That was an opinion backed by science which was wrong.

Not an article about recent events.

@fannybandit Meaning that their credibility is to be brought to question.

They aren't responsible for having a wrong opinion...which they made clear was their opinion.

It's not smart to mix political events with science that was wrong at the time.

Oh, I could go on and on about how they predicted that bernie would beat hillary, or that trump would drop out of the race or be beaten by other members in the race, or that he would have a less than 1% chance of winning against killary klinton.

Again, all opinions.

That article does not contain opinions.

Yes, it does, infact I remember distinctly that there was an article passing around, that showed how russia demanded evidence for the supposed chemical attacks and europe failing to provide any.

Show me one opinion or prediction in that article.

...that has to do with the subject matter.

It isn't an opinion or prediction, but it is an assumption

You will never see any evidence backing these claims, but rather just assumptions.

It's not an assumption, these things actually happened.

It's an assessment.

How would you know?

Have you seen any evidence?

Assessments are self-evident, the same as a cross examination.

The defendant is dead silent.

These are not assessments however, they are assumptions that do not have evidence to back them.

Then what could be an alternate reality...the US attacking itself?

And I just told you, russia demanded evidence to back these claims, and europe failed to bring any.

Putin would say something to defend himself.

Where did they demand the evidence?

In russia.

How would you know?

**Gee, I don't know, would you expect russia to send a diplomatic message from africa?**

No jackass, I meant what source or article shows Russia demanding evidence?

Give me a minute.

I only have 8 left.

I believe this is the source.

https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2018-03-14/the-latest-britain-calls-for-meeting-of-un-security-council

Let me look.

Yes, that would rule-out a currently inconclusive investigation.

Solely having to do with one assassination.

Like I said, europe failed to provide evidence that russia was indeed behind the attacks, but rather threw accusations that they could not base.

What about the other points?

What other points?

The cyber attacks especially.

Russia hasn't said a damn thing.

Keep in mind, the assassination has yet to be investigated.