U.S Military News:

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.
..

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.


...

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?

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

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

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!

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.


...

Now that is desperate!

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!

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. "