"the UN SAID" is proof, but "Bibi SAID" is not. Both are equal value evidence if you take them literally, but one you trust, the other you don't - thats because neither are proof, and you take motives into account. Motives are far more accurate than statements
Because it's bullshit. I have no skin in this game: I'm no lover of Iran, or hater of Israel. I go by what's likeliest based on factual information. And so far, there is reams of evidence Iran is complying, and scant evidence that it isn't. So my default position remains the same
-
-
this perfectly explains your DEFAULT position, but not the level of certainty. Do you not think Iran would benefit by having nuclear weapons?
-
I'm trying to change the direction to motives, because we have established that we disagree with what constitutes good evidence. I could bring hundreds of examples of UN lying, and you could bring hundreds of examples of Bibi lying. So where does that leave us?
- 26 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.