Forums
-
Preflight
-
- 1.1k
- posts
-
- 144
- posts
-
- 164
- posts
-
- 546
- posts
-
-
Military Aviation
-
- 74.6k
- posts
-
- 169.3k
- posts
-
- 7.2k
- posts
-
- 15.1k
- posts
-
- 1.5k
- posts
-
-
Road to Wings
-
- 2.8k
- posts
-
- 7.1k
- posts
-
- 2.7k
- posts
-
- 622
- posts
-
-
Military Careers
-
- 66
- posts
-
- 1.4k
- posts
-
- CSO drop nights
- By M2,
-
- 1.3k
- posts
-
-
Member Statistics
9,399
Total Members2,471
Most Online
-
Popular Contributors
-
Posts
-
So now you want to play the “I was just asking a question” victim card? There are multiple alternatives mentioned in the just last few pages not alone this whole thread. Podcasters like Peter Zeihan Think tanks like Institute for study of war CSIS Brookings institute Council on foreign relations… Or maybe just use any number of media bias checks that exist that would tell you things like business insider and dubiously linked podcasts probably isn’t the place to be getting in depth truthful foreign policy analysis. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I like the part where you cut the entire part of my post out answering the questions you are now asking. Go google the names I mentioned that appear on the Duran and tell us why we should listen to them peddle their argument. Like I said I don’t think for a second you are arguing from a point of intellectual honesty, I think you’re just trying to be contrarian and are willing to ignore all the declassified info on Russian IA operations and demand further context to meet some impossible threshold. As was mentioned directly above, I don’t need to care if Alex Jones also thinks the sky is blue, there are plenty of places I can find the same information from somebody that doesn’t think things like chemtrails are making the frogs gay. Getting your “in depth analysis” of the Ukraine war from a podcast with direct ties to Russian state media/propaganda and acting like you’re informed because of it falls in that same category. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
There's not enough hours in the day to read all the things I want to read or watch. To be efficient with my time, I make personal choices as to where I get the most value. You likely do the same, but I wouldn't apply a label to you because of where you sift through info. I also wouldn't spend more time ridiculing you for where you seek info than it would take for me to read what you'd be referring to. In this case, the podcast that has his panties in a twist looks to be about 20 min long. The title is "Preventing Ukraine Collapse during the US election." That could be the title of any Western Neocon slanted podcast. Lawman isn't ignoring information that doesn't meet a standard, he's waving his arms like a crazy person shouting "Don't look over here!". At some point, one has to ask, "Well... why?" Now I want to know what you're acting all weird about. So if the content hasn't met a standard, can I at least know what the standard is? Maybe a few examples? That's not an unreasonable request. Pretending to be indignant because someone has the audacity to ask what your problem or why the content hasn't met your standard, doesn't automatically grant you credibility. If one of the standards is having an active interest in the conflict, shouldn't we condemning a few US media outlets as well? That's just a test for hypocrisy. If Lawman is unwilling or unable to name any, then he's a hypocrite, and deserves to be relegated to the status of RT, Pravda, and the like. He is no more honest than they. -
AFICT it is not possible. AD UPT accessions policy explicitly disqualifies AFRC officers. Maybe there are specific one off cases/programs I'm unaware of. -
That progressive liberalism can be hard on a woman. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
-
-
Topics
-
