Let me get this straight. You insinuated they were foreign meddlers/ fascists, and I was the one who said we had no reason to think that. You then concluded that if they were protesting for economic liberalism, they must be foreign meddlers/ fascists. I said that they weren't protesting for economic liberalism, and that that wouldn't follow anyway.
Oh, the humanity.
The statements {IF A THEN B} and {NOT A} are not contradictory. But you could disingenuously keep referring to {IF A THEN B} as just {B!}
I said that
if they were protesting for economic liberalization, that's an indication of backing by foreign looters or their representatives (such as the CIA, NED, and so on).
You said they could have economic liberals among them. This began another argument, which you now are attempting to ignore.
I said not ones willing to die in the streets for economic liberalization in a former Soviet state without some serious foreign meddling.
And lo and behold,
they don't have economic liberals among them; they don't have people willing to die for economic liberalization.
Yeah, that means I'm right about them not having people who will die in the streets for economic liberalization, which is utterly consistent with the premise that they wouldn't have such people without intense foreign meddling. Because they literally don't have such people now according to you.
Uhrm, yeah, everyone except you. If it wasn't for the odd denials etc, this could've been settled back then, too.
So you've been (deliberately?) misreading me the entire time? Maybe go and retread what you think this argument was.
I started in this thread with "so which is it?" not "It's definitely this!" as you want to misrepresent me as saying for whatever stupid reason