• AmarkuntheGatherer
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    29
    ·
    4 months ago

    Here’s a super fun exercise anyone can do with a bit of free time. If ever you read an article regurgitating some claim of an atrocity by any western enemy, follow the links to the claim. It won’t be much of a rabbit hole. In general, for a 4 yol claim (so the October 7 tales may not fit exactly) you’ll be linked to a 2 week old article, which will link a 6 month old one, which will link a 2 yo one, which send you to:

    1. Wikipedia, which will have already been re-written citing a 1 yo article
    2. A UN transcript, HRW article, or something equally worthless of someone repeating the claim
    3. The best approximation of an original source

    That last one is extremely rare, but it’s always magnificent. You find out stuff like how the 1-3 million interned Uyghurs claim comes from a pseudo-study that remotely talked to 8 people and nothing else.

    • Franfran2424
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Generally, the sources are always “government agency or news source repeated local news source/western study”

      And the original source deep down is always literally propaganda if not made up.

      Case in point, How ALL global agencies have the size of Yemen wrong because they use old references before the 2000s border agreement. Or wrong sources from before unification https://youtu.be/WNR2namiS9o