What you are saying is true, but you are ignoring the context. Rubio didn't ask her whether they had biolabs, he asked if they had biological weapons. If Ukraine does not have biological weapons then answering that question is the easiest thing in the world, so why didn't she give the easy, direct answer?
Because once you are in court you need to choose the words correctly.
DSespite the DNA exam being pretty exact you can't say "Yes, that sample is 100% match to X individual". You have to say "It correlates" or "Indicates"
On her case I think she got lawyers instructing her, but overall you received the reply everyone knows. No bioweapons. And if that was the case, Russia would have said they invaded because of bioweapons and not because... NATTZZEEEEEEEEs.
Despite the DNA exam being pretty exact you can't say "Yes, that sample is 100% match to X individual". You have to say "It correlates" or "Indicates"
But that's not what she said. She did not say "As far as we know, Ukraine does not possess biological or chemical weapons." She refused to answer the question altogether, and instead made a statement about biolabs.
You can't claim that she chose her words extremely carefully to avoid perjuring herself and then just fill in the gaps with the claim that she was avoiding.
Ramzan Kadyrov, the leader of Russia’s Chechnya region and an ally of Russian President Vladimir Putin, has said Chechen fighters had been deployed in Ukraine, and he urged Ukrainians to overthrow their government.
I will always stand against Russia. Because many idiots believe that Russia is always the good guy. I have dealt with morons like that before. They always lack information.
Then again, these morons are the same ones who signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.
Yep, research on food born ailments that released a local outbreak because the cook decided to sneeze on the food is definitely a bioweapon research.
What you are saying is true, but you are ignoring the context. Rubio didn't ask her whether they had biolabs, he asked if they had biological weapons. If Ukraine does not have biological weapons then answering that question is the easiest thing in the world, so why didn't she give the easy, direct answer?
Because once you are in court you need to choose the words correctly.
DSespite the DNA exam being pretty exact you can't say "Yes, that sample is 100% match to X individual". You have to say "It correlates" or "Indicates"
On her case I think she got lawyers instructing her, but overall you received the reply everyone knows. No bioweapons. And if that was the case, Russia would have said they invaded because of bioweapons and not because... NATTZZEEEEEEEEs.
But that's not what she said. She did not say "As far as we know, Ukraine does not possess biological or chemical weapons." She refused to answer the question altogether, and instead made a statement about biolabs.
You can't claim that she chose her words extremely carefully to avoid perjuring herself and then just fill in the gaps with the claim that she was avoiding.
Sorry she did not give the answer you wanted.
Yeah, and Iran's centrifuges were just for nuclear research.
Exactly, as you can then see, oranges are indeed apples!
You're right. Unlike Iranian centrifuges, GAE funded biolabs have already caused an actual disaster.
Precisely. Once you open an orange it becomes brown due to oxidation.
It's a regiment.
The Chechens and Syrians also thank you for the Bolshevik Russian Cause.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/2/26/putins-chechen-ally-says-forces-deployed-ukraine-to-back-russia
I will always stand against Russia. Because many idiots believe that Russia is always the good guy. I have dealt with morons like that before. They always lack information.
Then again, these morons are the same ones who signed the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact.