Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[Lawman]

What propaganda have I defended? The single solitary example of foreign propaganda that you've brought to this discussion was from 10 years ago, MH17, has nothing to do with our involvement in Ukraine, and I didn't defend it. I have never listened to the Duran and I know I've said as much. However, I will tomorrow morning over coffee just to see what you're whining about and I'll summarize if for you. I want to see how scary this information is. I'm going to post the notes here and then I'll check back for your response. That's going to be the entertaining part. Are you going to have a meltdown? Are you going act all indignant and dick dance around the issues without ever addressing them?  Are you going to provide a rational, well-thought and honest rebuttle (Pffftt...LOL), or are you going to draw yet another weird analogy to eating shit and drinking piss? Three is a trend, isn't it? I guess we'll see.

-You were given multiple examples of the direct connections to state controlled Russian news

-You were given specific guests they have on and their dubious character issues

-You were shown a clear example of the host of the podcast defending a Russian falsehood that it didn’t shoot down MH17 and every insinuation is just a western lie (which he’s done for years)

No you can go listen to it you’ll just be an idiot for taking it seriously.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Boomer6]

1 hour ago, nsplayr said:

🫡 you too bud

Easy. You're going to get him all Torqued up...

Edited April 25 by Boomer6
See you idiots, this is how you edit a post.

[Lord Ratner]

14 minutes ago, Boomer6 said:

Easy. You're going to get him all Torqued up...

Oh yeah, what ever happened to that guy?

[Boomer6]

4 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Oh yeah, what ever happened to that guy?

He's transitioned more times than a Gen Z'er

[BashiChuni]

1 hour ago, Lawman said:

You know you can be critical of your government without seeking out and deliberately defending a foreign opponents propaganda right?
 

cool. we shouldn't fund ukraine.

 

 

 

i love how you blindly trust a government that for 20 years said afghanistan was "turning the corner" to victory. that the afghan army was capable of defending the government.

sorry, but after covid and the afghan debacle we have every right to be skeptical of the mass media narrative.

the duran podcast is not russian propaganda, they just state the facts on the ground...something the western media is unwilling to do. i think many posters on here can listen to it and decide for themselves.

[Splash95]

6 hours ago, gearhog said:

This dumb shit again? You guys are incapable of learning.

This reinforces what I said earlier: gearhog has a point. Also it’s a bit astounding, even for a longtime mostly lurker/occasional poster who has read dozens of their posts, how unimpressively nsplayr and Lawman come off in this discussion.

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

-You were given multiple examples of the direct connections to state controlled Russian news

-You were given specific guests they have on and their dubious character issues

-You were shown a clear example of the host of the podcast defending a Russian falsehood that it didn’t shoot down MH17 and every insinuation is just a western lie (which he’s done for years)

No you can go listen to it you’ll just be an idiot for taking it seriously.

Good morning. Well, here we are. My apologies, for I'm about to put you in grave danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take in pursuit of the truth. I have a full cup of Black Rifle Coffee, Spirit of '76 roast. It's very good. The packaging is awesome, even inspiring. Let's kick this pig.

The hosts are starting with the front lines. They report that Russia had broken through the Ukrainian front lines in and captured the town of Avdiivka. Did this really happen or is this false information? Fact check: True. The Russians are (were) advancing on a town called Ocheretyne, which is a small town, but lies on a hill and has a railway junction, making it strategically important. One commenter is saying this breakthough puts Russia in a strong position. He quotes a Ukrainian General that the situations at other places on the front lines are terrible. Apparently Russia is planning a large offensive, possibly to capture Kharkiv.

One of the Commenters mentioned former British Colonel Hamish De-Bretton Gordon who wrote this article for the Telegraph detailing how dire the situation is. He goes on to say that the media is full of these types of articles.

Now they're talking about the $61 Billion in aid. Some of the funds are for the Ukrainian economy itself, not for the war. The bulk of the money is going to the military industrial complex. He is claiming that only a small portion of the funds are going directly to Ukraine in the form of weapons, and the rest is going to defense contractors to replenish our own stockpiles. Now this is where some propaganda might be creeping in. I should check on this.

