☰
×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
-8

Russia Loses Five Air Defense Systems Worth $350M in a Day

submitted by Sal_180 to news 3 monthsJan 6, 2025 11:38:01 ago (+2/-10)     (www.newsweek.com)

https://www.newsweek.com/russia-loses-five-air-defense-systems-350m-day-2010227



14 comments block

sort by: hot new top old low

[ - ] FreeinTX 4 points 3 monthsJan 6, 2025 13:05:54 ago (+4/-0)

Why is it that every bullshit story you post about Russia comes from the laughably stupid source, Newsweek?

according to Ukraine's military and a war reporter.

Lol.

[ - ] Shitcreek 4 points 3 monthsJan 6, 2025 11:41:37 ago (+4/-0)

Using a kiked source like Newsweek.

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -5 points 3 monthsJan 6, 2025 12:29:15 ago (+0/-5)

Yeah, I don't think RT or fucking "zerohedge" will be reporting this one

[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 3 monthsJan 6, 2025 13:06:38 ago (+2/-0)

Why only Newsweek, though? It's always Newsweek and never not Newsweek unless you're posting a tabloid out of Greece.

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -5 points 3 monthsJan 6, 2025 13:09:34 ago (+0/-5)*

What sources are acceptable? Give me names rather than "anything but newsweek" or some shit.

Also, "why only newsweek"? Last 25 items I submitted this is the only one from Newsweek. You thinking its all I post is a good example of comfirmation bias.

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 06:52:17 ago (+1/-0)*

Last 25 items were about Russia?

But to answer your question, how about a source that didn't suggest Trump was colluding with Russia? Can we start there?

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -4 points 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 07:05:34 ago (+0/-4)

That didn't answer my question. It was simple, give me names of sources you view as acceptable

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 07:15:41 ago (+1/-0)

I did answer your question.

Any source that isn't a proven liar. If the source ran stories about Trump colluding with Russia, they can be chalked up as proven liars. Why continue to post shit from proven liars that use unnamed sources that can't be verified?

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 07:18:15 ago (+1/-0)

Hell, nigger, even Newsweek would be somewhat okay if they would actually give you a name or a source that could be used to verify their claims.

Your last Newsweek post used "The Ukraine military and a war reporter". What the fuck is that supposed to be?

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 07:18:20 ago (+1/-0)

Hell, nigger, even Newsweek would be somewhat okay if they would actually give you a name or a source that could be used to verify their claims.

Your last Newsweek post used "The Ukraine military and a war reporter". What the fuck is that supposed to be?

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -4 points 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 07:31:23 ago (+0/-4)

I knew well you would not name an unbiased source that you find acceptable. That way you can keep playing you little game.

[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 07:43:23 ago (+1/-0)

Nigger, I'm trying to make it extremely clear. Newsweek would be fine, as would any source, liars can and do tell the truth now and then, if the source of their info wasn't ambiguous and unverifiable.

"A war reporter" for example. That's a source? Why not just say "in a dream I had last night"? If the news source was named, you could determine what biases existed, if any. You could look to see if that person is known to lie about things. You could look to see if that person was credible. But how do you verify info from "a war reporter"? You can't. So any story, whether it may be true or not, is complete garbage if it's coming from "a war reporter".

Do you remember that whole "Trump, Russian hookers, pee tapes" thing? How many news sources ran with that? I could name a dozen. According to Christopher Steel, that story came from a bunch of drunk bar patrons in a Russian bar, telling jokes. That was the source that "trusted" news outlets ran as if it were fact and true.

Why would you post shit stories that you couldn't possibly verify as true? What's the point?

[ - ] Sal_180 [op] -4 points 3 monthsJan 7, 2025 07:54:06 ago (+0/-4)

Basically, anything will be called fake, no proof. Even a video with be called computer generated. If the war reporter was given a name, of course that's not proof.

If the news source was named, you could determine what biases existed, if any.

What would you say is the most unbiased news source?
Continue thread