Category: America

  • Pilger punctures “war on terror” lies

    Pilger punctures “war on terror” lies

    Breaking the Silence, written and directed by John Pilger
    By Richard Phillips
    12 January 2004

    pilger

    Breaking the Silence, the latest documentary by veteran journalist John Pilger, is an important exposure of the lies and falsifications used to justify the Bush administration’s global “war against terror” and its illegal attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq. The one-hour documentary was screened on December 9 by Australia’s Special Broadcasting Services network and given a four-day release in a Sydney cinema.
    Using archival footage and interviews with former intelligence analysts, historians, human rights activists and some White House officials, the documentary explains how the Bush administration seized on the September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade Center to activate long-held plans to seize control of valuable oil resources in the Middle East and elsewhere.
    The documentary opens with a series of black and white photographs showing the carnage inflicted on Iraqis by US and British military forces over the past year. A voiceover from US President George W. Bush declares that America will bring “food, medicine, supplies and freedom” to the people of Iraq. Likewise, British Prime Minister Tony Blair claims the war in Iraq is a “fight for freedom”.
    Against these chilling images, Pilger explains that US actions have nothing to do with fighting terrorism but are part of an opened-ended war for American global dominance. The real danger facing humanity, he says, is the increasingly aggressive military action of US imperialism and the state terrorism orchestrated by the White House.
    Breaking the Silence also includes firsthand reportage from Afghanistan. Pilger, who has written and directed more than 50 documentaries during his 30-year career, describes Afghanistan as a country “more devastated than anything I have seen since Pol Pot’s Cambodia”.
    Among those interviewed is Orifa, an Afghan woman who lost eight members of her family including six children, when the US airforce dropped a 500-pound bomb on her mud-brick home in 2001. She describes the massacre and declares: “What has America done for us? My day and night is full of sorrow.”
    Pilger speaks with New Yorker Rita Lasar, whose brother, Avraham Zelmanowitz, was killed in the September 11 attack on the World Trade Center (WTC). Lasar notes the remarkable similarity between the fundamentalist rhetoric of Al Qaeda and that of the Bush administration. She states that the US government used the death of her brother and other WTC victims “to justify killing innocent people in Afghanistan”.
    Angered and concerned, she decides to visit Afghanistan to help the victims of US attacks. She meets Orifa and visits the US embassy with her to try to secure compensation for the Afghan woman. Senior US officials, however, refuse to see Orifa and denounce her as a beggar.
    The documentary cuts to Bush telling the Congress that America was “a friend of the Afghan people”. But as Pilger points out, few countries in the world have been helped less by the US. Only 3 percent of all aid given to Afghanistan is used for reconstruction. Kabul, the capital, is a maze of destroyed buildings and infrastructure, with US cluster bombs still not cleared from parts of the city and hundreds of families living in ruined and abandoned buildings.
    At the same time, the US government provides military hardware and finance to a select group of Afghan warlords who have restored opium production to record levels and maintained a reign of terror over the population. While ordinary people in “liberated” Afghanistan live in dire poverty, the US has a major military base and plans are underway for a US-controlled oil pipeline from Central Asia.
    Breaking the Silence highlights the role played by Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the Washington think-tank established by Richard Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and other extreme-right Republicans in the 1990s.
    The PNAC developed detailed plans for the invasion of Iraq and helped formulate the Bush administration’s “war against terror” to justify the placement of American military forces in key oil and natural gas locations around the world. Its Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century forms the foundation of the US government’s “National Security Strategy”.
    Pilger also points to Washington’s long history of supporting Islamic fundamentalist and other terror groups in the Middle East, Latin America and elsewhere.
