U.S Military News:

[Lillywolf]

High Alert US Navy Create Aggressor Squadron to ATTACK China and Russia

If you can get past that robotish narrator voice, it appears it is going to be an interesting future. How does this line up with Eschatology I wonder?

 

[maxwel]

20 minute video with no sources, references, or citations:

This video had no citations, no original sources, and no links to citations or original sources.





...

 

[Lillywolf]

Well, it takes serious mustard to make false claims about a video one clearly never hit PLAY on. All that Maxwell said above is untrue. You'll find that out if you watch the video.

Let's see if someone will read a printed article.
World War 3: US Navy create aggressor squadron to ATTACK China and Russia | World | News

 

[maxwel]

Well, it takes serious mustard to make false claims about a video one clearly never hit PLAY on. All that Maxwell said above is untrue. You'll find that out if you watch the video.

1. You accused me of never watching the video, and you had absolutely no way to know that... you just imagined something and then accused me.

Well done.


2. I did watch the video before I posted... 20 minutes of my life that were completely wasted.


3. Everything I said above was very precise.

The video shows a lot of silly stock footage of various things, and then it gives no citations, links, or first-hand sources for the claim in the headline.

Because the video contains no evidence, of any kind, to support it's claim... it appears to be a video of complete nonsense.


4. That headline MAY be true, but you can't tell that from this video, because this video gives no documentation of anything.... just nothing.





..

 

[Lillywolf]

1. You accused me of never watching the video, and you had absolutely no way to know that... you just imagined something and then accused me.

Well done.


2. I did watch the video before I posted... 20 minutes of my life that were completely wasted.


3. Everything I said above was very precise.

The video shows a lot of silly stock footage of various things, and then it gives no citations, links, or first-hand sources for the claim in the headline.

Because the video contains no evidence, of any kind, to support it's claim... it appears to be a video of complete nonsense.


4. That headline MAY be true, but you can't tell that from this video, because this video gives no documentation of anything.... just nothing.
..

It is very well done. Because if you had watched the video you would have never made the false claims you did about it.

 

[maxwel]

It is very well done. Because if you had watched the video you would have never made the false claims you did about it.

1. Please provide a time stamp, from the video, where it gives a verifiable citation of a first hand source.

2. Then provide a link to that first hand source, so we can CHECK IT, and see if it's relevant to the story, and see if the video reported it accurately.


Conclusion:
1. If my claims are false... you can easily PROVE that by showing us the documented sources in the video.
2. It there is verifiable documentation within the video, and I missed it, I'll be happy to apologize.


...

 

[Lillywolf]

https://goo.gl/W8SSfp) That link is at the YouTube page dedicated to Politico. The P logo at the end of the video is hard to miss.
The names, the other references throughout the reporting are also evidences of source, etc....
And before someone wants to go into a screed about what the video isn't , if one was fair , they'd go to the YouTube link on the video toolbar and realize the sources are there too.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCIjeuBLp09i0OlW6-azPFKA?sub_confirmation=1

- High Alert US Navy Create Aggressor Squadron to ATTACK China and Russia (https://goo.gl/W8SSfp) 🔴 Live : https://goo.gl/T0iwuw #USDefenseNews #USMilitaryNews

I don't want your apology. I chalk this up to the aptly timely labeled aggressor members here who jump on me hen they don't know diddly about what they're talking about. Their goal is just to fire off in my direction for their own personal, and seemingly collective, reasons thinking it makes me look bad. When in reality, it is just the opposite.
I would tell you all you have my deepest sympathies. But that would be a lie.

 

[calibob]

1. Please provide a time stamp, from the video, where it gives a verifiable citation of a first hand source.

2. Then provide a link to that first hand source, so we can CHECK IT, and see if it's relevant to the story, and see if the video reported it accurately.


Conclusion:
1. If my claims are false... you can easily PROVE that by showing us the documented sources in the video.
2. It there is verifiable documentation within the video, and I missed it, I'll be happy to apologize.


...

Do you think half of us even know how to do that stuff? We're not spies.

 

[Lillywolf]

High Alert US Navy Create Aggressor Squadron to ATTACK China and Russia

If you can get past that robotish narrator voice, it appears it is going to be an interesting future. How does this line up with Eschatology I wonder?

Besides a "US MILITARY NEWS" transparency being on display throughout the entire running video.
Navy Creating Attack Sub Aggressor Unit to Train to Fight Against Russia, China

 

[Lillywolf]

Do you think half of us even know how to do that stuff? We're not spies.

You don't need to be. You just need to hit play and watch the video that tells it all. Then, if interested, go to the YT channel linked on the toolbar of the video window and find all that was claimed to not exist concerning the video.
Including it being sourced from YT's POLITICO page.
The article above in my last post there features all the same information including the "Mr.Richard", referred to in the video.

