5 ms·
I'm suggesting to you that you're getting hung up on the wrong details. The point is that the US intentionally broke a ceasefire, killing soldiers that were fig
by ZenoArrow 10y ago
I'm suggesting to you that you're getting hung up on the wrong details. The point is that the US intentionally broke a ceasefire, killing soldiers that were fighting against ISIS. You seem to be only interested if Russians were involved in the deaths. Surely it's the breaking of the ceasefire by attacking anti-ISIS forces that's the main story.
For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any Russians who died in that attack.
- pvg 10y agoNo, the point was 'West suffers from secrecy because X thing happened' where X seems to have been completely made up. I don't think this is 'getting hung up on details'. You seem to want to argue about something entirely different but I'm not really interested in that, I'm afraid.
- ZenoArrow 10y agoOkay, so you were more interested in the secrecy angle. It probably helps to think of secrecy under the broader term of information management. If something isn't secret per se, but the information is suppressed so that it doesn't become common knowledge, isn't the outcome broadly the same? I'd argue that's what we're seeing here. That's how the US is getting away with arming Al-Qaeda (or at least former Al-Queda) to fight against ISIS, for example, even though they frequently fight alongside each other. If the US public was more aware of this then there's be greater pressure to stop, but that pressure is virtually non-existent due to the complicity of the mainstream media, helping to keep it away from public debate.