Featured Finland prepares for war with Russia

Those in the Baltic are justified being distrustful of Russia. Especially Finland.

 

I understand that but we're not in the Baltics. We're in the United States being told lies by our government and media to justify Washington and NATO's aggression towards Russia.

It's not a matter of rooting for one side or the other or at least it shouldn't be.

It should be a matter of weighing all the evidence and coming to a conclusion based on that evidence instead of media hype, fear mongering and personal bias.

There were actually people in the US that did exactly that once upon a time and they were known as journalists. Sadly there are very few of them left in the corporate media.

They have been replaced by "presstitutes" who cherish their cozy relationship with government more than the truth.

All I'm asking CMG to do is prove his alleged "Russian aggression" was taking place before the coup in Ukraine. If he cannot do that and his own history in these forums has confirmed that he cannot then he should not be trying to lead people to believe that Russia is acting as an aggressor without provocation.

 

You ever notice you always answer with a question when you don't want to answer a question or provide evidence?

I have.

In order for the "Russian aggression" narrative that Washington and the media have been feeding you and you have been passing onto us to have any merit there must be the weight of evidence behind it.

What's happening in Finland and other areas could be the result of "Russian aggression" as you would apparently prefer to believe or it could be a Russian reaction to Washington and NATO's provocations including the violent coup in Ukraine.

In order for your narrative to be true Russia would have been acting "aggressively" before the coup in Ukraine, yes?

Was it? You tell me you're the one pushing the "Russian aggression" narrative. Was it?

The validity of your (borrowed) narrative all depends on being able to focus attention on the events AFTER the coup took place and avoid attracting attention to the events that led up to the coup.

In other words CMG we're now treading on ground you fear to tread.

The events that led up to the coup.

This is where you have the opportunity and awesome responsibility to prove the narrative you've been pushing is true and accurate by producing evidence that supports your theory of "Russian aggression".

Or it's where you prove not only that you cannot prove either the narrative or your theory to be true and accurate once again. And, that through sheer willpower and dogged determination alone you can make yourself believe anything regardless of the facts if only you try hard enough.

All you have to do to prove your narrative has some merit is show who, what, how many, when and where Russia was acting aggressively before the coup in Ukraine. If you can.

Don't take your eyes off the center ring folks CMG is about to do the impossible . . . drum roll please . . .

 

Evidently you don't subscribe to the idea of using evidence to support your (borrowed) narrative either.

It's got nothing to do with my "thinking" or "opinion" of what happened in Ukraine. It has everything to do with the evidence of what happened in Ukraine, and you have to avoid that evidence at all costs in order to keep pushing your (borrowed) narrative of "Russian aggression". Just as you have done for over a year now.

I would just like to see you prove the narrative you keep pushing has any merit based on evidence instead of your own "thinking" and "opinion" which you have proven several times over is based only on your fear (that borders on paranoia) and personal bias against anything "Russian".

By now (one year plus) I'm sure everyone (with the exception of a few neocons) on this board has seen the great lengths you'll go to push a narrative you cannot prove to be true and accurate.

 

No, I'm saying you can't prove it is what you say it is until you prove your theory of "Russian aggression" is true and accurate.

But you already knew that. You aren't dumb.

In other words you're (borrowed) narrative is not valid until you prove it to be with evidence.

In case you are confused, subterfuge and evidence aren't interchangeable.

I know you can provide subterfuge, you've more than proven that. But that's not what I asked for, I asked you, no I challenged you to prove your theory and you've proven you can't for over a year now.

So you're not just spreading a narrative you can't prove to be true like the average "nitwit" MSM viewer you are knowingly spreading a narrative you can't prove.

In biblical terms that's known as bearing false witness.

 

According to the dictionary whatever it is you're using to gauge reality is not logic.

Logic is . . . "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity".

The definition of "validity" isn't on your side either.

Validity is . . . "the quality of being logically or factually sound; soundness or cogency".

Seeing as how you have been unable to validate your (borrowed) narrative as being factually sound in a logical manner in over a year I would think twice before using words like "logic" if I were you.

 

Logic as we learned above demands that if you're going to call someone a "traitor" you have to prove they have in actual fact betrayed whoever or whatever it is you are accusing him/her of betraying.

Can you do that or is this just another one of those (borrowed) unfounded allegations that you are so fond of repeating?

 

Does that mean you don't believe Finland should be wary of Russia?

 

I'd say it stands a better chance of succeeding than your attempt to convince people an opinion based on an unfounded allegation is worthy of consideration.

 

I doubt it would help you prove your theory of unprovoked "Russian aggression" is based on logic and evidence.

 

No not at all. I think Finland should be wary all the time and ready to defend itself against attack at any time. I believe we should do the same.

But that doesn't mean I should consider an opinion that is based on a popular narrative that is based on un-proven allegations to be valid or credible just because it gets repeated over and over by so called "credible" people.

We've all traveled down that road to many times now to not recognize the scenery is always the same every time we travel down it. The only things that ever change are the name and the face of the "bad guy".

 

What are the "un-proven allegations" Finland is listening to that make them unreasonably wary of Russia?

 

Why would you ask me that?

I never claimed Finland is listening to anything one way or another or that it is being unreasonably wary of Russia.

If you're going to question me question me about things I've said.

CMG has already burned so many strawmen in this thread I'm afraid they may have to be placed on the endangered species list.