How Reverends Enable Church Bombers in Iraq

Al-Jazeerah, USA
August 12, 2004
Aug 12 2004

How Reverends Enable Church Bombers in Iraq

By Charles E. Carlson

Al-Jazeerah.info

On Sunday, August 1st, five Christian churches in Iraq were bombed,
killing eleven worshipers and wounding and terrifying many more. They
were traditional churches–Armenian, Chaldean, Coptic, and Catholic-
some had been there for hundreds of years. We believe no Iraqi could
benefit from this act, especially not Muslim Iraqis. We will probably
never learn who did it, and we will hear accusations condemning Islam
for years to come. This writer does not think the facts justify this,
or that it is healthy for us to accept it.

Some benefit from bombing churches and they are the best suspects.

One group is positively implicated in the acts. By its own words it
convicts itself, regardless of who set the explosives or who made the
plan. Its proponents call themselves `Christian-Zionists’ or
`Judeo-Christians.’ You will find these accomplices behind the
pulpits of many American churches on Sunday. This writer has in past
papers named them Enablers of war.

The obvious material beneficiaries of the church bombings include the
so-called Neo-Cons, whom we prefer to call Warmakers, and who arrange
carnage to maintain political power through continued wars. Blood
seems of no concern to them; deaths are only statistics. Companies
like Halliburton and others feed on serial wars and would no doubt
enjoy permanent contracts to police Iraqis and operate their oil
fields. Israel gains the most from the destruction of the Arab states
because it is a source of resources from the Euphrates to the Nile.
But, regardless of who planted the explosives at the five churches,
we know who facilitated the act. It was `Christian-Zionist enablers
of war, as we will see.

We are being told little about the five churches that were hit; as
best as we can tell, they were attacked by booby traps and timed
explosive devices. Obviously they were well organized, with modern
munitions and security; the perpetrators got away clean, safe, and
unharmed and remain unidentified a week later. This was a
professional job. If five coordinated teams of criminals robbed five
banks at the same time with all getting away without leaving behind
even one clue as to who they were or why they did it, they would be
professionals. The laws of probability dictate that events like this
do not happen without evidence. Criminals leave behind clues that are
found, that is, unless someone on the inside ignores the clues, or
does not look very hard. Someone tells when this many people are
involved.

On August 5th a different kind of bombing occurred. It was low tech
and required little planning and no sophisticated equipment
whatsoever. A lone Iraqi driver steered his automobile-powered human
bomb into a police station where Iraqi policemen and their US
military bosses would be killed. Five or more died tragically,
including the bomber. One might call him a sacrifice bomber, and his
purpose can be clearly understood from his acts. He saw the occupiers
and those who cooperated with them as the enemies of Iraqi’s
desperate and prolonged struggle for independence. This is a crime
and a human tragedy, but he is no less heroic than any other martyr
honored by any people in history. Not so with the church bombers,
whose targets, unlike the well-guarded and armed police stations, are
undefended. No one sacrificed his life to do it; it was premeditated,
cowardly murder.

Christians and Moslems manage to get along in the Mid-East. This
writer observed them in Gaza. Baptists go to church next to the
Mosque, and when they are not in church, members seem to work
together as best as they can. Churches are not a historic enemy to
Islam in Iraq. Coptic, Catholic, and Orthodox churches often date
back to Roman times, still standing with Christian cemeteries around
them, undefiled through the ages of Islamic domination. Christians in
Iraq say they do not hate Muslims, but many Evangelicals in America
practice hatred of Islam that is now manifested in destruction and
death. Jesus’ words object.

The Southern Baptist Convention has had no explanation for this
peaceful co-existence with Islam; its publications play it down or
ignore it. The evangelicals’ views of the Mideast demand both racial
and religious hatred. The Baptist Mission Board even ignores its own
church in Gaza, housed in a dome roofed ancient mosque. This writer
documented the story of its members in a previous article.

Evangelicals tell us Islam detests Baptists and would kill them on
sight. Christians in the land of Islam live their lives out
otherwise, and any serious observation supports their version.

In Gaza the wall in front of the Baptist church has the same
anti-Israeli graffiti as does the wall in front of the Mosque nearby.
Their members suffer Israeli occupation side by side. If they do not
love each other, they certainly coexist in peace. We Hold These
Truths receives reports from Christians and Muslims from Damascus to
Ammon. There is an uneasy peace made worse by anti-Islamic statements
spewed forth from evangelical Enabler churches and celebrities in
America.

How would Islam benefit from bombing churches? If Christians stay
home from church or emigrate out of fear, how does this make Iraq
more independent? It does not.

It is sad that Iraqis would bomb other Iraqis who are hungry and
desperate for work and who hate the occupation, but who take
Army-funded jobs at a police station. But this can be understood in
war, the Iraqis do not want a compromised, 56-year occupation as the
Palestinians have.

Who benefits?

We don’t know who planted the bombs but we do know that American
evangelical celebrities facilitated and enabled the act. Without the
Enablers constant condemnation of Islam, there would have been no
reason for the propaganda bombing of five churches, because there
would be no market for the propaganda that is being distributed
through the evangelicals in the USA.

We have read all the accounts of the bombings. As expected, they are
being blamed on an unknown Islamic group. Consider what is likely:

* If an Islamic militant group bombed the churches and wanted to
terrorize Christians, they would have taken credit for it the first
hour, as they have with kidnappings, and they would have promised
more bombings, or asked for something. No one did.

* The `group’ that belatedly did claim the blame for the bombings was
anonymous and unknown and did not have a formal name or spokesman. It
offered no plausible reason for this significant act. It could have
been created on a cell phone after the bombing or in an office in
London, and it probably was. The US-appointed Iraqi `government’ did
not point this out, nor did our press.

* Most Muslims who we know fear God, they do not hate Him, and would
be correctly afraid to bomb a church–afraid of God, not of men. And
Muslims, unlike the Israelis, believe Jesus was on very good terms
with the one God, whom they call Allah. They do not challenge Allah;
they fear Him as righteous.

* If secularists did the bombing, there would be Muslims who would
know about It, and would tell. It was too big a scheme to keep it
quiet this long.

* The churches in Iraq are traditional, not evangelical; they do not
hold to the neo-evangelical interpretations that hold Israel to be a
God image that must be worshiped. They do not share the `chosen
people’ theology that enables the war on Islam.

