, far from the evacuated homes and sometimes destroyed until 1945....And nobody, in France, cried out for inhumanity..."

It was a temporary wartime measure taken purely in self-defense ; not a planned annihilation of a people.

And that is the plain truth.


Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 21, 2007 8:28 AM
###

I think by now from reading your posts, you are rambling on previous posts and taking my comments out of context (as expected)and mischaracterizing them (as expected), and defaming ethnicities, cultures and history (as expected).

Fortunately our readers will learn some of the reasons why denialists are caught up in not working toward humanity but trying in vain to unwittingly work against it.

Posted by: Rich | April 21, 2007 10:15 AM
###

You stated:  "Turks having been around for more than 5000 years; with written alphabet for 2000+ years, Turks are proud of their multi-continent, multi-culture, multi millennium rich heritage. Turks have established 16+ empires and states in much of the known world in history, with the Ottoman Empire alone lasting 623 years. The Republic of Turkey is the last state, established in 1923, and already the 16th largest economy in the world and rising. Turks are skilled empire and nation builders. Turks have very strong characters of highly self-confident nature which make them legendary in the art of warfare and statesmanship."

You easily omit that other ethnicities including Armenian have contributed to practically every facet that you are proud of. Frankly cross culture is to be expected with past empires.

There is nothing wrong with being proud of your ethnicity.

Unfortunately I may only ask our readers to again research to find that the Turkish laws of today do not contribute to the welfare of any minority, on the contrary they have promoted a nationalistic fervor over the years to literally have frequent incidence of killing minorities, and other who are not Muslims or wish to practice freedom of speech that opposes Turkish policies.

----

Many would find it suspect that Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" has sold over 100,000 in two months in 2005.  (More cut-n-paste by "Rich" here)
…
Posted by: Rich | April 21, 2007 12:54 PM
###
…
You have not responded to the issues I have raised in my last post. Instead, you have chosen to cut-and-paste more Armenian propaganda.

Why did you ignore, for example, Armenian terrorism in California? And  in America? And around the world?

Do you condone Armenian terrorism?

Why do you keep spreading long discredited propaganda material like the bogus Hitler quote?

Don't you know that that bogus quote, in the form of an undated, unsigned, out-of-sequence note, was planted in the Nuremberg documents by an over-zealous Armenian reporter?

That it was so out of place that the U.S. judges refused to use that bogus questionable material in their proceedings?
(You can read the scholarly paper written on this subject in my column at www.turkla.com )

Why are you ignoring Armenian treason?

Why are you ignoring armed Armenian revolts victimizing my people?

Why are you ignoring the horrendous Turkish suffering caused by the Armenian nationalists?

While we are at it, why are still hiding behind a first name? (Is that a fictitious first name, too?)

Are you ashamed of being an Armenian? 

Posted by: Ergun Kirlikovali | April 22, 2007 7:14 PM