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
-
Your exact statement “there isn’t enough time” Those are your words as to why you don’t cull more sources to form a broad collective understanding (you know what we do in the intelligence disciplines). So you’re going to waste that finite resources to listen to a podcast with direct ties to Russian media that has the aforementioned hosts on. Again, we don’t need to listen to Jones/Tucker/Maddow’s episode on a subject to understand the slants and bad research or blatant fabrications that will be baked into it. Because it isn’t news. Duran has exactly that problem only worse because of their direct ties to a geopolitical foe with an active IA campaign against NATO, Europe in general, and our own country/population. If you’re dumb enough to have to sit and listen too it in order to attempt to discover what’s real and what’s fake or highly corrupted in that, you’re wasting time, same as you’re doing here. But if you want to listen to Scott Ritter be interviewed in his opinions don’t waste the rest of your time here. You’ve got big important “facts” to discover. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
False. You didn't answer those questions. You just named a few more sources that shouldn't be listened to without substantiating it. Now you're telling me to Google your defense. "Whatever pops up on Google Search results is what my position is." LOL Really? You can't form an original critical thought of your own? "If you want to know what I think, Google it." For the third time, you should reread your posts before you hit submit reply. Your standard for intellectual honesty is "Do you agree with me?". If content doesn't agree with your opinion, it's obviously Russian propaganda. If someone listens to that content, they're obviously a shill. And you're calling me a contrarian? Ridiculous and hypocritical. Of course I am aware of all the Russian IA. But you act as if coming into contact with it carries the same risk as getting herpes from your mom. We're all adults and we can discern the risks and bad information. Have you not also read the chilling ways in which our own Intel agencies influence public opinion? I'm not talking about Russians. F them. I mean the ways in which our govenment manipulates our people. It's out there classifed and unclassifed. "Google it." At this point, it's obvious you don't even know what the "in depth analysis" is. You've adopted a weak position and you'd rather die defending it than abandon it an seek a better one. Par for the neocon adjacent. Another dodge. Accuse me of "playing victim" for asking a question, so as to not answer the question again. I'm subscribed to Zeihan and have been since someone else on this forum recommended him about a year ago. He has some great points. He also comes up with some BS while stumbling through the mountains. I also read and have even posted content from those other sources here on this forum. Yes, there's a lot of good stuff, but there's some questionable stuff as well. I'll read it all. Again, you appear to outsource all of your bullshit detection to third party internet websites. Media bias checks? Why wouldn't you just read it for yourself and decide? You're like drop-shipper of BO.net. You're just marketing and selling other peoples products, or critical thinking skills. -
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.
-
-
Topics
-
