[Stizzles]

That's not BS, sorry. I don't claim to know everything about everything, but I can point to people who know more than I do about a subject.

The BS move is saying "My claims are true--but I can't be bothered to familiarize myself with the evidence enough to present it myself, so here's a link for you to pour through, because I can't be bothered to provide relevant quotes."

That's what gets me.

It was a blatant appeal to emotion.

No, it wasn't. You don't think Iran would seek nuclear weapons; how many Americans would have to die for you to change your mind? For me, it's zero, because I think that Iran is hostile until proven otherwise. Maybe your idealism and naivete will win out in the end, but I doubt it.

I did.

No, you provided a link to what you claim is the evidence. Present it yourself, or I get to dismiss your claims as unsupported.

It is as good as evidence as "all the photos of children with AK47s and crowds burning American flags".

You haven't seen them?

Oh, this is gonna be fun.

I don't talk about things I know nothing about--if I get to the limits of my knowledge I link to someone who knows more than I do. It's not my problem if that's not acceptable to you.

No, you do talk about things you know nothing about. You make claims about things you know nothing about, then provide a link that supposedly covers your @ss. Clever, perhaps, but not persuasive.



This might be a bit early, since I don't know whether you intend to post more, but you didn't address my central challenge to your case, which is that it's based on information from five years ago.

Or do we just ignore that? After all, you did provide a link, so what you said must be true!