The democratic socialist Melat Kiros unseated the long-serving US representative Diana DeGette in Colorado’s primary elections held on Tuesday, the latest in a string of high-profile victories for the party’s insurgent left.
The Associated Press reported that Kiros had defeated DeGette for the Democratic nomination in the deep-blue first congressional district centered on Denver. Kiros’s triumph came a week after New York voters unseated two Democratic congressional incumbents and replaced a third who was retiring with candidates who had campaigned on standing up to Israel amid accusations that it was carrying out a genocide in Gaza.
Yeah… as I’ve already pointed out, yes, they do call that out. And you trying to preempt me by calling that “oblique” doesn’t change that.
Literally the whole argument is “Ukraine shouldn’t tarnish its moral high ground in its defensive retaliations by indiscriminately targeting civilians they way russia does to them in the war that russia started.”
His word choice may have been hamfisted in places, but that is not what russian propaganda sounds like.
And they’re not doing that to post opinion pieces in The Guardian, either. They’re funding troll farms where people make disingenuous arguments like what you’re doing. Literally the shit you’re saying is exactly how that stuff sounds.
Sometimes it’s even so convoluted that I wouldn’t be surprised if you’re claiming “Minimize civilian casualties” is a pro-russian statement, specifically to shame Ukraine-supporters into saying “Nah, fuck those civilians” just so that russia has something to point to and say “See, I told you they’re evil aggressors!” and tarnish that moral high ground that the author discussed.
I certainly don’t think the kremlin would give a fuck if their disinfo gets more russian civilians killed, if they think it will gain them more leverage over negotiations or worldwide public opinion.
At best - okay, granting a ludicrous amount of good intent - at best that’s a delusional position from someone who hasn’t been near weapons fire in decades if ever. What does our illustrious professor think WAR is? Huuh! Good gawd, y’all.
I never said I agree with his position in its entirety. I even called it hamfisted in places. I think the three opposing opinions in the other piece I linked were much better.
But that doesn’t change the fact that the original was not a pro-russian piece, and the guardian is not a pro-russian outlet; nor a billionaire-sponsored media outlet, to bring this discussion back to where it started before you led us down this trail of red herrings.