gearhog

@Lawman, I found your taxes. If you got your shot, don't watch this. I don't want a stroke on my conscience.

You want a moderator to run my IP address? For what? Retaliation for disagreeing with you? Go ahead. You gonna show up in your knee high boots and arrest me for making statements against the state? This is like some sort of 1984/Gulag Archipelago type stuff, man. You're losing your mind over this. Take a break, brother.

"Ukrainian purity" You can't be serious. https://www.euronews.com/2023/01/24/ukraine-corruption-scandal-string-of-officials-resign-in-kyiv The United States vowed to tightly monitor how Ukraine spends billions of dollars of aid on Tuesday, following a damaging corruption scandal that led to a string of resignations in Kyiv. While Washington said it had no evidence western funds were being misused, US State Department Spokesman Ned Price promised there would be "rigorous monitoring" to ensure American assistance was not diverted. Several senior Ukrainian officials were dismissed on Tuesday, in the wake of a corruption scandal surrounding illicit payments to deputy ministers and over-inflated military contracts. A total of five regional governors, four deputy ministers and two heads of a government agency left their posts, alongside the deputy head of the presidential administration and the deputy attorney general. In his nightly address, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said the purge was "necessary" to maintain "a strong state", while Price hailed it as "quick" and "essential". Still, the scandal comes at a sensitive time for Kyiv, as it asks for ever-increasing amounts of support from the West and faces down Russian advances in the east. Corruption could dampen Western enthusiasm for the Ukrainian government, which has a long history of shaky governance. EDIT: @Lawman, one more for your consideration. Just got my W-2s the other day and I paid the highest taxes I've ever paid in my life, by a lot. I hope you did, too. We should all be concerned where they're going. I'm never going to apologize for my concerns. https://www.kyivpost.com/post/6880

How am I adopting the "No True Scotsman" position? I am amused that you actually googled "logical fallacies", randomly selected one that's irrelevant, and hoped it would kind of work to make it seem like you kind of knew what you're talking about. Explain how my position in any way relates to it. I'll wait. Are you really accusing me of doubting Ukrainian purity? Is that a joke? And once again, like clockwork, you get a little flustered and regress into the insults and name calling. Didn't see that one coming a mile away. LOL

You're still calling it wild bullshit. I don't get it? Is the video of Biden saying he will bring an end to the pipeline fake? If you cannot see the video or do not trust any of the sources, I can get you another source. Perhaps you will find this sufficient: This is the official White House Transcript. Once again, is this bullshit? Please answer. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2022/02/07/remarks-by-president-biden-and-chancellor-scholz-of-the-federal-republic-of-germany-at-press-conference/ (Speaks German.) (As interpreted.) If I may ask you, Chancellor Scholz — you said there was some strategic ambiguity that was needed in terms of sanctions. I just wanted to know whether the sanctions you are envisaging and the EU is working on — and the U.S. as well — are already finished, finalized, or is there still work ongoing? And you’re not really saying what the details are. Is that just an excuse for Germany, maybe, to not support the SWIFT measures? PRESIDENT BIDEN: The first question first. If Germany — if Russia invades — that means tanks or troops crossing the — the border of Ukraine again — then there will be — we — there will be no longer be a Nord Stream 2. We will bring an end to it. Q But how will you — how will you do that exactly, since the project and control of the project is within Germany’s control? PRESIDENT BIDEN: We will — I promise you, we’ll be able to do it. CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: (As interpreted.) Thank you very much for your question. I want to be absolutely clear: We have intensively prepared everything to be ready with the necessary sanctions if there is a military aggression against Ukraine. And this is necessary. It is necessary that we do this in advance so that Russia can clearly understand that these are far-reaching, severe measures. It is part of this process that we do not spell out everything in public because Russia could understand that there might be even more to come. And, at the same time, it is very clear we are well prepared with far-reaching measures. We will take these measures together with our Allies, with our partners, with the U.S., and we will take all necessary steps. You can be sure that there won’t be any measures in which we have a differing approach. We will act together jointly. (Speaks in English.) And possibly this is a good idea to say to our American friends: We will be united, we will act together, and we will take all the necessary steps. And all the necessary steps will be done by all of us together. Q And will you commit today — will you commit today to turning off and pulling the plug on Nord Stream 2? You didn’t mention it, and you haven’t mentioned it. CHANCELLOR SCHOLZ: As I’ve already said, we are acting together, we are absolutely united, and we will not be taking different steps. We will do the same steps, and they will be very, very hard to Russia, and they should understand.