* Islam is not anti-Christian, as we Christians are told. The Qur’an
says much about Jesus and Mary, and is more than respectful. One
passage, (S.5.78-84) seems to be all about trust and coexistence with
followers of Christ. Verse 82 reads:

Strongest among men in enmity to the Believer wilt thou find the Jews
and Pagans; Nearest among them in love to the Believers wilt thou
find those who say `we are Christians’ because amongst there are men
devoted to learning. And men who have renounced the world and they
are not arrogant.

Clearly this was not written about evangelical-Zionist (Enablers)
who, to the contrary, openly call for genocide against Islam, even
its total liquidation, and some are boldly arrogant about it.

Many untrue yarns are spun on the Internet depicting a hate filled
Qur’an. We Hold These Truths has investigated several and found that
most are not there, or seem to be intentionally distorted. Our paper
called Internet Tales about Islam details some of these. We find some
statements we have been given by evangelical Enablers to be outright
untrue on their face. Even the most popular story among evangelicals
about the prize of `72 virgins’ for martyrs in Paradise (like the car

bomber) may be a hoax. As best this writer can tell, it is not in the
Qur’an; we are still waiting for someone to show us otherwise.

One of the worst we have heard, Dr. Robert Morey, who calls himself a
`Christian’ and who has written several books about Islam, openly
preaches for the incineration of Mecca, Medina and The Dome of the
Rock.

Leading Muslim clerics have condemned the bombing as cowardly and
unbecoming of Islam, but christian-Zionists take denial as a sign of
guilt. And prominent Christian leaders in Iraq have not suggested
Muslims were responsible, and have spoken out in solidarity with
them.

Who Could Have Done It?

The State of Israel and what is currently being called the US
`Neo-Con’ establishment, which really controls Israel and holds
absolute control over the present Bush administration and past
Clinton administration as well, are the beneficiaries of wars.

Israelis would not think twice of bombing churches because they have
already done it. They have also attacked mosques and killed Muslim
leaders in front of at least one mosque. Israelis have even been
known to damage their own synagogues to get sympathy. The State of
Israel shelled two or more Christian churches in Palestine. Israel’s
agents are known to be operating in Iraq and are probably more likely
to have bombed the churches than the CIA or Halliburton’s paid
mercenaries. They are used to this kind of assassination, and they
know how to keep quiet. If this is true, you can bet the incident
will just die down and disappear from the press.

The tale of the church bombings will never disappear from the
preaching of the evangelical-Zionist, who will blame the Arabs
everywhere, with or without proof.

Who Is Responsible?

Though we will probably never know for certain who bombed the five
churches, we can be sure the blood is on the hands of the Enabler
reverends, evangelical celebrities, and on their willing followers.
The deaths of every one of the eleven church-going Christians is
their responsibility because without them there would be no reason
for the bombing. Whoever did it simply obliged these evangelical
Enablers by creating more grist for Israeli promoted
Christian-Zionist hate mills. Hate enabled the war and the
occupation; hate keeps the occupation going. Only love will end it.

An Israeli `BUS19′, in which 11 Israeli civilians died, was imported
to the US from Israel in May. `Eleven’ happens to be the same number
of civilian Iraqis killed in the five Church bombings. A team or
speakers associated with The Unity Coalition for Israel is touring
evangelical Enabler churches with the bus, giving the misleading
message that Palestinians are murderers, and Islam is a religion of
violence. Our account of this is called Israeli Hate-Bus Tours
America.

The five damaged churches are the Iraqi equivalent of BUS19, another
trophy to be displayed at churches in America. Without the insatiable
desire of christian-Zionist celebrities for more `proof of Arab
violence’ there would have been no church bombings in Iraq because no
other purpose was served. This writer is no longer alone among
Followers of Christ in blaming evangelical Enablers for war.

As reported in the `New York Times,’ in a speech on March 9, 2003,
former President James Earl Carter criticized his own Southern
Baptist Convention for supporting the `unilateral attack on Iraq.’
Carter did not dignify the attack by calling it a war. He went on to
implicate Israel in the occupation of Iraq, saying,

`a few Southern Baptist leaders (favor war) who were greatly
influenced by their commitment to Israel based on eschatological, or
final days theology.’

Mr. Carter also stated some of the most profound and truthful words
ever heard at a Democratic convention in an interview after his
speech where he stated: `The State of Israel is at the center of the
problems in the Middle East.’

Christian pastor and writer Tony Campolo, speaking to United
Methodist leaders in Birmingham, Alabama, on June 3, 2004, warned
that too many Christians have become `evangelical Zionists’ who favor
ethnic cleansing of Palestinians in the Middle East. This
surprisingly candid statement was covered in the Birmingham News
quoting Campolo:

“Some evangelicals have gotten caught up in the theology that before
Christ can return, the Holy Land must belong to the Jews,” and,

“They’re really advocating ethnic cleansing. There’s no justification
for that in Scripture.”

We note: Ethnic cleansing means systematic murder! The Birmingham
News further quoted Campolo:

“Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, as well
as Tim Lahaye and Jerry Jenkins, authors of the best-selling `Left
Behind’ end-times prophecy novels, have spread the `evangelical
Zionist’ theme. `They’re a very powerful group,’… The evangelical
community has gotten so pro-Israel that they’ve forgotten how to love
Palestinians.”

The Presbyterian Church in America’s leaders recently condemned The
Wall being built around the Palestinians, and voted by a wide margin
to divest itself of all Israeli assets from its multi-billion dollar
retirement fund. This is the first major church denomination to do
so.

Evangelical leaders must be challenged publicly by their own members.
To accomplish this Project Strait Gate was started 18 months ago, and
over 35 major evangelical churches, as well as conventions, have been
picketed for peace during their worship hours.

Five ladies and two men led a Strait Gate Project demonstration at
two churches last weekend in Southern California, with signs reading
`NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL and BLESSED ARE THE PEACEMAKERS. One event
was a 2004 Israel and Bible Prophesy Conference at the giant Calvary
Chapel in Chino, California. Several participants reported they were
pleasantly surprised with the response, not so much from the churches
as from the passersby. Many responded positively to the message of
the demonstration.

Strait Gate Ministries urges Followers of Christ to have their names
removed from membership rolls at any churches that fail to oppose the
continued war and occupation in the Mideast. We suggest you tell the
Reverend you might return once the Church regains Christ’s admonition
to love one’s brothers as yourselves. Until then, you might better
serve the Lord by supporting an Armenian or Coptic Church in Iraq.

We Hold These Truths/Strait Gate Ministries plans to distribute this
letter to about 100,000 Presbyterian Pastors and laymen leaders as an
encouragement to them. We wish to expand this number by tenfold to
other reverends in other denominations.

