Lawman
-
Posts
1,704 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
37
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by Lawman
-
-
Definitely don’t do that. You realize that psycho has tiger skin curtains in his house.
The show feels like a form of sleep hypnosis. I don’t understand how my full cocaine and redbull rockstar energy child can somehow sit still for something with this pace.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Do you go around telling people they shouldn't be watching pro-wresting? I bet you do. If someone wants to watch it and find out for themselves, why not? Who made you the fact-check police?
At least a dozens times I've said it might be false, it might not be. You might be right, you might be wrong. It's impossible to know 100% without first hand experience. No one here needs some little busy-body like yourself up in everyone's business telling them what they should and shouldn't be listening to because you don't like who their friends with. I've never met anyone else on BO.net whose behavior more resembles that of a teen girl.
I didn’t tell you not to watch wrestling I told you it was fake.
You somehow seem to take that as “well I can’t know unless I watch it” which is an absolutely preposterous bit of logic you’ve committed yourself too.
Same is true for a bunch of Russian hacks with a long history of BS statements being presented by one of our more flamboyantly in the bag characters as “the real story on the ground.” Two of us knew how bogus that claim was, we provided you with easy verifiable examples of it… but you, like a child, need to stick the key in the wall socket to find out it will in fact be a negative experience for you.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Here's a simple logic test: So the reason you won't make any attempt to defy something someone says is because they have demonstrated a lack of integrity. But in order to know that they've lied, you would have to listen to what they lied about. You keep saying you're not willing to do that an no one else should, either. This brings us back to my earlier point that you don't have any original thoughts, you have to rely on what someone else thinks who did listen.
How do you know that the stories are fabricated if you haven't listened? You keep bragging about how you're only willing to consider infomation that meets your personal standard for acceptability. That means you consume and process a fraction of the information I do, because I want to hear all perspectives and I'll do the sorting myself. You're intentionally being ignorant and trying to justify it to me. I don't think that's very smart.
Do you need to watch professional wrestling to know it’s fake, or has enough been demonstrated to meet the expected threshold to dismiss the idea it’s real?
At this point you just want to be contrarian to any evidence presented about these guys and their show and you’ve ignored all of it or dismissed it as “that doesn’t count because…”
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
Would you mind quoting where I have said either of those things? I never did. Do a keyword search, click more options, search by author, and type "gearhog" in the second search bar. You'll get a list of the things I have typed. That's how I found you brought up "Tucker" eight times in this thread when no one else mentioned him. When you find that I have said either of those two things, post it here and I'll be thoroughly humbled.
Or you could just admit that your position has become so weak that you feel you now need to straight up lie to defend it.
I bring him up because no rational person would attempt to disprove his demonstrated lack of integrity (the the point of openly defending himself in court saying so) or defend the concept we need to listen to his content with any reasonable expectation of truth.
What an irrational person would do is take a similarly set of highly compromised individuals hosting a podcast which spends its content selling fabricated stories and negative narratives of the west and NATO as somehow worthy of the time to spend to mince through said content in search of any kind of truth.
You aren’t nuanced, you’re just obtuse.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I don't know how you guys have the energy
It’s this or pay attention to Daniel Tiger.
Though I think that show would give as good a ground intelligence summary as two hacks telling us Ukraine is done for and all the worlds ills are the fault of the west and NATO.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
As opposed to a Glock with no safety?
and a steel 1911 makes a fine blunt implement if you run out of BBs. Plastic guns don’t.
I can assure you even empty a full frame plastic pistol will effectively pistol-whip somebody if that’s what you’re down to.
Polymers don’t quick give the way an eye socket does. And the barrel is great for an in hand smash grip. Doesn’t feel as natural as a full frame metal or revolver, but it’s still way harder than your fist.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
I've only listened to one. I'll listen to the other one you recommended in the morning. If it's decent, I may add it to my favorites. OAN? I don't think "watching the news" is still a thing anymore. At least among serious people. You seem like the kind of guy that watches AFN to stay informed, and maybe flirts with Rachael Maddow every now and then.
How many times do I have to tell you that yeah... some of it might be bad info. Some of it might not be. Haven't you realized I'm impervious to bullshit. After all, I've been reading yours for a few pages now. So far, I've provoked responses from you consisting of several thousand words and you've had the courage to mention two, count them, two... incidents or examples of Russian propaganda. MH17 and Syrian chemical weapons or whatever. Even then, you don't seem to be able to articulate anything resembling an original thought.
If we were to calculate the ratio of your original critical thinking assessments of actual events and news pertaining to the topic of this thread to the amount of words written, it would be exactly zero. For a guy that talks a lot, you don't have much to contribute. What's your pronouns?
No we all get it you’re a troll. You just like to be a more sophisticated one than our regular troll.
I just like pointing out the dubious guests and theories by your new favorite podcast to champion because anybody taking your advise to give service to them is gonna waste their time figuring that out first hand.
