Burden of proof is on the claimant, you claim they weren't free. You need to prove it. So far the evidence still points to the fact the U.S undermines elections, which is undemocratic. Even if such an assertion were true, interfering in an election is still undemocratic. Therefore, my claim is still correct.List them, the U.S.'s activities and we'll see.
&Secondly, contra to Corstange and Marinov’s (2012: 658) suggestion, no evidence exists that countries with fragile democratic institutions are more likely to be the targets of such interventions than ‘‘full’’ democracies.
American countering the Russians was very minimal, only making up 6.3% of all election interventions.However, as can be expected from Table 2, only seven (or 6.3%) of the intervened elections in PEIG are cases of a double electoral intervention—i.e. that the US was backing one side while the USSR/Russia was backing another side during the same election.31 This percentage of double interventions is only slightly higher (7.8%) if only Cold War interventions are counted.
Yes and are you just going to take his word as gospel? He said it that in public. He showed his true self in private in a private conservation. Greece was also a democracy during that time to, only later to be overthrown in a coup in which the U.S helped create their secret police and other aid. More red-baiting fallacies and McCarthyism, Greece was a liberal democracy at the time.LBJ also said this:
"There is no issue of States' rights or National rights. There is only the struggle for human rights," passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act, etc. He was referring to the fact that Greece was becoming more and more unaligned with U.S. and NATO interests, while seemingly being more and more disjointed from the Communist threat.
I have never heard of a "temporary" dictatorship, you just made that up. A dictatorship should never be necessary if the U.S is concerned about spreading democracy like you claim.Hence, a far-right (temporary) dictatorship was necessary. Key word: TEMPORARY!
You continue to justify your fallacious reasoning.You think an interference in an election, regardless of what was done or in which one, constitutes an anti-democratic activity. That's why it isn't a strawman.
You haven't proved why the Islamic fundamentalists were better than the DRA, instead you keep committing strawmans against me by comparing Soviet domestic policy to American domestic policy even though I have never taken such a position. There is no backtracking here.You tried to claim that they were better because of literacy, education, healthcare, etc. I've shown why that isn't the case, you backtrack.
Unevidenced claims, which of the 85 elections were not free? Countries such as Israel, U.K, West Germany, even Malta are on the list, where those elections not free? All I see here is more mental gymnastics.Proving my point that you think any interference in an election means anti-democratic activities. When Russia did it in 2016, it was anti-democratic, as there were no key democratic stakes in it. When America does it, there are.
Yes, America has involved itself in more armed conflicts than the Soviet Union such as coup d'etats and wars.You claimed they were involved in more armed conflicts post-1945 than the Soviets and I wanted to show the nature of these conflicts until the end of the Cold War.
Speculative claim not based on any evidence. The Soviets only invaded after the president was assassinated. The U.S started the agression by financing the mujahideen before the Soviet invasion.It was a just in case issue, everyone could see that the Soviets were bound to invade sooner or later. The U.S. correctly anticipated Soviet involvement and went at it.
Ad nauseam fallacy. Evidence has been provided that the U.S knowingly armed terrorists in Syria and here it is again.They funded rebels, not jihadists, and some of them happened to be jihadists. Thing is, the U.S. is currently dealing with jihadists and has altogether stopped funding rebels. It's important to mention that they went to war against them as merely mentioning their funding gives the idea that the U.S. just funded these guys for destabilizing purposes, when they didn't.
If you give money to a group and don't know what they will do with that, it isn't funding terrorism, it's misusing of funds.
No, they just gave money to whoever opposed, provided they didn't have a history of jihadism before, and well, one incident isn't the end of the world.
They weren't 'all extremists.' Just because I say 'Assad sucks' and a terrorist says 'Assad sucks' doesn't mean I'm a terrorist. Guilt by association, much?
You ignore the fact that a plan of attack was formulated against the very same terrorists the U.S. may have potentially funded.
