-7
US could run out of missiles in eight days
(en.mehrnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2025
-7 points (41.0% liked)
United States | News & Politics
8283 readers
743 users here now
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
I have closed my mind to Iranian, Russian, Chinese, Ukrainian and Israeli state propaganda sources, as everyone should.
It's a bogus news organization, if you can't see that, then I'm not the one with vision problems.
So you've basically admitted you're an extreme Chauvinist with no interest in impartiality.
LOL I'm interested in nothing but impariality.
State run media, by definition, is not impartial. Doubly so when talking about Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc.
So I'm used to you contradicting yourself from one post to the next, but now you're doing it from one sentence to the next.
And let's be honest "impartiality" just means "agrees with your preexisting pro-western bias
No contradiction:
State run media is biased in favor of the state running it. That's a basic fact.
When talking about certain governments, it's EVEN WORSE than normal government interference.
You think you're getting honest news out of Pyongyang? Someone's Pyonging your Yang if you know what I mean...
See also Moscow, Beijing, Tehran, Tel Aviv, Ankara...
"I’m interested in nothing but impartiality." vs "Doubly so when talking about Russia, China, Ukraine, Turkey, Iran, etc. etc."
That's the opposite of impartiality, dog.
Prove it. Oh wait, they oppose your ideology, which is all you care about.
You think you're getting honest news out of NYT, or BBC, or AP?
Funny how you never include London or Washington or Canberra or the like on this list, Oh right, it's only "certain governments" you don't consider impartial.
They're not meaningfully distinct from state media in function, any differences are superficial and deliberate attempts to obscure the connection between corporate control of the state and corporate control of the media, be less gullible plz
YES. THEY. ARE. YOU. HYPOCRITICAL. LAIR.
Also, it's fucking telling that you straight up couldn't address the rest of what I said.
Argumentum ad populum, suck it dry
You do not find it the slightest bit weird that they are all non-western sources? They're good sources fighting against wrongful discreditation by the empire. Open your eyes and ears to what places like New Propaganda Radio (NPR) or New York Lies feed them!
Non western sources are fine, sources from authoritarian governments are always sus.
Example:
Al Jazira, for the most part, is reliable*
*As long as their reporting isn't about Qatar or Qatari interests. They have a huge blind spot there due to their ownership.
Kyiv Independent has some of the best reporting out of Ukraine.
Kyiv Insider is Ukrainian state propaganda and should not be trusted.
So your standard is completely arbitrary and is just accepting the sources that agree with your pre held pro western opinion
It's not arbitrary, I wouldn't trust Western run state owned media either. If it's state owned, it cannot be trusted.
Look at who's running Voice of America these days, you trust them? Oh, fuck no.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kari_Lake
But has nothing to do with it being "Western" it has to do with it being a mouthpiece for the current ruling party.
You trust the news you get from Putin? LOL. Or from Ali Khamenei? Erdoğan? Because if you do, you're being lied to and in your desperate attempt to avoid "Western" media, you will never know it.
Lol, that Wikipedia article you linked uses state owned media as a source. Guess you are willing to trust state media so long as it's laundered through a nice, western friendly proxy
LOL - are you legit trying to argue Kari Lake IS NOT running Voice of America? Because, man, have I got news for you...
https://apnews.com/article/voice-of-america-kari-lake-congress-shut-down-6dcaa956b0c6dbcaca0cdba1b17b6491
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/20/media/kari-lake-voa-trump-voice-of-america-staff
https://thehill.com/media/5369489-trump-voice-of-america-changes/
I'm waiting for you to post a reliable source.
Seriously, CNN? Are you not even going to try to hide what a wretched hypocrite you are?
LOL every source is disreputable with a chronic condition of cranial sphincter incursion. Globally recognized sources are globally recognized sources.
"But I don't like them!!!"
Sounds like a "you" problem.
Talk like a fucking human.
AKA, sources you agree with. And another reminder that people like you only consider white westerners to be human.
Not my problem that you can't hide the fact that you're the most obviously bad faith hypocrite alive who has clearly been brought in to enforce ideological conformity on .world.
Argumentum ad populum, suck it dry
Lol, you're clearly really struggling with the fact that you can't just ban me for disagreeing with you here, like you and your stooges on .world are used to.
