It also repeatedly calls this is a proxy war, which is simply not true based on, ya know, definitions of words.
Here's a guy who disagrees. But what does he know, he's just a former CIA Director and Secretary of Defense: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2022-03-17/u-s-is-in-a-proxy-war-with-russia-panetta-video
checks my own posting history
Looks fine to me. Oh wait, I'm linking to those well known pro-Russia and pro-China outlets, the Associated Press, Reuters, and the New York Times. Don't listen to me, I'll corrupt your soul with heterodox articles about publicly available government documents.
Can you give examples of the article's problems?
Wasn't someone just complaining that this sub was "nothing but CBC"? Then people look for an excuse to ignore any alternative outlet.
If there's something wrong in the article, let's hear what it is. If there's some reason to doubt the honesty or accuracy of the source -- beyond its openly stated intent to be independent of corporate media -- then say that. But let's remember that trusted, mainstream sources also have their biases and can also be subject to dishonesty and questionable influences.
Ah yes, character assassination that doesn't address the content of the article -- which quotes journalists from mutliple outlets and doesn't involve Greenwald. A picture of unbiased, non-misleading discourse.
Now with fewer child mutilations! 👍