I never said you were being paid. Not all assets are equally valuable.
What do you think a "foreign asset" is?
More Definitions of foreign asset foreign asset means any asset issued, guaranteed or owing by any Obligor organized under the laws of any OECD Country (other than the United States of America) and which is denominated and payable in United States dollars, Canadian dollars, Euros, Sterling, Swiss Francs or Australian dollars.
Want to explain how I am a foreign asset Sir Isaac?
I think you picked the wrong definition from your Google search. Try this one from wiki:
There are different categories of assets, including people who:
Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their own government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available.
Work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.
Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.
Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.
I never said you were being paid. Not all assets are equally valuable.
What do you think a "foreign asset" is?
More Definitions of foreign asset foreign asset means any asset issued, guaranteed or owing by any Obligor organized under the laws of any OECD Country (other than the United States of America) and which is denominated and payable in United States dollars, Canadian dollars, Euros, Sterling, Swiss Francs or Australian dollars.
Want to explain how I am a foreign asset Sir Isaac?
Carmine - just to be clear, since you seem to have a hard time using a dictionary. The talk about butterfly mines above does not refer to a hole in the ground where butterflies come from, but rather a type of weapon used to injure people. You’re welcome!
This post is so fallaciously flawed it can only be seen as intentional sophistry.
For the third time, I reported allegations made by others - than later made estimation of a balance of probabilities that the Ukraine side was more likely than not to have been responsible for dropping Butterfly mines on Russian-held territory. This estimation was based on motive (that being abundantly plain) and opportunity (Ukraine is acknowledged to posses an inventory of millions of the banned mines in question).
The estimation of what seemed more likely than not was qualified then and since as being suggestive but non-conclusive.
This is entirely more information and qualification than provided by "UK Intelligence" whose assertion of Russian use of Butterfly mines in the Ukraine has been upheld as fact, despite a total lack of substantiation - and deemed to stand unless somehow satisfactorily disproved.
You are not even trying to think rationally.
Bias has painted you so far in the corner, you can't see the door.
In post 5351 you write:
"While not conclusive unto itself, factoring motive and opportunity, it does seems more likely the Butterfly mines dropped on Donetsk were from the Ukraine side."
This is not you "reporting allegations made by others." It's you stating a claim (even if couched in terms to make it entirely non-definitive). Now, it's entirely unclear how you reached this conclusion. You mention no specific motive for Ukraine to use butterfly mines in Donetsk. You don't mention any specific opportunity that makes it more likely that Ukraine deployed butterfly mines in Ukraine. So, your entire "argument" rests on your opinion and is unsupported by any facts, nor is it corroborated by any evidence. On the other hand, Russia has a history of using butterfly mines and still possess a stockpile of millions of them. They've also deployed other anti-personnel mines in Ukraine. And they have motive. And they have opportunity. Now, I'm not saying that Russia deployed butterfly mines in Ukraine, but if it quacks like a duck and commits war crimes, it's probably maybe most likely, but not conclusively, a Russian duck.
Mention of reported allegations of Butterfly mine use by the Ukraine side (having been made by others) was in a prior post - and additionally referenced in a subsequent post.
You are not following along.
If you were researching the issue, you would not need me to point out those sources. They plainly available being top of any focused search result.
I do not mind swapping facts and engaging in healthy debate.
But your posts are devoid of impartiality and repeatedly demonstrate scant comprehension.
The tired trend shown is you perform little research, present few "facts" of the sort as can be used without apologetic quotes, adopt some extreme anti-Russian stance, then insist everyone else who disagrees is wrong unless they present facts and arguments to the contrary. When they do, you endlessly dismiss whatever incompatible data is presented - because you are not actually interested in facts, but in propagating Russophobic prejudices.
More Definitions of foreign asset foreign asset means any asset issued, guaranteed or owing by any Obligor organized under the laws of any OECD Country (other than the United States of America) and which is denominated and payable in United States dollars, Canadian dollars, Euros, Sterling, Swiss Francs or Australian dollars.
Want to explain how I am a foreign asset Sir Isaac?
I think you picked the wrong definition from your Google search. Try this one from wiki:
There are different categories of assets, including people who:
Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their own government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available.
Work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.
Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.
Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.
This is not you "reporting allegations made by others." It's you stating a claim (even if couched in terms to make it entirely non-definitive). Now, it's entirely unclear how you reached this conclusion. You mention no specific motive for Ukraine to use butterfly mines in Donetsk. You don't mention any specific opportunity that makes it more likely that Ukraine deployed butterfly mines in Ukraine. So, your entire "argument" rests on your opinion and is unsupported by any facts, nor is it corroborated by any evidence. On the other hand, Russia has a history of using butterfly mines and still possess a stockpile of millions of them. They've also deployed other anti-personnel mines in Ukraine. And they have motive. And they have opportunity. Now, I'm not saying that Russia deployed butterfly mines in Ukraine, but if it quacks like a duck and commits war crimes, it's probably maybe most likely, but not conclusively, a Russian duck.
