North Korea steps up production of nuclear bomb fuels despite US talks

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: Aazadan

Where the validity of this story?

All I see is "unnamed officials" and more bloviating.

There's no credibility here but your post is very matter-of-fact...Where is your fact?

That's twice you've told me you're happy to see the president fail, but in a different way.

www.nbcnews.com...

When they use anonymous sources like this, they don't just make it up.

a reply to: Aazadan

When they use anonymous sources like this, they don't just make it up.

Yeah..The whole Russia collusion thing says that's an inaccurate statement...

This is the actual story:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

It illustrates a power generation facility that has actually shown decreased reactor activity levels, though infrastructure building is taking place. This isn't a nuclear weapons facility it's a power generation facility with a water cooled reactor. It's not a secret facility either.

So again I ask, where are your facts? Where are THEIR facts?

a reply to: Aazadan

You must like Brian Williams.

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Arnie123

For a conspiracy website, it's funny how so many are completely willing to gorge themselves on a diet of 'information' provided by a discredited news outlet, quoting anonymous sources from an equally discredited intelligence agency.

No requirement for details or evidence... just assertions.

Ironic.

Well spoken. The Reporter has been documented to be a CIA stooge.

Why does the CIA want this leaked? They almost got the war they wanted and are trying to get it back on track.

US intelligence agencies believe that North Korea has increased its production of fuel for nuclear weapons at multiple secret sites in recent months, NBC reported, citing unidentified American officials.

What recent months ? BEFORE Trump and Kim met ?
"NBC Reported" - This bullcrap requires no citation .

"Citing unidentified American officials" American - Bolivian Diplomats ? Mexican President ? Argentinian Cafeteria worker ?( I would insert Canadian Parliament official , but they only spread Canadian shiite. )

"Unidentified" - Afraid their identities would be revealed to the world , and they would be sorely lambasted for their ignorance ?

a reply to: DieGloke

So how is Lil Kim Paying for All this ? Last time I checked , he was Running out of Money and Time.........

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: Arnie123

For a conspiracy website, it's funny how so many are completely willing to gorge themselves on a diet of 'information' provided by a discredited news outlet, quoting anonymous sources from an equally discredited intelligence agency.

No requirement for details or evidence... just assertions.

Ironic.

Couple this with the happiness displayed by some members at the notion that our nation was deceived, and therefore hurting Trump, and people wonder why I have little more than contempt those members.

Some people here seem hell bent on getting us into more wars. Funny how it's the Republicans who are the Doves now.

Sorry after this past Administration's destruction of Libya and Syria, I've lost my appetite. What exactly in a geopolitical sense did we gain with those two destructions of countries?

a reply to: pavil

Failed negotiations with North Korea is not a path to peace. A path to peace that gets them to denuclearnize would have to involve a history of successful nuclear non proliferation policy, but as we've seen with Ukraine, giving up your nukes is a bad idea.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: rickymouse
There are no signs of dismantling, but if I were Kim I would not be dismantling anything yet till the agreement actually happens, actually I would continue any projects in progress. To read the complete article I would have to subscribe so I do not know what it actually says and what evidence is listed.

I will not jump to any conclusions done by any newspaper, I will wait to see a government release of information. I am sure that there will be official releases of this if it is happening, listening to rumors and believing them is not the right way to go.

So what you're saying is Trump lied when he said the nuclear crisis was solved. Pompeo lied when he said the North Korean nuclear program was no longer an issue? Fox lied when they said Trump ended NK's nuclear ambitions?

No, I am saying that the news may be twisting things again like they have been for over a year now. Let the information come from reliable sources and I might believe it. If the Media started telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth tomorrow, it would take me six months before I believed them. I have lost all my respect for the media lately.

a reply to: Sillyolme

a reply to: pavil

I don't think your questions will ever receive a satisfactory answer.

However, the sentiment is absolutely on point.

originally posted by: pavil
Sorry after this past Administration's destruction of Libya and Syria, I've lost my appetite. What exactly in a geopolitical sense did we gain with those two destructions of countries?

Sorry, I missed this part. Syria is mainly about the control over future oil pipelines. I couldn't even begin to guess as to why we meddled in Libya.

originally posted by: rickymouse
No, I am saying that the news may be twisting things again like they have been for over a year now. Let the information come from reliable sources and I might believe it. If the Media started telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth tomorrow, it would take me six months before I believed them. I have lost all my respect for the media lately.

The media reports what they're told. Sometimes the media is told a lie, simply so that this administration can later change the story and claim the media lied. Though, that usually comes from senior officials, often Trump himself. The military hasn't been playing that game.

a reply to: Aazadan

Where did this information in the thread come from? Anonymous sources? Yeah, right, only a fool would fall for that scheme over and over again. Let's see reputable sources, ones where a government spokesman or named member of our government in the position to tell us this stuff actually steps up and says it. Rumors and twisted evidence is flowing in this country.

Trump is a deceiver, but there are many others that oppose his actions that are better deceivers than he is. Trump has oversight because of his position, the media seems to not have any nowadays, but that might be changing within a year.

a reply to: DieGloke

So what is next for North Korea?

More missile parades. Trump has cancelled the joint exercises necessary to prepare South Korea and its allies to coordinate against a North Korean invasion. Advantage North Korea. Meanwhile, Kim is showing no indication of honoring whatever "promise" he made to Trump:



Crazy libtard source.

But don't worry, our Negotiator-In-Chief will humiliate Kim with a missile parade of his own.

a reply to: rickymouse

No, I am saying that the news may be twisting things again like they have been for over a year now. Let the information come from reliable sources and I might believe it.

What do you consider to be a "reliable source?" How do you determine its reliability? What standards do you apply? Could you provide some examples?

a reply to: DJW001

For me the less bias (reason to lie) the more credible. When an outlet speaks on an issue they have shown bias on then the more bias shown the less credible they are on that subject.

It's not just about truth vs. lies, it's also about spin trying to make someone believe a particular thing vs. facts and letting people decide themselves.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

For me the less bias (reason to lie) the more credible. When an outlet speaks on an issue they have shown bias on then the more bias shown the less credible they are on that subject.

Fair enough.

It's not just about truth vs. lies, it's also about spin trying to make someone believe a particular thing vs. facts and letting people decide themselves.

People are always able to "decide for themselves," even when the information is presented with a bias. The real problem is when outright lies are presented as facts, and people accept the lies because they confirm their bias. Another, growing, problem is the use of conflicting lies to confuse the discourse. We saw that happening with the MH-17 incident.

Propagandists latch onto the occasional mistake made by human journalists to tar the entire profession. That is a crime against truth.

a reply to: DJW001

My education and profession is psychology/psychiatry. People don't decide for themselves. People can be easily swayed, it's the whole point of advertising.

There was a time when you reported facts and we're supposed to leave spin and bias out. Those days are gone. The point of media today is to form opinions not inform people.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

My education and profession is psychology/psychiatry. People don't decide for themselves. People can be easily swayed, it's the whole point of advertising.

Properly educated people do decide for themselves; that is why education is so controversial in this country.

There was a time when you reported facts and we're supposed to leave spin and bias out. Those days are gone. The point of media today is to form opinions not inform people.

Newspapers were always partisan. It wasn't until Hearst figured out that you could sell more papers by providing "neutral" reporting that modern journalistic standards evolved. This led to a more specific understanding of the checks and balances implicit in the Constitution. Making blanket generalizations like "the point of media today is to form opinions not inform people" only serves to further confuse the people. The media outlets most dedicated to objective reporting are precisely those being falsely targeted as "biased." Sure, reporters have opinions, but facts remain facts.