3
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 30 Jun 2023
3 points (55.6% liked)
World News
32078 readers
867 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
It did not "collect" information
@zephyreks ...but it wasn't from lack of trying... the countermeasures the US used kept it from collecting any sensitive intelligence. That's the part you propagandists keep leaving out.
It did not collect information. You're hallucinating statements that don't exist and you're also hallucinating propagandists that don't exist.
I'd ask you to get it checked out, but I'm afraid that you'd hallucinate a doctor that doesn't exist.
@zephyreks There you go again. You're either blatantly trying to mislead people or you're an idiot.
"But "it has been our assessment now that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States or over flying the United States".
He said the efforts the US took to mitigate any intelligence gathering "contributed" to the balloon's failure to gather sensitive information."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66062562
I'm seriously confused where you get your impression from. It's been known that lead exposure leads to hallucinations, so you might want to get your paint checked out?
@zephyreks You could only be seriously confused about where I get my "impression" from if you're an absolute idiot considering I included the link to the BBC article where I got that "impression".
Yeah, we agree that it was not collected. But, you keep leaving out the part about where they tried. Make sure you put that in your talking points next time. They tried but failed. Ergo, they did not collect any intelligence.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they tried.
I'm like legitimately worried for you. Lead contamination is a serious problem.
@zephyreks Here's another one for you then. See if you can comprehend what Brigadere General Pat Ryder is saying...
"Ryder was asked Thursday whether he believes those U.S. mitigation efforts were responsible for the balloon's failure to gather any info.
"Certainly, the efforts that we made contributed," he said."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/chinese-spy-balloon-american-made-parts-transmit-data/story?id=100476856
Last I checked, the Pentagon falls higher on the scale of "reliable statements by government" than some random General.
@zephyreks dude I don’t know any other way to explain it to you so that you can comprehend it. The balloon was trying to collect information and was thwarted. You have it from a brigadier general that mitigation efforts certainly contributed to the balloon not collecting any information. You can try and act like it was just not collecting information out of the goodness of the Chinese’s heart, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of fact.
Not according to the Pentagon, which last I checked was a more reliable source than a single General. A General can say whatever they want, but the Pentagon has to actually check facts.
@zephyreks You work for the Pentagon? I notice that you've made that claim twice without any reference material to justify your claim. But sure, if you feel the need to impune the character of a US Brigadere General and esentially call him in a liar, I know who I'm going to trust and it's not your word.
You know that I can’t disclose that, but if you read the article it clearly states the Pentagon’s statement.
@zephyreks 😂 😂 😂 😂 🤥 💩
Read the article linked in the post buddy
@zephyreks Dude, you're a fucking idiot. Here's the press release from the Pentagon where Brigadier General Pat Ryder says exactly what I've been pointing out.... that US countermeasures certainly contributed to the balloon not collecting any information. So there you have it, from the official Pentagon press release by the same guy I've been telling you about repeatedly but you refuse to believe. 🤡 https://www.defense.gov/News/Transcripts/Transcript/Article/3444912/pentagon-press-secretary-air-force-brig-gen-pat-ryder-holds-a-press-briefing/
Q: So you believe your efforts stopped it from collecting and transmitting or was it able to collect but just not able to transmit?
GEN. RYDER: We believe that it did not collect while it was transiting the United States or flying over the United States, and certainly the efforts that we made contributed, I'm sure.
The question gave two possibilities: it collected and didn’t transmit, and it didn’t collect. The General states that it didn’t collect, and he’s sure that they were able to mitigate anything if it did collect (which it didn’t). Basic English. He also does not refer to the balloon as a spy balloon FWIW, correcting the journalist who did refer to it as one.
@zephyreks What exactly did the countermeasures contribute to if it wasn't collecting to begin with?
To avoid any potential data collection? The US didn’t know what the balloon’s capabilities or purpose were until they shot it down. Until then, treat everything as a threat. It’s SOP.
@zephyreks 😂 😂 I love how you twist reality to avoid seeing what's literally right in front of your face.
Read your favourite general’s statement and get back to me. It’s simple English.
@zephyreks I've already read it. The countermeasures the US took certainly contributed to the lack of data collection.
Yes, and what exactly do you think that means?
Also, props to Lemmy for handling this discussion, because the latency is way less than Reddit.
@zephyreks That means it wasn't able to collect data in part because of the countermeasures that contributed to preventing it from collecting data. If that was not the case, why wouldn't the BG have just said, "no it wouldn't have mattered because it wasn't trying to collect data."?
Because they needed to justify the hassle and spending they spent trying to prevent it from collecting? Do you think the US military budget grows on trees?
@zephyreks lol I can’t imagine the mental gymnastics you have to jump through to arrive at your worldview. For you to think that in that moment, while being questioned by a reporter about a Chinese balloon and the collection of data that his immediate thought was I need to justify the budget… It’s just astounding.
It's a press conference. Do you think you can make it to General without press training?
@zephyreks You're grasping at straws.... give it up.
What straws? You're the one grasping
@zephyreks How old are you, 12? You could have just said, I know you are but what am I?
Good to see you don't have an argument
@zephyreks Wouldn't matter if I did. You don't see reason.
Because you don't know what you're talking about?
@zephyreks No, because you'd just make up some kind of reason why a Brigadier General would lie or obfuscate the truth instead of following Occam's Razor and understanding that no more assumptions than necessary are reasonable to answer a question. You pulling some bullshit out of your ass about budgetary concerns is a step beyond Occam's razor. That's why I say you don't see reason. You're relying on hypotheticals to justify your position instead of the facts right in front of your face.
The facts are that the Brigadier General you love so much didn't even claim that the balloon is a spy balloon, so...
@zephyreks Not directly, he just said that the countermeasures the US took contributed to stopping it from doing so, so...
...this is where you inserted your bullshit about it being because he was trying to justify the budget because of the training he had and that all military leaders in the US are trained to lie and mislead the press because you know... the military budget that literally no one in Congress is concerned about and increases every year regardless if they even ask for it.
He hasn't made any claim that the satellite collected data, either.
@zephyreks 🙄
It's true
@zephyreks You poor thing. You lost this debate days ago and just can't seem to let it go. I wish you the best. I really do.
According to who? Your downvote history?
@zephyreks My condolences on your loss.
It's ok to hallucinate losses bud
@zephyreks 😂 You poor thing. Just can't let it go. Bless your heart.
Here, fill this form out and someone will be with you shortly.
I mean if you're ok with being objectively wrong I guess it's fine
@zephyreks You lost. Sorry but....
According to?