So he actually underestimated the amount that is being given to the U.S. defense industrial base. He is claiming that the amount being given directly to Ukraine will be used up at once, but the time it would take to DIB to complete the manufacturing process would take years. Debatable, but possible. They discuss the gap between the rate of weapons being used and the rate of weapons being replenished while quoting JD Vance "You can't provide more weapons than you have."

He quotes CIA director Williams Burns who said if Ukraine isn't given support it will collapse by the end of the year. Checks out. Their contention is that all of this is about preventing a Ukrainian collapse before the election. That's definitely a biased take, but is it possible?

They ask why Mike Johnson capitulated. They assert that key Republican committee chairs have been pressuring him on behalf of the military industrial complex and he ultimately conceded to their demands. He knew that same pressure was being exerted on House Republicans who would be forced to side with the Democrats and vote against him, which would likely pressure him to resign, so he acted out of self-preservation.

They again say that committee chairs are close to the defense manufacturers and that the want this appropriations bill passed. They also claim that this part of the Republican party and the MIC would rather see Biden than Trump elected.  Hmmm. They say the MIC always wins. They say Mike Johnson's political career is toast for passing this bill while completely giving up on the southern border aspect.

They go into what actual systems Ukraine will be getting. They were asking for 150-200 patriot systems and are only going to get a fraction. They make a biased assertion that Russia will simply knock them out with hypersonics and they'll be back to square one. The say this aid bill will slow the war down, produce and effect, the effect wears out, and then you need more.

They quote President Kennedy about sending aid to Vietnam: "It's like drinking a glass of water. For a short time you fee better, but then you need another." I can't find this quote. Might be BS.

They continue to reiterate that a Ukrainian collapse must be avoided by the election.  Anything that happens beyond that is not a concern.

And that's it.

 

How are feeling, @Lawman? Was it as bad as you thought it was going to be? I think you're going to be fine. It wasn't a great podcast. Nothing earth-shattering. I did learn a couple things about the front lines and got a new perspective on Mike Johnson's capitulation. There was clearly heavy bias throughout the podcast, but nothing that indicates Russian disinformation. It was simply an innocuous discussion. Some of it agreeable, some of it disagreeable.

Take some time to process your trauma, and if you want to comment on the specifics here or point out the false information I somehow missed, I'd be more than happy to listen. Have a good day.

 

 

 

 

 

[Biff_T]

14 hours ago, Swizzle said:

Did you 'dibs' Biff just now!?

Hahahahah.  I just pissed myself.

Break, Break.

In all seriousness,  I can see why people have gross differences between what they beleive our government is up to.   To trust our government would mean I learned nothing during my lifetime.    

I dont believe our federal government is acting in the best interest for people like me (100% Irish American, upper middle class (in CA) and a combat veteran) They seem to be doing the excact opposite. 

The war with Russia, woke ideals, blatant racism towards certain groups (Jews and whites).   The funny thing is an Irish Catholic has little in common with Italians, Germans, Polish and whatever other whites that live here.   I never ate pasta at home.  

The government is using Ukraine to make money.  Prove me wrong.  Just like all of the other wars since Nam.  

While I don't support Russia (except for the hot chicks there) we invaded Iraq for lies as well. Just like Russia did to Ukraine.    We shouldn't be allowed to just forget about OIF.  We were in the wrong as well.

America has ruined its reputation as an ethical state on the world stage.  We are as corrupt as we've ever been.  How many congressmen are millionaires?  I don't like anyone in Washington DC that moved there because they won an election.  They're full of shit.  

That being said, Russia is worse than the U.S. in the ethics department.   

We shouldn't spend all of our energy hating on each other, we need to direct that towards getting rid of all our corrupt politicians.   That's the real threat to this country, not Russia.  

Russia sucks

 

Edited April 25 by Biff_T
Afterthought

[raimius]

6 hours ago, Biff_T said:

I never ate pasta at home. 

You are missing out, man.

 

We certainly aren't perfect, as a nation...but at least we didn't justify an invasion by claiming a Jewish guy from a family of Holocaust survivors was a secret Nazi.

[gearhog]

7 minutes ago, raimius said:

You are missing out, man.

We certainly aren't perfect, as a nation...but at least we didn't justify an invasion by claiming a Jewish guy from a family of Holocaust survivors was a secret Nazi.

Good point. Invading a foreign country under false pretenses is the lowest.

[Lawman]

Good morning. Well, here we are. My apologies, for I'm about to put you in grave danger, but it's a risk I'm willing to take in pursuit of the truth. I have a full cup of Black Rifle Coffee, Spirit of '76 roast. It's very good. The packaging is awesome, even inspiring. Let's kick this pig.
The hosts are starting with the front lines. They report that Russia had broken through the Ukrainian front lines in and captured the town of Avdiivka. Did this really happen or is this false information? Fact check: True. The Russians are (were) advancing on a town called Ocheretyne, which is a small town, but lies on a hill and has a railway junction, making it strategically important. One commenter is saying this breakthough puts Russia in a strong position. He quotes a Ukrainian General that the situations at other places on the front lines are terrible. Apparently Russia is planning a large offensive, possibly to capture Kharkiv.
One of the Commenters mentioned former British Colonel Hamish De-Bretton Gordon who wrote this article for the Telegraph detailing how dire the situation is. He goes on to say that the media is full of these types of articles.
Now they're talking about the $61 Billion in aid. Some of the funds are for the Ukrainian economy itself, not for the war. The bulk of the money is going to the military industrial complex. He is claiming that only a small portion of the funds are going directly to Ukraine in the form of weapons, and the rest is going to defense contractors to replenish our own stockpiles. Now this is where some propaganda might be creeping in. I should check on this.

So he actually underestimated the amount that is being given to the U.S. defense industrial base. He is claiming that the amount being given directly to Ukraine will be used up at once, but the time it would take to DIB to complete the manufacturing process would take years. Debatable, but possible. They discuss the gap between the rate of weapons being used and the rate of weapons being replenished while quoting JD Vance "You can't provide more weapons than you have."
He quotes CIA director Williams Burns who said if Ukraine isn't given support it will collapse by the end of the year. Checks out. Their contention is that all of this is about preventing a Ukrainian collapse before the election. That's definitely a biased take, but is it possible?
They ask why Mike Johnson capitulated. They assert that key Republican committee chairs have been pressuring him on behalf of the military industrial complex and he ultimately conceded to their demands. He knew that same pressure was being exerted on House Republicans who would be forced to side with the Democrats and vote against him, which would likely pressure him to resign, so he acted out of self-preservation.
They again say that committee chairs are close to the defense manufacturers and that the want this appropriations bill passed. They also claim that this part of the Republican party and the MIC would rather see Biden than Trump elected.  Hmmm. They say the MIC always wins. They say Mike Johnson's political career is toast for passing this bill while completely giving up on the southern border aspect.
They go into what actual systems Ukraine will be getting. They were asking for 150-200 patriot systems and are only going to get a fraction. They make a biased assertion that Russia will simply knock them out with hypersonics and they'll be back to square one. The say this aid bill will slow the war down, produce and effect, the effect wears out, and then you need more.
They quote President Kennedy about sending aid to Vietnam: "It's like drinking a glass of water. For a short time you fee better, but then you need another." I can't find this quote. Might be BS.
They continue to reiterate that a Ukrainian collapse must be avoided by the election.  Anything that happens beyond that is not a concern.
And that's it.
 
How are feeling, [mention=2836]Lawman[/mention]? Was it as bad as you thought it was going to be? I think you're going to be fine. It wasn't a great podcast. Nothing earth-shattering. I did learn a couple things about the front lines and got a new perspective on Mike Johnson's capitulation. There was clearly heavy bias throughout the podcast, but nothing that indicates Russian disinformation. It was simply an innocuous discussion. Some of it agreeable, some of it disagreeable.
Take some time to process your trauma, and if you want to comment on the specifics here or point out the false information I somehow missed, I'd be more than happy to listen. Have a good day.
 
 
 
 
 

Wow you watched the Russian Tucker Carlson and a disgraced lawyer talk about the military industrial complex and can’t figure out the link between that narrative - information domain of warfare - and its translation to effecting actual combat power on the battlefield.