There's no substance to Maxwell's condemnation of the video. They just wanted to stop interest in it with false claims so that people wouldn't waste their time taking what was said as truth. It isn't.

Who cares? The articles are there. The news is real. If people are interested they'll seek it out.

 

[calibob]

you lost me at yt channel link but the truth is I get annoyed by statisticians that need quantifiable evidence for everything or else consider it a lie. That's how atheists think. I believe in a God I can't see or measure. I don't feel it's fair to expect people here to be able to have corroborating evidence for everything. This isn't the National Press Corps or the Mac Carthy trials. If my life ever gets so lonely and bored I start collecting references for everything I say so I can prove it. PLEASE SHOOT ME!

 

[maxwel]

There's no substance to Maxwell's condemnation of the video.

Substance & Condemnation - Fun Fun:


1. I actually tried to be very polite about the video, considering it had no internal references or documentation of any kind, and it was from a questionable youtube channel.


2. I was very articulate, and very careful, to NOT claim the story was untrue; I simply said this video had no internal documentation to support it's claims.

It is possible for a video to be badly done, and to ignore using any documentation, QUITE REGARDLESS of whether or not the story is true... so I was very careful, and articulate, in what I actually said.


3. You did NOT post any time stamps to verifiable documentation within the video... presumably because there isn't there.

This was really my ONLY point about the video at all - that it made claims without any documentation.


4. You did post a few video links, but they were very nonspecific, and none of them even went to a specific video.

This isn't really the best way to support an argument... linking to big piles of non specific things, things which will take someone a lot of time to go through just to see if it's even relevant.

Pointing to a huge pile of messy stuff when someone asks for a specific bit of info... mmm... might give someone the impression you're just trying to be annoying on purpose.

Surely not.


5. I did find that ONE of your links went to an actual, specific, verifiable interview.
EXCELLENT!
And...
THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE INTERVIEW DID NOT SUPPORT THE "CLICKBAIT" TITLE ON THE VIDEO.




Conclusion:


1. SMOKE WITH EXAGGERATION:
There ARE new military developments with the Navy, but the TITLE ON THE VIDEO IS WILDLY EXAGGERATED.

2. CLICKBAIT:
A wildly exaggerated title is what we call... CLICKBAIT.

3. COMMON PLACE PROBLEM:
It isn't Lilywolf's fault that people create "clickbait" titles.


4. CHECK ORIGINAL SOURCES:
We should always LOOK for original sources, so we can then check them... otherwise, as happened here, we really have no idea if the story is true, false, or just partly true with a lot of exaggeration for clickbait purposes.


...

 

[Lillywolf]

you lost me at yt channel link but the truth is I get annoyed by statisticians that need quantifiable evidence for everything or else consider it a lie. That's how atheists think. I believe in a God I can't see or measure. I don't feel it's fair to expect people here to be able to have corroborating evidence for everything. This isn't the National Press Corps or the Mac Carthy trials. If my life ever gets so lonely and bored I start collecting references for everything I say so I can prove it. PLEASE SHOOT ME!

It's a tactic that I think you nailed rather well. Thanks. LOVE your signature!
YT Channel link is that link that is on YouTube where this video is hosted. Right below the video window is the source link to the POLITICO video news channel at YouTube. And added to that, besides as I said the transparency that runs the length of the news report, are the hashtags that give the sources and citations.

 

[Lillywolf]

Now that is desperate!

Substance & Condemnation - Fun Fun:


1. I actually tried to be very polite about the video, considering it had no internal references or documentation of any kind, and it was from a questionable youtube channel.


2. I was very articulate, and very careful, to NOT claim the story was untrue; I simply said this video had no internal documentation to support it's claims.

It is possible for a video to be badly done, and to ignore using any documentation, QUITE REGARDLESS of whether or not the story is true... so I was very careful, and articulate, in what I actually said.


3. You did NOT post any time stamps to verifiable documentation within the video... presumably because there isn't there.

This was really my ONLY point about the video at all - that it made claims without any documentation.


4. You did post a few video links, but they were very nonspecific, and none of them even went to a specific video.

This isn't really the best way to support an argument... linking to big piles of non specific things, things which will take someone a lot of time to go through just to see if it's even relevant.

Pointing to a huge pile of messy stuff when someone asks for a specific bit of info... mmm... might give someone the impression you're just trying to be annoying on purpose.

Surely not.


5. I did find that ONE of your links went to an actual, specific, verifiable interview.
EXCELLENT!
And...
THE ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE INTERVIEW DID NOT SUPPORT THE "CLICKBAIT" TITLE ON THE VIDEO.




Conclusion:


1. SMOKE WITH EXAGGERATION:
There ARE new military developments with the Navy, but the TITLE ON THE VIDEO IS WILDLY EXAGGERATED.

