Ukraine invasion

[leVieux]

An American, Pete Reed, was killed in early February

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

They showed a brief video of a young man in police custody; looked uninjured.

 

[Cool 'Horn Luke]

An American, Pete Reed, was killed in early February

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Report this week was about Trevor, the one who FJB exchanged the "merchant of death" with Russia (last year, I think), being wounded in action (within the last week or two?).

 

[Younggun]

Report this week was about Trevor, the one who FJB exchanged the "merchant of death" with Russia (last year, I think), being wounded in action (within the last week or two?).

I thought that guy was traded for a basketball player who hated our country.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Hilarious

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[General Zod]

Last time you called me a liar I did quote the post that you asked me to quote. Your whole disagreement with me is over me not blindly supporting ukraine.

More proof that you only read part of what I say, and fill the rest in with your own ego. My whole disagreement with you is that you back your position up with bullshit and never want to provide your sources - and the few times you do you do everything you can to make the information hard to find.

And yes, much of what you say is lies. And until you provide sources for your claims that will remain my opinion of you.

Now. Seriously. Show me where I've ever said we should "blindly support Ukraine". Show me where I've said there should be no oversight. You can't, because I haven't. Liar.

 

[General Zod]

<>

This is hilarious, considering the source:

“you keep trying to put words in my mouth” !

Talk about “The pot calling the kettle. . . . . . “ !

<>

Hmmm...I'm trying to find the leg you have to stand on, but I just don't see it. But hey, your OPINION (to borrow your typical capitalization errors) is yours.

Should I now post a rambling definition of "FORUM" for your edification? Or perhaps a crocodile-tear stained plea for "CIVILITY" on the "FORUM"?

Or maybe you should really stop trying to "score points" on me because when you do it just makes you look like a bitter old man who can't stand having anyone disagree with him or poking holes in his often faniciful claims. I've got a pretty tough skin. You, obviously, do not.

 

[easy rider]

Perhaps one should avoid ad hominem arguments in a forum? Just sayin.

 

[General Zod]

Perhaps one should avoid ad hominem arguments in a forum? Just sayin.

A laudable goal. Some folks just can't stand it when they're disagreed with, though. And that's what all of this bullshit stems from.

 

[easy rider]

Are you winning an argument when it resorts to personal attacks? or perpetuating it?

 

[General Zod]

Are you winning an argument when it resorts to personal attacks? or perpetuating it?

Hitting back, generally. I don't set out to "win" but I won't let the attackers feel like they've gotten away with their strategy.

 

[cycleguy2300]

Hmmm...I'm trying to find the leg you have to stand on, but I just don't see it. But hey, your OPINION (to borrow your typical capitalization errors) is yours.

Should I now post a rambling definition of "FORUM" for your edification? Or perhaps a crocodile-tear stained plea for "CIVILITY" on the "FORUM"?

Or maybe you should really stop trying to "score points" on me because when you do it just makes you look like a bitter old man who can't stand having anyone disagree with him or poking holes in his often faniciful claims. I've got a pretty tough skin. You, obviously, do not.

A forum is where ideas are presented along with facts to back them up then argued. Several here tend to postulate obsurd positions then make excuses for not posting links or any supporting information

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[General Zod]

A forum is where ideas are presented along with facts to back them up then argued. Several here tend to postulate obsurd positions then make excuses for not posting links or any supporting information

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

Consider also that those same folks who waded into what was supposed to be a thread sharing news and information and have made a concerted effort to shout down anyone who disagrees with their political opinions and their un-supported claims - including providing others with false opinions they can then argue against.

Is that not worth arguing against?

 

[cycleguy2300]

Perhaps one should avoid ad hominem arguments in a forum? Just sayin.

They bring it upon themselves when he lies and posts things without supporting or contextual information.

When someone has shown themselves to be untrustworthy, that is important information to consider when they say something and refuse to back it up with anything.

