@zephyreks You could only be seriously confused about where I get my “impression” from if you’re an absolute idiot considering I included the link to the BBC article where I got that “impression”.
Yeah, we agree that it was not collected. But, you keep leaving out the part about where they tried. Make sure you put that in your talking points next time. They tried but failed. Ergo, they did not collect any intelligence.
@zephyreks dude I don’t know any other way to explain it to you so that you can comprehend it. The balloon was trying to collect information and was thwarted. You have it from a brigadier general that mitigation efforts certainly contributed to the balloon not collecting any information. You can try and act like it was just not collecting information out of the goodness of the Chinese’s heart, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of fact.
Not according to the Pentagon, which last I checked was a more reliable source than a single General. A General can say whatever they want, but the Pentagon has to actually check facts.
@zephyreks You work for the Pentagon? I notice that you’ve made that claim twice without any reference material to justify your claim. But sure, if you feel the need to impune the character of a US Brigadere General and esentially call him in a liar, I know who I’m going to trust and it’s not your word.
@zephyreks Out of curiosity… who exactly do you think you’re hearing from when you hear from the Pentagon? Joe Smoe from down the street? No, it’s a member of the military just like the Brig. Gen.
@zephyreks You could only be seriously confused about where I get my “impression” from if you’re an absolute idiot considering I included the link to the BBC article where I got that “impression”.
Yeah, we agree that it was not collected. But, you keep leaving out the part about where they tried. Make sure you put that in your talking points next time. They tried but failed. Ergo, they did not collect any intelligence.
Nowhere in the article does it say that they tried.
I’m like legitimately worried for you. Lead contamination is a serious problem.
@zephyreks Here’s another one for you then. See if you can comprehend what Brigadere General Pat Ryder is saying…
"Ryder was asked Thursday whether he believes those U.S. mitigation efforts were responsible for the balloon’s failure to gather any info.
“Certainly, the efforts that we made contributed,” he said."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/chinese-spy-balloon-american-made-parts-transmit-data/story?id=100476856
Last I checked, the Pentagon falls higher on the scale of “reliable statements by government” than some random General.
@zephyreks dude I don’t know any other way to explain it to you so that you can comprehend it. The balloon was trying to collect information and was thwarted. You have it from a brigadier general that mitigation efforts certainly contributed to the balloon not collecting any information. You can try and act like it was just not collecting information out of the goodness of the Chinese’s heart, but that is a blatant misrepresentation of fact.
Not according to the Pentagon, which last I checked was a more reliable source than a single General. A General can say whatever they want, but the Pentagon has to actually check facts.
@zephyreks You work for the Pentagon? I notice that you’ve made that claim twice without any reference material to justify your claim. But sure, if you feel the need to impune the character of a US Brigadere General and esentially call him in a liar, I know who I’m going to trust and it’s not your word.
You know that I can’t disclose that, but if you read the article it clearly states the Pentagon’s statement.
@zephyreks 😂 😂 😂 😂 🤥 💩
@zephyreks Out of curiosity… who exactly do you think you’re hearing from when you hear from the Pentagon? Joe Smoe from down the street? No, it’s a member of the military just like the Brig. Gen.