It’s like watching you defend Tucker as still being needed to be listened too seriously. That’s a Rogan episode you can definitely skip.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk -
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 -
Wish I had the opportunity to do this when I was on AD instead of being told by an E-8 all you do is deploy and do your job. Surprised not to see degree requirements in this. Has big blue finally seen the light, that Senior NCO's have become mostly a class of perfumed princes. It will be a great opportunity for SSgts and TSgts who will never make MSgt due to circumstances that they will never have a good enough board score.
I’m gonna warn you, due to its relative size the tech warrant community can be extremely clique’ish on gatekeeping upward mobility. The other bad trend we seem to have is a lot of WO positions in the MTOE exist at such a level you get bosses with rank that discount your expertise because you’re just a W2, or warrants that try to wear daddy’s rank which is no better than the out of control E8/9.
I’m am glad to see the Air Force embrace the concept of specialization over ladder climbing and I do think it’s something we should get behind DOD wide.
I just hope in growing this new community they can avoid the pitfalls and negative habits we created in the Army.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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-
1
-
-
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-
2
-
-
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-
1
-
-
This dumb shit again? You guys are incapable of learning.
You know you can be critical of your government without seeking out and deliberately defending a foreign opponents propaganda right?
You don’t have to go full tit on backwards crazy and deny it’s propaganda demanding people show you examples of how some source you’ve been listening too is actually bullshit only to then claim that those examples don’t count or deny any proof of connection to that foreign power.
Also wrestling is fake. I know you’re gonna need to watch it to make sure, but maybe just try trusting 2nd hand info on this.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
Your opinion is duly noted. And disregarded. If you believe there is room for debate on why and how much we should support Ukraine.... WTF do you think it is that we're doing here? Arguing for the sake of arguing? What is the opening argument that was heard on the Podcast? You just created another strawman. BC never cited any specific claim that originated from that podcast. He just said it was a good listen. Don't think so? Piss and moan all you want.
He’s been advancing that point on cross talk and other media for multiple years. Man let’s go check out his podcast I’m sure it’s full of hitter facts.
You believe it don’t you. Like you’re gullible enough to think Russia didn’t shoot down an airliner. You’re making the absurd complaint that until we drink from the knowledge stream you drink from we can’t know it’s piss. No we in fact do know it’s piss from having better upstream understanding of what’s in that water, we’ve been telling you it’s piss. It was piss before and it’ll be piss tomorrow. You’re refusing to acknowledge its piss because you happen to like this flavor and demanding we all pretend you aren’t in fact drinking piss.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
That's like saying you can't listen to JRE because he's had murderers, anti-semites, drug-users, Jones, Tucker, and other critics of the government. You don't have to agree with any of it. The words aren't going to hurt you, but at the very least, you can learn and understand how words and language are being manipulated to influence you. Again, I thoroughly enjoy reading your posts. I now know and understand that your method of attempting to convince people to avoid content is not to address the content, but use name-calling, ridicule, ad-hominem, ad-nauseum, genetic fallacies, circular-arguments, generalization, appeal to authority, etc, etc, etc. You appear to have checklist for all the logical debate fallacies and are doing your best to check every single one. I'm not sure if you realize you're doing it. But it's fun to watch someone use the same disingenuous tactics to tell people why they shouldn't watch/listen/read someone else's disingenuous propaganda tactics.
You brought it up: Would you say your comments here are to promote government confidence, suppress civil resistance and support government function? What does that sound like to you?
Just one example since you still can’t get it through your head what their guests are doing in that show and what they are advancing.
They have a 25 minute video advancing the narrative that Russia didn’t shoot down MH17 and attempting to discredit the unclassified investigation.
If you believe that it’s because you don’t have access to stuff some of us do, and you’re an idiot swallowing Russian disinformation in an attempt to build distrust.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk -
I've listened to the Duran podcast a bit, likely because it got brought up here. It certainly takes the general viewpoint that things are going badly for Ukraine/The West and well for Russia. 99.8% of what I've read, heard and watched since 2022 takes the general viewpoint that things are going well for Ukraine/The West and badly for Russia. Wars will always be accompanied by propaganda on both sides. As someone predisposed to look at news from a pro-American (and certainly not pro-Russian) perspective when this all kicked off, I've become more aware day by day that the news getting blasted to essentially all Americans/Westerners who don't bother to dig deeper is often less reliable than purported. This assessment will not get me many upvotes, but gearhog and Bashi have a point.
No… they don’t…
Again, the particular podcast in question is linked directly to Russian state sponsored media and has frequent guests that are so corrupted as to have registered under the foreign agents act or to have been flat disbarred/disgraced or fled western countries and now shill so as not to be extradited.
These aren’t viable/reliable sources of perspective just because they enjoy internet popularity. These are highly compromised individuals providing an outlet for a foreign power’s influence campaign which is designed to erode confidence and cause civil resistance and government disfunction.
And no… you don’t need to listen to a broad depth of content from an Alex Jones type character to know it’s nonsense and bullshit. Similarly you don’t need to listen to not just pro but deliberate government controlled/influenced media to “get the real story” or whatever other BS. That’s like choosing to eat what is clearly a turd in between two slices of bread to find out for sure if you do or don’t like the taste.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
2
-
1
-
-
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.