Bullshit? I just searched for "Biden Nordstream" and that was one of the first results. I posted it because it was vertically oriented and had subtitles. I did change it because I didn't notice the handle. The poster is probably a little sketch. Maybe this one will work better for you. Is it BS too? Yahoo Finance. I have a couple dozen links. I can likely get whichever source you trust. Just let me know.

https://twitter.com/Edwin07011/status/1623364307818844180?s=20&t=3ZTV3B263sNEWXTdhSkKAw

You're losing the argument so instead of pointing to evidence where I've ever said such things when I challenged you, your basis is now "You're thinking it, but not saying it." Falling back to that reasoning is childish. But I guess in your mind, it works. You can literally accuse me of anything and then say "Liar. You're really a communist." Thank you, Senator John McCarthy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism Again, you don't have anything at all to legitimately criticize so you resort, as usual, to making things up. I have said time and again that I want Russia to fail. Search my post history. You'll find it. But what I don't want it to lose the principles that made America great in the process. You seem to be willing to accept "skeletons", to excuse criminal behavior, to rationalize and justify any act that harms Russia. That's a Pyrrhic victory. You may be satisfied with one, but I'm not. Everything you don't like is Russian I/O, but I'm the conspiracy theorist. Roger.

"There are no parallels" That's your defense? That's just denying reality. Water is Wet. Lawman: No, it isn't. What disinformation am I supporting? At least address it specifically instead of making general false claims. We've been in a continuous state of conflict since you and I were both young and you're trying to convince me that there isn't a Western desire to continue? Again, where did I ever type "Russia didn't invade Crimea, those are sepratists"? Nazis? WTF are you talking about? Do you have any other tactic aside from pretending I said something I didn't and attacking it? Congrats for dunking on a lie you made up in first place...again. And in the middle, you begin equivocating and switch to the argument "Well.... there's 'nuance'...." and "We should accept any Ukrainain skeletons in their closet." Make up your mind. It's either black and white/good and bad or it isn't. I've been saying all along it isn't. I don't have to accept the bad with the good. I can call bullshit whether it's coming from you or Mother Theresa. Shit or spagehetti - yet another false dilemma. I don't have to eat either. All you have are these logical fallacies to make your case with. Figure it out.

Every narrative that doesn't align with the US government narrative is not a pro-Russian narrative. Calling into question the actions of US government officials does not make one anti-American. I have never once expressed any support for anything Russia is doing. I can't control or influence them. I don't speak Russian. Realize the only thing I can do is share opinions and ideas regarding the people that represent me in my country. Me criticizing conflict escalation does not make me pro-Russian. Me criticizing conflict escalation does not make me Anti-American. Is there anything I can do aside from obediently shouting "Slava Ukraini!" to make this clear to you? "In political communication, the phrase "you are either with us, or against us" and similar variations are used to generate polarisation and reject non-partisanship. The implied consequence of not joining the partisan effort of the speaker is to be deemed an enemy. A contemporary example is the statement of former US President George W. Bush, who declared at the launch of his anti-terrorism campaign, "Every nation, in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."[1] The statement generally is a descriptive statement identifying the beliefs of the speakers, and thus state a basic assumption, not a logical conclusion. It may also be interpreted as a speech act. Sometimes it is interpreted as a splitting or a false dilemma, which is an informal fallacy. Some see the statement as a way of persuading others to choose sides in a conflict which does not allow the position of neutrality.[2] Only when there are no alternatives like a middle ground does the phrase hold validity as a logical conclusion. The phrases are a form of argumentation.[3]"

I don't want to comment as to what we should or shouldn't be doing. If anyone is interested, this guy has brass balls. He made excellent series of videos depicting the absolute hellscape in Haiti. No agenda, just documenting the reality. I agree, it's difficult to believe this exists near to us. Worth the watch if you have time.

Their military model doesn't attempt to achieve Air Superiority through air platforms. They don't have all the facets to make it achievable. I just wanted to reiterate this today. https://twitter.com/DarwinAwards_/status/1623392345101307904?s=20&t=pLcJaWjfNdQq8jVqaPgkEQ

I could go all in on the cautious backpedaling in the first few lines of your post, but I'm not. I'm just glad you're starting to be receptive to other possibilities. Good post.

