Re:
by waiseristy on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @02:55PM
(#34713927)
@Dang, you see what I'm talking about? You think this type of content is aligned with HN's guidelines? This is what you get when you allow completely unbased conspiracy theory to go unchecked
Re:
by someotherperson on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @02:58PM
(#34713975)
Sorry, but this is just pointlessly rude. I've linked to Wikileaks where OPCW was heavily scrubbing its content. Just because that disrupts your narrative doesn't make it "unbased conspiracy theory" and trying to ping a moderator doesn't change the facts here.
In fact, every single one of your comments on this thread have been nothing but hostile. I'm not sure why you seem to think you're in the clear and everyone else is the problem.
Re:
by waiseristy on Wednesday February 08, 2023 @03:07PM
(#34714138)
"heavily scrubbing its content" does not mean "The syrian rebels gassed themselves". You described an unbased conspiracy theory, and then tossed a page full of unrelated emails up as "evidence".
In fact, the conspiracy is to go as far as OPCW covering things up to blame Assad: https://wikileaks.org/opcw-douma/