    In mid-1979, six months before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Carter administration authorised $500 million to help establish the mujahedin. For many years Osama bin Laden was regarded as an ally by London and Washington, both of which provided finance and political backing.
    In 1996, the Clinton administration established friendly relations with the Taliban government in order to secure its backing for a US oil pipeline from Central Asia through Afghanistan. Taliban officials were flown to the US, where they were given red carpet treatment.
    Iraqi casualties
    Two brief but revealing interviews expose the Bush administration’s criminal indifference to the human consequences of its actions and highlight its sensitivity to any criticism.
    Defence Undersecretary Douglas Feith, an extreme-right ideologue and former member of the Reagan administration, denies that the US supplied weapons of mass destruction to Saddam Hussein during the early 1980s. His claims, however, are contradicted by archival footage of Donald Rumsfeld warmly greeting Hussein in Baghdad in 1983 during the Iran-Iraq war. The US encouraged the former Iraqi dictator to wage war against Iran and provided him with material and logistical support. This included chemical and biological weapons and advice on how to use them.
    Pilger points out that an estimated 10,000 Iraqis were killed in last year’s invasion. Feith denies this figure but then declares that it is “inevitable” that innocent people are killed in war. When Pilger attempts to press the point about Iraqi casualties, an off-camera US military official intervenes and orders an end to the interview.
    Undersecretary of State John Bolton cynically tells Pilger that the US has done “more to create the conditions for individual freedom than any other country in the world”. Pilger answers this with an on-the-spot report from Afghanistan about America’s Bagram Air Base and the arrest of Wazir Mohamad, an Afghan taxi driver.
    Mohamad, who is officially recognised as a political opponent of the former Taliban regime, was seized by the US military in April 2002, jailed in Bagram and then shipped to Guantanamo Bay after he asked why one of his taxi-driver friends had been jailed by the US. While his friend has since been released, Mohamad is still held incommunicado and without charge in Guantanamo Bay.
    Pilger asks Bolton about Iraq casualties. His answer: “I think Americans, like most people, are mostly concerned about their own country. I don’t know how many Iraqi civilians were killed. But I can assure you that the number is the absolute minimum that is possible in modern warfare… One of the stunning things about the quick coalition victory was… how low Iraqi casualties were.”
    Among other things, this chilling reply is aimed at denying the real character of the unprovoked and illegal US military assault, which led to the death of thousands of innocent Iraqis. Bolton, as it happens, was centrally involved in the Bush administration’s campaign against the International Criminal Court (ICC), which has a mandate to conduct war crime hearings. He claims that the court, which the US refuses to support, is “contrary to US principles”. Washington has demanded and obtained agreements with up to 70 countries exempting Americans from war crime trials.
    As the interview ends, Bolton asks Pilger if he is a member of the British Labour Party, suggesting this had something to do with the journalist’s line of questioning. When Pilger explains that he is not, and that British Labour consisted of “the conservatives”, Bolton retorts, “You’re a Communist Party member then?”
    Bolton’s reaction reveals the relations White House officials have come to expect from the mass media, which slavishly parrots every government lie. When confronted with a few probing questions, Bolton treats the journalist as an outright political opponent, resorting immediately to his stock-in-trade—provocative red-baiting.
    WMD lies
    Another significant interview in the film takes place with Andrew Wilkie, the former Australian intelligence officer who resigned from the Office of National Assessments in protest over Australia’s participation in the US-led invasion of Iraq. Wilkie was the only serving intelligence analyst to break ranks, quit his position and publicly challenge the government lies about “weapons of mass destruction” before the Iraq invasion.
    In measured language, Wilkie tells Pilger that the Bush, Blair and Howard governments were guilty of “serious dishonesty”. Iraq possessed no secret stockpiles of weapons and there were no links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda. Wesley Clark and others interviewed by Pilger back up Wilkie’s statement.
    Ray McGovern, a former senior CIA officer and friend of former president George Bush senior, tells Pilger that Bush senior regarded figures such as Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle as dangerous “crazies”. McGovern bluntly states that the weapons of mass destruction claims used by Bush and Blair against Iraq were “95 percent charade”.