Once again, you're using personal insults. C'mon, man. I've never tried to denigrate you as a person or what you've accomplished. If you're trying to present yourself as reasonable and knowledgeable enough to adequately make your case, you're only shooting yourself in the foot. It makes you look bad, not me. I'm interested in challenging ideas and my own ideas being challenged. I don't care about your condescending emotional tirades. I get it, though, it was late and you were probably frustrated. No big deal, I understand, and can excuse that. That's the way this forum usually goes. Just make your case without all the other nonsense about being disgruntled, going fishing, finding a hobby, illuminati bullshit and all that, and don't let what I say bother you as much. I've never used the words "military industrial complex" or "illuminati" in any of my previous posts. This is the most common tactic here: Pretend I said something that I didn't, attempt to attribute it to me, and attack me for it. It's lame and it's lying. If you believe I'm wrong to give an "alternative to the government narrative" then I can only assume you're only willing to buy into the official government narrative. Have you seen a White House press briefing lately? Good lord. I can't believe you're swallowing that. I glossed over the Buk ADA purposefully. I know you're knowledgeable on that specific issue and I could tell you were dying to dunk on whatever I said about Russian Air Defenses. Again, if you want to tell me all you know about it from the vault and your personal first hand experiences, I'm interested in reading it. Your assessment that Ukrainians aren't smart enough to use a BUK is an interesting take. There's plenty of video of Americans on the front lines of Ukraine right now. Why would your frame your claim that "There were Russian contract guys masquerading as rebels!" as some shocking nefarious act when we've clearly engaged in it, in many of our recent conflicts around the world. In reference to the half-dozen times Russia tried to expand their influence, check out the last 30 years: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_armed_conflicts_involving_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Russia

I get the impression you really want to tell everyone about the time you sat in a SA-11/117. Please do. I'm an American and I believe we have been blessed with all the necessary ingredients for being a great country, and we have been a great country. Somehow, you cannot imagine me holding the people leading this country to a high standard of integrity, righteousness, and honesty in hopes of keeping it that way. Stirring a hornet's nest for expansion of wealth and power not only at the cost of our citizens, but citizens and soldiers on the other side of the world is something I think needs to be criticized. After a while, I got tired of people cheerleading this conflict. There's plenty of people here bemoaning all the awful things that have happened to the USA at the hands of people acting in self-interest, yet also believe that same leadership is delivering pristine justice around the planet. The other side needs to be presented. Do you really want to live in a place where corrupt leadership can put your future at serious risk while going completely unchallenged? Anyone who questions the intentional escalation of foreign conflict at a tremendous cost is not patriotic, right? I've always wondered how hundreds of thousands of people in those old documentaries can go to war like herd animals thinking they're the good guys only to be taken to task and pay a terrible price in the end. I'm starting to understand. You also claimed I'm dredging shit up. I posted today's headline regarding a report on an incident that happened in 2014 to drum up support for increased supplies of weapons and aid to Ukraine... but I'm dredging shit up. LOL. How did you not spot the irony? Finally, something we can agree on. Just kidding.

You're accusing me of being empathetic and even sympathetic to Russians? Why? I 100% believe that a Russian made missile shot down that aircraft. But since you brought up propaganda, this is about an incident that occurred almost 10 years ago. This investigation team, with Ukraine as one of the investigators, just now release a report headlining Putin as having approved a deal that transferred missiles to pro Russian Ukrainians during a Ukrainian civil war. They fucked up and shot down a passenger jet. I don't remember there ever being any doubt this was the case. But to trot out this "investigative" report at the same time the Ukrainians and all other countries with members on this "International Team of Investigators" are advocating for increased arms sales to Ukraine and escalating conflict with the headline "Putin Responsible"... that isn't propaganda? To anyone with a keen eye for the obvious, this is being dusted off as a reason to escalate.

Ok. To any conscientious listener, it is blatantly obvious what they're saying here. I think they were actually winking at one another during this Senate hearing. Victoria Nuland: "I was gratified to have a chance to go through some of those specific measures in the classified session yesterday, but going beyond that in this open session, I think doesn't... um... help us get from here to there but we every everything is on the table I would say if if that is helpful." Senator Ron Johnson: "One thing that i believe...certainly the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is pretty unified on it... (may not be unanimous) was our support for sanctions against Nordstrom 2 pipeline. And that I think we were all, many of us, were very disappointed that those sanctions were not fully implemented and the construction continued. I can't think of a more powerful way to punish Russian aggression than by rolling back what progress has been made and if, at all possible, uh... prevent the Nordstream 2 from ever being completed. Is that something that is being discussed with allies? Is that something that's being contemplated?" Victoria Nuland: "Absolutely. And as, if as you recall from the July US/German statement, that was very much…uh…in that statement that if that any moves Russian aggression against Ukraine… uh… would have a direct impact on the pipeline and that is our expectation and the conversation that we're having so again direct impact is one thing… Senator Ron Johnson: "But i'm… i'm literally talking about rolling back the the pipeline, you know, you can loosely define that but i mean taking action that will prevent it from ever becoming operational." Victoria Nuland: "I think if President Putin moves on Ukraine our expectation is that the pipeline will be suspended." Senator Ron Johnson: "Well, I certainly hope that the Senate Foreign Relations Committee would take up legislation to go beyond just suspending it but ending it permanently, but anyway, thank you Undersecretary Nuland."

