• US occupying forces in northern Syria are continuing to plunder natural resources and farmland, a practice ongoing since 2011
  • Recently, US troops smuggled dozens of tanker trucks loaded with Syrian crude oil to their bases in Iraq.
  • The fuel and convoys of Syrian wheat were transported through the illegal settlement of Mahmoudia.
  • Witnesses report a caravan of 69 tankers loaded with oil and 45 with wheat stolen from silos in Yarubieh city.
  • Similar acts of looting occurred on the 19th of the month in the city of Hasakeh, where 45 tankers of Syrian oil were taken out by US forces.
  • Prior to the war and US invasion, Syria produced over 380 thousand barrels of crude oil per day, but this has drastically reduced to only 15 thousand barrels per day.
  • The country’s oil production now covers only five percent of its needs, with the remaining 95 percent imported amidst difficulties due to the US blockade.
  • The US and EU blockade prevents the entry of medicines, food, supplies, and impedes technological and industrial development in Syria.
  • zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Professors of Practice tend to have experience in the industry they are professors in. Their reputation is hinged on their achievements, and they don’t cite their degree as being instrumental to their credibility.

    Edit: professors are also, y’know, subject to scrutiny and can’t hide behind anonymity when they get things wrong.

    • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      7 months ago

      The site’s history speaks for itself. Because or in spite of him, it’s a solid way to at-a-glance assess an outlet. It is not the whole story, it’s not even a great story, but it’s a start that’s pretty solid.

      • zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        7 months ago

        How would you support this claim? It’s solid because it exists and people read it?

          • zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            It’s credibility and reliability, which I’ve already done and which you’ve acknowledged.

            Just do the legwork to critique the source, it’s not that hard. There’s no need to cite bad sources just because they exist.

            • BolexForSoup@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              You need to show it’s a bad source. Discrediting the founder does not satisfy that requirement.

              • zephyreks@lemmy.mlM
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                7 months ago

                The OP is using this “source” to discredit other sources. If you’re going to disprove another source, prove that your own source is legitimate in spite of the questions regarding its credibility.