The challenge is overwhelming, the time short and the burden is
heavy.

Statistics of Turkey’s Democide Estimates, Calculations, & Sources

Hellenic Resources Network
Thursday, 12 August 2004

STATISTICS OF TURKEY’S DEMOCIDE
ESTIMATES, CALCULATIONS, AND SOURCES*

By R.J. Rummel

The infamy of executing this century’s first full scale ethnic cleansing
belongs to Turkey’s Young Turk government during World War I. In their
highest councils Turkish leaders decided to exterminate every Armenian in
the country, whether a front-line soldier or pregnant woman, famous
professor or high bishop, important businessman or ardent patriot. All
2,000,000 of them.

Democide had preceded the Young Turk’s rule and with their collapse at the
end of World War I, the successor Nationalist government carried out its own
democide against the Greeks and remaining or returning Armenians. From 1900
to 1923, various Turkish regimes killed from 3,500,000 to over 4,300,000
Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and other Christians.

This wholly genocidal killing is difficult to unravel. During this period
Turkey fought five wars, forcefully changed governments several times,
endured major revolutionary changes, and was occupied by foreign powers.
Suffering deportations, famine, exposure, war, genocide, and massacres,
millions of Turkish Moslems, Armenians, Greeks, and other Christians died.

Moreover, current Turkish governments utterly reject any claim that Turkey
committed genocide, and scholars specializing in the study of Turkey must
avoid the topic or follow the Turkish official line if they hope to do
research in the country. This line is that the government had to deport the
Armenians from the eastern war zone because of, or for fear of, their
rebellion. Many died in the process regardless of Turkish attempts to
protect and care for them; others died in communal strife or in a civil war
between Armenians and Moslems.[1] On the other side, Armenian scholars may
have exaggerated the size of the Armenian population in Turkey, the number
killed, and Turkish brutality and genocidal intentions.

Then there are the third-party reports, commentaries, and studies, published
during World War I. Since Turkey fought on the side of Germany, it was in
the interest of the French and British, who during the war years widely
disseminated anti-German propaganda, to put the worst face on events in
Turkey. Moreover, Armenians themselves may have falsified high level Turkish
documents and reports on the killing in order to win sympathy and support
for restoration, reparations, or the independence of Armenia.

Nevertheless, I do not doubt that this genocide occurred. Extant
communications from a variety of ambassadors and other officials, including
those of Italy, the then neutral United States, and Turkey’s closest ally
Germany, verify and detail a genocide in process. Moreover, contemporary
newsmen and correspondents documented aspects of the genocide. Then, two
trials were held. One by the post-war government that replaced the Young
Turks, which gathered available documentation and other evidence on the
genocide and found the leaders guilty.[2] The second trial was of the
Armenian who assassinated the former Young Turk leader Talaat in Munich in
1920.[3] Although the Germans were still friendly toward the Young Turks
they had supported during the war, the evidence on the genocide presented at
the trial convinced the court that the assassination was justified. Finally,
Turkish government telegrams and minutes of meetings held by government
leaders establish as well their intent to destroy all the Armenians in
Turkey. In my related Death By Government[4] I have quoted selections from
this vast collection of documents and need not repeat them here.[5] The
sheer weight of all this material in English alone, in some ways as diverse
and authoritative as that on the Holocaust, is such that the invalidity or
falsification of some of it can hardly effect the overall conclusion that a
genocide took place.

The problem, then, is somehow to cut through the exaggerations and
propaganda to make some reasonable estimates of the number of Armenians and
others killed. Tables 5.1A and 5.1B organizes this attempt, along with the
relevant estimates from the literature, their sources, and my calculations
and checks. Note that throughout the tables I use the specific term genocide
where appropriate, rather than the more general democide. Here, the people
were murdered simply because they were Christians, Armenians, Greeks, or
Moslems.

I divide the tables into four major periods. The first covers the last years
of Sultan Abdul Hamid’s rule, 1900 to April 1909 (lines 1 to 4 of Table
5.1A). Then there is the Young Turk rule before World War I (lines 5 to
72–the six-month period when the Young Turks were out of power is
irrelevant here and ignored) and that during the war (lines 74 to 274). The
final major division comprehends the post-WWI interregnum (lines 276 to 436)
until the internationally accepted establishment of a sovereign and
independent Turkey (Treaty of Lausanne). In the following two sections I
summarize the results for genocide (lines 438 to 488 of Table 5.1B) and
total dead 1900 to 1923 (lines 490 to 504), and then present estimates for
refugees (lines 508 to 539) and populations (lines 540 to 632). Finally, I
calculate the overall genocide rate (lines 634 to 641).

Possibly two massacres took place during the first period, but there is no
evidence in the sources that these were democidal (lines 2 to 3 of Table
5.1A).

Turning to the first years of the Young Turk period, first I list the three
wars that Turkey fought (lines 7 to 26–one was started while the Young
Turks were out of government). Although the sources record the military dead
for these wars, they usually ignore the civilian war-dead. I assumed a total
low of 20,000 civilian war-dead (line 30) for the three wars, but the
sources are not adequate to estimate a mid-value or high. This low added to
military war-dead (line 31) gives at least 84,000 overall dead in these
wars.

As to the 1909 massacres of Armenians in the Cilicia region, particularly
Adana, there are a variety of estimates shown in the table (lines 35 to 61).
Most notable is that these massacres occurred when the Young Turks had just
overthrown the government and even pro-Armenian sources differ as to their
complicity in the massacres. I therefore treat these as nondemocidal, and
consolidate them into a likely 30,000 killed (line 64).

Hints in the sources suggest that some genocide did occur elsewhere and
subsequently. Turk authorities apparently did kill Armenians and Greeks in
pogroms and expulsions from their villages, at least in 1913 (lines 67 to
68). Lacking more information, I can only give a conservative low estimate
of 5,000 killed in genocide for the whole period.

The table recapitulates the various totals for this period (lines 71 to 71b)
and sums them (line 72). Overall, some 109,000 to 152,000 people died, the
vast majority in wars.

Considering next the World War I period, and the resulting war-dead (lines
76 to 90), a problem is separating from the estimates those for civilian
war-dead, versus those including massacres and genocide. I could include
confidently only one estimate for war-dead (line 86). When this is added to
the probable 400,000 consolidated battle-dead (line 83), we find that some
650,000 Turkish soldiers and civilians died from the war (line 90).

