this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)
Late Stage Capitalism
5605 readers
2 users here now
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
She just supported people that blown up Nordstream, Kakhovka dam (and a lot of other things), shelled nuclear plant, started and maintain that war and use depleted uranium shells. I would say that even from a strictly ecological point of view she fucked up incredibly.
She's supporting the Ukrainians tho.
Are you actually saying that they did all this to themselves? That's what the Russian state has been saying without credible proof.
Edit: I'd like to see where you got your info.
You're right, it makes much more sense that Russia would destroy their own pipeline which took 10 years to build so that Europe would buy US gas instead. And it makes perfect sense that Russia would destroy a dam they control and flood the defenses they had spent a whole year building, especially considering the Ukrainian counter offensive didn't pan out and most of their soldiers died before ever seeing the fortifications.
There's no proof of that either, but as a good citizen, I believe everything my government tells me. They have my own personal best interests at heart, after all. Especially when they turn away refugees and let them drown in the Mediterranean, I don't know how but I'm sure it protects me.
Maybe they did the pipeline, but none of that other stuff.
Either way you haven't actually showed me where you got any of this info.
I used my brain, which unfortunately seems to be becoming a rarer resource.
Where's your evidence for saying Russia blew up the dam they controlled?
In order of my google search's results.
https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4043221-ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse-theories/
https://www.politico.eu/article/ukraine-says-russia-admits-blowing-up-nova-kakhovka-dam-call-intercepted/
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/06/16/world/europe/ukraine-kakhovka-dam-collapse.html
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-65818705
Most of these articles admit that it is kind of impossible to know for sure in the middle of a warzone. It's as likely that it collapsed due to lack of proper maintenance in the middle of a war.
What's your source?
lmao you actually think the BBC is credible? When they've been caught lying and have to issue retractions several times a year? The same BBC that went all in for the invasion of Iraq? Here's a source you'll lap up lol https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC
Just because it's British and you like their documentaries doesn't mean they're actually a good news source.
It's funny though that you linked to that specific Hill article, because here are two others they wrote: https://thehill.com/policy/defense/4042184-ukraine-claims-evidence-russia-destroyed-dam/ (source: Telegram post from SBU lol) ; https://thehill.com/opinion/national-security/4037183-the-kakhovka-dams-destruction-shows-a-russian-military-on-its-back-foot/.
Which is exactly the same "source" all your other articles use. You're cherry-picking and sealioning, you realize you're not fooling anyone here though, right? Like nobody is falling for your "uhhh I'm just asking questions and not giving my own opinion, just read my media!!"
We're just having fun with you lol, it's funny watching you having to actually reckon with real people who are actually asking for receipts and some minimum amount of critical thinking instead of deferring to a higher authority. Do you also ask the BBC what you eat for breakfast or can you think of that one yourself?
"Uhhh if you can't point to established media then it doesn't count, if a journalist says it it's okay but if you say it it's not 🤓"
I used my brain, which unfortunately seems to be becoming a rarer resource. Yours is the SBU lmao so you better come back with something stronger
Not particularly, they are heavily influenced by the party in power that gets to selectively enforce biased news laws. That was in the order that Google gave it to me with no reordering. BBC is B-Tier for North American news because there is less impetus for political bias. I usually go the Associated Press and The Globe And Mail.
My comment was more to how easy it is to find many news stories covering this from a multitude of perspectives.
And for the record, yes, I do believe that journalistic standards upheld by credible institutions are safeguards against specious speculation and lies. You can phrase that however you'd want, but the conceit of that statement is true.