[avgcorrection]

> Which implication your words definitely seemed to be (if obliquely) echoing and supporting. Or at least playing footsie with, for some reason known only to you.

I’ll note that you can’t even accuse me of doing anything even remotely concrete. “Seemed to.” “If obliquely.” “Playing footsie.” All just accusations of association. Not a leg to stand on at all.

Take your control round over who is batting for the correct team elsewhere.

> US calculations as such are a red herring.

Then just say that. My God. No one cares.

[lisasays]

I’ll note that you can’t even accuse me of doing anything even remotely concrete.

Probably because you're throwing up such an ink cloud that it's difficult to what point you're trying to make, let along for which "team".

[avgcorrection]

No it isn’t. This is what you replied to:

> The Pentagon should have recognized that the Eastern expansion of NATO

This is your mock-quote:

> "The so-called victim must have realized that going out dressed like that

Clearly you are mocking this statement on what the Pentagon “should have realized”.

Then I come along and point out that the mock-quote doesn’t apply since The Pentagon is not the victim in this war.

It’s not my fault that you want to find my spooky ulterior motives.