Overall, this site is Questionable due to extreme right wing bias, promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories and poor sourcing. A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence.

Sure sounds like a source I want to line the litterbox with.

[+] brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml 10 points 11 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Why do you say that media bias fact check is baseless propaganda?

edit: One of the most left leaning but highly factual news sites I go to is Fair.org. This site is almost always against the major mainstream media consensus, but backs up its claims with lots of high quality reasoning and evidence. MBFC rate it left-center and high factual reporting.

It gives Jacobin, probably one of the biggest left leaning news sites in the US, a left leaning and high factual reporting score. Jacobin calls themselves left leaning, of course. For anyone who knows history, it's right in their name. So what's the problem there?

Meanwhile, it gives all the major right wing news sites poor ratings. Fox News, Breitbart, Epoch times, etc. get an extreme right and Mixed factual reporting score.

So I understand why you would besmirch MBFC if you're some rightwinger. But, from the left, I don't understand. Reality has a left leaning bias.

[–] Omega_Haxors@lemmy.ml 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

It's true that MBFC biased but it's consistent with its bias. Just shift their ratings to the right by about a meter then it will be accurate.

[+] naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca -18 points 11 months ago (1 children)

As far as I can tell they just translated a Defence Arabia article and cross-referenced it with publicly available information on US deliveries to Ukraine. In another comment, I cited the original article (in Arabic) that they appear to draw from.

[–] athos77@kbin.social 58 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

I don't care. I'm tired of people submitting bullshit sources and then coming up with a reason as to why it's okay to listen to them just this one time. It drives attention and revenue to those sources, encourages their bad behavior, and normalizes the source as 'sometimes okay' in people's minds, eventually leading people to be less critical and and more susceptible to the bullshit the source wants to spread. Which is EXACTLY how propaganda outlets work.

[–] cashews_best_nut@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Kick him in the dick!

[–] Dogyote -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

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?

[–] livus@kbin.social 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

why do they need so many

For doing stuff like this: Four Days in Occupied Western Sahara — A Rare Look Inside Africa’s Last Colony as Ceasefire Ends.

[–] Dogyote 4 points 11 months ago

Thank you

[–] Nacktmull@lemm.ee 6 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Obviously because Morocco makes sure Western Sahara stays a colony deprived of rights, so the West keeps getting those natural resources for cheap.

[–] protist@mander.xyz 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The comment you're responding to explicitly stated why they don't want to engage with this content. To try answering your question though, I'm going to guess it's because Morocco has been buying US arms for a lot longer than Ukraine has. In the title, "has received" is incredibly misleading, it makes it seem like the US is giving tanks to Morocco, but they're buying them.

[–] Dogyote 2 points 11 months ago

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.

[–] Deceptichum@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Who knows, maybe a better source would have provided some much needed information.

[–] RTRedreovic@feddit.ch 0 points 11 months ago

So that Morocco can enforce itself as the Israel of Western Sahara.

[–] jabathekek@sopuli.xyz 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Could this be from an agreement/treaty already put in place before Russia's invasion?

[–] Delta_V@midwest.social 21 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

USA and Morocco signed a treaty 1786 which remains the longest unbroken relationship in U.S. history, in 2004 Morocco was declared a "Major Non-NATO Ally", and Morocco's military and law enforcement train and work together with their U.S. counterparts.

[–] Tosti@feddit.nl 2 points 11 months ago

Or those Russian tanks they had are now freed up to be transported elsewhere.

[–] SharkAttak@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Well how else could they keep the Saharawi menace at bay and keep their stolen land?

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Not quite. Morocco has historical claims to the Western Sahara as well as Mauritania. Morocco was carved up by the Spanish and French during the scramble for Africa in the 19th century. While Morocco eventually gave up its claims to Mauritania it retained the Rif and Western Sahara.

[–] livus@kbin.social 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

historical claims

That's a bit misleading.

[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 2 points 11 months ago

I’m willing to discuss the nuances, but you just linked me to a very long Wikipedia article.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Stolen land? Every single person alive today is on stolen land. The only difference is how recently their ancestors stole it.

Even the first nations of North America stole land from other tribes for a few millenia before the Europeans showed up and stole it all.

The world has never been, and will never be, a static place.

There are plenty of reasons to help out disadvantaged or oppressed groups, ownership of land just isn't one of them.

[–] livus@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago

Contested ownership of land is one of the driving forces behind violent oppression, torture, internment without due process, ethnic cleansing etc etc.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being opposed to this stuff.

Every single person alive today is on stolen land.

Plenty of our ancestors raped people but saying "every single person alive today has DNA from rape" is not a very good reason to support more rape now.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Every single person alive today is on stolen land

Who the Aborigines stole the land from? Or Polynesians?

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Each other.

These people fought, they aren't some sort of saints that always got along peacefully for 60,000 years.

This part of history always gets ignored, but there are archeology studies showing it definitely happened.

[–] ExLisper@linux.community 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Interesting theory. So Americans stole the land from Americans because there was a civil war? That's definitely a way to look at it.

[–] BlameThePeacock@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 months ago

You're grouping together people who were not together. The different tribes that existed were similar to the countries that exist today, though obviously a little less formal in nature.

It's not a civil war when two different tribes fought. Any more than it would be a civil war if Canada and the US fought.

[–] naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

Original source seems to be from Defense Arabia in Arabic: https://defensearabia.com/2023/11/%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D8%BA%D8%B1%D8%A8-%D9%8A%D8%AD%D8%B5%D9%84-%D8%B9%D9%84%D9%89-%D8%AF%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%AA-%D8%A3%D8%A8%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%B2-%D9%88%D9%8A%D9%86%D9%82%D9%84/

[–] livus@kbin.social -3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Well yeah they're a colonial occupying power. Ukraine is just trying to resist one.

[–] morrowind@lemmy.ml 7 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Morocco? Or do you mean the US?

[–] livus@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Morocco, it runs Africa's last colony, with all the brutality that implies.

The US brokered a deal under the Trump administration where Morocco would normalize relations with Israel in exchange for the US "recognizing their sovereignty" over neighbouring Western Sahara, a mineral rich region.

Morocco Agrees to Normalize Ties With Israel in Exchange for U.S. Recognition of Western Sahara Sovereignty.

Background: Western Sahara: the six-decade struggle to liberate Africa’s last colony.