| In the General/Chat forum, on a thread titled Irina Yarovaya presented the outcome report of the Parliamentary Commission on Investigation into Activities of the US Biological Laboratories in Ukraine PLUS MY COMMENTS, ought-six wrote: |
“The US state department publicly admitted that there were US government funded and owned bio labs in the Ukraine, quite a few of them, in fact. Why were they there? Not for anything good.” The US funds labs all over the world. But funding a bio WEAPONS lab? Show your objective evidence; hearsay and innuendo and speculation won’t cut it. If the objective evidence supports your claim, then the US should be held to account. But you seem to be condemning the accused even before an indictment, let alone a trial. That’s called a rush to judgment, and guilty until proven innocent; which, in such places as Russia, is the standard. No wonder you apply it. |
You negate any claim made outside the mainstream media as unworthy of consideration. NATO and the US aren't going to admit to it, as NATO won't either. This is the information blackout you support. I guess you weren't around when Fauci was exposed for funding gain-of-function research? Did you know about Burisma and that Pelosi, Schumer, Biden all have criminal activities and graft there? Remember Biden extorting the Ukrainian minister to get the prosecutor investigating Hunter fired? Remember Trump asking Zelensky to investigate the Biden crimes and Zelensky refusing to do so? The Ukraine is a crime hub protected from investigation.
You try to smear a FReeper for having an opinion, but having an opinion happens all the time. I haven't personally touched or handled the documents exposing Biden family crimes and I have the opinion they are valid. No one here is pretending to be judge and jury - you're sitting in the court of public opinion. There is no jury and no rush to judgement. You sure are eager to brand people 'guilty' of having an opinion you don't like.
“You negate any claim made outside the mainstream media as unworthy of consideration.”
No; I don’t. But it’s telling that you assume facts not in evidence and jump to conclusions and rush to judgment, which is so typical of someone who can’t prevail on the facts.
If your Twitter sources are so credible where are the peer reviews of their theses? In what authoritative journals or records have these theses been published?
If you are going to condemn the US you better have one hell of a lot more evidence than someone’s Twitter comment.
“NATO and the US aren’t going to admit to it, as NATO won’t either. This is the information blackout you support.”
My God, but you are naiive. If we had bio weapons labs do you honestly think we’d admit it? Such programs would be HIGHLY classified. And, again you show you have no coherent argument, by jumping to the conclusion that by my asking to see evidence I am somehow supporting an information blackout.
“You try to smear a FReeper for having an opinion...”
That’s a lie, and you know it. Opinions are fine; but they should be supported by some credible foundation, and presented sans emotion and hyperbole (because if one has to resort to emotion and hyperbole it generally means one doesn’t have much confidence in his or her own opinion). And I will push back on that.
“You sure are eager to brand people ‘guilty’ of having an opinion you don’t like.”
Again, that’s a lie and you know it.