Like I know multi-domain warfare is a relatively new doctrine, and you yourself aren’t in the military, but your inability to understand how this works and repeated denial of it going on is astounding.

Like you can acknowledge implicit bias present in whatever episode but can’t bridge the gap to understand strategic effect. You’d make an excellent Col.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

10 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Wow you watched the Russian Tucker Carlson and a disgraced lawyer talk about the military industrial complex and can’t figure out the link between that narrative - information domain of warfare - and its translation to effecting actual combat power on the battlefield.

Like I know multi-domain warfare is a relatively new doctrine, and you yourself aren’t in the military, but your inability to understand how this works and repeated denial of it going on is astounding.

Like you can acknowledge implicit bias present in whatever episode but can’t bridge the gap to understand strategic effect. You’d make an excellent Col.

But did you die?

So anytime anyone mentions the flooding of the military industrial complex with cash, it's Russian Psyop to gain a battlefield advantage? Is this a new subject for you? Pretty sure the issue of war-profiteering has been around a lot longer than you have. These guys didn't invent that narrative.

With that logic, you can link any dissent or criticism of US involvement in any conflict to enemy propaganda. You're only interested in stifling dissent. Are you telling me there are no critical narratives that can be had? If the truth hurts, maybe you have the problem. If it isn't the truth, show me.

The military industrial complex last year (officially) spent around $12 million lobbying key pro-Ukraine war members of Congress and just received a $50 Billion windfall, in addition to the previous windfalls. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D There are no concerns there?

You have to realize telling everyone "Don't look over there! Nothing to see here!" while implying anyone having a critical position is a Russian shill isn't giving you credibility. You're only shouting down the person, while not disputing the claims. You're only interested in one side of the argument. I want to hear all sides and draw my own conclusions. You don't want anyone doing that.

It's becoming apparent that if you had your way, you'd ensure compliance with the Party rules and eliminate any unauthorized information while monitoring citizens for signs of dissent, and perhaps punish anyone who engages in thought crime or holds a belief contrary to the Party ideology. There's a term for that, but I can't remember it. Any ideas?

 

[Lawman]

But did you die?
So anytime anyone mentions the flooding of the military industrial complex with cash, it's Russian Psyop to gain a battlefield advantage? Is this a new subject for you? Pretty sure the issue of war-profiteering has been around a lot longer than you have. These guys didn't invent that narrative.
With that logic, you can link any dissent or criticism of US involvement in any conflict to enemy propaganda. You're only interested in stifling dissent. Are you telling me there are no critical narratives that can be had? If the truth hurts, maybe you have the problem. If it isn't the truth, show me.
The military industrial complex last year (officially) spent around $12 million lobbying key pro-Ukraine war members of Congress and just received a $50 Billion windfall, in addition to the previous windfalls. https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?ind=D There are no concerns there?
You have to realize telling everyone "Don't look over there! Nothing to see here!" while implying anyone having a critical position is a Russian shill isn't giving you credibility. You're only shouting down the person, while not disputing the claims. You're only interested in one side of the argument. I want to hear all sides and draw my own conclusions. You don't want anyone doing that.
It's becoming apparent that if you had your way, you'd ensure compliance with the Party rules and eliminate any unauthorized information while monitoring citizens for signs of dissent, and perhaps punish anyone who engages in thought crime or holds a belief contrary to the Party ideology. There's a term for that, but I can't remember it. Any ideas?
 

No a podcast with no disclosed funding, hosted by and guested by the individuals we already talked about, which spends its head space in a constant churn of negative reinforcement to any western actions counter to Russia’s set goals would be a Psyop.

The military industrial fiscal policy of the US isn’t the sole lines of commentary produced by that podcast.

Again you’re desire to repeatedly highlight any example of what you perceive as any negative historical/political actions by our own country while just giving a blind pass to that opponent country’s media (which the Duran has an undeniable connection too) is astounding. Who/what do you think Russia is making and spending the effort of an English speaking news channel for?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

Just now, Lawman said:

No a podcast with no disclosed funding, hosted by and guested by the individuals we already talked about, which spends its head space in a constant churn of negative reinforcement to any western actions counter to Russia’s set goals would be a Psyop.

