3 ms·
That's a very self-limiting viewpoint when a significant portion of warfare is deception, so by definition you're not going to get "all we know". For example,
by Bullfight2Cond 1y ago
That's a very self-limiting viewpoint when a significant portion of warfare is deception, so by definition you're not going to get "all we know".
For example, Seymour Hersh (renowned wartime investigative journalist), published a brief on US involvement: https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the-nord-stream https://seymourhersh.substack.com/p/how-america-took-out-the...
- nradov 1y agoThat article has been thoroughly debunked. Seymour Hersh just made things up with no fact checking or hard evidence.
- Bullfight2Cond 1y agoWhat's your counter evidence?
- nradov 1y agoNo counter evidence is needed because Hersh hasn't actually presented any legitimate evidence in the first place.
- normalaccess 1y agoIf 'no counter-evidence is needed' were valid, we could dismiss anything we don't like without argument. AKA: Argument from ignorance