• orcaA
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m not going to keep arguing with a bad faith bootlicker.

    • merc@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      In other words, “I can’t defend my words, so I’ll ad-hominem the person who challenged them.”

      • orcaA
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I already did and it became obvious you were arguing in bad faith when you made an assumption about what a source said, despite not being able to actually even read it. You focused on the easiest thing to attack in the info I shared.

        • merc@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No you didn’t, you never came up with any evidence to prove your point. You came up with evidence they were malicious, cruel, etc. Not that there was a plan in place to kill them all and they executed that plan. That was your original claim, and nothing you’ve said backs it up.

          • orcaA
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Explain to me what you think the goal of dropping 2 military-grade explosives on the house was. I’m honestly confused as to why you’re so hung up on commentary that is essentially irrelevant amongst everything I shared.

            • merc@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              What’s a “military-grade” explosive? Why focus on that, rather than the explosive power? If the “The goal from the start was to kill everyone there” as you stated, it’s not the “grade” of the explosives that would matter, it was the quantity. They would have used thousands of pounds, to ensure that nobody survived the explosion. As far as I know the goal of dropping the 750g bombs was to destroy a “bunker” type structure, or to create an opening in the building the police could use to drop in tear gas or to enter themselves.

              I’m honestly confused as to why you’re so hung up on commentary that is essentially irrelevant amongst everything I shared.

              Because you made an absolutely extraordinary claim, and have been unable to back it up. You could have just backed down and admitted it was an exaggeration, but no, you’ve pretended it’s still true, so I’m pushing you to either admit that you exaggerated or to provide evidence to prove your ridiculous claim.