You're like a stuck record, pal.
Maybe work on verifying your own sources before critiquing the sources of others. There's a good chap.
But, since we're on the subject - was this 'Agent OXO' (good one!) inaccurate? Or are you just desperately clutching at straws to somehow falsely reinforce your own belief that everything you read on the Internet is absolutely 100% reliable and any scepticism about spurious (and let's be honest, rather sensationalised) claims is misplaced?
You don't need to answer that. It was largely rhetorical. But, I'm sure you will anyway. You can't help yourself.
(, Fri 4 Mar 2022, 19:06, Reply)
Where did you find the link to Agent OXO?
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Fri 4 Mar 2022, 19:37,
Reply)
On YouTube. I'm not sure what your angle is, though.
Are you suggesting that the claim 'Agent OXO' made about both Russia and Ukraine owning Strela-10 AVs must be untrue because he posted it in a YouTube comments section?
Here's some more analysis for you:
observers.france24.com/en/europe/20220301-video-debunked-russian-tank-crush-civilian-car-kyiv
Alternatively, here's USA Today in case you don't trust the French:
eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2022/02/28/fact-check-video-russian-tank-hitting-car-kyiv-lacks-context/6953727001/
Sorry if it isn't fake-newsy enough for your tastes. Maybe Snake Island is better suited to your personal preferences?
(, Fri 4 Mar 2022, 19:50, Reply)
Where on youtube? You can link, so link it.
People who refuse to share their sources usually have an amusingly embarrassing reason for it, that's all.
Based on your responses I'd guess a paranoia merchant who quote mines and links to articles like these to justify their batshittery.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Fri 4 Mar 2022, 21:25,
Reply)
Here you go:
youtu.be/xfB_T6QKo8c.
The source isn't really relevant in this case, though, is it? The video itself has been repeatedly verified. The question isn't whether the video is real, but rather the context of the footage. Of course, you're already well aware of this and instead are just clutching at straws trying to divert the conversation to a direction where you can then somehow refute the video itself based on the credibility of the channel I linked it from.
Just be a man and admit that there has been insufficient evidence to conclusively identify the tank as being Russian, and anybody jumping to conclusions about its identity were likely doing so based on nothing but sensationalist media reports. Much like those morons that bought into the 'Ghost of Kyiv' propaganda. There's a good lad.
(, Fri 4 Mar 2022, 21:52, Reply)
I can't see the Agent XIX post. Can you link to it?
The WarLeaks blog seems a bit eager to pass on unconfirmed rumours and innuendo from Russian propaganda sources, and claims itself to be a documentary channel: "WarLeaks - Military Blog is an independent, educational and documentary military channel for military enthusiasts from all around the world!"
Compared to Joe (from, damn where was it, Portsmouth?)'s aircraft blog where he apparently just read from the wikipedia page for the Ghost of Kiev, it does seem rather fake newsy, don't you think?
I'm quite eager to read more of expert youtube comment section military analyst Agent XIX's insights though. Can you link to the comment you screenshot? Cheers.
(
brb man-child cuck corporate supplicant fuck, Sat 5 Mar 2022, 17:46,
Reply)