Do you need a pictogram because the obvious isn’t so obvious to you or is that an attempt at a gotcha question but you don’t quite understand how to actually pull that off?
My point was that, whatever the shape of the killing implements, the fact that they’re used for genocide is more important. A genocide Draiman is evidently supporting.
My point is the difference between a bullet and a nuke matters.
No one is arguing it isn’t genocide support, I’m arguing for accuracy. I’m not certain why you’d rather argue against being clear on things like I dunno the difference between a genocide and a defensive action. Words matter, words matter more when you’re a journalist because your words inform others.
I mean, he was signing the shells of whatever type. Kind of splitting hairs here because they’re not technically “bombs” in the traditional sense. He signed the shit that gets fired from whatever, close enough.
Yeah nuance fuck that shit all my homies love willful ignorance. Shit I hope all news starts to go monosyllabic. Bad man take. Good man try stop. Who needs more?
When your job is to investigate and report things as they actually are and you report on a thing that is telling you what it is and you say it is something it isn’t it calls into question the quality and depth of your work product. In this case a missile might be iron don’t related which is technically defensive if you ignore the eod that falls short of it’s intended target, artillery can be in defensive emplacements but it is in use only an offensive weapon which removes some plausible deniability for what’s his face.
Ask yourself why are people saying missiles or bombs and you’ll end up of you look finding a sole outlet that misrepresented what they were and people ran with it because let’s be honest paying attention isn’t so super common these days.
No he signed artillery, not missiles not bombs. I blame the media for not reading the writing on the literal explosive, it’s just lazy journalism.
uhm ackktually he signed a 155mm artillery bombshell (nowadays shortened to just shell) and not artillery which are large cannon like weapons, transportable and usually operated by more than one person unlike a bombshell that’s a bomb or artillery shell designed to explode on impact 🤓
hope this helps!
You legitimately read what I wrote and thought I’d take more accuracy as an insult? Are you dense?
Let me ask you, what’s the harm in more accuracy? You seem offended by it so please explain exactly how it’s hurting your oh so sensitive feelins.
Also not a bombshell, never was unless it’s HE.
And what were these artillery shells intended for?
Do you need a pictogram because the obvious isn’t so obvious to you or is that an attempt at a gotcha question but you don’t quite understand how to actually pull that off?
My point was that, whatever the shape of the killing implements, the fact that they’re used for genocide is more important. A genocide Draiman is evidently supporting.
My point is the difference between a bullet and a nuke matters.
No one is arguing it isn’t genocide support, I’m arguing for accuracy. I’m not certain why you’d rather argue against being clear on things like I dunno the difference between a genocide and a defensive action. Words matter, words matter more when you’re a journalist because your words inform others.
I mean, he was signing the shells of whatever type. Kind of splitting hairs here because they’re not technically “bombs” in the traditional sense. He signed the shit that gets fired from whatever, close enough.
Yeah nuance fuck that shit all my homies love willful ignorance. Shit I hope all news starts to go monosyllabic. Bad man take. Good man try stop. Who needs more?
Man shut the fuck up, he signed shit that you launch at enemies to blow them up. It’s the same fucking shit.
You’re the kind of loser that goes “Um actually, that’s not an AK-47” like who fucking cares? The big picture remains the same.
And Neil Armstrong walked on a surface.
And you’re the kind of person that believes the first thing they see. Or is it rude to draw rude conclusions about people you disagree with?
This isn’t the time for stupid pedantry.
There’s always time for accuracy in journalism.
When your job is to investigate and report things as they actually are and you report on a thing that is telling you what it is and you say it is something it isn’t it calls into question the quality and depth of your work product. In this case a missile might be iron don’t related which is technically defensive if you ignore the eod that falls short of it’s intended target, artillery can be in defensive emplacements but it is in use only an offensive weapon which removes some plausible deniability for what’s his face.
Ask yourself why are people saying missiles or bombs and you’ll end up of you look finding a sole outlet that misrepresented what they were and people ran with it because let’s be honest paying attention isn’t so super common these days.
Then just call it munitions and move on.
That would be more accurate so yeah.