Quite.There is always a conspiracy loon or loons attracted to this stuff, the mental gymnastics they go through are ridiculous.
Quite.
The fact Iran tried to shoot the drone down that was watching is telling.
Quite.
The fact Iran tried to shoot the drone down that was watching is telling.
Hang on, we know for a fact that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was false, but people are conspiracy theorists for not taking it as gospel when we're told Iran are up to no good?
Negative. Your goal is to push your agenda. Just like the other shills. You once had credibility as a poster of reason, but recently your alterior motives became clear, just like EvilShill. Apologies but, no one cares about agendabots.It's just the usual methodology. I got called a conspiracy theorist for saying Qatar was sending soldiers into Libya to bolster the rebels numbers, got called a conspiracy theorist for saying the Iraq WMD claims were false, got called a conspiracy theorist for saying the USA would try to extradite Assange (here on these forums, in fact). A conspiracy theorist for saying the US was trying to stop the Nordstream 2 gas pipeline or that we have supported Nazis in the Ukraine. It really doesn't matter what it is so long as it meets two criteria: contrary to what people want to believe and not known to the person you're telling. Tick both those boxes and it's a "Conspiracy Theory". And if it becomes known or is proven, the other party immediately either drops it entirely or claims everyone knew it all along. Either way, they instantly move on without pausing to reflect. The goal is not to establish truth, but to dismiss unwanted information. They don't care about being proven wrong because that was never what mattered to them.
What you're doing is conflating two completely different things. It's usual, you want to identify a trend and state it is so and therefore a truth.Hang on, we know for a fact that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was false, but people are conspiracy theorists for not taking it as gospel when we're told Iran are up to no good?
The goal is not to establish truth, but to dismiss unwanted information. They don't care about being proven wrong because that was never what mattered to them.
why wouldn't they anyway?Quite.
The fact Iran tried to shoot the drone down that was watching is telling.
why wouldn't they anyway?
It's still a sovereign state asset and a pretty high echelon one in terms of strategy and task. It's an act of war to shoot one down, but you're right, they're pretty expendable. Like when the US first went into Iraq, they essentially sent all their oldest drones over the country, pretty much on a suicide mission in a straight line to show up their air defence locations.drones as they're rather low on the scales of reasons to go to war.
Over international waters, without being a threat to their homeland? Should they just shoot at any old aircraft then, like the Russians do? We all know how that can go terribly wrong.why wouldn't they anyway?
Should they just shoot at any old aircraft then, like the Russians do? We all know how that can go terribly wrong.
Hang on, we know for a fact that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war was false, but people are conspiracy theorists for not taking it as gospel when we're told Iran are up to no good?
lolkwerkDo we?
Do we? They never found anything, but that doeant mean the weapons didnt exist. Some say they may have moved them out of the country before the invasion started. We know for a fact Saddam used chemical weapons in the past.
What you're doing is conflating two completely different things. It's usual, you want to identify a trend and state it is so and therefore a truth.
Do we? They never found anything, but that doeant mean the weapons didnt exist. Some say they may have moved them out of the country before the invasion started. We know for a fact Saddam used chemical weapons in the past.
Do we? They never found anything, but that doeant mean the weapons didnt exist. Some say they may have moved them out of the country before the invasion started. We know for a fact Saddam used chemical weapons in the past.
Woah! Didn't know anything about that.
The Russian bit or the American bit? The difference with the Americans is at least they acknowledged they'd done it and provided logical explanations as to why it happened. Little comfort, I know, to the nearly 300 victims and their families however.
It's worth pointing out as well that the Americans made multiple attempts to contact the Iranian jet which failed to respond. These attempts are recorded by the international aviation authority.