prom wrote:So you don't believe US government propaganda but you believe Libyan government propaganda just because they oppose US. That doesn't make much sense to me. Unfortunately I have to say that you keep on disappointing me.
I tend to believe that which I know to real evidence over that which is circumstantial or hearsay evidence. One piece of Video footage ( which isn't suspect of tampering) therefore would hold more potential of reality than multiple circumstantial evidence as it would too in a decent court of law. Now evidence to better explain the events on said video can definitely alter one's perspective and sway my opinion as much of it is established by this type of evidence.
If you haven't noticed, I mention as I often hear it repeated in our news daily, that our side claims Russia has made further threats... yet we never state what these threats were. Our media doesn't define and analyze them to better convince us that we are justified in our actions, they just state " Russia has made further threats", which therefore should leave you asking what they might be. It seems they leave this instead up to our imaginations, so we might conclude something far worse than they could report. Non-the-less, I put this down to being only "hearsay evidence" due to it's total lack of proof.
I'm sorry if you don't follow my line of thought as I have tried to explain it continually and hopes of give you better understanding. I learned this thought process from being a police officer and having to collect and present evidence in a courtroom. One had to continually improve these skills to present evidence properly or be discredited by a good defense lawyer otherwise. It has been many years since I have had to think of how to present this train of thought to others and I hope that readers can still learn some procedure from my often scattered thoughts.
Your argument of Wikipedia's interpretation of history would be considered real evidence due to your presentation and a judge would then merit it's final value pertaining(therefore a good argument). Many other points you present hold less validity and therefore I often tend to ignore them as for us to debate them would likely cause others to ignore this thread.
If I present news that doesn't meet the basic criteria I (yes, you had no say on this...) set as parameters earlier, I then sometimes state why. I try to show both sides of the news so the reader can learn what is truly occurring in the Ukraine. I try to show as much real evidence as possible and show which news agency is hosting it so the readers can discern who is the most honest at a glance. Since most folks tend to want the news short and fast, I include a quick summary with even time frames to specifics so they might stay focused long enough to get to the meat of the video. Since we are bombarded daily with our countries perspective, I often try to show more of the opposition's perspective to somewhat counter the effects our society imposes on us. If we are to go into battle someday, let it be for truth and not a bunch of lies covered in a sugar coating!