|
|
|
|
|
|
by lesuorac
698 days ago
|
|
|
I mean they probably won't read it anyways. Usually with comments like "french newspapers said hamas is russian" end up being strictly factually false. Perhaps a french newspaper said hamas received russian funding or weapons or some other nuance that they completely glossed over. Perhaps it wasn't even a french newspaper or one not well regarded for accuracy (look at what the Onion prints in the US!). Or possibly it's even worse and the article is just posting a quote of somebody who said "hamas is russian" and so it's not even the french newspaper saying it. This blindness is also commonly seen in the US. i.e. people saying polls had trump at a 0% chance to win the election despite literally a week before the election even CNN had articles saying it's a tight race -- https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/01/politics/presidential-poll-do... |
|
|
and then here you go about left wing being behind the train attack: https://www.wsj.com/world/europe/france-sees-hand-of-far-lef...
this is the problem when having a political bias. you stop being factual. it was not the russian you were wrong and you wont even acknowledge it. before the russian it was the arabs for decades and before that it was the serbs. we know how the hive mind operates.