Oh boy, now we're throwing credentials now huh. Hey ladies and gents, we got a real lawyer here!!
Ukrainian War Developments
- Thread starter james smith esq
- Start date
- Status
Talking of credentials, Hu Wei has more than any commentator here in respect of the subject matter of his article. The header has been updated:
Update on March 13, 2022: The following article was submitted by the author to the of the US-China Perception Monitor. The article was not commissioned by the US-China Perception Monitor, nor is the author affiliated with the Carter Center or the US-China Perception Monitor.
Hu Wei is the vice-chairman of the Public Policy Research Center of the Counselor’s Office of the State Council, the chairman of Shanghai Public Policy Research Association, the chairman of the Academic Committee of the Chahar Institute, a professor, and a doctoral supervisor. To read more by Hu, to read his article on “How did Deng Xiaoping coordinate domestic and international affairs?”
So not originally written in "think tank English".
"Trust me" sounds very familiar in our time, mostly from US politicians and CIA operatives like Colin Powell. For that, I don't trust you, lawyer or not.
"The burden of proof lies on those making the allegations of forgery or fraud", this statement proves that you are not a lawyer. Anyone who present any claim to the court, regardless plea or accusation must FIRST present evidence to back it up. You did not. Just by claiming you are a lawyer doesn't make you one. Go to a real law school and educate yourself. You do know that a police officer must present his badge before he can carry out his duty? You must show me your lawyer's license before I accept that you are a lawyer.
We are not questioning the REAL Hu Wei's credential.
We are questioning YOUR credential as a "lawyer".
Don't move the goal post or switch the subject.
I presented the evidence in the form of the article, the source of which has now been confirmed as true. You are alleging the article was a fraud or forgery so the burden of proof now falls on you to prove that fraud. Anyway this is getting way OT.
So
1. that is not a paratrooper,and that is not a paratrooper's parachute
2. that is an emergency evacuation from a damaged aircraft, so the equipment not neccessary intact.
3. If you enter a high speed airflow during the opening of the backpack the cords and the dome can entangled around itself or around the jumper.
It has no business with the claim about not opening parachutes.
Have you even idea how the military parachute works ?
This war highlights the importance of drones for ground attack and recon, even lazing to guide artillery. Drone are numerous and don't risk lives.
You can't win a war without risking lives.
If the drone require more resources than doing the thing in person then in a peer or close peer war you will loose.
The supposed article from a web site NOT associated with the supposed author "Hu Wei" is NOT an evidence.
In the court of law if you present a weapon as evidence, you must present the link between the person and the weapon. Throwing in a random object to the court isn't admissible which means nobody need to prove it being a forgery before you present your evidence of its authenticity. You should know that if you are who you said you are.
Last edited:
- Status