[yucky]

Rather than stalking my comments which is against the rules of this site, you could instead just reply to the content of the sources I provided. They are legitimate and credible. If you dispute any of the actual content, please cite and provide sources and reasons.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

There is no point in giving good faith rebuttals in reply to rhetoric that wasn't good faith and seeking understanding in the first place. A different user summed that up earlier, I think in three words.

[themitigating]

I started on another thread here

[SideburnsOfDoom]

I respect you for doing the work, and you should definitely keep a copy for next time, but it is pretty much what I expected: the "balanced start" from "across the political spectrum" is expected to impress us into nodding along, and never to hold up to close inspection. Which of course it does not. It's the bullshit asymmetry principle at work: even if you do refute, you have been bogged down wasting time defending on that.

It is a confidence trick, as the idea that a popular uprising against an unpopular government "must be the US's fault" is inherently laughable, even before we saw how hard the Ukrainian people have since fought to keep what they won then.

> "sugar words" to entice you to believe them. George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Q, Pax Americana, deep forces, dark forces 2

Ah. I'm disappointed, but not surprised, that it's that basic.

Will you convince the parent poster? Of course not. Here they are 7-8 months ago, banging the same drum:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30880343

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30651712

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30624560

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30677945

This is why debating this account is a waste of time. When someone shows you who they are, believe them.