(Note: Old ploto from around when the invasion started.)

      • DankZedong A
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 years ago

        Yeah that sucks a bit but you can at least find more sources on the Wikipedias.

    • Sightline@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      3 years ago

      “The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude larger than to produce it.” – The Bullshit Asymmetry Principle

      “On February 3rd, 2022, US troops murdered 6 children and 4 women during a raid in Syria.”

      But if you read the article it says this: “Civilian casualties were caused when Qurayshi detonated a suicide vest and other explosives on the third floor of the building where he had taken refuge.”

      How surprising, words bent to make a false statement. Don’t get me wrong though, the US does fucked up shit from time to time, however you’ll reach a larger audience if you don’t lie.

      • DankZedong A
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 years ago

        So we have one less point on a seemingly endless list. Thanks for finding this flaw.

        • DankZedong A
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          ·
          3 years ago

          Also in the article: “Some of the corpses in the area do not look like they died in an explosion. They look like they were hit by extremely heavy calibre gunfire”

          • DankZedong A
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            3 years ago

            Plus eyewitness claim they saw the chopper fire it’s gun at the building for a minute straight. So yes bullshit costs time to refute since I had to open the link, look for the article etc