Mention of reported allegations of Butterfly mine use by the Ukraine side (having been made by others) was in a prior post - and additionally referenced in a subsequent post.
You are not following along.
If you were researching the issue, you would not need me to point out those sources. They plainly available being top of any focused search result.
I do not mind swapping facts and engaging in healthy debate.
But your posts are devoid of impartiality and repeatedly demonstrate scant comprehension.
The tired trend shown is you perform little research, present few "facts" of the sort as can be used without apologetic quotes, adopt some extreme anti-Russian stance, then insist everyone else who disagrees is wrong unless they present facts and arguments to the contrary. When they do, you endlessly dismiss whatever incompatible data is presented - because you are not actually interested in facts, but in propagating Russophobic prejudices.
That’s a very long way of saying, “I have no evidence to support my asinine claims.”
Headlines for the last week have been splashed with reports of impending Nuclear disaster at Zaporizhzhia power plant.
More 'balanced' reports state "both the Ukraine and Russian sides accuse each other of shelling the plant".
One problem. The plant has been held by Russian forces since March.
Back in July, the plant being was attacked by the Ukraine side using American-supplied Switchblade drones.
But now, the UDF (and those faithfully repeating their claims) would have us believe Russians are now routinely and recklessly shelling the same plant they occupy.
CBS admits most of the weapons going to Ukraine are not being used by the Ukraine military.
Oh look. Carmine linking to Jimmy Dore saying stupid things. Carmine - where did the 30% number come from? Did Jimmy Dore do any checking to verify the number? Was it referring to non-lethal aid, weapons, or all of the above? When was the 30% number referring to? Is that number still accurate? For somebody that thinks everything is propaganda, you sure fall for a lot of propaganda.
Headlines for the last week have been splashed with reports of impending Nuclear disaster at Zaporizhzhia power plant.
More 'balanced' reports state "both the Ukraine and Russian sides accuse each other of shelling the plant".
One problem. The plant has been held by Russian forces since March.
Back in July, the plant being was attacked by the Ukraine side using American-supplied Switchblade drones.
But now, the UDF (and those faithfully repeating their claims) would have us believe Russians are now routinely and recklessly shelling the same plant they occupy.
Man, it’s almost like Russia shouldn’t violate international standards and station troops and weapons at a nuclear power plant. Of course, they shouldn’t have violated international law and invaded Ukraine in the first place, but what’s a few thousand dead civilians to Putin?
The area that was mined was a civilian region within Russian controlled territory of no special military value. Not clear how that fits into the "attack the other side" model.
Extending this logic, attributing any attack on a civilian target is difficult because it lacks "special military value."
Regardless of what sense this makes, attacks on civilian targets routinely occur, from all sides in the Ukraine conflict, and in every other conflict.
The operative words here are "Russian controlled territory" This is all that is required to qualify as "the other side" from a Ukraine perspective.
No, attributing an attack on non-combatants under a "rule" regarding their status being combatants of the other side isn't coherent logic.
"Both sides do it" doesn't help you get to "most likely the Ukrainians".
It's also evident that the Russians have terrorized civilians in Russian controlled territory, so the location of the front isn't a great discriminator.
I'm not saying the Ukrainians couldn't be responsible, I'm saying your logic getting to "most likely the Ukrainians" isn't very persuasive.
Mention of reported allegations of Butterfly mine use by the Ukraine side (having been made by others) was in a prior post - and additionally referenced in a subsequent post.
You are not following along.
If you were researching the issue, you would not need me to point out those sources. They plainly available being top of any focused search result.
I do not mind swapping facts and engaging in healthy debate.
But your posts are devoid of impartiality and repeatedly demonstrate scant comprehension.
The tired trend shown is you perform little research, present few "facts" of the sort as can be used without apologetic quotes, adopt some extreme anti-Russian stance, then insist everyone else who disagrees is wrong unless they present facts and arguments to the contrary. When they do, you endlessly dismiss whatever incompatible data is presented - because you are not actually interested in facts, but in propagating Russophobic prejudices.
That’s a very long way of saying, “I have no evidence to support my asinine claims.”
"Asinine" seems to be what you call any view remotely incompatible with your own.
You are continuously presented with the facts and argument you request, even though you could easily ascertain them yourself.
But getting you to see logic is like expecting a dog to see colours.
Let's try a different tack.
How about you lay out an argument for concluding (or strongly suggesting) Russians deployed Butterfly mines in the Ukraine - and the Ukraine side has not.
So far the argument presented for that is that Russians possess butterfly mines. True. But then the Ukraine side also has massive stores of butterfly mines. So merely having inventory seems irrelevant.
The next argument is that the Russian military used Butterfly mines over 30 years ago in Afghanistan. Well, the United States was dropping nuclear bombs and napalm on civilians not long before, and that would not seem a basis for assuming they would do so now. Practices of the distant past are not reliable predictors of current practice.
So that leaves us with your "go-to" argument." Russians are savages capable of anything. So we might rightly blame 'anything' on them. Conversely, the Ukraine side is the righteous side, so malfeasance is inconceivable.
