Read on Twitter
1/ Another neutral bias piece from @Tom_deWaal
about #Artsakh conflict.
I will not elaborate all the details - just one.
about #Artsakh conflict.
I will not elaborate all the details - just one.
2/ During the 2020 #Artsakh war @Tom_deWaal wrote several articles, but for one moment he paused. That was when #Azerbaijan hit church in Shushi twice with precision missile.
3/ I was joking for myself that @Tom_deWaal is waiting similar retaliation from #Armenian side to equalize parties.
4/ After two days he wrote an article in Guardian without mentioning the fact of hitting the Church. Everyone at that moment was screaming about the Church attack, a journalist was seriously injured in the Church. But Tom keeps silence, couldn't find equal atrocity.
5/ But then comes this op-ed and Voilà - one can see damaged Ghazanchetsots (Holy Saviour) Cathedral image during 2020 war ... neutralized with a picture from 2007 of a mosque. https://news.artnet.com/opinion/thomas-de-waal-nagorno-karabakh-1929584#.X9OgyyWYqrA.twitter
6/ No context - just parallel pictures. Tom used this technique in his infamous Black Garden book a lot and the the method of averaging the truth. @Tom_deWaal is an expert and provider of arguments for all existing and non factual "whataboutisms" in this his approach.
7/ And here he also used this technique "What about a mosque from 2007" and thus equals parties in their what he says "Maximalist doctrines"
8/ You can't equate these "doctrines" since Armenians of Artsakh want to rule themselves and not be ruled by Azerbaijanis. And Azerbaijanis want to rule Armenians and ethnically erase them at the end.
9/ I am not going to discuss @Tom_deWaal 's misleading approach to #Artsakh conflict. But I believe that an advocate of #Azerbaijan interests in this conflict will be more honest than Tom's average truth approach.
10/ So I am not calling him pro Azerbaijani or pro Armenian as many do. I call his approach a very misleading and manipulative, a neutral biased one with average truth where he defends only his own moral superiority posture over conflicting parties.
