152
Russian warships will arrive in Havana next week, say Cuban officials citing ‘friendly relations’
(www.denverpost.com)
this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2024
152 points (99.4% liked)
news
23555 readers
788 users here now
Welcome to c/news! Please read the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember... we're all comrades here.
Rules:
-- PLEASE KEEP POST TITLES INFORMATIVE --
-- Overly editorialized titles, particularly if they link to opinion pieces, may get your post removed. --
-- All posts must include a link to their source. Screenshots are fine IF you include the link in the post body. --
-- If you are citing a twitter post as news please include not just the twitter.com in your links but also nitter.net (or another Nitter instance). There is also a Firefox extension that can redirect Twitter links to a Nitter instance: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/libredirect/ or archive them as you would any other reactionary source using e.g. https://archive.today . Twitter screenshots still need to be sourced or they will be removed --
-- Mass tagging comm moderators across multiple posts like a broken markov chain bot will result in a comm ban--
-- Repeated consecutive posting of reactionary sources, fake news, misleading / outdated news, false alarms over ghoul deaths, and/or shitposts will result in a comm ban.--
-- Neglecting to use content warnings or NSFW when dealing with disturbing content will be removed until in compliance. Users who are consecutively reported due to failing to use content warnings or NSFW tags when commenting on or posting disturbing content will result in the user being banned. --
-- Using April 1st as an excuse to post fake headlines, like the resurrection of Kissinger while he is still fortunately dead, will result in the poster being thrown in the gamer gulag and be sentenced to play and beat trashy mobile games like 'Raid: Shadow Legends' in order to be rehabilitated back into general society. --
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I don't know whether to support the move, I don't like the optics of speaking of your warm relations with a fascist regime, and I think it is generally a mistake to trust a fascist regime with your security.
Hey you know who said pretty much the same about Putin dealing with the oligarchs and not being so bad and actually their government is good and cool now? The obama state department before the Syrian civil war. I think the ones lacking historical perpective isn't me., I think it's you guys. And given the immutable fact that I am right (always) and that I'm not the one in agreement with the US state department back when it wanted to have good Russian relations, I'm pretty confident in saying so.
Nobody's telling you not to argue for your point of view here, but this "I'm always right" bit doesn't make you sound confident, it makes you sound like a smug prick
Given that I am in the company of a bunch of smug pricks, it would seem only natural to act this way.
Explains why you're the only one acting this way
I'm not though. You just disagree with me so others being smug pricks reads as just normal behavior to you.
I wasn't aware that people having clearly stated reasons and citations for the things they believe constituted smugness now
Call me when that happens
You're delusional
No, I'm "Correct".
Hi Correct I'm "There's Several People In This Thread Have Taken The Time To Argue Their Viewpoint Clearly And Also Gone Thru Your Arguments Were You Lie About The Sources You Vaguely Refer To Yet You Somehow Think It's Weird That You're Getting Met With Derision Despite This Shitty Behaviour Of Yours", nice to meet you.
No. There are two people who have done anything approaching that. One I'm having a quite civil discussion about the definition of fascism with, and one is frothing about Robert Paxton.
I should also say that I did not lie about robert paxton, as proven by accurately describing things robert paxton said, while the other guy was just flat out wrong. Although at least while being wrong he managed to cite an article (Although he seems to think it cleared the movement around Trump, which it clearly doesn't). It seems, to me (And I am correct), that you have decided that I am wrong prima facie and therefore even just posting a jackoff emote counts as a good argument, while me going through how a thing fits within a definition that I describe doesn't.
See this is were I refer you to my previous comment: You're delusional
Again, no, I'm just correct and you're mad about that.
No you're actually wrong and mad about that
No u
exactly
you mean the conversation where you were wrong about robert paxton
yes we're smug asf because you're not giving yourself any credibility to challenge that
I’m gonna need some proof on this because I’ve never seen or heard such a thing. Not to mention Putin was not able to fully deal with the Russian oligarchs (WHO HAD CONNECTIONS TO WESTERN POWERS) until the US sanctioned them.
Very cute.