The military industrial fiscal policy of the US isn’t the sole lines of commentary produced by that podcast.

Again you’re desire to repeatedly highlight any example of what you perceive as any negative historical/political actions by our own country while just giving a blind pass to that opponent country’s media (which the Duran has an undeniable connection too) is astounding. Who/what do you think Russia is making and spending the effort of an English speaking news channel for?

No disclosed funding = RUSSIA! We didn't talk about the individuals... you did. I talk about information. You're the ad-hominem guy, not me. Can't you at least switch to another logical fallacy to make yourself seem slightly more interesting? You're the one-trick-pony of the high school debate team.

So you're not even going to address the MIC after I've made a legitimate point and say... "Well.... uh... there were other things too!" Weak. I know you'll dodge the question for the 10th time but I'll ask anyway, what other "lines of commentary" are you whining about now?

Apparently, you're easily astounded which doesn't surprise me. I have to live in this country. I simply do not care about Russians or Ukrainians. They're not the threat. Poor governmental leadership and the weak-minded sycophants who place a higher value on enforcing an acceptable narrative than the pursuing the truth are the real threat. Don't misunderstand.. I'm referring to you.  I, on the other hand, will continue to critically analyze information from a variety of sources in order to have a more well-informed understanding of these events. If it hurts your feelings, you're just going to have to live with it. Neither your life, nor anyone else's is going to be endangered because someone suggested on a podcast that a corrupt corporatocracy is steering our nation away from the best interests of the American people.

[Lawman]

No disclosed funding = RUSSIA! We didn't talk about the individuals... you did. I talk about information. You're the ad-hominem guy, not me. Can't you at least switch to another logical fallacy to make yourself seem slightly more interesting? You're the one-trick-pony of the high school debate team.
So you're not even going to address the MIC after I've made a legitimate point and say... "Well.... uh... there were other things too!" Weak. I know you'll dodge the question for the 10th time but I'll ask anyway, what other "lines of commentary" are you whining about now?
Apparently, you're easily astounded which doesn't surprise me. I have to live in this country. I simply do not care about Russians or Ukrainians. They're not the threat. Poor governmental leadership and the weak-minded sycophants who place a higher value on enforcing an acceptable narrative than the pursuing the truth are the real threat. Don't misunderstand.. I'm referring to you.  I, on the other hand, will continue to critically analyze information from a variety of sources in order to have a more well-informed understanding of these events. If it hurts your feelings, you're just going to have to live with it. Neither your life, nor anyone else's is going to be endangered because someone suggested on a podcast that a corrupt corporatocracy is steering our nation away from the best interests of the American people.

Yeah no you’ve made it pretty clear you don’t understand or want to learn how the information domain of warfare/policy works.

You don’t need to keep pointing it out.

Again, some of us are privileged to access you don’t enjoy. Can’t trust any of the declassified examples of that stuff we and other Allie’s have put out painting those numbers for you. Gotta go seek out the point of view from Russian stooges on what “they” are “really doing.” But please go on telling us how sourcing information from a directly linked geopolitical foe is staying informed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

49 minutes ago, Lawman said:

Yeah no you’ve made it pretty clear you don’t understand or want to learn how the information domain of warfare/policy works.

You don’t need to keep pointing it out.

Again, some of us are privileged to access you don’t enjoy. Can’t trust any of the declassified examples of that stuff we and other Allie’s have put out painting those numbers for you. Gotta go seek out the point of view from Russian stooges on what “they” are “really doing.” But please go on telling us how sourcing information from a directly linked geopolitical foe is staying informed.

Oh, the mystery. I'll ask again, what's it like on the inside of a real-life squadron vault? Lots of old dusty scrolls and microfilms? Again, I'm super impressed by your NIPR/SIPRNet access where all the secrets of the universe are held, but claiming that you have super-dooper access to "highly-classified" intel so you can claim authority status without substantiating it is transparent. I did a year as an STS ADO working every day in the SCIF and another year TDY to the third floor vault at AMC/A3 Tactics. Both experiences were about as enlightening as watching you dodge hard questions. Your "access" is about as impressive as the Comm Sq's ability to keep the network running.

