MicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 1 year agoRussia spreading false claims about Qur’an burnings to harm NATO bid, says Swedenwww.theguardian.comexternal-linkmessage-square29fedilinkarrow-up12arrow-down10file-text
arrow-up12arrow-down1external-linkRussia spreading false claims about Qur’an burnings to harm NATO bid, says Swedenwww.theguardian.comMicroWave@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 1 year agomessage-square29fedilinkfile-text
Defence agency says Moscow is using the protests in Stockholm to stir tensions between Arab countries and the west
minus-squareBuffalox@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·edit-21 year agoYour previous post is textbook Whataboutism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism argument is not answered or discussed, but retorted with a critical counter-question which expresses a counter-accusation.
minus-squarefreagle@lemmygrad.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up0arrow-down1·1 year agoNo argument was actually made. I was the one making the argument, which was that Russia’s meddling is smaller and less damaging than Western meddling.
minus-squareBuffalox@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·1 year agoYour response was to how “Russia meddles” as you put it yourself. And instead of making an argument, you say “so did the West”. Which is whataboutism, ad hominem and a red herring. You never put forward an actual argument in your comment starting with “Any Western reporting” Which I referred to earlier. I find it very hard to understand how you believe you are actually making a point here?
Your previous post is textbook Whataboutism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
No argument was actually made. I was the one making the argument, which was that Russia’s meddling is smaller and less damaging than Western meddling.
Your response was to how “Russia meddles” as you put it yourself. And instead of making an argument, you say “so did the West”.
Which is whataboutism, ad hominem and a red herring.
You never put forward an actual argument in your comment starting with “Any Western reporting” Which I referred to earlier.
I find it very hard to understand how you believe you are actually making a point here?