Havok has repeatedly been dead wrong on the few things we can get him to commit to
Havok has repeatedly posted other's statements out of context with the intent to make it seem as if they were taking a different position (aka lying)

Havok (and a couple of others) has repeatedly posted or regurgitated straight up russian propaganda which has absolutely no basis in reality.

So yeah, when he posts something and doesnt back it up reminding others of his past lies is totally justified

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Consider also that those same folks who waded into what was supposed to be a thread sharing news and information and have made a concerted effort to shout down anyone who disagrees with their political opinions and their un-supported claims - including providing others with false opinions they can then argue against.

Is that not worth arguing against?

Drool the central state drool

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Good video of a FPV drone killing a russian TOS antiaircraft missle system

Lead with HTTPS://

t.me/ukrbavovna/9660

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

 

[easy rider]

They bring it upon themselves when he lies and posts things without supporting or contextual information.

When someone has shown themselves to be untrustworthy, that is important information to consider when they say something and refuse to back it up with anything.

Havok has repeatedly been dead wrong on the few things we can get him to commit to
Havok has repeatedly posted other's statements out of context with the intent to make it seem as if they were taking a different position (aka lying)

Havok (and a couple of others) has repeatedly posted or regurgitated straight up russian propaganda which has absolutely no basis in reality.

So yeah, when he posts something and doesnt back it up reminding others of his past lies is totally justified

Sent from my SM-S918B using Tapatalk

If one believes a lie it doesn't make them a liar. Now you can ask them to back up their belief without calling them a liar, but calling them a liar for their beliefs only makes you look the fool.

 

[General Zod]

If one believes a lie it doesn't make them a liar. Now you can ask them to back up their belief without calling them a liar, but calling them a liar for their beliefs only makes you look the fool.

When those beliefs are backed up with hostility, the lie becomes obvious. And I didn't start calling him a liar till he started lying about things he had said and things I had said.

When you can scroll back 2 pages and see that his assertions are completely opposite what was actually said, what does that make him?

When you provide a source and he smugly insists it says the exact opposite of what it clearly says, what does that make him?

When he latches onto a typo in one sentence as "proof" that I've "changed my story", does that make him suddenly honest? Or is he using a dishonest tactic?

I get it, you have problems with me calling him a liar. I'm afraid I'm just going to disappoint you until he becomes more honest. I don't know if he's even noticed, but I tend to agree with him in other threads where he's not pulling this bullshit. I have no personal beef with anyone...unless they start throwing out obvious lies and answering requests for proof with hostility and more lies.

 

[easy rider]

When those beliefs are backed up with hostility, the lie becomes obvious. And I didn't start calling him a liar till he started lying about things he had said and things I had said.

When you can scroll back 2 pages and see that his assertions are completely opposite what was actually said, what does that make him?

When you provide a source and he smugly insists it says the exact opposite of what it clearly says, what does that make him?

When he latches onto a typo in one sentence as "proof" that I've "changed my story", does that make him suddenly honest? Or is he using a dishonest tactic?

I get it, you have problems with me calling him a liar. I'm afraid I'm just going to disappoint you until he becomes more honest. I don't know if he's even noticed, but I tend to agree with him in other threads where he's not pulling this bullshit. I have no personal beef with anyone...unless they start throwing out obvious lies and answering requests for proof with hostility and more lies.

So schoolyard tactics is the only means? Should people be beaten into submission? Attacking the subject is one thing, but when it becomes personal it's no longer the subject.

 

[General Zod]

So schoolyard tactics is the only means? Should people be beaten into submission? Attacking the subject is one thing, but when it becomes personal it's no longer the subject.

It's interesting that you only seem to be having a problem with my responses to his antics. It's not as if I jumped right in to a knock-down-drag-out with him. But patience wears thin when lie and misrepresentation is backed up with condescension and more lies.

 

[easy rider]

It's interesting that you only seem to be having a problem with my responses to his antics. It's not as if I jumped right in to a knock-down-drag-out with him. But patience wears thin when lie and misrepresentation is backed up with condescension and more lies.

Sorry, I'm not meaning to pick on you personally, just hoping you might be the bigger man.