What did General Pershing do?

What did General Pershing do?

Other urls found in this thread:

snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

snopes.com/rumors/pershing.asp

President believes urban legends. Many such cases. Sad!

the absolute state of his perforated brain

>>Of the eight historians we checked with, all were at least skeptical that what Trump said actually happened, and some expressed disbelief even more forcefully than that. The only evidence of something approximating what Trump said stems from one letter documenting a different scenario written by a veteran more than a half century after the fact.

>>Perhaps more important, the historians took issue with Trump’s suggestion that the tactic -- if it was even used at all -- actually worked to end tensions, noting that unrest persisted for years. In all, Trump’s claim is ridiculous, so we rate it Pants on Fire.

You already have a board for your own american politics

Posting mainstream news is like posting a gossip magazine though. It lost all credibility.

>politifact

well do you contest the content or are you saying because it came from politifact it is by default incorrect?

>frogposter

You wont convince anyone using politifact. Even if they are right in this case they have shown themselves to be a terrible source for information on multiple occasions to the point where whatever point of view they support is harmed by their support.

biased source equals useless source

He sucked his own cock.

right, but how about instead of trying to blanket the entire organization as by default correct/bias/incorrect you look at the content and judge it for itself based on the sources cited?

Imagine being butthurt enough to make this image

I mean, they do have a past story of completely retarded fact checks so I believe it's fair to point out their lack of credibility.

uh the content itself seems sound to me. and if you look at the actual history, they are right, there was continued unrest after pershing was given command of the 8th.

There is nothing to judge in this case because they literally just say "historians we spoke to" without naming them so unless there is more to this claim that you are not quoting its on the same level as "experts say" when you want to make a claim. Its completely empty talk and wont change the opinion of anyone paying attention

>make an image showing how bad something is so it cannot be presented as a "source"
>LOL LOOK HOW BUTTHURT U ARE XDDD

yeah, that's fine and all, but how does that detract from the substance of this individual citation? is any of the content in the quote incorrect or bias in any way?

>>ntil World War II, rebellions by the Moros against American rule persisted long after 1914, and then the Moros then proceeded to fight against the Japanese invaders. Violence between the occupying forces and Moro Maranao broke out from 1921-1928. It was written that twenty five years of guerilla fighting have not solved the Moro Problem. in The New Republic in 1931.[68] Troops with weapons had to guard the American school superintendent in certain Lanao districts.[69][70][71][72][73]

the fact remains even if the claim is dubious, violence persisted. so whatever he allegedly did, did not have the intended effect of that quote.

>i don't like it so it's not true

There is nothing wrong with pointing out blatant bias. People do the same for Fox and CNN and rightfully so. Having too much of a bias destroys your credibility on being able to report the facts

yeah but you are saying because X is bias anything X says is bias. while the rest of us is saying X may be bias but everything X says is not necessarily incorrect. you are attempting to conflate that because X is bias, in your opinion, everything X says is wrong.

why don't we look at individual circumstances instead of taking shortcuts?

FOX news and CNN are bias, but that doesn't mean they can't be right.

As long whatever presented is a solid real fact I don't have any problem with it, even if comes from politifact. The problem is
>Of the eight historians we checked with

This could be easily manipulated, getting historians who would disagree with Trump or the subject. I'm not implying what Trump said is true, it could well be a case of "fake news" but as I said in the start it's hard to believe anything that could have any interpretation/lack of historical consensus coming from politifact...