Russia doesn’t need Ukraine on its own, they need Ukraine to get access Poland, Romania and Moldova.
But why? Poland and Romania are already in NATO. Isn’t that why they’re attacking Ukraine now and Georgia in 2008, to prevent them from joining NATO?
duckduckgo has been working well imo
Unfortunately it is
Nah I asked first and looked later. I was so overcome by the need to pop someone’s little righteous justice boner I couldn’t help but comment first.
First sentence says where they deployed them, dingus.
I don’t care how they feel about the source. I think we’re all grown-ups here and are capable of seeing through any propaganda the source may have added to the facts. I’m here to discuss the factual content of the article, which is rather interesting. I haven’t been following the drama of northwestern Africa’s territorial disputes.
Don’t guess, because you’re just wrong. 1st sentence. “The received tanks were immediately deployed to the southern part of the country, specifically to the disputed Western Sahara region.” Some other commentors added more relevant info, so nice of them.
“has received” is indeed misleading, if you’re in high school. No one receives weapons for free, not even Ukraine or Israel. Obviously Morocco paid for them.
How about we engage with the content? They didn’t make up the numbers, so why is Morocco getting more tanks than Ukraine and why do they need so many?
Guess it just malfunctioned and blew up
He was also heard mumbling, Turks know it when they see it
I posted the Al Jazeera video analysis yesterday. The conclusions of both videos don’t seem entirely contradictory. I find AP’s analysis as credible as Al Jazeera’s, although it did look like Al Jazeera was correct when they showed that the missile in question was hit by an Iron Dome missile. Regardless, if that was the case, I wouldn’t fault the IDF for shooting down a missile over Gaza that was destined for Israeli territory. Also possible the missile just exploded by itself. Either way, seems so unlikely the warhead survived either incident and very unlucky the warhead fell where it did.
The first and second statements are true, but I’m unconvinced of your conclusion. Even if they are biased, the video analysis appears to be legit.
Dude, that exact missile shown in your video “misfiring” was in the Al Jazeera video. In the latter, they show how that missile was intercepted by an iron dome missle and was very much blown apart. Perhaps by some crazy chance the warhead remained intact and just fell into the hospital parking lot and exploded, which seems very unlikely, although possible. So with this data, I’d bet that whatever exploded at the hospital wasn’t a missile or part of a missile. Sooo what was it?
I’ve been reading their articles for years and haven’t noticed false information or any significant bias. Care to explain your position?
Edit 2 (a day later): AP did their own video analysis and came to slightly different conclusions: https://lemmy.world/post/7113210
Tl;dw: Decent video evidence shows that the rocket the IDF claims hit the hospital was in fact intercepted and destroyed by the iron dome missle defense system. Thus it’s unlikely the hospital was hit by an errant missle fired by Hamas or other Palestinian groups.
Edit 1: If there was another missile, wouldn’t it be seen in the video like the other missiles?
I KNEW IT!
Does this plan require good returns on investments? Cuz 15K × 20 years doesn’t equal 500 to 700k. Isn’t that how a lot of boomers got financially wrecked? Putting all their money into 401Ks or housing only to have them lose a ton of value every time there’s a once in a lifetime financial crisis? Hopefully this doesn’t sound sarcastic, they’re honest questions.
True, but if you’re not going to subscribe regardless then why not?
Well you got a better idea?
I looked, and they don’t.