Your tactic here is to generalize everything I may say as a conspiracy and dismiss it all. Stay on topic. We're talking about a single incident. Re-read this thread from the beginning and see if the evidence presented is in alignment. I still don't understand how you can say "in the absence of evidence... Russia did it." Wouldn't the reasonable thing to say be "In the absence of evidence... I don't know."? You're copying and pasting what ClearedHot said as using it as your own, phraseology and all. Awkward. How can you not be sure? Isn't it evident that when you answer blowing up the pipeline is bad, you cannot amoralize and rationalize the act after the culprit is revealed?

@nsplayr, did you miss this?

How are those outlandish? You don't think Pakistan and Saudi benefited from playing both sides against the middle? I haven't spent any time on this, but at first glance, I'm not outright dismissing it just because it doesn't jive with the narrative you and I've been fed for 22 years. You do realize we spent hundreds of billions hunting Bin Ladin. Maybe people like money. You could fill encyclopedias with the shit the US has been doing under the radar. I posted the other day regarding Wesley Clark inadvertently revealing we had plans to escalate conflicts in Syria. We sent ships full of arms from Libya to Syria after Libya unexpectedly erupted in chaos and fell. https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-admin-admits-to-covertly-sending-heavy-weapons-to-syrian-rebels-2012-12 Knights of Malta? Never heard of them, but the F cares if they were? They're an aid organization from I can tell. https://www.orderofmalta.int/ I hoped you of all would realize I am only goading people into committing to a position knowing full well what the eventual outcome will be. Nearly all of the elements to this story were posted here by people here on this forum long before the story was published. The Baltic Exercise, Victoria Nuland, Biden's Anti-Nordstream Speeches, etc. 75% of the pieces were already there, Hersch just finished the puzzle.

You really have to think this through. Do you think you're the first one to every wonder why journalists would keep their sources anonymous? Reporter's Privilege and Confidential Sources have been long established practice and you and I should be thankful. Would we ever get revelations into crime and corruption if every whistleblower feared retribution for speaking out?

Another thought I had regarding the picture you posted: Who watches the Watchmen?

Here's how I see it. Your contention is that Russians are "assholes" and are at war and probably did it because of some cliche theory you slapped on the situation. How can you possibly expect me, or anyone else, to take you seriously? You spent 5 seconds and zero critical thinking on your assessment. No evidence, no reasonable explanation, no references, no nothing. On the other hand, a multiple award winning author and journalist spends months putting together a story with multiple sources obviously illegally communicating the truth with him at great risk to themselves and their career and you're critical because you don't know their names. If he had documents, you'd be complaining he was publishing secrets. What was his motivation? To damage the country he lives in? Turning a profit by publishing a free story on substack? How are you even serious? You have zero to offer. At least create some semblance of a plausible story explaining how and why Russia did it with half as much detail. Here's a question for you: Without any acknowledgment or consideration of who may or may not be responsible, was it wrong to blow up the pipeline?

This guy is not mainstream media, and for good reason. He is blatantly critical of MSM. Instead of using the argument that because MSM lied to you, this guy must also be lying... why don't you critique the man alone and his archive of work? You're merely repeating what someone else said an hour before you. He's been around since Viet-Nam, surely you can find something. The US was likely not involved because of Biden's "timidity". Well, at least that's an original take. No one else is using that as a defense. LOL Do you know the definition of the word "equivocating"? It's a sure sign of a weak argument.

URGENT: Team of International Investigators conclude Vladimir Putin personally shot down Malaysian Airlines flight, killing 300 innocent civilians. Horrible if true. He should be punished. https://www.foxnews.com/world/russia-putin-likely-signed-off-missile-supply-malaysia-airlines-shoot-down-investigators-say