Of greatest importance are the estimates of the Young Turk’s genocide during
the war. In the table I organize these into several categories. The first
gives and consolidates those of the number deported (lines 93 to 102), and
then also does this for the estimates of their toll (lines 104 to 121). I
calculate an alternative total (on line 122) from the estimated percentages
of those killed during deportation (notes on lines 105, 116, and 118) and
the consolidated number deported (line 102). From these two alternative
ranges (lines 121 and 122) I determine a total (line 123) in the usual way.

Next I list the estimates of Armenians that the Turks killed (lines 125 to
146). These I classified by soldier or civilian and by place killed and then
consolidate or sum them (lines 131, 138, and 147), and total them overall
(line 148).

Finally, the table presents the many estimates of the overall genocide’s
toll during 1915 to 1918 (lines 151 to 186). These I order from the lowest
to the highest figures. As can be seen, they vary from a low of 300,000
(lines 151 to 152) to a high of 2,000,000 (line 163), which anchor the
consolidated range (line 187). Consistent with the estimates 1,000,000 dead
(see lines 157, 160, 164 to 178) appears the most prudent mid-value.

Next I independently check this consolidation against the sum (line 188) of
those Armenians murdered during the deportations (line 123) and otherwise
(line 148). As can be seen, the alternative totals (lines 187 and 188) are
divergent, the mid-value alone being off by 808,000 dead. To compensate for
this, I give the final genocide range (line 189) the lowest low and highest
high of the two and average their mid-values. Thus, given all these
estimates, the Turks murdered most likely 300,000 to 2,686,000 Armenians,
probably 1,404,000 of them. A critical question is then whether this is
consistent with the Armenian population, itself a contentious estimate. This
I will later consider.

Not only did the Turks murder Armenians, but Greeks as well. Estimates of
this are far fewer (lines 201 to 203), but we do have assessments of those
deported (lines 193 to 197) from which to calculate the possible toll (line
198). The actual percentages from which I make this calculation reflect the
relevant historical bits and pieces in the sources.[6] Combining this
calculation and the sum of the estimates (line 204) suggest a likely
genocide of 84,000 Greeks.

Sometimes the sources would refer to Christians killed (lines 207 to 207b),
which most likely included Armenians or Greeks, but could also refer to the
relatively small number of Turkey’s Nestorians, Bulgarians, or Cossacks.
These are totaled separately (line 208).

During the war the British navy blockaded Turkey, including the Turkish
Levant. No food was allowed in by sea. The resulting famine in Lebanon and
Syria (with consequences shown on lines 208a to 208d) would not have become
as deadly as it did had not the Turks commandeered available food supplies
and refused to help the starving. As a result they bear the greater
responsibility for the famine, which I calculate as probably around 75
percent of the total dead (line 208i).

The Young Turks did not confine their democide to Turkey. When they invaded
Caucasia, their soldiers massacred Armenians and other Christians and also
encouraged Kurds and Azerbaijanis to do so. Overall, Turks possibly killed
(lines 212 to 220) 10,000 Christians, most of them probably Armenians–there
were very few Greeks in Caucasia. (It is difficult to keep this number in
perspective when other figures are in the tens and hundreds of thousands;
but imagine the contemporary enraged and horrified outcry were the highest
American, British, or French authorities to be responsible for the murder of
10,000 Moslem citizens–the responsible government would fall or be
impeached.) For this genocide the table also lists some specific estimates
(lines 224 to 227). These I consolidated (line 228) and then add (line 229)
an assumed 4/5ths of the Christian dead determined above. The table then
sums the two ranges (lines 228 and 229) to get the genocide (line 232).

As noted, the Turks also massacred Nestorian Christians, for which there are
also a few estimates (lines 235 to 238). From my assumption that 1/5th of
the Christian dead previously determined (line 218) were Nestorians, I
calculate a final genocide (line 241).

Only one estimate of Moslem Azerbaijanis killed is available (line 244).

I now can calculate the overall foreign genocide (line 249), which probably
ranges from 105,000 to 157,000 killed, most likely 131,000.

Turkey’s Armenians also massacred Moslems. Claims that this may have
amounted to at least 1,000,000, or even 1,500,000 Moslem dead (table 5.1A,
lines 106b and 106e) however, have no substantiation beyond former Young
Turks or their officials. Had the Armenians indeed massacred even half this
number, the Young Turks surely would have given it wide publicity,
photographs and all. They had no better way to counter sympathy for the
Armenians they were killing. In any case foreign newsmen and diplomats in
the country surely would have noted the massacres. Moreover, the Turkish
statistician Ahmed Emin, who was hardly sympathetic to the Armenians, gave
(table 5.1A, lines 105 and 106f) an upper limit of 40,000 Moslem Turks
killed by Armenians (including possibly by Armenian-Russian troops) in the
area occupied by Russian forces after the Russian Revolution in 1917, and at
least 128,000 for the 1914-1915 period.[7] Given the other estimates and the
overall populations involved, I estimate that from 128,000 to 600,000 Moslem
Turks and Kurds were killed. Since this was done by Armenian irregulars
serving with Russian forces, I split responsibility for these deaths in
Turkey between the Russians and Armenians, and show in Table 5.1A (line 255)
the Armenian half–probably 75,000 murdered.

Many Moslem Turks also died from famine and disease during the war (lines
258 to 262). Most estimates mix up the toll from these causes with the
number killed from combat. To compensate for this, I first consolidate the
estimates (line 263) and then subtract the war-dead previously determined
(line 264) to get an overall famine and disease range (line 265).

Finally, I can bring together these various totals (lines 268 to 271).
Domestically and during their foreign military actions and occupations, the
Young Turks probably murdered at least 743,000 and perhaps as many as
3,204,000 people, probably 1,883,000 Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, and
other Christians (line 273). Altogether, likely 3,947,000 died or were
killed during the war (line 274). When I add this to the toll I will
determine below for the next period, we will be able to test the overall
total against the population deficit and unnatural death).

The next division in the table covers the interregnum period after WWI.
Turkish Nationalist forces fought three wars during this time (lines 279 to
303). Estimates for the Greco-Turkish war give two ways of determining
war-dead (lines 302 and 303), from which I select a final war-dead range in
the usual way.

There is one incredibly low estimate of the overall war and massacre dead
for this period (line 307) and a reasonable one for the Muslim male war-dead
from 1914 to this period’s end (line 308). From the latter I subtract the
WWI war-dead to get an estimate of the post-WWI war-dead (line 310). Since
it largely excludes female dead, this is a conservative result. Nonetheless,
as can be seen by comparing this to the war-dead sum for the three wars
(lines 311), the mid-value and high are significantly greater than the sum.
Departing from the usual approach because of the incredible low of zero (on
line 310–this implies that less than 500 were killed), I take the low of
line 311 for the low (line 312), the high of line 310 for the high, and
average the two mid-values.

