I never said he has no insights into military conflicts, I personally would not get my information from a convicted pedophile who is begrudged that his career in the US is over, however. Ritter is a known and open Kreml actor, here he is for instance holding a propaganda pep speech in Russia as per the wishes of the Russian government: https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1743642251513717196 . There are lots of great sources out there, literature spanning hundreds of years, yearly interviews with Putin and out of all the sources you could pick to understand the conflict you picked Scott Ritter.

I personally don't care if you are pro russia or not, but reposting pedophiles who have a vested interest in the conflict and calling it "insight" is almost laughable. If you need Scott Ritter to tell you about the enemy then you just don't read enough king.

It’s the definition of ad hominem logic fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Inability to make a structured argument about a topic of the debate, makes weak participants go after the author of the argument in an attempt to undermine his credibility and not the credibility of his argument.

yes, thats sums it up perfectly thanks.

So briefly, What Scott is alluding to in the video is that it may be Putin's goal to invade and claim everything east of the dniepo river, in Ukraine. That looks to be a hell of a lot of land.

This post was edited by ferdia on Feb 17 2024 03:31am

Now their openly shilling out for pedophiles. Jesus christ

Meanwhile's cat paradox

Scott Ritter has extensive military background (intelligence officer in the United States Marine Corps and worked as weapons inspector in Iraq) which is why his opinion matters.

He's not a US govt shill so of course he needs to be cancelled / locked up, preferably in Ukraine just like the late Gonzalo Lira

This post was edited by Djunior on Feb 17 2024 03:34am

I set before you five small figurines

One is a GI Joe, representing a hypocritical american conquermonkey
One is a Troll Doll, representing a backstabbing republican traitor
One is a LotR orc, representing a vatnik bullet sponge
One is Marvel's Red Skull, representing a khokhol neonazi
One is an Anthony Kiedis bobblehead, representing a predatory pedophile

To complete this psychological experiment, you must arrange these figurines in order of moral culpability. Is Prince Wilhelm responsible for Celestine's death, or would you not trust Andrii Biletskyi around your daughter?

Thousands of military analysts out there but the one they want to use is a convicted sex offender that literally works with RT a Russian state owned media company.

This guy has gone on record saying the bucha massacre was committed by Ukrainians.

That's when you know he is literally a Russian propagandist mouthpiece.

And these idiots think he is a top class miltary analyst

If this is the shit these guys consume regularly then it's no surprise how pro Russian they openly are.

This post was edited by Prox1m1ty on Feb 17 2024 03:43am

Two things, firstly, what you just did is a fallacy in itself, it's the argument from fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy . Please do not call other people out for fallacies when it is apparent you clearly do not understand them yourself. By invalidating somebodys argument by pointing to a fallacy, you are making a fallacious appeal. That brings me to my second point:

An ad hominem fallacy would be not discussing the argument at hand, i indeed did discuss why Ritter is an untrustworthy source, and didn't just call him untrustworthy outright. Ritter is a state actor who has a vested interest in the conflict. Furthermore:



Ritter is not an expert on eastern Europe and has never claimed to be. Ritter is a ballistics expert who is begrudged that his career ended because he got convicted of crimes against children. It's interesting that you say that Ritter is not a US government shill, but he was literally an employee of the US government and the UN, and you yourself bring that up as a good thing, i quote "his extensive military background".

Its honestly sad. There are so many great sources out there if you want to argue your case and if you are pro-russia. I might not agree with them but atleast they arent written by actual Russian state actor pedos lmfao. I can't believe what i'm seeing.