User talk:2600:1002:B00A:A81D:5957:83FD:C7C0:8F13

You guys are demonstrating zero sum thinking, false dichotomies and the fallacies that follow. As an example of how these falacies work, revisit the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. As I questioned the veracity of the Bush administration's claims, Colin Powell's presentation to the UN, I was met with the same type of flawed arguments of being a useful idiot for Saddam, and being a Saddam stooge. The idea that both Saddam and the Bush administration could BOTH be duplicitous was not even considered as a possibility by those making those flawed arguments. In this case I am not referring to WikiLeaks who's leaks remain unchallenged in any serious wat in their veracity, but rather the question if foreign policy. Is it so hard to believe that Russia, Syria as well as the US, UK and France are all capable of duplicity and crimes? I didn't include RT as any of the sources I linked. The only foriegn outlets I used were British. Robert Fisk who has won 17 awards in journalism is not a relaible source because why exactly? WikiLeaks has leaked documents exposing Russia before (as they have for numerous countries around the world), here is a link: REMOVED (go to the WikiLeaks archive) All I ask if for healthy skepticism about the OPCW's claims and their own report. Their own computer model in the report on Douma shows the canister creating a hole roughly equal in size to the canister yet the actual hole in the ceiling at the cite was twice as big in circumference. The height they claimed the aircraft dropped the canister from was 50 meters, which means the aircraft could have easily been exposed to ground weapons fire, which is why in the Syrian War most aircraft fly at much higher altitudes. How come the canister is so prestine when steel rubars in the ceiling would have made impacts on it? And so on. I am just repeating here obvious questions raised by other experts: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IML3FpuLH_Q Theodore Postol, award-winning professor of Science, Technology and National Security policy at MIT. Ian Henderson, was one of 13 people appointed as its first “P-5 level inspection team leaders” : https://www.juancole.com/2019/05/document-controversy-chemical.html This and numerous other discrepancies I think should raise some skepticism. But hey, I can dig up more sources, but let's just start with those three, Robert Fisk, Ian Henderson and Theodore Postal. And if you don't find these sources to be good enough, tell me why and discuss to me what kind of sources would you consider to be sufficient.2600:1002:B01A:25A9:2C3C:EC98:1BED:C277 (talk) 06:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC) I am curious about this allegation of WikiLeaks being Russian sympathizers (again, look at what they have leaked about Russia) or being blatantly one-sided. If I were to demonstrate that a given outlet or institution demonstrated a pro-Western bias, pro-regime change bias and/or pro-war/pro-imperialism bias, could that be used to discredit that source or institution?2600:1002:B00A:A81D:5957:83FD:C7C0:8F13 (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)