US funded FSA kills together with ISIL and Jabhat al-Nusra
A Rebel Rift Is Brewing On Syria’s Southern Front
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/a38 ... hern-frontThere is No FSA, There is Only Al-QaedaAs regime planes and helicopters ratchet up a massive offensive now in its second week, alliances in southern Syria’s rebel-held ground are beginning to shift under the weight of increasing foreign support and long-simmering ideological differences.
The relationship between al Qaeda franchise al Nusra Front and the moderate, secular Free Syrian Army (FSA) has, at least in the southwestern city of Daraa, been fairly high functioning. The two groups have long fought alongside one another against the Syrian regime. They also have close family ties: in Daraa, many of the men who fight with the FSA have friends and kin who fight with Nusra.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/foreig ... -al-qaeda/
Britain and US 'neglected alert to Iraq jihadist takeover’
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldn ... eover.html
'I gave the US trucks and ammunition to Al Qaeda': The chaotic US effort to arm Syrian rebels
https://www.foxnews.com/world/i-gave-th ... ian-rebels
A Bosnian signs off weapons he says are going to Saudi Arabia – but how did his signature turn up in Aleppo?
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/sy ... 51841.htmlThe CIA’s Syria Program and the Perils of ProxiesFive-hundred mortars is a massive shipment of weapons – most European armies don’t have that many in their individual inventories – and some of them at least appear to have ended up in the hands of Bashar al-Assad’s Islamist Nusrah Front/al-Qaeda enemies in northern Syria within six months of their dispatch from Bosnia 1,200 miles away.
All our production after the [Bosnian] war is under the control of the Americans and Nato who are always coming here… and they know each and every piece of our weapons which go outside our factory.” Krnjic, who lives in the tiny village of Potok Krnjic, Bosnian hamlets sometimes carry the names of extended families, south of Novi Travnik, describes how he recognised Nato officers visiting the plant, one of them “a Canadian officer, a black guy whose name is Stephen”. Ikanovic, the BNT-TMiH boss, confirms that all weapons shipments, including those to Saudi Arabia, were checked by the European Union Force Althea (EUFOR), the successor to Nato’s SFOR, and set up under the 1995 Dayton accords which ended the Bosnian war. Ikanovic says an Austrian general visits his factory for inspections, identified to me by other employees as Austrian two star Major General Martin Dorfer, the EUFOR commander. Krnjic says weapons from the plant are exported by Tuzla airport or through Sarajevo.
The Saudis, Krnjic tells me, “were never complaining because we have had a very good reputation for a long time, not only for our weapons but for who can give the shortest delivery date… I know I should not say all of this, but Nato and the EU have given us the green light to do this.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/the-cias- ... of-proxiesBlowback: ISIS Got A Powerful Missile The CIA Secretly Bought In BulgariaBecause of Nusra’s strength, CIA-backed factions have entered what has been called a “marriage of necessity” with the jihadist group, which is exploiting its position to gain access to American weapons.
But such subterfuge notwithstanding, at this point it is impossible to argue that U.S. officials involved in the CIA’s program cannot discern that Nusra and other extremists have benefited. And despite this, the CIA decided to drastically increase lethal support to vetted rebel factions following the Russian intervention into Syria in late September.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ar ... .wxrynXZg4Why Assad Is LosingA guided anti-tank missile ended up in the hands of ISIS terrorists less than two months after the US government purchased it in late 2015 — highlighting weaknesses in the oversight and regulation of America’s covert arms programs, according to information published Thursday by an arms monitoring group called Conflict Armament Research (CAR).
Though the report says the missile was purchased by the US Army using a contractor, BuzzFeed News has learned that the real customer appears to have been the CIA. It was part of the spy agency’s top secret operation to arm rebels in Syria to fight the forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The missile ended up in the hands of ISIS fighters in Iraq, according to the report.
The CIA declined to comment on the Obama-era program to back Syrian rebels, which was canceled by President Trump in July. The Pentagon did not provide information in time for publication.
The missile is one piece of a critical puzzle that is being solved only now, with ISIS on the run: How did the vast terror group arm its war machine? CAR spent three years tracking ISIS weapons as they were recovered by Iraqi, Syrian, and Kurdish forces — and found that what happened to the missile was no aberration. Indeed, the terror group managed to divert “substantial quantities of anti-armour ammunition” from weapons provided to Syrian opposition forces by the US or Saudi Arabia.
https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/05/05/wh ... sts-saudi/When Mosul falls, Isis will flee to the safety of Syria. But what then?Whereas these multinational operations rooms have previously demanded that recipients of military assistance cease direct coordination with groups like Jabhat al-Nusra, recent dynamics in Idlib appear to have demonstrated something different. Not only were weapons shipments increased to the so-called “vetted groups,” but the operations room specifically encouraged a closer cooperation with Islamists commanding frontline operations.
Despite the improved cooperation on the battlefield, Syrians still remain deeply suspicious of Jabhat al-Nusra’s objectives in Syria, and U.S.-backed factions still engage warily with Islamists. Of course, public rhetoric is not always an accurate indicator of battlefield action: In southern Syria, for instance, factions that vowed to distance themselves from extremists like Jabhat al-Nusra in mid-April were seen cooperating with the group in Deraa only days later.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/mo ... 65776.htmlThe entire Isis caliphate army could be directed against the Assad government and its allies – a scenario which might cause some satisfaction in WashingtonThe director of the DIA at the time, Micheal Flynn confirmed the accuracy of the report, that the intelligence was "very clear" and that it was a "wilful descision" by the Americans.DIA in 2012 wrote:THE GENERAL SITUATION:
A. INTERNALLY, EVENTS ARE TAKING A CLEAR SECTARIAN DIRECTION.
B. THE SALAFIST [sic], THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA AND IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
3. (C) Al QAEDA – IRAQ (AQI):… B. AQI SUPPORTED THE SYRIAN OPPOSITION FROM THE BEGINNING, BOTH IDEOLOGICALLY AND THROUGH THE MEDIA…
4.D. THERE WAS A REGRESSION OF AQI IN THE WESTERN PROVINCES OF IRAQ DURING THE YEARS OF 2009 AND 2010; HOWEVER, AFTER THE RISE OF THE INSURGENCY IN SYRIA, THE RELIGIOUS AND TRIBAL POWERS IN THE REGIONS BEGAN TO SYMPATHIZE WITH THE SECTARIAN UPRISING. THIS (SYMPATHY) APPEARED IN FRIDAY PRAYER SERMONS, WHICH CALLED FOR VOLUNTEERS TO SUPPORT THE SUNNI’S [sic] IN SYRIA.
7. (C) THE FUTURE ASSUMPTIONS OF THE CRISIS:
A. THE REGIME WILL SURVIVE AND HAVE CONTROL OVER SYRIAN TERRITORY.
B. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CURRENT EVENTS INTO PROXY WAR: …OPPOSITION FORCES ARE TRYING TO CONTROL THE EASTERN AREAS (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), ADJACENT TO THE WESTERN IRAQI PROVINCES (MOSUL AND ANBAR), IN ADDITION TO NEIGHBORING TURKISH BORDERS. WESTERN COUNTRIES, THE GULF STATES AND TURKEY ARE SUPPORTING THESE EFFORTS. THIS HYPOTHESIS IS MOST LIKELY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DATA FROM RECENT EVENTS, WHICH WILL HELP PREPARE SAFE HAVENS UNDER INTERNATIONAL SHELTERING, SIMILAR TO WHAT TRANSPIRED IN LIBYA WHEN BENGHAZI WAS CHOSEN AS THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE TEMPORARY GOVERNMENT.
8.C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME, WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN)
8.D.1. …ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY.
Kerry also admits that Al-Nusra and ISIS are connected with the "opposition" (although he downplays it as "some"). The same rebels the Americans are funding.HASAN: You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn’t listening?
FLYNN: I think the administration.
HASAN: So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?
FLYNN: I don’t know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it was a willful decision.
HASAN: A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?
FLYNN: It was a willful decision to do what they’re doing.