Following this I list the estimates, consolidations, and sums for the
Nationalist genocide of Christians (lines 315 to 329), Armenians (lines 334
to 359), and Greeks (lines 366 to 375). Regarding the Christian genocide,
one estimate (line 322) of those killed in Izmir could refer to the former
city of Smyrna, or to the Izmir peninsula next to Smyrna. I cannot determine
which is meant (the estimate is only cited in Gross[8] and his source is in
Armenian), and I thus conservatively assumed that it largely duplicates
those already given for Smyrna. Virtually all the total domestic Christian
democide (line 329) took place in the Aydin Administrative District, of
which Smyrna was a part. Since almost all the Christians in this area were
either Greeks or Armenians, and in 1914 Greeks made up 94 percent of the
total of the two,[9] we then can assume that the Armenians were 6 percent
(line 330) and Greeks 94 percent (line 331) of the Christian toll. I later
employ the resulting ranges (lines 353 and 373) to determine the total
number of these two groups that the Turks killed.

For the Armenian toll (lines 334 to 359) I include the refugee deaths (lines
358 to 359). Armenia, which became temporarily independent during this
period, and adjacent areas contained hundreds of thousands who had fled the
Young Turk genocide. Within a few years they also had to flee before the
genocidal massacres of invading Nationalist forces and their
Kurdish-Azerbaijani tribal allies. These refugees died from famine, disease,
and exposure–deaths surely the responsibility of the Nationalists. The
sources give one estimate of these deaths (line 358), and based on this and
the estimates of the number of refugees I consolidate elsewhere in the table
(lines 509 to 522), I estimate the range of deaths shown (line 359). To
display the effect of these assumed refugee deaths on the Armenian genocide
total, I sum the deaths for non-refugees (line 362) and then list one
estimate of the overall number of returning deportees killed in Turkey (line
362a), which understandably is much lower than the non-refugee sum. Note,
however, that it is the same as the low for those killed in Turkish Armenia
(line 350). Adding the lowest of line 362a and 350 to the low for refugee
deaths (line 359) gives us the low for the Armenian genocide (line 363), and
summing all the estimates, including refugees, gives us the mid-value and
high. Most likely then, in total during this period the Turks killed from
325,000 to 545,000, most probably 440,000 of their Armenians–these along
with those murdered during WWI.

In the table I next list partial estimates (lines 367 to 374) for the
genocide of the Greek. There is one calculation of Turkey’s Anatolian (Asia
Minor) Greek population deficit during 1912 to 1922, taking into account
emigration and deportation from Turkey (line 378). Subtracting from this the
WWI Greek genocide I calculated from previous totals (line 379), I get the
range of post-WWI losses shown (line 380). This then provides an alternative
to the sum of the specific mortality estimates (line 381). From these
alternative ranges I calculated a final Greek genocide for this period in
the usual way (line 382). Most probably, the Nationalists Turks murdered
264,000 Greeks; 703,000 Greeks and Armenians together in the post-WWI years
(line 385).

Nationalist forces also committed similar genocide during their invasion of
Armenia, particularly in Kars and Alexandropol (lines 389 to 398). Many
Armenians also died during flight to escape the massacres and tribal Kurdish
and Azerbaijanis allies (lines 405 to 408). One source provides the overall
Armenian toll in Caucasia from 1914 to 1922 (line 412), which gives us a
total for this period (line 414) when we subtract those killed during WWI
(line 413). There is one estimate we can compare to this result (line 415),
which we find within its range. I also repeat the result (line 418) so that
we may compare it to an alternative total (line 419) that I summed from the
previous consolidations. The two ranges differ enough for me to calculate a
final genocide toll (line 420) as for previous such cases.

The Greek Army before and during the Greco-Turkish War massacred Moslem
Turks or permitted such to take place by Greek villagers. I show some
specific estimates of the democide in the table (lines 424 to 427). From
these and material in the sources, particularly Housepian [10] and
Toynbee[11], I believe a minimum number of killed is 15,000 (line 428).

Finally, I pull together the various totals (lines 431 to 434). In this
post-WWI period the Turks killed overall probably 878,000 Armenians and
Greeks, or at least 665,000 and even perhaps as many as 1,156,000 in total
(line 435). Including war-dead, 1,031,000 Turkish citizens or those under
Turkey’s rule or fleeing from it died during these years (line 436).

The table’s next section in Table 5.1B sums up the various sub-totals and
compares them to overall estimates in the sources and demographic
calculations. The first of these concerns the Armenian domestic genocide
(lines 441 to 449). I consolidate these (line 450) and compare the result to
one population based calculation of the Anatolian Armenian dead (line
451–relatively few lived in European Turkey) 1912 to 1922. Clearly this is
way below that of the various estimates. Moreover, it also is under the low
of the Armenian toll that I calculated in the previous sections (line 452),
even when I omit refugee deaths (line 453). This suggests caution in
accepting the totals.

To further check on this, I did my own demographic analysis and calculated
the likely Armenian unnatural deaths (line 454–see lines 601 to 606). Given
that this is calculated independently from the estimate-based totals, the
range is remarkably close to that for the relevant non-refugee total
(compare line 454 to line 453). Accordingly, I accept the totals previously
calculated and restate their sum (line 455).

To get the foreign genocide of Armenians in Caucasia, I sum the previous
totals (line 458) and compared the range to that of the Armenian-Russian
population deficit (line 459) I calculated separately (lines 608 to 611). As
can be seen, the summed range (line 458) is conservative and therefore
acceptable (line 460), even keeping in mind that Armenians were also killed
in WWI, in the Turkish invasion of Caucasia, in Armenia’s war against
Georgia, and in military conflict with Azerbaijan. Moreover, thousands
probably immigrated from the region.

Next I add together the Turkey and Russian Armenian population deficits and
compared them to the sum of domestic and foreign Armenian genocide (lines
463 to 466). The result is acceptable: the low is below that of the combined
deficit, the high is close, and the mid-value is also close and below that
of the deficit. This helps further establish confidence in the figures
determined here.

As to the genocide of the Greeks, I sum the previous totals I calculated
(line 470) and show beneath it a partial estimate of the Greek dead (line
471) and the Anatolian Greek population deficit (line 472). The deficit is
well within the range that I independently calculated and I therefore adopt
it as the final genocide (line 473).

