Carrolade @ Carrolade @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

2,047

Joined

1 yr. ago

Not a waste of time at all. Nothing wrong with people having strong feelings, or helping them see through those feelings. I was young and fiery once too. It also does remain important to push back against propagandistic spin when we encounter it, even if it's popular.

Hey now, I wasn't trying to disprove chemtrails, or anything else you listed, that's not how proof works. Nothing can be proven to be impossible or not exist, that's illogical. I was pointing out you mixing together facts with lies to manipulate.

Now you say you removed radiological, but it's too late. I had to call you out, first, and the timestamps show it. Because you tried being sneaky first. Just like a sneaky liar. I would far rather be honestly confused than a dishonest manipulator.

No, I'm referring to when you said

harmful chemical, biological and radiological agents and weapons

in the original main body of your post. By the way, we can all see the edit marker from you editing it 22 minutes ago. My first reply to you remains unedited, though, it's exactly how I originally wrote it, where I directly quoted you three times.

Trying to pull a ghost edit on us betrays you as malicious, though. You're not just wrong, you're actively trying to do harm. Otherwise you could just admit you made a mistake like a normal person can.

Regardless, now that your credibility is shattered by your own actions, my work here is done. Toodles~! It's been fun, I do miss rhetorically fencing with trolls sometimes.

I don't have to imagine jack shit. When I challenge you to say where you got even one single line about "radiological" and you just say "it is accurate and sourced" instead of saying where exactly we can find it, you do my work for me.

It's not hard to go "Senate subcommittee report, page xyz, go look." Would be a lot better than "trust me bro, accurate and sourced, it's somewhere in there I promise."

These niche tech communities like Lemmy are not exactly full of stupid people, we know how arguments and citations work. You've still got a chance here to prove me wrong, you know. Just need to put the work in, assuming you're not some random, lazy troll. Just gotta copy/paste one single piece that confirms radiological something and say where you got it, that simple.

My issue is your words not matching the committee's words. Your words are the problem, and your words are what you need to defend. This careful pivot to "but the committee!!!" isn't fooling anyone op. Defend your words. Where did the committee discuss radiological? Did I miss it somewhere perhaps?

No, this is why you keep changing your tune. A few posts ago you were talking about "biological attacks!". Now it's "biological experiments!" after I pointed out that you were wrong. What ever happened to radiological? You haven't mentioned that one in awhile after including it in your earlier message, have you? Weak, op. Very weak.

Now if only your links were supporting your overall message. I think the only thing we agree on is that people should read the material themselves. Most of them will not see that as strong evidence for chemtrails, I'm afraid.

Again, a dozen large scale experiments and 200 total experiments does not let you combine the two and say 200 large scale experiments. Doing so is inaccurate.

Studying the spread of one pathogen by releasing a different one is not "biological weapons attacks".

I got all of this from your links, which would have been very hard for me to do without reading them. Your links do not say what you say. They say what I say, and I encourage everyone to read them and find that out for themselves.

My "fabrications" are all clearly laid out in the sources you yourself provided, to anybody that spends a minute thinking about it. If you have any evidence of actual anthrax being released, or these hundreds of experiments being large scale, you are welcome to provide them. I will gladly review them. I am, after all, open to being wrong if it is proven.

Because it doesn't make sense. Your leader being a megalomaniac does not mean every soldier is, that's not how life works. You cannot paint any whole group of people based on the actions of some of them.

Personal photos can contain identifying landmarks in them, and are thus still subject to opsec. If I take a selfie in a certain spot with a tree in the background, it can be determined where I was based off that tree. It's no different from how the backgrounds of photos posted to the internet can get the subjects doxxed regardless of them not intentionally giving out their info. This is prevented by blurring out all backgrounds when posting photos near a military position. Or can just delete the photos.

As I said earlier, I'm loyal to trying to be objective. Not to identifying what I think are bad guys and automatically heaping every bad thing I can think of on them. I don't do that with Russia, China, the US or Israel. I don't do it to anybody. I try to figure out the truth, instead of just thinking "those are bad guys, bad guys do bad guy things".

