MagicMush123 said:

even if not fake, i still stand by my assertion that it was a propaganda piece.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

MagicMush123 said:

even if not fake, i still stand by my assertion that it was a propaganda piece.

---

Thank you for conceding.

Many people think a goal of NATO is to weaken Russia.  I don't think far fetched at all.  If you believe it, then the piece is relevant; if not, then I suppose it's propaganda.  I guess it depends on your point of view.

I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

MagicMush123 said:

even if not fake, i still stand by my assertion that it was a propaganda piece.

---

Thank you for conceding.

Many people think a goal of NATO is to weaken Russia.  I don't think far fetched at all.  If you believe it, then the piece is relevant; if not, then I suppose it's propaganda.  I guess it depends on your point of view.

I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

...
What does "near" mean?

As Enlil told me earlier in this discussion:  "Context."

NATO could hold this excercise just about anywhere else in the world where there's snow, but it chose to do it in Norway, a country that borders Russia.
...

---

Not so much an objection to the context of nearness
but as Canada has a lot of prime real estate with snow
how would we best go about convincing member nations other than the US
that Canada is near enough to be logistically reasonable for people to ship their military to
without them settling for Iceland or Alaska instead


http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/nato-countries/

well, suppose Alaska is actually further from member nations and still near Russian border so maybe we just have to appeal over Iceland
greater landmass means more room for troops to practice; maybe an appeal to the sentiment of being a founding member?

we could benefit from tourism dollars, and we have some of the only land as far north as the training area (if the exercises were in the Northern Hemisphere's summer months and that was pertinent?)

MagicMush123 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?

---

The nato website did a good job of debunking Russian conspiracies though... and yea, i wasnt really paying attention this week, but there are many more stories from rt that the polygraph identified as "fake"

---

Tantrika said:

Canada has a lot of prime real estate with snow
how would we best go about convincing member nations other than the US that Canada is near enough to be logistically reasonable for people to ship their military to

we could benefit from tourism dollars, and we have some of the only land as far north as the training area (if the exercises were in the Northern Hemisphere's summer months and that was pertinent?)

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

Tantrika said:

Canada has a lot of prime real estate with snow
how would we best go about convincing member nations other than the US that Canada is near enough to be logistically reasonable for people to ship their military to

we could benefit from tourism dollars, and we have some of the only land as far north as the training area (if the exercises were in the Northern Hemisphere's summer months and that was pertinent?)

---

I agree, Canada would be a great place for NATO to train.

---

come for the training,
stay and spend military wages on some hockey games

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

MagicMush123 said:

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

I couldn't find any more RT "lies" on the polygraph website.  The rest are from other sources.  Do you see any more we can discuss?

---

The nato website did a good job of debunking Russian conspiracies though... and yea, i wasnt really paying attention this week, but there are many more stories from rt that the polygraph identified as "fake"

---

But we've shown how NATO itself is spouting propaganda about how it is a "defensive" organization, while NATO supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya.

And if you found another RT piece that was a lie on polygraph, can you present it?  So far polygraph hasn't done so well...

---

So far they're 0 for 2 in their identified fake stories.
But the stories that they presented were misleading with the omission of relevant information and were clear Russian propaganda... they're careful in their wording to not actually state fake claims and they leave out relevant information that discredits Russia. Im still not really sure what argument you're trying to win by standing by a state propaganda machine  it looks worse on you than it does rt especially sinse i said from the very beginning that i dont stand with any news outlet and said that any news station could put out fake news

MagicMush123 said:

So far they're 0 for 2 in their identified fake stories.

But the stories that they presented were misleading with the omission of relevant information and were clear Russian propaganda... they're careful in their wording to not actually state fake claims

---

I told you twice now about NATO aggression (NATO supported the invasion of Afghanistan, the breakup of Yugoslavia, and the overthrow of Gaddafi in Libya).  NATO has also broken its promise to Russia not to expand Eastward towards Russia after the reunification of Germany.

In spite of the evidence, you still choose to believe "that nato is strictly a defensive organization", because that's what they say (but not what they do).  Who's the one supporting propaganda here?