3:48 - 4:01
"Nusra and Daesh both make it hard because you have this extreme element and unfortunately some of the opposition has already chosen to work with them"
Hillary Clinton Email Archive
https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/em ... #efmAGIAHuU.S armed groups that would've committed massacres against the Alawites.See last item - AQ is on our side in Syria.
AL-ZAWAHIRI URGES MUSLIM SUPPORT FOR OPPOSITION
(U) Al-Qaida leader al-Zawahiri called on Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East to aid rebel forces in their fight against supporters of Syrian President Asad in an interne video recording. Al-Zawahiri also urged the Syrian people not to rely on the AL, Turkey, or the United States for assistance.euters)
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/maga ... -fall.htmlUS Special Forces sabotage White House policy gone disastrously wrong with covert ops in Syria“In Latakia, some people told me that their city might have been destroyed if not for the Russians. The city has long been one of Syria’s safe zones, well defended by the army and its militias; there are tent cities full of people who have fled other parts of the country, including thousands from Aleppo. But in the summer of 2015, the rebels were closing in on the Latakia city limits, and mortars were falling downtown. If the rebels had captured the area — where Alawites are the majority — a result would almost certainly have been sectarian mass murder. Many people in the region would have blamed the United States, which armed some of the rebels operating in the area. . . Andrew Exum, who worked in the Pentagon at the time, told me that the military drew up contingency plans for a rapid collapse of the regime. The planning sessions were talked about as ‘catastrophic success
https://thenewsrep.com/63764/us-special ... -in-syria/
“Nobody believes in it. You’re like, ‘Fuck this,’” a former Green Beret says of America’s covert and clandestine programs to train and arm Syrian militias. “Everyone on the ground knows they are jihadis. No one on the ground believes in this mission or this effort, and they know they are just training the next generation of jihadis, so they are sabotaging it by saying, ‘Fuck it, who cares?’
Meanwhile, in Turkey, a similar quagmire unfolded. Among the rebels that U.S. Special Forces and Turkish Special Forces were training, “A good 95 percent of them were either working in terrorist organizations or were sympathetic to them,” a Green Beret associated with the program said, adding, “A good majority of them admitted that they had no issues with ISIS and that their issue was with the Kurds and the Syrian regime.” Like the militias being trained in Jordan, the rebels being trained in Turkey were not ready for combat. “It is not in their blood to be fighters. A large majority of them are criminals,” a Green Beret said. Many were foreign fighters, some from Iraq. One even turned out to be a Lebanese drug smuggler.
“The majority of these guys have been coached on what to say at the training site and give cookie-cutter answers,” the Special Forces soldier told SOFREP. They would portray themselves as being secular, but the Americans could tell who the hardliners were because they didn’t smoke (jihadis follow Wahhabi Islam, which does not permit it) and looked at the Green Berets with disdain.
Distinguishing between the FSA and al-Nusra is impossible, because they are virtually the same organization. As early as 2013, FSA commanders were defecting with their entire units to join al-Nusra. There, they still retain the FSA monicker, but it is merely for show, to give the appearance of secularism so they can maintain access to weaponry provided by the CIA and Saudi intelligence services. The reality is that the FSA is little more than a cover for the al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra.
Targeting the Khorosan Group was one of the CIA’s early successes in the Syrian Civil War. Tracking signals intelligence (SIGINT), the CIA was able to positively ID senior al-Qaeda leaders from those who formed the nucleus of Khorosan. Intercepting their cell phone conversations, the CIA targeted the group, eventually wiping them off the face of the earth with airstrikes. However, CTC “didn’t even track ISIS worth a damn,” a CIA officer said.
You continue to justify your fallacious reasoning.You do though, for destabilizing purposes. I used All-Caps because the facepalm was too high.
There is a lot of harm in funding a bombing campaign. You continue to defend the indefensible.See, that's my point. No harm done, if they didn't do it again, it was forgiven.
They did pay, they just proved they were cheap. They didn't condemn anything, you just made that up.Not to mention, the U.S. didn't pay, again proving that they condemned such attacks.