2. CLICKBAIT:
A wildly exaggerated title is what we call... CLICKBAIT.

3. COMMON PLACE PROBLEM:
It isn't Lilywolf's fault that people create "clickbait" titles.


4. CHECK ORIGINAL SOURCES:
We should always LOOK for original sources, so we can then check them... otherwise, as happened here, we really have no idea if the story is true, false, or just partly true with a lot of exaggeration for clickbait purposes.


...

 

[maxwel]

Now that is desperate!

You ARE aware that calling me desperate, and adding a little gif....

Is NOT actually an argument?



You know that right?



You DO know that name-calling is not an actual argument?




You DO know that name-calling is what people do when they've lost?

Right?






...

 

[Lillywolf]

And for any member that may venture into this thread among the near 60 views tallied. The OP IS NOT CLICK BAIT!
That's another falsehood arrived at so as to distract from the news itself.

You all are smart enough to realize a slander bomb when it hits a thread.

Any of these links will help you to realize what the news report is about. Just doing my part to stop the lies from thinking it won.
GOOGLE NEWS LINKS

 

[calibob]

Why need to doubt? The USA Military has used Big Stick/Dirty Harry/MAD (mutual assured destruction) diplomacy ever since the cold war. And it worked.

What do I know? 4 generations, in a row, of military servicemen so far. Why be shocked we've had 'A' bomb loaded Bombers circle the north pole for years. Minuteman, Titan, Polaris and Trident powered weapons over 50 years. Yeah. We've got some big BIG GUNS. And some new ones are no surprise.

 

[Angela53510]

Well, it takes serious mustard to make false claims about a video one clearly never hit PLAY on. All that Maxwell said above is untrue. You'll find that out if you watch the video.

Let's see if someone will read a printed article.
World War 3: US Navy create aggressor squadron to ATTACK China and Russia | World | News

1. You accused me of never watching the video, and you had absolutely no way to know that... you just imagined something and then accused me.

Well done.


2. I did watch the video before I posted... 20 minutes of my life that were completely wasted.


3. Everything I said above was very precise.

The video shows a lot of silly stock footage of various things, and then it gives no citations, links, or first-hand sources for the claim in the headline.

Because the video contains no evidence, of any kind, to support it's claim... it appears to be a video of complete nonsense.


4. That headline MAY be true, but you can't tell that from this video, because this video gives no documentation of anything.... just nothing.

..

The large, italicized quote, Maxwell. Seriously this is your bad. You should have asked for the written link. It only took me two minutes to read it, and reject it. So, next time, ask for the written copy, and you can save 18 minutes of your life. (I know it must hurt to have wasted that much time on something utterly unsubstantiated.)


As for the source "thetopbreakingnews!" Say what?? What on earth is that source? Some kind of conspiracy site, I would imagine. And it was posted as Nov. 10, 2018. But, who knows if any of this is even slightly verifiable? I mean, it could just be a lot of snowflakes, trying to manipulate the news, blacken Trump further, etc.

As for Trump, as as Canadian, I really have no iron in this fire. Ok, I love to see him trash Trudeau. I would love to have him stay on in 2020 just for that purpose, but the goal is to have that effeminate, globalist Trudeau gone in 2019.

You know Maxwel, it really is amazing what people will believe from any old random internet site. Glad you called her on this!

 

[Lillywolf]

The large, italicized quote, Maxwell. Seriously this is your bad. You should have asked for the written link. It only took me two minutes to read it, and reject it. So, next time, ask for the written copy, and you can save 18 minutes of your life. (I know it must hurt to have wasted that much time on something utterly unsubstantiated.)


As for the source "thetopbreakingnews!" Say what?? What on earth is that source? Some kind of conspiracy site, I would imagine. And it was posted as Nov. 10, 2018. But, who knows if any of this is even slightly verifiable? I mean, it could just be a lot of snowflakes, trying to manipulate the news, blacken Trump further, etc.

As for Trump, as as Canadian, I really have no iron in this fire. Ok, I love to see him trash Trudeau. I would love to have him stay on in 2020 just for that purpose, but the goal is to have that effeminate, globalist Trudeau gone in 2019.

You know Maxwel, it really is amazing what people will believe from any old random internet site. Glad you called her on this!

Right on cue!
"I chalk this up to the aptly timely labeled aggressor members here who jump on me hen they don't know diddly about what they're talking about. Their goal is just to fire off in my direction for their own personal, and seemingly collective, reasons thinking it makes me look bad. When in reality, it is just the opposite. "

Max called himself out.
It really is amazing what people will do in order to show their animus for someone that knows more than they do in the BDF.

 

[maxwel]

Right on cue!
"I chalk this up to the aptly timely labeled aggressor members here who jump on me hen they don't know diddly about what they're talking about. Their goal is just to fire off in my direction for their own personal, and seemingly collective, reasons thinking it makes me look bad. When in reality, it is just the opposite. "

Quoting your own post?


So you are actually quoting yourself because....

mmm...

nobody else agrees with you?


...