What did I say "they" are "really doing"? I think it's funny that you know I'm prepared to the hilt to get into the weeds and write extensively on any of these issues, which is why you'll continue to make vague references yet never go anywhere near the specifics of any of them because you know I'll waylay your position. Real clever, and timid. I'll continue to point it out every single time.

 

 

Edited April 26 by gearhog

[Lawman]

Oh, the mystery. I'll ask again, what's it like on the inside of a real-life squadron vault? Lots of old dusty scrolls and microfilms? Again, I'm super impressed by your NIPRNet access where all the secrets of the universe are held, but claiming that you have super-dooper access to "highly-classified" intel so you can claim authority status without substantiating it is transparent. I did a year as an STS ADO working every day in the SCIF and another year TDY to the third floor vault at AMC/A3 Tactics. Both experiences were about as enlightening as watching you dodge hard questions. Your "access" is about as impressive as the Comm Sq's ability to keep the network running.
What did I say "they" are "really doing"? I think it's funny that you know I'm prepared to the hilt to get into the weeds and write extensively on any of these issues, which is why you'll continue to make vague references yet never go anywhere near the specifics of any of them because you know I'll waylay your position. Real clever, and timid. I'll continue to point it out every single time.
 
 

Listening to you have all this previous life and pretend or avoid discussion on intelligence source confidence is hysterical. You worked around the intel domain doing what exactly? Answering F’ing phones? What did you learn about confirmation bias when your just a post ago telling us all the things you find wrong with American actions and policy but ignoring a media source clearly linked with a foreign opponents state owned media? Dude goes on TV saying “if you accept the western advanced theory about MH17” and you somehow don’t know to immediately discount him as a source of untainted information. He’s a stooge, he’s demonstrated that. Somebody with unclassified access should have enough critical thinking to see a pattern of behavior, somebody with better access would know how stupid his defense of Russia really was.

But let’s not forget how many posts ago you playing stupid about psyops, like I said you’re not debating from a position of intellectual honestly, just contrarian hackery.

There is a literal mountain of declassified open source available intel from not only our intel but allied and more neutral nations talking about this for collective years. It gets even denser the closer to Russia you get, like go check out the active disinformation campaigns regarding Sweden and Finland. In all your cultivation of info form multiple sources (not just the ones stroking the narrative you like) you somehow missed those. No Russia totally isn’t using social media to do what all those things are saying it’s doing…. It’s all a western media lie. That British guy on Russian TV said so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BashiChuni]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

Again, some of us are privileged to access you don’t enjoy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

always love the "i know top secret information" guy

there's always one.

 

 

[Clayton Bigsby]

Quite the still here from a drone.  Narrow miss. 

[gearhog]

7 hours ago, Lawman said:

 

Listening to you have all this previous life and pretend or avoid discussion on intelligence source confidence is hysterical. You worked around the intel domain doing what exactly? Answering F’ing phones? What did you learn about confirmation bias when your just a post ago telling us all the things you find wrong with American actions and policy but ignoring a media source clearly linked with a foreign opponents state owned media? Dude goes on TV saying “if you accept the western advanced theory about MH17” and you somehow don’t know to immediately discount him as a source of untainted information. He’s a stooge, he’s demonstrated that. Somebody with unclassified access should have enough critical thinking to see a pattern of behavior, somebody with better access would know how stupid his defense of Russia really was.

But let’s not forget how many posts ago you playing stupid about psyops, like I said you’re not debating from a position of intellectual honestly, just contrarian hackery.

There is a literal mountain of declassified open source available intel from not only our intel but allied and more neutral nations talking about this for collective years. It gets even denser the closer to Russia you get, like go check out the active disinformation campaigns regarding Sweden and Finland. In all your cultivation of info form multiple sources (not just the ones stroking the narrative you like) you somehow missed those. No Russia totally isn’t using social media to do what all those things are saying it’s doing…. It’s all a western media lie. That British guy on Russian TV said so.