1k missing is a lack of funds.
An American intelligence officer who worked with Dr. Allawi in the early 1990's noted that ''no one had any problem with sabotage in Baghdad back then,'' adding, ''I don't think anyone could have known how things would turn out today.''
I don't know what this is referring to. Can you please learn to quote and space properly thanks, I haven't mentioned anything about "millions being dead as oppose to thousands".Millions dead as opposed to only thousands dead? Yeah, the latter is much better.
No it's not, if anything it just shows the hypocrisy and just how useless the U.N is at times. The U.S and other Western countries supported both sides at the same time.A U.N. resolution is pretty damning if I say so myself, but fine, I'll concede that the West supported Iraq, for the same reasons as the U.S.
Irrelevant to my claim of lack of American morality during Iran-Iraq war and many other conflicts not even involving the Soviet Union or China. Realpolitik was used by the Americans and Soviet Union see: solution to Cuban Missile Crisis. But, it wasn't used in the examples you tried to list, that's just how America operates when it comes to foreign policy.If Americans didn't use realpolitik, they would went to war with the SU, or with Red China, but they didn't. Realpolitik is smart politik.
False equivalence, the West supported both sides. The Allies only support the Soviet Union.It was a necessary evil, see SU vs Germany in WW2. Stalin caused the Holodomor, but that didn't stop the Allies from supporting him.
It was to fund another Contra rebels in Nicaragua. Another group backed by the U.S known for their human rights abuses. Therefore America armed both sides and thus caused more destruction.Before 1979? Sure. All transactions after were for hostage purposes or simply because they were of mutual interest to both parties.
Red-baiting fallacy. Many dictators propped up by the U.S replaced democratic regimes. And it's really no different if they were communist authoritarian regimes because America would usually just end up replacing it with a right-wing authoritarian regime. Same tyranny different nameAs opposed to giving them to communism to be enslaved? The U.S. later dispatched these dictators, so argument invalidated.
OK, so no concrete evidence. More speculation, got it. No evidence Iran was "more of a Soviet ally", hating one country less than the other does not make you an "more of an ally".They hated the U.S. more than the SU. The SU is the U.S.'s enemy. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Iraq War was an illegal invasion and they knowingly funded terrorists to try to overthrow the Syrian goverenment.What they're doing in Syria, and what they did in Iraq would like to have a word with you.
Not because he was a genocidal dictator, he was their agent going back all the way to 1959. He outlived his usefulness to the Americans.They dealt with this genocidal dictator, shouldn't you be approving that?
Excuses, excuses.Necessary evil.
Personal gain, nothing more.They are helping the Kurds now finally establish their own state. I'd say they made up.
You show your lack of knowledge once again.The Shah? A tyrant? LOL! What were his tyrannical acts?
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL ANNUAL REPORT 1974-1975
Terror in IranA year of growth. Amnesty International has grown further in 1974-75, both in membership and in the scope of its operations. But, sadly, it has also been a year of another kind of growth: of politically motivated persecution, long-term detention without trial, brutal torture and executions. A year, then, of growing need for the work of Amnesty International.
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1976/1 ... r-in-iran/
No historian of the Middle East and Iran will deny that the CIA overthrew the legally elected government of Dr. Mossadeq in August 1953, brought back to the country the Shah
The CIA re-created the monarchy, built up the SAVAK and trained all its prominent members, and stood by the Shah and his secret police as their powerful ally. Iran became the police state it is now.
Thousands of men and women have been summarily executed during the last twenty-three years. More than 300,000 people have been in and out of prison during the last nineteen years of the existence of SAVAK; an average of 1,500 people are arrested every month. In one instance alone, American-trained counterinsurgency troops of the Iranian Army and SAVAK killed more than 6,000 people on June 5, 1963. According to Amnesty International’s Annual Report for 1974-1975 “the total number of political prisoners has been reported at times throughout the year  to be anything from 25,000 to 100,000.”1 Martin Ennals, secretary general of Amnesty International, reports in his introduction to the above book: “The Shah of Iran retains his benevolent image despite the highest rate of death penalties in the world, no valid system of civilian courts and a history of torture which is beyond belief.
