There’s a particularly toxic type of internet commentator or political propanganda that depends on listeners not reading or remembering recent history.
The soft version is the typical approach where events get exagerated for to support a point, then the hard version where claims are made that their cited documentation doesn’t actually say. See the Muller report and claims it exonerates Donald Trump. That’s a specific, strong and false claim.
I remember 2011 like it was yesterday. So imagine my surprise when I read recent internet comments claiming the U.S. “invaded” Lybia, listed in the same sentence as the Iraq invasion and occupation.
[ example of anti U.S. comment ]
This sort of revisionism is insidious because as you’re reading, you’re looking for the main point, perhaps a reaction to a previous comment or tweet. The supporting “facts” can slip under the fence – they sound close enough to something you recognize as history. Little by little these claims evolve into something detached from the truth.