Comments by "D. San" (@DSan-kl2yc) on "FACT CHECK: Russia Unleashes ‘Missile Terror’ on Ukrainian Civilians Falsely Claims Military Targets" video.

  1. That's right. Nobody said that. And nobody said NATO was trying to dominate the world either.
    2
  2. What about this unrelated this
    1
  3.  @johndaily2597  no one knows anything about the Crimean bridge thing. And no one has said it's U.S weapons even in theory. Russia has already done that by attacking Ukraine. And Crimea is still part of Ukraine. And it was a military target because of supplies. Casualties were kept at a minimum. Russia meanwhile just attacked a few central majorly trafficked areas out of a tantrum.
    1
  4.  @mypronounismaster4450  all Russia proved was Ukraine's point of needing to be in NATO for protection.
    1
  5.  @johndaily2597  another whataboutism that ignores everything, like that the Falklands has had the Brits there since forever. And it's not in my eyes. It's international law, it's not legal. What Russia did was illegal. Crimea didn't have a free and fair election to even voice an opinion before Russia invaded. It is legally still Ukraine. And even if it was Russia, Russia started a war and it would still be a legitimate target. A random city square full of civilians wasn't.
    1
  6.  @johndaily2597  a giant army moved in. That's a fact. It's a different context than the British and the people there having lived in a place for 150 years. It was illegal in a modern context, not some hold over situation from the 1800s. Russia invaded a country that it recognized it had no claim to. But the issue isn't whether Crimea is legit or not, it was whether that bridge was a legit target, and it definitely was. Ukraine didn't start that. The Russians invaded Ukraine. First with Crimea and donbas, and then the entire country. So it's really ridiculous for Russia to cry about it. Or target civilians as a tantrum response to it. They don't have a leg to stand at. Whataboutism is you bringing in situations that don't matter into a conversation about Crimea. The Falklands don't matter. But I took the time to explain the context there. The Brits didn't invade, they had that as a hold over for 150 years. It's a different context than the Brits invading Argentina and annexing some territory.
    1
  7.  @DamnitMan88  the agenda seems to be that Russia has done this before to that person's friend. Heh people try to use these buzzwords to cast doubt but you're not even making sense.
    1
  8.  @gabrielle-d1b  I think you are. I mean you're proving it. You're being very not smart.
    1
  9. You'd dodge the facts expertly. Now you can go on believing lies.
    1