gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to MeanwhileOnGrad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 19 days ago"Misinformation" for citing casualty numbers lolsh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square6linkfedilinkarrow-up17arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up17arrow-down1image"Misinformation" for citing casualty numbers lolsh.itjust.worksgravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to MeanwhileOnGrad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 19 days agomessage-square6linkfedilinkfile-text
minus-squarebss03@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·19 days agoI don’t see a citation or any numbers in the removed comment. (I don’t see any misinformation in it either, tho.)
minus-squareZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.worksBanned from communitylinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down1·18 days agoThe idea that it is a discretionary war of conquest is disputed, so calling it that will be considered misinformation. Same works on the inverse where not calling it a discretionary war of conquest is also considered misinformation.
minus-squarepinto@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up1·3 days agoLmao, PugJesus really banned you for being correct. World’s biggest anti communist hates reality. Might as well sign up to join the Nazi party.
I don’t see a citation or any numbers in the removed comment. (I don’t see any misinformation in it either, tho.)
The idea that it is a discretionary war of conquest is disputed, so calling it that will be considered misinformation. Same works on the inverse where not calling it a discretionary war of conquest is also considered misinformation.
Lmao, PugJesus really banned you for being correct. World’s biggest anti communist hates reality. Might as well sign up to join the Nazi party.
Thanks for the explanation!