Searching for true News about the Russo-Ukraine conflict

[Tom 1]

Whether or not I read a word you say, or put you on ignore from now on - is entirely my own choice.

Well, yes. What’s your point here?

 

[Tom 1]

Not at all. Damage to the site, as stated by the govt, and damage to the monument, as conflated into that by the writer, are two separate things. In what way are they the same? The writer is insinuating that because the monument was not damaged then the govt pronouncement about damage to the site , and specifically a number of graves, is false. Are you saying you don’t see the difference there?

1) Did the Ukrainian govt say there was some damage to the site/to some graves? Yes
2) Was there any damage to the site? The article doesn’t say either way.
1) Did the govt claim the monument had been damaged? Who knows? The article makes no mention of this.

You really don’t see that this is misleading? On the basis of a conflation of two different things, the writer makes a false claim of a false claim. Earlier you made some comment about special or privileged information; as you can see, it is simply a matter of considering what you read, rather than simply taking on the misleading insinuations built into the text.

 

[dms1972]

It is not a rule of thumb but refers to current situation. Not wrecking your own cities is not a rule of thumb either if you look at Russians burning Moscow before Napoleon got there.

We don't really know for sure how the fires started:

"Tolstoy, in his book War and Peace, suggests that the fire was not deliberately set, either by the Russians or the French, but was the natural result of placing a deserted and mostly wooden city in the hands of invading troops. Before the invasion, fires would have started nearly every day even with the owners present and a fully functioning fire department, and the soldiers would start additional fires for their own needs, from smoking their pipes, cooking their food twice a day, and burning enemies' possessions in the streets. Some of those fires would inevitably get out of control, and without an efficient firefighting action, these individual building fires can spread to become neighborhood fires, and ultimately a citywide conflagration." (Fire of Moscow (1812) - Wikipedia)

 

[dms1972]

Well, yes. What’s your point here?

My point as you seem determined to argue even after I have said I am not discussing it further with you, or explaining myself further. Is that I make up my own mind, you don't make it up for me. And I decide whether and how long I continue to discuss with you.

 

[Tom 1]

My point as you seem determined to argue even after I have said I am not discussing it further with you, or explaining myself further. Is that I make up my own mind, you don't make it up for me. And I decide whether and how long I continue to discuss with you.

Yes, I don't see how I am preventing you from doing that.

 

[dms1972]

Yes, I don't see how I am preventing you from doing that.

You are sort of preventing me, because - when I say ok I'd like to leave it - you say yes "whats you point?"

I'd rather finish on friendly terms, even if we disagree on some points. Yes you have made some good points, and in the light of which I am prepared to reconsider that for instance the report of the girl at the maternity hospital doesn't provide concrete proof there was no airstrike. I have my questions about other events. I don't accept any single source blindly or one source as always reliable, no matter how high others hold it in esteem. Sometimes one article provides a bit of the bigger picture that I wouldn't get from another. Gradually the more spurious reports will fall by the wayside (some may still cling to some of them, but that is not my concern) and most that is substantial and based on knowledge will remain. So with that I think I will leave it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yes, I don't see how I am preventing you from doing that.

Tom 1, maybe just keep in mind that brother DMS has had some struggles that you and I may not have had to ever contend with, so perhaps go a bit easier on him. I'm just sayin' this for the benefit of you both.

Thanks!

 

[dms1972]

Tom 1, maybe just keep in mind that brother DMS has had some struggles that you and I may not have had to ever contend with, so perhaps go a bit easier on him. I'm just sayin' this for the benefit of you both.

Thanks!

2Philo I don't know if you care to join the discussion, but if you do I would value your opinion even if you see things differently - as regards the Ynet article on a bomb falling on Baybn Yar site. I see it as defusing misinformation that was circulating and being used for a specific purpose to arouse support because it was being suggested Russians had hit the site deliberately, which we didn't know whether it was deliberate or accidental. I researched this further and it appears that what was hit was an old soviet era sports facility that was never fully completed, and debris was strewn over the wider site, and some trees where uprooted on the periphery, and some damage to grave stones.

I like to see the News reporting cancelling out the disinformation and propaganda from both's side, in a way that what we are left with is more objective, rather that something which could engender hatred or distrust unduly. My concern is that a state of affairs that would not have existed except for propaganda and disinformation doesn't come to exist.

However according to Zelensky : "We all died again by Babi Yar. Although the world has promised again and again that it will never happen again" Rhetorically this may be ok with some people, even though not factual. But usually one does not use this sort of speech to engineer support, lest it be seen as crude manipulation.

Unfortunately Zelensky has used emotive and indeed sometimes manipulative language in extremis at times throughout this conflict, from saying that its the end of the world, to we all died again by Babi Yar.

I quite understand how some of this rhetoric works and why its used at times, but then we have to get back to what actually happened and what didn't.

Whether or not mention had been made to any actual damage being done to the monuments - the Jewish and other monuments are what people's minds might fasten onto if they know about the site. And so I don't see anything wrong with the article mentioning the actual monuments as to whether any were damaged.

I don't see it as a conflation - because the monuments are a focal point of Babyn Yar for visitors and people may be interested in whether or not any damage was done to them. To my mind -if its ok for Zelensky to speak rhetorically, its ok for a journalist doing his job and not making a speech, to speak specifically, dispassionately and factually to clarify what wasn't damaged and defuse any propaganda.