Advertisement
by Vetalia » Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:41 pm
by Sundiata » Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:44 pm
by The Alma Mater » Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:45 pm
by South Odreria 2 » Tue Jun 30, 2020 10:48 pm
The Alma Mater wrote:Sundiata wrote:Anonymous intelligence officials were the same source cited for there being WMDs in Iraq, of which there were none.
I want another source that isn't "anonymous intelligence officials."
Actually there were WMDs in Iraq. We know that for certain since the USA gave them to them.
What Iraq did with them is a scary question.
Valrifell wrote:
Disregard whatever this poster says
by Sundiata » Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:39 am
South Odreria 2 wrote:The Alma Mater wrote:
Actually there were WMDs in Iraq. We know that for certain since the USA gave them to them.
What Iraq did with them is a scary question.
Saddam had all of them destroyed in compliance with the UN while deceiving his military into thinking that he was only destroying some of them.
The Alma Mater wrote:Sundiata wrote:Anonymous intelligence officials were the same source cited for there being WMDs in Iraq, of which there were none.
I want another source that isn't "anonymous intelligence officials."
Actually there were WMDs in Iraq. We know that for certain since the USA gave them to them.
What Iraq did with them is a scary question.
by Vassenor » Wed Jul 01, 2020 12:55 am
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:09 am
by Crockerland » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:33 am
by Sundiata » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:45 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Sundiata wrote:Anonymous intelligence officials were the same source cited for there being WMDs in Iraq, of which there were none.
I want another source that isn't "anonymous intelligence officials."
A better source before urging the government to war? Certainly.
A better source to say "yeah, they probably did that" not so much.
It's basically plausible with no evidence at all, so tell us why you reject the evidence available?
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:47 am
Crockerland wrote:That's crazy, Trump should retaliate against those terrorists so that the Democrats can call him a violent warmonger and try to pass a war powers resolution to censure him for defending the country.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 2:58 am
Sundiata wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
A better source before urging the government to war? Certainly.
A better source to say "yeah, they probably did that" not so much.
It's basically plausible with no evidence at all, so tell us why you reject the evidence available?
Because it wouldn't be the first time that the American public has been provided incomplete information.
by Austerlitsch » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:09 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Sundiata wrote:Because it wouldn't be the first time that the American public has been provided incomplete information.
"Lie to me once, I'll never believe you again."
That's a childish attitude, and one you can't afford to take towards a big source of information.
Intelligence does sometimes get corrupted on its way to the public. And of course most intelligence never even gets to the public. But you can't afford to dismiss it all, or even to dismiss that which doesn't suit your political beliefs. Doing so is nothing but willful ignorance.
Personally I'm putting about 20% weight on this information. If it came through government, I'd put about 50% weight. That big lie nearly twenty years ago has left its mark, but it has not destroyed the reputation of the US government with me.
by Vassenor » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:10 am
Austerlitsch wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
"Lie to me once, I'll never believe you again."
That's a childish attitude, and one you can't afford to take towards a big source of information.
Intelligence does sometimes get corrupted on its way to the public. And of course most intelligence never even gets to the public. But you can't afford to dismiss it all, or even to dismiss that which doesn't suit your political beliefs. Doing so is nothing but willful ignorance.
Personally I'm putting about 20% weight on this information. If it came through government, I'd put about 50% weight. That big lie nearly twenty years ago has left its mark, but it has not destroyed the reputation of the US government with me.
After 3 1/2 years of lies and "anonymous sources", I think it is justified that trust in the media is low. As another poster stated, why would you have to pay people who from an ideological stand point are already happy to kill American and British soldiers? It makes no sense and is just another attempt to revive the failed Russia narrative.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:32 am
Austerlitsch wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
"Lie to me once, I'll never believe you again."
That's a childish attitude, and one you can't afford to take towards a big source of information.
Intelligence does sometimes get corrupted on its way to the public. And of course most intelligence never even gets to the public. But you can't afford to dismiss it all, or even to dismiss that which doesn't suit your political beliefs. Doing so is nothing but willful ignorance.
Personally I'm putting about 20% weight on this information. If it came through government, I'd put about 50% weight. That big lie nearly twenty years ago has left its mark, but it has not destroyed the reputation of the US government with me.
After 3 1/2 years of lies and "anonymous sources", I think it is justified that trust in the media is low. As another poster stated, why would you have to pay people who from an ideological stand point are already happy to kill American and British soldiers? It makes no sense and is just another attempt to revive the failed Russia narrative.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:34 am
Vassenor wrote:Austerlitsch wrote:
After 3 1/2 years of lies and "anonymous sources", I think it is justified that trust in the media is low. As another poster stated, why would you have to pay people who from an ideological stand point are already happy to kill American and British soldiers? It makes no sense and is just another attempt to revive the failed Russia narrative.
Failed so hard that people went to jail for collusion with Russia that you claim never happened.
by Austerlitsch » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:38 am
Vassenor wrote:Austerlitsch wrote:
After 3 1/2 years of lies and "anonymous sources", I think it is justified that trust in the media is low. As another poster stated, why would you have to pay people who from an ideological stand point are already happy to kill American and British soldiers? It makes no sense and is just another attempt to revive the failed Russia narrative.
Failed so hard that people went to jail for collusion with Russia that you claim never happened.
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 6:58 am
by WayNeacTia » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:02 am
RiderSyl wrote:You'd really think that defenders would communicate with each other about this. I know they're not a hivemind, but at least some level of PR skill would keep Quebecshire and Quebecshire from publically contradicting eac
wait
by Austerlitsch » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:08 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:Austerlitsch wrote:
Failed so hard it made Soviet show trials look like an episode of Judge Judy.
Do you remember Paul Manafort? Does seven years jail jog your memory?
It's shameful that you won't stand up for the footsoldiers who fell protecting your precious Trump. You'll just say "show trial" but you won't call for the reversal of the convictions. Nah, don't want to go digging up bodies do you?
by Nobel Hobos 2 » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:13 am
Austerlitsch wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:
Do you remember Paul Manafort? Does seven years jail jog your memory?
It's shameful that you won't stand up for the footsoldiers who fell protecting your precious Trump. You'll just say "show trial" but you won't call for the reversal of the convictions. Nah, don't want to go digging up bodies do you?
Dodging my question about Democrat foreign collusion I see.
Not that I expected less, and since you are going for a personal attack rather than refuting what I said I take it I won the argument.
I also enjoy that you make a personal attack on me based on nothing other than my skepticism about a "leak", that points to Russia being the supreme evil of the world for the 1000th time. What happened about Obama's precious "Russian Reset Button"? Or how the 1960s wanted Romney's Cold War policies back. I thought things were peachy now?
by Vassenor » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:14 am
Austerlitsch wrote:Vassenor wrote:
Failed so hard that people went to jail for collusion with Russia that you claim never happened.
Failed so hard it made Soviet show trials look like an episode of Judge Judy.
You mean people going to jail for collusion like Lt. Gen. Flynn who was told he wouldn't need an attorney despite being secretly questioned by the FBI? Even more so that the agents who questioned him didn't think he was lying, but this evidence was withheld and he was charged with perjury. Thank God the DOJ is trying get his case dropped. Additionally, other than Lt. Gen. Flynn, the other people charged in the Mueller Report were for financial violations.
Also what about Democrat collusion with foreign powers? Clinton paid a British spy, to get information from the big bad Russia to get dirt on Trump and create a fake dossier. And yes it is fake, because under oath, said spy, Christopher, Steele, admitted everything in the dossier was not verified or verifiable. Yet it was that fake dossier that started this mess to begin with. Nothing wrong with that I take it? And lets not get started with Biden and his "well of a b*tch, he was fired" when talking about his interference in Ukrainian business and investigations.
by Austerlitsch » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:16 am
Vassenor wrote:Austerlitsch wrote:
Failed so hard it made Soviet show trials look like an episode of Judge Judy.
You mean people going to jail for collusion like Lt. Gen. Flynn who was told he wouldn't need an attorney despite being secretly questioned by the FBI? Even more so that the agents who questioned him didn't think he was lying, but this evidence was withheld and he was charged with perjury. Thank God the DOJ is trying get his case dropped. Additionally, other than Lt. Gen. Flynn, the other people charged in the Mueller Report were for financial violations.
Also what about Democrat collusion with foreign powers? Clinton paid a British spy, to get information from the big bad Russia to get dirt on Trump and create a fake dossier. And yes it is fake, because under oath, said spy, Christopher, Steele, admitted everything in the dossier was not verified or verifiable. Yet it was that fake dossier that started this mess to begin with. Nothing wrong with that I take it? And lets not get started with Biden and his "well of a b*tch, he was fired" when talking about his interference in Ukrainian business and investigations.
#ButHillary
Everybody drink.
by Vassenor » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:17 am
by Austerlitsch » Wed Jul 01, 2020 7:48 am
Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:People were convicted over the "Russia hoax" and if you really thought it was a hoax you'd be calling for their release. Not desperately trying to change the subject.
by Gormwood » Wed Jul 01, 2020 8:04 am
Austerlitsch wrote:Nobel Hobos 2 wrote:People were convicted over the "Russia hoax" and if you really thought it was a hoax you'd be calling for their release. Not desperately trying to change the subject.
Umm, did you miss the part where I said I was happy the DOJ was trying to get Flynn's case dropped?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Chistorossiya, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, Kanovra, Korea Peninsula, Pasong Tirad, The Archregimancy, Tungstan, Turenia
Advertisement