Whatever you say bud. Try learning to read before you try to write in the future because the opening of my first comment to you is "This is so obvious I do not understand why anyone doubts it." and continued to elaborate on the reason behind why I agree.
The fact that you cannot see that demonstrates your absolute lack of good faith here and no further need for me to continue with you.
It is itself extremely biased, you believed an authority that isn’t neutral.
Their problem is that any news agency in the middle east is automatically “untrustworthy” with quotes like “they haven’t been found to report false stories, but we still give them an untrustworthy rating”.
I already gave you the examples, I said that they unfairly represent middle eastern news as untrustworthy. Or are you here to nitpick and “um ackthcshually”?
You have provided 0 examples of a middle eastern news source that is unfairly ranked.
Are you going to keep being combative and waste both of our time refusing to answer a simple good faith question?
Whatever you say bud. Maybe try not fighting people who opened with "I agree with you" and then elaborated their own points without you ever once elaborating on yours if you want to speak with adults.
The only reasons I can see that monster is still breathing is the power vacuum left behind would make the situation worse, and the US would royally fuck anyone who tried it.
This is so obvious I do not understand why anyone doubts it.
In the lead up to the attacks:
Iran was about to get into Nuclear talks again.
Countries were about to come together to work on a road map to a two state solution, which the US is also threatening countries against attending.
-Political good will was almost dried up for the ongoing Genocide, and so Israel needed to attack a country everyone agrees is okay to attack. This increases support, and covers up aforementioned genocide.
This happens every time a two state solution becomes a possible reality, or starts being discussed.
I keep hearing "it isn't the quantity..." and I do not understand why it isn't seen as just as important as trustworthiness of source because even the best source needs a high amount of data to back up a claim.
On the topic of flat earthers, did you ever see the video of the guy who tried to demonstrate the earth was flat and proved it was round? The look on his face was priceless. haha
Generally when people can save 1/5th of their grocery bill with something that is also great for the environment, and can do it in a way that keeps one healthy, people share that information for the benefit of others.
Do you have examples of other bias/fact check sources that contradict the score from MBFS?