There are no truths in her statements. Okay, dude.

No, you are not at all brainwashed. How silly of me.

The US/CIA are most definitely the heroes of the hour.

US foreign policy should never be criticised/questioned.

Those who engage are clearly propagating the lies of brutal dictators.

Whereas the US definitely doesn’t ally itself with brutal dictators.

They don’t sell/flow arms to a long list of tyrants & terrorist groups.

They don’t initiate coups or groom puppet politicians.

Foreign interventions are never fueled by oil & gas interests.

Corruption, propaganda & censorship only happen elsewhere.

America! F**k yeah!!

“Question her integrity, by all means.” I certainly do. There are no truths in her statements, only propaganda on behalf of brutal dictators whom her ugly guru wishes to ally with.

mwestern, you didn’t answer my question: Which specific valid point?

Aqua, my comment above was directed at Robert. But I appreciate your response and, yes, it is understood.

That being said, if I make a specific comment suggesting there may be some value to certain aspects of scientology, does that mean you can accurately characterise me (free of any ideological attachment or cognitive bias) as being “pro scientology” or “parroting OSA talking points”?

Do you not appreciate how reductive that is, if so, and how such a label can be (and is) used as a smear/thought-stopper? In this regard, aside from its complete rejection of any nuance, it amounts to an association fallacy and is arguably rooted in ad hominem. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy

It’s odd to me how some folks (particularly yanks) use these black-and-white binary terms when engaging in geopolitical discussion yet rarely, if ever, acknowledge the possibility they could be seen as “US propagandists”, “parroting CIA talking points.” The propaganda and the false narratives are seemingly always “over there” and never at home.

For me, there are no “good guys” involved in this conflict. Just regular, innocent people caught in the middle – as always. But even a basic skim of geopolitical history should tell you to be sceptical of government/media narratives and to dig into the nuance. Things are never black or white.

(17 minutes long)

There is absolutely nothing good about the KGB.

I don’t agree with your evaluation as regards my mindset. Tulsi Gabbard’s cult roots are not an issue for me. People can and do change. What a politician says and does in present time are issues for me. As for characterizing her as “pro-Russian” and as parroting “Kremlin talking points” I plead guilty as charged. That said, I “dismissed” nothing. I merely observed her very positive statements which aligned with what Russia has been saying about Ukraine. The validity of the talking points themselves was not in question. That’s another issue. You know, I could say, “I like Donald Trump. He’s a terrific guy and a smart businessman” and those would be pro-Donald Trump remarks, would they not? Now, is he a terrific guy and is he a smart businessman? Well, if I said those things it could be assumed that I thought so! Now as to whether or not he actually is a terrific guy and a smart businessman, that could be debated. But my opinion of him is my opinion, which may or may not be valid. Cappice?

What specifically is the “totally valid” point to which you refer?
1) That the US ensures that Ukraine never joins NATO, or
2) The accusation that the Biden Administration is glad that Russia invaded Ukraine so that the US has a good excuse to impose sanctions on Russia?

“…she has publicly called for the US to ensure that Ukraine never joins NATO, and she has also accused the Biden Administration of being glad that Russia invaded Ukraine because now the US has a good excuse to impose sanctions on Russia.”

A totally valid point. What’s the problem?

– Guilt by association. That she still has “cult” connections is clearly an issue for you. Question her integrity, by all means. It has no bearing on the validity of her specific statements – or indeed those of other anti-war voices – regarding US foreign policy. Dismissing/positioning inconvenient truths as “pro Russian” or a “Kremlin talking point” is demonstrative of ideological attachment. Culty, in other words.

– Argumentum ad numerum. Size ≠ significance. Try again.