Site debunking Ukrainian propaganda

submitted by BravoVictor from waronfakes.com

all 10 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]package 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Come on now, this site is just stupid. I mean look at this:

https://waronfakes.com/vsu/fake-ukraine-is-not-to-blame-for-the-missile-strike-on-donetsk/

No refutation or outside source, not even a link to any specific article. Literally just stating a story is incorrect because russia says so.

[–]CleverFoolOfEarth 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Yeah, while refutation of any dominant narrative is at the very least fascinating, this is at best some real he-said-she-said amateur-hour journalism and more likely low-effort (or just shite-effort) agenda pushing.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

More like opinions pulled out of thin air disguised as journalism.

[–]BravoVictor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No refutation or outside source, not even a link to any specific article. Literally just stating a story is incorrect because russia says so.

It cites Denis Pushilin, head of state of the DPR. Granted, that's not an unbiased source, but that's not the same as "because Russia says so". Am I supposed to blindly believe Biden and Zelenksy's self serving claims about the war, but not the head representative in Donbass, when they're the ones who have mostly been getting killed over the last decade?

And lets be honest, does that really need another refutation? All the propaganda I've been seeing for the last 8 years is that Donetsk was invaded and is completely controlled by Russians. All evidence suggests that's false, but even if that were true, what reason would Russia have to kill, or even stage the killing, of its own people to make propaganda that the west wouldn't even see, much less believe?

A few videos of the attack are on Youtube. Doesn't look fake to me. I bet if you reuploaded the video with the title "Russia missle strike on Kyiv", it would be shared virally and be believed without question.

That's why I suspect it's real, because even the UN has confirmed Kyiv's been shelling the Donbass region since 2015, and most media refuses to cover it, just as they're not covering this missile strike.

[–]package 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It cites Denis Pushilin, head of state of the DPR. Granted, that's not an unbiased source, but that's not the same as "because Russia says so". Am I supposed to blindly believe Biden and Zelenksy's self serving claims about the war, but not the head representative in Donbass, when they're the ones who have mostly been getting killed over the last decade?

This is a completely nonsensical argument. You shouldn't believe ANY head of state commenting on their enemies actions or accusations during a war. They simply are not valid sources. Truth is unfortunately difficult to uncover during wartime but that doesn't mean the standard for truth should be lowered.

A few videos YouTube of the attack are on Youtube. Doesn't look fake to me.

I didn't say the attack was fake, and neither did the linked article for that matter. I didn't say who's at fault for the attack. I said the website you linked is not putting forth any information that justifies labeling "Ukraine is not to blame for the missile strike on Donetsk" as false. Note that I'm not saying that this site's inability to disprove the claim makes the claim true.

I bet if you reuploaded the video with the title "Russia missile strike on Kyiv", it would be shared virally and be believed without question.

Yes, it very likely would. That doesn't make the linked site any more valid or credible.

[–]BravoVictor[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

This is a completely nonsensical argument. You shouldn't believe ANY head of state commenting on their enemies actions or accusations during a war. They simply are not valid sources. Truth is unfortunately difficult to uncover during wartime but that doesn't mean the standard for truth should be lowered.

You said it doesn't cite any sources. That's clearly false. You not liking the source doesn't make it not a source. I didn't say you should blindly believe any source. Of course you should be skeptical of sources, even ones that don't purport to be from a government.

I didn't say the attack was fake, and neither did the linked article for that matter. I didn't say who's at fault for the attack. I said the website you linked is not putting forth any information that justifies labeling "Ukraine is not to blame for the missile strike on Donetsk" as false. Note that I'm not saying that this site's inability to disprove the claim makes the claim true.

The title literally says "Fake: Ukraine is not to blame for the missile strike on Donetsk". Yes it's saying saying the claim is fake. It then goes on to explain exactly why blaming the attack on Russia makes no sense. The people killed are ethnic Russians and the missile fragments, which you can even see in videos, are not from a Russian made model. What other evidence do you need? A big label on a chunk of metal saying "Made in Kyiv. With love from Zelensky"?

Yes, in the fog of war, it's often hard to see what's true. But this is not one of those examples.

I really don't know if you're trolling or just being pedantic. The site's arguing various headlines are fake, and makes it's case, just as any other news site does. It's not "stupid" because you don't like what they're saying.

[–]package 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

You said it doesn't cite any sources. That's clearly false. You not liking the source doesn't make it not a source.

The entire discussion we are having here is that the only thing it points to to debunk a claim is a source with a clear conflict of interest. It's not a trustworthy source and is not adequate to to debunk anything. It's no more valid than the ukrainian president denying it.

I didn't say you should blindly believe any source. Of course you should be skeptical of sources, even ones that don't purport to be from a government.

You said:

Am I supposed to blindly believe Biden and Zelenksy's self serving claims about the war, but not the head representative in Donbass, when they're the ones who have mostly been getting killed over the last decade?

Which suggests that you think not believing the russian government means you should blindly believe the ukrainian government. Like I said this is a nonsensical argument. It's a false dilemma.

The title literally says "Fake: Ukraine is not to blame for the missile strike on Donetsk". Yes it's saying saying the claim is fake. It then goes on to explain exactly why blaming the attack on Russia makes no sense. The people killed are ethnic Russians and the missile fragments, which you can even see in videos, are not from a Russian made model. What other evidence do you need? A big label on a chunk of metal saying "Made in Kyiv. With love from Zelensky"?

Yes, that's what it's saying. YOU on the other hand said:

A few videos YouTube of the attack are on Youtube. Doesn't look fake to me.

This implies that someone is arguing the attack itself is fake, rather than the claim that ukraine isn't responsible for it. If that's not what you meant you need to work on your english skills. As for evidence, it is entirely possible for a government to do something bad and then blame it on their enemy. False flags are an effective way to demonize an enemy. Am I saying that this is a false flag? No. I'm also not saying that it isn't. What I am saying is that the site you linked is not a valid debunking as it does not cite any credible source.

I really don't know if you're trolling or just being pedantic. The site's arguing various headlines are fake, and makes it's case, just as any other news site does. It's not "stupid" because you don't like what they're saying.

Well I'm convinced at this point that you are either trolling or full on shilling; you linked to a site that debunks anti-russia claims by citing the russian government. You might as well just link to russian state media directly and cut out the middle man.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (2 children)

Is this a Russian posting by chance?

[–]aaarrgh 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

No, there are stories where the Russians are also contradicted.

[–]Zahn 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Muh Russians!!!