But I did in fact take the time to at least read enough under the author's writings to see which direction the given link chose to travel down and if it pertained to the topic....it didn't! And with Antsy's concluding statement " I think my idea is true because you can't prove that it is false" is a prime example of presenting an argument for the sake of argument alone.

Whereas I presented visual evidence(which should be considered real evidence)and proclaim it irrefutable proof to a past event. If you consider this statement is false, stay on topic and present your own evidence to the contrary. But when one simply presents a vague philosophical argument as a means of demeaning my stand on a given issue, it is a weak attempt to wrap all such accumulated evidence into a ball, proclaim it as only hearsay and toss it aside.

In reality, Antsy is indeed using psychology as a weapon to confuse the issue instead. He used this non-nonchalant approach as a means to convince others to simply toss the evidence aside too without realizing he hadn't presented any proper reason to do so....

Oh ya, it was on the premiss that anything I said "supposedly can't be proven false"....

Try playing that same card in a court of law and see how fast you find the door!

In fact, his above argument itself turns out to be a prime example as to how some persons try to use psychology to manipulate others opinions without offering a better answer in turn. And this same approach is often used by many,on a daily basis as a way of life, just thru simple gossip to others - about others!

So it seems I too know and understand these rules, I just prefer not to play the game!

Now Back to the Real Events instead!

While driving today and listening to CBC radio, the news states that Harper has mobilized our military forces to pursue ISIS from Iraq into Syria and they deem they don't require Syria's permission to do so. Now this statement too was done in such a way that many listeners will hopefully even conclude this action must then be justified. Think about it...

If you take military forces across a border into another country without permission from that country, that action is really seen as an invasion by many and thus isn't going to be viewed as acceptable by most nations who will hear of this. We do so on the authority of the US government only, knowing that most other countries won't openly oppose this action simply because they fear reprisals from the US and their allies.

Imagine how we'd paint this story if the roles were reversed and Russia was gallantly rushing into Syria? The difference is that Syria would likely welcome Russia's assistance whereas they are not even being asked for permission by what they might have thought once as "them nice Canadians".

Do you remember when US threatened Syria and was about to invade when Russia convinced Syria to allow US to snoop around and leave? I wonder how many people remember that Russia eventually gave Syria their older missile defense system while showing the world they had a newer system that could knock down these new high flying drones if they were to fly over Russian airspace. This act was in defiance of US aggression at the time and really created 2 lines of defense for Russia against air superiority. Overall, the US was on a rampage and were temporarily stopped in their tracks by Russian diplomacy. And it was here that many concluded Putin to be the better chess player.

The US didn't like this interference into their plans and so not long after, ISIL(an admitted CIA creation) became ISIS and the new terror threat we are all to fear. In fact, it is because of this new enemy that the US gave themselves the right to invade and attack down any region of the Middle East they deem an ISIS location.

I often wonder how ISIS seems to be totally unaware that their organization have become the US's main excuse to interfere and bomb their region....funny how it often seems they are still really helping the US instead of hurting them, doesn't it?

Quote:
"Whereas I presented visual evidence(which should be considered real evidence)and proclaim it irrefutable proof to a past event. If you consider this statement is false, stay on topic and present your own evidence to the contrary. But when one simply presents a vague philosophical argument as a means of demeaning my stand on a given issue, it is a weak attempt to wrap all such accumulated evidence into a ball, proclaim it as only hearsay and toss it aside."

Thanks for that Knuckle. That's it in a nutshell. You actually believe that "you presented visual evidence(which should be considered real evidence) and proclaim it irrefutable proof to a past event"! You don't know the difference between causality and correlation; nor the difference between evidence and anecdote. You make wild assertions about your personal politics with little more than YouTube videos posted by unreliable - anonymous sources and loudly "proclaim it irrefutable proof..." It's hearsay. Another logical fallacy that you fall into again and again I noted from the logic video; you believe that your argument to be valid because I can't prove it false. Read, "present your own evidence to the contrary" Hint. In a court of law that is called presumption of innocence and burden of proof.

I don't mean to derail your rants by, using "this non-nonchalant approach as a means to convince others to simply toss the evidence aside too without realizing he hadn't presented any proper reason to do so..." Instead, I would like others to toss your "evidence" aside because they recognize the circular reasoning and fallacy stricken drivel for what it is, and that is opinion and conjecture. At their best, your opinions are myopic. At their worst, your opinions are willfully ignorant. All I'm doing is shining a little light on them. C'mon Knuckles, a little light never hurt anyone.