After summing or displaying various totals (lines 475 to 485f), I show
Tashjian’s estimate of those killed or deported 1822-1922 (line 486). Now,
as noted in Death By Government, the Ottoman Empire committed numerous
genocidal massacres of Armenians in the previous century, particularly in
1894 to 1896 when Turks murdered perhaps 100,000 to 300,000 Armenians. Were
I to add to this 100,000 for other pre-1900 genocides, and then reduce
Tashjian’s estimate by the sum to compensate for these deaths, and by
another 10-15 percent to account for those surviving deportation (for the
sources of the percentages, see line 122 of Table 5.1A), the resulting
figure (line 486a) would still be within the range calculated here. Adding
all the sub-totals (line 488) gives us the grand total genocide in turkey or
committed by it: 1,428,000 to 4,380,000 murdered, likely 2,781,000
Armenians, Greeks, Nestorians, Moslem Turks, Azerbaijanis, and others.

Besides the tests of the genocide totals shown above (lines 451, 454, 459,
466, 471, 472, 486), we can also check the table’s total domestic dead. The
table first lists and consolidated three independent, overall dead estimates
or calculations for the years 1912 (or 1914) to 1922 (lines 492 to 495), and
then presents together the various totals (lines 498 to 501a) that I
previously determined and sums them (line 502) to get the total dead, and
next the overall domestic dead (line 503). Beneath this I show for
comparison the consolidation of the estimated domestic dead (line 504). The
comparison is as it should be: the low of line 503 is lower than line 504,
the high is higher, and the mid-value is slightly below by about 5 percent.
Because of this, there appears no need for me to reconsider the various
calculations going into this total.

I next show the estimates and consolidations for refugees from Turkey’s wars
and genocides (lines 510 to 537). There is nothing unusual in their
presentation and their consolidations figure in the calculation of
population deficits and unnatural deaths (e.g., line 606).

In order to calculate population deficits I give population estimates and
consolidations for Turkey as a whole (lines 542 to 551) in 1914 to 1915. To
determine a population deficit later, I also calculate the population for
1920 to 1921 (line 552) from the minority population estimates given next
for Armenians (lines 556 to 596), Greeks (lines 615 to 625), and Muslims
(lines 628 to 630). Moreover, I had to calculate an average population
controlled by the Nationalists (line 553) for later use in the genocide
ratios (lines 640 to 641). I could not find any information on what this
proportion was, even for a particular year, and therefore from narrative
histories of this period [12] I estimated it to vary from 40 to 75 percent,
with a mid-value of 50 percent, taking into account that French and Greek
forces occupied a portion of south-western Anatolia during this period.

The table lays out the calculation of the Armenian population deficit and
unnatural deaths (lines 600 to 611). From the consolidated estimates of the
Armenian’s population growth rate, I projected what the population should
have been in 1923 (line 604) and subtracted from it the actual population
(line 589). Subtracting from this the number of refugees that escaped the
genocide (line 522–this is conservative, since many refugees returned to
later be killed by the Nationalists) gives an estimate of those Armenians
who died unnatural deaths (line 606). I did the same for Armenian-Russians
(lines 609 to 610). I also sum the two ranges of unnatural deaths (lines 606
and 610) to get the number of unnatural deaths for Russia and Turkey’s
Armenians together (line 611). And I also give or calculate the population
deficits for the Greeks and Muslims (lines 626 and 632).

Finally, in the remainder of the table I calculate the democide rates for
the Young Turks (lines 636 to 637) and the local Nationalists (lines 640 to
641). Per year the Young Turks killed almost 1 out of every 100 of their
population (line 637). The Nationalists, however, were far more vicious. For
the population they controlled they murdered 1 out of every 38 per year
(line 641).
NOTES

From the pre-publisher edited manuscript of Chapter 5 in R.J. Rummel,
Statistics of Democide, 1997. For full reference to Statitisics of Democide,
the list of its contents, figures, and tables, and the text of its preface,
click note [5].
1. See McCarthy (1983), who in analyzing the change in the Armenian
population from before to after WWI manages to avoid any hint that Armenians
were killed by the government. McCarthy credits their population loss to war
conditions or a civil war they fought with Moslems. See also Shaw and Shaw
(1977), who in the three pages they devote to the Armenians allege that only
200,000 of them died, and these from war, famine, and disease in spite of
the attempts by Turkish authorities to protect them.
2. For relevant documentation and discussion, see Dadrian (1991a, 1991b,
1991c).
3. For a report on this trial, see Alexander (1991).
4. Rummel (1994, Chapter 10).
5. For primary sources and analysis the work of Dadrian (1986, 1991b,
and 1991c) is particularly useful.
6. As for example in McCarthy (1983), Miller (1966), Toynbee (1922), and
Ladas (1932).
7. Emin (1930, pp. 218-219, 222).
8. Gross (1972, 47n.6).
9. Calculated from the population statistics in Karpat (1985, p. 188).
10. Housepian (1966).
11. Toynbee (1922).
12. For example, Miller (1966).

Azeris Seek U.S. Involvement in Karabakh

Reuters
Aug 12 2004

Azeris Seek U.S. Involvement in Karabakh

By Tabassum Zakaria

BAKU (Reuters) – Azerbaijan asked the United States on Thursday to
support its bid to regain control over Nagorno-Karabakh, an
Armenian-populated enclave which broke away after the collapse of the
Soviet Union.

But visiting Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who pledged to build
ties with the Caucasus ally, did not offer any help beyond supporting
international mediation which has yet to reconcile Azerbaijan with
its ex-Soviet neighbor Armenia.

Thousands of people were killed in fighting in Karabakh before a
truce was struck in 1994. Karabakh Armenians now control the enclave
and a swathe of Azeri territory around it.

Azerbaijan, upset by a lack of progress in mediation efforts by the
Minsk Group of 11 states, led by France, the United States and
Russia, has urged the European Union and other Western powers to get
involved directly.

“What we want from the United States as our ally and partner is for
it to support Azerbaijan in this conflict and demand that Armenia
immediately withdraws its occupation forces,” Defense Minister Safar
Abiyev told a joint news conference with Rumsfeld.

At the start of his visit, Rumsfeld said Washington was committed to
developing ties with Azerbaijan — an oil-rich country which should
start pumping oil to the West through a pipeline across Georgia and
Turkey next year.

“I agree completely that the security relationship between our two
countries continues to grow and strengthen,” Rumsfeld said during a
meeting with President Ilham Aliyev.

AVOIDS RESPONSE

But he avoided responding to Abiyev’s call.

“As you know the United States supports the territorial integrity of
Azerbaijan,” he told the news conference, adding that Washington was
involved in the Minsk group.