    Denis Halliday, a former UN assistant secretary-general, explains that the Bush administration’s “axis of evil” and its preemptive strike doctrine represents an “outrageous flaunting of international law”. Halliday, who resigned from his position in 1998, has recently attacked the UN as “an aggressive arm of US foreign policy”.
    Pilger touches on the media’s pernicious role in circulating White House lies about WMDs and amplifying paranoia about supposed impending terrorist attacks on the US from Iraq. He also briefly interviews Kings College Professor Richard Overy, an acclaimed expert on Nazi war crimes. Overy makes clear that the unprovoked US-led attack on Iraq constitutes a war crime as defined at the Nuremberg trials and in the Geneva Conventions.
    Powell admits Iraq has no WMDs
    Perhaps the most damning footage in the documentary concerns speeches by US Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleeza Rice in 2001, a few months before the September 11 attacks.
    Few will forget Powell’s lengthy address to the UN Security Council on February 5, 2003, in which he solemnly declared that Iraq had vast stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was involved in an elaborate campaign to conceal weapons materials and manufacturing facilities. But as Pilger’s documentary reveals, two years earlier Powell and Condoleeza Rice claimed the opposite.
    Speaking in Cairo on February 24, 2001, seven months before 9/11, Powell categorically declared: “He [Saddam Hussein] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.” Rice repeated this in July 2001 when she told US television that the Iraqi military had not been rebuilt since 1991 war.
    The Bush administration at that time, for its own tactical reasons, was proclaiming the effectiveness of sanctions against Iraq. But in the aftermath of 9/11, the White House seized on the terrorist attacks to unleash its military assault on Afghanistan and prepare for a full-scale invasion of Iraq. The mass media dutifully ignored Powell and Rice’s previous statements. Pilger’s use of this archival footage is powerful and constitutes a damning exposure of the White House.
    Pilger concludes his documentary with a direct appeal for people to challenge Washington and London. What is required, he says, is for people around the world to remember the lies and the ongoing military aggression.
    “We need not accept any of this if we recognise that there are now two superpowers. One is the regime in Washington the other is public opinion now stirring all over the world. Make no mistake it is an epic struggle. The alternative is not just conquest of far away countries; it is the conquest of us, of our minds, our humanity and our self-respect. If we remain silent, victory over us is assured.”
    Pilger is one of a handful of serious journalists prepared to openly challenge the Bush administration and its international allies and point to the terrible human consequences of their policies. But Pilger’s political perspective, which is aimed at pressuring rival imperialist powers to oppose the US or making appeals to the UN, weakens the documentary.
    In his concluding remarks, Pilger states that the United Nations was founded “so that we would never forget the crimes of the great powers”.
    This comment is false and highlights the political flaws in Pilger’s outlook. The United Nations was not established to highlight the “crimes of the great powers” but was formed in 1945 by the victors of World War II and from the outset operated as an imperialist institution.
    While the UN mediated conflicts between US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War period, its central function for almost 60 years has been as a clearinghouse for imperialist intrigue and oppression against the backward countries. The most obvious recent examples were the UN backing for the 1991 Gulf War and the harsh economic sanctions and invasive weapons inspection regime imposed on Iraq over the ensuing decade.
    Pilger’s inability to confront this reality means that he cannot explain why the UN failed to challenge the latest US invasion of Iraq or why it endorsed the illegal war after the fact. The viewer is left to draw the conclusion that the replacement of the US occupation of Iraq with a UN force would represent a positive alternative.
    Notwithstanding this significant weakness, Pilger’s documentary is a valuable work. It delivers an important blow against the mountain of lies used to justify the US-led military aggression in Afghanistan and Iraq, and therefore deserves the widest possible audience.
    World Socialist Website
  • US Conflict Resolution Policy Backfires in Yerevan

