Yes, and then what? Are you somehow suggesting that only primary sources can be used as sources? I’ve never heard anyine take that position before.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don’t like it.
I’m suggesting that when you say Russian red lines have been crossed without consequences, you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are. I see this is a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don’t like it.
The source is incorrect because the red lines claimed in the source haven’t actually been articulated by Russia, and none of the links in your source actually trace back to statements from Russia. So, claiming Russian red lines have been crossed when there is zero actual evidence these were Russian red lines is nonsensical.
I’ve already explained to you why your source is misleading, and that the red lines your sources list trace back to western statements as opposed to Russian ones. It’s not about feels, it’s about you making an objectively false statement.
You literally haven’t explained it. Your argument seems to be that secondary sources are per definition invalid, which you certainly are allowed to feel, but it is a very niche opinion to have.
Oh its so much funnier then that, They then provide non primary sources while demanding everyone else “Proves” them wrong only with primary sources. This is a joke at this point.
The two sources [email protected] provided are nato.int for a NATO statement, a primary source, and the Wikipedia page for burden of proof, a concept that doesn’t have a primary source. In this thread [email protected] has a perfect track record of using 100% (1) primary source, and 0% (0) secondary sources.
I said that you failed to provide primary sources to support your claims.
Yes, and then what? Are you somehow suggesting that only primary sources can be used as sources? I’ve never heard anyine take that position before.
Of course, one can challenge sources (of any type) but that does usully require some type of argument for why the source is incorrect, and not just because you don’t like it.
I’m suggesting that when you say Russian red lines have been crossed without consequences, you need to provide primary sources from Russia regarding what Russian red lines are. I see this is a very difficult concept for you to grasp.
The source is incorrect because the red lines claimed in the source haven’t actually been articulated by Russia, and none of the links in your source actually trace back to statements from Russia. So, claiming Russian red lines have been crossed when there is zero actual evidence these were Russian red lines is nonsensical.
I actually don’t. I need to provide some source. If you are unhappy with that source it’s up to you to show that it is a bad source, and why.
I’ve already explained to you why your source is misleading, and that the red lines your sources list trace back to western statements as opposed to Russian ones. It’s not about feels, it’s about you making an objectively false statement.
You literally haven’t explained it. Your argument seems to be that secondary sources are per definition invalid, which you certainly are allowed to feel, but it is a very niche opinion to have.
I literally have repeatedly, the fact that you keep repeating this says all we need to know about your intellectual integrity. Bye.
Yes, you keep repeating how you don’t accept secondary sources. What you don’t repeat (or even mention once) is why you distegard these sources.
Bye.
I did repeatedly and in detail. At least lie about something that’s not literally in the same thread.
Oh its so much funnier then that, They then provide non primary sources while demanding everyone else “Proves” them wrong only with primary sources. This is a joke at this point.
The two sources [email protected] provided are nato.int for a NATO statement, a primary source, and the Wikipedia page for burden of proof, a concept that doesn’t have a primary source. In this thread [email protected] has a perfect track record of using 100% (1) primary source, and 0% (0) secondary sources.