Fox Noise analyst: "WE Must Start Killing Russians"
- Thread starter Nat Algren
- Start date
He didn't say we must, or even advocate for it. He said that it was not going to happen, so Ukraine is a lost cause and our 6,000 boots on the ground sent there by Obama are meaningless.
At 3:35 he answers: "In the Ukraine, the only way that the United States can have any effect in this region and turn the tide is to start killing Russians
killing so many Russians that even Putin's media can't hide the fact that Russians are returning to the motherland in body bags."
Do you really not understand the context in which he said that? I don't know anything about him or whether he's batshit crazy, but you thoroughly misrepresented his statement.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Precisely. He says "only way...can". Not must, not should.
The inability of some people to understand the English language never ceases to amaze me.
The inability of some people to understand the English language never ceases to amaze me.
I did see where the tow FOXers laughed at the end...something about "leading from behind"...A quaint phrase FOX folks use often.......And something that Dems only do......I guess.
I don't understand why FOX doesn't form a brigade of volunteers and with all their military officers (ex) and experts, why they just don't go over there and clean upo the mess....They seem to have THE answer........but they won't share it with "we the people".........But I am sure they know what is right, with all their military connections....
I don't understand why FOX doesn't form a brigade of volunteers and with all their military officers (ex) and experts, why they just don't go over there and clean upo the mess....They seem to have THE answer........but they won't share it with "we the people".........But I am sure they know what is right, with all their military connections....
"Leading from behind" is a phrase the Obama White House invented to describe its policy in Libya.
Did you and Lone Clone miss the part when he says "sadly that's not going to happen"?
Sounds like he's advocating killing Russians to me, but is lamenting that it won't happen. A sentiment Dobbs seems to share with his lame "leading from behind" comment.
The real news about the Ukraine is the IMF loan/austerity/fire-sale package. This is where we've always been headed. We don't really care what happens to Ukraine so long as we get to loot it first.
It was rhetorical...he's just saying what he sees. Plus, he said that after saying the Ukrainians were toothless because we have given them no real help with weapons, etc., which means he was saying that Russians would no negative effects from their conquest of Ukraine (sadly, as he put it).
Any claim that he said we must kill Russians is a total misrepresentation, and just plain wrong.
This post was edited on 3/15 5:55 PM by dandh
Any claim that he said we must kill Russians is a total misrepresentation, and just plain wrong.
This post was edited on 3/15 5:55 PM by dandh
Now you're just quibbling. He didn't say "must" but he is clearly saying that we "should" get in there and kill Russians. That's not a stretch. He's saying that's what it will take to help Ukraine. And he's saying we should help Ukraine. Put those 2 together and you have "we should kill Russians." It's a very simple syllogism.
If all you care about is whether Nat used "must" correctly in his subject line, well OK, but that's hardly the important point.
"Quibbling." Absolutely hilarious.
If I say the Royals won the World Series, and you say they didn't, then you're just quibbling. Damn, Parser, you're a piece of work.
Well, it's a simple-minded syllogism, at least. The problem with it is that he isn't clearly saying we should kill Russians, he's saying we should have helped Ukraine with weapons and support so they could kill Russians. So, I agree that he thinks we should help Ukraine, but not by killing Russians with our troops.
You also should note that Nate (your alter ego?) said 'WE must" start killing Russians, not that we should help Ukraine.
Parse and a miss, good buddy.
I'm not sure how you see this as a win. You just admitted the analyst thinks Russians need to die and we should help make that happen. Thats barley a hairs breath aways from what the OP said. You must be a lawyer. "I didn't murder the guy, I just ordered, funded, and supplied the gun and get away car for the hit." I suppose that's technically different, but consequentially the same.
Hair's breadth, Natural, hair's breadth.
I understand you don't want to get the difference, so I won't extend the argument about it. Just read the thread title again focus on that.
Sad to see dandh reduced to playing the dictionary defense.
Dude is calling for us to kill Russians over Ukraine. Is the important thing which word Husker used or the call for killing Russians over Ukraine?
Huh? You're calling me out for engaging in the time-honored HROT custom of drawing attention to WOBs?
Who's Husker?
Are you off your meds, what's going on?
BTW - the dictionary is a pretty darned good source to find the definition of words.