Strawman, I haven't claimed that the regime after 1979 was good.You mean how it's illegal not to be a Muslim in Iran? Or how Sharia Law is supreme there? That way? Oh wait, that's after 1979...
The U.S overthrew a democratic regime and installed a tyrant. No need to deny this.The U.S. saw the Shah as a better alternative than the other guys. The Shahs governed Iran for quite some time before, and if you want to talk of interference, need no further than to look at the removal of Reza Shah before.
I was referring to U.S foreign policy. Same tried and tested geo-poltiical tactics, whether a brutal dictator or an extremist group.They don't, terrorists kill whoever, not just the designated target. Dictators at least have a mind...
Sorry, but the U.S doesn't get to nor have any moral high-ground to decide who gets to be in power and who does not in any sovereign nation. America's history of propping up dictatorships, undermining elections, funding terrorist groups all prove they are a horrible candidate for being the "world police-man" U.S claims of establishing democracy are farce, there is always a hidden motive.They overthrew Saddam Hussein and tried to establish democracy there.
The Americans only made the situation worse, not better. America doesn't care about spreading democracy, only their geopolitical aims.
They wanted to deal with Assad, an anti-democratic tyrant. They are very much interested in democracy.
I condemn Hussein, and am thankful the U.S. liquidated him in the 2000s, same with Qaddafi. While the lesser evil, they were still an evil. In the 1930s, Austria was governed by fascists, but Germany was governed by National Socialists. Although neither democratic, it would be stupid to insinuate that backing the former was anti-democratic.
The country is is in ruins and has been in a civil war for the past 8 years a lot thanks to Western-Gulf-Turkish support for terrorism, staging false-flag attacks and bombing the SAA who are actually fighting ISIS.Complete 180, how will the U.S. supposedly destabilize Syria now?
Speculative claim, not based on any evidence. The DRA did more good than what came after despite being in power for much less, that's just a fact. Afghanistan is now in stone ages, largely thanks to American intervention.The DRA would have done more harm, but they were taken out before they got a chance to do so. The Mujahideen got time to spread their tyranny, and so naturally, you will claim that they are worse than the DRA. Hitler only got 12 years, but killed a lot of men. Imagine he got the same amount of years as Stalin, or Mao(!).
Soviets was a blunder, American was a tried and tested political tactic. Wrong, Kerry never mentioned "help", America from day one has wanted to overthrow Assad. Also, Assad has never turned to the West for help, he even knows the West armed terrorists to try to overthrow him.The Soviets thought it was just a show for the next wave of Molotov-Rippentrop pact agreements, and didn't decide to preemptively strike the Germans. The U.S. thought that Assad will turn to the West for help. Both were willful decisions, and both were blunders.
My points are factual, sorry.I am too.
Yes, it's his job to do that.You think that Kerry is supposed to represent Obama's policy, but so is every single elected representative in history.
He mimics Obama's policy. I haven't claimed he mimics his exact thoughts, that's a strawman.Kerry wasn't supposed to mimic the President's thoughts.
Denial.Doesn't prove anything.
Denial. I have shown you U.S intelligence, eye witness testimony and a plethora of other sources.Not as much evidence as misinterpretation, dodgy facts and false use of logical fallacies.
Zionists can be gentile or Jewish. They work for Zionist interests. Will you ever provide evidence that I said "Jews rule the world"? I have already said that they don't.Who are the Zionists, then? Who do they work for? I'll let you answer that.
Ironic, you claim to debunk "Holocaust Denial", but you deny the immoral and self-contradicting actions of U.S foreing policy. Speaks volumes.No, my 'work' is debunking Holocaust Denial, not discussing U.S. policy.
No one is forcing you to reply, the more you reply the more you embarrass yourself really.This discussion wears me out and significantly hinders that
No strawman here, just my observation and personal opinion.but I appreciate the fact that you deliberately strawmaned here to score a cheap victory.