Official Data
   Victim children
   Human Rights

   Reaction by S.A.Weems
      Public Statement
      Who are Armenians?
      20 questions
      Order information

   Useful links
   Contact Information

Azeri Genocide committed by Armenians on 26th February 1992

Continue of Exclusive interview with Samuel A. Weems...

TDN: The Elian Gonzalez case in Florida seems to be a precedent in U.S. history where an ethnic lobby so blatantly resisted the U.S. justice system.  Do you think defiant lobbies could pose problems in the future?

In this case the American justice system won.  There may be resistance by
some groups in the future, but that is unlikely.  I don't expect Armenians
to ever do such a thing.  There are only about one million of them out of
the some 285 million of other nationalities in the U.S.  The Armenian way
has always been by sneak-back room attacks in the black of night.  I expect
them to continue these tactics.

TDN: Some Armenian groups in California have lobbied for lighter sentences for terrorist acts.  How do you think the developments after September 11 might affect the attitudes of such groups?

WEEMS: The Armenian Americans will just keep on keeping on begging and mooching money to try to turn this terrorist murderer, Hampig Sassoonian, back out on American streets!  Even though the Armenian American terrorist has had his day in court, had the best legal defense money could buy, California found him guilty and said he must serve a life sentence.  Armenian
Americans today have raised more than $300,000, all trying to get him out
of prison to walk the streets again.  Most Americans would not approve of
this conduct if they knew it!

TDN: Can you please explain how your background as a state prosecutor has helped you to write this book?

WEEMS: Two things: Good research skills and the habit of always looking to tie events together to prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt. I used perhaps as much as 90% research from Armenian sources to write my
book.  One clue would lead me to another, and then to another, and I simply
developed my book point by point.
Permit me to share one example: On the second page of his Armenian history book, an Armenian professor stated there were two million Armenians living within the Ottoman Empire in 1915.  Later he claims more than 1 million of this number were massacred by the Turks.  In another book, the good professor provides numbers to prove that there were about the same number of Armenian refugees as the original population, thus disproving his own genocide claims.  I didn't have to do anything to prove or disprove genocide.  I let the good Armenian professor do the documentation.  I just pointed to the obvious, blaring discrepancies.
The proof is that about half of the Armenians living within the Ottoman
Empire didn't live in the war zone in Anatolia, and were not removed.  This
good professor listed footnotes and when I checked them out I discovered
that there were several American and British eyewitnesses.  All I did was
to total the numbers supplied by the Armenian historian and his numbers
simply didn't add up!  I also then went to British, French, Russian and
Italian historical numbers, also listed by the Armenian historian.  When
you take all the numbers together plus the American and British
eyewitnesses, there it is, plain as day, there was no genocide and there is
proof that the Armenians cooked the books and counted people removed as
both massacred and as refugees.  When they wanted pity, money, and
reparation, all these refuges were "killed"; but when it was time to prove
to the West that Armenians did have numbers to establish a state of their
own, all of those "dead" refugees, all of a sudden, came back to life! 

TDN: It was not until the last few minutes before a vote on the Armenian genocide that the speaker of the House of Representatives withdrew the proposed legislation because it could harm U.S. national security.  Isn't this process confusing for legislators and risky for the U.S. to allow such proposed legislation to advance to such a point?  Some lawmakers believe that they were being asked to ignore historical fact because it complicated foreign policy.  How do you interpret the developments above and their effects on lawmakers?

WEEMS: The truth is the Republican Speaker of the House attempted to save face by making a claim of national security when he withdrew the resolution.  The rest of the story and the truth is that the Speaker didn't have the votes to pass it, and this is why he withdrew it!  There is a hardcore group of Republicans; I call them extremists, who could not care less about national security if they could have passed the resolution.  They had been bought and paid for with Armenian American political campaign money, just like the Armenian Americans are trying to buy Mrs. Dole in North Carolina.
One basic fact must be remembered.  The Republican members of Congress were trying to pass a "Resolution."  A Resolution has no force of law and does nothing but express an opinion.  It is not a law as such.  In truth such a Resolution is meaningless and isn't worth the paper it is written on because it couldn't do anything except make Armenians feel good.  Of course had such a Resolution passed, the Armenians would have had a feeding frenzy, trying to use it to get more money out of the American Congress as well as trying to force Turkey to give in and buy them off for a while with lira and land.
What is so odd to me is the fact Turkey and the United States are good
trading partners.  The two countries did more than 7 billion dollars of
trade with each other just last year.  Turkey bought more than one billion
dollars more in the U.S. than the U.S. did in Turkey.  And what about the Armenians?  Almost zero!  Armenia's number one export is terrorism and their number one import is foreign aid.

back  next

Copyright 2001-2002©"" | Design: Azeri Project Design Studio