So once again you work with only criticism, to avoid pointing out any given detail to which you can disprove these videos I'd presented. There is constructive criticism where others show fault in a premiss and "politely" offer another possibility or just criticism where others tear down without offering anything viable as an alternative. Which is the approach you use most in this forum?

Why don't we instead start with one of the conclusions I'd presented earlier and debate my conclusion. How about "who really started the conflict in Ukraine"?

I showed "irrefutable evidence" that the US indeed started this crisis. I'm betting that most would indeed agree with this conclusion, especially because Obama eventually proclaimed it in a speech himself. So any denials of this fact thereafter by our media shows them as biased as they continue to feed the public that Russia was behind it.
Conclusion: You can't trust any media who states otherwise. They show themselves biased the minute they feed you bullsh*t and try to convince you it's pate'.

Now with this fact being proven, a logical person should be going Knuckle = 1 point Antsy= 0 points

So I attempt to walk the reader down the path of logic that if the media is known to lie, maybe they lie about other points too....

Has Russia Invaded Ukraine?

I present a YouTube video (which you immediately want readers to ignore) that is an American documentary showing the capabilities of the US drones and satellites. They are the ones bragging that nothing can avoid their detection, not me just proclaiming it. So any denial of this video is to deny the claims of the creators of the video, yet they show you "Visual proof".
Conclusion:If Russia had any armored vehicles cross into Ukraine, we'd see this video on every channel and in every newspaper proclaiming Russia is invading.

Yet our daily media often uses old pictures to show that Russia has crossed many times(though without US gov't confirmation). This approach allows the US gov't deniability if any of this evidence is eventually proven false, which some has definitely been proven so. Yet the accumulation of this type of evidence produces "information overload" so as to eventually convince the masses that Russia is indeed the aggressor even though logic shows they couldn't possibly be. But just the lack of US confirmation for many such articles should be the telltale that the story is false. Still the continual bombardment of false propaganda starts having it's determined effect on the masses and opinion is swayed to an irrational answer...

This is absolute misuse of psychology and yet we are being fed it daily...continually.... until some start to even preach it as proof. The fact that all our media presents nowadays is unsubstantiated BS no longer matters. The majority now thinks that pate' just tastes like this and everyone says it is good for you..... so eat up!
- Ignore that the people I've shown who are bombed proclaim it was the Ukraine who did it.
- Ignore the illogical concept that rebels are bombing regions occupied by their own civilians that they eventually seem to swap prisoners for.

So maybe logic can indeed overcome propaganda! Maybe the truth can be discovered if one looks hard enough! I titled this thread adeptly (IMO) as I continue to try and show people how to challenge the misconceptions offered by daily propaganda. I am even aware that speaking out thus about such things might soon have a penalty somewhere down this road we travel today.

We Canadians are no longer as free as we once were just a short time ago and then having media adjust our values to better suit the greed of the rich, they will take us all down a path of destruction. War is on the lips of our leaders and all they have left to do now is convince the public that their cause is just!

More pate' anyone?

Right or wrong on Knuckles position, he has shown through out this thread that the media should be questioned. If people think that they are getting the truth all the time from mass media it can be shocking to realize that they have been led down the wrong path. Antsy what exactly is your point? Is it that you want to argue about what is real evidence and what is not, or that unless it comes from a network approved media center it is not news? The news media uses the "Power of Suggestion" to get the masses to believe what they want them to believe, whomever it is that might or might not control the media? The managers of the networks or owners and editors have personnel feelings and biases and so do reporters and writers it all comes to a point that they all influence their work. Any intelligence collector will grab all the reports, all the ground evidence, and all of the gossip from an incident and filter it to discern a complete picture of the event. It is then sent forward and manipulated to get the results they want.

So once again you work with only criticism, to avoid pointing out any given detail to which you can disprove these videos I'd presented. There is nothing to disprove. I've shown that the problem is your reasoning. There is constructive criticism where others show fault in a premiss (sic) and "politely" offer another possibility or just criticism where others tear down without offering anything viable as an alternative. Which is the approach you use most in this forum? Like you, I don't know. I don't trust claims of "objective truth". Not from our popular media and not from you. Unlike you, I don't make claims I can't substantiate.

Why don't we instead start with one of the conclusions I'd presented earlier and debate my conclusion. How about "who really started the conflict in Ukraine"?

