this post was submitted on 18 Mar 2024
133 points (90.8% liked)

World News

33700 readers
390 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Lol, okay. Wikipedia and Reuters are not US government owned or even US-based media sources, and the wiki article is well cited by sources all over the globe. The US state department posts are just there as a tl;dr to be honest. But sure, any source that doesn't align with your personal narrative must be biased propaganda. I note you didn't actually address the point.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago

Wikipedia is incredibly NATO biased, if you will. The admins are all pro-West shills that manipulate any historical or geopolitical reference or material in their favour, to "rewrite" history as the "victors".

https://archive.is/E1GwQ

https://hongkongfp.com/2021/09/14/exclusive-wikipedia-bans-7-mainland-chinese-power-users-over-infiltration-and-exploitation-in-unprecedented-clampdown/

https://lists.wikimedia.org/hyperkitty/list/[email protected]/message/6ANVSSZWOGH27OXAIN2XMJ2X7NWRVURF/

As for Reuters, almost all of Western media is connected to either Council of Foreign Relations, annual Bilderberg conferences, NED or Murdoch news network, all of which is pro-NATO propagandist neolib/neocon garbage. Reuters is one of them.