Ties between the United States and Azerbaijan, which is seeking to
develop ties with NATO in contrast with its pro-Russian arch-foe
Armenia, strengthened after Baku backed the U.S. intervention in
Afghanistan by sending 30 troops.

Azerbaijan became the only predominantly Muslim state to send troops
to support the U.S.-led military engagement in Iraq. Around 150 Azeri
troops are deployed in Iraq.

Russian media reported last month that Azerbaijan was considering
sending an extra 250 troops to Iraq. Azeri officials denied such
plans and Rumsfeld said the issue was not raised during his visit.

“We did not discuss the possibility of expansion of Azeri troops in
Afghanistan or Iraq,” he said.

Armenian “Sipan” Cultural Union Goes on Pilgrimage to St. Tadev

ARMENIAN “SIPAN” CULTURAL UNION GOES ON PILGRIMAGE TO ST. TADEV
CLOISTER

TEHRAN, August 12 (Noyan Tapan). According to tradition, the Armenian
“Sipan” cultural union of Tehran went on a pilgrimage to St. Tadev and
St. Stepanos cloisters. This information was provided by the Armenian
“Alik” (“Wave”) daily newspaper of Tehran. On July 23 early morning,
110 pilgrims completing their march camped near 50-year place of
pilgrimage. Pilgrims participated in the July 23 and 24 liturgues and
festivals. On July 24, they spend the night in the yard of the
Diocesan residence of Tavriz and visited St. Stepanos Nakhavka
cloister next morning.

NKR Prez says status of NK already decided by the people of Karabakh

ArmenPress
Aug 9 2004

NKR PRESIDENT SAYS STATUS OF NAGORNO KARABAKH ALREADY DECIDED BY THE
PEOPLE OF KARABAKH

STEPANAKERT, AUGUST 9, ARMENPRESS: President of the Republic of
Nagorno Karabakh (NKR) Arkadi Ghukassian described the yesterday’s
elections of local self-government bodies as expression of democracy
and an opportunity for NKR citizens to elect its leadership. “Such
political actions create preconditions for international recognition
of Nagorno Karabakh,” he said.
Referring to Council of Europe General Secretary Walter Schmidt’s
statement on municipality elections in NKR, Ghukassian said it is
somewhat odd. “Today we do not discuss the status of Nagorno Karabakh
because it is already decided by its people. We are electing leaders
of our cities and villages and alternative for elections is
totalitarianism. It is strange that European political actors come up
with a statement against democratic values,” NKR president said.

Defence chief in favour of dual citizenship in Armenia

Defence chief in favour of dual citizenship in Armenia

Arminfo
4 Aug 04

YEREVAN

The secretary of the Security Council [under the Armenian president],
Defence Minister Serzh Sarkisyan is in favour of introducing dual
citizenship in the country. Sarkisyan voiced this opinion at a meeting
with participants in the Baze-2004 all-Armenian youth forum in the
resort town of Dilizhan.

“Every Armenian has the right to have Armenian citizenship,” he said.
However, he believes that in this case, it is necessary to regulate
citizens’ duties such as service in the national army. Otherwise,
there should be some restrictions on dual citizenship, he said.

Former POWs deprived of state support, says Armenian rights champion

Former POWs deprived of state support, says Armenian rights champion

Arminfo
2 Aug 04

YEREVAN

Former POWs and hostages do not receive proper state assistance in
Armenia, the head of the non-government Centre to protect the rights
of POWs, hostages and missing persons, Karine Minasyan, has told
Arminfo. Minasyan is also an Armenian coordinator of the
international working group to release POWs and to trace missing
persons and hostages in the zone of the Karabakh conflict.

“The state renders assistance, although insufficient, to the families
of missing persons, whereas the former POWs and hostages get nothing,”
Minasyan said. She added that these people were forced to experience
the rehabilitation process alone. In addition, she said, there is a
negative attitude by the state structures and the people surrounding
them. “I can call this the Stalin syndrome’. If you have been
captured, this means that you are a spy. That is why, the POWs rarely
manage to return to normal life. I know only a few cases of this
kind,” Minasyan said.

Minasyan stressed that the former disabled POWs are the exception as
they have been registered as disabled and get a small pension. “But if
you are not a serviceman and disabled, do not expect the state’s
assistance,” Minasyan said. She spoke about her plans to appeal to
the Armenian parliament and state structures to propose that a
relevant draft law be prepared. We should note that the Centre was
registered in April last year, operates with the help of volunteers
and closely cooperates with the international working group to release
POWs and to trace missing persons and hostages in the zone of the
Karabakh conflict.

His Holiness Karekin II Extends Sympathies to Pope John Paul II

PRESS RELEASE
Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, Information Services
Address: Vagharshapat, Republic of Armenia
Contact: Rev. Fr. Ktrij Devejian
Tel: (374 1) 517 163
Fax: (374 1) 517 301
E-Mail: [email protected]
August 4, 2004

His Holiness Karekin II Extends Sympathies to Pope John Paul II

His Holiness Karekin II, Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of All Armenians,
has sent a letter of sympathy and support to Pope John Paul II, related to
the terrorist events directed against Catholic churches in Iraq on August 1,
2004.

The letter of His Holiness states in part, “We are saddened that some
extreme elements are attempting to endanger the centuries of friendship and
peaceful co-existence among the Christian and Muslim peoples of the East,
and offer our prayers to the Almighty that the love of our Lord Jesus Christ
will enter into the hearts of men, reconcile them one to another, and that
violence and war will be eliminated from the region and all of humanity.”

The Catholicos of All Armenians has sent a similar letter to the Patriarch
of the Armenian Catholics, His Beatitude Nerses Bedros XIX.

ANKARA: PM claim of French support premature

Turkish Probe
July 25, 2004

PM CLAIM OF FRENCH SUPPORT PREMATURE: ERDOGAN’S VISIT TO PARIS WAS
INFLATED INTO AN ULTIMATE VICTORY FOR TURKEY’S EU BID IN MEDIA AND
GOVERNMENT CIRCLES, DESPITE FRENCH LEADERS SHYING AWAY FROM PUBLICLY
VOICING SUPPORT

by ELIF UNAL ARSLAN, TDN diplomatic editor

ANKARA – Turkey, hungry to be recognized as part of Europe, was quick
to hail an official three-day visit by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan to Paris last week as a victory in efforts to secure French
backing for its European Union bid.

