You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
You've not only linked to a NATO site as reference, but this is your only post since you have created this account 8 hours ago. For you to label something as a "conspiracy site' is the extent to your perspective. To categorize a group without respecting either truthful points or a level playing field through critical thinking sort of re-assures the quality of your stance.
[–]Arbiter0 points
1 point
1 point
(+1|-0)
ago
(edited ago)
Of course NATO would be biased in this regard, however it is evidence, and for globalresearch.ca to claim there is no evidence of Russian intervention especially when the source they quoted says quite the opposite, is ludicrous and is testament to the readers who take this site as a legitimate news source.
I can't tell whether this 'news' site is intending to deceive people, or if their 'journalists' are too stupid to read through the sources which they quote. It seems they pick and choose only the phrases which will fit their agenda.
what evidence? With the technology that is at the disposal of NATO, thats what they release. This is the MH17 all over again. Anyone who can think for themselves and see both sides fairly can see the actions that are NATO/Western based and that of the Reality of whats happening on a actual global scale. Its not just in what they say, but what they choose to do, not do, or even allow.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] TheVeryWiseOwl [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
You've not only linked to a NATO site as reference, but this is your only post since you have created this account 8 hours ago. For you to label something as a "conspiracy site' is the extent to your perspective. To categorize a group without respecting either truthful points or a level playing field through critical thinking sort of re-assures the quality of your stance.
[–] Arbiter 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago (edited ago)
Of course NATO would be biased in this regard, however it is evidence, and for globalresearch.ca to claim there is no evidence of Russian intervention especially when the source they quoted says quite the opposite, is ludicrous and is testament to the readers who take this site as a legitimate news source.
I can't tell whether this 'news' site is intending to deceive people, or if their 'journalists' are too stupid to read through the sources which they quote. It seems they pick and choose only the phrases which will fit their agenda.
[–] TheVeryWiseOwl [S] 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
what evidence? With the technology that is at the disposal of NATO, thats what they release. This is the MH17 all over again. Anyone who can think for themselves and see both sides fairly can see the actions that are NATO/Western based and that of the Reality of whats happening on a actual global scale. Its not just in what they say, but what they choose to do, not do, or even allow.