    US Conflict Resolution Policy Backfires in Yerevan

    April 27, 2010 05:00

    By: Vladimir Socor

    The US State Department seems disappointed, but not entirely surprised, by Yerevan’s April 22 suspension of Armenian-Turkish “normalization.” Assistant Secretary of State, Philip Gordon, in charge of this policy, finds solace in Armenian President, Serzh Sargsyan’s decision to suspend, rather than terminate the effort; and hopes that Yerevan would continue to cooperate with the US-driven process goal. Gordon as well as State Department Spokesman, Philip Crowley, argued that such normalization meets the interests of Armenia, Turkey, and other [unnamed] countries in the region (press releases cited by News.Az and Arminfo, April 23).

    These statements, however, seem to ignore Azerbaijan’s view and the change in Turkey’s view. Inasmuch as the normalization focuses on opening the Turkish-Armenian border unconditionally, or no longer linked to a withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan’s interior –Baku deemed it to be against its interests all along. Ankara had rallied to Baku’s view last December already.

    Since April 2009, US President, Barack Obama’s administration has pressed for opening Turkey’s border with Armenia unconditionally Thus, the October 2009 Zurich protocols, strongly backed by the US, required Turkey to establish diplomatic relations with Armenia and open the mutual border “without preconditions.”

    Washington’s policy seems driven primarily by domestic politics. The administration hopes to remove the annual drama of Armenian genocide recognition from the center-stage of US politics. It seeks its way out of the dilemma of losing Turkey versus any loss of the US Armenian vote. “Normalization” of Turkish-Armenian relations, centered on the re-opening of that border, was offered as a substitute for the unfulfilled electoral-campaign promises to recognize an Armenian genocide in Ottoman Turkey.

    Washington’s normalization concept, however, has also turned out to be unfulfilled. Tilting sharply in Armenia’s favor at Azerbaijan’s expense, it backfired first in Azerbaijan and shortly afterward in Turkey. Instead of de-aligning Ankara from Baku, as seemed briefly possible, it led Turkey and Azerbaijan to close ranks against an unconditional “normalization” of Turkish-Armenian relations, prior to a first-stage withdrawal of Armenian troops from Azerbaijan.

    The US initiative seemed unrelated to any regional strategy in the South Caucasus. It actually coincided with an overall reduction of US engagement in that region, downgrading the earlier goals of conflict-resolution and promotion of energy projects. Moreover, it risked splitting its strategic partner Azerbaijan from Turkey, compromising the basis for a subsequent return to an active US policy in the region.

    Previous US administrations had also proposed to open the Turkish-Armenian border, but never as a goal in itself, unconditionally, or by some deadline in the political calendar, as has most recently been the case. Moreover, those earlier discussions considered opening both the Turkish and Azeri borders with Armenia, as part of an overall settlement, without dividing Ankara and Baku from each other on that account. Those border-opening proposals were being discussed as one element in comprehensive negotiations toward stage-by-stage resolution of the Armenian-Azeri conflict, and in conditional linkage with Armenian troop withdrawal from inner-Azeri districts, again in contrast to Washington’s recent proposals.

    Yet, there is an element of continuity between those earlier border-opening proposals and the latest one. That common element is the optimistic belief that open borders and freedom to trade are a prerequisite to resolution of conflict and durable peace. This carryover from Manchesterianism often colored US political debates about the possibility of opening the Azeri and Turkish borders with Armenia. Yet, the diplomatic process integrated this issue within the broader negotiations. It did not single it out from that context or allow it to become a currency of exchange in US domestic politics.

    The logic of the administration’s initiative from 2009 to date has implied that Washington would “deliver” the re-opening of Turkey’s border with Armenia; while Turkey would in turn “deliver” Azerbaijan by opening the Turkish-Armenian border, without insisting on the withdrawal of Armenian troops from inner-Azeri territories. That conditionality is a long-established one in these negotiations. However, Washington currently insists that the two processes be separated and that Turkey opens that border unconditionally as per the October 2009 Zurich protocols.

    Breaking that linkage would irreparably compromise the chances of a peaceful, stage-by-stage settlement of the Armenian-Azeri conflict. It would indefinitely prolong the Armenian military presence inside Azerbaijan, placing Russia in a commanding position to arbitrate the conflict, with unprecedented leverage on an Azerbaijan alienated from its strategic allies.

    Washington had persuaded Ankara to break that conditionality in the October 2009 protocols, which came close to splitting Turkey from Azerbaijan. However, Turkey reinstated that conditionality unambiguously from December 2009 onward. Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, declared this repeatedly and publicly, contradicting Obama and the US State Department on this account at the December 2009 and April 2010 Washington summits and afterward. Following the latter event, Turkish Foreign Minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, flew to Baku with reassurances that Turkey would only open the border with Armenia if Armenian troops withdrew from inner-Azeri districts. The assurances were the more significant after the US White House had demonstratively excluded Azerbaijan from the Washington summit (Anatolia News Agency, April 14, 18-20).

