nonailsleft

Wooooosh

Well tbf this is a pretty shit piece.

First the author conflates that people like being in the EU with the idea that member states should integrate further in (as in cede power to) the EU. Starting off on a lie doesn't usually bode well for this kind of texts.

He claims that this offers opportunities to coordinate migration policies but when they do, it's wrong because he doesn't like the policy. He claims that they should stand strong in military defence against Russian aggression but when they do, he's against it because the moment the US suspended their aid they acted immediately instead of just waiting for checks notes the European Parliament agreeing on starting a unified EU-army.

This guy just reads like someone that wants the EU to become just like the US regarding centralization, but with his own policies instead of those inconveniently voted for by his fellow citizens.

Isn´t this the plot of Die Hard 3

That´s how you build brand confidence

Why don't you run yourself?

By itself, no

More like less repairable

The US can do a 180 in 4 years. China: not so much

You sound like a caricature account ran by the Mossad to discredit pro-Palestinian posters

And can you describe what you think is wrong with that article? Does it make you question whether those 60+ dead were unrelated to the Israeli attack??

If that's the case then it's just an issue of the Guardian being written for smarter people

You gave a link accusing them of quoting Israeli officials

You don't seem to be able to back up your accusation that they have been avoiding to use the word 'killed'. So why make it?

The Guardian is not misinforming their readers about what's happening in Gaza.

The way you're talking about this is telling me that you're too far gone to look at these things objectively

Do you have any examples of the Guardian dancing around the word 'killed'? The fact you have to resort to their reporting on unrelated issues seems to suggest that's not really the case