Belligerent Savant » Fri May 04, 2018 1:29 pm wrote:.MacCruiskeen » Fri May 04, 2018 2:13 pm wrote:American Dream » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:05 pm wrote:I don't love the White Helmets personally, I just think most of the Assadist type claims against them them are based on sketchy logic and/or evidence.
1. What do you mean by "sketchy", exactly?
2. What do you mean by "Assadist type claims", exactly?
Indeed.Belligerent Savant » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:33 pm wrote:American Dream » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:05 pm wrote:I don't love the White Helmets personally
Your love (or hate) of the White Helmets has no bearing on their reported role in service to propaganda. Frankly, this statement has no meaning and provides no clarity as to your position.American Dream » Sun Apr 22, 2018 12:05 pm wrote: I just think most of the Assadist type claims against them them are based on sketchy evidence.
"Assadist type claims" . What about the NON-"Assadist type claims" against them? There's ample information along those lines within these forum walls. What's your opinion on those claims?
Or is this your (vague) way of suggesting that ALL claims against the White Helmets are "Assadist type claims" ?
(Relatedly, how would you define an "Assadist type claim" ?)
If so, that's a patently wrong supposition; even a cursory review of the content within this forum, and broadly across the internet, provides non-Assad sourced arguments -- sound arguments -- that the White Helmets are part of the Imperial Agenda.
All that said, you have an OPPORTUNITY here to state your case: please outline for us the evidence you find "sketchy" and why you find it "sketchy" .
You see, saying something in and of itself doesn't make it true.
SHOW US WHY you think the evidence is sketchy, and not simply by pasting more biased/shallow content that only attempts to reinforce your stance (while providing minimal, if any, evidence or researched analysis supporting the content's claims).
I know you won't be replying to any of these questions; I am commenting here as further testament to your unwillingness to answer direct questions with direct answers.
One would understandably surmise that, given the sheer volume of your output here, consisting overwhelmingly of material pasted from elsewhere, that you have actually read most of the content you paste. Operating under this assumption, you should be abundantly qualified --- equipped with ALL THAT SOURCE MATERIAL -- to state your position FIRMLY, with clarity.
Soon we'll find out who are the real revolutionaries...
peartreed wrote:By posting an article or news item of interest to share does not automatically mean the person sharing that story here for discussion endorses its author’s view, angle, politics and personal perspective.
peartreed wrote:They do not need to defend the content of the material posted as if it represents their own personal view, nor should they be coerced into arguing/defending its rationale and merits with clear antagonists.
peartreed wrote: It is tiresome and predictable and petty in the extreme, disrupting what used to be a fairly tolerant and friendly discussion board engaged in mature and intellectual argument about the content
peartreed wrote: I’m interested in all articles, pro-Assad, or pro-UKUS, or simply descriptive analysis of the factions fighting and their sponsorship, in order to sort it all out.
peartreed wrote:We all need to de-personalize the mean rhetoric and ridicule against imagined rivals. It reads like a high school gossip column by pimple-popping prepubescents.
seemslikeadream » Fri May 04, 2018 4:59 pm wrote:it's a shame you can not gather context from deporting 400,000 immigrants
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests