Hero, Shiva, others - you're literally on the same side as Kim Jong Un and North Korea

[ICRockets2]

1 hour ago, Herodotus said:

No, you just posted PBS aka American state run television and you posted the horseshit that was used to justify NATO's regime change war and aim to redraw the map of Europe in 1999 and 2000.  You don't get to do that.  Actually go ahead. It shows how dishonest you really are.

So to be clear, you believe the following narratives are false?

- Bernie Madoff was a con man
- Wal-Mart is killing small businesses and towns across America
- AIDS ravaged the gay community in the 80s
- Torture happened at Abu-Ghraib
- America lied its way into the War On Terror

There are Frontline documentaries about all of these events.  If Frontline can't be trusted, then none of this is true.  

 

[ICRockets2]

Good news everyone, concussions aren't real and the NFL is perfectly safe.
 

 

[Herodotus]

4 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

So to be clear, you believe the following narratives are false?

- Bernie Madoff was a con man
- Wal-Mart is killing small businesses and towns across America
- AIDS ravaged the gay community in the 80s
- Torture happened at Abu-Ghraib
- America lied its way into the War On Terror

There are Frontline documentaries about all of these events.  If Frontline can't be trusted, then none of this is true.  

 

Frontline cannot be trusted on foreign policy as it does go after right wing authoritarian fuckups when GOP in power but not right wing authoritarian fuckups when the DNC is in power.

[Herodotus]

10 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Good news everyone, concussions aren't real and the NFL is perfectly safe.
 

 

Good news fucktard, you know how to take things way out of context knowing damn well that that is not what I said, but hey you're the resident child molester so. . . . .

 

*hey, if you can deliberately distort what I say, I can do just the same to you.

[ICRockets2]

10 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

Frontline cannot be trusted on foreign policy as it does go after right wing authoritarian fuckups when GOP in power but not right wing authoritarian fuckups when the DNC is in power.

So when the GOP is in power they're wrong to go after right-wing authoritarian fuckups and when the DNC is in power they're wrong not to?

[Herodotus]

Just now, ICRockets2 said:

So when the GOP is in power they're wrong to go after right-wing authoritarian fuckups and when the DNC is in power they're wrong not to?

No, there you go distorting and taking out of context my meaning.  I wish you wouldn't do that pedobear.

[ICRockets2]

11 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

 that is not what I said

 

Yes it is.  You said Frontline can't be trusted because it's state-run media.  

And that for some reason this state-run media changes whether it sucks up to the state depending on who is in charge.  
 

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, Herodotus said:

No, there you go distorting and taking out of context my meaning.

So SOMETIMES Frontline can be trusted and SOMETIMES it cannot?

Meaning you need to make stronger, more detailed arguments than "lol fuck PBS" to impugn the validity of any one specific doc?

[ICRockets2]

2 hours ago, Herodotus said:

  After Slobo died, the Hague found him not guilty.  

False.  After he died the charges were dropped.  No verdict was returned.

They then found during the trial of Karadjic that there was "insufficient evidence" that Milosevic knew the extent of HIS war crimes in BOSNIA.  

Those atrocities occurred in '92-'96.  The ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars took place primarily in '98 and '99.  

 

[Herodotus]

14 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Yes it is.  You said Frontline can't be trusted because it's state-run media.  

And that for some reason this state-run media changes whether it sucks up to the state depending on who is in charge.  
 

Sorry NAMBLA, but when you are intentionally trying to be stupid and dishonest I don't see the point in discussing things with you.

[Herodotus]

2 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

False.  After he died the charges were dropped.  No verdict was returned.

They then found during the trial of Karadjic that there was "insufficient evidence" that Milosevic knew the extent of HIS war crimes in BOSNIA.  

Those atrocities occurred in '92-'96.  The ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars took place primarily in '98 and '99.  

 

and the ICC found that there was insufficient evidence for these camps, but only after Milosevic conveniently died, wooopsie.  Oh well at least we were able to redraw the map of Europe, completely acceptable in 1999 and 2000 but unacceptable when Russia does it in 2014.  Keep digging your hole diddler.

[Herodotus]

Charges dropped, no verdict returned, same thing.  I call you a  demonic child fucker you call yourself an underage afficianado.  Same thing.  

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, Herodotus said:

 when you are intentionally trying to be stupid and dishonest I don't see the point in discussing things with you.

Then why is it okay for you to lie about Milosevic's Hague trial?

[ICRockets2]

Just now, Herodotus said:

Charges dropped, no verdict returned, same thing. 

Yes.  That is NOT the same as what you said though, which is that they found him not guilty.  That is an explicit verdict.

[ICRockets2]

2 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

and the ICC found that there was insufficient evidence for these camps

When?

[ICRockets2]

19 minutes ago, Herodotus said:

 Oh well at least we were able to redraw the map of Europe, completely acceptable in 1999 and 2000 but unacceptable when Russia does it in 2014. 

Shouldn't your position be that both are unacceptable?  Why do you simply take the inverse of this characterization instead?

[HipKat]

3 hours ago, shiva2999 said:

1. So what? Talk is cheap.

2. Wrong. The murderous oppression of the Russian speaking population of the Donbass and Crimea and Odessa by Ukrainian neo-Nazis with American backing was "Ukraine's wrongdoing."

3. Right, just as Canada or Mexico aligning with Russia would be viewed as a threat by America. 

“Ukraine has been shooting residents of Donetsk and Lugansk just because they wanted to speak Russian.”

No evidence to support claims that Ukraine is killing people for speaking Russian

IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT

• Russia has leaned on claims that Ukraine has killed Russian speakers in the country and that Russians are the targets of genocide there, but there’s no evidence to support that. 

 

See the sources for this fact-check

 

Russia has deployed a misinformation campaign as the country invades Ukraine, creating, as the New York Times put it, "an alternate reality where the invasion is justified and Ukrainians are to blame for violence." 

A recent Facebook post seems to echo Russian talking points, claiming that "for eight years, Ukraine has been shooting residents of Donetsk and Lugansk just because they wanted to speak Russian." 

This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.)

We’ve previously debunked Russian President Vladimir Putin’s claims that ethnic Russians are Ukrainian targets of genocide. He called Russia’s attack on Ukraine a mission "to protect people who, for eight years now, have been facing humiliation and genocide perpetrated by the Kyiv regime." But there’s no evidence to support this. Civilian deaths in Eastern Ukraine have plummeted, according to the United Nations’ Commission on Human Rights.

We also found no evidence to support the claim that people are being assassinated for wanting to speak Russian.  

On March 11, NPR aired a story in which reporter Eleanor Beardsley traveled across Ukraine to investigate Putin’s claims that Russian-speakers were being killed there. 

[HipKat]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

False.  After he died the charges were dropped.  No verdict was returned.

They then found during the trial of Karadjic that there was "insufficient evidence" that Milosevic knew the extent of HIS war crimes in BOSNIA.  

Those atrocities occurred in '92-'96.  The ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars took place primarily in '98 and '99.  

 

Those damned facts!

[HipKat]

1 hour ago, Herodotus said:

Sorry NAMBLA, but when you are intentionally trying to be stupid and dishonest I don't see the point in discussing things with you.

Says the silly little man with his blinders on

[shiva2999]

2 hours ago, ICRockets2 said:

So to be clear, you believe the following narratives are false?

- Bernie Madoff was a con man
- Wal-Mart is killing small businesses and towns across America
- AIDS ravaged the gay community in the 80s
- Torture happened at Abu-Ghraib
- America lied its way into the War On Terror

There are Frontline documentaries about all of these events.  If Frontline can't be trusted, then none of this is true.  

 

Excuse me?

This is patently idiotic.

There is nothing preventing a liar from telling the truth if it's to their advantage.

You know that.

Smarten up.

[ICRockets2]

1 minute ago, shiva2999 said:

Excuse me?

This is patently idiotic.

There is nothing preventing a liar from telling the truth if it's to their advantage.

You know that.

Smarten up.

Precisely.  So you need more than "lol fuck PBS" to demonstrate that a particular episode is bullshit.  

[shiva2999]

8 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

Precisely.  So you need more than "lol fuck PBS" to demonstrate that a particular episode is bullshit.  

Just because one can't prove something doesn't necessarily mean their accusation is false.

You know that.

[ICRockets2]

36 minutes ago, shiva2999 said:

Just because one can't prove something doesn't necessarily mean their accusation is false.

You know that.

lmao so much for the Socratic Method

[shiva2999]

15 minutes ago, ICRockets2 said:

lmao so much for the Socratic Method

It has nothing to do with the Socratic Method.

[shiva2999]

1 hour ago, ICRockets2 said:

Precisely.  So you need more than "lol fuck PBS" to demonstrate that a particular episode is bullshit.  

Indeed.

However, this doesn't mean that all episodes are credible just because some episodes have been credible.