It also helps that I've heard of non-Israeli cases of people not being allowed to take footage of or photograph around military positions, so that part of it is actually normal.

That PBS article says 200 total tests were conducted to study biological weapons. This does not mean 200 were large scale releases on the American public. It then talks about the same handful of examples your wikipedia article lists. This does not support your overall claim. If you said a dozen large scale tests, with hundreds of total tests with some being much smaller, you'd probably be fine.

They were testing for how spread works for something like Anthrax by releasing other, not-Anthrax bacteria. The bacteria they released were not weapons. This is why everybody didn't just fucking die.

You're a manipulator and a deceiver, op. It doesn't matter if you yourself were deceived first.

As usual, a couple careful lies are inserted into a broader, more sensible argument.

hundreds of

Give me your source for hundreds, instead of a small handful that your links had.

chemical and biological weapons

Give me your source for weapons, instead of mostly harmless stuff that sickened less than 0.1% of people exposed like your links said.

I've been around the block too many times to fall for this bullshit, op. Like I said, 4/10. I've seen much, much better than you.

I never said I wasn't making any assumptions. That an army would follow sound opsec principles while they are in a state of conflict is an assumption after all.

This does fully explain the deletion, though, while anything else has to twist around to explain why a journalist isn't reporting on potential war crimes while still reporting on other bad behavior.

edit: If you can't see how obvious this is, I'm afraid you've probably been indoctrinated with a severe bias. I'm the only one here saying Israel absolutely commits war crimes, this just isn't a good example of another one. Details are important and all that.

Read the linked articles, they are not long. A small handful of cases are being carefully exaggerated in the post body to make it seem like a much broader problem.

The following claims are unsupported by the links:

harmful chemical, biological and radiological agents and weapons

while chemical and biological agents were dropped by air hundreds of times

chemical and biological weapons and toxins were also sprayed over dozens of US cities without notification or consent via Operation sea spray and related operations

These fairly obvious lies aside, the badly cropped image and the "supposedly ending" should be a dead giveaway that this person is being manipulative. 4/10 misinformation post. Not the worst work I've seen op, but kinda meh. I'm sure you can do better.

Yeah, that I agree with. The behavior beyond the deletion of the photos alone was very egregious. Blatant intimidation.

Intimidation is probably part of it, for sure. The only thing that fully explains the deletion of the photos is opsec, though. Frankly, we should assume the IDF absolutely is maintaining opsec, and will absolutely forbid any footage of their forward operating positions from going public as much as they possibly can. That should be a standard procedure for any military engaged in combat, and any exceptions to it should be surprising.

No, those are absolutely war crimes. I am not saying the IDF does not commit war crimes. I am saying this BBC reporter would have told us if he witnessed any, and as such, this specific case probably has a different motive of the many possibilities.

Don't mistake my attempts at objectivity for support for the IDF. I just don't automatically assume the worst possibilities.

I don't deny the overall sentiment, but we should still try to stay fact-based. It's not about benefit of any doubt, nobody deserves that in any military conflict. It's about the evidence we've been presented. If there were some war crimes caught by the BBC reporter, he likely would have said so. I doubt Israeli threats would dissuade him from doing his job when he's brave enough to go reporting there in the first place. The IDF would have a hard time reaching him if he were to move safely back to Britain.

Loyalty to logic and factuality is more important than which side we support in conflict. If we cannot maintain a loyalty to reality, we don't deserve to overcome our opponents in the first place. We've become too much like them.

While I have little doubt that the IDF has intentionally targeted journalists in Gaza to cover up war crimes, in this specific case it does seem to be about militant authoritarian sentiment and base security in an age of fpv drone attacks.

Publicly available footage of your base could put you and your friends lives at risk. We see the Ukrainians frequently taking great care to make sure the locations and layouts of their forward operating positions are not able to be geolocated from their media releases.

If this were happening in Gaza or the West Bank, I think your take would be more likely. But happening in Syria makes it less so.

Bet you could've stopped that if you had some highly trained guard dolphins posted up around the area.