The issue is that it's issues he is claiming to be knowledgeable on most of the time. His middle eastern stuff is very much written like propaganda. If you are familiar with fallacies I could even show you an entire article he wrote which was nothing more than a combination of different ad hominems and guilt by associations which lacked any substance. That's when I knew for sure what he was doing was on purpose and not an innocent mistake like many patriots make.
[–] 16309010? ago
Fair enough. I don't follow him, but from what I have read, I don't agree with what he has to say about Syria. I didn't take it as willful ignorance, but perhaps you are right.
[–] 16313359? ago
I read him for awhile. I know a lot about the Middle East situation since for awhile there before Q it was a real focus of mine. (especially involving Saudi which I had a good human source about) Anyway I normally give everyone the benefit of the doubt and then continue to watch closely what they say even if they say something that seems bad. Wictor I always felt some unease about (ended up being the same John Oliver techniques which was giving me an issue). The thing with him is that he never varied, never moved, never said anything that would be out of line of the same stuff the Saudi government would say in propaganda. Normally when you see these genuine people their tell is that while they may be hardline one stance, there is a bit they are willing to give on.... Wictor despite claiming to be an expert.. despite definitely having and displaying knowledge about different situations, would only talk about positives with certain regimes (most notably for me the Saudi regime and like some other guy mentioned the Israelis). Hard to really go point by point but if you pick an area that you know both sides of, and then compare what he says vs the reality of the situation, it makes it waay easier to see what is going on.