And this is the crux of your problem. You (possibily intentionally) take a misreading of other people's words, statements, meanings, and definitions. And then, further, you attempt to critique or dismiss the other's statements on the basis of your own misreading. Your 'arguments' consist mostly of straw man constructions and ad hominen attacks, combined with a toxic dose of other fallacies. When I said 'drones', what indication did I give that I meant unmanned aerial vehicles?Originally Posted by outlaw
Because - again - this would be a misreading of 1984.Originally Posted by outlaw
Nothing in that article contradicts the assertion that NATO expansionism is perceived as national security threat by Russia.Originally Posted by outlaw
Bookmarks