Intelligence source confidence is rated by assessing the accuracy and reliability information itself. How would you know what the information is if you refuse to look at it and discourage others from doing the same? For the third time, the only example you've given of anything that has a very high probability of being inaccurate is a random irrelevant event from 10 years ago. There's likely a vast amount of information out there from the Duran that has an even greater chance of being inaccurate, is more recent, and actually pertains to recent history. Do I have to go find it for you just to prove that you're lazy? You've spent more time googling dirt on the show hosts than listening to the Podcast. You could have just listened, shot down all their arguments, proved that it's all false Russian disinfo, and saved yourself an enormous amount of time, and we likely wouldn't be having this exchange. I actually listened to it, wrote it all down for you, and put it 6 inches in front of your face. Like a toddler, you scrunched up your face, shook your head, and still... still... elected not to confront the issues.

If you believe someone should be forever discounted because you heard them say something idiotic once, you'd have been abandoned as a child. Perhaps you were. You most definitely would have been abandoned here on the forums multiple times over.  But I and others are living proof that my approach works better. For pages now, I've been sifting through massive amount  of your flawed logic and unsubstantiated assumptions. I can't remember where it is,  but you did have a perspective I thought was useful on green energy or something recently. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. The rest of the information you present is mostly garbage, but I can still learn something about the methods and manner in which you deliver it.

You operate on assumptions, I operate on first-hand knowledge. It's that simple.

That's why you're stuck where you are in this debate and you keep talking in circles. If there is a debate about how to best find out the truth, a position that advocates for evaluating all information based on examining it's content is always, always, going to defeat an argument for dismissing information before it is heard because you don't like who delivered it. "There's not enough time to process all the bad information out there". That's a problem with you, not the method.

Disinformation campaigns from Sweden and Finland? Uh, ok... Not sure how that's relevant to my aforementioned concerns about the USA, but I'd be happy to.  I'm a voracious reader.  Give me a link and I will thoroughly enjoy working through the details with you.  That is, unless discussing details instead of broad generalizations and assumptions frightens you.

[Lawman]

Intelligence source confidence is rated by assessing the accuracy and reliability information itself. How would you know what the information is if you refuse to look at it and discourage others from doing the same? For the third time, the only example you've given of anything that has a very high probability of being inaccurate is a random irrelevant event from 10 years ago. There's likely a vast amount of information out there from the Duran that has an even greater chance of being inaccurate, is more recent, and actually pertains to recent history. Do I have to go find it for you just to prove that you're lazy? You've spent more time googling dirt on the show hosts than listening to the Podcast. You could have just listened, shot down all their arguments, proved that it's all false Russian disinfo, and saved yourself an enormous amount of time, and we likely wouldn't be having this exchange. I actually listened to it, wrote it all down for you, and put it 6 inches in front of your face. Like a toddler, you scrunched up your face, shook your head, and still... still... elected not to confront the issues.
If you believe someone should be forever discounted because you heard them say something idiotic once, you'd have been abandoned as a child. Perhaps you were. You most definitely would have been abandoned here on the forums multiple times over.  But I and others are living proof that my approach works better. For pages now, I've been sifting through massive amount  of your flawed logic and unsubstantiated assumptions. I can't remember where it is,  but you did have a perspective I thought was useful on green energy or something recently. Even a broken clock is right twice per day. The rest of the information you present is mostly garbage, but I can still learn something about the methods and manner in which you deliver it.
You operate on assumptions, I operate on first-hand knowledge. It's that simple.
That's why you're stuck where you are in this debate and you keep talking in circles. If there is a debate about how to best find out the truth, a position that advocates for evaluating all information based on examining it's content is always, always, going to defeat an argument for dismissing information before it is heard because you don't like who delivered it. "There's not enough time to process all the bad information out there". That's a problem with you, not the method.
Disinformation campaigns from Sweden and Finland? Uh, ok... Not sure how that's relevant to my aforementioned concerns about the USA, but I'd be happy to.  I'm a voracious reader.  Give me a link and I will thoroughly enjoy working through the details with you.  That is, unless discussing details instead of broad generalizations and assumptions frightens you.

First hand knowledge from a guy that was disbarred for fabricating false testimony and evidence. Here since google is a foreign concept to you, just another easy example of them out championing a Russian narrative that the west is false flagging chemical weapons attacks in Syria.


