So you only get your “facts” from other sources?
How they proven not to be tainted?
People who deny MSM are doing Russia’s bidding, what does RT say?
Bringing constant doubt is nagging, question but question from a point of fact not simply a viewpoint.
Do you believe there has been no collusion between Putin and Trump and the 2016 election?
What does wikileaks say?
Or doesn’t it?
After extensive investigations The Washington Post and The New York Times have stated that there was no evidence of collusion.
edit: there may have been some collusion with your nazi mates in Ukraine though.
Come now. Breitbart and Stormfront aren’t MSM
So you now believe MSM?
Ha ha brilliant.
In your neck of woods maybe but in Cressington its the Times, Guardian and New Statesman.
I can quote RT for you if you like. Take your pick. If the MSM and alternative media are saying no collusion, what does your probability radar say?
I quite like some of the content of NS but you can stick Murdoch and the Atlantic Council.
So as its the Washington Post you’d agree with this?
Is this on RT?
I don’t know Barry. Have a look for me I’m off out.
Tbf it does allow you to read a limited number of articles per month.
He’s read all the ones that agrees with him…
This goes here I think
It’s a confusing experience because the BBC publishes their shit online too.
Yes let’s. MH-17?
Two suspects. One gets automatic blame, while the other was the one that made MH-17 alter it’s flight path and reduce altitude, but then claimed their radar went down(in that area only).They also have a history of this exact crime, but are not only put on the investigation, but also given a veto. Hold up, a suspect in a crime given a veto over all evidence. Sounds dubious don’t you think?
But anyway, on to the known evidence.
Ukraine provided fragments of the missile that supposedly downed MH-17 and all the innocent people on board(80 children). This missile has been shown to have been in Ukraines possession since it’s delivery in the 90s. Oops.
The bellendcat ‘evidence’ has been proven as a forgery.
There are no eye witness accounts of a BUK missile being fired(watch one, you couldn’t miss it from many many miles). There is however lots of independent witnesses saying they saw fighter jets rising to intercept MH-17 just before it came down(Ukrainian airspace remember and they altered the flight path and altitude of that plane only). This was reported by a BBC correspondent, that interviewed individuals in various locations, but was taken down quick and despite apologising after complaints, refuse to put it back up(who do they work for?).
The cockpit of MH-17 is riddled with 30mm cannon holes(that all Ukrainian fighters have), but this is not mentioned at all. Why not?
Wikipedia and western aviation authorities lowered the altitude ceiling of the fighter jets on their sites just after the incident. Why?
The Americans had a satellite over the area, but refuse to release what it shows. Why?
The rebels that want out of the Nazi regime handed the black box(orange really) over to Malaysian officials in good faith that it would be dealt with and made public. That box disappeared to Farnborough and never been heard of since. We are not and never were involved in the investigation, so again, why?
What the probability tell you?
RT isn’t news its a biased viewpoint of news from a Russian perspective.
What do the Dutch and Malaysians say?
Why shouldn’t I put your views down with no absolute proof as anti western propaganda?