    The US administration’s policy has now backfired on all sides, Yerevan being the last to abandon it after the policy had failed to “deliver” Ankara and Baku. The Obama administration can now be expected to revert to a balanced approach by taking Azeri and Turkish views more carefully into account.

    https://jamestown.org/program/us-conflict-resolution-policy-backfires-in-yerevan/

  • Massachusetts State of the United States recognizes Khojaly tragedy as a massacre

    Massachusetts State of the United States recognizes Khojaly tragedy as a massacre

    MassachusettsHoRThe House of Representative of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts State (USA) has accepted relative document on the day of 18th Commemoration of Khojaly Massacre.

    The document dated on 25 February 2010 is signed by Speaker of the House Robert De Leo says: “Be it hereby known to all that: The Massachusetts House of Representatives offers its sincerest acknowledgment of: the 18th Commemoration of Khojaly Massacre”.

    Justice for Khojaly campaign expresses its gratitude for the initiative of Members of House of Representatives to commemorate the 18th anniversary of the Khojaly massacre in House’s session that took place on February 25, 2010.

    MassachusettsWe appreciate and applaud the initiative on remembrance and recognition of Hause of Representatives this historical tragedy of humanity perpetrated against the civilian population of the Khojaly town (Azerbaijan) by Armenian military gangs and Ex-Soviet 366th regiment in February 1992. By raising this issue in legislative institutions it will be possible to make it globally heard by decision-makers around the globe and condemn crimes that are perpetrated against innocent victims of conflicts.

    We also invite the friends of Justice for Khojaly campaign to sign the petition to World leaders and call them to recognize the Khojaly massacre as a crime against humanity at the following link http://www.justiceforkhojaly.org/?p=petition. By signing the petition the one can address the drafted letter to UN, President of the US, European Union, Council of Europe, OIC Parliamentary Unit chairpersons and other decision-makers of your geographical organizations.

    If you want peace, work for justice.

    Justice for Khojaly

    18thCommemorationofKhojalyMassacre

    on http://www.facebook.com/pages/Khojaly-town/Justice-for-Khojaly-Campaign/101823787520

  • Obama Again Avoids ‘G-Word’ In Armenian Remembrance Message

    Obama Again Avoids ‘G-Word’ In Armenian Remembrance Message

    U.S. -- US President Barack Obama speaks about reforming Wall Street and the financial reform bill in the Great Hall at Cooper Union in New York, 22Apr2010U.S. — US President Barack Obama speaks about reforming Wall Street and the financial reform bill in the Great Hall at Cooper Union in New York, 22Apr2010

    24.04.2010
    Emil Danielyan

    Backtracking on a campaign pledge, U.S. President Barack Obama on Saturday again declined to describe the 1915 massacres of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey as genocide as he honored the victims of “one of the worst atrocities of the 20th century.” (UPDATED)

    As was the case in April 2009, Obama used instead the Armenian phrase Meds Yeghern, or Great Calamity, to mark the 95th anniversary of the start of the mass killings and deportations. “In that dark moment of history, 1.5 million Armenians were massacred or marched to their death in the final days of the Ottoman Empire,” he said. “Today is a day to reflect upon and draw lessons from these terrible events.”

    “The Meds Yeghern is a devastating chapter in the history of the Armenian people, and we must keep its memory alive in honor of those who were murdered and so that we do not repeat the grave mistakes of the past,” he added.

    Obama at the same time again made clear that he stands by his statements on the subject issued during the 2008 U.S. presidential race. “I have consistently stated my own view of what occurred in 1915, and my view of that history has not changed,” he said.

    In a January 2008 statement to the Armenian community in the United States, Obama, then a presidential candidate, called the Armenian genocide “a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence.” “America deserves a leader who speaks truthfully about the Armenian genocide and responds forcefully to all genocides. I intend to be that president,” he said at the time.

    Obama backpedaled on that pledge after taking office, anxious not to antagonize Turkey, a key U.S. ally. In his April 2009 statement on Armenian Remembrance Day, Obama implicitly cited the need not to undermine the U.S.-backed rapprochement between Armenia and Turkey. The process culminated in the signing of Turkish-Armenian normalization agreements in Zurich last October.

    Obama’s latest message contains no explicit references to the normalization process that has stalled because of Ankara’s refusal to unconditionally normalize ties with Yerevan. It only voices support for continued historical dialogue between Armenian and Turkish societies.

    “I salute the Turks who saved Armenians in 1915 and am encouraged by the dialogue among Turks and Armenians, and within Turkey itself, regarding this painful history,” Obama said. “Together, the Turkish and Armenian people will be stronger as they acknowledge their common history and recognize their common humanity.”

    The current and previous U.S. administrations have strongly encouraged and even sponsored Turkish-Armenian contacts at various levels. The U.S. State Department was, for example, behind the establishment in 2001 of the non-governmental Turkish-Armenian Reconciliation Commission (TARC).

    TARC called for the unconditional normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations before being disbanded in 2004. It is also famous for commissioning a study on the events of 1915 from the New York-based International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ).

    In a 2003 report, the ICTJ concluded that the Armenian massacres “include all of the elements of the crime of genocide” as defined by a 1948 United Nations convention. Former U.S. President George W. Bush repeatedly cited the ICTJ study in his April 24 statements.

    7015C841 7E64 400B AF45 4F306FA33728 w270 s

    U.S. — President Barack Obama (L) greets Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC, 12Apr2010

    Obama on Saturday also paid tribute to the “remarkable spirit” of the Armenian people. “The indomitable spirit of the Armenian people is a lasting triumph over those who set out to destroy them,” he said. “Many Armenians came to the United States as survivors of the horrors of 1915. Over the generations Americans of Armenian descent have richened our communities, spurred our economy, and strengthened our democracy.”

    These words will hardly placate influential Armenian-American advocacy groups that had strongly backed Obama’s presidential bid and now deplore his reluctance to use the word “genocide.” They have also criticized the Obama administration for opposing a congressional draft resolution affirming the Armenian genocide.

    The Turkish government scrambled to halt further progress of the resolution after it was approved by U.S. House Foreign Affairs committee on March 4. Turkish leaders also warned Obama against uttering the politically sensitive word in his April 24 message. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan suggested after meeting Obama in Washington last week that the U.S. president will heed the warning.

    Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian seemed resigned to that as he addressed the nation Thursday on the future of the Turkish-Armenian normalization process. But he implied that Obama’s failure to term the 1915 massacres a genocide will not halt the decades-long Armenian campaign for genocide recognition. 

    “Our struggle for the international recognition of the Genocide continues,” said Sarkisian. “If some circles in Turkey attempt to use our candor to our detriment, to manipulate the process to avoid the reality of the 24th of April, they should know all too well that the 24th of April is the day that symbolizes the Armenian Genocide, but in no way shall it mark the time boundary of its international recognition.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/2023467.html

  • 24 Service Members Who Became Americans Today

    24 Service Members Who Became Americans Today

    24 Service Members Who Became Americans Today

    Posted by Secretary Janet Napolitano on April 23, 2010 at 4:23 PM EDT
    • Play/pause
    • Mute/unmute
    • Rewind and stop
    Read the Transcript |  Download Video: mp4 (427MB) | mp3 (19MB)
    Today, I was humbled to join the President at the White House to administer the oath of allegiance to 24 American service members as they became citizens of our nation. These men and women were born in 16 different countries, but they came to the United States sharing a common purpose, and chose to defend their adopted country even before they became citizens. These men and women are shining examples of the energy, talent, and commitment that immigrants have always brought to our country. I am proud to call each of them fellow Americans.
    President Barack Obama, lower left, looks on as 24 active duty service members raise their right hands during a naturalization ceremony in the Rose Garden of the White House, April 23, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)
    All of today's new citizens joined or reenlisted in the military after 9/11, and made a commitment to defend America and its ideals even though they could be deployed to a hostile combat zone. But they stepped forward anyway to defend America’s safety and our nation’s ideals. For some of them, this meant serving three tours of duty in Iraq, or celebrating Mother’s Day with their children over videoconference. While the sacrifice that these men and women have given – even while noncitizens – is extraordinary, their stories are not unique. Since 9/11, 58,000 members of our Armed Forces have become American citizens, oftentimes taking the oath of allegiance while deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan.
    President Barack Obama presents Marine Sgt. Ledum Ndaanee, originally from Nigeria, the Outstanding American by Choice award during a naturalization ceremony for active duty service members in the Rose Garden of the White House. Ndaanee served two tours in Iraq where he was wounded by an IED in 2007. April 23, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Chuck Kennedy)
    Americans are born in every part of the world, yet – like these men and women who became citizens today – they come to America because of their commitment to our ideals and their belief in the American Dream. Many of them risk their lives for their country even before they officially become citizens. The 24 service members who became Americans today remind us that immigrants like them have always been a tremendous strength of our country. This is a strength that we must continue to foster in the 21st century. Janet Napolitano is Secretary of Homeland Security