Both French President Jacques Chirac and his prime minister,
Jean-Pierre Raffarin, in meetings with Erdogan signalled no change in
their earlier position that Paris’ decision on whether or not Turkey
is ready to start accession talks would depend on a progress report
scheduled to be released by the EU Commission in October.

Erdogan, however, declared that France no longer remained “guarded”
against Turkey’s eventual entry to the European club. “What I see is
that they are no longer guarded against Turkish membership. At least
they can no longer say, ‘We are against Turkey’,” he told reporters
on his way back home Wednesday.

“France says Oui,” mass-circulation Milliyet daily screamed in its
headline on the same day. “Support for for Turkey’s EU plea in
France,” said Star newspaper on its front page. Commentaries were
talking about the close friendship between French President Chirac
and Erdogan as a key to locking up the EU door for Turkey.

These confident Turkish voices clearly sprang from a $ 1.5 billion
deal signed in Paris in the presence of Erdogan and Chirac between
Turkish Airlines (THY) and Airbus — a French-German joint venture.

The deal, criticized by some as a “bribe” to win skeptical France’s
support, was not the only carrot Erdogan had offered. He told French
businessman that Turkey was willing to cooperate with French
companies in plans to build nuclear energy plants — each of which is
estimated to cost some $ 5 billion.

His open invitation for French firms to participate in the lucrative
“Marmaray Project” designed to link Istanbul’s rail network with a
tunnel under the Bosphorus was no less attractive.

Erdogan also winked at French companies, signalling in his meetings
with French officials that they might also get favorable terms in
future Turkish defense procurement tenders aimed at acquiring new
technology for the Turkish Armed Forces.

Turkish-French ties recuperate

His offers mark a certain progress in ties between the two countries
that hit rock bottom two years ago when France, despite strong
Turkish protests, publicly recognized allegations of a so-called
Armenian genocide in 1915. Since then, France was kept out of
Turkey’s lucrative trade and military tenders.

But Erdogan’s moves do not seem to have had enough of an effect on
French leaders, who shied away from delivering support in public for
Turkey’s EU quest.

Chirac, after having lunch with the Turkish prime minister at the
Elysee Palace, requested a continuation of Turkish reforms, drawing
attention to the key report that the EU Commission is due to release.
Prime Minister Raffarin, followed Chirac’s line and reiterated that
France was awaiting the comission’s assessment on Turkey’s progress.

Turkish officials appear confident that France is unlikely to let
down an EU-aspirant country when it comes down to its economic
partnership with that country.

But Chirac has been under heavy pressure from within his own
conservative party to oppose Turkish entry to the EU. The French
president, in a attempt to ease the pressure on him, earlier said he
believed Ankara was not likely to be able to meet the bloc’s
conditions for another 10 to 15 years.

Chirac risks angering the French public if he supports opening
accession talks with Turkey. But if he opposes it, he could cause a
crisis within the EU. Britain, Greece, Germany, Italy and Spain
already back starting the talks on Turkey’s entry, which could take
up to 10 years.

The French president’s discretion has its roots in domestic political
considerations. All but one of the last 20 opinion polls on the issue
have shown 50 to 60 percent of French voters oppose Turkish entry to
the EU.

The membership of Turkey, located at the crossroads of Europe and
Asia, would stretch the EU’s borders to Syria and Iraq — a fact that
opponents say moves Europe too close to the unstable Middle East.

During Erdogan’s trip, Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said in a
radio interview that “Turkey should not expect to enter the European
Union tomorrow morning,” even if it improves its human rights record
and reforms its justice system, two key requirements.

“Turkey still has a ways to go towards becoming a social and
democratic model along the lines of the European model,” Barnier
said.

Turkey has passed sweeping democratic reforms to meet the EU’s
membership criteria, abolishing the death penalty and granting
greater cultural rights to some 10 million Kurds.

Opposition socialists in France were proud to say that they were the
only French political party backing Turkey’s accession. But French
Socialist Party Secretary-General Francois Hollande told Erdogan in
Paris that the issue of recognition by Turkey of allegations of a
so-called Armenian genocide in 1915 was a condition for its
accession.

The issue, however, is not part of the Copenhagen criteria, which
Ankara has to meet in order to get the nod to begin accession talks
with the EU.

The French socialists’ stance is something that exasperates Turkey,
which strongly denies all genocide claims and says the number of
deaths is inflated and that the victims were killed in civil unrest.

Spiritual Concert in Memory of Archbs. Ayvazian, Ashjianm Aznavorian

His Eminence Archbishop Moushegh Mardirossian
Prelate of Western Prelacy
6252 Honolulu Avenue
La Crescenta, CA 91214
Tel: 818-248-7737
Fax: 818-248-7745
E-mail: [email protected]_ (mailto:[email protected])

SPIRITUAL CONCERT IN MEMORY OF ARCHBISHOPS
SAHAG AYVAZIAN, MESROB ASHJIAN AND ZAREH AZNAVORIAN

The Christian Education Department of the Western Prelacy of the
Armenian Apostolic Church of America held a spiritual concert on
Wednesday, July 14,2004 at the St. Marys Church in Glendale. The
unique cultural event was dedicated to the memory of three members of
the Holy See of the Great House of Cilicia, Archbishops Sahag
Ayvazian, Mesrob Ashjian and Zareh Aznavorian who had passed lately.

The concert was held under the auspices of His Eminence Archbishop
Moushegh Mardirossian, the Prelate. Present were the representatives
of the Central Executive of the Holy See, Prelacy Council members,
Parish Boards representatives and hundreds of faithful parishioners
who had gathered to pay their respect in memory of the Archbishops.

The evening started with the Lord’s prayer. Very Rev. Fr. Vrouyr
Demirdjian introduced the program and the speaker of the event
Mr. Garo Bedrossian, a well known educator. Mr. Bedrossian and Arch
Ayvazian had been classmates in the Seminary of the Holy See in
Antilias. He had also collaborated with the Archbishops Ashjian and
Aznavorian as educators. He spoke about his experiences and the legacy
of the three Archbishops stressing that they had served the Armenian
Church and the nation deservedly and left a tremendous cultural and
spiritual inheritance to the new generation.

The program continued with a series of contemporary spiritual songs by
a young artist, Salpy Keleshian from Beirut, Lebanon. Many of the
songs were newly composed works of Armenian artists and were delivered
by the singer in an atmosphere of spiritual enlightenment.

At the end of the concert, His Eminence the Prelate delivered his
message. He highlighted the life long mission of his spiritual
brothers and thankedMr. Garo Bedrossian and Salpy Keleshian for their
part in the program.

The event was concluded by a benediction by the Prelate and the song
`Cilicia ‘.