Up next your defense of Andrey Stepanenko or Tucker Carlson. They simply must be given the benefit of the doubt for every broadcast.


Again, nobody is telling you to get all your information from some Ukrainian blogger, but what are telling you it’s it’s absolutely ludicrous that we need to ignore the obvious connections to what we know is an active IA campaign from a demonstrated group of face men in that campaign.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, Lawman said:

First hand knowledge from a guy that was disbarred for fabricating false testimony and evidence. Here since google is a foreign concept to you, just another easy example of them out championing a Russian narrative that the west is false flagging chemical weapons attacks in Syria.

Up next your defense of Andrey Stepanenko or Tucker Carlson. They simply must be given the benefit of the doubt for every broadcast.

Again, nobody is telling you to get all your information from some Ukrainian blogger, but what are telling you it’s it’s absolutely ludicrous that we need to ignore the obvious connections to what we know is an active IA campaign from a demonstrated group of face men in that campaign.

Hey! You can be taught. I think there's hope for you yet. Instead of a 10 year old event unrelated to the current conflict, you've somehow combed through over 1800 episodes and found a 4 year old podcast unrelated to the current conflict. It ain't much, but it's something. I'm sure it took a lot of effort, so I'll commend you for it. Side thought: Are you at work today? Hmmm.

Remember that comment I made about you being the high school debate team's one trick pony? You'll will never abandon your ad-hominem tactic no matter how transparent it makes your unwillingness to address the actual facts or lies. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that that is your only defense? It only gets you so far.

Because the topic of this podcast is so far out of the realm of issues that are of importance in the context of the Rus-Ukr war, I am unfamiliar with this one. But I'm willing to give it a listen and report back to you with an original take using critical thinking that I didn't have to defer to Google for. Understand I have to withold judgement until I verify that the claims within are ridiculous, and I'll even concede there is a probability of bullshit given my commitment to truth and honesty. So I'm already going in with a bias that suits your fancy. Can I get a little appreciation? At first glance, however, I'm suddenly reminded of claimed chemical attacks and WMD that were used as a pretext for going to war. You may have been a child then, so you might not remember.

Anyway, thanks for the link. It's in the lineup.

 

Edited April 26 by gearhog

[BashiChuni]

trust the same intelligence community who said the hunter biden laptop was russian disinformation.

[Boomer6]

6 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

trust the same intelligence community who said the hunter biden laptop was russian disinformation.

So if a pilot from "x" community crashes an airplane for something stupid, now all pilots from that community can't be trusted to fly?

Similarly, if you had a CC from community "x" who was a dirtbag, now all ppl from that community are considered trash?

[Lawman]

Hey! You can be taught. I think there's hope for you yet. Instead of a 10 year old event unrelated to the current conflict, you've somehow combed through over 1800 episodes and found a 4 year old podcast unrelated to the current conflict. It ain't much, but it's something. I'm sure it took a lot of effort, so I'll commend you for it. Side thought: Are you at work today? Hmmm.
Remember that comment I made about you being the high school debate team's one trick pony? You'll will never abandon your ad-hominem tactic no matter how transparent it makes your unwillingness to address the actual facts or lies. Aren't you even a little bit ashamed that that is your only defense? It only gets you so far.
Because the topic of this podcast is so far out of the realm of issues that are of importance in the context of the Rus-Ukr war, I am unfamiliar with this one. But I'm willing to give it a listen and report back to you with an original take using critical thinking that I didn't have to defer to Google for. Understand I have to withold judgement until I verify that the claims within are ridiculous, and I'll even concede there is a probability of bullshit given my commitment to truth and honesty. So I'm already going in with a bias that suits your fancy. Can I get a little appreciation? At first glance, however, I'm suddenly reminded of claimed chemical attacks and WMD that were used as a pretext for going to war. You may have been a child then, so you might not remember.
Anyway, thanks for the link. It's in the lineup.
 

Man 1398 more podcasts before you can exercise any level of critical thinking on the nature of its content… how will you have time to keep up with all the breaking news on OAN.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk