The BBC.com is the UK government. They are not the Russian military. I’m confused why you thought they’d be. So no, they are not a primary source.
Politico.eu isn’t the Russian military either. Did you think they were part of the BBC maybe and since BBC is Russia, Politico would be Russia too? Anyway, they’re actually a German private business. They aren’t a primary source either obviously.
ABC News also isn’t the Russian military. Did you really think the Russian military controlled all the major Western news sites??
Aljazeera.com is also not the Russian state. They are the government of Qatar. It’s a completely different country. Not a primary source.
Armscontrol.org is not the Russian government. They’re a lobbying group in the USA. You need to scroll down to see where it says, but it’s on the page you linked, so it’s weird you didn’t notice. As a general tip, Russian government websites are on the .ru top-level-domain.
Reuters.com is the UK government again. They’re still not Russia and still not a primary source. Did you think the UK was part of Russia?
nypost.com isn’t a primary source either. The “ny” is short for “new york” which is a city in the USA. The USA and Russia are different countries.
cbc.ca is a Canadian thing, the .ca means Canada. If you thought Russia owned the UK maybe that’s where you went wrong, since The UK owned Canada at some point in the past, but actually Canada is a sovereign country now. They’re not part of the UK or of Russia.
inquirer.com is the website for the Philadelphia inquirer, it’s the same situation as the nytimes one, where it’s named after a city in the USA, because they are not Russian. The Russian military didn’t name themselves after a city in the USA. It’s really strange you would think they did.
Washington post is named after another city in the USA. “Washington”. Did you really think all of these outlets were the Russian military, or did you perhaps just not know what a primary source is?
Oh? news to me. I was just showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons (because he did).
See the best part of the thing you are replying to is that you can not seem to tell me apart from other people. My “pithy one-liner” was a dig on how another .Ml person just so happens to show up to have the argument as the russian apologist. No where did I claim to provide any primary sources, in fact if you look you can see me making fun of that requirement.
But hey, at least you are a fan of Ben Shapiro. That must be neat.
I was just showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons.
Why? Why are you showing this? Your evidence is weaker than that shown by sweng@programming.dev and pushes the same agenda as that post. Your post is completely superfluous unless you can address the specific shortcoming of that post, which is a shortcoming of proof.
This is yogthos@lemmy.ml’s reply to sweng@programming.dev’s post.
Pretty much none of those were actually stated by Russia. The trend has been that it’s the west that make up these red lines, then crosses them and says, see nothing happened. Last I checked, the actual red line Russia set out was Ukraine joining NATO, and when that red line was ignored the war started. This notion that you can just keep pushing a nuclear superpower and nothing bad will happen is imbecilic beyond belief.
If you bother reading the sources, then you’ll see that these aren’t primary sources of anything the Russian government said. These are articles and interpretations by western analysts and think tanks. Feel free to link statements from the Russian government though.
To which you replied. Now given that your message is a reply and not a new thread, it’s should be expected to actually respond to the criticism that there was a lack of proof. A proof of a statement is very easy to get, since all you need to do is link the statement or a recording of the statement. This isn’t a case where you’re asked to prove something where proof wouldn’t exist or could be ambiguous.
Now in this most recent reply, you pretend that you didn’t realise the current topic was about finding primary sources. But if we go further back in the thread, this reply from you shows that you do actually understand that you’re being asked to provide a primary source:
Where are your primary sources?
I’m using “you’re” to include your side of the argument, not “thou”. You also claim to have a primary source available. Linking this source with a timestamp should be easy for you. This would completely win the argument in your favour. The only reason you wouldn’t do this is if you are deliberately lying.
They did and some of us watched it live (we are told) on russian state TV in 2022,2023 and just last month. Please provide primary sources that contradict what I witnessed.
But yes, if you want to have a official statement watch the victory day parade speech putin made.
Putin is a primary source on the statements Putin has made. This is excellent for you because if he said something to the effect of what was alleged by sweng@programming.dev then you will have addressed yogthos@lemmy.ml’s two comments. sweng@programming.dev made a strong emotional argument which you agree with, its only shortcoming is that it’s lacking supporting evidence. You joined this thread to provide supporting evidence, because emotional rhetoric was already supplied by sweng@programming.dev. Do you see now how adding additional and weaker emotional arguments is not further strengthening the emotional argument? This is because the emotional argument is already strong enough, it simply needs to be supported by evidence so that it can be considered.
You recognised this in the past and are now deliberately lying about your intentions. You wrote:
Should be [easy to find], go nuts look it up.
This is because you knew that if the evidence existed, it would’ve completed sweng@programming.dev’s argument, which you agreed with. You didn’t deny the existence of the proof because you understood that it would cause the argument to not be considered. You also didn’t provide the proof yourself because didn’t want to. Potentially because you knew it didn’t exist, which would be a second lie. But regardless, you have lied once during this argument.
yogthos@lemmy.ml’s next comment which you responded to is the following.
I can’t look up what does not exist. There is no such statement, you made it up and now you’re asking me to prove a negative.
This is the comment which you chose to respond to by “showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons.”
This makes no sense. That is not a sensible reply to that comment. Why would you assume anyone else would follow when you switch topics unannounced? You wouldn’t. You are lying about the intention of your comment. Your comment was meant to be interpreted as primary sources. You were hoping no one would notice that you failed to provide them.
This is the evidence for you now claiming to not have intended to provide primary sources. This is a quote from you, so it’s a primary source.
My “pithy one-liner” was a dig on how another .Ml person just so happens to show up to have the argument as the russian apologist. No where did I claim to provide any primary sources, in fact if you look you can see me making fun of that requirement.
Neither highalectical@lemmygrad.ml nor I are Lemmy.ml users. yogthos@lemmy.ml can’t be described as a Russian apologist since no Russian claims were addressed or apologised for. The only claims that have been substantiated in this thread with evidence were western ones.
You end by saying you were making fun of the requirement to provide evidence. This is a stupid statement. This is clearly a lie because no reasonable person would think it is anything but expected for evidence to be part of an argument or statement.
Are you taking the piss mate??
The BBC.com is the UK government. They are not the Russian military. I’m confused why you thought they’d be. So no, they are not a primary source.
Politico.eu isn’t the Russian military either. Did you think they were part of the BBC maybe and since BBC is Russia, Politico would be Russia too? Anyway, they’re actually a German private business. They aren’t a primary source either obviously.
ABC News also isn’t the Russian military. Did you really think the Russian military controlled all the major Western news sites??
Aljazeera.com is also not the Russian state. They are the government of Qatar. It’s a completely different country. Not a primary source.
Armscontrol.org is not the Russian government. They’re a lobbying group in the USA. You need to scroll down to see where it says, but it’s on the page you linked, so it’s weird you didn’t notice. As a general tip, Russian government websites are on the .ru top-level-domain.
Reuters.com is the UK government again. They’re still not Russia and still not a primary source. Did you think the UK was part of Russia?
nypost.com isn’t a primary source either. The “ny” is short for “new york” which is a city in the USA. The USA and Russia are different countries.
cbc.ca is a Canadian thing, the .ca means Canada. If you thought Russia owned the UK maybe that’s where you went wrong, since The UK owned Canada at some point in the past, but actually Canada is a sovereign country now. They’re not part of the UK or of Russia.
inquirer.com is the website for the Philadelphia inquirer, it’s the same situation as the nytimes one, where it’s named after a city in the USA, because they are not Russian. The Russian military didn’t name themselves after a city in the USA. It’s really strange you would think they did.
Washington post is named after another city in the USA. “Washington”. Did you really think all of these outlets were the Russian military, or did you perhaps just not know what a primary source is?
Funny you bring up primary sources…
Funny your only response to being destroyed with facts and logic is a pithy one-liner.
Oh? news to me. I was just showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons (because he did).
See the best part of the thing you are replying to is that you can not seem to tell me apart from other people. My “pithy one-liner” was a dig on how another .Ml person just so happens to show up to have the argument as the russian apologist. No where did I claim to provide any primary sources, in fact if you look you can see me making fun of that requirement.
But hey, at least you are a fan of Ben Shapiro. That must be neat.
Why? Why are you showing this? Your evidence is weaker than that shown by sweng@programming.dev and pushes the same agenda as that post. Your post is completely superfluous unless you can address the specific shortcoming of that post, which is a shortcoming of proof.
This is yogthos@lemmy.ml’s reply to sweng@programming.dev’s post.
To which you replied. Now given that your message is a reply and not a new thread, it’s should be expected to actually respond to the criticism that there was a lack of proof. A proof of a statement is very easy to get, since all you need to do is link the statement or a recording of the statement. This isn’t a case where you’re asked to prove something where proof wouldn’t exist or could be ambiguous.
Now in this most recent reply, you pretend that you didn’t realise the current topic was about finding primary sources. But if we go further back in the thread, this reply from you shows that you do actually understand that you’re being asked to provide a primary source:
I’m using “you’re” to include your side of the argument, not “thou”. You also claim to have a primary source available. Linking this source with a timestamp should be easy for you. This would completely win the argument in your favour. The only reason you wouldn’t do this is if you are deliberately lying.
Putin is a primary source on the statements Putin has made. This is excellent for you because if he said something to the effect of what was alleged by sweng@programming.dev then you will have addressed yogthos@lemmy.ml’s two comments. sweng@programming.dev made a strong emotional argument which you agree with, its only shortcoming is that it’s lacking supporting evidence. You joined this thread to provide supporting evidence, because emotional rhetoric was already supplied by sweng@programming.dev. Do you see now how adding additional and weaker emotional arguments is not further strengthening the emotional argument? This is because the emotional argument is already strong enough, it simply needs to be supported by evidence so that it can be considered.
You recognised this in the past and are now deliberately lying about your intentions. You wrote:
This is because you knew that if the evidence existed, it would’ve completed sweng@programming.dev’s argument, which you agreed with. You didn’t deny the existence of the proof because you understood that it would cause the argument to not be considered. You also didn’t provide the proof yourself because didn’t want to. Potentially because you knew it didn’t exist, which would be a second lie. But regardless, you have lied once during this argument.
yogthos@lemmy.ml’s next comment which you responded to is the following.
This is the comment which you chose to respond to by “showing that the world outside russia agrees putin has on a few occasions threatened the use of strategic weapons.”
This makes no sense. That is not a sensible reply to that comment. Why would you assume anyone else would follow when you switch topics unannounced? You wouldn’t. You are lying about the intention of your comment. Your comment was meant to be interpreted as primary sources. You were hoping no one would notice that you failed to provide them.
This is the evidence for you now claiming to not have intended to provide primary sources. This is a quote from you, so it’s a primary source.
Neither highalectical@lemmygrad.ml nor I are Lemmy.ml users. yogthos@lemmy.ml can’t be described as a Russian apologist since no Russian claims were addressed or apologised for. The only claims that have been substantiated in this thread with evidence were western ones.
You end by saying you were making fun of the requirement to provide evidence. This is a stupid statement. This is clearly a lie because no reasonable person would think it is anything but expected for evidence to be part of an argument or statement.
This makes no sense. That is not a sensible reply to that comment.