I counted at least 9 specifically about Ukraine in just the last 3 days, not counting cross-posts.
dandi8
joined 2 years ago
That's not at all "what we usually do". Most people don't have time to cherry pick articles and post them to "widen the picture", nor should they.
Context is important and so is being aware of bad actors trying to alter public perception.
You're trying to skew this into something that's wrong, but it's not.
Some things need more context than a single article. In this case, the context is several articles being posted by a person with an agenda. This knowledge may change some people's perception of the article.
Russian war crimes are not proven
You're obviously not arguing in good faith with claims like these. You would claim any source I provide to be untrustworthy unless it came from the mouth of Putin himself. Not even photo evidence, Amnesty International (which you yourself used) or the International Criminal Court is good enough for you.
For that reason, I will not be continuing this conversation.
I can only hope you're young so that you have a chance of growing up from the propaganda you've been fed. I hope you don't yet realize the evil of the machine you're feeding and I hope one day you will.
P. S. At not point did anyone claim that any war crimes Ukraine could commit are OK. If someone commits them, they should be held accountable. It just so happens they are not relevant to whether or not Russia was justified in attacking Ukraine, even if any of them happened. Especially because for war crimes... There has to be a war first.
the point here is if you care about war crimes, then you should care about ALL war crimes.
Interesting way to admit you don't care about war crimes. But then, you have been brushing them off this entire time.
Wikipedia has many, many sources for these war crimes, including the Human Rights Watch, NYT, BBC, CNBC, Amnesty International, Reuters and even the *International Criminal Court *. Nothing you linked to disproves the claims in the wiki article.
The argument of deliberately misunderstanding the context and meaning of a comment is indefensible...?
Or do you mean to suggest that we should completely ignore when someone is cherry-picking news to fit an agenda and spread anti-Ukraine sentiment?
Because I'd have no problem with this news article being posted, if this same person didn't post several other very specific articles today.
Let me know when you can identify where the simping and virtue signaling happened.
Knowing that OP is skewing the narrative by flooding the space with articles supporting one narrative is important and cannot be ignored.
Some contexts go further than the immediate article and no one is asking anyone to ignore what's written in the article. Rather, what is asked is to be aware that many articles today were posted to support a certain narrative.
Some people today might end their day thinking 'boy, Ukraine has been doing a lot of bad things lately', when the bad things were specifically cherry-picked for their feed.
Indian people and their plight are being used for OP's own agenda and pointing this out does not discredit anything that might be happening to them, nor does it mean that it's not important, as was being suggested.
Yes, this is what you should take away from my comment. Congratulations, you're the smartest man alive.
/s
FYI: OP is a tankie who just spams any news he can find to discourage people from supporting Ukraine in the war.
Ah yes, name-calling, the true sign you're winning an argument.
And this was claimed where, exactly...?
Although the article is mostly about how the indian students (of which only 3.5k are currently in Ukraine, per the article) are afraid of bombing and complaining that they can't be transferred to another country, with about a paragraph about (admittedly not good) animosity from Ukrainians.