Jump to content

We need facts


Thatguyspage

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I'm not aware exactly... It was you who said they were.

No, actually it was you, through the very simple process of abstraction. You do basic algebra, right? Well think of it like that but with words.

For the sake of argument let's say they are. What next?

The sake of argument? Come on, they either are or not. What do you believe, from the heart.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, actually it was you, through the very simple process of abstraction. You do basic algebra, right? Well think of it like that but with words.The sake of argument? Come on, they either are or not. What do you believe, from the heart.

Ok... It was definitely you who said they were at risk (the post you made about the tanks rolling in)

Anyway....... Denmark at risk of attack?

Given that any country is at risk of attack then yes, they are at risk.

How great is the risk is the next question. Denmark being Denmark... The risk is minimal compared to us. We are the UK (currently) best friends of the USA. This puts us way way higher up on the risk scale. We're also pretty strategic geographically which again raises the risk for us in comparison to a country like Denmark.

What next?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok... It was definitely you who said they were at risk (the post you made about the tanks rolling in)

Once again, it was you. I simple extrapolated your logic to it's natural conclusion in relation to a non-nuclear country.

Given that any country is at risk of attack then yes, they are at risk.

Ah, OK, so a different track, suggesting every country is at risk. An even better path to take. From whom are they at risk from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is a omnishambles of a thread.

Step 1: Spacker posts complaint that there are no facts.

Step 2: Spacker is given facts

Step 3: Spacker then posts completely fact free assertions about Faslane

Step 4: Spacker is told he's talking shyte.

Step 5: Proceed to step 1.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really is a omnishambles of a thread.

Step 1: Spacker posts complaint that there are no facts.

Step 2: Spacker is given facts

Step 3: Spacker then posts completely fact free assertions about Faslane

Step 4: Spacker is told he's talking shyte.

Step 5: Proceed to step 1.

Of course my assertions are fact free. There are no facts to be had. Thanks for making my point for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...