gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to MeanwhileOnGrad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 1 day ago"Misinformation" for citing casualty numbers lolsh.itjust.worksimagemessage-square3fedilinkarrow-up143file-text
arrow-up143image"Misinformation" for citing casualty numbers lolsh.itjust.worksgravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works to MeanwhileOnGrad@sh.itjust.worksEnglish · 1 day agomessage-square3fedilinkfile-text
minus-squarebss03@infosec.publinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·1 day 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.workslinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·18 hours 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.
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.
Thanks for the explanation!