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 -
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.
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 -
Where did you get this screen shot? What was in the video? What did he say that was wrong? The best defense against bad information is good information, not no information. As should be apparent, I thoroughly... thoroughly... enjoy challenging an opposing viewpoint. A lot. I wouldn't be pursuing this if I didn't know for a fact your position was weak. I know it is because you won't go anywhere near the crux of the issue. You're trying way too hard to dismiss any threatening information wholesale before it's heard, even by you, by attacking the source. I'll even concede to you it's possible that the vast majority of info coming from these sources completely fabricated, but it's impossible that all of it is. I'll wade through a ton of BS to find an ounce of truth, even yours.
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?
You've made it abundantly clear where that information is being broadcast from, I just want to know what the information is that you don't like. Let's dispense with your haughty condescending ego performance around RT and get down to brass tacks. So, let me repeat the question:
What is the Russian propaganda being peddled here that you have a problem with?
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 -
I am not a military officer.
No kidding, and your lack of access would be why those of us finding your repeated defense of state sponsored propaganda so eye rolling.
Why would we mention clear state funded propaganda like RT when discussing a podcast as radioactive as Duran
Gee I wonder.
Its owner writes for Russia News Now. Their chief operators all have ties to Russian media having either hosted or worked in those circles before.
It has guests on like Scott Ritter to tell you how bad things from Ukraine is, or Cyrus’s Jannessen to provide you in depth analysis on China. If you believe that kind of discourse from sources as bad as that isn’t somehow tainted you’re part of the problem in circumventing Russia and China in their active influence campaigns. You don’t need to go listen to a disgraced spy/convicted pedo who repeatedly bad mouths his country to applause by the Russians to know what he is attempting to package. Duran isnt bringing you some informed perspective because they buck the norm, they are a tool of information warfare.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk-
1
-
-
That restaurant metaphor wasn't mine. You seem to have this blind implicit trust in anyone that happens to be in a position of authority. Wouldn't you want to know why something was deemed unsafe rather than just accept anything someone says at face value just because they happen to be aligned with your beliefs? It's easy to fool someone, but it takes 10x the effort to convince most people that they've been fooled. You're so deep into the approved narrative that you're unwilling to even listen.
In this case, the link/play button for the podcast in question was directly in front of your face, one click away. But you chose to navigate away/open up another page, do a google search, screenshot a random claim of that podcast being Russian propaganda, which was substantiated only by other media outlets making baseless claims. Then you had to copy/save/upload/post it, and act all condescending like it was the gospel, while not one step in your entire process contained an original thought of your own, a source, or specific point. It's bewildering that you, a self-proclaimed professional military officer, would try to pass this off as some sort of astute deductive reasoning. It's so glaringly intellectually dishonest, it's insulting that you would expect anyone to even consider that you might have a valid position.
It seems crazy to me that you somehow thought that was the best/most honest COA. If you were correct in your assessment, it would have been far easier for you, and more difficult for me to refute, if you'd have listened to 5-10 minutes and said "Here are some of the claims being made... and they're false Russia propaganda because here are the facts..." I could respect that. But we both know why that didn't happen: When you know your position can't be adequately defended or finding a flaw in the opposing argument proves too difficult... name-calling, hyperbole, and ad hominem are the preferred tactics. Not one person on this website has ever, ever, been a cheerleader for Russia as much as you would like to paint them as such.
Many of us here have, however, reasonably argued that our US leadership shares some (not all) amount of the blame for the origination of the chaos and conflict we are experiencing, as well as the continuous funding and intensification of multiple conflicts on multiple fronts. No one here hates America, and no one wants America to fail. But it's easy for our obviously corrupt leadership to lead us further into trouble when they have people like you willing to do these ridiculous logical gymnastics to justify their actions and cock block dissident voices because you don't want to be proven wrong.
That’s a lot of noise to tell us we need to accept RT like it’s somehow not a proven outlet of state propaganda while attempting to cloak your BS in “nobody hates America.” And look now youre telling us “approved narratives” and other such tells. Yes obviously you are arguing from a point of honest debate…
Nobody accused you of hating America, I accused Bashi of being a shill and in this case you of being simply contrarian for the purpose of arguing. Whatever your motivations are for doing that it’s your problem.
Nobody can pass judgement on a podcast with direct links to a Russian propaganda outlet? We need to sample stupid from close range to not recognize it from afar? Did you notice I’m not the only one pointing out the nature of the source he openly admitted to following. Man what would cause that… I don’t know the fact some of us have more intimate knowledge of what’s going on over there than some Russia tied podcaster and enjoy the access (along with several others on here) to know that.
By the way you have still yet to admit to whether RT is a reputable source of information or a state sponsored propaganda outfit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Russian Ukraine shenanigans
in General Discussion
Posted
Yes it’s the Russians that are gonna tell you the real truth.
You know you are literally a vignette characature we have to do annual training on for insider threat?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk