Robert Fisk: COMPELLED TO LIE (for Armenians)
- 4 years ago
Checking the facts on the way British journalist Robert Fisk attempts to validate what is strangely one of his greatest passions, the Armenian genocide claim.
Excerpt from the video:
The British journalist Robert Fisk has had an odd preoccupation with what is called the "Armenian Genocide,"
He has written many articles on the topic over the years.
One wonders why, when there are so many other historical examples of inhumanity.
Regardless of his peculiar motivation, the striking thing about Fisk is that steering from the truth - as long as genocide gets affirmed - is perfectly all right with him.
It is as though he feels compelled to lie.
(And/or to use information he must know is corrupt)
Three Fisk videos admiringly prepared by Armenians on YouTube will be examined.
The Boston Globe has traditionally been very pro-Armenian, given the Armenian concentration in Massachusetts.)
Are newspaper articles written by biased journalists like Fisk, and based on hearsay reports, supposed to substitute for history?
The Western media was always deeply prejudiced against Turks.
Add to this the British making certain their war propaganda would get exclusive coverage in the USA.
They did this by cutting the cable from Germany, and operating a branch of Wellington House - British propaganda division - on US soil.)
The New York Times itself wrote that since journalists were disallowed in the affected areas " reports from these are Altogether Unreliable. (October 10, 1915)
(But journalists preferred to cover the safer and more glamorous war in the west, at Gallipoli. The few honorable others serving as firsthand witnesses in the east, like George Schreiner, concluded there was No Genocide.)
"The Turks say it's fake."
Is he telling us that whatever Turks say must be dismissed, perhaps because Turks are evil Nazis?
Meanwhile, here is how Robert Fisk expects us to believe that the article is legitimate:
In other words, because he has "seen" the whole article, that is his criteria for determining authenticity?
If that is the case, now we can all see it.
Here is the infamous Ataturk "interview" from the Los Angeles Examiner of August 1, 1926:
The main subject of the article is a 1926 assassination plot against Ataturk.
The informant was a boatman who was to later whisk the assassins away to Greece
But the article supposedly written by Ataturk, tells us the informant was ...
a WOMAN !
But there are many other signs telling us what a fake article this is.
The article features the byline of Ataturk, and begins with the words, "I shall..." signifying that he wrote it.
It is an "interview" pretending to be an article.
There is no sign of the "Swiss artist & journalist" in Switzerland's records.
There is also no record of the Boston-based news agency that bears the articles"s copyright.
(Boston, as Los Angeles, were and are, Armenian strongholds.)
There is no record of Ataturk meeting a foreign journalist in June, 1926...
Excerpt from the video:
The British journalist Robert Fisk has had an odd preoccupation with what is called the "Armenian Genocide,"
He has written many articles on the topic over the years.
One wonders why, when there are so many other historical examples of inhumanity.
Regardless of his peculiar motivation, the striking thing about Fisk is that steering from the truth - as long as genocide gets affirmed - is perfectly all right with him.
It is as though he feels compelled to lie.
(And/or to use information he must know is corrupt)
Three Fisk videos admiringly prepared by Armenians on YouTube will be examined.
The Boston Globe has traditionally been very pro-Armenian, given the Armenian concentration in Massachusetts.)
Are newspaper articles written by biased journalists like Fisk, and based on hearsay reports, supposed to substitute for history?
The Western media was always deeply prejudiced against Turks.
Add to this the British making certain their war propaganda would get exclusive coverage in the USA.
They did this by cutting the cable from Germany, and operating a branch of Wellington House - British propaganda division - on US soil.)
The New York Times itself wrote that since journalists were disallowed in the affected areas " reports from these are Altogether Unreliable. (October 10, 1915)
(But journalists preferred to cover the safer and more glamorous war in the west, at Gallipoli. The few honorable others serving as firsthand witnesses in the east, like George Schreiner, concluded there was No Genocide.)
"The Turks say it's fake."
Is he telling us that whatever Turks say must be dismissed, perhaps because Turks are evil Nazis?
Meanwhile, here is how Robert Fisk expects us to believe that the article is legitimate:
In other words, because he has "seen" the whole article, that is his criteria for determining authenticity?
If that is the case, now we can all see it.
Here is the infamous Ataturk "interview" from the Los Angeles Examiner of August 1, 1926:
The main subject of the article is a 1926 assassination plot against Ataturk.
The informant was a boatman who was to later whisk the assassins away to Greece
But the article supposedly written by Ataturk, tells us the informant was ...
a WOMAN !
But there are many other signs telling us what a fake article this is.
The article features the byline of Ataturk, and begins with the words, "I shall..." signifying that he wrote it.
It is an "interview" pretending to be an article.
There is no sign of the "Swiss artist & journalist" in Switzerland's records.
There is also no record of the Boston-based news agency that bears the articles"s copyright.
(Boston, as Los Angeles, were and are, Armenian strongholds.)
There is no record of Ataturk meeting a foreign journalist in June, 1926...