you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

In another comment an article is linked saying the money was to maintain the ceasefire. Which could be plausible deniability, but the above also sounds reasonable.

Edit: not sure if my lemmy client is fucked. This was supposed to be in response to @Maeve saying the money was to pay workers and help families in need.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago*

    I suppose it gets hard to keep up with multiple stories, both teller and consumer. Is Clark's law (as the response to Hanlon's razor) applicable here?

    ETA: your post showed up in my notifications.

  • source
  • parent