  • Pro-Armenian Turks Urged To Mark Armenian ‘Great Catastrophe’ In Istanbul

    Pro-Armenian Turks Urged To Mark Armenian ‘Great Catastrophe’ In Istanbul

    Armenia — Screenshot, Turkish intellectuals call for commemorating victims of 1915 events, 21Apr2010

    21.04.2010

    Prominent Turkish intellectuals have urged their countrymen to join them in marking on Saturday the 95th anniversary of the start of mass killings and deportations of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire with a silent protest in Istanbul.

    “We call upon all peoples of Turkey who share this heartfelt pain to commemorate and pay tribute to the victims of 1915. In black, in silence. With candles and flowers,” they said in an online petition signed by dozens of other Turks.

    “For this is OUR pain. This is a mourning for ALL OF US,” reads the petition posted at .

    The gathering, if it is allowed by the Turkish authorities, will take place in Istanbul’s central Taksim square and mark the first-ever public commemoration of more than one million Armenians massacred by Ottoman Turks in 1915-1918.

    The unprecedented action was initiated by renowned intellectuals challenging the official Turkish version of those events, which holds that the Armenian death toll is inflated and denies a premeditated government effort to exterminate the Armenian population of the crumbling empire. The signatories include journalist Ali Bayramoglu, historians Halil Berktay and Taner Akcam, and other scholars such as Cengiz Aktar and Baskin Oran.

    The petition stops short of calling the massacres a genocide, using instead the Armenian phrase “Great Catastrophe.” “In 1915, when we had a population of only 13 million people, there were 1,5 to 2 million Armenians living on this land,” it says, adding: “They were the grocer in our neighborhood, our tailor, our goldsmith, our carpenter, our shoemaker, our farmhand, our millwright, our classmate, our teacher, our officer, our private, our deputy, our historian, our composer…

    “Our friend. Our next-door neighbors and our companion in bad times. In Thrace, in the Aegean, in Adana, in Malatya, in Van, in Kars…In Samatya, in Sisli, in the Islands, in Galata…

    “On April 24th, 1915 they were ‘rounded up.’ We lost them. They are not here anymore. A great majority of them do not exist anymore. Nor do their graveyards. There EXISTS the overwhelming ‘Great Pain’ that was laid upon the qualms of our conscience by the ‘Great Catastrophe.’ It’s been getting deeper and deeper for the last 95 years.”

    Thousands of Turks signed a similar online petition that was initiated by mostly the same public figures in December 2008. It offered Armenians a personal apology and called for the Turkish government to acknowledge the killings.

    Turkish prosecutors threatened to bring criminal charges against the authors of the appeal under Article 301 of the Turkish penal code, which criminalizes “insulting the Turkish people.”

    The Turkish government has scrambled in recent weeks to prevent further progress of a U.S. congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide. It has also pressed U.S. President Barack Obama to again avoid using the word “genocide” in a statement on the massacre anniversary due on April 24.

    Obama has been receiving diametrically opposite messages from leaders of the influential Armenian community in the United States as well as pro-Armenian U.S. lawmakers. More than a dozen members of the U.S. Senate have signed this week a letter calling on him “to stand on the right side of history and unequivocally affirm the Armenian Genocide.”

    “While we fully acknowledge the importance of the U.S.-Turkey relationship, we should never, for any reason, fail to call a tragedy of this magnitude by its rightful name,” the senators said.

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/2020635.html