nonailsleft

joined 2 years ago
[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Wait. You think this is something new?

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago (3 children)

self-serving in that it preserves their reputation

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -3 points 3 months ago

A majority of US voters voted for this

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -2 points 3 months ago

Why don't you run yourself?

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 0 points 3 months ago
[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

More like less repairable

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago (6 children)

The US can do a 180 in 4 years. China: not so much

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

You sound like a caricature account ran by the Mossad to discredit pro-Palestinian posters

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -3 points 3 months ago (3 children)

And can you describe what you think is wrong with that article? Does it make you question whether those 60+ dead were unrelated to the Israeli attack??

If that's the case then it's just an issue of the Guardian being written for smarter people

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (5 children)

You gave a link accusing them of quoting Israeli officials

You don't seem to be able to back up your accusation that they have been avoiding to use the word 'killed'. So why make it?

The Guardian is not misinforming their readers about what's happening in Gaza.

The way you're talking about this is telling me that you're too far gone to look at these things objectively

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Do you have any examples of the Guardian dancing around the word 'killed'? The fact you have to resort to their reporting on unrelated issues seems to suggest that's not really the case

[–] nonailsleft@lemm.ee -1 points 3 months ago (9 children)

Do you have anything to back this up? I've never felt The Guardian was using euphemisms

view more: ‹ prev next ›