I showed "irrefutable evidence" that the US indeed started this crisis. Show me again... must of missed the "irrefutable" evidence from reliable sources. I'm betting that most would indeed agree with this conclusion, especially because Obama eventually proclaimed it in a speech himself. So any denials of this fact thereafter by our media shows them as biased as they continue to feed the public that Russia was behind it. Remind me what the US president proclaimed.
Conclusion: You can't trust any media who states otherwise. They show themselves biased the minute they feed you bullsh*t and try to convince you it's pate'. Draw me a picture where you make a claim, show me evidence which actually supports your claim, and then come to this conclusion.

Now with this fact being proven, a logical person should be going Knuckle = 1 point Antsy= 0 points I'm not seeing anything "proven" just yet.

So I attempt to walk the reader down the path of logic that if the media is known to lie, maybe they lie about other points too.... Logic doesn't deal in maybes.

Has Russia Invaded Ukraine?

I present a YouTube video (which you immediately want readers to ignore) I want readers to question) that is an American documentary showing the capabilities of the US drones and satellites. So the US can be dishonest about their politics but not their technological capabilities? They are the ones bragging that nothing can avoid their detection, not me just proclaiming it. So any denial of this video is to deny the claims of the creators of the video, yet they show you "Visual proof". Not "proof", conjecture.
Conclusion (sic):If Russia had any armored (sic) vehicles cross into Ukraine, we'd see this video on every channel and in every newspaper proclaiming Russia is invading. Your conclusion is not supported by your "evidence".

Yet our daily media often uses old pictures to show that Russia has crossed many times(though without US gov't confirmation).I thought I read that you don't watch TV, how do you know what the "daily media" shows? Who are the "daily media"? This approach allows the US gov't deniability if any of this evidence is eventually proven false, which some has definitely been proven so. Examples from reliable sources? Yet the accumulation of this type of evidence produces "information overload" so as to eventually convince the masses that Russia is indeed the aggressor even though logic (logic is a stretch) shows they couldn't possibly be. But just the lack of US confirmation for many such articles should be the telltale that the story is false. You make claim to understand the US governments motivations Still the continual bombardment of false propaganda starts having it's determined effect on the masses and opinion is swayed to an irrational answer...

This is absolute misuse of psychology and yet we are being fed it daily...continually.... until some start to even preach it as proof. Pot? Meet Kettle The fact that all our media presents nowadays is unsubstantiated BS no longer matters. The majority now thinks that pate' just tastes like this and everyone says it is good for you..... so eat up! This is not an argument, it's just filler.
- Ignore that the people I've shown who are bombed proclaim it was the Ukraine who did it. Anecdotal evidence at best. Hearsay. Not to be ignored, but certainly viewed with skepticism.
- Ignore the illogical concept that rebels are bombing regions occupied by their own civilians that they eventually seem to swap prisoners for. I hear that war is illogical

So maybe logic can indeed overcome propaganda! Maybe the truth can be discovered if one looks hard enough! I titled this thread adeptly (IMO) as I continue to try and show people how to challenge the misconceptions offered by daily propaganda. Do you mean aptly? An adept is someone who is proficient and knowledgeable. Okay, it's only your opinion. I am even aware that speaking out thus about such things might soon have a penalty somewhere down this road we travel today. You're fear mongering

We Canadians are no longer as free as we once were just a short time ago and having media adjust our values to better suit the greed of the rich, and will take us all down a path of destruction. This is a running sentence which looses coherence. Is this an appeal to popular opinion? War is on the lips of our leaders and all they have left to do is convince the public that their cause is just!

More pate' anyone?

Knuckle, I really don't care what your personal politics are. What bugs me is your messed up methodology for reinforcing your world view and your claims that you represent some kind of objective truth. You use words like "logic" and "evidence" like you have a clue that you know what the words mean despite the fact that it is clear that you don't. If you weren't so verbose I would ignore you, but you post this trite nonsense everywhere. You moved to the "Health" section when you had your hand slapped for posting antisemitic links in the "War" section. This isn't health. This is the ranting politic of an angry old retiree with too much time on his hands. Get off the soapbox Knuckle, we need the wood.

So in other words you really have no opinion other than sarcastic contradiction to those that do. Yet you expect to see me jump further hoops when it is obvious that you haven't ever read any of the previous links anyways. So I will then assume that if I did go to the effort to repost the links, you'd just ignore them once again.

The continued vagueness of your statements is enough that many should be able to see past the exterior camouflage by now. Seems your own conclusion starts with a damning statement that you don't really care about my personal politics. It shows your overall lack of interest in participating in a debate about any of the issues or even about the subject of the thread. So it is becoming more apparent than ever that your constant criticisms are aimed totally at me alone and has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand.

