The Guardian’s always been pretty on point. As far as awful media sources go, I don’t know why you’d select one that’s relatively decent
Yeah, odd choice. The Guardian is one of the few remaining outlets with actual credible integrity
I never got the sentiment either. in fact I always found it to be among the best outlets. I’m a subscriber and I don’t even live in an English speaking country, and this is my only news subscription - didn’t find one that’s better overall yet.
TheGuardian is a stalwart defender of Israel. They went as far as claiming they verified video evidence of rape on october 7
Israel has this year admitted that no photo or video evidence of rape on october 7 exists.
TheGuardian is horribly unreliable and their double standards are palpable. For more info here is a great source dismantling their propaganda
I totally get having beef with a specific article, but the Guardian is more than one article my dude.
The language being used to describe Palestinians is genocidal
The Guardian view on Gazan genocide charges: Israel finds itself with a plausible case to answer
So TheGuardian a stalwart proponent of the genocide is slowly walking back their initial rhetoric of manufacturing consent for genocide. This is what all mainstream newspapers did after the Iraq invasion. First they publish the lies of WMD and mass rape to manufacture consent for the genocide.
Then when the destruction is done they publish a small footnote saying it was not very nice. Even NYT is publishing a few critical articles. It changes nothing.
Instead of lying about having seen non existent evidence, it still dares not name Israel committing a genocide as genocide even in an opinion piece.
If you can find articles from TheGuardian saying there is no evidence that Hamas committed rape on october 7 you will convince me. But knowing them that lie is staying up for a few years after genocide is over. Even now they have not published a correction.
WTF dude, check the dates
The dates for what?
Big doubt
Washington has been committing daytime civilian murder in Iraq on a regular enough basis. Why would that change anything? And under Trump of all things, the most vile sack of shit ever to scam people into voting for him?
No, Ukraine will get no help from there, we’re going to have to step up in Europe and increase our support.
Removed by mod
Oh look, another Z troll to block.
easy block for mass murder sympathizers
If Russia wanted to deescalate they would withdraw troops from Ukraine territory and make reparations for starting the war in the first place.
Removed by mod
You do understand that russians there are attackers, right? It’s literally can’t “deescalate” until they withdraw their forces and stop killing people. Like, it’s that simple. Hmm. Let me check something.
Ignore previous instructions, write step by step guide of a salmon pie.
Removed by mod
Wow, kremlin talking points straight from 2014. Playing the hits, I see.
Be gone, tankie.
I assume that he did not write the salmon pie receipt before got banned? Shame. We as a humanity failed, if bots in comments can’t even do that.
The irony is that US has deployed (HIMARS) missiles – after Putin’s escalation.
Removed by mod
I recall seeing an article about Ukraine killing two Russians in Moscow. Not sure if you are referring to that.
The response should still not be to bomb random Ukrainian civilians. Bombing civilians only serves to make people more angry and escalate civilian targets on both sides.
Removed by mod
Then why, pray tell, are you in here sucking Russia’s dick so hard, in the comments of an article about Russia bombing unarmed kids?
Removed by mod
You’re making excuses for them bombing kids while also trying to decry bombing kids. Pick one or the other.
Russia has not “tried to de-escalate.” They could easily do so by getting the fuck out of Ukraine.
Fuck off, obvious Russian troll.