However, we have seen every side in every conflict is guilty of deplorable crimes - and we can only argue extent.
We must, then, make determinations based on fact, not prejudice and presumption.
But surely, in assessing the source of Butterfly mines dropped on Russian-held territory, there must be more basis than this for heaping blame and holding blameless - please elaborate. Please explain what "UK Intelligence" would not.
I'm not saying the Ukrainians couldn't be responsible, I'm saying your logic getting to "most likely the Ukrainians" isn't very persuasive.
The phrase repeatedly used was it seemed "more likely than not".
Do you see equal or greater probability of the Russian side attacking Russian-held territory compared with the Ukraine side attacking Russian-held territory?
Nick Paton Walsh,Daria Markina,Sebastian Shukla,Oleksandra Ochman,Darya Tarasova
Promises of freedom and riches are made to convicts in cramped jail cells. Frantic phone calls ensue between relatives and inmates weighing the offer. Then prisoners vanish, leaving their loved ones to sift through reports of...
Man, it’s almost like Russia shouldn’t violate international standards and station troops and weapons at a nuclear power plant. Of course, they shouldn’t have violated international law and invaded Ukraine in the first place, but what’s a few thousand dead civilians to Putin?
The point of the post you're replying to was to note an example of clearly untruthful claims having been made by the Ukraine side and which were repeated in Western media.
What argument are you presenting by providing moral commentary to frame events?
That Russians violated international law by sending troops into the Ukraine, so it is appropriate for the Ukraine side to bomb a nuclear plant then blame someone else for it? And we should go along with that?
That’s a very long way of saying, “I have no evidence to support my asinine claims.”
"Asinine" seems to be what you call any view remotely incompatible with your own.
You are continuously presented with the facts and argument you request, even though you could easily ascertain them yourself.
But getting you to see logic is like expecting a dog to see colours.
Let's try a different tack.
How about you lay out an argument for concluding (or strongly suggesting) Russians deployed Butterfly mines in the Ukraine - and the Ukraine side has not.
So far the argument presented for that is that Russians possess butterfly mines. True. But then the Ukraine side also has massive stores of butterfly mines. So merely having inventory seems irrelevant.
The next argument is that the Russian military used Butterfly mines over 30 years ago in Afghanistan. Well, the United States was dropping nuclear bombs and napalm on civilians not long before, and that would not seem a basis for assuming they would do so now. Practices of the distant past are not reliable predictors of current practice.
So that leaves us with your "go-to" argument." Russians are savages capable of anything. So we might rightly blame 'anything' on them. Conversely, the Ukraine side is the righteous side, so malfeasance is inconceivable.
However, we have seen every side in every conflict is guilty of deplorable crimes - and we can only argue extent.
We must, then, make determinations based on fact, not prejudice and presumption.
But surely, in assessing the source of Butterfly mines dropped on Russian-held territory, there must be more basis than this for heaping blame and holding blameless - please elaborate. Please explain what "UK Intelligence" would not.
Let’s recap your argument for why it’s “likely Ukraine”. They have a motive (but what that motive is has not been specified). They have opportunity. Both of these apply to Russia in spades - with the added bonus that Russia has used these very mines before, Russia has used anti-personnel mines in Ukraine, and Russia has been using cluster munitions in civilians areas. I’m not saying Russia did or did not deploy butterfly mines. I’m just pointing out facts. Please provide some credible sources to support your claims.
That’s a very long way of saying, “I have no evidence to support my asinine claims.”
"Asinine" seems to be what you call any view remotely incompatible with your own.
You are continuously presented with the facts and argument you request, even though you could easily ascertain them yourself.
But getting you to see logic is like expecting a dog to see colours.
Let's try a different tack.
How about you lay out an argument for concluding (or strongly suggesting) Russians deployed Butterfly mines in the Ukraine - and the Ukraine side has not.
So far the argument presented for that is that Russians possess butterfly mines. True. But then the Ukraine side also has massive stores of butterfly mines. So merely having inventory seems irrelevant.
The next argument is that the Russian military used Butterfly mines over 30 years ago in Afghanistan. Well, the United States was dropping nuclear bombs and napalm on civilians not long before, and that would not seem a basis for assuming they would do so now. Practices of the distant past are not reliable predictors of current practice.
So that leaves us with your "go-to" argument." Russians are savages capable of anything. So we might rightly blame 'anything' on them. Conversely, the Ukraine side is the righteous side, so malfeasance is inconceivable.
However, we have seen every side in every conflict is guilty of deplorable crimes - and we can only argue extent.
We must, then, make determinations based on fact, not prejudice and presumption.
But surely, in assessing the source of Butterfly mines dropped on Russian-held territory, there must be more basis than this for heaping blame and holding blameless - please elaborate. Please explain what "UK Intelligence" would not.
"Asinine" is what I call your completely unsupported claims. Unless we include your go-to argument “I said so.”
Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win a LetsRun t-shirt.Help us build the best running shoe review site for a chance to win one of 10 LetsRun t-shirts.