This thread's subject matter is about how the media manipulates the news today. Turns out I can present new examples of such manipulation daily just because there is now so much of it occurring these days. And since I have to sift thru alot of crap to find out what is really happening in places like Ukraine, I eventually posted the good data here assuming others would appreciate not having to repeat these efforts to stay on top of these world events.

Going by the number of viewers following this thread to date, I have reason to believe this reasoning to be true. You stated that isn't why you follow it and you should note the reasons that you continue are not conducive to your own state of good mental health. I would suggest that you quit reading this thread as you often seem to find it's contents bother you. It does seem that others don't find this upsetting as they follow along, so it seems best I should instead just ignore your comments from now on so not to wind you up anymore...it seems to make you kinda Antsy....!

So in other words you really have no opinion other than sarcastic contradiction to those that do. It's my opinion that you are intentionally ignorant of both fact, and logic Yet you expect to see me jump further hoops when it is obvious that you haven't ever read any of the previous links anyways. No sir, I will read the source material... promise. So I will then assume that if I did go to the effort to repost (sic) the links, you'd just ignore them once again. Don't assume knuckles, it makes an ass of you and me.

The continued vagueness of your statements is enough that many should be able to see past the exterior camouflage by now. I don't mean to be vague. What would you like clarified? Seems your own conclusion starts with a damning statement that you don't really care about my personal politics. That's not my conclusion knuckles, I have concluded that you don't understand causation and evidence. It shows your overall lack of interest in participating in a debate about any of the issues or even about the subject of the thread. I'm interested in your source material knuckles... or lack thereof.So it is becoming more apparent than ever that your constant criticisms are aimed totally at me alone and has nothing to do with the subject matter at hand. This is true.

This thread's subject matter is about how the media that doesn't agree with my world view manipulates the news today. Turns out I can present new examples of such manipulation daily just because there is now so much of it occurring these days. And since I have to sift thru alot (sic) of crap to find out what is really happening in places like Ukraine, I eventually posted the good data here assuming others would appreciate not having to repeat these efforts to stay on top of these world events. Thanks for that knuckles, however we can all enter the search terms "Ukraine Conspiracy Wing Nut" into YouTube all by ourselves.

Going by the number of viewers following this thread to date, I have reason to believe this reasoning to be true. Don't knuckles, it's a bit like passing a terrible car accident; we don't want to look but can't help ourselves. You stated that isn't why you follow it and you should note the reasons that you continue are not conducive to your own state of good mental health. No argument there. I would suggest that you quit reading this thread as you often seem to find it's contents bother you. It does seem that others don't find this upsetting as they follow along, so it seems best I should instead just ignore your comments from now on so not to wind you up anymore...it seems to make you kinda Antsy....!

I will make you a deal. Limit your politics to one thread and I promise to ignore it. Venture out of that thread and "I'll be your mirror".

- RT News: shows english speaking soldiers at the scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yUL4qcLJvc

This is pretty good proof that NATO already has boots on the ground and is overall running the show.
~ Knuckle ~

This thread has 3616 views so far , way more than most of the other threads, so there are quite a few people watching it, yet not so many comment on it. I would like to see some opinions of the people who follow this thread. Please post your comments on the above video and Knuckle's conclusion.
Thanks

- RT News: shows english speaking soldiers at the scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yUL4qcLJvc

This is pretty good proof that NATO already has boots on the ground and is overall running the show.
~ Knuckle ~

This thread has 3616 views so far , way more than most of the other threads, so there are quite a few people watching it, yet not so many comment on it. I would like to see some opinions of the people who follow this thread. Please post your comments on the above video and Knuckle's conclusion.
Thanks

Prom,

It's a beautiful day in Calgary today. Why not go for a run? This is neither Health nor Psych.

Antsy

The video sure sounds to be a non-European accented individual. Just a bit of food for thought. Mercenary forces, adrenaline junkies, or just plain idiots who want to shoot guns. When I was in the military because of my skill set and due to my experiences, I had offers from a lot of persons and government organizations to continue to put my skills to use. In todays internet connected world and with so much conflict going on private for profit warriors are very easily found for anyone who wants to pay them.

This thread has always been of interest to me as I have a personnel connection to this conflict, I have experienced the media lion in the past and know it is about story and not the truth, it is always about what sells.

Just my dimes worth I don't deal in pennies.
RATTS