Removed by mod

No it is not. That’s only an answer if one thinks that every sources bias is as bad as any other, which was rejected earlier as “outrages strawman”. Under the assumption that sources can be more or less biased, it is worth questioning the bias and the statement “there’s no such thing as a source with no bias” is a moot point.

Sure buddy. It is still irrelevant. It is not hypocritical to ciritice a source. You don’t have to prove a different point to bring forward criticism. The only question should be “is the criticism valid?” And not “do you have a better point?”

But there is a spectrum. Or are you telling me that every source is as biased as any other?

How is it hypocritical? Either the sources are biased or not. The poster not providing proof for a counterargument is irrelevant. Or do you mean they should provide proof for the original sources being biased?

It is hard to agree to a statement like “USA doesn’t like when their people are attacked or killed” when you consider that they are currently starving their poorest because they are having a budget fight over wether to take away health care for a good chunk of their people or not.

Hehehe … Log books

I think Russia has shown that just because they couldn’t doesn’t mean they don’t try anyway.