Quote (Djunior @ Feb 17 2024 12:39pm)
I disagree with you saying that Scott Ritter is a state actor and I clearly pointed out why --> Scott is not employed by the US govt and it's clear that he's critical of US foreign policy.
You frame a question by now including his past govt employment but it's 2024 bud and Scott is not working for the US govt.
You moved the goalposts by going like but in the past...
That he was convicted of unrelated stuff, which was the point I made when I first quoted you, is also not relevant here, what he has to say about the conflict is what matters.
As
has already stated, nobody is saying Scott Ritter
is a U.S state actor, the fact however is that he
was.
That is not framing lol. Framing is how aspects of reality are communicated and nuanced. I asked a pretty straight forward question that did not include the current day. My question was: "Do you agree that Scott Ritter, the same person you claim is not a shill, was in fact quite literally employed by the US government?". I asked this question because
YOU brought up that Scott Ritter is not a U.S shill, when he in fact has worked for the U.S government. It's a little ironic isn't it? The one person you don't consider a shill has taken money from the U.S government for services.
I mean I've asked this before but nobody can respond to it: Do you think it's important context that Scott Ritter stopped working for the U.S government and the UN not for ideological reasons but because he admitted and was convicted of sex offenses against children, and only then, when he got blackballed from establishment positions in the U.S, decided to become a Russian state actor?
It's called grifting, and again is not particularly unique.