It's fun watching them go on about how it's bad to attack others while always attacking others
So BBC, ABC, CBC are all propaganda outlets that you reject and can't be trusted?
What about privately owned propaganda outlets? You've been happy to slurp those down so long as they agree with you.
Loooooooooooooooooooooooool
Ok, so you're tactic is to just stick your fingers in your ears and scream "no no no no" to basic facts.
Except for the bit where it funds it and selects its board. Only the most willfully dishonest, piece of shit lying ideologue would say that is independent.
Seems like you're the one who doesn't know if you think they're independent. But of course, you do know; but they agree with your ideology so you're willing to lie through your teeth to defend them
So does Iranian state media have in their charters that they are propaganda outlets for the government? Because if not, you would be a scum fucking hypocrite to consider them that while also expecting us to take the words of the western state media outlets at their words, just because you agree with them.
Again, 6 links provided, 6 links completely unread and ignored.
I can't educate you if you refuse to read.
You provide any links yet saying Iranian state media is to be trusted? No? I guess you can shut the fuck up then until you do.
Still waiting...
Lol, I see you've given up even reading my comments before you respond. I guess you must find it very hard to actually address what people who disagree with you say when you've become so used to just smashing that ban button on anyone who makes a point you can't respond to. Maybe you should scuttle your ass back to your little digital fiefdom where you can defend Gaza genocide deniers without anyone being able to remind you what a loathsome little toady hypocrite you are.
Argumentum ad populum, suck it dry
Lol, you’re clearly really struggling with the fact that you can’t just ban me for disagreeing with you here, like you and your stooges on .world are used to.
Remember, you literally banned me because I reported someone denying the Gaza genocide.
You're bad at this
They're also the power mod that controls .worlds political coms
I'm familiar, pretty sure they banned me from somewhere
I was going to reply then I realized your username. You're the infamous zionist jordanlund. Yeah it's pointless talking to you on this subject when you are on the payroll to reject all arguments
No payroll here, and not sure how repeatedly saying Israel has been committing war crimes for decades and will continue until somebody forces them to stop makes me a zionist. LOL. Try again.
You literally perma banned me for reporting a Gaza genocide denier. You remove any calls for opposing the IDF, you openly admit that ignore calls for violence from the pro-Israel wing.
You would remove this for "advocating violence" if someone said this in one of your subs
Yup, because you crossed a line attacking other users, we don't allow people to be assholes to other users. Get over yourself.
Oh, so if someone reported a Uigher genocide denier, you would ban the person who reported them for "attacking other user?"
Rhetorical question; of course you wouldn't; because you're a hypocritical zionist scumbag who only opposes genocide when the West's enemies do it.
Well that's just a straight up, easily verifiable lie; you give complete free reign to the people who agree with you to be the biggest assholes imaginable to the people you disagree with. You'll only step in to make sure they get to dish it out without having to take it in return.
Not only WOULD I, I have done that. In fact I've repeatedly banned users for spreading the Chinese propaganda that there is no Uyghur genocide.
p.s. - The correct Western spelling is "Uyghur" not "Uigher". Yes, I have to look it up every damn time too.
Great, glad you openly admit to being a hypocritical piece of shit.
PS. Maybe you should have actually read my question before giving that answer, dipshit.
I've given you all the time you deserve. At this point you're a lost cause. My replies are for anyone else in the future so they can see just how worthless your opinions are. You keep making that point for me with each and every reply.
Maybe you need to let that brain out of the box once in a while, let it get some fresh air or touch grass or something. Poor thing must be stifled by now.
What's the matter, you're not used to people actually being able to disagree with you without you just hammering the ban button on them like the angry man child that you are?
Damn, do they give you zionist drones a list with these pre-approved come backs on them? Literally word for word the same ones every time.
Damn, you really are a loser with no wit at all.
And remember; you openly admitted here that you protect Gaza genocide denier, I'll make sure to remind you if you ever muster up the balls to step out of your carefully curated little zionist throne room.
Argumentum ad populum, suck it dry
Oh, quick question: is the Australian Strategic Policy institute an impartial source? How about Adrian Zenz?
Oh wait, you're a hypocritical little toad, so of course you consider them impartial.
Argumentum ad populum, suck it dry