Russia United States war looks imminent: Russian foreign ministry

@Overnight, Russia only protects itself and defends its interests b/c the US is/was building up the UkraFascists into a proxy-war against Russia. Russia says its military action is backed by UN law. Article 51 or so that says every member has the right to defend itself from imminent danger by another state, in this case Ukraine attacking Russian separatists in its East. After Moscow recognized these secessionist regions, it had to protect them... Rest is history... Just eat or die... :)
 
Last edited:
Your beginning to come off as a bit of a nut.

Ad hominem. Invalid. weak argument.

But sure. Doubt the Holy Mainstream Narrative and those in the Mass Formation will perceive you as a nut. Fair enough.
 
Last edited:
Ummm "NYTimes WTC 7 collapse" google search turns up 222,000 hits. Starting in Nov 2001 on.

Well, most of those are NOT NYT stories, but your point is well received. I did not phrase it carefully to avoid being attacked by Mainstream believers.
NYT has never done an article on the scientific theory (put forth by AE911 Truth - 3000 certified architects and engineers) that WTC 7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition. Many qualified analysts question the official narrative. They exist to protect it, not to report news objectively. And you know that is my point. You are failing to address it and using straw men and red herrings. Probably innocently. Most people have no idea how many rhetorical fallacies they make, so no worries.
So, go ahead and post some 'debunking now. Sounds fun.
 
Well, most of those are NOT NYT stories, but your point is well received. I did not phrase it carefully to avoid being attacked by Mainstream believers.
NYT has never done an article on the scientific theory (put forth by AE911 Truth - 3000 certified architects and engineers) that WTC 7 was brought down by Controlled Demolition. Many qualified analysts question the official narrative. They exist to protect it, not to report news objectively. And you know that is my point. You are failing to address it and using straw men and red herrings. Probably innocently. Most people have no idea how many rhetorical fallacies they make, so no worries.
So, go ahead and post some 'debunking now. Sounds fun.
I thought you might like to see this front page Article in today's TIMES. I can't recommend the NYTimes to you too highly, it helps me clear my head of nonsense,; I am certain it would for you as well. .

"I did my research.I read, watched, I talkedtotheexperts.I formed an opinion,and I wrote about it.
I was wrong.

I was wrong about inflation by Paul Krugman
I was wrong about Al Franken by Michelle Goldberg
I was wrong about capitalism by David Brooks
I was wrong about the power of protest by Zeynep Tufekci
I was wrong about Trump voters by Bret Stephens
I was wrong about Chinese censorship by Thomas Friedman
I was wrong about Facebook by Farhad Manjoo
I was wrong about Mitt Romney by Gail Collins

Eight Times Opinion columnists revisit their incorrect predictions and bad advice — and reflect on why they changed their minds.

In our age of hyper partisanship and polarization, when social media echo chambers incentivize digging in and doubling down, it’s not easy to admit you got something wrong. But here at Times Opinion, we still hold on to the idea that good-faith intellectual debate is possible, that we should all be able to rethink our positions on issues, from the most serious to the most trivial. It’s not necessarily easy for Times Opinion columnists to engage in public self-reproach, but we hope that in doing so, they can be models of how valuable it can be to admit when you get things wrong."

NYT, 22 July, 2022

Their are twenty some Newspapers in the world that have the respect of heads of state and political and business leaders around the world. They all have massive circulation in the millions and huge staffs of highly skilled and experienced reporters, writers and editors. Their coverage is world wide, thorough and detailed. They go out of their way to make sure opinion is never confused with reporting. The New York Times is one of those papers.​
 
Last edited:
...has the right to defend itself from imminent danger by another state, in this case Ukraine attacking Russian separatists in its East...

So Russian separatists in Ukraine equals your idea of another state? The Separatists are titles that because they are vagabonds, in a state that is not Russia. So Russia gets to invade because some Ruskies decide they want to take over a portion of a country they are not a part of?

I just want NATO to kill this fucker, so the bull can continue.
 
Back
Top