but the Western talking points aren’t even an intelligent psyop, and only work well for the historically illiterate.
***I did not mention the “western talking points”. I don’t know nor care what they are. I presented what my own assessment of the situation is, not some talking point. Arguing against a talking point is strawman arguing.
Worse, once an arrogant person takes a position, even if they were to be showered with hard facts, they will not accept them.
***Perhaps you should look in the mirror for such a person.
At such a point, the truth is simply untenable.
***What truth? Take a writing class.
NATO —
A few points on that NATO thang[ey] -
***Now hold on. Didn’t YOU say that the “ talking points was not even an intelligent psyop, and only work well for the historically illiterate”? Then why go off those very same talking points? I didn’t bring them up. YOU are. What you’re writing amounts to a giant straw argument.
Hence, I will take up your remaining arguments in a separate post.
Hey big guy, I only presented available historical information and policy.
There was no attack on you or anyone in particular.
And there was no attack verbage directed at you.
Those were general and corporate statements.
So no attack on you, or your talking points, period.