Comment by boffinAudio | Hacker News Reader

Comment by boffinAudio | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>The research is very easily findable.

So, rather than resorting to ad hominem on the basis of fallacies, post the details. Lets see your sources.

I speak with Ukrainian refugees every single day, as I live within hours of Ukraines borders, and have volunteered with refugees from the Wests' wars for decades, helping them rebuild their tattered lives - from Iraq to Afghanistan and Syria, to Ukraine and now Palestine.

So if that makes me jaundiced, so be it.

>Normally I'm happy to provide sources asked, but from the tone and content of your responses on this and related threads, I don't think you actually care.

I've dried the tears of countless mothers and their children, and helped many of them move to safer parts of the world. Perhaps, I care too much.

But I've seen the products of callous disregard, too many times.

Post your sources.

How about you provide your sources in response to a recent situation in which you made a highly untenable, and also quite provocative assertion -- yet, when asked to provide sources in a perfectly polite and unassuming manner (very much unlike your own formulation in this case, which was full of innuendo and sarcasm from the get-go) -- you simply bailed:

You may not like it, but the USA has called for Irans' destruction a hundred times.

And then perhaps we'll talk.

Note please the special emphasis on "the USA", meaning an official, governmental statement or policy (not just the throwaway pronouncements of 1 or 2 of its windbag politicians). And the number "a hundred", as in, you know, 10x10, or heck, any number of roughly similar magnitude.

Being as these were, after all, the words you chose to use for some reason.

Perhaps, I care too much.

Thats great, and I'm sure you're a great person too, on the whole. I've actually upvoted a lot of your other postings (there was one in particular about "catharsis" that I stumbled on while searching for something else, which seemed right on the money and which I really liked).

It's just that, given various indications -- such as the blatant exaggeration followed by blatant evasiveness highlighted above, and the weirdly propagandistic phrasing you seem to like to use to a conspicuous degree -- I'm just not sure that, in regard to geopolitics at least, this whole factual accuracy thing is really your "bag".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com